House of Commons
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
I apologise that we do not have our normal cohort of Ministers here this morning. One of our colleagues tested positive for covid yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary is at a very important meeting with our NATO partners, where she will raise the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is serious, with Republika Srpska attempting de facto secession. We fully support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We are working with allies to support the peace stabilisation force EUFOR, enhance NATO’s posture and support the High Representative.
Derek Twigg
I thank the Minister for the answer. It is obviously important that we are strong, with the rest of the democracies in Europe and NATO, in our position regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina. What assessment have the Government made of Russia’s influence on what is happening in that country?
Vicky Ford
We see a concerning pattern of Russian behaviour. The aim is to hamper Euro-Atlantic integration in the region. The UK’s approach is clearly set out in the integrated review. The UK takes the threat from the Russian state extremely seriously and we will continue to call out Russian aggression.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
It is clear that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has worsened considerably as a result of the separationist ambitions of Republika Srpska, which is backed by the Russian Federation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me what discussions the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has had with the new High Representative and what steps we are taking as a nation to try to stabilise the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Vicky Ford
We are fully committed to supporting High Representative Schmidt. At the NATO foreign ministerial meeting in Riga today, the Foreign Secretary will focus attention on Bosnia and Herzegovina and encourage greater engagement from the alliance to play an enhanced role. She will call on allies to contribute personnel to the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo and to support work to counter disinformation and strengthen defence reform. The UK will do its part.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am sure that all hon. Members present are deeply concerned about the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina developing rapidly into conflict. What steps is the FCDO taking to assess the risk of atrocity in the region and take preventive action? What conversations has it had with civil societies of the Federation and Republika Srpska to encourage dialogue? How is the Foreign Secretary using her development programmes in the western Balkans, alongside diplomatic and security levers, to address the drivers of conflict?
Vicky Ford
As I said earlier, the political crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina is serious, which is precisely why the Foreign Secretary will raise it today. We are working hard to prevent it from becoming a security crisis, but the risk of miscalculation or exploitation remains. The hon. Lady asked about UK aid. Our embassy in Sarajevo supports a range of programmes that promote stability, security and prosperity, and targets programmes in support of civil society and media freedom.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is it time to look again at the rulings of the Dayton accords? Are the UK Government willing to put in the political effort to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated?
Vicky Ford
It is extremely important that the mistakes of the past are not repeated, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise the issue with her NATO counterparts today.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us remember the 1990s and the horrors of the first major war since the second world war. We also remember the horrors of Srebrenica, where Muslims were massacred by the Serbs. Should the Government not be speaking to the Americans and engaging with NATO to see what can be done to stabilise the situation? I remember observing the elections in Bosnia. It was a very delicate democracy then; it is even more delicate now. It is urgent that the Government act.
Vicky Ford
Let us be clear that Srebrenica was a genocide, as confirmed by international courts. We must not forget the victims. The UK has urged all political leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region to reject hate speech; to condemn any glorification of the perpetrators of genocide and war crimes; and to respect the courts. It is precisely because it is so important that we work with our NATO partners that the Foreign Secretary will raise the situation in Riga today.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
The Foreign Secretary will also be discussing Belarus with NATO partners today.
We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Belarus. The UK has imposed over 100 sanctions designations. The action by Lukashenko to engineer a migrant crisis is an attempt to undermine Poland and others in the region. The Prime Minister emphasised our commitment to Poland’s security when he met the Polish Prime Minister last Friday. The UK will continue to work closely with our partners in holding Lukashenko to account.
Mrs Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The situation in Belarus is truly disturbing. More than a year on from the 2020 presidential elections in Belarus, over 30,000 people have been detained, with widespread allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and hundreds of civil society activists and human rights defenders being detained. What can my hon. Friend do for those who are detained—for example, Mikita Zalatarou, who was just 16 when he was arrested, and has allegedly been tortured and kept in solitary confinement?
Vicky Ford
We are appalled by reports that there are now over 850 political prisoners in Belarus, and we strongly urge the Belarusian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all those held on political grounds. We are supporting mechanisms through the UN, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and independent non-governmental organisations to investigate human rights violations in Belarus and hold those responsible to account. As I said earlier, we have also taken direct action through over 100 sanctions designations.
Daniel Kawczynski
The Minister will have seen the appalling scenes on the Polish-Belarus border and the way the brutal dictator Lukashenko is instigating hybrid warfare against Poland by using these vulnerable refugees in trying to get them across the border. Will she give me an assurance that our Government are doing everything possible to help our Polish allies stand up against this absolutely appalling conduct by the Belarus authorities?
Vicky Ford
I completely agree, and the UK is absolutely standing side by side with Poland. The UK and Poland have a long history of friendship and are NATO allies. Already a small team of UK armed forces have been deployed, following agreement with the Polish Government. They are exploring how we can provide engineering support to address the ongoing situation at the Belarus border. The UK regularly deploys military personnel to work with partners and allies across the world. The UK also led on a G7 statement condemning the Belarusian regime’s orchestration of irregular migration across the border, and as I have said, this will be discussed in Riga today.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The House is obviously united in its condemnation of the dictatorship in Belarus and the illegitimacy of the role of the so-called President Lukashenko. However, in the past, sanctions regimes imposed by other European countries and our own have been eroded for very little in return, and the stranglehold of Lukashenko is still there. Will the Minister guarantee that we will work with the EU and the world community, and maintain sanctions until such time as they are genuinely effective in changing this regime?
Vicky Ford
We have already imposed over 100 sanctions designations, including on Lukashenko himself. We are absolutely committed to supporting the people of Belarus, and we stand together to impose costs on this regime for its blatant disregard of international commitments. The sanctions are imposed under our human rights sanctions regime as well. We keep all potential listings under close review, and we obviously continue to discuss these issues with international partners.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
What assessment have the Minister and the Government made of Lukashenko’s statement in the past couple of days that, in any furthering and deepening of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Minsk will not stand by and be neutral? Would that not be bad not just for people in Ukraine, but for those in Belarus?
Vicky Ford
As Belarus’s closest ally, Russia is uniquely placed to exert pressure on the Belarusian authorities to end their campaign of repression and to engage in this dialogue, and we urge Russia to do so. There must be a transparent and peaceful process to allow Belarusians to determine their own future, and we want to see a reformed Belarus that has a good relationship with Russia and other European partners, but we have been consistently clear in engaging Russia with the fact that violence, harassment and arbitrary detention must stop.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The weaponisation of vulnerable refugees seeking to escape conflict in the middle east by Belarus is a gross infringement of their human rights. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to raise and express international concern at this gross abuse?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend raises an important point about abuse and humanitarian issues. We are supporting humanitarian partners to help alleviate the suffering of migrants at the border, including through our contributions to the disaster relief emergency fund, organised by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. We are also president of the G7, and on 18 November the Foreign Ministers signed a statement, on which we led, calling on the Belarusian regime to provide the international organisations with immediate and unhindered access so that humanitarian assistance can be delivered.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
The UK is committed to the global fight against poverty and promoting equality, and despite the seismic impact of the pandemic on the UK and the global economy the UK will still spend over £10 billion of aid in 2021. We remain one of the largest official development assistance spenders in the world, and we will review the impact of projects through the spending cycle, as is standard, in order to inform future spending decisions.
Mr Speaker
I think you have answered the wrong question, Minister; Question 3 has been withdrawn.
Vicky Ford
I am so sorry.
Nigeria is a very important country to the UK and we are deeply concerned by the increasing insecurity in Nigeria. I raised the question with the Foreign Minister Onyeama at a bilateral meeting at COP26 in Glasgow, and I hope to visit Nigeria myself next year to have further such discussions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK is a staunch champion of the right to freedom of religion and belief, and in July 2022 we will host an international ministerial conference to energise collective efforts on this agenda.
John Cryer
When the hon. Lady meets the Nigerian Foreign Minister in the future—I hope she does so in the near future and repeatedly—will she ask exactly what the Nigerian Government are doing to protect their own citizens? Many of us have constituents with relatives in Nigeria who have been the victims of torture, rape and murder, and at the moment exactly what the Nigerian Government are doing does not seem particularly clear.
Vicky Ford
Nigeria faces multiple serious and complex security challenges, including terrorism in the north-east and separately intercommunal conflicts and criminal banditry in the north-west and middle belt, and intercommunal violence is spreading into the south-east and south-west. It is very serious. The UK-Nigeria security and defence dialogue will take place next month, and we will discuss co-operation to tackle issues related to violence in Nigeria such as human rights, defence, counter-terrorism and organised crime.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is it not extremely regrettable that there is virtually no publicity in the west about what is happening to Christians in Nigeria, amounting almost to genocide? Can we not put more pressure on the Nigerian Government, and can we not proclaim the fact that black lives matter everywhere, not just in the west?
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Islamic State West Africa and Boko Haram cause immense suffering not only to Christians but often to those of all faiths who do not subscribe to their extremist views. We condemn all incidents of intercommunal violence in Nigeria. This can also have a devastating impact on communities, and religion can be a factor in the intercommunal violence, but the root causes are extremely complex, including competition for land, water and resources, criminality and failures of government, so the British high commissioner and her team are working closely with state governors and local community and faith leaders as well as non-governmental organisations active in peacebuilding and reconciliation.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
The decision by the Israeli authorities to designate six Palestinian NGOs, and the evidence that forms the basis of those designations, is a matter for the Government of Israel. The UK maintains its own criteria for designation. We continue engagement with a number of those organisations on human rights issues and respect the role that NGOs and civil society organisations play in upholding human rights and democracy.
We are in contact with the Alliance for Middle East Peace regarding its concept of an international fund. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), met it on 8 September to discuss that.
Marsha De Cordova
It has been more than five weeks since Israel designated six well-known and respected Palestinian NGOs and human rights organisations, and there is still no credible evidence to justify it. The EU has said that it has received no new evidence and no convincing answers to its queries. Does the Minister share my concern that the designation of these NGOs is a clear attempt to silence the peaceful defence of Palestinian rights, and will she call on the Israeli Government to immediately revoke the designation?
Amanda Milling
As I set out, the decision to designate these six Palestinian NGOs is a matter for the Government of Israel. The UK maintains its own criteria for designation. We continue engagement with a number of these organisations on human rights issues and respect the role of civil society organisations in upholding human rights and democracy. As I say, it is a matter for the Government of Israel, but we have our own position.
Andrew Gwynne
On the creation of an international fund for Israeli and Palestinian peace, the Government have previously said that they have not yet committed to join the fund because the US has
“not yet approached us to discuss it.”
Why has the Minister not shown some initiative and contacted United States Agency for International Development administrator Samantha Power about taking one of the two international board seats to support this exciting opportunity for collaboration?
Amanda Milling
As I mentioned, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa met the executive director of ALLMEP on 8 September, and UK officials are in contact with it to better understand the concept of the international fund. The UK Government share the objective of increasing understanding and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer and I have to say, frankly, that it was entirely inadequate and wholly unconvincing. It is telling that, in answering the previous question, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), praised the role of NGOs in other countries, yet we are seeing NGOs being shut down in the state of Israel on entirely dubious legal grounds, with no evidence base, and the UK Minister seems to be washing her hands of the matter. I am offering my support to the UK Government, as are Labour Members. Surely we must do more to create and help save the civil space within the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. These six NGOs are fulfilling that. Have the UK Government seen the evidence, and will they commit to helping to keep that civil space open?
Amanda Milling
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned, civil society is important. We continue our engagement with a number of these organisations on important human rights issues, and we respect the role of NGOs and civil society in upholding human rights and democracy.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Most of us on the Conservative side of the House welcome the Government’s decision to proscribe the so-called political wing of Hamas, but will my right hon. Friend outline the pact that has been drawn up following the visit of the Israeli Foreign Minister to the United Kingdom a couple of days ago?
Amanda Milling
As my hon. Friend said, the Foreign Secretary hosted the first UK-Israel strategic dialogue with Israeli Foreign Minister Lapid. They held substantial discussions on how to broaden and deepen our bilateral relationship, including by co-operation across science, technology, trade and innovation.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
The human rights situation in the north-west and south-west regions of Cameroon is deeply concerning. Around 2.3 million people need humanitarian support and my Department has planned £5 million of humanitarian aid this year, which will help those affected by the crisis. We are urging all actors, including the Cameroonian Government, to remain engaged in efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
Alex Norris
The Biya Government’s hard-handed approach to calls for reform from those living in the Anglophone region has led to violence, 765,000 persons being displaced from their homes, and 800,000 children out of school. We have a long-standing connection to Cameroon and I am glad to hear from the Minister about efforts so far, but will she make a full-throated commitment today to a peaceful resolution to the crisis, and say what diplomatic efforts will be made by her and her colleagues over the next few months to bring it about?
Vicky Ford
We will continue to work with partners, such as the US and France, to raise the north-west and south-west crisis in multilateral forums. We urge all parties to remain engaged with the Swiss-led process to promote a peaceful resolution to the crisis. As I said, our planned humanitarian aid to Cameroon this year will be £5 million, which will help to support the World Food Programme and the International Committee of the Red Cross specifically for the most vulnerable populations in those regions.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
In her time as International Trade Secretary, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) blocked a genocide amendment against Chinese persecution of Uyghur Muslims, resumed the sale of UK bombs used against civilians in Yemen, and signed trade deals with human-rights-abusing tyrants from Egypt to Cameroon. Does the Minister recognise that the shoddy trade deal signed with Cameroon—a trade deal even Donald Trump would not sign because of human rights concerns—was not only a missed opportunity to insert clauses relating to genocide, mass killings of civilians and modern slavery, but, as her past record demonstrates, suggests that the Foreign Secretary does not give a jot for human rights or standing up against tyrants?
Vicky Ford
The UK and Cameroon signed an economic partnership agreement in March this year, which ensures the continuity of our trading arrangements. It is a development-focused agreement. The EPA recognises that the trade access provided is vital to the livelihoods of many, many Cameroonians. We are very clear that using trade to support development and prosperity does not have to come at the expense of protecting human rights. We continue to press the Cameroonian Government to uphold the principles of human rights and democracy which underpin the EPA.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
The Government are clear that we want a relationship with China that allows us to manage disagreements, defend our values and preserve space for co-operation where our interests align. We have taken robust action in response to our serious concerns about human rights in China. For example, on Xinjiang, we have led international efforts at the UN, imposed sanctions and announced a range of supply-chain measures.
Christine Jardine
Following the litany of abuses against the Uyghur Muslims and in Hong Kong, and, most recently, the international concern about the treatment of tennis star Peng Shuai, both the US President and the Prime Minister have admitted that they are considering a diplomatic boycott of the winter Olympics. Does the Minister agree that that has now taken on renewed urgency, and will she urge the Prime Minister to think about a boycott?
Amanda Milling
Taking a couple of points there, on Peng Shuai, we have called on the Chinese authorities to ensure her safety and we are following her case very closely. Everyone should be allowed to speak out without fear of repercussions. All reports of sexual assault, anywhere in the world, should be investigated. No decisions have been made by the Government on attendance of the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics next year.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It has now been published that, in a number of speeches back in 2014, President Xi drove his authorities to carry out the genocide that is going on in Xinjiang among the Uyghur. China is a country that has trashed an international treaty with the United Kingdom over Hong Kong and is arresting everybody who disagrees with it and persecuting them. What more does it take for my Government to make a clear decision that they will not attend the winter Olympics and will not allow officials to do so? The other day, the Leader of the House indicated that no tickets had been bought. That is not good enough. Can we now have a clear answer that we will not attend and neither will our officials?
Amanda Milling
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We have taken robust action in relation to human rights issues in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and we have imposed sanctions on those responsible. As I said, no decisions have been made on Government attendance at the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics in 2022.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that, over the weekend, documents emerged that clearly demonstrate that the orders to commit genocide in Xinjiang are coming from the very top of the Chinese Communist party, including from Chen Quanguo and President Xi Jinping himself. For several months, Opposition Members have been calling for a full diplomatic and political boycott of the Beijing winter Olympics in response to those atrocities, but the Government continue to sit on their hands. In the light of this profoundly disturbing new information and amid deep and growing concern about the treatment of tennis player, Peng Shuai, does the Minister think that it is appropriate to send members of our royal family to the Beijing Olympics to rub shoulders with the very people who are orchestrating these horrific crimes against their own people?
Amanda Milling
As I said in previous answers, we have taken robust action in response to our concerns. The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues including that of Peng Shuai, the tennis player. We have imposed sanctions, but in terms of attendance at the winter Olympics, no decisions have been made.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
The UK has a close working relationship with the Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, collaborating together in NATO and in the Joint Expeditionary Force. The Foreign Secretary hosted the Baltic Foreign Ministers at Chevening on 11 October and they discussed working together to strengthen NATO, shared security concerns and UK-Baltic economic co-operation. The Foreign Secretary will discuss security of the Baltic states with her counterparts in Riga today.
Sally-Ann Hart
The Governments of the Baltic states, as well as their citizens, suffer from persistent, strategic and aggressive Russian propaganda and misinformation, designed to undermine confidence in the Governments of the Baltic states, NATO and other institutions and to sow social and ethnic tensions. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to work with our NATO and European allies and with the Baltic states to help to build their cyber-capabilities, communication strategies and resilience?
Vicky Ford
The UK and Baltic states are close partners in international efforts to tackle disinformation. The UK’s counter-disinformation and media development programme is providing funding in this financial year across the Baltic states. The programme builds collective resilience to Russian information operations through strategic communications, exposing disinformation and supporting independent media and civil society.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
We remain deeply concerned about the situation in Ethiopia and continue to engage with and call upon all parties to press for a ceasefire. Since the state of emergency was declared, I have spoken with African Union High Representative Obasanjo, making clear our support for his mediation efforts, as well as with President Kenyatta of Kenya and AU Commissioner Bankole. I recently urged the Ethiopian State Minister Redwan to engage with these mediation efforts. Our Foreign Secretary spoke to the Deputy Prime Minister Demeke on 5 November and our ambassador has spoken with the President, Prime Minister Abiy and leaders in Tigray, consistently calling on all parties to stop fighting, declare a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid to flow.
Wera Hobhouse
The conflict in Tigray has dramatically escalated in the past year. My constituents in Bath who have family detained in the capital in Ethiopia have not heard from them for the best part of this year. Can the Minister outline what efforts have been made with the international community to ensure that all those who are unlawfully detained across Ethiopia are released?
Vicky Ford
As I have said, the situation is incredibly challenging. When I spoke to Minister Redwan, I urged him to end the mobilisation of civilians and ethnically targeted arrests. There is a growing risk of uncontrollable ethnic violence, which is doing huge long-term damage to the social cohesion of the country. As I said in my statement on 24 November, we may see the conflict move closer to Addis Ababa, and we are strongly urging all British nationals to leave now while commercial flights are readily available.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Ethiopia, may I thank the Minister for all the work that she is doing on this terribly difficult issue? We recently saw the Prime Minister of Ethiopia taking up arms himself and urging others to do so, which demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to fear that the very existence of Ethiopia may be at stake and at risk. Does the Minister feel that the United Nations could be doing more to bring about peace in the country?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a truly tragic situation. Civilians have experienced appalling, outrageous abuses, including widespread sexual violence. We are fully supporting the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her calls for further timely discussion of the report of the joint human rights investigation and its recommendations at the UN in Geneva.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The crisis in Ethiopia and Tigray has catastrophic implications for civilians, the region and the globe. We have seen shocking atrocities over the past year, including war crimes and sexual violence. We are now hearing warnings of potential genocide from former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and from Lord Alton in the other place, and deeply concerning reports of further apparent incitement this weekend in the media, which I have raised with the Minister. What assessment has the Minister made of those very serious reports and warnings? What are we doing to protect and secure UK citizens who are still present in Ethiopia? What are we doing to bring to justice all those who are committing or inciting such atrocities?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points; I thank him for continuing to look at this serious situation. It is really important that we keep spreading the message that British nationals, whatever their circumstances, should leave Ethiopia now while the airport remains available and there are flights. We have asked all sides not to use inflammatory language; it is making the situation even more dangerous, and the impact on civilians is very severe.
We have provided humanitarian aid of up to £76.7 million in badly needed support for people in north Ethiopia, which makes us the second largest donor to the humanitarian response. That support has gone into Tigray, Afar, Amhara and eastern Sudan; it includes critical food aid, safe drinking water, medical care and support for women who have been victims of sexual violence.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
May I congratulate the Minister on the excellent job that she is doing of standing in for the Foreign Secretary?
A genocide is happening in Tigray. What work is the Minister doing with our partners in the United States, the EU and other western countries to send a message to Prime Minister Abiy that no international aid can be channelled through the Ethiopian Government until the genocide stops? Why does he still have that Nobel peace prize? Is it not high time that he was stripped of it?
Vicky Ford
I thank my right hon. Friend for his praise. I am not sure I am doing that brilliantly!
We are continuing to work extremely closely with our partners in the United States and the United Nations, and I met the African P3 partners during my recent visits to New York and Washington. It is particularly important that we are also supporting the efforts of Obasanjo, Bankole and President Kenyatta to bring all people to a ceasefire. As for the Nobel peace prize, that is a decision for the Nobel Committee itself.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
The UK is committed to ensuring that people in the poorest countries receive vaccines. We were a leader in setting up the international COVAX facility, which is providing equitable access for 92 lower and middle-income countries, and we champion equitable access through our G7 presidency. Our commitment of £548 million makes us one of COVAX’s largest donors. COVAX has delivered more than 475 million vaccine doses to the poorest countries, and that figure will rise to 1.8 billion by mid-2022.
Kate Osamor
The shockingly low vaccination rates in low-income countries should shame the global north, and made the omicron variant all but inevitable. The Government have been quick to impose travel restrictions on southern African countries, but where was the urgency when it came to ensuring that people on the African continent were vaccinated? My question to the Minister is this: is it not time for the Government to drop their opposition to the intellectual property waiver on covid-19 vaccines, of which South Africa was one of the key supporters, and to provide whatever vaccine capacity and technical support they can offer to speed up the roll-out?
Vicky Ford
We are fully committed to doing all that we can to get vaccines out to poorer countries, but when it comes to delivery, there are three different issues. The first is supply, the second is the need to ensure that the local health services are able to deliver the vaccine, and the third is, sadly, the very serious issue of vaccine hesitancy in many countries. COVAX did experience severe challenges in obtaining vaccine supplies owing to export bans, but supplies are now increasing. We in the UK have already delivered 16.1 million doses through COVAX, an additional 9 million AstraZeneca doses will be sent out in the coming weeks, and, most recently, we delivered 5.2 million doses to the Philippines last Saturday.
The UK is engaging intensively and constructively in the trade-related intellectual property rights—TRIPS—waiver debate, but in the meantime we must continue to push ahead with pragmatic action. For example, we have sent UK emergency medical teams to 11 African countries, where they are providing training and advice for health workers in respect of issues including vaccine confidence.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that Labour has recognised that International Development must remain a Cabinet role, and it is an honour to be able to continue our work to tackle poverty and inequality around the world.
The UK has blocked international agreements to increase the supply of vaccines, has only donated a fraction of the promised doses to low-income countries, and continues to stockpile doses. As a result, hundreds of thousands of doses have expired and have been destroyed, including 600,000 in August alone. In addition, the Government slashed the aid budget for programmes tracking new covid variants. Labour Members warned of this repeatedly, knowing that the virus would continue to mutate unchecked.
Can the Minister tell the House how many surplus vaccines the UK will have by the end of 2021, and why the Government have repeatedly refused to speed up the process of donation to other countries? Will she ensure that we airlift those vaccines immediately?
Vicky Ford
Not only did we set up COVAX, but we are one of its largest donors. We have committed ourselves to donating 100 million doses, and that is part of the G7 commitment to sharing 870 million by 2022. Furthermore, we are helping many countries to set up their own vaccine manufacturing. Last Thursday I visited the Institut Pasteur de Dakar in Senegal, which, thanks to help from the UK with the delivery of a business plan, now has the necessary investment to ensure that it will be one of the first manufacturers of covid vaccines in Africa.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
A small proportion of those who are vaccinated against covid-19 suffer adverse reactions. Can my hon. Friend explain why, under the COVAX compensation scheme, we give more generous compensation—paid for by our taxpayers—to citizens in foreign countries than we give to our own citizens who suffer adverse consequences from the covid-19 vaccine?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I think it is a question for Department of Health and Social Care Ministers. I will ensure that he gets an answer.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
We remain concerned about the political and human rights situation in Zimbabwe and our embassy is in contact with Mr Haruzivishe’s lawyers regarding his appeal. We regularly urge the Government to live up to their own constitution by ensuring that the Opposition, civil society and journalists can operate without harassment. I reinforced these messages to President Mnangagwa at COP26 on 1 November. The UK will continue to support the Zimbabwean people and to help Zimbabweans to secure their constitutional freedoms.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her answer, but overnight we saw more news of Opposition supporters in Zimbabwe losing their lives at the hands of the authorities. Zimbabwe is a beautiful country and it can and should be playing a leading role in southern Africa, so can the Minister explain what discussions she has had with the African Union and the Southern African Development Community about political repression in that country?
Vicky Ford
We are deeply concerned about the civil rights situation and about the reports of the recent death of the opposition MDC Alliance supporter Nyasha Zhambe Mawere on 26 November. We continue to urge the Government to carry out proper investigations and to ensure that those responsible are held to account. Our sanctions designations are holding to account those individuals who we believe to be responsible for human rights violations, and these include those responsible for the deaths of demonstrators in August 2018 and January 2019. Those restrictive measures are not targeted at or intended to impact the wider economy or the people of Zimbabwe; they are targeted at those who commit these atrocities.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
Since the last oral questions the Foreign Secretary has launched a campaign to stop sexual violence in conflicts. Last week she launched the British international investment, which will invest billions in honest and reliable infrastructure and technology in low and middle-income countries. She has visited south-east Asia to deepen our economic, tech and security ties with partners including Indonesia, and yesterday she hosted the first UK-Israel strategic dialogue with her Israel counterpart Yair Lapid in London. Today she is meeting NATO allies in Riga, delivering the message that we must act together to stand up against Russia’s malign activity. Obviously, two of my other colleagues are unable to be here today, for reasons that have already been set out.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for her reply. I want to put on record my personal thanks to the Foreign Secretary for her strong personal support for freedom of religion or belief. Do Ministers agree that FORB for all is a fundamental strand of the network of liberty that the Foreign Secretary has so powerfully spoken of recently, integrally connected as it is with so many other freedoms, such as speech, association and even life itself? Where FORB is violated, we see a whole range of abuses, such as racism, gender inequality and societies that are more prone to violent extremism.
Amanda Milling
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is a real passionate champion. Promoting freedom of religion or belief for all is one of the UK’s long-standing human rights priorities and a key pillar of the integrated review. Where FORB is under attack, other human rights are often threatened too. We used our G7 presidency to defend and advance these fundamental freedoms, and next year’s international ministerial conference, to be hosted in London on 5 and 6 July, will play a key role in shaping the network of liberty.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The deaths of 27 people should have acted as a sobering moment for the British and French Governments. These were human beings, not migrants, but instead both Governments have engaged in a petty public spat. This incompetence is costing lives. How can the Government hope to maintain good relations around the world with a Prime Minister who is more interested in burning bridges than building them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary to his place.
It was a tragic incident that happened in the channel last week. I extend my condolences, as I am sure everyone in the House does, to the families of those people who lost their lives while trying to get across to the UK. As the Prime Minister said, this was a shocking, appalling and deeply saddening loss of life.
The Prime Minister spoke to French President Macron on 24 November, and they agreed on the urgency of stepping up joint efforts to prevent these deadly crossings and to stop the gangs responsible for putting people’s lives at risk. The Prime Minister, as we know, wrote to President Macron on this issue.
UK and French Ministers discuss issues in the UK-France bilateral relationship. That includes the Home Secretary, who is working closely with her French counterpart on the issue of small boats and is in regular contact with him.
Mr Lammy
Three months ago, the Prime Minister promised to “shift heaven and earth” to help evacuate Afghans in danger, yet many have been left behind, including female judges, as I first raised on 16 August. The perception is that we have turned our back on those who champion the rule of law and democratic freedom, and who stand up to oppression. What impression does the Minister think this gives to our allies across the globe? When will the resettlement scheme actually be up and running?
Amanda Milling
When we look back at what happened with Operation Pitting, we have to remember the sheer scale of the evacuation from Afghanistan: the number of British nationals who were evacuated, the 5,000 locally employed Afghan staff and the 500 special cases of particularly vulnerable Afghans, including Chevening scholars, journalists, human rights defenders and judges.
The resettlement scheme will provide protection for the most vulnerable who are identified as at risk, and it will be announced by the Home Office in due course.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Amanda Milling
Iran’s destabilising activity risks regional peace and prosperity, and we regularly raise Iran’s destabilising role in the region at the UN Security Council. We have more than 200 UK sanctions designations in place against Iran under various UK sanctions regimes, including against the IRGC in its entirety. We continue to support our allies’ security, including through close defence partnerships across the middle east. We work to strengthen institutions and build capacity in more vulnerable countries.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Amanda Milling
Colombia is an FCDO human rights priority country. We regularly raise human rights concerns with the Colombian Government and in multilateral fora. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), visited Colombia last week and spoke to Vice President Ramírez about the human rights situation.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Amanda Milling
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his passion for high-quality jobs in Dudley. We are building a network of liberty with our friends and allies. It will include new technological partnerships to embrace the opportunities of a global economy shaped on innovations in tech. In June, the Prime Minister agreed to develop a new, landmark bilateral technology partnership with President Biden to enable a new era of strategic co-operation between our countries. The AUKUS alliance will deepen security and defence-related science and technology with the US and Australia.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Amanda Milling
On the points about humanitarian aid, we are doubling our assistance for Afghanistan, taking it to £286 million in this financial year. At the end of October, the Prime Minister announced an allocation of a further £50 million to provide more than 2.5 million Afghans with food, health, shelter and warm clothing.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Amanda Milling
British people who are currently in red list countries should check the Department’s travel advice for the latest rules on returning to the UK. If they need to change their travel plans, they should speak to their airline or travel agent. Consular staff are available 24/7 to provide assistance to any British national who needs help overseas, through a call to their local consulate, embassy or high commission.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government promised that they would not abandon the Afghan people, yet millions are teetering on the edge of famine, with winter fast approaching. Will the Minister stop with the meaningless pledges and start with meaningful action? She will have seen the harrowing report from John Simpson and the powerful words of David Beasley, from the World Food Programme, who said:
“imagine that this was your little girl or your little boy, or your grandchild about to starve to death…We let any child die from hunger. Shame on us. I don’t care where that child is.”
A failure to act is a betrayal of those people. So will the funds be disbursed to save lives in Afghanistan today?
Amanda Milling
Afghanistan faces one of the largest food security crises in the world. We are aware that the crisis is approaching levels where there is severe, acute malnutrition, which is why we have doubled UK aid for Afghanistan to £286 million this year. In addition, between April and November this year we have disbursed more than £55 million, including life-saving humanitarian support for emergency food, health, nutrition, shelter and water sanitation. We are providing a lot of support.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As well as the Prime Minister’s promise to bring vulnerable Afghans to refuge in this country, other Ministers suggested that they travel to neighbouring countries as the first step. I have constituents who took those Ministers at their word, but the Afghanistan resettlement scheme is not open, as we have noted, and those who fled are told to apply for expensive visas, with prohibitive salary requirements. Will the Minister at least agree to speak to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister and urge them to fulfil their promises without delay?
Amanda Milling
The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme will welcome up to 5,000 vulnerable Afghans in its first year and up to 20,000 over a five-year period. As I have set out previously, the Home Office will make an announcement in due course.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Amanda Milling
My hon. Friend is a passionate voice for his constituents in Bury North. We recognise the human rights concerns in Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, including the continuation of some temporary restrictions in Indian-administered Kashmir. We encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegation of human rights violations or abuse is deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly and transparently. We have raised our concerns with the Governments of India and Pakistan.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In the run-up to the winter Olympics, the Chinese Government have made clear their international standing in terms of their attitude in the South China sea and their attitude to Taiwan, the Uyghur Muslims and Members of this House. Internationally, China should be a pariah; why are we not joining an international approach to ensure that it is regarded as such?
Amanda Milling
The hon. Gentleman raised several different issues. As I set out in earlier answers, the Government are leading international action and taking robust action in respect of some serious concerns about a number of different areas relating to China. As I said earlier, in particular we have imposed sanctions in relation to those responsible for the atrocities in Xinjiang.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Amanda Milling
Officials are in regular contact with host Governments in order to understand their requirements and update FCDO travel advice, so travellers should always consult that advice for the latest covid-19 restrictions. Covid certification is a devolved competency; Welsh residents can use the NHS covid pass to evidence their vaccine status but cannot use it to evidence proof of recovery.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
On genocide, when we say, “Never again”, we must mean it. Will the Minister commit to introducing an atrocity-prevention strategy for every country—the countries-at-risk-of-instability process just does not go far enough—and specifically to support civil society peacebuilding in Republika Srpska to prevent future conflict and atrocities in Bosnia?
Vicky Ford
Most atrocities sadly occur in and around armed conflict and the Government have dedicated significant resources to the prevention of conflict. We do not believe we have to have a separate strategy for atrocity prevention because we are committed to a more integrated approach to Government work on conflict and instability that places greater emphasis on addressing the drivers of conflict, on atrocity prevention and on the strengthening of fragile countries’ resilience to external influence.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Further to my constructive Adjournment debate on the British Council with the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), and given the fact that the FCDO’s overall budget is to increase by 21% over the coming three-year spending review period, I seek clarity from those on the Front Bench as to whether the Government still intend to cut funding to the British Council, which will mean it will have to close a further 20 overseas offices on top of the 20 that it is already having to close.
Vicky Ford
Let me be clear: the British Council’s budget has not been cut. We agreed in the spending review settlement an amount of £189 million, which is a 27% increase in funding on the previous year. While we had to make difficult decisions on cuts in other areas, we actually increased the money that we are providing to the British Council. We have reviewed the physical Council presence in countries as part of a wider modernisation process. I visited the British Council in Senegal last week, and its work was outstanding.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I have a wonderful Tamil community in Croydon, and they still feel the devastating impacts of the civil war. May I add my voice to those from across this House for sanctions against General Silva who has been accused of great crimes? Does the Minister have some words of comfort on this point for my constituents?
Amanda Milling
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we do not comment on any possible future sanctions.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
On a recent visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina with the all-party group for the armed forces, which was duly declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, our overall impression was one of hope for the best, hope that the Republika Srpska will recognise the genocide, hope that the geography of Bosnia and Herzegovina will hold together, and hope that the whole thing will survive, but, none the less, fear that it might not. Does the Minister not agree that of incredible importance right now are messages from this place—particularly messages to the Bosnian Serbs—to say that we are watching what is happening in Bosnia very closely indeed and that the questions that we are asking today and in the debate on Thursday are of immense importance, as they say to the Bosnian Serbs that we care, that we will not allow a return to what happened all those years ago and that we support the Dayton agreement?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: voices in this House matter. It is excellent that the serious situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been raised by colleagues a number of times today and that it will be debated on Thursday, but it is also important that our Foreign Secretary is in Riga with her NATO counterparts, and that she will be focusing her attention on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is the Minister aware of the drastic shortages of drugs being faced by hospitals in Malawi, not least anaesthetics, which is having an impact on the treatment of women, particularly those trying to give birth. What discussions will she have with counterparts in the country to try to address these shortages, and what impact does she think that the proposed 50% cut in the UK’s aid budget to Malawi will have on its ability to respond to this kind of crisis?
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising access to women’s health in Malawi, and I will write to him on that specific issue. However, one of the announcements that we made at the time of the Budget was that, thanks to increased funding, we are able to restore funding to girls’ education and to humanitarian aid.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to John and Ceri Channon from my constituency who, following the tragic death of their son, Tom, in Majorca in the summer of 2018, have worked tirelessly with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Minister for Europe, and the embassy in Spain to enhance the various authorities’ response to tragic accidents overseas, resulting in Tom’s Check, which was reported in the news today?
Amanda Milling
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I know that he has met my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and also the family. Consular staff have been providing support and advice to Tom’s family following his really sad death in Magaluf in July 2018. As well as the virtual meeting that he has held, consular officials in Spain have had meetings with local authorities to understand the procedural investigations that have taken place to ask whether they can do more for the family.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s response on Afghanistan is simply not good enough. Yesterday, I met with a democratically elected Member of Parliament from Afghanistan who set out the escalating human rights atrocities as well as the humanitarian situation. Will the Minister urgently meet with MPs from Afghanistan to talk about the situation and put aid in the right places to stop this crisis from getting worse?
Amanda Milling
As I have mentioned in a number of answers, we have doubled aid for Afghanistan. This is being provided via UN agencies and non-governmental organisations—not directly to the Taliban—to ensure that it is reaching the people who really need it, and helping those who are most vulnerable and for whom it is intended.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
There is a huge global appetite for Government-to-Government partnerships with the UK, with significant commercial benefits to be unlocked. Will the Minister undertake to work with the Department for International Trade to build UK Government-to-Government capability, so that we cease to lag behind our competitors?
Vicky Ford
We are absolutely committed to deepening our economic partnerships across the world, because they bring jobs and investment home to every region and nation of the UK, as well as helping other countries.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
That is the end of questions. I let them run on a little because there were long answers and we did get confused—not to worry.
Points of Order
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Amid the first lockdown, the Prime Minister promised NHS and social care staff from overseas that they would be refunded the unfair annual £624 charge that they have to pay to use the NHS that they themselves work in. It was big, front-page news at the time, and he was pressured into it by the Leader of the Opposition, the trade unions and his own Back Benchers, including members of the Health and Social Care Committee.
I have asked Ministers countless times in written questions, in the Chamber and face-to-face in Select Committees, but none has been able to tell me the number of successful refunds of these unfair NHS charges. Yesterday, a written answer from the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), finally admitted that the Government know the figure; they just do not want to publish it yet. As long as the figure is not published, I can only assume that it is because the number is actually a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of health and social care heroes who are eligible—another broken promise to the people to whom we owe so much. May I request your advice, Mr Speaker? Given that the Government are ducking and diving—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but we cannot get into a full debate. I have to try to answer the hon. Member’s point of order, which I thank her for giving me notice of. She will know that I do not have responsibility for the content of ministerial answers, but I note that the answer that she was given says that
“this information is currently unvalidated. The Home Office is considering whether this information can be verified and released”.
There are genuine questions and concerns. I am sure that the Government want to be transparent in the way in which they deal with questions. I suggest to the Home Office: get it answered quickly, and then we will have no further points of order on this matter.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Five days following Storm Arwen, thousands of my constituents—as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and Members in Cumbria and North Yorkshire—remain without electricity. This morning we were informed by Northern Powergrid that the damage is more extensive than initially realised, with some households potentially facing weeks without electricity. Our towns and villages are fully pulling together, but given the scale of what is going on—including issues such as water pumps not being available to feed animals and get water to households—it is clear that more action is needed.
My understanding is that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy offered military aid to the civil authorities—MACA—this weekend, but that Northern Powergrid refused it. Mr Speaker, if you have not had notice of a statement from the Government, will you let me know how we can ensure that the Government are doing everything possible to support our communities and constituents in the north Pennines?
Mr Speaker
I have great sympathy with the hon. Member. Power cuts really do destroy lives, especially with the current cold weather, and the pressure that has been put on different constituencies and constituents. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I have been offered no statement by the Government; nothing has been forthcoming. Given the concern of many Members, I am sure that he is aware that there are other ways of pursuing this matter, including possibly applying for an urgent question. I am not sure what the answer will be, but it might be a good way forward. Who knows—it may encourage the Government to come forward with a statement.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second day running that no Minister has come to this House—I have submitted an urgent question bid as well—to answer on the issue of the very worrying power cuts around the country, right across the United Kingdom. My concern is specifically for more rural communities such as mine in Cumbria and those in in Shropshire and Lancashire. I am very concerned. I spoke to residents just overnight. Places such as Torver, west of Lake Windermere, and the Cartmel peninsula have now been without electricity for four nights and may face a fifth night without power. What is clearly needed is support for Electricity North West engineers who are working really hard around the clock to solve this problem, so we need to bring in the Army, as has been mentioned. We also need to bring in generators so that no community is without energy for a fifth successive night. Can you give me guidance, Mr Speaker, as to how we can bring Ministers to this House to act on this most urgent issue?
Mr Speaker
I think this is the best advice I can give: first, we do not normally discuss UQs, but I cannot grant a UQ unless you put in for it. [Interruption.] No, we have never received it. You may have put it in late. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—and the Clerk at the Table is here—that we have had no request. You cannot request it by just saying it yesterday; that is not an application. We have received no application, so I suggest you check with your office or somebody. Secondly, of course we have sympathy and of course we should be doing more. In fairness, I think this was answered yesterday, when it was raised, by the Deputy Speaker. Of course we have complete sympathy. We do need a statement. If a statement is not forthcoming, I suggest again that a UQ, if applied for, may be considered, but I can assure Members that I have had no request for a UQ as yet.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, which I have not given you notice of and which actually is for you. I have been noticing over the last few Question Times that there is a growing trend of Back Benchers on both sides of the House reading long questions word for word rather than using notes or even actually memorising a question. I just wonder whether it might be worthwhile, if you have a view on this, putting out an email to colleagues with some guidance about how to do questions in the House. Can I suggest that it can be slightly less boring—although I know I can bore for Britain—if people ask questions in an extemporaneous manner rather than laboriously reading them word for word for word?
Mr Speaker
When I first came into the House, a little bit later than the hon. Gentleman, you did not read questions but always asked questions. You only had a note as a back-up in case you began to struggle. I always thought it was better when people would ask a question briefly, off the cuff, and move on. I think the problem is that people read pages, hence what happened earlier. It is covered in the book of conventions. I think it is important to know that we have that book here. I suggest, as the hon. Gentleman has put this on the record, that people read it to bring themselves up to speed as to the best practice in the Chamber. Thank you for raising it and it is certainly on the record now.
Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines)
Tuesday 30th November 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill 2021-22 View all Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require manufacturers to fit microplastic-catching filters to new domestic and commercial washing machines; to make provision about the promotion of the use of microplastic-catching filters in washing machines and raising awareness about the consequences of microplastics from washing machines for pollution in rivers and seas; and for connected purposes.
I thank colleagues who have co-sponsored my Bill and all colleagues across the House who have given their support on this issue. We do not often think about plastic pollution when we wash our clothes. However, all our clothes and garments shed what are known as microfibre plastics. Microfibre plastic pollution is one of the most pervasive and preventable forms of microplastic pollution, with 35% of total microplastics released into the environment being shed from clothing. ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” and the University of Portsmouth recently carried out an investigation that found a large amount of airborne microplastics in our homes. It is estimated that we are breathing in between 2,000 and 7,000 microplastics a day—just think about it. But we can do something now for those microfibres we release through washing machine cycles. Microfibre plastics are tiny fibres that can shed from our clothes during the wash cycle. Due to their tiny size, they are too small to be caught by existing washing machines and can end up in the wastewater system, where they are caught, or remain in sewage sludge, which can be spread on to our growing crops, or are released into rivers and marine environments. Research by the University of Plymouth has found that one wash cycle can release up to 700,000 microfibres into our wastewater system—that is 700,000 in every wash cycle.
Microplastics can then escape from the wastewater treatment works, polluting our rivers and seas. These microplastics, which can contain chemicals, can be ingested by fish and other small aquatic creatures and travel up the food chain, and we then enjoy them on our plate when we eat our fish fingers or other aquatic produce. We are ingesting these microfibre plastics. Research led by the University of Manchester has found that the River Tame in Greater Manchester contains such enormous levels of microplastics that it is one of the most polluted waterway systems in the world. Investigators found 517,000 plastic particles per square metre of sediment. That figure is extremely concerning for all of us, the environment and aquatic life.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, I have been working with that favourite civil society stakeholder, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. It is a wonderful organisation that has long campaigned on this issue through its “End Plastic Soup” campaign. Many of us will remember just a few years ago, when it came to Portcullis House and demonstrated in a bowl of water what microfibre plastic pollution looks like.
The all-party parliamentary group has also worked with a range of stakeholders including academics, environmental groups and, most importantly, global washing machine manufacturers. The group’s report, published in September 2021, put forward a series of important holistic recommendations, with the support of the Women’s Institute and stakeholders, on what policies would be needed to help reduce the effects that microplastics have on the environment. Today, I am introducing this Bill to encourage the Government to work with washing machine manufacturers to set standards to ensure all new domestic and commercial washing machines are fitted with a microfibre plastic-catching filter.
I emphasise the importance of also tackling the issue at source. We must encourage textile and clothing manufacturers to make garments with sustainable thread that has a reduced shedding rate, so that the garments do not shed microfibres in the first place. However, adding filters to washing machines is a solution that is achievable in the short and medium term and can be enacted quickly by this Government. Through my work on the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, I am aware of several companies that make microfibre-catching filters for washing machines. The technology for this solution is already available. For example, the company Grundig, which is part of Beko group, has made its own washing machine called the FiberCatcher, with a filter fitted inside. I understand it is one of the world’s first integrated systems and is currently on the market.
I am proposing that the Government work with manufacturers, which are very keen to help with the solution, to set standards for microfibre-catching filters to ensure that all new domestic and commercial washing machines are fitted with a filter that captures a high volume of microfibres in the wash cycle. What I am proposing in the Bill is not novel. Other countries, such as France and Australia, have already pledged to look at this and are working with manufacturers to install microfibre-catching filters.
It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the environment is left in a better condition than when we found it. I was inspired, as I am sure were you, Mr Speaker, and all Members of this House, by Sir David Attenborough when he produced and presented the BBC’s “Blue Planet II” documentary, released only four years. It opened all our eyes to the damage we have caused to marine life through our use of plastic. Plastic breaks down, but it does not biodegrade. Microfibre plastic pollution is a huge problem, and the Government should explore all avenues to tackle the different types of pervasive plastic, in addition to the already excellent work that the Government are doing generally to tackle other sources of plastic pollution.
I urge the Government to consider my modest Bill today and to work with washing machine manufacturers—the door is open with them—which want a solution to ensure that microfibre plastics do not become an even bigger problem. With legislation such as what I am proposing, the UK could become a world leader in tackling microplastic pollution. This is a way forward for us all to continue to enjoy the health and hygiene that washing our clothes brings and to increase the fashion industry as well, while ensuring that we stop polluting the marine environment, as we currently do at a terrible rate.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alberto Costa, Philip Dunne, Caroline Lucas, Tim Loughton, Derek Thomas, Mr Jonathan Lord, Mrs Pauline Latham, Alexander Stafford, Andrew Selous, Jim Shannon, Patrick Grady and Holly Lynch present the Bill.
Alberto Costa accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 205).
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting,
(1) notwithstanding paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motions in the name of Maggie Throup relating to (a) the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) Regulations 2021 and (b) the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order;
(2) notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), the business in the name of Ian Blackford may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; and proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of;
and, in respect of both items of business, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
Public Health
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 434 / Noes: 23 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 431 / Noes: 36 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The motion just agreed by the House provides for both motions in the name of the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to be debated together. The questions on each motion will be put separately at the end of the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 1340), dated 29 November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.
Mr Speaker
With this we shall take the following motion:
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 1338), dated 29 November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.
Maggie Throup
In September, the Government set out their autumn and winter plan for fighting the virus, which could be implemented to ensure that the NHS is not overwhelmed. Although we are not implementing the entirety of the plan now, we are taking steps to respond to a potentially potent mutation of the virus. We have taken great steps in our fight against the virus, having delivered nearly 115 million vaccine doses so far, and more every day, with almost 18 million people having also received their booster jab, including me.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Minister deprecate those public appointees who, notwithstanding the clear proportionate advice of the chief scientific adviser, have been on the airwaves telling people that they should not socialise, to the huge detriment of people’s wellbeing and of an industry struggling to recover from earlier lockdowns?
Maggie Throup
I am sure the people my right hon. Friend is referring to will have heard him loud and clear. We all enjoy socialising but, as he will appreciate, we are in a difficult situation. However, we also have personal responsibility.
We are confronted with an emerging threat, which is familiar but not yet well known. The measures that we are putting in place are proportionate, precautionary and balanced, and are being made in response to the specific threat.
Late last week, the challenge arising from the latest covid-19 threat from the variant of concern known as omicron emerged. Public health officials in South Africa shared information on the omicron variant and it was identified as a coronavirus variant of concern. Thanks to our world-leading genomic sequencing experts at the UK Health Security Agency, we were able to identify that some cases of the new variant are present in this country. So far, we have identified 14 cases in the UK and, unfortunately, we expect to find more in the coming days.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Minister mentioned the UK Health Security Agency, the head of which my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was referring to. Dr Harries said two things this morning. First, she said that people should not socialise. Secondly, she also implied—only implied, to be fair—that people should work from home. When the Prime Minister was asked about that, he made it clear that that was not the Government’s position and that people should follow the advice. I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer and I do not think that is quite what she said. Could she be clear that Dr Harries was speaking only for herself, not for the Government?
Maggie Throup
As my right hon. Friend said, the Prime Minister said that we are putting these measures in place, about which I will speak more. I cannot speak for any other person who goes on the airwaves.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Dr Harries is a public health professional who therefore understands what public health measures need to be taken to secure our wellbeing against the pandemic. Why are the Government not listening to what public health professionals are advising?
Maggie Throup
I reassure the hon. Lady that we listen to the advice of health professionals all the time, but today we are debating statutory instruments on face coverings and self-isolation following travel.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Is the Minister seriously saying that it is not for Ministers to have any particular view on officials employed in the Department going out and taking a position that is at odds with the Government’s public policy? If it is now the policy that even Department employees can take their own personal positions, we are facing chaos and the overturning of long-standing Government principles.
Maggie Throup
I reiterate that I cannot speak for other people. I am setting out the measures today that we implemented this morning in a timely fashion, and it is those measures that we are considering. From the Government’s point of view, that is the legislation that we are implementing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I support what the Minister is putting forward. What happens here will happen in Northern Ireland, as the Minister in Northern Ireland has said that he will follow the instructions and guidelines from Westminster. We are aware of the variant and we are aware at this stage that our vaccinations may be enough to combat it. If we hand wash, distance and wear a mark, surely we cannot do anything other than support the measure. Does she agree that other hon. Members should adopt the same attitude?
Maggie Throup
I speak for myself in saying that I have changed my habits with regard to hand washing since the pandemic began, much to the detriment of my skin. We can take simple measures that have been put in place that have no impact on other people but help to protect us and others indirectly.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The Minister is being incredibly generous. Can I clear up something for the travel industry and the airline industry? There is an SI on travel restrictions, not least PCR tests on day two, as I understand it. They are not being debated today. Why not and when will they be?
Maggie Throup
Today, we are debating some travel restrictions about self-isolation, but the other restrictions are covered by different legislation and therefore they are not relevant to this debate.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister mentioned hand hygiene. Is she aware of a study published in The BMJ on 20 November that showed that hand hygiene was as effective as mask wearing? Does she agree that anything we do here needs to be firmly evidence-based? Can she say why we have focused on mask wearing in the regulations and not, for example, if our aim is to improve public health, mandating for alcohol gels in hospitality venues?
Maggie Throup
My right hon. Friend, with his medical background, makes a good point that I will take away and look into further.
I will return to my speech. Accordingly, our scientists are investigating omicron to determine, among other things, how quickly it is likely to spread and what the impact may be on the immunity that many of us have acquired through vaccination.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Vicky Foxcroft
I thank the Minister for giving way. On the point of immunity, many people who are immunosuppressed are extremely worried. I have asked the Secretary of State on several occasions whether he will consider doing antibody testing so that those people have some idea whether they have any protection or they need to adjust things in their working lives.
Maggie Throup
I have heard the hon. Lady talk about that before and I take the point seriously. It is partly about antibodies and partly about T cells; the science behind it is obviously quite complex. I will take that point away and get back to her.
Maggie Throup
I will give way once more and then I must make progress.
Mr Wragg
My hon. Friend is the kindest of Ministers. On the question of the new variant’s severity, I wonder if she has data to hand about whether any of the new cases of omicron in this country that she mentioned have been detected in patients hospitalised with covid.
Maggie Throup
I am not aware of that, and it may not be in the public domain due to confidentiality. I must make some progress.
Meanwhile, the Government have responded quickly to introduce a temporary and targeted package of precautionary measures to combat the risk of transmission. The aim of the package is to buy our scientists time to investigate and gather information on the omicron variant, and to continue to build the protection that vaccination provides.
The package comprises the requirement for people to wear face coverings in shops, shopping centres and transport hubs, and on public transport; the requirement for those returning from abroad to take a PCR test by day two and to quarantine until they receive a negative PCR test; the requirement for people to self-isolate if they are identified as a close contact of a confirmed or suspected case of the omicron variant; the addition of 10 countries to the red list; and the requirement that those arriving from those countries in Africa quarantine in a managed quarantine service for 10 days.
Across England, at 4 o’clock this morning, face coverings became mandatory in all shops and shopping centres, which includes supermarkets, banks and close-contact services such as hairdressers, and on public transport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Maggie Throup
I must continue.
They became mandatory in transport hubs, including taxis and private hire vehicles. From the same time, close contacts with confirmed or suspected cases of the covid-19 omicron variant will be legally required to self-isolate. These measures will remain in place until the end of the day on Monday 20 December. By this point, we will review the measures to see whether they remain necessary. We do not wish to keep any measures of this nature in place any longer than is absolutely necessary. However, these measures are an important step in the fight against the virus, particularly while we wait to discover the full implications of the threat from omicron.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The word “mandatory” was used but is that not just a word in the statutory instrument? In practice is it not unenforceable? As Darren Pearce, the manager of Meadowhall shopping centre, said in evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, “The biggest problem we had last time was about trying to get face coverings to be worn. I saw a group of young people going to Meadowhall, saying very loudly, ‘If they ask you, just say you’ve got asthma.’ Then they say, ‘We’ve got asthma. We’re exempt’, and there is nothing anyone can do, is there?” That causes all sorts of tensions with the shop assistants and with other people wearing face masks, who feel that some people are getting away with it. What is the Minister going to do about that situation?
Maggie Throup
I find it quite intriguing that the Labour party has been calling for this measure for some time and, now we are introducing it, it is unhappy about it.
Maggie Throup
I must make some progress.
In July, when we lifted most of the remaining restrictions at step 4 across England, we made it clear that our response to the pandemic was not over. The vaccination programme continues to be a huge success and vaccines remain the most important weapon in our fight against the virus. However, as we enter this uncertain time, we must do more and we must do it quickly.
Maggie Throup
I know I keep saying I will take one last intervention, but I give way.
Mr Harper
I am very grateful. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the timing. The Government have said that they are going to review these measures after three weeks and she is right—on the face masks, the regulations expire on 20 December—but the self-isolation SI has no expiry date, which means it will run all the way until the main statutory instrument expires on 24 March 2022. Why is that?
Maggie Throup
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I would like to reassure him that we will continue to update the House over the next few weeks, that we will not continue to have these regulations in place for any longer than is necessary, and that—[Interruption.] If I may just finish. The type of regulations he is referring to are reviewed under legislation every four weeks and are more likely to be reviewed every three weeks. I understand his point and I do take it very seriously. I wish we were not in a situation where we have this conflict, but I reassure him that I take his point very seriously and these measures will not be in place for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
Maggie Throup
I give way to the hon. Lady, who has been trying to intervene.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raised a question about the enforcement of mask wearing. One of the major problems being faced by GPs in my constituency of St Albans is that some people are refusing to wear masks because, “The Prime Minister didn’t have to when he went to a hospital”, so could I ask the Minister how she intends to lead by example when half of her own colleagues are still refusing to wear masks on the Benches opposite?
Maggie Throup
As I said earlier, we are mandating the use of face coverings. I think we are in a different situation now with regards to that.
Maggie Throup
I will allow one more intervention and then I will move on.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is really being most generous and I thank her very much indeed. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is absolutely right and I fear that, inadvertently, she has not given the fullest answer that she might have done to this. The fact is that motion 3 on the Order Paper expires on 20 December, yet motion 4 expires on 24 March 2022. Can she explain the logicality of that? I also observe that, given the extraordinary restriction on liberty that this potentially offers, most Members of this House would be more than delighted to return after the House rises for the Christmas recess in order to reaffirm our support for the measures that she has put before the House today.
Maggie Throup
I have listened to my right hon. Friend very carefully, as I did to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and I reiterate that we will not keep these measures in place for a day longer than we need to.
Maggie Throup
I must make progress.
Given the potential severity of the consequences of not responding swiftly to this new variant, the Government have taken decisive action to bring back compulsory face-covering wearing in an array of settings. Face coverings are again compulsory in shops and on public transport, unless an individual has a medical exemption or a reasonable excuse.
Maggie Throup
I will continue.
The requirement to wear face coverings is not new. We have asked people to do their bit to stop the spread of the virus before, so we are again asking people to play their part, this time to help slow down any transmission of this new variant of concern.
Maggie Throup
No, I must make progress. I have been very generous with my time up until now.
However, anyone who has an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering need not wear one, and they need not provide proof of their exemption. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has found that face coverings are likely to reduce transmission through all routes by partially reducing the emissions of and exposure to the full range of aerosols and droplets that carry the virus. This includes those that remain airborne and those that deposit on surfaces.
Several hon. Members rose—
Maggie Throup
I must make progress.
Scientific evidence also shows that all types of face coverings are to some extent effective in reducing the transmission of covid-19 in all settings. This is through a combination of source control, which limits the spread of the virus from a person, and protection to the wearer. Laboratory data shows that even non-medical masks, such as cloth masks made of two or three layers, may have similar filtration efficiency to surgical masks. As ever, we are guided by the advice of our scientific and medical experts. We will keep these measures under review, and we will take further action if necessary.
Mr Betts
Will the Minister give way on the point of exemptions?
Maggie Throup
No, I must make progress.
The self-isolation regulations were introduced to provide a legal requirement to self-isolate for individuals who have been notified that they have tested positive for covid-19 or that they are a close contact of a positive case. On 16 August, thanks to the success of the vaccine roll-out, we were able to introduce a number of exemptions to self-isolation for close contacts, including for those who are fully vaccinated or under the age of 18 years old. Given the greater threat that may be posed by the omicron variant, we have reviewed the application of these exemptions. This latest amendment to the self-isolation regulations is targeted at helping to slow its spread. From 4 am today, all individuals notified by NHS Test and Trace or a public health official that they are a close contact of a confirmed or suspected case of the covid-19 omicron variant are legally required to self-isolate for a period of 10 days, regardless of their age or vaccination status.
Maggie Throup
No; I have been very generous up until now.
Anyone who has been notified as testing positive for covid-19, regardless of the variant, will continue to be legally required to self-isolate. We appreciate that self-isolation is not easy and that it places a burden on people, but we also know that it is highly effective in limiting the spread of the virus. The Canna model estimated the impact of testing—
Maggie Throup
I really must make progress.
The model estimated the impact of testing and tracing and self-isolation on covid-19 transmission from June 2020 to April 2021. During the period of the study, the model found that testing, tracing and self-isolation had a critical impact on identifying cases of covid-19 and reducing onward transmission. The model found that between 1.2 million and 2 million infections have been directly prevented as a result. Additional assistance is available to those who are being required to self-isolate through the range of financial and practical support measures that the Government have put in place.
I am confident that these two sets of regulations represent proportionate precautionary and targeted action in the face of the new covid-19 variant, the risk of which we still do not yet fully understand. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, I think the Minister has been very generous with her time, and I would say that I am sure we have some capacity to get more speakers in if they so require.
Maggie Throup
Together, the impacts of these regulations should combine to help slow down the spread of the omicron variant and give us valuable time to assess how effective our vaccines are as a shield against this new variant. We are committed to reviewing these measures in three weeks’ time, when further scientific analysis should help us determine whether they are still needed, or whether they need to be extended or strengthened to support us in our wider fight against covid-19. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting these regulations, and I commend them to the House.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this important debate.
The omicron variant is a sobering reminder that this pandemic is not over. We need to act with speed to bolster our defences to keep the virus at bay, and to keep each other safe throughout the difficult winter period. We on these Benches were critical of the Government’s slow response to the delta variant—slow to protect our borders, slow to act to reduce transmission in the community—so we welcome swifter action with regard to the omicron variant and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) said in this place yesterday, we support the measures laid out in these two statutory instruments, one on face coverings and one on public health restrictions. It is right to be acting urgently given the seriousness of the threat, but it is sad to be debating these SIs after the fact; we need to build public confidence in whatever measures we bring in and it is always better to discuss them beforehand, rather than afterwards, to show that parliamentary scrutiny really matters.
Mr Harper
I am very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that about parliamentary scrutiny. He will know that yesterday I asked the Government for assurances if they were to want to extend or strengthen these measures after the House has risen for the Christmas recess, as I feel that if that is the case the House should either continue sitting or be recalled. In answer to my question, the Leader of the House suggested that it would be up to the House. I therefore ask this of the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Opposition: if the Government were to bring forward strengthened measures or want to extend them after the House has risen, would the Opposition support the House being recalled so that we can debate and vote on the matters in advance, or is he prepared to give the Government a blank cheque?
Alex Norris
My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Nottingham North had a strong record on recall of Parliament in 2003 and would smite me down if I were to dismiss the right hon. Gentleman’s question out of hand. It is a hypothetical question, however, and I am not going to be drawn on that, but I will say this: when we were getting through the backlog of such SIs over the summer I said to the Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), that I would have met at any hour at any time to get through some of them, since they were weeks and weeks delayed at some points. I have not changed my view on that.
Karl MᶜCartney
On that point, does the shadow Minister therefore think we should come back before Christmas, or maybe after Boxing day and before new year if the House is to be recalled?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman’s question makes me think he has some plans to book; if he is trying to book a weekend away, he should not let me set those dates for him.
Turning to the regulations, and starting with the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 1340), it is right to reintroduce masks on public transport, in shops and other settings including banks, hairdressers and post offices for those who are not exempt. This measure should never have been abandoned. While mask wearing in public spaces forms part of the Government’s plan B, it was always part of the Opposition’s plan A rather than an emergency measure, as was encouraging working from home where possible.
Rachael Maskell
I am slightly confused by these measures, because the risks are the same in any indoor setting; whether on public transport, in a shop or in some other indoor space, the risks still exist. Can my hon. Friend tease out why there is an inconsistency in these regulations?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes a good point that I will cover shortly. Of course the measure should apply to public transport and shops—and also to the House of Commons Chamber, but I will get to that shortly.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Last night I walked past the shadow Cabinet room and there was quite a party going on inside, and I popped my head round the corner and there was a lot of drinking and shuffling going on. That is fair enough, as those are the rules at the moment—knock yourselves out, it’s nearly Christmas—but why is it okay to come into the Chamber and tell us all one thing in front of the cameras and do something completely different behind closed doors?
Alex Norris
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to redress grievances as to what Labour party parties he has and has not been invited to, I am the wrong person to address those concerns to.
In order to build confidence in this issue, I ask the Minister to publish the guidance she and her colleagues have relied on that says that public transport and shops are areas of likely transmission but hospitality spaces, for example, are not. We do need to build confidence.
Anyone who has taken journeys on public transport in recent months will have seen at first hand a lack of compliance; that is of course just the Prime Minister, but beyond that all of us will have seen it on the tube and elsewhere on our commute.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have travelled on the tube in recent months and seen a lack of compliance, but enforcement on the tube is of course handed over to Transport for London officers. Does the hon. Gentleman think the Mayor of London should be doing more to enforce mask wearing on the tube?
Alex Norris
We will now start to see how effective these regulations are—they have only been going for nine and a half hours—but I will shortly address my reticence about members of staff whose primary job has not traditionally been to enforce such measures now being put in that position. That gets to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) was addressing.
Mr Betts
The issue is that enforcement is impossible when people can just claim an exemption and we are not allowed to ask, “Why have you got an exemption; can you prove it?” Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have had a system in place from the beginning where if people wanted an exemption—a medical exemption is what the Minister called it—there had to be medical confirmation that they were entitled to it because they had a medical condition that meant wearing a mask was damaging to their health?
Alex Norris
We are after the fact now on that, but I think we have to protect the principle that we do not expect people to wear masks if doing so is detrimental to their health. That is the right level of proportionality, but we are reliant on good faith and people not abusing that, and I would be disappointed to hear of cases such as those my hon. Friend raised.
I particularly want to raise with Ministers a point about shop workers. Our hard-working shop workers have given us so much during the last 20 months. They have kept open the vital community assets that mean we were all able to be fed and watered. In return they have faced increasing violence and abuse. It should be made very clear that they are not being asked to police this; I hope the Minister will do that and also give more detail, as colleagues clearly wish to hear it, about how enforcement will work in practice.
The largest number of infections is now in those aged under 20, with the peak at approximately 10. This is a big part of continuing transmission, yet the changing and drifting policies on masks have created confusion across schools, colleges and universities. Can the Minister confirm what the new requirements are across all settings?
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am very pleased that compulsory mask wearing has not been extended to the hospitality sector, as that would have been deeply damaging to businesses. What is the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition on this issue, because I think I heard something slightly different just now from what I heard yesterday?
Alex Norris
It is hard to answer given that this is not on the face of these regulations, so I have asked the Minister to be clear about why that differentiation was made, and then all Members would be able to make a judgment as to whether that was a wise decision.
Alex Norris
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before; I do not rule out doing it again, but will not do so immediately.
On ventilation, which links in to education settings, throughout this pandemic we on these Benches have called for a radical upgrade in the ventilation of public buildings, particularly schools. We know that is not something we can just click our fingers and do; it is more expensive and time-consuming and much harder to do than asking people to wear a mask, but it is a particularly effective intervention. Some 18 months into this pandemic, can the Minister update the House on how many public buildings now have proper ventilation systems as a result of decisions taken during the pandemic?
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Have the Opposition done any analysis of how much it would cost to implement ventilation en masse across educational settings?
Alex Norris
The hon. Member goes slightly further than I did in saying that ventilation should be rolled out immediately across all schools. Of course, that would have significant financial implications. It would also, of course, be very good for British business. We are saying that, as has been clear throughout the pandemic, better ventilation in public buildings should be a significant part of building regulations in general. What I seek from the Minister is a sense that any of that, never mind all of it, has been done at all.
Dr Murrison
Can the shadow Minister cast his mind back to the debates we had on smoking in public places? If he is suggesting properly engineered extraction ventilation, we dismissed that during those debates—although many of us would have liked to have seen it as an alternative to an outright ban—because of the sheer engineering cost of doing it. Or is he proposing simply opening windows? What exactly is he proposing when he says we need to improve ventilation? At one extreme it is going to be murderously expensive and virtually impossible, and at the other it is simply opening the window.
Alex Norris
I cannot cast my mind back to that debate—I believe I had just started secondary school when it took place—but I can foresee the issues that were raised. I would not do down the idea of opening windows; that would be a good thing to do in and of itself, and I would support that. What I am saying is that there are certain places where that will work less effectively, and we ought to have some sense, certainly building by building, of what might be an effective measure. As I said, I do not think this is something that we can just click our fingers and do easily, but I would like to get a sense that we have tried to do any of it at all, and I have yet to get that. I hope the Minister will disabuse me of that.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I raised the issue of ventilation last summer—we have known for a long time that covid is airborne—and I wrote to the Chancellor on two occasions asking him at least to remove VAT, to help businesses and public bodies that pay VAT to afford ventilation. Sticking 20% extra on the cost of a ventilation system seems quite weird in the middle of a pandemic.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, which gets to the root of the matter. We have been talking about ventilation for a long time. What I would really like to hear from the Minister is whether any progress whatsoever has been made in this area.
I turn to statutory instrument No. 1338 regarding self-isolation. The regulations introduce new rules for self-isolation after contact with a person who is suspected to have contracted the omicron variant of the virus, removing the exemptions to self-isolation. As we saw in the summer, this will be frustrating for those who would otherwise have been able to avoid self-isolation requirements by being vaccinated and who will now have to stay at home for the full period. However, as we wait to see how our vaccines and antivirals respond to the new variant, it is right that we prioritise caution and seek to limit community transmission as much as humanly possible. The Minister may have sensed colleagues’ eagerness to know more about this requirement. I hope that she will tell us when she thinks she is likely to have enough information about the variant to return to Parliament and say whether the Government feel that the regulations ought to remain.
There is, of course, a significant gap in the fence of these regulations. The gap has existed throughout the pandemic, and it is bewildering that we in the Opposition are still having to raise it. It relates, of course, to fixing sick pay. We have learned during the pandemic that the overwhelming majority of the British people want to do the right thing to protect themselves, their family and each other, but that falls short when they are forced to pit it against their need to feed their families. In both rate and availability, sick pay has proven insufficient to protect families against that horrendous choice.
These regulations will be weakened. They will be weakened when people ignore their symptoms and go to work, weakened when people say they are self-isolating and they are not, and weakened when people turn the app off to avoid being a close contact. Surely Ministers have learned this lesson over the last month. I am surprised that we did not hear more from the Minister about that.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) raised the regulations relating to red list travel. My understanding is that we are not discussing those today because they were laid via the negative procedure, but the elements relating to testing will have an impact on SI No. 1338. Last week, we suggested that the Secretary of State should begin PCR testing for those entering the country, so I am pleased the Government have listened and included day-two PCR tests in the measures announced yesterday, but there are still holes in our defences on international travel.
I am keen to hear from the Minister how she and her colleagues reached the decision to introduce only day-two testing, and not to reintroduce pre-departure tests. I am keen to know the scientific basis behind that. We have heard many reports of private tests not being followed up, especially, perhaps, by those offering the cheapest prices. What are the Government doing to enforce this and to ensure that bringing back day-two PCR tests, which we support, is effective?
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, because I am conscious of how many colleagues wish to speak in the debate. This is a concerning moment in the pandemic. We have learned over the last 18 months that it is vital that we act decisively at such moments. We are pleased to see these regulations come forward—indeed, in the case of mask wearing, it was premature to stop at all—but there is much more to do if we are to avoid being back here in the coming days and weeks, including working from home where possible, fixing sick pay and improving ventilation. The actions we need to take are clear. It is time for the Government to meet the moment.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I shall be brief, but I have a number of concerns about the regulations, the first of which is about the manner in which they have been introduced. I am glad that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) made this point in opening his remarks. Why on earth did the regulations come into force at 4 am today when we are here now, at 20 minutes to 2 in the afternoon, debating them? Surely it would have been possible to have a debate yesterday, or indeed to delay their implementation until this afternoon. I think that indicates a rather casual attitude to parliamentary scrutiny that persists in Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has asked important questions about what will happen if the regulations are renewed after the three-week period, when the House is not sitting. We still have no clarity as to whether the House would be recalled or whether the regulations would simply be extended for a period of weeks without the House having the opportunity to comment.
Mr Harper
It is also worth saying that one of the things we get from Ministers when we press them on these things is about parliamentary time, but my hon. Friend will know that the House normally sits until 10.30 pm on a Monday. Looking at yesterday’s performance, the House got to the Adjournment debate at about quarter past 7. There were hours yesterday when the House could easily have debated both these measures, which means we could have debated them before they came into force. Even the Opposition agree that that is invariably the better solution when it is at all possible.
Sir Graham Brady
Absolutely. As a former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend knows very well that there is always parliamentary time available when the Government want to do something; it is only when they are reluctant to do something that parliamentary time becomes elusive.
There is a further question as to why only one of the instruments before us has an expiry date in the regulations. Surely it would have been better to put an expiry date in place, which would have required some positive action to renew or extend the regulations if that was deemed necessary.
There are also serious concerns about the efficacy of what is proposed. We know enough about covid by now that we can see which interventions are ineffective. We can see that even full lockdowns possibly delay the spread of covid but do not eliminate it. In this instance, I am intrigued to know from the Minister exactly what action the Government propose if their research finds that this new variant is effective in evading the vaccines. Surely they do not propose to return to a full lockdown, knowing that that would simply defer the problem for a period of days, weeks or months.
Dr Murrison
If my hon. Friend recalls, the reason for lockdown was to reduce a potential impact on the national health service. Does he agree with me and everyone who has opined on the subject that there is no conceivable way in which our NHS is going to be overwhelmed by this? That would be a remarkable thing, since 90% of us have antibodies right now. Therefore, a justification for a lockdown falls away completely.
Sir Graham Brady
I am grateful to my medically qualified right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is of course right that that is unlikely. There would have to be some evidence of a very different kind of variant of covid for it to pose any kind of threat of that sort. He is also right to point out that when we first went into a lockdown, it was intended to protect the NHS for long enough for us to increase capacity in the service for a three-week period. The first lockdown then spread into three months. That is the most important thing the House should be guarding against: the mission creep that allows Governments simply to introduce restrictions and further restrictions, and then extend them, getting into the habit of regulating what we do. That is my most important concern of all.
In the summer of 2020, the Prime Minister said that it was time to move on and time to start to trust people to make decisions for themselves. I rejoiced at that and thought what a wonderful thing it was that we were moving to a point where we would advise people, inform people and make sure they had the best evidence to make decisions in their own lives. Now, however, we see the first instinct of the Government when we do not even have any evidence that the omicron variant is worse in its effects. There is some suggestion from South Africa that it might be less severe, but the Government’s first instinct is to introduce further compulsory measures and regulations relating to self-isolation and to face coverings in some settings but only until 20 December, plus measures that affect the travel industry, particularly the move back to PCR tests on day two.
Sir Desmond Swayne
We are about to have another pingdemic as we approach Christmas, to the huge disadvantage of enterprises across the country. It fundamentally undermines the other main effort of the Government, which is to increase vaccinations. One of the advantages of being vaccinated is not having to self-isolate if in the company of someone who is infected. If that is taken away, one of the incentives—the principal incentive—to get vaccinated is removed.
Sir Graham Brady
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a very serious concern that we might be entering a world where we lurch from one set of restrictions to another, where no business and no individual can get used to the idea of the freedoms they are able to exercise or what restrictions might be in force at the time.
What really concerns me—I think we all know and recognise this—is that we are dealing no longer with a pandemic, but with an endemic virus that will be with us for many, many years and probably forever in some form. Further variants will emerge. They might do so every couple of months or every year. We tend to have a new flu strain on an annual basis and some are much worse than others. But surely, we need to get back to an assumption that people will make decisions for themselves and have control over their own lives. We cannot move, as we appear to have done, to an environment in which the Government simply assume they can instruct us whenever there is the first small evidence from anywhere in the world of a new strain that might behave in a different way, and new and potentially swingeing public health measures are put in place. I ask Ministers to consider the implications of that and for looking at other diseases. Will we start to treat other diseases and viruses in the same way, assuming the best thing to do is to compel people and instruct them on what actions they need to take?
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My hon. Friend is starting to explore the issue of what happens when there is a variant. What we see from the Government thus far is a load of new measures and, possibly, the pharmaceutical companies saying, “We can make a new vaccine for that within about 90 days”. We would then have many months to get it in everyone’s arm. Having done that and gone back to a sense of freedom, another variant would emerge and we would be on that track all over again. Has he considered the madness of that type of policy?
Sir Graham Brady
We should all be afraid of the madness of that kind of policy. The difficulty is that 18 months ago, when some of us started raising these concerns, it was possible for some people to suggest that we were being fanciful. We have now lived it for 18 months and we can see this reaching ahead. We think back to when the Coronavirus Act 2020 was renewed again, taking us through to spring next year, and the assurances we were given that that would be the last time. I thought we would not need this kind of legislation again, but we see the Government’s immediate assumption that they should reach for new controls, new compulsion and new rules to inflict on the British people. We need to move away from that and back to a world where we trust people, engage with the public and recognise that the Government are there to serve the people, not the other way around.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Happy St Andrew’s Day to all Scots across the parliamentary estate, whether they were born in Scotland or are adopted Scots like myself.
We are in the early days and need more research on omicron, the new variant of concern, but clearly it is heavily mutated, including mutations that suggest increased transmissibility and mutations associated with immune escape, and that is what is causing the concern. Cases are surging in South Africa, but we do not yet have proof that those surges are directly related to omicron. One thing that has emerged from South Africa is evidence of the reinfection of people with previous proven covid infections, which we have not seen often during the pandemic.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) talks about people’s freedom to choose, but the people they might infect—especially those who are immunosuppressed or vulnerable—have the choice removed from them. It is a network. If Members have ever seen the little gif where someone drops a ping-pong ball on to mousetraps, they will realise how things spread. You may have a choice. I, as an immunosuppressed person, may therefore not.
Dr Whitford
We do not suffer the same deaths, hospitalisations or outcomes from flu. [Interruption.] Well, we don’t. Look at 170,000 deaths over the last 18 months in the UK. We certainly have bad flu winters where we can get up into the teens towards 20,000, but we have never got close to 170,000 over 18 months.
Mr Harper
I know the hon. Lady has a great deal of medical experience, but she is referring to a period when we did not have vaccination. Am I not right in thinking that in a vaccinated population, the case fatality rate of covid is not remarkably different from that of influenza?
Dr Whitford
We are still seeing hospitalisations and deaths in people who are doubly vaccinated. The reason we are delivering boosters in all four health services is because that immunity is waning. What we are concerned about with omicron is that if it is able to immune escape, it could push us backwards. Therefore, we simply do not want it to become re-established and undermine the achievement that vaccines have made.
The British Medical Journal review, to which the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) referred, showed that masks had as big an impact as hand hygiene, so surely we should do both. Neither of them has a major economic impact. We are not talking about locking down. We are not talking about shutting businesses. We are talking about everyone trying to protect everyone else, so that they can continue to be active and continue to be out in society.
It is important to remember that even if our current vaccines were shown to be less effective against omicron, they would not have no impact. We already see that impact on delta with regard to spread: the reduction is only about 50% but it has markedly reduced hospitalisation and death. We would therefore still hope for that with omicron, so pushing vaccination and encouraging people to get boosted remains as important as it always was. Delta is still by far the most dominant variant circulating in the UK.
There is no evidence as yet of differing symptoms or severity, but one of the weaknesses of the data from South Africa is that the initial outbreaks were in students. Young people tend to get milder infections and we do not yet know what omicron will be like in an older or more vulnerable population.
We have one advantage in the diagnosis of omicron: the S gene, which is one of the three genes that common PCR tests look for, is missing. That means that rather than having to wait for genomic testing, which takes quite a long time, we get a heads-up or an early warning on the PCR test. There is a sub-group with S-gene dropout, which means that the chances are that it could be omicron. Those patients could be warned and their samples can then be sent for full genomic testing. In Scotland, a retrospective review of recent PCR results looking for S-gene dropout has identified the nine patients with omicron. I assume that similar work is happening in the other nations across the UK. In contact tracing of the nine patients, there is no evidence of a connection to either COP26 or the South Africa rugby game, but tracking continues.
PCR testing is, therefore, even more important. Lateral flow tests—which, hopefully, we are all doing regularly before coming here—cannot detect variants. It is a simple yes/no that someone does themselves, with no access to take further analysis. Lateral flow tests had been allowed as part of travel testing. In the Netherlands, 600 passengers arriving from South Africa were tested and one in 10 were found to have covid—an incredibly high incidence and much higher than we have anywhere in the UK—and a fifth of those cases were already omicron. Omicron is not just in southern Africa or in the UK. As a result of the use of lateral flow tests, it is probably already more widespread than we think. It is therefore welcome that today the Government returned to PCR testing for travellers rather than lateral flow tests, and that they are quickly re-establishing quarantine, but people should have a PCR test before they travel. It is rather like shutting the stable door if we find that someone is positive when they have just spent eight hours on a plane with hundreds of other people.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady not concerned, as I am, that there is too much emphasis on PCR testing for tracking variants of concern? During a three-week period in July, there were 500,000 PCR tests, of which 7,000 were positive for covid. Only 5% of those 7,000 were tested for variants of concern, so this is not quite the silver bullet on variants of concern that she might hope it would be.
Dr Whitford
I was not claiming that it was, because genomic testing takes a couple of weeks generally and it is therefore too late for someone to isolate. What I am saying is that with this variant, as in alpha but not in delta, the missing S gene means that on that initial test—which takes six hours or until the next day, or whatever it is—we already get a heads-up that we are dealing with an omicron case. We can go on to do the genomic analysis, but we can say to the patient, “We think you have this variant. You need to isolate thoroughly and for longer.”
Craig Mackinlay
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing her medical knowledge to the House. It is very interesting, particularly on the S gene. I do not know what magic goes on in a lateral flow test. We put the drips in at one end and then one band, hopefully, appears and not two. Could a lateral flow test be adapted to be specific for this type of variant?
Dr Whitford
I think we would be talking about redesigning the test for a whole new antigen. I mentioned just one advantage that we get from PCR testing, which basically looks at genes—I will not talk about the whole long name and what PCR stands for—and the benefit is that we get a heads-up. I do not think it is feasible on any reasonable timescale to change lateral flow tests, so we are lucky that this one has S-gene dropout and that we will get an early warning.
One issue with focusing only on a day-two PCR and then, if someone is negative, they are released—unlike what is being discussed for domestic isolation—is that the incubation period of covid, generally, is much longer than two days. It has generally been reported as an average of five days and it can extend for longer. If someone who may have had contact arrives in the UK, gets a negative PCR result on day two and then goes about their business, there is a real danger that that is a false reassurance. That is why the Scottish and Welsh Governments have asked for a Cobra meeting to debate the evidence on a four-nation basis and to discuss having at least an eight-day isolation period for travellers, with a negative day-eight test required before people can be released.
The Prime Minister should listen on that, because one issue that we had in Scotland when we tried to maintain stricter and broader hotel quarantine was that the majority of long-haul passengers arrive through hubs such as Heathrow. The devolved nations have no ability to have an impact on that and we should be working with the Republic of Ireland to make the whole common travel area safer from the point of view of how we move about inside it.
Karl MᶜCartney
The Government Benches are not as sparsely populated as the Opposition Benches—and I do welcome the Opposition Members who are here—but considering what is happening later, am I right to presume that the Scottish National party, which the hon. Lady speaks on behalf of, will be supporting the Government in the vote at the end of the debate?
Dr Whitford
The reason that my colleagues are not here is that the debate is largely about the regulations in England and we do not normally vote on English matters. We have not normally voted on England’s covid regulations, but the one related aspect in these proposals is the testing and isolation of travellers. We support that but we think that it should go further.
On domestic precautions, Scotland never got rid of mandatory masks on public transport, in shops and in schools. We have not heard the Minister refer to whether the Government are planning to reintroduce mask wearing in schools. At the moment, with vaccination and its impact, we are seeing that the bulge and peak of cases among those who are unvaccinated is moving down to younger and younger teenagers and primary school children. If there will not be masks in schools, is there a plan to install CO2 monitoring and ventilation? How do we reduce the incidence in schools?
Mark Jenkinson
The hon. Lady perhaps answered some of this question, but will she set out her assessment of the impact of mask wearing in Scotland on case numbers? Is what has happened with younger children not just testament to how well we have done at keeping them apart and proof that we cannot hide from the virus when we come back together?
Dr Whitford
It is very difficult at the moment. Cases go up and down and we swap positions. At the moment, Scotland has the lowest incidence of cases at 349 per 100,000. Northern Ireland has the highest at well over 600 per 100,000. Obviously, we have whole baskets of measures, so it is harder—other than in the review that the Royal Society published last June and in the BMJ paper from a week ago—to pick out exactly which measures are having the impact. The BMJ found that masks and hand hygiene were equal in their impact and, in fact, bigger in their impact than physical distancing. To me, they enable people to engage and enable people who are vulnerable to feel safe and to come out, because otherwise, those who were shielding will be stuck in their houses all over again.
Although mask wearing was not mandatory in England, it has remained in this Government’s guidance if someone is in a busy public space. I am sorry to say that that guidance has been undermined by what Members on the Government Benches have demonstrated on television every day. Initially, when we came back in the autumn, approximately five people wore masks, then the number more than doubled to 14, and after the measure was pushed, the proportion rose to about two thirds. On the day when mask wearing in busy places is meant to be promoted, about a third of Government Members are still not wearing masks.
People will be led by the example of not just the Prime Minister, but every one of us.
Dr Whitford
I have given way a lot, and lots of other hon. Members are waiting to speak.
As for the Leader of the House’s nonsensical claim that people cannot catch covid from their friends, I have to say that words fail me—and as Members can well believe, that is not a common occurrence. It is clear that the most common spread is within households. If the Leader of the House thinks that husbands, wives and children are not friendly with one another, I really worry about his home circumstances.
It is early days, but we should be following a precautionary approach. As Dr Ryan of the World Health Organisation has always said: go early and go hard. In the last three waves, the Government often delayed making decisions until the problem was proven. I welcome the changes that they are making to try to get ahead of the curve this time, but as well as taking action on masks, they should advise those who can easily work from home to do so. They should promote “hands, face, space” again, to push it to people who may have got a little complacent.
The Government should also look at how to support the installation and improvement of ventilation. Covid is airborne. Hon. Members will remember how smoke used to hang in a pub before the smoking ban. Any Member who has ever worked in pubs, as I did as a student, will know that smoke would still be hanging there the next morning. That is the issue with poorly ventilated spaces, as we have seen from the outbreaks associated with Committee Rooms in the House.
The arrival of such a variant was inevitable. Last spring, we heard warm words about a global response to a global crisis, but while more than 85% of adults in the UK have been double-vaccinated, the figure is less than 4% in low-income countries, including many that have not been able to vaccinate their healthcare workers.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does the evolution of an immune escape variant, which omicron may be, occur because of a vaccinated immune population or because of a naive population?
Dr Whitford
I think that its emergence in southern Africa would suggest that it is from a naive population. One of the issues with our complacency here and reliance on vaccination while allowing very high case numbers is that through Darwinism it can pre-select for vaccine-resistant variants and mutations. Those are the ones that will get a grip; the ones that are vaccine-susceptible will not, because we are so vaccinated.
Allowing high spread, which means common mutations, is a problem wherever it happens, but in the naive populations in the global south there is a real danger. They do not have testing, they do not have the materials, they do not have genomics and they do not have vaccines, so the danger is that they will therefore get a variant that builds up and eventually comes to Europe and to the UK. Sending occasional batches that are almost out of date, as was reported recently to us in the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, does not allow Governments in the global south to prepare and use vaccines within date.
The UK is still among the countries blocking a TRIPS waiver. We must realise that it is not a matter of just sharing some leftover doses. We need to massively increase global population, which means sharing intellectual property and sharing technological expertise. If anything, this variant should be a reminder that no one is safe until everyone is safe.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
’Tis the season to be jolly, Mr Deputy Speaker. As my colleagues know and as you know, I am always jolly, but it is not particularly jolly at the moment. [Interruption.] I did not hear that—I shall pretend that I did not.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), whom I remember shadowing me well when I was a Health Minister. She makes very many good points, as always. Her point about vaccinating the rest of the world is absolutely right—I agree completely—but we certainly should not throw away intellectual property, because it would leave absolutely no incentive for us to produce what we have produced in this country, which is what has saved so many lives around the world. However, she is absolutely right that we should be doing more through our overseas aid effort to help the rest of the world.
It was bad enough when the extension of the Coronavirus Act 2020 was nodded through without a vote. There has been lots of excitement and flurry recently about Members of Parliament and the work that we do. There is now one Labour Back Bencher, one Liberal Democrat—albeit that she is one twelfth of the parliamentary party—and one Democratic Unionist party Member in the Chamber. I understand why SNP Members are not here in force, because they rightly do not vote on English matters, but I think that this is something that the public should be concerned about. We are making an impact on their lives today, and it is a disgrace that this House is so empty.
Is anybody other than the Minister going to speak in favour of the regulations today? In the House of Commons, in my experience of 11 and a half years, you do not just have to win the vote; you have to win the argument as well. Of course the Government will win the vote today, because the Opposition—who always say “How high do you want us to jump?” when the Government propose new restrictions on our lives—will pretend to ask difficult questions while voting for the restrictions anyway. They said that they would vote for them before they had even seen the published regulations. Frankly, I think that that is a derogation of duty from Her Majesty’s Opposition.
Okay—now I will try to be nice. I know Jenny Harries of the UK Health Security Agency well; I worked with her when I was a Health Minister. I am sorry to return to this point, but for the benefit of Ministers on the Front Bench, she said to the media this morning that people should not socialise
“when we don’t particularly need to”.
She also urged people to decrease social contact.
I understand that Downing Street has had to dismiss and distance itself from those comments this morning, and rightly so. Jenny Harries is a very careful and very professional public servant—as I say, I know her well—and she does not just say things off the cuff without thinking. If what she said is not the Government’s position, we need to know. The Minister is quite right to say, as I would have said myself, that she cannot speak for others and cannot comment on what others say, but she can say what she thinks and what the Government’s position is; that is the duty of a Minister at the Dispatch Box. If the Government do not agree with that position, it should have been said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon—ample opportunity was given for it to be said. But if that position is the policy of the Government, we are in completely different territory.
As for the regulations before the House, I do not even know where to start. They are the fly on the back of the rhinoceros. Let me start with the face coverings regulations, which expire on 20 December. I have to say that I do not much like them—I think that they go against the individual choice that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) talked about—but it is not a huge imposition on my life to wear a mask when I am in the Chamber. I choose to do so. Nor is wearing masks a huge imposition on the lives of my constituents, many of whom I see wearing them in all sorts of settings, including outside—that is their personal choice. To be honest, the face coverings regulations do not bother me greatly.
The self-isolation regulations bother me a great deal more. Under new regulation 2B(1)(ba)—I know; how are the public meant to follow this?—of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020, if one child in a class of 30 has had close contact with someone who
“is suspected of, or confirmed as, having an Omicron variant”,
presumably the other 29 are out. We are not just looking at a pingdemic in our economy and in our businesses; we are looking at a pingdemic that will devastate education again. After everything that we have learned—everything that I have felt in my own family—are we really, seriously, going to do that to our children again?
Mark Jenkinson
The explanatory memorandum tells us that the regulations make provision for
“NHS Test and Trace to notify an individual that they are a close contact”.
In fact, the detail of the legislation makes such provision not just for NHS Test and Trace, but for anyone in a local authority involved with communicable diseases.
One of my children was sent home before the school holidays to isolate for 10 days, despite being confirmed by the headteacher as not having been a close contact. That had a significant impact on the rest of the family, as hon. Members can imagine; it was based on the advice of a director of public health that the whole year group should isolate. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this is lockdown by default, through activist directors of public health and others?
Steve Brine
I do not think I would call directors of public health “activists”, although I understand that some of them play it very differently from us. It is the job of this place to get legislation and regulations right, and if we draft them in a way that makes them so wide, so loose and so flexible that any director of public health could be an “activist” if so minded, it will lie at this door, not that door. I should like the Minister, in summing up the debate, to define “suspected”, because I think there is an element of the Salem witch trials in this. What is a “suspected” case? I should like an answer from the Dispatch Box, please, before I am asked to vote for this measure.
I said in the House yesterday that the regulations, in and of themselves, were relatively mild. I have already talked about face coverings. What concerns me is the chilling effect that this is having on the rest of our society. The fact that No. 10 Downing Street, the centre of government, has taken to the national newspapers today to ask head teachers not to cancel nativity plays because of the announcement that we made on Saturday night makes me ask, “What on earth are we doing?”
We should think of the effect that this is having on confidence, on society and on hospitality. Those in hospitality have put everything into this Christmas in order to survive and to save their year. There is nothing in these regulations that says Christmas parties must be cancelled—unless, of course, Dr Harries is in charge—but there is everything in the language and the narrative coming out of the Government right now that is causing Christmas parties to be cancelled left, right and centre. I have seen organisations in my constituency cancel events that were due to happen within the next few weeks, on a “just in case” basis. These regulations will have a chilling effect, and we should not underestimate that just because it is not written in black and white.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Business Secretary should have been involved in these decisions? Does he share my concern about that? I have received several emails from travel companies in my constituency whose potential bookings have dropped off a cliff because of the cost of PCR tests. My hon. Friend mentioned a “chilling effect”, but it goes deeper than that: there is also a huge impact on business. If these regulations are to be implemented, it must surely be done hand in hand with the Chancellor and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Steve Brine
Having been a Minister of the Crown, I hope that the regulations have been through the right-round process, albeit an accelerated right-round process, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It will worry the travel industry that the regulations that have not been subject to a motion today are not being debated in the House—and yes, I am greatly concerned. I have to say that I agree with the Opposition about departure testing. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, have introduced it. I do not think that the Opposition have had an answer from Ministers about why they have not chosen to do the same, and I should like to hear an answer in the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend has touched on an important point about the process within Government to ensure that all aspects are considered. What normally happens is that regulations are thought about and there is a right-round process—which, for the benefit of those listening to the debate, means that all Government Departments have the opportunity to provide an input. One thing we have discovered is that in the case of covid regulations, that right-round process does not operate in the normal way. Through my hon. Friend, I ask the Minister to clarify in her winding-up speech whether, as these regulations were being drafted, other Departments were consulted and given the usual opportunity to provide an input, or whether this was done purely in the Department of Health and No. 10 Downing Street.
Steve Brine
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, which will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
I do not understand the timing here. What will we really know in three weeks’ time that we do not know now? This causes me to question the three-week rule. South Africa does not give us the insight into the progress of the virus, and of this variant, that we were able to take from, say, Italy—with a broadly similar European population—this time last year. South Africa has a much younger population, and, sadly, a greatly under-vaccinated population. As we heard from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, it was spreading like wildfire among students, who, of course, are younger and fitter and therefore less susceptible to serious illness as a result of this variant.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. Does he accept that the evidence from South Africa so far suggests that there have been very few hospitalisations, while we in the United Kingdom are introducing regulations that are causing economic disruption, are causing people further anxiety, and will disrupt all of Christmas because of this variant when we do not even know whether it will have a severe impact on the UK in any event?
Steve Brine
I do accept that, and I also accept that the scientists who discovered the variant said on the media at the weekend that this was often a less serious disease than the delta variant. However, notwithstanding the point that I have just made about the people whom it has affected in South Africa—younger, unvaccinated people—given that numbers are so small in this country, I fail to see how we will be any the wiser in three weeks’ time. That may explain why the isolation regulations will apply until next March. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me, through an intervention now or in winding up the debate.
Finally, let me return to the situation in my constituency. I have raised this matter twice in the House. This morning I spoke to the Winchester City primary care network, which is responsible for some 62,000 people who are on its roll. PCN patients will be contacted if they are in one of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s groups 1 to 9, if they are clinically extremely vulnerable or if they are over 50, and will have been offered a booster. The PCN expects that process to be complete by 17 December, and by the middle of January it will start to offer the booster to others. From that date onwards the booster will be offered to those aged 18 and over, following the welcome announcement from the Secretary of State during his statement yesterday.
Many of my constituents do not live in the area covered by the Winchester City PCN, but have access to vaccinations at the Badger Farm community centre. If they consult the NHS website, they are offered the opportunity to go to Salisbury, Portsmouth or Southampton. That is not easy access to the booster. In my constituency there is no easy walk-in access to it, and I am inundated by questions from constituents about why they cannot have such easy access in Winchester today. The difference between what is being said on television and by Ministers from the Dispatch Box and the reality of the access available on the frontline is growing, and it is a problem.
Steve Brine
I know that the Minister has been looking into the matter for me. We have not teed this up, Mr Deputy Speaker, but she is kindly going to intervene.
Maggie Throup
I want to reassure my hon. Friend. I heard what he said yesterday, and I have asked my office to look into it further. I will get back to him as soon as I can.
Steve Brine
I greatly appreciate that. The Minister is a good friend, and I know she is sincere. This morning I sent her some correspondence between me and the head of the new integrated care system in Hampshire, where we are trying to make progress with this. If “boosterism” works—in the context of covid-19 and this variant, which is where it probably does work—that will be all to the good, but let us get those boosters, and let us make it easy for people to get them.
I will end by reiterating that I am ambivalent about the face coverings regulations, but the isolation regulations concern me greatly. I am concerned about the timing and the conclusion of their application, and about their chilling effect, and unless I hear a very good answer to my question about the definition of “suspected”, I will not support them today.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats will support the regulations, but we have grave concerns about whether the Government are doing enough to protect people, to protect the NHS, and to buy scientists the time that they need in order to learn more about the new variant.
We know that masks are effective. We know that they reduce transmission, and they are a small price to pay for the guaranteeing of all our other freedoms. They also allow the clinically extremely vulnerable to leave their homes, which many of them have not done for a very long time. They continue to shield, cut off from society, because they do not have the confidence even to enter a shop or board a bus. I am worried by the Secretary of State’s pledge to abandon masks in a few weeks’ time if omicron proves to be no more dangerous than the delta variant, because the delta variant is still dangerous, and the NHS is already on its knees before we go into the worst of the winter.
I wish there were more support for those in self-isolation. For too long, the support has been too stingy and too hard to access. We must create a sense among people that it is their civic duty to self-isolate if they are asked to do so, and if the Government ask people to self-isolate, they must step up and provide proper financial support. I would also like to see the reintroduction of the encouragement to “work from home if you can” from the Government. The colleagues have also mentioned ventilation, on which the Government have been far too slow to act. In schools right across England, people have been crying out for ventilation for months and months, but the Government have been dragging their heels.
Alec Shelbrooke
I want to pick up on the hon. Lady’s comment about working from home. I say gently to her that a great many of my constituents have businesses that thrive on footfall in the city centre of Leeds, and that the working from home encouragement had a devastating impact on their ability to earn a living. When people say, “Let’s just work from home again”, they must recognise that there would be a very large economic impact on a great number of my constituents if that were to happen.
Daisy Cooper
I take that point. We know that many of these measures often result in a lose-lose situation. A real problem over the past 18 months has been the way in which people have tried to frame this as public health versus the economy, because for me, having a strong and healthy workforce and a strong and healthy economy are two sides of the same coin. Notwithstanding that, I am encouraging the Government to ask people to work from home where they can, in order to strike the right balance that would reduce levels of transmission. I am not suggesting a blanket mandate for everybody to stay at home; I am suggesting encouraging people to work at home where they can, in a balanced way.
Dr Murrison
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member has to say. Does she agree that the group in society that has really borne the brunt in the past 18 months is young people? They have been particularly affected by so-called work from home, and their mental health in particular—which I know her party takes a close interest in—has in many cases been devastated. I commend to her the best available evidence as published last week. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) pointed out, that evidence suggests that two interventions—that is to say, mask wearing and cleaning our hands properly—may well have some impact, but to be honest the evidence for social distancing is pretty thin. Would the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) perhaps like to reconsider the sort of swingeing measures that she appears to be recommending?
Daisy Cooper
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but I respectfully disagree with him. What we have learned over the past few months, from public health directors in particular, is that the more measures we take, the better protection we have. It is not an either/or. If we wear a mask, wash our hands and limit the amount of time spent in close proximity to someone else, we limit our overall chances of either catching covid or passing it on. The more measures we can take, the better. Notwithstanding that, when I was talking about working from home, I was not referring to children studying at home. I was talking about the working population. I recognise that there have been enormous impacts—
Daisy Cooper
Ah, okay. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was talking about schools and young people. Of course there have been major issues for young people, but when I was talking about working from home, I was talking about the working population. On the question of students at universities, of course there needs to be a balance. Many universities got it wrong during the pandemic, and I said so at the time. I was utterly appalled when some universities put railings around the student accommodation. We need to strike a balance. This is about reducing our contacts to reduce transmission. There is nothing to prevent university students from going in to study, if that is the point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make.
Dr Murrison
How on earth does the hon. Lady think that we can mandate or suggest that people work from home but then expect students to tip up? University is about being taught, and being taught requires people to go to work. Or have I missed something?
Daisy Cooper
Something appears to have been lost in translation here. I am not entirely sure whether the right hon. Member is referring to students or to the academics who teach them. I am talking about encouraging people to work from home where they can. There are of course examples where people will need to go into work, and they can change the ways in which they work, but working from home has been proven to reduce levels of transmission.
I am concerned that we are talking solely about the new variant, and that the mantra around putting in place restrictions to protect the NHS appears to have stopped. I worry that the Government appear to have lost their tongue. Ambulance services across the whole of England are at their highest alert level: level 4, or code black. That means that there are people in the back of ambulances who cannot get into hospitals. The NHS 111 line has had more than 1 million calls abandoned after 30 seconds this year, when they should be answered within 20 seconds. We have GPs who are reducing their hours or resigning because of the workload and the abuse. Some of them are really worried and saying that they will not to take on the contracts to deliver the booster jabs because of the expectation that they will still have to do the same amount of work seeing their patients and that if they are required to do the booster jabs as well, that will mean longer waits for other appointments. They are not getting the support they need in that regard, and I hope that the Minister will respond to this point. We have record backlogs—
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s comments, and I wish that she had amplified them more in regard to the ambulance service. I represent a large rural constituency, as many colleagues do, and if people are waiting for ambulances because people are queueing at the acute sector because others cannot be discharged, that is going to lead to huge problems during the winter months. Does she agree that that is something we should all keep at the forefront of our minds?
Daisy Cooper
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I have tried to raise that issue as often as I can through various means, and that is probably all I can say on the matter. Back in October, I tabled a written question to the Government to ask how many ambulance services were at level 4, and it took a couple of attempts at chasing that up before I got a response. I believe that hon. Members would benefit from having time to debate the issue in this House. In my own constituency of St Albans, there have been some incredibly tragic cases. A woman lost her baby because she was stuck in the back of an ambulance for many hours without being able to get into the local hospital. Another constituent lost their partner because they were stuck in the back of an ambulance for 12 hours and then died a week later because they had not been able to get that emergency treatment—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Important though this matter is, the hon. Lady does appear to be straying. Could she please get back to the regulations that we are discussing?
Daisy Cooper
The point that I am trying to make is that the Government are framing the introduction of these specific restrictions in terms of whether or not there is extra transmissibility from the new variant. My concern is that they are not talking about whether we need these restrictions, and perhaps others in the future, because of the pressures on the NHS in its broadest sense.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady is making an important and relevant point. Would she not accept, however, that these restrictions place a burden on businesses, on people’s individual freedom and on the operation of the education system, all to deal with a problem that is not going to go away as long as we have patients going to accident and emergency because their GPs are not seeing them, and as long as we have patients taking up beds in hospitals because they are not going into care? This will not be solved simply by introducing more regulations that put the burden on private industry because of the failures of the health service.
Daisy Cooper
I disagree with some of those points. As a liberal, I believe fundamentally in giving people the most personal freedom they can have up to the point at which it interferes with the personal freedom of others. We hear a lot in this House about personal freedom, particularly from those on the Conservative Benches, but there is very little discussion about our broader responsibilities to others. That is the challenge that we as legislators have in this House: it is about getting the balance right. I do not think this is about putting restrictions on businesses because of the failures of our health service. GPs in particular are struggling with their workloads and with the abuse resulting from campaigns against them that are being led by national newspapers. If we had a stronger workforce to deal with these issues, and if the NHS had not been run into the ground, we would have more frontline health workers to deal with these problems right now. However, I am mindful of the Deputy Speaker’s entreaty to stick to the regulations, to which I now want to return.
As I said at the start, we will support these regulations. I agree with other Members that it is vital we have full scrutiny of any decision to repeal, extend or renew the regulations in any shape or form in the coming weeks. I implore the Government to take action and consider these restrictions in the light not only of this new variant but of the overall pressures across our NHS, whether on GPs, ambulance services or elsewhere.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). I absolutely agree with her when she says she wants to maximise personal freedom. Unfortunately, most of her speech seemed to be about quite the reverse. I do not understand the lack of consistency, or perhaps I do, because I have been familiar with the Liberal Democrats over so many years.
There is a fundamental fallacy in the hon. Lady’s argument about masks, which is brought out in paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum:
“Evidence demonstrates that face coverings are effective, when worn correctly, at reducing virus transmission.”
Very few people wear their face mask correctly. The World Health Organisation’s advice says that people should wash their hands as soon as they take off their face mask, that they should discard temporary face masks and that they should wash their hands again when they put on a fresh face mask.
I had a discussion with Mr Speaker on this subject some months ago and, while we were having that discussion, one of our colleagues came into the Tea Room wearing a mask, took it off and put it on the breakfast table. I said to Mr Speaker that it really makes my point. Frankly, if we are talking about public hygiene and public health, the Government should be saying, “If you think you want to wear a mask, go and wear a mask but, for crying out loud, make sure you don’t contaminate yourself and others by not wearing it correctly.”
I cannot support these oppressive, authoritarian and dictatorial regulations, which are neither necessary nor desirable. They will have an adverse effect on lives, livelihoods and the mental health of our constituents. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care considers that
“the requirements imposed by these Regulations are proportionate to what they seek to achieve, which is a public health response to the threat.”
Where is the evidence? The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), adduced no evidence whatsoever, and there is no regulatory impact assessment—the excuse is that the regulations will be in force for less than a year. Why is there no regulatory impact assessment? Why are we being asked to support a policy for which there is no evidence?
If there had been a regulatory impact assessment, there would be a requirement on the Government under the regulation rules of the Cabinet Office to put forward the possible alternatives to these regulations. We need goal-setting requirements, rather than prescription. More and more prescription seems to be the Government’s recipe.
To take an example, why is a shopkeeper not allowed to permit people to shop without wearing a face covering, provided those people have had a proper vaccination? Why is the keeper of a small shop not allowed to keep their front door open and allow people to go in and out without the need to wear a face covering—there would be adequate ventilation—or perhaps, as some small shops in my constituency do, have a one-in, one-out rule so that there is only one person in the shop with them? Why are we not allowing shops to have that freedom?
If we want to have a consistent policy, why are we treating those who have been fully vaccinated in the same way as those who have not been fully vaccinated? That seems to be wholly inconsistent with the regulations introduced by the Government in relation to people who work in care homes, and they propose to bring in similar restrictions for those working in the health service. If, having required those people to be double-vaccinated, we are saying that they are not in a privileged position when it comes to going into their local shop, what is the point of depriving those who have not been double-vaccinated of their right to work? There does not seem to be any consistency.
Daisy Cooper
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the major incentive for people to be vaccinated is to reduce their own chances of hospitalisation and death, not just so they can go to the local pub, shop or anywhere else?
Sir Christopher Chope
I hope the hon. Lady accepts that people should be free to make their own decision on whether they wish to be vaccinated. I am therefore extremely nervous about backdoor proposals to require vaccine passports. I do not believe people’s freedom should be conditional on taking compulsory medication, which is why I am against the provisions in the Health and Care Bill on compulsory fluoridation. To that extent, I am probably on the same side of the argument as she is.
A mood of increasing intolerance is being engendered towards those who have a reasonable excuse for not wearing a face covering. Paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum makes it clear
“people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse”
but that is not being promoted by the Government. Regulation 5 says:
“For the purposes of regulations 3(1) and 4(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include”—
this is the important point—
“those where P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability…or without severe distress”.
That is one reasonable excuse, but there are many others. The Government seem to be rather conflicted or muddled, because paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum says:
“Nobody who has a reasonable excuse and is therefore not wearing a face covering should be prevented from visiting any setting because of the requirements in these Regulations. Furthermore, people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse under the Regulations.”
In other words, people do not have to show a face covering exemption certificate, such as this one from Hidden Disabilities. I see quite a lot of people wearing these certificates but, as soon as people have to wear them, they are asked questions, “Well, what are your disabilities?” Most of my disabilities are well hidden, and I intend to keep them hidden. It is unreasonable that we should be creating an environment in which people are being challenged, and being encouraged to be challenged, on their personal and private health.
That brings me to the conflicting content of paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum. It may just be a misprint, but it says:
“The Department has also included a range of exemptions to ensure that this policy does not unfairly discriminate against those with protected characteristics. Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should be challenged by members of the public for not wearing a face covering.”
Surely it should say “should not be challenged”. I do not understand it, because paragraph 15.3 says:
“Maggie Throup, the Parliamentary under Secretary of State”—
she is sitting on the Front Bench—
“can confirm that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.”
If it was indeed a misprint, the explanatory memorandum does not meet the required standard. If it is not a misprint, it is a serious contradiction within the explanatory memorandum and seriously undermines people’s freedom to go about their business without having impertinent remarks and questions put to them by busybodies acting on behalf of enforcement authorities.
Alec Shelbrooke
My hon. Friend has been a Member of this House far longer than I have. Is there a mechanism where that could be clarified before today’s vote?
Sir Christopher Chope
The mechanism is for the Minister to intervene on me, and I am happy to give way to her, to say that it is a misprint, or it is a deliberate confusion—it is to confuse the punters, so we can have it both ways. That might be the response of a Liberal Democrat, were there one on the Front Bench. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that serious point.
Obviously, people out there will be wondering about exemptions and reasonable excuses. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, drew attention in his intervention to the fact that young people are going around in shopping centres saying that they have a reasonable excuse for not complying with the regulations and for not wearing face masks. What is the problem with that? If people have a reasonable excuse for not wearing face coverings, let us not get too fussed about it. That is why these regulations are part of a scaremongering propaganda campaign on the part of the Government that is designed to try to stop or restrict social interaction between social animals who happen to be living in the United Kingdom. That is potentially the most damaging aspect of the regulations before us today: they are designed to suppress freedom of the individual and to suppress social contact and they are doing that through unreasonable fearmongering.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Yesterday, I intervened on the Secretary of State and during his statement he repeated to me:
“we will not keep measures in place for a day longer than necessary.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 679.]
With that assurance in mind, I thought I would come to listen to this debate and speak on behalf of the transport sector, which relates to my Select Committee, willing to support these measures as proportionate measures in circumstances where we do not know whether the new variant will have an impact on transmissibility and on our vaccine effectiveness. On regulations 1340, on face coverings, I can get there in that regard because they expire on 20 December and they are well set out. I have concerns about the way the transport sector is somewhat singled out, albeit with retail, as perhaps being an unsafe setting, whereas hospitality is marked differently. If we put £10 billion into the rail network alone just to keep it going, sending out a message that it is a less safe setting than a pub or restaurant will not be the way to give people confidence to get back on to that network which we need to survive.
I also have concerns about what happens on the buses, given what I witnessed today. That may well have been because people had not tuned into this debate and did not realise that these regulations had already come into force. People are still getting on board without a face covering. Despite the powers given to drivers to ensure that they do not do so, there is no questioning and on they go. Not only does that wind people up, but it leaves others thinking, “What’s the point in bothering? If not everyone is wearing a mask, what’s the purpose of anyone wearing one?” However, I can get there on those regulations because of the unknowns that we need to deal with.
One of the wonderful things about coming into this Chamber is to be educated. I might make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) has made: perhaps more of us can come here and be educated. I have grave concerns about the issues around regulation 1338, on self-isolation. If the aim is for us to be covered for no longer than is necessary, why do they have no end date and default to 24 March? The impact of these regulations is even greater than our having to wear a face covering for longer periods because, as has been mentioned, we could well be back to “pingdemic” territory.
I emphasise that the regulations mean that, regardless of a vaccination having been given, one has to self-isolate for a period of time if there is a suspicion that one has been in contact with someone who has the omicron variant. Right now, and perhaps for the period up to 20 December, I can understand that the suspicion would perhaps be linked, as the transmission rates are slower to build—one would hope that would be so for the next few weeks—to whether one had been in contact with someone who had been in South Africa, or something on those lines. If, however, we move to 24 March and the variant has spread fast but, as we hope, it has not had a negative impact on the vaccine, we could see the default option being, “I have come into contact with somebody who has covid. I did not know whether they had omicron or not, because that does not tell me that. Therefore, I must be cautious, as we are always told to be. Therefore, I must self-isolate.” Then we could see the whole country being pinged again, as it has been before.
The situation could even be worse than that. If it turns out, as is currently being discussed in South Africa, that although the strain may transmit quickly it may not have the same impact as even the delta variant, stopping people being out and about may make things worse, because they will not get the antibodies that we want them to get. Surely those on our Front Bench are aware of that. The beta variant was a variant of concern, and the amber-plus regulations were brought in, as there was a concern that beta would have been worse against the vaccine than delta. It turned out that one dose of AstraZeneca was more effective against the beta strain than two doses of it were against delta. So variants of concern can quickly turn out not to be a concern at all.
That is why we must make sure that our legislation stops and is flexible and nimble, yet these regulations will roll on until 24 March. That is what our job in this place is about; I can agree in principle that there is a need to take measures, but I cannot vote for legislation that does not actually do what I believe the Government intended it to do. There are options, and they can be used right now. The Minister could stand at the Dispatch Box and find a way to reassure those of us who have the same concern. Alternatively, the default option for me is to vote against this legislation, not because I disagree with the principle, but because I disagree with voting for legislation that I know to be poor, badly drafted and not to meet the intention. Surely we should not be stubborn and pig-headed when legislation does not work; we should fix it or we should vote against it.
I have one last point to make in relation to a motion that I thought would be before us but is not—one that deals with the restrictions on travel and the introduction of PCR testing. Yesterday, the Secretary of State also reassured me that PCR testing would not be expensive and that we would not be at the mercy of unscrupulous providers, as we saw happen during the summer. A wise person just told me about an incidence of a three-hour PCR test, which many will need to take in order not to have to self-isolate—that is good for the economy—costing more than £200. Why are these regulations being laid under the negative procedure? We need to be discussing that legislation and finding the pitfalls, as we have with the regulations before us—I applaud my colleagues for doing so this afternoon—yet they are not even being brought forward.
Alec Shelbrooke
I wish to return to the point I made earlier, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my genuine concern. As he said, we are here today because of a variant that has been discovered. More variants are going to be discovered and the cost of the PCR test will make people think carefully about going abroad, and that is going to have a devastating impact on the high street, travel agents and holidays. Does he agree that this issue has to be taken as a whole, and that it cannot be separated out so that every time there is a variant we say that we have to shut everything down?
Huw Merriman
I do agree with that, and it is a good point for me to end on. Let us look at not just the consumer, but those who work in aviation. Some 5,000 jobs have been lost on a monthly basis since February 2020 in that area; this has been an absolute disaster for the aviation and international travel sector, and for those who want to trade around the world. We had just started to see the easing of restrictions, with no damage to public health at all. My right hon. Friend is right to say that we need to learn lessons. It is okay for us to take tentative steps perhaps this once, on a limited basis, but we cannot keep shutting down parts of the economy every time there may be a variant of concern. Otherwise, to quote the Prime Minister, we will never “live with” this virus.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I understand the dilemma that the Government face and are in. There are two main questions that we need to ask and to which we all—including the Government as much as anyone—want to know the answer: first, what is the state of the omicron variant’s resistance to our vaccine programme? Secondly, if someone becomes infected, is their illness weaker or worse than it would have been with the delta variant that we have got used to? In some ways, it does not matter what happens with the vaccine if the omicron variant does not cause bad illness. Frankly, if it does not cause bad illness, I do not care about this thing at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) just made an interesting point: if, as we all hope, the omicron variant is weaker than the delta variant in terms of illness and effect, we are going backwards a long way today, because we will all have to lock down when we get the text, email or phone call to tell us we have been close to somebody with the new variant. That makes little sense at all.
Let me address the proposals before us in some sort of order. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I do not have too many concerns about the face-mask regulations: they are an extension of rules that we have pretty much got used to and there is very little difference from what I have been doing on public transport, where I have been wearing masks religiously. I am still a little bemused as to how a fairly flimsy mask with a filter size that is far greater than a coronavirus particle can somehow be the salvation, but so be it. I am not terribly concerned about that.
We are, though, left with a gross absurdity that will perhaps face everyone in the House over the next few weeks. When someone goes to the off-licence on the way to a party later, it might take them only 45 seconds to get their tiple of choice but they will have to wear a mask on pain of a fine. They can then make their way to a house party, with 100 people or perhaps more—perhaps an infinite number of people—where it will be enclosed, warm, cosy and friendly and they can take that same face mask off. Really? It is an infantile proposal and we are in danger of falling down the same absurdities as we fell down before, with the madness of the couple who could walk across a golf course but dare not play on it. This is the absurdity that I have voted against previously and will vote against again.
Let me move on to the self-isolation requirements. I am afraid that the proposals mean we are going to fall into a new pingdemic. There is nothing in the regulations, in anything the Minister has said or in anything else I have heard to date to say that the testing regime will be backed up with proper genome sequencing at the right rate, so we can get back to a situation in which people can be told, “No, your contact was not omicron. You’re fine.” My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester picked up on a very dangerous phrase in the regulations, and that is “suspected of”. I do not know what that means. I know what “confirmed as” means—to be confirmed through a proper genome-sequence test—but what about “suspected of”? When people get that phone call, text, email or ping from the NHS—if they have been daft enough to have the app on their phone—are they now going to hear, just because the words “suspected of” have been added, “Thou shalt be held indoors for 10 days”? This is where we end up with mission creep and the chilling effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned.
I am going to be somewhat concerned about going to that Christmas party or that pub, because I have friends and family coming round for Christmas day. This legislation is going to have a dangerous pingdemic effect, either through a proper pingdemic or just through the effect of fear. I asked the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who spoke for the SNP and is knowledgeable on these matters, whether we might be able to get a new lateral flow test that is specific to omicron, but I think the answer is possibly no. We are in a confused state and I am concerned that the regulations will shatter businesses that are getting ready for Christmas. With the support of Opposition parties, sadly the regulations are likely to go through.
I am somewhat confused, as are many other Members, that we are not considering the regulations on travel today. It seems somewhat bizarre. There is a new requirement for a PCR test within two days. I am afraid we have seen far too much of what I call wild-west behaviour out there when people try to obtain a test. We have a well-established, well-working, accurate and fast PCR network that has stood up throughout the whole country. For instance, I can go on the NHS website and organise a PCR test tonight, probably within a mile or two of where I live, and I would probably get a result back tomorrow. The system works very well and that is to the Government’s credit. We went down a stage, for good reason, and said that lateral flow tests for people who travel in are fine. We are now back to the confusion—do lateral flow tests work or do they not work? If they work, surely that will do; if they do not work—if they are not reliable—why on earth have we spent billions of pounds over the past few months and why are everybody’s draws and cupboards full of these things, which are handed out like candy in the streets? It is something of a nonsense.
We have not yet discussed the regulations on the travel restrictions, so perhaps we have a chance of changing them for the good. We are introducing new requirements so it is only fair that we offer the ability to meet those requirements within the NHS PCR testing system, either for free or at a minimal cost. That way, we will not have these situations involving what I have described as wild-west companies that have not served us well.
Sadly, we are allowing ourselves to go back into a rabbit hole, and I am concerned that we will never get out. Last year, before we had the big vaccine roll-out, there were reasonable reasons, although I did not support them, for the levels of restrictions: we were waiting for the cavalry of the vaccinations and wanted to protect the NHS from being overloaded. We did that, it all worked and we got back to a semblance of normality. But we have a new variant, so we introduce new measures, then await a new vaccine formulation, then wait another few months to get that into people’s arms, and then we might be able to go back to normality—but then we will find another new variant and do it all over again. This has to stop. We have to live with this ever-changing virus. Enough is enough: it is done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I see five people standing; the debate has to finish at 3.58 pm and we all want to give the Minister sufficient time to be able to respond to the number of important questions asked during the debate, so will people be mindful of the length of their contribution?
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I shall endeavour to be mindful of that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and shall try to put some of those questions on the record for the Minister.
As many Members have said, and the chief scientific adviser agrees, covid is going to be with us forever and variants are going to be with us forever. This is the first test that we—the Government, the House and society—face in respect of how we deal with covid in a post-vaccine world, where we have vaccines and have vaccinated most of our population. It is important that we do not mess this up and fail that test. It seems to me that we need to respond calmly and proportionately, so I give the Government credit for resisting the calls for the economically damaging measures in plan B. Working from home, for example, does have significant economic consequences, as we saw from the Treasury’s own analysis. Vaccine passports are both illiberal and, as we have seen from the evidence—or lack of evidence—from Scotland, ineffective, so they are the worst of all worlds. They are an ineffective and illiberal policy, and we certainly do not want them introduced here.
Before I deal with the measures, I want to pick up on the point about the NHS made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. She is absolutely right that the NHS is facing significant pressure, but it is not facing pressure from the number of patients in hospital because of covid, which is around 6% of total bed capacity. The NHS is under enormous pressure dealing with the significant number of patients who were both unable to be treated and scared away from the national health service during the pandemic. We must be careful not to repeat the mistake and scare away a whole new set of patients, as it will take the NHS another very significant period of time to deal with them. There is nothing about the measures that she suggested that will deal with those pressures; they will just make them worse.
Daisy Cooper
Although I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion that covid accounts for 6% of patients in hospitals, I urge him to think about the impact that covid in-patients have in the hospital setting. We know, for example, that for every one patient being treated, an entire ward can be taken out, because it has to be cleaned and if a staff member catches covid, they have to take time off work. I have asked the Government to produce an assessment and provide this House with the details of the impact of covid patients on the availability of beds, staff and elective procedures. Will he support me in asking the Government again to provide that assessment so that we can take an informed decision in this House as to whether these restrictions are necessary and how they may or may not help?
Mr Harper
I support the hon. Lady’s general call for transparency, but my point about the numbers is not an assertion; it is about looking at the data and seeing how many patients are in hospital because of covid. That information is published. It is not an assertion, but a fact. Secondly, if hospital trusts do what my trust does, they put covid patients together in hospital. My trust currently has one ward full of patients. It clearly has an impact, but it is not the thing that is causing the biggest problem. The biggest problem in my trust is that it has at least three or four times the number of patients who are not able to be discharged because of inadequate social care. That is the point that I have made several times in the House.
Mindful of your admonition to be relatively brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me touch on the regulations in front of us. On the face-covering regulations, they are relatively not damaging economically. I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), and I agree that it is disappointing that we have moved away from a model where the Government lay out the evidence and the arguments and allow people to make their own decisions. That was a big choice that the Government made last year, and I am very disappointed that they have moved away from it. Weighing against that—this was set out very clearly by the Chairman of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), a distinguished former public health Minister—is that at least those regulations have quite a tight expiry date, and they will expire in three weeks’ time. Although I do not like the move back to mandating, I am prepared on this occasion—balancing up the pressures, and because there is an expiry date—not to oppose the regulations, but I will not support them either.
On the self-isolation regulations, I am afraid to say that I am much more concerned, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, for two reasons. First, while Ministers have been clear that the regulations will be reviewed in three weeks—I will press the Minister on what we might learn in those three weeks—the regulations are not time limited; they amend another set of regulations that do not have an expiry date until March next year. Although the Minister tells me that they will not be enforced for a day longer than necessary, she must recognise that, given the events of the past few weeks and how Ministers handled, among other things, the standards measures, there has been a diminution in trust between Back Benchers and Ministers. Ministers must work hard to rebuild that trust. Having open-ended statutory instruments that do not expire for many months—when they are telling us that the measures only need to be in place for a few weeks—is not, I say respectfully to the Minister, how to build that trust.
Secondly, there is the point that my hon. Friend made. Let us remember that we are making the law, which should always be clear, precise and specific so that people know what their legal responsibilities are and what they are not. I am afraid that reference in the regulations to people who are “suspected” or “confirmed” as having the omicron variant, with no detail about what that is, is simply not good enough. I was trying to be genuinely helpful to the Minister when I intervened on her. I wanted to give her the opportunity to set out in her opening remarks—and I hope she will do so in her closing remarks—how the Government determine whether someone has the suspected omicron variant and what measures have been taken in terms of the scripts that are used by NHS Test and Trace, the information provided to people whom it contacts, the training that staff undergo, and, indeed, whether the app is to be changed to deal with the new regulatory approach. I am afraid that nothing in the regulations that I have seen gives me any confidence that those matters have been properly thought through. Despite what the Minister may or may not say at the Dispatch Box, the law should be clear in the regulations, and it simply is not. On that basis—how the regulations are drafted—I will oppose them.
Mindful of your instructions, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have only a couple more points. When I said that I was worried that the regulations would trigger a new pingdemic, it was picked up in a number of publications. Politico’s London Playbook, which is much read in the Westminster village, said that a Government insider, trying to allay concerns about a pingdemic, had argued that, because people no longer check into restaurants or pubs, they will not be contacted by NHS Test and Trace. They said that contact tracers are really only interested in catching contacts of cases coming into the country on planes. If that is true, I would suggest that the £30,000 million-odd we spend on Test and Trace is not terribly useful. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed at the Dispatch Box whether what that Government insider has said is Government policy.
It has also been reported in the Financial Times that officials in the Department of Health and Social Care are drawing up contingency plans to require masks in many indoor settings, with a possible work-from-home order over Christmas. Apparently, these plans are being worked on by officials. Will the Minister confirm whether officials are working on such contingency plans? If they are not working on them under instructions from Ministers, can she, as a Minister, instruct them to stop working on such contingency plans and focus on the Government’s actual policies?
My final point is the one that I made yesterday. Ministers have said that they will review the measures in three weeks’ time, as of yesterday. That would be 20 December, when the House will have risen for the Christmas recess—I touched on this in my intervention on the Opposition spokesman. If any of the measures are to be extended, or if further measures are to be brought in, it would be unacceptable for Ministers to do it by decree, which is effectively what the Minister at the Dispatch Box did with these two orders. They should be brought forward to this House for a debate in advance of their coming in. If we have to sit in the days running up to Christmas, so be it. Many people in this country work over the Christmas period in many industries serving the public. We are better paid than most of those people, so if we have to come here and do our jobs, working on behalf of the public, to scrutinise the laws that affect their lives, then I for one am very happy to do so. It would be a failure of the responsibilities that Ministers have if they do not seek to keep the House sitting or recall it if they wish to take those powers. Ministers are accountable to the House and to our constituents through us, and they would be wise never to forget it.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I refer to the declarations that I have made relating to the Covid Recovery Group.
I am especially pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), with whom I agree. I will try to elaborate on some of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who made a particularly brilliant speech.
My starting point is that today’s debate is not really about the incremental inconvenience of the mandating of face masks. I repeatedly chose to wear one on the train recently when it was not mandatory to do so, but that is not the point today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West implied, the issue is that we are taking away the public’s right to choose what they do, based on flimsy and uncertain evidence. We do not know the extent to which this new variant will escape the vaccines and we do not know how harmful it would be. This debate goes to the heart of the nature of the society that we are creating.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about the harm principle. I entirely endorse the idea that our liberty should be constrained by the harm that we do, but in an intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West made the point about flu: now that we have got the case fatality rate down to a comparable level with that of flu, we should be living with coronavirus like we live with flu. As my hon. Friend asked, are we going to manage other diseases like this?
Let me turn to the point that I really want to flesh out. The Government’s approach seems to be to say, “Better safe than sorry. You can’t be too careful.”. The trouble is that we really can be too careful. There is a problem that I call tunnel vision and my friend, Professor Paul Dolan from the London School of Economics, calls situational blindness, whereby we end up looking only at the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has set out brilliantly the harm that will be done to children. I cannot begin to understand the psychological harm to children of being in masks all the time; we cannot go back and repeat the experience of a missed nativity play, and so on.
The economic cost of the coming pingdemic will be huge. Only today, the problems that Virgin Atlantic will have were on the front page—and fleshed out in the business section—of The Daily Telegraph. If the Government keep going down this path in these circumstances, when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, the disease is going to be endemic and we must learn to live with it, and if we panic every time that there is a new variant—and there will be new variant after new variant—we will make entire sections of our society uninvestable, such as airlines, hospitality and tourism—many of the things that give us joy, hope and something to look forward to.
Where is the hope from the Government? I know young people who are demoralised and depressed, and who have been telling me that we will go back into lockdown, and I have been saying, “No, because the vaccines are working and I do not believe that Conservative Ministers will do this to us”, but we have already started to see the scope creep, the mission creep, and the goalposts perhaps being slightly unshackled from the ground, ready to be moved.
Today’s debate is not about face coverings or the coming pingdemic through self-isolation measures. It is about how we react and the kind of nation and civilisation that we are creating in the context of this new disease. What is the relationship between the state and the individual? Are we to be empty vessels or mere automata—things to be managed, as if a problem? Or are we free spirits with, for want of a better term, a soul? We are free spirits with a soul—people who deserve the dignity of choice and the meaning in our lives that comes from taking responsibility. It is possible that meaning in our lives comes from little else. This is a fundamental choice between heading towards heaven and heading towards hell. If we continue to react to these fears and uncertainties by taking the authoritarian course, without impact assessments—because the regulations are only temporary, you know—we are embarked on that downward course.
Even loneliness shortens lives. Again, Paul Dolan has been very clear with me that loneliness cuts lives short, and yet we find an official going beyond Government policy to say that we should not have unnecessary socialising. The most extraordinary set of choices are being taken because of an overwhelming, narrow focus on the one issue of coronavirus. It falls on Ministers to provide the lead, the breadth of thinking, the vision and the values to set out what broad kind of society we are trying to create. Where are we going as a society and civilisation? What will be our redemption and salvation? How will we provide that hope for our future? I believe that it will be by having faith in one another. The public are not fools. We are not here to govern idiots. I have faith in the British public that they can choose for themselves to do the right thing: to wear a mask when it is sensible, to pay attention to the level of cases, to choose for themselves whether they go to a restaurant, and, indeed, to choose whether they visit vulnerable relations in care homes—I could tell a sad story about that point.
Before I finish, I need to put on the record one constituency case. I have a 75-year-old constituent who is stranded in South Africa, with flights out of the country cancelled. He has a pre-existing anxiety disorder and will run out of medication in a matter of days. He is struggling to find accommodation, and now has to find a local source of new prescription medication. If that man is suffering for the greater good, let my hon. Friend the Minister say so. The rights of individuals really matter; justice is about how individuals are treated. Yes, of course we should care about overall social outcomes, but the rights of individuals really matters, and how we treat those people really matters. That man matters. He should not be stuck in South Africa. He planned to go there and come back, and his plans have been cut short, causing him immense suffering.
There is no plausible path set out before us that leads to a genuine public health emergency, yet the Government are choosing to react in this way. As a result, I am afraid that the Government are choosing that downward path towards, frankly, hell—the hell of minute management of our lives by edict, with nothing that we can do about it and not even a say in advance in Parliament—and, incredibly, a clear majority of this House is going along with it. Some of us today have to take a decision to vote no to everything. I, for one, intend to chart a course towards heaven, and I hope that hon. Members will come with me.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow such a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).
Today’s debate is fundamentally about uncertainty—uncertainty about omicron. It looks spooky, and it seems to be out-performing other variants in Africa. Why? Who knows. We do not know whether it is going to be more harmful or less harmful; we just do not know.
The problem with these restrictions is also uncertainty. Their direct effect is certainly not trivial. They are going to batter the international travel sector, which has already taken an absolute battering over the past two years. They will yet again have a disproportionate impact on children, when we see the collapse of bubbles in schools because of omicron and our children having to wear face masks at disproportionately high rates compared to adults; yet again, children are going to be the most affected. Sadly, that has been the story of the pandemic thus far.
The real harm from these restrictions is the, “Here we go again.” That is how I felt when the 5 pm press conference on a Saturday was announced again. In the click of a finger, I was back to 2020. I think that everyone at home watching was starting to worry and think, “What is going to come next? Here we go—is this the start of the ratchet again, moving monotonously and inexorably towards higher and increasing restrictions?”. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was exactly right when he said that it is this chilling effect that does, and is doing, the most harm.
Immediately, I started thinking, “Shall we hold off on ordering the booze for my 40th birthday party in a couple of weeks? Shall we just wait and see what happens?”. There are stories of countless events that we already anticipate will be cancelled, thinking, “Let’s hold off on making clear arrangements about seeing our parents at Christmas” and “Let’s just hold off on ordering the goose or the turkey”. All this has a snowballing impact.
I remember, as I think many people do, when it was just three weeks to flatten the curve. Heaven forbid that because of this chilling effect, people at home say to themselves, “You know what, actually? That lump I found? Let’s not bother the GPs. They’re too busy—too much to deal with, with covid.”. That is a serious and severe concern.
There is a final uncertainty that gives me the most trouble: how much we will really know in three weeks’ time. We know that it takes three weeks to get from infection to hospitalisation and three weeks from hospitalisation to get to death. We have only just started finding our domestic omicron cases. Will we really know from our domestic data in three weeks’ time what on earth omicron looks like: what it is doing, how transmissible it is, and the impact it is having on our NHS? Can we really compare international data with ours? We have had a phenomenal vaccine roll-out. We celebrate the impact of our vaccine roll-out and the booster: it is far better than many other nations’. Are we really comparable in those terms, whatever data ends up coming out across the world? I am really uncertain that we will know in three weeks’ time what is going to happen and what our next steps, if anything, should be.
In the face of the uncertainty that all of us are feeling, where can we find confidence? I would argue: here. Here is where the public find confidence, because they see us standing here debating and scrutinising, raising their points and concerns, chewing over in the most minute detail the SIs that are coming forward, and challenging the Minister on why we are doing what we are doing—having a great debate across the House on these issues. They see this and they have confidence that whatever we do in going forward, and whatever impact we are having on people’s day-to-day lives, we have scrutinised it—that we are here representing them and making sure that we make the best possible decisions.
We have some big decisions to take in three weeks and I do worry about what is going to happen then. Will the data from omicron be bad, will it be good, or will it be “not sure”? Parliament must be able to debate this, being recalled if necessary or, better yet, not going into recess until we have the data so that we know what our next steps should or should not be. For me, in terms of ending uncertainty, I would be grateful if the Minister gave certainty that Parliament will have its say whatever happens in two or three weeks’ time in terms of our response to the omicron variant or wider variants that may pop up between now and then.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I thank them for their fantastic leadership on this issue.
I want to develop one point specifically: I believe that Government must take a balanced view. I accept the argument made by various people, including the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), that the precautionary principle is good. I think we can be criticised for potentially not acting quickly enough at the beginning of the pandemic two years ago, but overreaction is not good. We have had a damaging obsession with a very narrow view of what we perceive to be health. The poorer you are and the younger you are in this society, the higher the price you have paid, and that is not acceptable.
I look at this debate and this motion in the context of some dreadful forecasts and dreadful assessments that have driven Government’s nervousness. I want to explore them and put them on record because I believe it is in the public interest, but I do so within the terms of the motion. I want to look particularly at Imperial College and Professor Ferguson. I have a great deal of respect for them and I will be careful how I phrase this, but I am concerned that some of the forecasting we have had has had a track record in, frankly, getting it wrong repeatedly. In 2001, Professor Ferguson predicted 150,000 human deaths from foot-and-mouth; under 200 died. In 2002, he predicted between 50 and 50,000 deaths from BSE; in the end, 177 died. In 2005, he said that 150 million people could be killed by bird flu; 282 died. In 2009, a Government estimate based on his advice said that a “reasonable worst-case scenario” for swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths; in the end, 457 people died. I am happy to be corrected on any of those points, but that is the publicly available information.
Moving forward to covid, Ferguson predicted 85,000 deaths in Sweden; in fact, 6,000 Swedes have died. Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, said in September 2020:
“We looked at the”
Imperial
“model and we could see that the variables that were put into the model were quite extreme...Why did you choose the variables that gave extreme results?
I love experts—don’t get me wrong; I know we sometimes have our issues with them—but it is helpful if they are right, if only very occasionally. Johan Giesecke, Sweden’s former chief epidemiologist, said that Ferguson’s models were “not very good”. The Washington Post quoted Giesecke as saying that Imperial’s forecasts were “almost hysterical”. This is the forecasting that has been, in part, driving Government action.
In this country, oncology professor Angus Dalgleish, in this country, described Ferguson’s modelling as “lurid predictions”. He said that Ferguson and his colleagues were getting it “spectacularly wrong”. He said:
“Unfortunately, we have a Sage committee advising a government that is devoid of any scientific expertise, on speculative concepts such as the R number”—
which we now all know is the reproductive rate—
“and the need for everyone to stay indoors, even though the evidence strongly suggests that people are less likely to catch Covid-19 outside.”
So some of the scientific evidence may have actually driven the rising covid rates in the same way that going into hospital may have been the place that people caught covid and died from it.
Viscount Ridley has criticised Ferguson’s modelling. Lund University has applied Ferguson’s models and found a massive difference between his predictions and what actually happened. Professor Michael Thrusfield from Edinburgh University said that Ferguson’s previous modelling of foot-and-mouth was “severely flawed”.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in highlighting the predictions that are wrong, but the unfortunate thing is that politicians then jump on to them and quote them. For example, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, on the basis of Mr Ferguson’s predictions, talked about deaths “of biblical proportions” and scared the life out of people.
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman makes the point most eloquently. Politicians then become fearful. They think, “What if the worst-case scenario is right?”, and lose faith in more balanced predictions.
John Ioannides from Stanford University said of Ferguson’s modelling that
“major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated”.
He is a serious customer, Professor Ferguson, and Imperial has an impeccable reputation. I pay respect, overall, to their work, and I do not seek to criticise for the sake of it; I want to highlight that bad forecasting and bad modelling drives bad Government decisions that then become illiberal and intolerant of other people who have more balanced views.
More recently, in July 2021, Ferguson predicted 100,000 cases, saying that it was “almost inevitable”. Yet we got nowhere near there. The US forecaster Nate Silver, who is very good at predicting US elections, said:
“I don’t care that the prediction is wrong, I’m sure this stuff is hard to predict. It’s that he’s consistently so overconfident.”
The political scientist Professor Philip Tetlock agreed with Nate Silver, adding:
“Expect even top forecasters to make lots of mistakes…When smart forecasters are consistently over-confident, start suspecting”
other factors in play, such as
“publicity or policy-advocacy games”.
I make no such allegations.
More recently, I understand that this summer Professor Ferguson predicted upwards of 100,000 cases. They topped at just over 30,000. In an interview with The Times, the good professor said that his prediction was off because the football messed up his modelling. That for me comes to the essence of the problem with forecasting. When someone can predict 100 million deaths and no one dies but someone gets a sore thumb, they can say mitigations were taken by Government. When a forecaster’s work becomes verifiable, we can see when he predicts and gets it wrong. When that forecast comes up against reality, reality kicks in and makes a fool of the forecast and sometimes, sadly, a fool of the forecaster. Every time Professor Ferguson’s forecasts have been verifiable, they have been seen to be very badly flawed, and this is a serious man and a serious university.
To sum up, if we look at the forecasts made about covid, just like the forecasts for so many other things, reality changes those forecasts and very often undermines their credibility, so we need another set of factors to guide us. Members on the Opposition Benches and on this side have said we need principles. We need a precautionary principle, but we need a sense of balance so that we do not overstep the mark, damage our society, damage our young people and damage poorer people by seeking to control when we need to learn to live with this. My final question to the Minister is: will the Government look into forecasting and perhaps hold an inquiry into the success of forecasting and what we can learn from it, so that we do it less badly in future?
Finally, going from the theoretical to the very practicable, and on a point related to the Isle of Wight, we are not getting the boosters in the Riverside Centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) raised a specific point about his constituency, and in the same way, will the Minister please look at getting more booster jabs to the Isle of Wight and our Riverside Centre?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The last contribution before the Minister responds is from Dr Andrew Murrison.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I record my interest as a practising doctor. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) that there appears to be a problem with the availability of slots for vaccinations, and that was before the Government announced this week that we were to expedite the booster programme. I am concerned about that, and I hope the Minister, who has commented briefly on that already, can confirm she has a cunning plan to ensure that people who need to be vaccinated are vaccinated and in particular that those vaccines reach the elderly and the vulnerable. At the moment, I have severe concerns about the availability of those slots, if not the vaccines themselves.
I will be supporting SI No. 1340 today on face coverings. I am mindful that we have to rely on the best available evidence. The evidence for a lot of these non-pharmaceutical interventions is more common-sense than actual. It seems to me to be a minor imposition to ask people to wear a face mask, particularly given the evidence published by The BMJ last week on this matter, which we have referred to already. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) in particular spoke about it.
I am more concerned about SI No. 1338 for two reasons. While SI No. 1340 expires on 20 December—or, at least, Ministers can decide whether to continue it on that date—there is no such luxury contained within SI No. 1338. That seems to be illogical. When pressed earlier, I regret to say that the Minister, who was very good at taking interventions from hon. and right hon. Members, did not address that point. She needs to explain to my satisfaction, and that of other Members, why 20 December stands in SI No. 1340, but it is 24 March for SI No. 1338. It seems that there is an appetite in the House to return here, if necessary, to reconfirm or refute the need for these measures to continue into the new year. I hope that the Minister has heard that loud and clear.
I for one would be more than happy to be here well past the time at which we rise, and right up to Christmas if necessary, and the reason for that is this: the things we have been discussing today touch heavily on the liberties and livelihoods of our constituents. These things are not trivial; they are of vital importance, and all actions have consequences. I am worried about things like this because of the messaging it gives off. It will be very difficult for businesses deciding whether to invest. They will look at SI No. 1338 and think, “Good gracious me, this will go on and on and on.” While they have been happy to go along with some of the impositions that we have had over the past 18 months, they are now coming to the point where they are thinking, “This could basically be the new normal. This will go on and on, and on what basis will we continue to invest in our businesses if every few months we have these kinds of things and goodness knows what else that may follow?” I am worried about that.
I am also deeply worried, as other hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out, about this “suspected of” bit. That seems to me to be rather clumsy and I am not comfortable with it. Presumably, anybody showing any coronavirus symptoms could be “suspected of” having the omicron variant.
The World Health Organisation touched on a potential solution to that at the weekend, which is the Thermo Fisher PCR test. I assume that it relies on the detection of the S-gene dropout that has been referred to, which could expedite the diagnosis of omicron as opposed to straightforward coronavirus. I wonder whether the Minister could reflect on that and say whether her understanding is that such a test would be the basis on which we would decide whether somebody was suspected of having it, because that could shorten the length of time that people are required to be out of action and might make No. 1338 slightly more palatable for those of us who have concerns about it.
I disagree with some hon. Members about what will change in three weeks’ time, because I think a great deal will change, as a number of international authorities have made clear. Indeed, the doctor who first found the variant, Angelique Coetzee, seemed to be of that view in her upbeat assessment of how it is affecting her patients, as is Dr Anthony Fauci, the adviser to the President of the United States. Many international authorities are saying that in two weeks’ time, we should be a lot further along the journey of understanding how the variant behaves.
That makes sense because, in two weeks’ time, if the variant is a problem, we will presumably see an uptick in hospitalisation at least among the vulnerable population. It is wrong to suggest that everybody in South Africa is young and vibrant; of course it has its fair share of elderly, vulnerable and frail people and of people with comorbidities. In two weeks, I expect there will be at least some indication of whether it will be a problem. We should also keep in mind that it might be part of the salvation, rather than the problem, because we do not know how the virus will behave. Some viruses mutate downwards and others mutate upwards. We must hope for the former not the latter, but at the moment we simply do not know, which is the basis of my support for No. 1340.
There is an assumption that perhaps southern Africa is not sophisticated in healthcare terms, but I gently make the point that the Republic of South Africa certainly is sophisticated. It has been the victim of its own generosity in having invested heavily in sequencing. It is a bit like the UK in relation the Kent variant: if we look, we will find. We need to be careful about suggesting that other healthcare economies are not up to spec, because I do not think that is necessarily the case for South Africa.
I also observe that yesterday, 25 deaths were attributed to covid-19 in South Africa and the seven day average is 35 deaths. Many of us are captivated by the covid graphs; I check them daily. I confess that I do not generally obsess about South Africa, but recent events have made one focus on its graph, which is bumping along the bottom. We are in no way seeing a wave as yet, although we may yet do so, but we need to be careful about suggesting it will be a major problem, as Angelique Coetzee and others have been.
The Government are right to be cautious—of course they are—but we also need a sense of proportion. We need to understand that everything we do in this place with regard to regulation has a consequence for liberty and livelihoods, for the economy in general and for young people in particular. I made that point in connection with the apparent suggestion of the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) that it was a no-cost measure. We need to be careful about the impact that it all has on young people and especially on mental health.
Bob Seely
Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration that we have all these charts about covid, but we have never had them in context—how many people are born, how many people die, how many people die of flu, how many people die of other illnesses—so we have become fixated by something when there are many other causes of death in this country that, frankly, claim many more people, and by taking this out of context we create unnecessary fear?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The point about that is of course that the national health service at the moment is running very fast to catch up because for the past 18 months, necessarily, it has not been doing a lot of the elective work in particular that it would have wanted to do. That is actually going to be a problem, I think, for years to come. What I would say is that there seems to me to be very little likelihood of our NHS being overwhelmed this winter. There are always pressures at this time of the year, and an overwhelmed NHS was the absolute cornerstone of Government policy towards this particular public health emergency at the start. Those things are not there now, and I think that we just need to contextualise a lot of what is going on.
Of course we need to reduce the number of admissions to the NHS, particularly to ITUs, for covid-19. It is a huge burden for the NHS, and it prevents us from doing other things, but we are certainly not in the position now that we were in this time last year. So while I will certainly be supporting No. 1340, I am afraid that I will not be able to support the Government in respect of No. 1338, because of the lack of a sunset provision similar to that enjoyed by No. 1340 and also because I am very concerned about “suspected of” and what that might mean in terms of a chilling effect on schooling, the economy, liberty and livelihood.
Maggie Throup
I am pleased to bring this wide-ranging debate to a close. We are now almost two years on from when this virus first emerged in Wuhan. Since then, science and disease have been locked in a battle for ascendancy. For the last year, science has been on top as the global effort on vaccines has dramatically reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death for those who catch covid-19, but we know from the history of previous diseases that they mutate and change, so that vaccinations and treatments become less effective. That is why only one disease, smallpox, has been eradicated, although we are close to eliminating polio, too.
The virus is fighting back, and we must respond. To those who say that the regulations we have debated—the reintroduction of face coverings in some settings and self-isolation requirements for close contacts—are an imposition on our liberties, I agree, but they are a necessary imposition to slow the spread of a new variant and allow science to catch up. However, there is a balance to be struck. Too many restrictions have a crippling effect on social and economic life, as well as adding to the burden of mental illness. For those who say that the regulations we have debated are not enough, I say that they will buy us time to understand this new variant better. That is why they will be reviewed in three weeks’ time.
We will continue to closely monitor all the emerging data on the new variant. We have committed to review all of the measures in three weeks’ time, ahead of the face coverings regulations expiring. Restrictions will not be in place any longer than necessary. We do need to learn to live with this virus, but it is right, in the face of a potential threat, to take balanced and proportionate measures, and we will continue to closely monitor all the emerging data on the new variant. Overall, I would like to reiterate that this will be a moving picture over the coming weeks. We will get a better idea of its nature in the next couple of weeks. Its transmission advantage, vaccine escape and severity of infection are some of the things we are looking at as we observe how the variant develops in southern Africa and the rest of the world, too. Alongside that, the scientists will continue to study it in the lab, but it will be several weeks before we get a clear picture. The most important thing is that the world keeps sharing information and findings as new cases emerge. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for raising an inconsistency in our explanatory memorandum at paragraph 12.3. For clarity, I will read out the section as it was intended:
“Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should not be challenged by members of the public for not wearing the face regulation.”
I trust that that reassures my hon. Friend on the matter and on the seriousness with which the Government take supporting those who are exempt from these requirements. I will be working with officials to rectify this.
With respect to omicron-positive cases, NHS Test and Trace will work with the positive case and/or their parent to identify close contacts. Contacts from a school setting will only be traced by NHS Test and Trace where the positive case and/or their parents specifically identify the individual as being a close contact. There is likely to be a small number of individuals who will be most at risk of contracting covid-19 due to the nature of the close contact. I reiterate that the direct contact will be by NHS Test and Trace, rather than via the covid app.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) talked about suspected cases. My right hon. Friend hit the nail on the head: many of the laboratories processing the PCR tests will be able to test for the S-gene dropout and that will give a very good indication of cases of the omicron variant. While it does not provide 100% confirmation, we can get that information very quickly and at the same time the test result is reported and that is ahead of any genomic sequencing.
Maggie Throup
I want to continue as many points have been raised and I was very generous in giving way when opening the debate.
A debate on this subject would not be complete without the Opposition spokesman asking about financial support for those in self-isolation. I reassure the Opposition spokesman that anyone who is legally required to self-isolate as a contact or positive case will be able to apply for a test and trace support payment or practical support such as the medicines delivery service if they meet the normal eligibility criteria. The latest figures show that almost 363,000 people have received a test and trace payment since the scheme began, and over £180 million has been paid out. The help is there.
We have set out proportionate and balanced measures which do not include limiting socialising. It is the Government who set policy and guidance, which is what the public should follow. The Secretary of State updated the House yesterday on the changes to the JCVI guidance for boosters and the NHS will be issuing instructions on how that guidance should be operationalised shortly.
These regulations are precautionary and proportionate, helping to safeguard the gains made by our fantastic vaccination programme, which has seen almost 18 million people across the UK get a booster jab already. The Government have acted rapidly and reasonably to ensure that science retains the upper hand in the struggle with the virus and I commend these SIs to the House.
Question put.
Opposition Day
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Conduct of the Right Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before the debate begins, I have to remind Members that, as “Erskine May” says:
“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.”
The reason why that matters in this particular debate and does not really occur in other debates is that this debate is on a substantive motion directly relating to the conduct of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).
In this debate, because it is on a substantive motion of this kind, arguments intended to criticise or defend that conduct are in order. Therefore things may be said that the Chair would not normally permit in other proceedings. However, those speaking in favour of the motion should set out their arguments clearly. Intemperate abuse is as out of order on this motion as much as on any other.
I am quite sure the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) will already have borne in mind all that I have just said.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House censures the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, for frequently violating the sixth Principle of Public Life, for seeking to undermine the recommendations of the Standards Committee on Owen Paterson, for regularly ignoring independent advice on matters such as international treaties and breaches of the Ministerial Code by his ministers, for putting forward proposals to diminish the powers of the Electoral Commission, for ignoring independent advice concerning the granting of peerages to Conservative party donors and nominations to public bodies such as Ofcom; and further calls for his ministerial salary to be reduced by £41,567 per year.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance to the House on conduct in this debate. I am sure you will want to join me in wishing everyone a happy St Andrew’s Day.
Ian Blackford
Happy St Andrew’s Day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. and right hon. Members.
The Scottish National party tabled this motion of censure against the Prime Minister because we believe in a very basic principle, and we believe the public do, too: those in power deserve to face consequences for their disastrous actions, and they need to be held to account.
The charge sheet against the Prime Minister is, indeed, damning. In the past few weeks alone, he ripped up anti-lobbying rules when one of his own was found guilty, he is attempting to restrict the right to judicial review and he is seeking to undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission. But it did not start there, and it definitely does not end there.
Since coming into office a little over two years ago, the Prime Minister has been up to his neck in scandals involving cash for honours, cash for contracts, texts for tax breaks and even cash for curtains. As the motion states, he is constantly breaking the sixth principle of public life, the duty to be truthful.
Month after month, scandal after scandal, the charge sheet gets longer and longer, but not a single person is held to account. If the public are to have confidence in this place, that needs to change, and it needs to change today. Because unless the Prime Minister faces consequences—unless he is censured—he will not just think he has gotten away with the mess he has made over the last few months; he will think he will be able to do it over and over again. Let us be very clear: if the Prime Minister is not properly censured today, it will also be final proof that the Tories really do believe that its one rule for them and one rule for everybody else.
I remind Conservative Members that we have all been witness to events over the past number of weeks. They might want to forget what has happened, but the public definitely have not. The Tories marched through the Lobby—
Ian Blackford
I will give way in due course. The Tories marched through the Lobby to undermine our parliamentary standards process, to tear up the rule books, all in order to protect a friend of the Prime Minister who was found to have broken the rules. This whole sorry episode showed this Parliament at its very worst—and, trust me, that is saying something. The Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House are easy scapegoats, but we all know that this was orchestrated by a Prime Minister who thinks he is untouchable, who thinks he can do as he pleases. This is a Prime Minister who thinks he can change the rules at will and who believes that if the rules become inconvenient, they can simply be changed. So the question stands today: how much does it really take for Tory MPs to say enough is enough?
How far standards have fallen is shown by the fact that the charges I have made against the Prime Minister are not even in dispute—they are all matters of public record. The Prime Minister has even admitted that in managing these scandals he personally
“crashed the car into the ditch”.
It tells us all we need to know, though, that he did not even have the decency to admit that in the House of Commons. He only felt the need to admit his mistakes and apologise to his Back Benchers in the Tory 1922 committee, and it was only because they were muttering about mutiny. I am not sure that apology counts if he only did it to try to save his own skin.
But no matter how much the Prime Minister tries to publicly wash his hands of responsibility for his actions, the public have already cast their verdict. The Tories may be sliding in the polls, but it is as nothing compared to the hammering the Prime Minister is taking in the court of public opinion. In the last week, his approval ratings have hit an all-time low, and there is one only simple reason behind it: the public know that that the Prime Minister is at the rotten core of all these scandals.
A natural comparison has been drawn with the Major Government in the early 1990s, but even that comparison fails to properly get to the scale of corruption that has occurred, much of it in plain sight. The difference between this Prime Minister and John Major was that Major took action to address the sleaze and corruption. This Prime Minister is at the centre of the sleaze and corruption—he is orchestrating much of it. I am afraid corruption is the only proper word—the only honest word—for what has been going on. As I said at the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition—I do wonder where Opposition Members are—is now very fond of repeating the line that when it comes to the Prime Minister
“the joke isn’t funny anymore”.
But in truth it was never funny, and we are all now living with the consequences of having a man like this in Downing Street.
It is also important to reflect on just how damaging recent weeks and months have been to the public’s faith in politics. Because each and every one of these scandals erodes standards, erodes trust and ultimately erodes democracy itself.
In the middle of the Owen Paterson scandal, the Prime Minister said:
“I genuinely believe that the UK is not remotely a corrupt country and I genuinely think that our institutions are not corrupt.”
The problem for the Prime Minister is that the public disagree with him: a recent Savanta ComRes poll found that 54% of those asked thought that the UK Government were corrupt. If the Prime Minister wants to know why, he has only to look in the mirror.
In the eyes of the public this is a UK Government who have normalised sleaze and are now trying to normalise corruption. This is the Tory Government’s attempt at a new normal in which no one is held responsible, no one is held to account and no one ever—not ever—resigns. That is exactly why consequences are so important and why this censure motion matters: it can only ever become a new normal if we all put up with it. [Interruption.] This is a debate that matters to people in the United Kingdom. We can hear the behaviour and the catcalling of Government Members and it sums up the attempt to shut down democracy and our right to raise these important matters in this House.
A new normal becomes possible only if we do not hold the Government to account and do not make them answer for their actions. I genuinely ask Government Members, if they have any interest in maintaining some dignity and decency in public life, finally to hold the Prime Minister to account and censure him for his abuse of power.
Let me take one example of that abuse of power: the cash-for-honours scandal. Fifteen of the Tory party’s main treasurers who happened to hand over £3 million to the party were somehow given life peerages in the House of Lords, as if by magic. Twenty-two of the Tory party’s top financial backers all happen to have been given peerages since 2010. In total, this group has stuffed Tory party coffers with £54 million— [Interruption.] “Hear, hear!” That sums it up. The Conservatives see it as a virtue that if someone gives multimillion pounds to the Conservative party, they end up in the House of Lords. My goodness! What price democracy?
Let us take Lord Cruddas, a leading donor to the Vote Leave campaign who, let us not forget, bankrolled the Prime Minister’s Conservative leadership bid. He personally gave up to £4 million in donations to the Tory party and affiliates. His reward? An ermine robe and a seat in the House of Lords. What is worse is that the Prime Minister personally overruled the House of Lords Appointments Commission that advised against his appointment. That was the very first time that the watchdog’s recommendation has ever been ignored. Three days after Lord Cruddas was introduced to the House of Lords, what happened? He handed £500,000 to Conservative central office. I will gladly give way to anyone on the Tory Benches who wants to stand up and justify that level of sleaze.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will be very careful about precisely what he says about any Member of the House of Lords because, of course, any Member of the House of Lords is also a parliamentarian. It is of course in order for the right hon. Gentleman to examine the conduct of the Member who is the subject of the motion, but that does not extend to other Members of Parliament, including those in the Lords.
Ian Blackford
What I am reflecting on is the behaviour of the Prime Minister that puts Members in the House of Lords, when the House of Lords Appointments Commission has ruled against their appointment. I have given the opportunity to anyone on the Tory Benches who wishes to rise to defend the actions of putting Tory donors in the Lords. It is £3 million for a peerage in the House of Lords. What a price to be able to undermine our democracy!
Tommy Sheppard
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. As no Government Member wishes to intervene on him, I wonder whether he might agree with me on this: is it not somewhat ironic that SNP Members demonstrate more probity and more respect for the rule of democracy than does the current Prime Minister, and is this not yet another compelling reason why Scotland should be an independent country, so that we can have a system of governance that is fair, democratic and transparent?
Ian Blackford
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, he is absolutely correct. We are speaking about the House of Lords. The House of Lords is the second largest parliamentary Chamber in the world. The only Chamber that is bigger is the Communist Congress. My goodness, what an advert for democracy! The fact is that these unelected Lords have a say over our democracy. The juxtaposition—the point that is made by my hon. Friend—is an important one. Today, we are discussing the behaviour of the Prime Minister and why he should be sanctioned. Yet in Scotland, just seven months ago, the people of our country were given the right to have a say in their Government. Crucially, they were given a right to have a say on the future of our country as an independent country, because the SNP made it very clear in that election that it was about a mandate for an independence referendum. Indeed, the Conservatives made it clear that a vote for the Conservatives was a vote to stop Scottish independence, and what happened?
We are talking about democracy and respecting democracy, so let us tell the Conservatives a few harsh truths. In the four elections that we have fought in the Scottish Parliament that we have won, we have increased our vote at every election. We received just short of 48% of the popular vote at that last election. That is a higher share of the vote than any party has had in any election in the United Kingdom for the past 50 years. On the topic of respecting democracy, of respecting the people’s sovereignty, then Boris Johnson must recognise that the Scottish Parliament, where there is a majority for Scottish independence, has the right to call that referendum.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman please refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister and not by his name? If he could just re-say that last sentence, I would be so pleased.
Ian Blackford
The point is that the Prime Minister must respect democracy. He denies democracy when he stuffs the Lords with his Tory donor friends, but he must respect democracy when people in Scotland have voted for a Parliament that has a right to call a referendum to take us out of this toxic Union and find a way back for us as an independent country in the European Union.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He understands, I think, that a debate tends to be a two-way thing and not just a diatribe delivered to the House.
May I politely suggest that, if he wishes to restore confidence in this House, he could have chosen a subject for debate today that was of relevance to the people of Scotland—global warming, education, health—and not this rather lame subject, which, I suspect, is something of no consequence whatsoever to most people working very hard in Scotland.
Ian Blackford
Really, really. We are talking about corruption and sleaze—about a Prime Minister who forces Conservative MPs to go through the Lobby to get one of their own off a charge against parliamentary standards, and who rewards those who give money to the Tory party. That is exactly a subject of importance to the people of Scotland.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Not only is it an important subject; how the Prime Minister behaves is fundamental to our democracy and to how Parliament works. [Interruption.] We have a Prime Minister who comes to the House and fails to tell the truth. That is fundamental to how our democracy works, so it is more than important—it is fundamental.
Ian Blackford
I agree. I will come to the subject of truth and honesty later in my speech. It is noticeable that when the hon. Lady, who speaks with some authority on these matters, is trying to speak, once again the Conservatives try to shout us down. What a look that is to the people watching this debate.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is being incredibly kind in giving way, particularly on this subject. I just wondered if he might take the opportunity to update us on the missing donations and the fraud investigation into the First Minister’s husband—your party’s chief executive.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Do not shout at the right hon. Gentleman. We all have to hear his answer. While I am on my feet, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) would in future use the word “he” and not “you” when referring to the right hon. Gentleman.
Ian Blackford
Let me respectfully say to Government Members that I will give a guarantee, a promise and a commitment right here and now that all moneys raised by the Scottish National party for the purposes of fighting an independence campaign—every penny—will be spent on independence campaigning, because that is what we are about. There is a big difference in those who fund the SNP and the independence campaign, because—I will make another promise—not one single member of the SNP who gives to us willingly will end up in the House of Lords; they will be funding the SNP and the independence movement to ensure that we deliver on our promise to take Scotland out of this Union.
There is another important point about how deeply damaging all these scandals are. Every day that the Prime Minster spends concentrating on how he will somehow avoid scrutiny is a day not doing the basics of what his job demands. It is also becoming clearer just how damaging and dangerous it is that chaotic governance now defines Downing Street. That would be bad enough in normal times, but it is totally unforgivable in the middle of a pandemic.
In the real world, away from the shambles in No. 10, people are suffering not only from the pandemic, but from a Tory cost-of-living crisis. Inflation is running at 5%. Rising day-to-day costs and rising household bills are the main focus for families. While all the political stories on sleaze have been going on and taking up time at Downing Street, the political decision to cut universal credit has been hitting homes hardest. The shameful cut to universal credit was not just the wrong policy; it came at the worst possible time for families this winter. We are left with a UK Government who are not only up to their necks in sleaze, but hitting families at the same time. In Scotland, I am proud that we have a First Minister who understands the pressures that family finances are under, and a Government who listen and respond. I am proud that at the very same time that the Westminster Government are cutting universal credit by £20 a week, the SNP Scottish Government are raising the Scottish child payment by £20 a week.
One of the public’s real angers about these scandals is the deep dishonesty that has been so openly on display. The truth and the Prime Minister have always been strangers. I say that in sadness and not in any anger. Let me just take a few examples. On 4 March 2020, the Prime Minister said:
“We have restored the nurses’ bursary”.—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 829.]
That was completely and factually untrue. On 17 June 2020, the Prime Minister said that there were
“400,000…fewer families living in poverty now than there were in 2010.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 796.]
Both the Office for National Statistics and the Children’s Commissioner have confirmed that that is false. On 7 November 2019, the Prime Minister told Northern Ireland businesses, in person, that the protocol would mean
“no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind”—
once again, completely untrue. It is right to be careful in terms of the language that we use in this House, but when it comes to language it is also right to be accurate and honest. On the basis of all the evidence, I can only conclude that the Prime Minister has repeatedly broken the sixth principle of public life. I can only conclude that the Prime Minister has demonstrated himself to be a liar.
I think there is a misguided sense among those on the Tory Benches that they have gotten past the scandals of the past few weeks. The Prime Minister thinks that, if he blunders on, people might not forgive, but they will forget. Not for the first time, the Tories are badly wrong and badly out of touch, because they just do not get that the depth of anger among the public is very real and is not going away. I know that people in Scotland are looking on at a broken Westminster system that has never felt more remote, more arrogant and more corrupt.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, and do Conservative Members appreciate, the damage that has been done when to be able to use the word “liar” in this place is now passed as fair comment and accepted, and the damage that that is doing to our democracy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let us just be clear about that. It is preferable that such words should not be used in this place but, as I said before the right hon. Gentleman rose to his feet, this is a very specific and particular motion and the right hon. Gentleman is examining the conduct of a Member of this House—indeed, the Prime Minister. Therefore, I cannot stop him from using the word that he has just used. I would prefer it if he put things in different terms, but I do not think that he has strayed past the rules. I think he is perfectly in order. However, it would be better if other Members did not make comments such as those just made by the right hon. Lady because what she said is not actually quite correct. Please, let us just keep it as moderate as possible.
Ian Blackford
I was dealing with the sixth principle of public life. I have laid out for the House three examples—I could have given many more—of where the Prime Minister has not told the truth. I regret, in the context of where we are, that I had to make that point, which is important, because if we undermine honesty and truth in this place, what are we left with? That is why we have brought this motion today and that is what I am asking hon. Members right across this House to reflect on, because there is overwhelming evidence that the Prime Minister has broken that principle of public life. I am asking each and every Member in this House, particularly on the Government Benches, to examine their conscience on the basis of the evidence and think very carefully before they go through the Lobby tonight. The public are angry at what has happened in this place. The public are angry about the Member I mentioned earlier who had been sanctioned by the Standards Commission and who the Prime Minister sought to get off. There will come a time when the public will judge this House and this House should reflect very carefully on that tonight.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree that this is an issue of conduct, but it is also a question of leadership. We have a Prime Minister in the middle of a pandemic who has failed to learn. At the beginning of this crisis, he boasted about shaking hands with covid patients; now he is mask-less in a hospital and too weak to tell Members of his own party to put on a mask. We desperately need not just an improvement in conduct, but an improvement in clear communication and leadership from this Prime Minister.
Ian Blackford
I agree with the hon. Member. [Interruption.] Perhaps we should just calm down; there will be opportunities for people to participate in the debate. This issue of leadership and conduct is important. This saddens me, but when we are facing a new variant, and we do not know what the scale of that challenge will be, the obvious thing for everyone to do is to seek to protect themselves, but more importantly to protect others and to lead by example and show leadership. I commend colleagues across the House who are sitting here wearing masks today, but my goodness, there are far too many who still do not get it and do not accept the responsibility they have for each other, and they are even laughing about it as I say that. It comes from the Prime Minister.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Ian Blackford
Let me just carry on for a second, because this is important. The way we conduct ourselves and interact with others is important. I commend the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), for the courtesies she always showed to Opposition parties, for how the protocols were followed and for the way we had a relationship with No. 10. It grieves me that I can tell the House that we as the third party and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition have no relationship with No. 10. We are disrespected and disregarded by a Prime Minister who does not understand his obligations to public life, and that is yet another example.
Drew Hendry
Is it not telling about how complicit those on the Government Benches are that, when my right hon. Friend was reading out the list of untruths peddled by the Prime Minister, there was deathly silence? The only time they were animated was when my right hon. Friend called it for what it was.
Ian Blackford
I ask Government Members to reflect. Most people in this House are decent people. People come here to provide a public service, and I say to hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches that they are being let down, we are being let down and these islands are being let down by a Prime Minister who simply does not know how to behave. On that note, it will be interesting to see how the Scottish Tories vote tonight, and we will be watching. They are a group who never fail to see conspiracy at Holyrood, but somehow always fall deathly silent when it comes to sleaze and corruption overseen by their own Prime Minister.
In truth, this debate is not about the Scottish Tories—I will leave them to explain their own hypocrisy—but what the public expect when standards and rules are so clearly broken by their political representatives. They expect consequences, and they expect censure. Let us also be clear about this: if we fail to censure this Prime Minister today, we will have failed that public duty for accountability. Not only that, but it will reveal something very telling; it will show a Westminster system that is broken beyond repair and a Prime Minister who believes himself to be above the law of the land.
The only comfort I take is that fewer and fewer people in Scotland can possibly look at the broken, corrupt, self-serving Westminster system and conclude that it produces a secure basis for the future of Scotland. We all know that Scotland can do much better than this; we can do better than this broken Westminster system and we can do better than this Prime Minister. We will do so much better when our country chooses independence. I commend the motion in the name of myself and my hon. and right hon. colleagues.
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
It is a pleasure to start by wishing SNP Members, and the whole House, a happy St Andrew’s Day. It is always an auspicious occasion in the Scottish and British calendar.
I must confess some surprise that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), on this rare opportunity to engage in serious debate with the Government—I have not been to a pantomime in some time—instead opted to launch pantomime season in November, complete with an over-the-top characterisation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who he clearly wishes would disappear in a puff of smoke. When it comes to fanciful fairy tales, however, the Scottish National party is expert. I venture that neither this House nor the people of the country will appreciate the over-the-top performance, or recognise the absurd depiction of the hugely popular Prime Minister of this country, who returned to the House with an 80-seat majority and who is getting on with the job of building back better.
To take one element of today’s rather long-winded and unfocused motion, improving standards in public life, the Prime Minister has made positive and constructive proposals on the topic in a bid to find cross-party consensus and a way forward. To take another point, the reform of the Electoral Commission, there is nothing in the Government’s plans to reform the regulation of the electoral system that will allow Ministers or Parliament to interfere in the outcome of complaints or investigations, so the motion is also in error in that regard. It is a courtroom tactic in some jurisdictions—not in this country, of course—to throw enough mud that some of it might stick, but I think we know that when we see it.
Michael Ellis
I will give way more than the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, but not yet.
For my part, I relish the opportunity to set a different scene for the House of what the Prime Minister is achieving for the people who returned him to No. 10, many of whom voted Conservative for the first time. At the election, he made a clear commitment to spreading opportunity more fairly and to uniting our country.
Higher skills, higher wages, higher productivity—that is the United Kingdom that the Prime Minister promised to create and is creating, and SNP Members know it. He got Brexit done. Since, he has been using our hard-won freedoms outside the European Union—the catastrophists on the Opposition side do not want to accept it—to serve the interests of the whole precious United Kingdom with policies that encourage innovation and growth throughout the whole United Kingdom and that deliver for the whole United Kingdom.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Minister is making a good case. Does he find it strange that SNP Members are posing as defenders of democracy when they would not accept the result of the Brexit referendum in the UK or of the Scottish referendum on staying in the Union?
Michael Ellis
SNP Members are fair-weather friends to democracy, which, clearly, they support only when it goes their way.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Michael Ellis
I will give way, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say why the SNP did not choose to debate the vital topic of education in Scotland.
Stewart Hosie
The Minister is speaking dutifully and gushingly about the Prime Minister; he is painting a picture that nobody in the country recognises. For the sake of completeness, perhaps he will explain, if things are going so swimmingly, why Conservative Back Benchers have sent letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee?
Michael Ellis
The right hon. Member’s statement is obviously disproven by the fact that the Prime Minister won an 80-seat majority—the biggest Conservative Government majority since the early 1980s.
The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister is taking care of the people’s priorities, not focusing on the polemics of the SNP. He is looking at what the people care about most—
Michael Ellis
I will give way, and perhaps the hon. Member could answer why it is that the SNP has not chosen to speak about health and the national health service in their precious parliamentary time. [Interruption.]
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am not sure what he was asking me because, over the noise of his colleagues’ barracking, I could not actually hear him. He may have been asking me why we did not choose devolved topics in the Chamber, and I think that that somewhat answers itself.
The Minister speaks about the people’s priorities. I have to say to him that the people’s priorities are not stuffing the House of Lords with unelected donors and cronies, but worrying how they are going to put food on the table because of the cuts his Government are making to universal credit.
Michael Ellis
This Prime Minister of course takes care of the people’s priorities, looking after what they care about the most and keeping his promises to them, while SNP Members play political games—they are not very good at them either.
This Government are responsible for there being more nurses, more police officers, more money for schools and more money for the pupils in those schools, because people care about their health, they care about their safety and they care about their children’s educations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is focused on improving our infrastructure, too. He is boosting public services to get us on the road to recovery from the pandemic. What exactly does that look like? It looks like £3.7 billion to build 40 new hospitals, three quarters of them outside London and the south-east; 50,000 more nurses and 20,000 more police officers; and a further £4.7 billion in the core school budget by 2024-25, meaning a total cash increase of £1,500 per pupil by that date compared with 2019-20, so we are actually delivering.
This is not the polemics or the pantomime of the SNP; this Government are delivering. It is not just talk; it is a £36 billion package to reform the national health service and social care, tackling the issues that successive Governments have ducked for decades. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, this Government will deliver around £12 billion a year in extra funding for our health and social care services over the next three years. This is in addition to our historic 2018 settlement for the NHS, which will increase its budget by £33.9 billion a year by 2023-24.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Michael Ellis
I will give way, and perhaps the hon. Member could answer why she is not talking about matters that are more important to the people of this country.
Marion Fellows
I really do thank the Minister for giving way. Can the Minister confirm that he actually understands what devolution means; what matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and are debated there; and what matters should be debated here, such as the motion in front of him?
Michael Ellis
This Government have proven they know what the people want of this country, and we did so by the 80-seat majority behind me.
We are rolling out the fastest vaccination programme in Europe, allowing us to live with the covid virus, without significant restrictions on our freedoms. Almost nine in 10 people aged 12 and over have now received a first vaccine dose—that is a huge achievement—with eight in 10 having also received a second dose. The latest data shows that vaccines have saved almost 130,000 lives and prevented over 260,000 hospitalisations.
What else? This Prime Minister has launched our plan for jobs, helping people to get back into work, earn more money and gain the skills that our economy needs. This includes our £2 billion kickstart scheme, which has already got 100,000 young people into work, our £2.9 billion restart scheme, helping over 1 million long-term unemployed people find work, and our lifetime skills guarantee, offering 11 million adults a free qualification. And it is cutting taxes and boosting wages. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) should listen: the fact of the matter is it is cutting taxes, boosting wages and helping working families—
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am slightly confused, because I am struggling to find which points the Minister is making that are in any way relevant to the motion on the Order Paper. [Interruption] Can you guide us?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am awfully sorry but there was a lot of noise; will the hon. Gentleman give me the second part of his point of order again?
Owen Thompson
I am struggling to understand what points the Minister is making that are in any way relevant to the motion on the Order Paper and seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to how we could focus on those issues?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I see what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the content of the Minister’s speech. The Minister is constructing his argument and I am sure he will come to his razor-sharp points very soon.
Michael Ellis
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of course the Scottish National party motion is about the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I am telling the House and the SNP what the Prime Minister has achieved—his conduct.
Let us look at the infrastructure uplifts: £600 billion into transport and broadband upgrades, including £96 billion for the railways, the biggest investment in our rail network for a century. That is one of the multitude of things that the Prime Minister has delivered—reliable and faster rail journeys across the north and midlands. Thanks to the integrated rail plan, we will build three new high-speed rail lines, electrify or upgrade three existing main lines, improve local services, and integrate them properly with HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, all bringing benefits to passengers 10 to 15 years sooner than under previous plans.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is also investing in our local streets so that we can all feel proud of where we live. Again, let me remind Members where the money is going: £4.8 billion via the levelling-up fund to help regenerate town centres and high streets, upgrade local transport, and invest in cultural and heritage assets; £2.4 billion for 101 towns deals investing in local economies—
Michael Ellis
I gave way last time and it really was not worth it.
There is also the £150-million community ownership fund to protect valued community assets.
In getting Brexit done, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have turned their attention to immigration. The Nationality and Borders Bill will break the cruel business model where criminal gangs exploit.
Ian Blackford
The Minister knows I have some affection for him, and he is doing a marvellous job at deflection, but it is noticeable that there is no attempt to offer a defence of the behaviour of the Prime Minister because, quite simply, there isn’t one.
Michael Ellis
The feeling is mutual but I am defending the conduct of the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has no answer to this large litany of achievement.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Minister accuses SNP Members of not having an answer. It is very interesting that the Minister is going through the Conservatives’ programme for Government and manifesto and is making some fairly ambitious claims about what has been achieved, but we are not debating that: we are debating the character of the Prime Minister. Will the Minister focus his remarks on that please?
Michael Ellis
The conduct of the Prime Minister is the subject of the debate, and the conduct of the Prime Minister is the maintenance and running of this Government and that is what he has been achieving.
Going back to the point on immigration, we have seen the tragic consequences in the recent incident off Calais and our thoughts are of course with the families and loved ones.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. For the sake of clarity, we are not debating the character of the Prime Minister; we are debating the conduct of the Prime Minister. That is the subject of the motion.
Michael Ellis
Exactly, Madam Deputy Speaker; thank you.
The principle behind the Bill is that access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers to leave safe countries such as France and Belgium. These are the things that are being delivered, and we have always been clear about the need to do everything we can to prevent people from risking their lives and embarking on these perilous attempts to cross the sea.
Our United Kingdom is the most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen. It is the foundation on which all our businesses and citizens have been able to thrive since 1707. This Government are committed to protecting and promoting its combined strengths, based on those hundreds of years of partnership and shared history.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend is giving lots of examples of how the conduct of the Prime Minister is helping the lives of the British people. One recent such example affecting Scotland in particular was the COP26 summit held in Glasgow. Does he agree that that is an example of how the Prime Minister is putting the priorities of the people first, and of why this debate is a missed opportunity for the Scottish National party to discuss what matters to the people of Scotland?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is yet another missed opportunity by the Scottish National party.
I remind those on the SNP Benches that this Government are committed to investing and levelling up across Scotland. We are delivering, after all, an average funding boost of £4.6 billion per year through the Barnett formula over the spending review period. That will enable investment in transport, schools, housing, health and social care. That takes the total that Scotland receives in Barnett-based funding to £41 billion per year—an increase of 2.4%—to spend on public services, boost growth and support families with the cost of living. In fact, current public spending per person in Scotland is £1,828 higher than the UK average, while revenue per person is £382 lower.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Jake Berry
One thing that my right hon. and learned Friend has failed to mention and that I am sure he will want to take the opportunity to celebrate is the Government’s Borderlands deal. That sees people from Scotland and the true north—Carlisle in Cumbria, and Northumberland—coming together to invest together across the borders in their community. As the Minister who had the privilege of negotiating that deal, I found it refreshing to see that the border is of no relevance to many people, because they have friends, family and businesses that cross it. With this Government and the devolved Administration in Scotland, they celebrated that partnership along the border, which strengthens not just our United Kingdom but England and Scotland too.
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course. He speaks with the authority of an expert on the subject, and the expertise shows.
What the numbers that I have been citing mean is that every person in Scotland benefits from over £2,000 extra in spending than the UK average. I remind the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber that we have confirmed that we will be providing over £170 million through the levelling-up fund for eight Scottish projects, including the new futuristic aerial roundabout in Falkirk and the redevelopment of Inverness castle, not to mention the £1.5 billion of funding for 12 city and growth deals—they don’t talk about that, Madam Deputy Speaker. That includes over £500 million for Glasgow, backing a deal worth around £1.2 billion—one of the largest in the kingdom—that is set to deliver 29,000 jobs over its lifetime. This Government have been levelling up every part of the country since the day we took office.
Indeed, the pandemic has shown clearly that we are at our strongest when we work together towards a common goal. Through both the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, we protected over 14.5 million jobs and livelihoods across the United Kingdom. Thanks to the Prime Minister, almost 1.1 million Scottish jobs were protected through the peak of the pandemic, supporting livelihoods across Scotland. The UK Government have supported nearly 100,000 businesses in Scotland—SNP Members do not talk about the businesses—with over £4 billion in loans through the bounce back loan scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. It also goes without saying that the UK Government secured access to the covid-19 vaccine for Scotland, saving lives and stopping the spread of the virus.
In conclusion, we continue to make sure that we will use the broad shoulders of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as a platform to unleash and deliver opportunity across the whole of our precious United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for the Opposition, it might be helpful for colleagues to know that there will be a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
A very happy St Andrew’s Day to all in the Chamber.
I take no particular pleasure in debating this motion, but it is, of course, a pleasure to follow the Paymaster General, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who opened today’s debate. I have to say that I find it strange to see massed ranks of Conservatives in the Chamber for this debate, when they appeared desperate to flee the Chamber no fewer than two weeks ago for the debate on publishing Owen Paterson’s contracts.
Anneliese Dodds
If the hon. Member is about to justify why he was not here for that debate, I look forward to hearing from him.
Gary Sambrook
Talking of massed ranks, where are all the Labour Members? I saw on Twitter yesterday a graphic that said Labour was back in business. I am not too sure what business, but it is not the business of this House. Is it not the case that the reason they are not here is that they have no plan, no vision and no credibility to run this country?
Anneliese Dodds
I regret that the hon. Member seems terribly confused. I am sorry about that. This is an SNP Opposition day debate. As I will go on to explain, sadly it is his Government who lack a plan and lack, in regard to this motion, the necessary competence and credibility against corruption. If he could answer on those subjects, I would be very grateful, because he was not in the Chamber for the debate on the contracts. He certainly did not speak in it. I suspect he was not willing to do so. Indeed, it seems easier for some to defend the indefensible than to stand up for transparency, probity and the public interest. All I can say is that I really hope, for the sake of Conservative Members in the Chamber, that those in charge of junior ministerial appointments are watching carefully.
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that on the Labour Benches we believe that the “Ministerial Code” should be followed, that Ministers should be compelled to come to the House and tell the truth, and that if they do not tell the truth, they should be dealt with as the “Ministerial Code” states they should be. Unfortunately, they are led by the Prime Minister, who is the chief liar in charge.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will come on to the “Ministerial Code” because it is, sadly, highly relevant to this debate given the appalling way in which it has been treated by the Conservative Government. Indeed, the overall Conservative attitude, that rules simply do not apply to this Prime Minister or his Government, is genuinely dragging our politics through the gutter. I see that the motion references the sixth principle of public life—honesty—but I would have referenced the other principles too: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness and leadership. On those principles, the current Prime Minister is, unfortunately, falling short, the Conservative Government are failing to get a grip, and working people are paying the price.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The hon. Lady talks about honesty and integrity. Could she please confirm how many Labour MPs have ended up in the nick over the past 10 years?
Anneliese Dodds
The major difference between my party and the hon. Member’s is that wherever we in the Labour party see rules being broken and inappropriate action, we act against it. We do not try to change the rules and stitch up the system for our friends—that is the major difference.
In my reading before this debate, I came across quite a curious piece that I am sure many Government Members will have seen: the Prime Minister’s foreword to the “Ministerial Code”. It commits the Government to upholding—I am not making this up—
“the very highest standards of propriety”.
The principles of public life are lauded as “precious” things that
“must be honoured at all times”—
that, from a Prime Minister who tried to rip up the standards system to save one of his friends who was found to have engaged in an egregious case of paid advocacy by the Committee on Standards.
The foreword also states that there should be “no bullying”—that, from a Prime Minister who refused to sack his Home Secretary after an independent adviser on standards found that she had broken the ministerial code because her approach to staff had
“on occasions... amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying”.
The foreword states that there should be “no harassment” —that, from a Prime Minister who imposed a three-line Whip to keep one of his MPs in Parliament after he was found by an independent panel to have sexually harassed a member of staff.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am hoping that the hon. Lady will use this opportunity to apologise to my predecessor Ruth Smeeth for the bullying and harassment that she faced from Labour party members simply for being Jewish.
Anneliese Dodds
I will, of course, respond to the hon. Member’s comments because, just as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), when the Labour party finds action that is inappropriate, we act. We have changed our systems. We have made sure that we comply with what is required of us. If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wishes to defend his party happily allowing a Member who has been found to have engaged in sexual harassment to be back on its Benches, that is up to him. It is his decision.
In that foreword on standards, again, the Prime Minister states that there should be:
“No misuse of taxpayer money”—
that, from a Prime Minister who gave us the VIP lane for personal protective equipment contracts, with £3.5 billion of taxpayers’ money given to party donors and Conservative cronies who were recommended by Conservative Ministers, MPs and Downing Street officials. Those contracts so often failed to deliver while our nurses and care workers struggled and while many British firms’ offers of help were passed over.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady really denigrating the efforts to get hold of PPE, and does she not know the history? The Labour party also put forward proposals and Labour party members and Labour donors also helped in that huge effort to get PPE.
Anneliese Dodds
I am slightly surprised to hear that the right hon. Member wishes to draw attention to what took place in that regard—
Anneliese Dodds
No, because I will respond to the right hon. Member’s point. He asked whether I was aware that Labour MPs and others were making recommendations. I am absolutely aware, because we were all trying to do that to ensure that we had the best response, but the difference was that they were not entered into that VIP lane. One can see that in the list of firms that was recently published. If he wants to state that among that list, there were Labour MPs’ names rather than those of his Conservative colleagues, he must have been looking at a very different list from me.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight; I hope that after I speak, she will withdraw those comments and that the Labour party will no longer use that argument. The contract with Excalibur Healthcare Services, which is run by a Labour donor, was introduced from a Labour MP through me. The very good man who runs Excalibur Healthcare, in fact, helped to launch the Labour party’s science manifesto in 2005, so she can now withdraw the allegations. What she should say is a big “thank you” to everybody who helped to get PPE when it was so badly needed.
Anneliese Dodds
I really regret the fact that instead of responsibility being taken and it being stated that the system will be changed for the future, we are seeing an attempt to rewrite history. I was not the one who stated that Conservative-related actors were more likely to obtain contracts; the National Audit Office pointed it out. Yes, Labour figures were making recommendations to have a better response, as I mentioned a moment ago, but in doing so we were focused on those who could genuinely aid our response. We were not focused on pub landlords, for example, or on others who had had no prior experience in the field.
Anneliese Dodds
I do not want to upset the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am very happy to take another intervention if you do not mind.
Matt Hancock
If I may, I will set the record straight on one further point. I have heard this point about the pub landlord; I just want to tell the hon. Lady and the House and put it formally on the record—after which I hope that the Labour party will stop this slur—that the gentleman in question never got or applied for a contract from the Government or the NHS at all. That is a fabrication pushed by the Labour party—it is a load of rubbish. What was happening, however, was that a huge range of people were helping out with the national effort, including members of the Labour party.
Anneliese Dodds
No, I will not give way. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”] And I most certainly—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have had a perfectly reasonable exchange between the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). We do not need shouting about it. We are dealing here in facts and good argument, not shouting.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Government have lost every court case when they have been taken to court in regard to procurement contracts and corruption, does that mean that the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) needs to apologise for what he has just said and withdraw it?
Madam Deputy Speaker
No. I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying, but it is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. Perhaps she might like to address it later in the debate.
Anneliese Dodds
It is indeed the case that facts have been laid out in courts of law; they stand for themselves.
I have to say that at a time when our national health service and our care workers and volunteers up and down the country are yet again supporting the covid effort, I think that it is incredibly important that this Government be transparent. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”] I will not withdraw what I have said, but I hope that the Conservative Government will withdraw what they have said about not being transparent—a point that I will come to in a moment.
The foreword written by the Prime Minister says that there will be
“no actual or perceived conflicts of interest”.
Sadly, we know that there have been so many. Peerages have apparently been handed out to anyone who can meet the £3 million entrance charge and agree to a stint as Conservative party treasurer. David Cameron and Lex Greensill were given the run of Whitehall to beg for access to hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. More than half a billion pounds in testing contracts was handed over to a company advised by a Conservative former Minister, without competition and behind closed doors, with a second contract dished out to Randox Laboratories after it had failed to deliver on the first.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) for the comments that he has just made. If he believes in transparency—
Anneliese Dodds
Indeed. Well, transparency reveals facts, does it not? I therefore hope that he will encourage his Government to do what this House stated only two weeks ago that they must: publish the minutes from the meeting between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox over the award of money-spinning contracts. Parliament decided that that must happen two weeks ago, and the Deputy Speaker reminded Ministers to do it in a timely fashion last week, but they are still dragging their feet. They say that they cannot possibly make the minutes public for another two months. That seems like rather a long time in which to establish the facts, does it not?
If those vital minutes simply do not exist, Ministers should do the right thing and come clean about it here today, rather than pretending to spend the next two months looking for them. I offer the Minister, and indeed those sitting on his Benches, the chance to do that right now. I offer them the chance to intervene and let us know whether the minutes exist or not. No one is meeting my gaze, so it seems clear that we shall have to wait until the end of January to know what is happening about those minutes.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I was not planning to contribute to the debate, but the hon. Lady has been talking about conflicts of interest and timely waits, and she also said earlier in her speech that when the Labour party sees people breaking the rules, it acts. I have written to the hon. Lady twice, and I have written to the Leader of the Opposition a number of times over the last few months, about her former flatmate Ruth George, who has an atrocious record when it comes to anti-Jewish racism. It was she who said, when Luciana Berger quit the Labour party, that she and other members of her group were funded by Israel. Will the hon. Lady respond now to that conflict of interest, and agree that she should not be in the Labour party any more?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He should not be attacking personally in that way.
Anneliese Dodds
Just for the record, as the hon. Member stated in his own letter, those issues have been taken up and dealt with. [Interruption.] He said that in his own letter. Perhaps he needs to go back and reread it.
We surely cannot stand idly by and allow this situation of cronyism to continue. The current regime of standards and rules on the conduct of Ministers relies too much on convention, in these unconventional times. It gives the Prime Minister the power to act as judge and jury even when his own conduct is in question. That is why my party, the Labour party, has come forward with a five-point plan to clean up our politics, to strengthen and uphold standards in public life, and to protect taxpayers’ money from the egregious waste and mismanagement that we have seen during the pandemic.
We would start by banning second jobs for MPs, with only very limited exemptions, to make them focus on the day job, not the one on the side. We would stop the revolving door between Government and the companies that Ministers are supposed to regulate, banning ministers from taking lobbying, advisory or portfolio-related jobs for at least five years after they had left office. We would stop Conservative plans to allow foreign money to flow into British politics, and we would create strict rules to stop donations from shell companies. We would end the waste and mismanagement of taxpayers’ money with a new office for value for money along with reform of procurement. Finally, we would establish a new, genuinely independent integrity and ethics commission to sit across Government, with the power to investigate Ministers, take decisions on sanctions for misconduct, and ban former Ministers from taking any job linked to their former roles for at least five years after leaving office.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am very confused by what the hon. Lady has said, because I am under the impression that three current Front-Bench Labour parliamentarians in the House of Lords work for lobbying companies. How can you say what you have said at the Dispatch Box—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to the hon. Lady using the word “you”, because that is me.
Alexander Stafford
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can we talk about these issues when current members of the Labour Front Bench work for lobbying companies? It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Anneliese Dodds
I regret the fact that the hon. Member is confused. There appears to be a fair amount of confusion this afternoon. Labour has set out those measures for MPs, and we have made it very clear that we would not stand back, as his party appears to be doing. We would take that action because we are determined to clean up politics for the future. Indeed, those measures are urgent and necessary because the current system relies on having a Prime Minister who respects the rules and understands that there must be consequences for breaking them.
Labour set out those radical proposals for reform because it is so urgently needed. When it comes to cleaning up crony contracts, we are insisting on transparency because we have to learn from the mistakes made by the Conservatives, not least during this crisis, and I am afraid that we also have to learn from mistakes made by any party, including the SNP. I regret that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, was not more reflective on the actions of his own party today. The SNP Government had already been criticised for treating journalists and politicians differently in their responses to freedom of information requests when the SNP’s Health Secretary tried to have freedom of information requests suspended. Disturbingly, it has been revealed that an SNP Cabinet Minister then directly intervened to try to prevent the publication of statistics on care home deaths before the Holyrood elections. The Financial Times newspaper has had to battle to force the SNP Government to reveal the total cost of their guarantee to Sanjeev Gupta’s businesses, which appears to be to the tune of more than half a billion pounds. Labour believes that sunlight is the best disinfectant, in Whitehall and in Holyrood.
Rules are there for a reason: to regulate our Parliament and its elected representatives; to uphold standards in public life; and to protect our institutions from the cancer of cronyism and corruption. As the Prime Minister has discovered in recent weeks, ripping up these rules is thankfully easier said than done. But while he fails to take action to strengthen the system, working families in our country continue to pay the price. In response to what the Minister tried to set out before, I say to him that they have been paying the price. They have been paying the price with the longest squeeze on living standards in this country since Napoleonic times, with rising fuel prices and no plan to tackle them, with life expectancy falling in many parts of our country and with 5.5 million people on NHS waiting lists. They are also paying the price with rail in the north being scaled back, and they will pay even more of the price with the Conservatives’ working-class dementia tax. The Minister tried to claim that his Government were delivering what the people of this country wanted, but they do not want the Conservatives picking their pockets, they do not want their incompetence on public services and they do not want their sleaze, graft or corruption either.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the whole House a happy St Andrew’s day. I have come to this debate today because it strikes me that the SNP motion is pitiful politicking and that the people of Scotland deserve better. They want to see real solutions to real problems. Unfortunately, it is part of a pattern for the SNP to put ideological purity ahead of the interests of the people of Scotland. We heard that from its leader here, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who argued that independence was not the most important thing on the minds of the people of Scotland, but we know why SNP Members have brought this debate to the House today: it is merely so that they can find another way to make the argument for independence, which they lost so comprehensively when it was put to the people of Scotland five years ago.
Today, SNP Members are calling for the censure of the Prime Minister, but what they should be doing is working to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. The flop of a speech from the right hon. Gentleman demonstrated that they are losing this argument. He read out a list of allegations that were comprehensively demolished by the Minister in his excellent speech. At the heart of those allegations was that the Prime Minister is ignoring advice, but the problem with the SNP is that it ignores not only advice but the decisions of the people of Scotland and this country in every referendum that it has seen. The problem is that the SNP has not seen a referendum result that it likes, so it ignores the results and asks for a rematch.
On the substance, I will not go into the SNP’s failures in education, but Scotland once had the finest education system in the world. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber did not even mention covid-19. I will not dwell on the huge economic cost of independence, but one piece of evidence from the Prime Minister’s tenure that completely undermines the SNP’s case is the vaccine programme. Because SNP Members are losing the argument on substance, they focus instead on politicking. Conceived through UK-funded scientific work involving researchers from universities across the UK, and indeed across the world, the Oxford vaccine is a UK success that shows Britain at her best.
Critically, we bought vaccines for the whole of the UK so that everybody in Scotland and the rest of the UK were the first in the world to access them. Even better, it was a joint effort. People who are Scottish and British and in this Union get the best of both worlds: a UK vaccine delivered locally by the NHS in Scotland, working with local councils, and we could bring in the British Army when we needed reinforcements. It was a huge team effort. All four nations rolled out the vaccine together.
I pay tribute to my then Scottish opposite number, Jeane Freeman. She deserves plaudits for putting pragmatism ahead of ideology. Her only problem was when the First Minister of Scotland would get involved and cause all sorts of problems by trying to politic with the programme instead of delivering the programme.
Finally, why do I, as an English MP, care about this? It is because our Union brings together the best for Scotland, England and the United Kingdom, and for my constituents, too. We should get away from this politicking and concentrate on the things that really matter.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). If he carries on reading out his briefing notes, he might get a job in the Government one day.
There is an old adage in politics: it is not enough simply to win a vote, one needs to win the argument, too. This Government are rather different, though. They will use their majority to win votes, although sometimes they try to avoid those votes, but they rarely put in the effort to win an argument, other than by blunt force and soundbite. This has led to a catalogue of nasty, unnecessary and deeply undesirable decisions. There has been a procession of decision making based on half-truth, anecdote and inaccuracy.
Take the Elections Bill, or more accurately the voter suppression Bill. Up to 3.5 million people may not have suitable identification, and the Government’s own pilots indicated that some 325,000 people could be denied a vote in a GB election. The Government have persuaded nobody of the Bill’s necessity, but they are bashing on regardless.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the difference between winning an argument and winning a vote. Is the 2014 Scottish referendum not an example of the SNP winning neither? Despite that, the SNP continues to bash on regardless, as he says.
Stewart Hosie
We are here. We did not make a unilateral declaration of independence. We have not rushed into a second referendum. What we have done is win another mandate, and we will hold the referendum in line with the wishes of the people, because that is what democracy actually means.
The proposed changes to the Electoral Commission will give this Government unprecedented and unchecked power by allowing Ministers to set the commission’s agenda and purview, thereby enabling them to change which organisations and campaign activities are permitted a year before an election. That is Executive interference in the electoral process, about which we should be deeply concerned.
On a related topic, we have a boundary review that will reduce the number of MPs in Scotland and Wales and increase the number in England. If every single vote were cast the same way, it would not affect the SNP. The polls say we would still return 48 Members, but in England the Tories would go up and everyone else would go down. Looking at the failure to tackle dark money, the boundary changes, the evisceration of the Electoral Commission and the voter suppression Bill, it is no wonder that the public smell a rat.
Then there is cash for honours. When my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) asked the Prime Minister whether such practices should end, he seemed to defend it. Rather bizarrely, he said:
“Until you get rid of the system by which the trades union barons”
whoever they are—
fund other parties, we have to…we have to go ahead.”
There is a world of difference between organisations coming together to campaign for things they believe in, and selling honours for cash, which is illegal. Of course, the Tories always defend their own, trying to get Owen Paterson off the hook and conflating his issue with a general change to the standards process. That was never going to wash.
Drew Hendry
My right hon. Friend is talking about illegality. We should never forget that it is this Prime Minister’s Government who introduced the phrase into the lexicon—into this House of Commons—that it is okay to break the law as long as it is in a “specific and limited” way.
Stewart Hosie
Limited and specific lawbreaking is still lawbreaking. I was also struck by the fact that the Government almost boasted about their intention to break international law, not by way of the “little Britlander” exceptionalism we are used to, but in a way that would have made the UK an international pariah.
I could add that this Government lost a key battle in the Tory covid cronyism row when the National Audit Office ordered them to name the VIP lane firms given public contracts. I could also talk about the disgraceful but, apparently, routine use of WhatsApp and Signal messaging systems, which have options to make messages disappear and which it appears have been used to avoid scrutiny of decisions made during the covid crisis. I could talk about the fact that the High Court granted a judicial review of the rules regarding the retention of records. But my favourite was when the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen that Parliament should be prorogued for five weeks at the height of the Brexit crisis was unlawful. Defeats in the courts, judicial reviews, trying to get Owen Paterson off the hook, cash for honours, voter suppression, weakening the Electoral Commission, ignoring dark money and unlawful prorogation—that is a pattern of self-serving, self-seeking behaviour, and an approach to governance that is grubby to say the least and smacks of dishonesty.
Stewart Hosie
No, I will not. The rot starts at the top. The fish rots from the head down—that is the Prime Minister. The buck should stop with him and the process to end this should end today with support for this motion.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
First, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, and all right hon. and hon. Members of this House, a very happy St Andrew’s Day. He is by far and away the best saint, in my humble opinion. But it has not been a very happy St Andrew’s Day for many of my constituents because, as we sit here debating this today, thousands of them remain without power, lights, heating or internet connectivity as a result of Storm Arwen. Hundreds remain without water—
Matt Hancock
Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be a better use of time to debate that rather than this motion?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for asking that question, because I do think that. I am angry that, while constituents of mine—[Interruption.] SNP Members might heckle and make light of the fact that Scots are freezing in their homes and have no access to services at this time, but I am angry that we are here debating this when people in Finzean, Strachan, Kincardine O’Neil and many other places in my constituency are dealing with a catastrophe and a crisis. It was not outwith the realms of possibility for the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to table a motion for today to debate how the Scottish and UK Governments might work together to support all those across the UK who have been affected by Storm Arwen, but we are here debating this motion. Indeed, as of earlier this afternoon, the First Minister of Scotland—Scotland’s most prolific social media activist, it would seem—had yet to post any comment—
Andrew Bowie
She may have now, but that was not the case before I came into the Chamber.
Andrew Bowie
I will not give way because before I came into the Chamber she had not. The power went off on Friday; today is Tuesday. The First Minister of Scotland had not made one comment in relation to the fact that 72,000 Scots were without power over the weekend. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for expressing his concern last night and offering the Scottish Government any support that the UK Government could give to support my constituents and, indeed, constituents throughout the rest of Scotland.
When the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber announced at the weekend, in his typical understated fashion, that he would table this motion, he said he would do so to be the “real opposition” and to hold the Government and the Prime Minister to account for our “disastrous actions”. I have to admire the brass neckery, if nothing else. One might suggest that, if SNP Members did not spend so much time playing politics down here at a time of crisis in Scotland, they might have noticed that at home in Scotland the SNP is supposed to be a real Government.
If we are going to talk about disastrous actions by Governments—I just wish I had time to go into them all—let us look at the record of the SNP in government in Scotland over the past 14 years. On drug deaths: failure, with 1,264 deaths in 2019. That is 15 times worse than Germany, 35 times worse than France and three-and-a-half times worse than the rest of the United Kingdom.
On education: failure, with Scotland under the SNP having fallen in the science, reading and maths rankings. We have the lowest scores in maths and science since Scotland started to participate in the programme for international student assessment—PISA—20 years ago. Literacy and numeracy rates are declining, the attainment gap is widening and someone is now more likely to go to university if they are from a deprived background in England than if they are from a deprived background in Scotland. That is a shameful record.
On Scotland’s NHS, 25% of GP practices have unfilled vacancies and 500 consultant posts are vacant in Scotland’s hospitals. I could go on.
The north-east of Scotland: not failure, just abandoned. North sea oil workers have been told that they have no future by the SNP’s partner in government. The First Minister has declared that there should be no more exploration in the North sea and that Cambo is a bad idea. The SNP Government are reneging on their plan to dual the A96 and have failed to deliver the money for improved rail journey times that they promised in two manifestos, and their broadband roll-out is going to be five years late. That is not so much disastrous SNP action; the SNP is missing in action when it comes to the north-east of Scotland.
All that, while more than 50,000 Scots were without power at the weekend and many were without water. While the nation recovers from Storm Arwen; while many people worry about the new strain of covid; while businesses recover from the past two years; while teachers work hard to support those kids who have been left behind; while doctors and nurses slog away to deal with the backlog and support all our constituents; while Police Scotland does more with less; while oil and gas workers worry about their future—what does the SNP choose to do today? Point scoring, petty politics and, frankly, a stunt that is wasting the time of us all. It is little wonder that the First Minister’s popularity ratings are in free fall, support for independence is on the decline and independence now ranks eighth in the priorities of the Scottish people.
This motion is on the conduct of the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson); I just wish I had any confidence in the conduct of the Scottish Government and how they are running my country.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Two weeks ago, I stood in this spot and spoke about how parliamentary time was being wasted by the Prime Minister wanting to save one of his own corrupt former MPs; today, we have the opportunity to stand here and consider why we should put up with this.
We and people outside this place are living in a society of staggering inequality. We have thousands relying on food banks, with wages pitifully low and the cost of living extremely high, yet we have a Prime Minister who oversees the consistent approach of raiding benefits, keeping wages low and increasing taxes for the working poor, yet rewarding big business and those of accumulated wealth while turning a blind eye to wealthy tax dodgers. He is a Prime Minister with his own agenda—a Prime Minister who is a democracy denier, stood on a hill of sleaze. That is exactly why it is right that we have brought forward this motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).
The Prime Minister’s Government and his leadership have failed—from Brexit lies on buses to gleefully telling of handshaking with covid patients lying stricken in hospital beds. We have seen cash for honours, cash for contracts, texts for tax breaks, cash for curtains—I am trying to fit all this in—and handouts for wallpaper. Time and again, we see who he really is—a natiform metaphor for corruption, collusion and institutional sleaze engrained in this Tory party. We need always to remember that those who hide vast sums of money or hoard their wealth in offshore accounts are not hiding it from the authorities—oh, no, Madam Deputy Speaker—in the UK, they are the authority. The Prime Minister himself registered on his interests his stay at a luxury Spanish villa as being provided free of charge by the family of Lord Goldsmith, who, by mere coincidence the Tories will claim, had been handed a peerage and a ministerial job after an electoral defeat. Yet, at Cabinet Office questions last Thursday, the Minister had the temerity to claim:
“There is no link between party donations and nominations to sit in the House of Lords.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 436.]
In the same session, in relation to the contributions—or lack of—of the Tory treasurer in the Lords, the Minister said that it was about, “Quality not quantity”. Apparently, this is our democracy in action.
Let me make this clear: in my opinion, there is nothing noble about the men and women who are sitting in that place—nothing—and even less so when they buy their place in there and their ermine robe—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be directly criticising members of the House of Lords. So I want him to readdress that in his speech. He must not continue to do that. He should move on to his next subject.
Steven Bonnar
Let me clarify, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am speaking about the whole House of Lords and not any individual within it. If anybody has to buy an ermine robe with a £3 million back-hander, I think that says it all. Where is the democracy in that? What happened to true and honest representation? Does anybody with any credibility truly think that we get that from this Prime Minster? He may argue that it is his right to appoint members to the House of Lords and, in this excuse for a democracy, indeed it is, but when will it start being the convention to stand up for those in dire poverty? When will it be this place’s convention to effectively tackle homelessness? When will it become the convention that those sitting in that place have to earn their place on merit, based on the number of votes they receive and not the number of notes in their pockets? I hope that this motion today is the first step in doing so.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
At a time when we are dealing with the aftermath of an unexpected global pandemic, a booster vaccine programme to deliver and an economy to keep firmly in recovery, I find it astounding that the SNP has used its parliamentary time today not to further the interests of the Scottish people, but to play party politics with its base.
The leader of the SNP in this place, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), has exposed what his main priority is: to get a news headline for his party conference this weekend. At a time when we have seen the emergence of a new covid variant, the tragedy that we saw last week, the people who have been left without power after Storm Arwen, imagine this being your first choice for a debate. It is nothing but political theatre designed to further an obsession with independence. All that the SNP has achieved today is exposing what the Scottish people already know—the priorities of the SNP could not be further removed from the priorities of the Scottish people.
Just last week, YouGov published a poll that found that the three most common priorities for the Scottish people—indeed these were in line with the priorities of the British people—were the covid recovery, healthcare and the economy. Yet what did we see at the SNP’s annual conference this week? The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke for more than 15 minutes. How many times did he mention the NHS? Not once. How many times did he mention failing standards in Scottish schools? Not once. Yet how many times did he mention independence? Seven times. In his opening speech today, I think he made double digits.
With the eye of the SNP tilted so firmly away from their own delivery of public services, it is little surprise that under their leadership schools have plummeted down the international league tables, A&E waiting times are near their worst level on record, and Scotland has the highest drug death rate in the whole of Europe. All those issues are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and have been under the SNP’s stewardship for 14 years.
Claire Coutinho
Yet instead of focusing on those issues or the other important issues on which we could be focusing for the Scottish people, again SNP Members are simply trying to drive us further apart from one another.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I heard SNP Members saying, “Not true”, but they did not intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and they are not intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). Do they have any answer to her charge sheet?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
I think that SNP Members will agree that during the pandemic we have seen the strength that our family of nations, working together, can achieve, including: the procurement of vaccines through Kate Bingham’s much lauded work with the vaccine taskforce; the British Army deploying personnel to help the ambulance service and providing mobile testing units in all the different nations; and the full financial power of the United Kingdom Treasury, pooling and sharing all our resources to stand shoulder to shoulder with the British people across all four nations, and support livelihoods through the UK furlough scheme.
Let us briefly talk about the SNP’s single issue, on which they focus to the detriment of all others: dividing our family of nations. My parents were so pleased to have been welcomed to Britain when they moved here in the 1970s. Like so many others, they viewed these islands as a shining city on a hill—a beacon of optimism and opportunity. With a mum who still works for the NHS in England and a cousin who works for the NHS in Scotland, I know at first hand how the people of Britain are woven together. Our bond is more than constitutional. It is emotional; it is shared family ties.
As we emerge from a difficult couple of years, our focus in this place should be on supporting the people and families of this country, and dealing with their priorities, not on the endless constitutional obsessions of the Scottish National party.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). I commend her on reading her briefing notes so very well. She says that we in the SNP do not know the priorities of the Scottish people, but I gently remind her that the Tories do not win elections in Scotland.
Over the course of the pandemic, the UK’s economy has shrunk at the fastest rate for a century, and unemployment has grown to one of its highest rates. At the exact same time, Britain created a record number of billionaires. There are now 171 billionaires in this country. While the rich were getting richer, the poor were getting poorer. When this Tory Government should have been lending a hand to the most vulnerable in society, some of those on the Government Benches chose to line their own pockets and the pockets of their rich mates, and the Prime Minister did nothing.
Let us be absolutely clear: the policies that this Tory Government have introduced and continue to implement are none other than an attack on working-class communities. My constituents of Airdrie and Shotts are in continual contact with me, outlining how Tory policies are impacting their day-to-day lives, and they have raised genuine concerns that the Prime Minister simply does not understand the hardships that people face. Rather than looking after his mates, the Prime Minister should be listening to the public. He is not here today, but I want to put on record how his policies are impacting my constituents.
Ms Qaisar
No, I am going to make progress.
A constituent wrote to me saying,
“I am a single woman that has learning difficulties. A £20 per week cut in my income would have a huge impact on me. I have struggled with my bills till the pandemic—the extra money has helped me out a lot.”
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), is in his place and I have a few questions for him. How many people who are on universal credit does the Prime Minister know? And how many people does the Prime Minister know who have donated money to the Conservative party and subsequently joined the Lords?
Dawn Butler
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Government Members seem to forget the subject matter of this debate. Watching the Peter Stefanovic video that has more than 40 million views might help to jog their memory. They might also want to sign my early-day motion 383 about the ministerial code, and watch my “The Big Narstie Show” performance, in which I did a little rap about the Prime Minister.
Ms Qaisar
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I highly encourage Conservative Members to go and have a look.
I have previously spoken in this Chamber on the Nolan principles of public life by which we are bound. The Prime Minister’s actions have potential to bring shame on this House, with scandal after scandal bringing it into disrepute. Yet there has been no independent investigation to hold those responsible to account. The deception and dishonesty of this old boys network is entrenched in Government and in the Lords. I simply cannot comprehend that in the Scotland Office we have a Government Minister who in May this year was rejected by the Scottish electorate but, just months later, handed a peerage and a Government role. How is this democratic? [Interruption.] Exactly—it is not. Since the Prime Minister arrived at the Dispatch Box he has created 96 peers in less than two years, so the unelected House of Lords is bigger than the elected House of Commons. I ask again: how is this democratic?
The Prime Minister has frequently violated the sixth principle of public life. His attention should instead be on creating policies that help the most vulnerable in society. That starts by retaining the universal credit uplift and scrapping the two-child limit, along with scrapping the national insurance hike.
The pandemic has worsened household finances. To prevent a generation of people being failed, this UK Tory Government need sustainable and long-term solutions.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar). I wish hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House a very happy St Andrew’s Day.
It was a slight surprise to see on the Order Paper a motion in the name of the SNP that did not mention independence, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) managed to get it in in his perfectly scripted intervention—the first that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) took. I understand why SNP Members have chosen this topic today. I understand why they want to keep making the case for independence—because it is brilliant for their social media clips. It allows them to stand up here, express their faux outrage, and post those clips on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and all the others. But it does not improve the lives of their constituents. Call me old-fashioned, but that is what I came here to do. I came here to represent my constituents of Burnley and Padiham and to make their lives better. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) made the point crystal clear when he explained what his constituents are going through right now. SNP Members had the chance to talk about those issues and they chose not to. They chose not to table an urgent question. They chose not to have a debate in the House. They chose to ignore what is happening to people up and down Scotland and the rest of the country.
SNP Members spoke about the Elections Bill. The right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said that we had not made the case for the changes being made in the Bill. That is not true. If anyone reads the Conservative manifesto that delivered the majority on this side of the House, they will see that we proposed changes on ID for elections.
Aaron Bell
I served on the Elections Bill Committee and the evidence we heard from Tower Hamlets, Peterborough and all over the country does make that case very clearly. We took on the arguments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) in that Committee and defeated them.
Antony Higginbotham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which highlights perfectly my point about faux outrage: all that SNP Members come here for is to do clips for social media. They do not want to be here. I get why they do not want to be here; I understand their desire for independence. But given that they are here, they have an obligation and a responsibility to represent their constituents in the best possible way, and we could have focused this debate on a much better subject.
SNP Members have put forward a number of examples that they sought to use to highlight his conduct, but they were very selective in doing so, so let me give them some other examples. Why do we not talk about the vaccine roll-out, led by the Prime Minister, which was the quickest in the world? Why do we not talk about the fact that the Prime Minister decided he would be the first Minister for the Union? Why do we not talk about the fact that the Prime Minister launched the Union connectivity review, because he cares about linking the four corners of the UK? Why do we not talk about the UK shared prosperity fund? Why do we not talk about the fact that our armed forces are growing and that, as a result of the plans announced by the Defence Secretary, they are growing for the first time in Scotland, too? We could have focused this debate on far bigger issues that matter to people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it is a shame that the SNP did not.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It is fitting that we are holding this debate on St Andrew’s Day, as he is not just the patron saint of Scotland, but a fisherman. That was yet another broken promise of the Prime Minister, who swindled and betrayed fishermen after the Brexit deal that he barely seemed to have read, let alone understood. He claimed that the UK was an
“independent coastal state with full control of our waters”.
The truth, as always, is sadly very far removed from the rhetoric. The fishing industry was a convenient tool for charlatans to sell Brexit, before the fishermen were sold out and stitched up.
I find it interesting that this debate has seen a defence of a kind of the Prime Minister from Government Members, but I have not yet heard a single one of them challenge any line in the motion as inaccurate. Their desire to change the terms of the debate and talk about anything but what is in the motion only leads me to conclude that they agree. If they disagreed or they could challenge it, they would do so, and that simply is not happening.
We all make mistakes. Anyone can see that and accept that. Where genuine errors occur, they need to be put right at the first opportunity, but we do not see that with this Government. Instead, we have an ever-increasing timeline of misinformation languishing on the record, a failure to stand up for the best possible standards in public life and a Prime Minister who will seemingly do anything he can to adjust the rules to fit the narrative he wants to achieve.
There are channels through which the Government should be held to account, including in this place. This Prime Minister is doing everything he can to avoid that, up to illegally proroguing the House. Under his leadership, we have a Government who have been mired in sleaze, corruption and cover-up. Colleagues have listed a litany of such failures. Government Members have had the opportunity to challenge these points, and they have not. Even Peppa Pig could see what is there in front of them, regardless of how much they might have missed.
As Burns said,
“facts are chiels that winna ding”.
If the behaviour of this Government becomes normalised, the self-regulation of checks and balances that operate in this democracy break down. Those are the depths to which this Prime Minister seems to be willing to take us.
Some might say that the issue in the motion is not a talking point on the doorsteps—I have heard that suggestion from some Government Members—but people in my constituency of Midlothian are absolutely scunnered by the behaviour of this Government. It puts every one of us to shame that this is seen as the top standard that can be achieved. People are dismayed. There seem to be no consequences for appalling behaviour. It would not apply in any other walk of life. In no other job could the actions of the Prime Minister be failed to be held to account, yet in this place, he can just change the rules. This censure motion can begin to put things right. It can be a start on the trajectory to ensuring that we are held in a far higher regard. While sleaze and dishonesty continue to sit at the heart of this Government, these issues will continue to haunt us all.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
This has been an interesting and fiery debate. I have listened carefully to every contribution. It has fundamentally been about the approach to governance; the conduct—not the character—and actions of the Prime Minister; and the principles of public life.
When I think about those principles, I think of words, which Members have read out, such as accountability, leadership, probity and transparency. We all agree with those things, but we have to then think about how they are translated in one’s conduct and actions. I put it gently to SNP Members that working hard for the people who elected us is a pretty good way to put in place the principles of accountability and leadership.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bim Afolami
No, I will make some progress.
Let us look at the contrast between what the Prime Minister is doing and what is happening in Holyrood. There is a new covid variant. We do not know how serious it will be, but it is right that we should be watchful. The economies of the United Kingdom and of Scotland are on the brink of recovery. In the face of that, the SNP’s priority is an independence referendum. Is that working hard for the people who elected it, bearing in mind the challenges that exist?
Ian Blackford
I commend the hon. Gentleman for at least trying to address the topic, but I gently say that the First Minister of Scotland went to the Chamber today to address the covid crisis. The First Minister and I, in my speech to the SNP conference, have made it crystal clear that our first priority is dealing with that. The difference is that the First Minister of Scotland went to the Chamber to answer Members. We have repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to make covid statements here, as he should. He does not do that; he does press conferences. He should be accountable to Members, but he has failed to be.
Bim Afolami
Where I would gently disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that the position of the Deputy First Minister, Mr Swinney, has explicitly been that independence is the priority. The First Minister has said that, regardless of what happens with covid or the economy, she wants another independence referendum by the end of 2023.
Let us look at another aspect of working hard for the people who elect us and of translating those principles of accountability and leadership and the things in public life that we say we care about. Between 2007 and 2019, the rate of job creation in Scotland increased by about 5%. For the rest of the United Kingdom overall, the increase was about double that. Rather than focus on increasing the rate of job creation in Scotland, the SNP in Holyrood went into coalition with the Greens, whose website—I checked it myself—says explicitly that they want a universal basic income and that they think negative growth is manageable. That is not the action of a Scottish Government who are concerned about working hard for the people who elected them.
Let us turn to another issue, such as drug deaths, which many Members have already mentioned. Scottish drug deaths are the highest in Europe, but the response of the SNP is to decriminalise class A drug possession.
We would all agree that making long-term decisions in the public interest is another good way to implement and translate the principles of accountability, leadership, transparency and probity—all the things that we come to the House to do. What have the Government, led by the Prime Minister, done? On the vaccine roll-out, they opted out of the EU vaccine scheme, which was a brave decision at the time, because lots of people said that it would damn us to being at the back of the queue. In fact, we are at the front. On the green industrial revolution and the 10-point plan, we were lauded internationally at COP26 for our leadership on that issue. On the decision we made on social care, a subject that so many Governments have ducked, I suspect—dare I say it—that the Prime Minister was given advice saying, “Look, this is a really difficult issue. Is it right that we do it?” and the Prime Minister said, “Yes, we need to tackle social care, and we need to come up with a plan that is fairer and better for everybody in this country.” That is what dealing with the long-term interests of the people who elected us is about.
To finish by paraphrasing what the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) said in his speech, even Peppa Pig can see that this Government and this Prime Minister are taking the right actions, and the SNP is not.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I truly wish it was a privilege and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). Has he heard of the word “mandate”? Actually, the one he knows really well is “deflection”.
I had hoped that the Prime Minister would step up to the mark when he assumed high office. I tell my granddaughters that I am disappointed, not angry, when they conduct themselves badly, but I am truly disappointed and angry, but not surprised, with the current Prime Minister, given his predilection for saying what he thinks people want to hear, and changing his mind and breaking promises when it suits.
I wish Scotland were not part of this Union, but while we are, SNP MPs like me must and should censure the current Prime Minister for dishonourable conduct that reflects badly on the UK both here and internationally. The Prime Minister seems to believe that it is okay to say one thing and do another, or to plough ahead with policies, in the middle of a pandemic, that cause real hardship to ordinary families and even more so to our vulnerable communities. Woe betide any person or organisation that gets in the way of what the Prime Minister and the Conservative party see as their divine right to govern how they like. Their attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and on MPs who disagree are vile and undermine all independent checks, which are supposed to protect us all from abuses of power. The Westminster system is broken, and the sooner Scotland can break free of it, the better.
This Prime Minister thinks he can say or do what he likes without hindrance. We as MPs owe it to our constituents to challenge him and his Government to disabuse them of that notion, hence this motion today. Pork barrel politics is now the norm for this Conservative Government. It is much more likely that a Tory marginal seat will receive Government funding than an area that truly needs and deserves it. Seven out of 10 Cabinet Ministers were in low-priority most developed areas, but first in line for significant funding. As we say in Scotland, they do not even put a face on it. The Good Law Project has mounted a legal challenge to the levelling-up fund allocation to assess whether the funding is based on Tory ministerial bias and toeing the party line on certain issues. The Prime Minister believes in helping cronies and Ministers, and the devil take the hindmost. He enjoys unaccountable power, and can and has dismissed independent advice on alleged breaches of ministerial rules.
I want to focus this speech on how what the Prime Minister has done affects disabled people and families with disabled children. We are still in the middle of a public health crisis and inflation is now running at 5%, energy companies are failing, the cost of heating our homes is even higher and mortgage increases are likely. These things worry people in Scotland and the rest of the UK—I work hard for my constituents, and I challenge this Government on a daily basis to make their lives better—but none of this seems to concern this Prime Minister. What matters to him is money and protecting those who have it. There is yet another case going through the courts raised by two employment and support allowance claimants who are claiming that the Department for Work and Pensions acted unlawfully and discriminated against disabled people by not giving the uplift to those on legacy benefits. This sleazy UK Government, headed by a Prime Minister who does not understand how disabled people struggle to live, must look to the Scottish social security system, which is based on the principles of dignity, fairness and respect.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
On this happy St Andrew’s Day I have had haggis, Irn-Bru and an SNP debate; I can recommend two out of the three any time of day.
Since arriving here in Parliament in 2019 it has always struck me that the SNP is just a one-trick pony, ignoring its own failings on health, education and the economy to put its own selfish case forward for independence. But it is losing the argument—we know that by the poll results—so SNP Members have adopted a new tactic: to besmirch the good name of our great Prime Minister. Maybe they should tell us where the missing £600,000 is and explain why senior members of their party stood down from its national executive committee earlier this year. Their own MPs are asking difficult questions yet the leadership remains silent. Maybe they should apologise to the people of Scotland for the state of their education system, which is failing thousands of Scottish children while they bang on about leaving the Union and rejoining the European Union. Maybe they should explain to the people of Scotland why, despite being in power for 13 years, they have the worst health statistics in the world. Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves, instead of wasting parliamentary time on a pointless debate that will achieve nothing, and they should explain why after 13 years in power Scotland is going backwards.
Marion Fellows
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Member to withdraw the remark about the worst health record in the world? I want to save him from embarrassment in the press.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that I am not responsible for what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that if he feels he has said anything that is incorrect, he will want to correct the record.
Lee Anderson
I might make a slight correction here: perhaps I should have referred to the drug deaths, which are the worst in the western world.
What we need to chat about is the Westminster leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who has been very quiet about the £270,00 he has rinsed from outside earnings since he was elected to Westminster in 2015. It would take the average worker in Scotland 11 years to earn that much money yet he stands over there every single Wednesday talking about poverty when his greedy snout is firmly in the trough; and remember this is on top—
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, no: it was made very clear at the beginning of this debate that we were not going to insult each other. The motion is about the conduct of the Prime Minister so perhaps we can take the temperature down a little.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to create an argument and my closing comments will back up what I am saying now.
The right hon. Gentleman has not even apologised for the drunken loutish behaviour of his own MPs who during a trip to Gibraltar just a few weeks ago were spotted staggering around—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He is straying a long way from the motion. He is also referring to certain Members; I do not know whether they are here or not, but he should have notified them if he was going to refer to them. I suggest he resumes his speech and bears in mind the points I have made, because I would hate to think the public were looking at us and thinking that this has just become a slanging match.
Owen Thompson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Member is making clearly erroneous accusations against Members that are simply not true; I ask for your guidance on how the Member can remove those comments and correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think I made my views very clear. First, it is very important not to make references to Members who are not here if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) is accusing them of something; secondly, I hope we can maintain an element of courtesy in this debate—although it is not going well so far in the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to apologise to the SNP, and we can clear this up straightaway. I apologise about the Gibraltar comments. I have spoken to some of my constituents who would like to see some of the MPs breathalysed next time they get off an aeroplane in Gibraltar. That will clear it up straightaway.
Now, all this nonsense from the SNP is in sharp contrast to our Prime Minister, who has got Brexit done by leaving the EU, delivered a £36 billion package to sort out the national health service and social care, delivered the fastest vaccination—
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not think it was a bit rich for the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) to start talking about public spending in constituencies served by Conservative Members when we have some of the poorest constituencies in the country voting Conservative these days because the working people trust this Prime Minister?
Lee Anderson
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his sensible intervention. I only have to look at my constituency, Ashfield, one of the poorest in the country, and at neighbouring Bolsover, Don Valley and Rother Valley—all those places have had millions of pounds of investment. The Prime Minister has also launched our plan for jobs, helping people get back into work. We are cutting taxes, we are boosting wages—we are helping working families.
I am going to stop picking on the SNP, because I want to talk about the massed ranks of the Labour party. I am struggling to see them at the moment. Despite pretending to be bothered, they could not be bothered to turn up today. They seem to think that there is a war raging in France at the moment and that it is acceptable for thousands of illegal migrants to cross our channel every single day. They really need to get a grip.
Another sign that the Labour party has lost the plot is that it wants to replace our armed forces with “human security services”—a shift from the classic armed forces to a gender balanced, ethnically diverse human security services tasked with dampening down violence. Imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker: a peace-loving British tank—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is a motion about the Government. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman needs to bring his remarks to a close. I want him to resume his seat. I call Wendy Chamberlain.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Several weeks ago, during the Standing Order No. 24 emergency debate on standards, Mr Speaker said that he wanted to see the House at its best. Sadly, I do not think we are seeing that today.
We have spent the afternoon listening to a list of instances of poor conduct committed by the Prime Minister, which is the focus of the debate, and I find that I have little to add to that list. Like many Members, I have had correspondence from people who just want this Government and this Prime Minister to behave properly on a variety of issues, and I agree with them. I know that campaigners in North Shropshire are hearing similar on the doorstep.
Previously, I have talked about my children, and the difference between saying sorry because you have been caught and actually apologising for wrongdoing. The fact that we are here yet again just shows that that message has not got through. It is not enough to change the subject when you have made an error of judgment; you must make it right, and not simply because it is politically opportune to do so. True contrition involves not doing the same thing again and taking the right actions.
What actions are those? Let us start with full support for the Standards Committee recommendations relating to the code of conduct, which were published yesterday. Let us talk about proper enforcement of the ministerial code. Let us talk about a willingness to support procedural changes to make this House modern, relevant and democratic in its workings.
Turning back to the motion, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said at the weekend that in bringing this debate forward, he would be acting as the “real opposition” to this Government, but this is not a formal motion of no confidence and it will, sadly, have no meaningful outcome. Real opposition means taking real action and demanding real answers. I point out that it was not the SNP but myself and Liberal Democrats who secured the debate on parliamentary standards—I acknowledge that that was welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman’s party—that took place immediately following the initial standards vote. That was what forced answers to be given to the House and actions to be taken in relation to those matters.
I think we could have debated this topic today in a manner more likely to bring those on the Government Benches who have expressed displeasure at recent events to a position where some kind of consensus could be reached. That would have been a way of chipping away at the Government majority, which I am sure will be in full force this evening. Digesting the Standards Committee report would be a clear way forward for this House on an issue that affects us all.
There are vital issues that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber could have chosen to debate with his party today. His colleague in the Scottish Parliament, the Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, was just this weekend arguing that his party is the only one that cares about devolution. If that is the case, why are we not discussing that, given how vital the right hon. Gentleman’s counterparts in Holyrood believe it to be? Is it partly because the reality is that the SNP is not really all that fussed about devolution at all, when what it wants to do is end it and cut Scotland asunder from the rest of the UK? Devolution means devolving powers to where they can be best utilised and to the maximum benefit of the public.
The current Scottish Government, led by the SNP in coalition with the Scottish Greens, like to centralise power just as much as those on the Conservative Benches in the UK Government. There is no evidence of any support for real devolution from the right hon. Member’s party. I am a Liberal Democrat, a Scottish Liberal Democrat—a party with a long history of supporting, in over 20 years of the Scottish Parliament, not just devolution but federalism. Powers and funding should be national, regional or local depending on the requirement. But perhaps I am wrong. I hope the right hon. Member and his party will explain why, if his party feels so strongly about devolution, it is not the issue in the motion we are debating.
As the MP for the town of St Andrews on St Andrew’s Day, I think we could have used this Opposition time more productively than what has been afforded to us this afternoon.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I rise today on behalf of the people of Rother Valley to put on the record our strong and unwavering support for the Prime Minister and the transformative work he is doing for our communities and areas like ours across the north and the midlands. There is no doubt that this Prime Minister gets things done. I have been very disappointed by the tone of the debate. SNP Members, in typical SNP fashion, snipe from the sidelines—they are literally doing it now—and make wholly unsubstantiated claims for purely political gain. This Prime Minister, however, focuses on the job at hand of levelling up for everyone. It is clear that he is radically improving public life. To prove that, my constituents would point to a panoply of evidence.
First, and very importantly for those on the Conservative Benches and the people of the country, this is the Prime Minister who got Brexit done where others failed. He achieved Brexit when we were told that we could not leave and there was no deal that we could make. Despite that, he overcame the gridlock and delivered on what the people wanted, Brexit, which was no easy feat. He secured a deal that everyone else said was impossible and negotiated an unprecedented free trade agreement with the European Union, which no other country in the world enjoys. Crucially, he achieved a full and complete Brexit: not some Brexit in name only which was advocated by many of the liberal elite, but a full and proper Brexit.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Given that Northern Ireland now has access to the single market as part of the island of Ireland and voted to remain within the European Union, why has Scotland not been offered the same opportunity?
Alexander Stafford
I am a bit unsure about the hon. Gentleman’s point, because the United Kingdom as a whole voted for Brexit, including a large number of people in Scotland, lest we forget—an awful lot of people. I think we should all obey the will of the people. As we have already established, when we talk about standards, SNP Members do not like listening to the will of the people, whether on Brexit or independence. They are having their cake and eating it.
Another aspect that my constituents—even SNP constituents—care passionately about is the roll-out of the fastest vaccine programme in the world under this Prime Minister. By taking the brave choices and backing myriad horses, almost nine in 10 people aged 12 and over have now received a first dose of the vaccine. Undoubtedly, the Prime Minister’s actions have led to the saving of thousands upon thousands of lives.
The Prime Minister has placed great emphasis on inventing and manufacturing vaccines here in Britain. We must recognise the Prime Minister’s foresight in placing bets on multiple vaccine options, in over-ordering doses, in ensuring the provision of boosters and in backing our British scientists and companies. Not only that, but we have provided vaccines to the rest of the world, leading the way at the G20 on vaccine donation, committing 100 million doses, including the entire Janssen UK supply and half of the UK Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines for countries in need.
Turning to Rother Valley, this Prime Minister has the backing of Rother Valley and is delivering for it. There is his support for the green industries of the future, with visible Government support for ITM Power and Government measures to protect Sheffield and Rotherham steel.
We have heard about the levelling-up fund, from which Rother Valley was pleased to get £11 million. Contrary to what SNP Members claim about the funding going to well-off areas, £4.5 million of that went to a town that they may only have heard of called Maltby. It is one of the most deprived parts of the country—in fact, it is in the lowest 5% for poverty in the entire country. I therefore believe that people there should get that funding. It is right.
The Prime Minister has listened to the people of Rother Valley and scrapped the HS2 2b arm, which is great. The area has received much coronavirus support throughout, including from bounce back loans and the like. On top of that, the Government are delivering the biggest increase in police numbers in 10 years. Government funding and the police precept will mean that, by 2022, police numbers in South Yorkshire will rise by 228—[Interruption.] Despite what SNP Members may be chuntering—there are not many of them, admittedly—by 2023, there will be more police than there were in 2010, so we are overdelivering.
Let us look at the evidence for why the people back the Prime Minister. I point to the local election results in Rotherham this year: the last time we had election results, we got a grand total of zero Conservative councillors, but this time in May, we had 20. That is the biggest increase of any council in the country and the most Conservative councillors that have ever represented Rotherham. In Rotherham, that bastion of socialism since time immemorial, Labour came within 94 votes of losing their majority. If that is not a backing for this Prime Minister, his way of doing things and getting things done, and his action, I do not know what is. Surely the test of all politicians is election results and, in May this year, the electorate gave its resounding support to the Prime Minister.
I believe that this House offers its full backing to the Prime Minister, and that Rother Valley and those areas that need levelling up support him to get things done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There have been a lot of interventions. As a result, I will have to take the time limit down to three minutes. I have been able to warn the next speaker, but I urge colleagues to be aware that if they continue to take interventions, not everyone will get in.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The fact is that we are here today because we have a Prime Minister who has spent the past two years undermining the very institution of liberal democracy.
On cash for honours, it is one thing to bestow meaningless medieval titles on people but it is quite another when those titles guarantee a seat for life in this building, subject to zero democratic oversight, zero elections and zero accountability—but it was ever thus. In the days of Maundy Gregory and Lloyd George, there was a price list for honours: £10,000 for a knighthood and up to £50,000—£2.7 million in today’s prices, funnily enough—for a peerage. At least that predated the introduction of VAT and kept prices down for eager customers.
When the law finally caught up with Mr Gregory, he was fined £50 and got two months in jail. He is still the only person to have been convicted of selling honours and, even then, he escaped any prosecution over the sale of British honours—instead, he was collared for punting Vatican ones. That fact alone is incredible given all that we know about the past 100 years of the Lords and political honours, but his sentence also tells a tale about the establishment’s attitude to someone caught in the act: they simply are not interested. Not a single person has ever been convicted of selling British honours. If someone believes that that means that honours have not been sold, I have a bridge or two I can sell them—not a garden bridge or a bridge to Northern Ireland, because only a mug would think that those were feasible.
The British establishment, with the Prime Minister at its apex, has shown over decades that the House of Lords is unreformable. The plain fact is that the Lords’ main function is not to revise and amend legislation as part of democracy’s checks and balances, because the only checks that are required for appointment to the House of Lords need to be made payable to Conservative central office.
The Prime Minister has shown himself time and again to be unfit to decide who sits in that place. He is not the first, but he is possibly the worst. He has used his untrammelled powers over honours to stuff what is supposed to be an upper Chamber of Parliament full of cronies and chums. He should be thoroughly ashamed, but it is not even clear that he has the ability to feel shame.
It is time for Scotland to rid itself of this stink and follow a different course. Whatever challenges independence will bring—and there will be challenges—we will at least have a functioning democracy based on accountability and plurality, rather than the absolutely rotten system that we live under today. We will also no longer live under the Prime Minister and his open contempt for democracy.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I must say that I find it utterly bizarre that we find ourselves here this afternoon, once again wasting valuable parliamentary time, all because SNP Members are so desperate to deflect from their own insecurities and failures. It is laughable that they want to accuse our Prime Minister of ignoring advice when the policy of ignoring is precisely what their party stands for. The good Scottish people voted to remain a part of the United Kingdom, but SNP Members will not take the final word of their own constituents as exactly what it is; instead, they seek to overturn it. Theirs is a policy of division.
The SNP nationalists consistently let down Scottish people on healthcare, with accident and emergency waiting times near the worst level on record. Their First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stumbled and floundered over her devolved nationalist Government’s record on the NHS, covid recovery and the economy in a recent TV interview: all she appeared to do was blame the pandemic. In her time as First Minister, the number of people waiting more than 12 weeks for treatment increased by 427% for out-patients and 1,590% for in-patients.
Who supported the Scottish people, Scottish businesses and the Scottish Government through the pandemic? It was the UK Government, led by our Prime Minister. It was the UK Government who implemented the furlough scheme supporting more than 900,000 individuals. It was the UK Government who supported 175,000 self-employed workers in Scotland, with a total claim on the UK taxpayer of nearly £1.7 billion. It was this UK Government who secured access to the covid-19 vaccine for Scotland, saving lives and stopping the spread of the virus. It is this UK Government who have secured the booster jabs to protect and save lives as we face uncertainties over the omicron variant.
But I do not think that SNP Members care about any of that. They do not care about what really benefits their residents; they care only about holding on to their seats. For them, it is about division. To fuel their own separatist fires, they want English Members in this place to come out berating Scotland and its people. I have news for them: all the colleagues I know love Scotland and the Scottish people. Even Labour MPs, although they are absent today, love Scotland—why, they even had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who were Scottish.
This personal attack on the Prime Minister is nothing more than an act of political desperation by a party that is covering up its failings. Soon we will have not just painted windows on ferries that it cannot build, but painted images on the Opposition Benches for a party of Christmas past. The SNP is running out of ideas and running out of time.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The Scotch—what a verminous race!”
So says a racist poem that calls for the “comprehensive extermination” of the Scots—a poem that the current Prime Minister thought merited publishing when he was editor of The Spectator. We know that he thinks that
“a pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country…than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”
That is his view of our place in the Union. We have already heard the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) telling us to be grateful for what we get.
The Prime Minister has suggested that it is English subsidies that pay for Scottish Government policies such as free personal care and free tuition fees. He has also called for the abolition of the Barnett formula. Not long ago, he told Tory Back Benchers that devolution was Tony Blair’s “biggest mistake” and a “disaster”, so it is both bizarre and pathetic how the Scottish Tories defend this man and his attitudes.
The Prime Minister tried to woo us with the Union bridge, but we did not need the feasibility study to tell us that it was a stupid idea and that it could not be done. Meanwhile, while he kept trying to find money for his vanity project, the Scottish carbon capture cluster—the most advanced such project—has been ditched in favour of two clusters in the north of England that are targeted at the red wall seats. Yet again, that is our place in the Union according to the Prime Minister.
This is also the Prime Minister who helped to inflict Brexit on us—a man happy to be on a bus with a slogan that was a downright lie, with a leave campaign that broke the rules on the use of data and was partly funded by dark money.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will take the point of order, but I feel quite strongly that the debate should not be constantly interrupted by points of order which are, in fact, matters for debate.
Paul Holmes
As a new Member of Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, I need to ask your advice. Is it acceptable in the House to use the word “liar”, and to accuse a Member of lying?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, but the Chairman of Ways and Means made it very clear that, in the particular circumstances of this debate, some language that could not normally be used is allowed because of the nature of the motion.
Alan Brown
For the record, the slogan on the bus was a downright lie.
This is a Prime Minister who gave us an illegal prorogation of Parliament, and was willing to break international law. This is a Prime Minister who clearly does not respect democracy, and is seeking to undermine it further. We have the introduction of voter ID, and lifetime votes for expatriates because he thinks that that they are more likely to vote Tory. He has given himself the power to call an election. We have seen the attack on the Electoral Commission, the privatisation of Channel 4, the attempts to install Paul Dacre as chair of Ofcom, and the secret freedom of information clearing house. All those are further levers to manipulate and to hold on to power. Moreover, this a man who once conspired to have a reporter beaten up, and who was sacked from his own job as a journalist for lying in a story. As we have heard, he also continues to stuff the House of Lords with cronies and donors. It is outrageous that he suggested to the Liaison Committee that that was necessary to counteract the power of trade unions.
All this explains why the Prime Minister rushed to the defence of Owen Paterson over paid lobbying. So many of my constituents ask me how I can put up with the antics in this place, but one thing I can tell the Tories is that this is driving people towards independence.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Any member of the public who has the misfortune to stumble across the debate will be appalled that, at the time of a pandemic, a migrant crisis, endless illegal crossings of the channel and numerous other real concerns that are filling up my inbox, SNP Members are indulging themselves with this non-issue in a transparent attempt to generate a few cheap headlines. I am interested in how they alighted on the sum of £41,567. Is that so that the British Prime Minister would make less money than the leader of the SNP in Scotland? I am not sure because in general the job of the Prime Minister, the most responsible role in the country, is already remunerated annually for less than that of countless public sector bureaucrats and managers, many of whom earn twice or even three times the Prime Minister's salary for a fraction of the responsibility. As they are so interested in fairness, SNP Members will presumably be demanding a debate on that anomaly as well—or perhaps not.
The only person who is not justifying his salary is the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who, instead of serving his constituents and allowing the rest of us to do the same, prefers to waste all our time on this infantile debate. That says far more about him than it does about our Prime Minister.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
With or without invoking parliamentary privilege, it is sadly fair comment and no libel when we consider the conduct of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and how it has become unbecoming of a Prime Minister. That prompts the question of how and why we have reached this point. Today’s debate should not be partisan and it should not be about the failings of a single man, because this place made him and it has so far enabled his conduct to take place. There needs to be a discussion of how far we are willing to go before we reset the course of a failing ship of state so that it can sail straight.
For too long this place has insulated itself from criticism and failure by burrowing deeper and deeper into the traditions and virtues of history. It remains entrenched in the conventions of a time when landed gentlemen indulged in debating skills, all the while legislating to protect their own vested interests, two sword-lengths apart. You would wonder, would you not, Madam Deputy Speaker, what has changed. Its chronic reluctance to overcome adversarial politics and to modernise means that its vulnerabilities can be, and have been, easily exploited by some for personal or political gain. This place lent itself to that.
We need to do better to remedy the sheer immensity of the challenges that we face. We have all talked about that, but we have been so adversarial about it, haven’t we? We have used it as a pantomime charge to throw against one another. It is a consensual rather than an adversarial politics that lies at the heart of Plaid Cymru’s co-operation agreement with the Labour Welsh Government, which was ratified this weekend. The conduct of this Prime Minister necessitates it. It has brought Labour on board with several key Plaid Cymru pledges, including free school meals for all primary school pupils, the devolution of the management of the Crown Estate, a commitment to take radical action to address the second homes crisis and, yes, long-term reform of the Senedd, to name but a few. This is the politics of the 21st century, and not a museum piece. The behaviour of this Prime Minister has necessitated it.
We want to work with other parties to achieve social, economic and environmental progress, and this agreement does that. It also brings about the stability, consensus and ideas needed in our political system to ensure that we rebuild from the pandemic and act swiftly to achieve net zero. I look forward to hearing support from the Labour Benches here and the parliamentary Labour party for the only place in which Labour holds Government in the United Kingdom.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
It could have been so much better today. We had a precious chance to debate the issues that are most important to the people of Scotland, and SNP Members know what those issues are, because every opinion poll tells them that it is not independence. Fewer than 13% of Scots put it in their top three issues. In fact, the top three priorities for Scotland are healthcare, the economy and education, and it is just the same in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are together in this in our United Kingdom. But that is no good, because the job of the SNP is to sow division and to drive a wedge, because it has one issue—independence—irrespective of the views of the Scottish people.
If we look at healthcare, we can see why SNP Members are so silent on it. Any debate on the SNP’s health performance over the past 14 years would be a disaster for it. Even before covid, waiting times for referrals in England averaged 12 days—room for improvement—but in Scotland, waiting times for out-patients were 32 days and for in-patients 45 days. That is not an accident. That is the choice of the SNP. We have already heard about the drugs scandal. If we want to debate a scandal in this House today, we should debate the SNP’s drugs policy.
What about the economy? SNP Members do not want to talk about that either, because of the massive support from the United Kingdom Government for millions of people and businesses across Scotland, including the furlough schemes; the 99,000 Scottish businesses helped through business support; the billions invested in locally driven partnerships and projects from the shared prosperity fund, the levelling-up fund, the community ownership fund and the global Britain investment fund; and of course the Union dividend of £2,800 for every adult and child invested in Scotland every year. So we had better not talk about the economy.
That is before I have even mentioned the third issue: education. The SNP used to want to talk about that. In 2015, Nicola Sturgeon said:
“Let me be clear. I want to be judged on this. If you are not, as First Minister, prepared to put your neck on the line on the education of our young people, then what are you prepared to do? It really matters.”
She was right. It really does matter. But after a decade of devolved power, Scotland has fallen below England in the PISA standards for reading, maths and science. The SNP does not want to talk about that.
So what is left? An obsession with constitutional change and a debate on how much the Prime Minister should be paid. This matters. Just yesterday, the First Minister ordered the Scottish Government to divert resources to prepare for a referendum—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have to keep people absolutely to time.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It would be remiss of me not to start my contribution to a debate on the Prime Minister by reflecting on the characteristics of my own toddler back at home. He is fast approaching two, and he is developing a cute personality. He likes to re-enact or imitate the noises that cars make. Sometimes he loses his place, by complete chance, and does not know what he is saying or doing. I think it is adorable. Of course, my toddler is a massive fan of Peppa Pig, although he has not yet been to Peppa Pig World, and long may that continue. The House will imagine my surprise that I have not had a phone call asking whether he can deliver a keynote speech to the CBI, as the Prime Minister did.
On a more serious note, the veneer and the laughter that encapsulate the Prime Minister and that got many Conservative Back Benchers elected are disappearing like snow off a dike. The reason is simple. It is because the Prime Minister breaks his promises, whether it is protecting the triple lock on pensions, protecting the international aid budget or not raising taxes. That breaking of promises breaks trust with the public, which is why his poll ratings continue to plummet. That is before we get to the reality of the corruption and sleaze we have seen in the past few weeks and months, with the VIP lanes for Tory friends, families and donors, the Owen Paterson scandal and the fact that people with £3 million can get themselves a seat in the House of Lords.
It is not just at home that the Prime Minister’s reputation is plummeting; it is plummeting abroad, too. When we needed leadership at COP26, we got Kermit the Frog, belching cows and, of course, our Prime Minister sitting beside David Attenborough without a mask. On Brexit, our relations with the European Union are a complete and utter boorach. Last week, when people were dying in the channel as they tried to get to this country, the Prime Minister sought to do diplomacy via Twitter. That is a lesson in how not to do diplomacy.
I will break from the norm and agree with some Tories. I hope the Prime Minister stays in post because, when it comes to Scotland’s independence referendum, I sincerely hope he is in the vanguard of the push to protect their precious Union.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to listen to the single transferable Whip’s speech that seems to have passed from one end of the Tory Benches to the other, but I am comparatively early in my parliamentary career and I have no wish to be hauled up for misleading the House.
Plenty of criticism can be made of policy, but the bit that everyone on the Government Benches, from the Minister to the Back Benchers, seems to have completely missed is that this debate is about the probity and suitability of the current occupant of No. 10 Downing Street to be there and to continue carrying out his duties as Prime Minister.
When I first started taking an interest in politics, I was a student during the tail-end of John Major’s time in Downing Street. There were scandals aplenty then, like now, from the petty and the embarrassing through to the corruption of cash for questions and the outright duplicity of the arms to Iraq affair. It was hard to imagine that the UK might ever again be led by a Government so chaotic, so lacking in scruple, so willing to bend the truth and so willing to hawk themselves around the broadcasting studios to assert that forwards is backwards and black is white, yet here we are. Although we can all no doubt highlight points along that trajectory where things really started heading for the ground, I do not think any reasonable person could dispute that the present holder of the office of Prime Minister has taken us to this nadir of public trust in Government and politics.
It is all part of a pattern of behaviour. If you want a photo opportunity in a hospital but can’t be bothered to wear a mask, just ignore the instruction to wear one. If you don’t like the Electoral Commission investigating who funds your party, your takeaways or your flat renovations, emasculate the Electoral Commission. You don’t like the fact that people without ready access to ID tend not to vote for your party—try to introduce voter ID. You don’t like the fact that voters in devolved nations don’t elect enough representatives of your party to have any influence—try to bypass devolution. You accidentally create a border in the Irish sea—just pretend it does not exist and tell people that black is white.
This Government clearly think the rules do not apply to them; it is one rule for the Government and another rule for everybody else. It comes from the top, led by a Prime Minister who clearly does not think that there are any rules at all or that if there are, they should not apply to him.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for all this talk of the levelling-up agenda, when it comes to Scotland it is clear that it is a scorched earth agenda? Whether we are talking about carbon capture in his part of the country or the Valneva contract to deliver 100 million vaccines, which we need right now, this Prime Minister is not capable of doing the very basics and telling the truth.
Richard Thomson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and she says it very eloquently and succinctly. We have a crisis of confidence in this country. We have a crisis of confidence in the Prime Minister, who is clearly not fit for the job with which he has been entrusted. This is being aided and abetted by the silence and complicity of far too many Conservative Members, and I cannot wait to see which Lobby the Scottish Conservative contingent, in particular, chooses to go through this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Because of that intervention, I am afraid that the final speaker is going to be able to have only two and a half minutes, unless the SNP spokesperson would take a little less.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ministers and Government Members have been trying all afternoon to treat this debate as though it was not serious—as though it was a Westminster bubble story that will go away or in which our constituents are not interested, but that is not the case. Constituents have been emailing me since I came here in 2015, as they have been observing this place and its shenanigans. We are talking about practices and behaviour that would not be allowed or tolerated in the lives of our constituents or in workplaces up and down the country. They see a Parliament led by a Prime Minister for whom rules do not apply and consequences do not exist. They see grubby, manky, tawdry lies repeated again and again. My constituents see the Prime Minister at that Dispatch Box saying things that are not true. Like me, they find it bizarre that this is the only place where calling out a lie gets you in more trouble than telling one.
It is not for the Paymaster General or those on the Tory Benches to tell me what is important to my constituents and what they feel is important. My constituents have contacted me to tell me that they believe the House of Lords—that repository of those who have lost their seats, the donors and the cronies—should be abolished. Constituents have contacted me on the need for an urgent inquiry into the covid-19 scandals, to get the truth of where these VIP lanes have led. They have contacted me angry about the Electoral Commission being undermined by this Tory Government, about the Elections Bill, about voter ID, which will suppress their democratic rights, and about the shameful behaviour of Conservative Members seeking to change the standards to protect their pals.
My constituents care deeply about fairness and democracy. They are increasingly appalled by the behaviour of this UK Tory Government and this Prime Minister, and many of them are now seeking an alternative.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
This has been some debate. I have to say at the outset that I did not think our modest little motion would trigger Tory Back Benchers in the way it has done. There have been some amazing speeches in response to what we put forward, in a very reasonable motion about the behaviour and conduct of the Prime Minister. I wish to discuss their speeches, because some of them were truly fascinating and I want to go into some of the details.
First, however, I wish to congratulate my colleagues on some outstanding contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was absolutely right to highlight and list that litany of sleaze and corruption. He reminded us of the Nolan principles of public life. He was right to use the “L” word. I have been 20 years in this House and it has not become commonplace for that to be used here, but today it is the only word that is appropriate—no other alternatives can be found. It is the only way we can describe some of the Prime Minister’s conduct. The Chairman of Ways and Means was absolutely right to make her ruling today because there is no other way to describe what the Prime Minister has said to this House. I am reluctant to use the word, as I have been in this House so long, but lie it is.
There were some great speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie); from my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar); from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson)—that was a fantastic speech; from my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown); from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), whose toddler I would rather have addressing the CBI than the Prime Minister any day; from my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson); and from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
Then there were the Conservative speeches. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, where do you start? First, Conservative Members come here and tell us that we should not be debating this motion and should be debating something else. They said exactly the same thing the previous time we had an Opposition day. Perhaps we should ask the Leader of the House for permission and to tell us exactly what we should debate on our own Opposition days. What a hard neck Conservative Members have: they pockled half a day from our Opposition day so that they could discuss the wearing of face masks in England. If they do not know what pockled means, let me tell them: it means misappropriating, taking away and stealing, which is exactly what they did today.
I thought we were doing Conservative Members a favour: I thought they would all be queuing up and jumping over each other to get to their feet to defend the Prime Minister and tell us what a wonderful character he was, about all his attributes, that he was the most honest man in the world and that he was corruption and sleaze-free. But none of them did it—not one. [Interruption.] There was one, and I think somebody else might have mentioned just how valuable the Prime Minister is to them, but none of the rest of the Conservative Members were even going to prepare to start to defend their Prime Minister. They wanted to talk about absolutely everything other than what the motion is about. They tried to get us to talk about everything else other than the motion, but let me tell them that although they think it is unimportant, it will be their downfall.
Conservative Members actually believe their own rhetoric and that nobody cares about Tory sleaze and corruption, but it is all anybody is talking about. Why do they think their opinion poll rating has dropped by something up to eight percentage points? It is not because the SNP is not debating education or health; it is because Conservative Members are mired in a sleaze and corruption scandal on the scale of those in the 1990s. That is the reality of what people are discussing the length and breadth of the country and that is why their ratings are falling.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The Intelligence and Security Committee stated recently:
“Russian influence in the UK is the new normal. Successive Governments have welcomed the oligarchs and their money with open arms, providing them with a means of recycling illicit finance”
and with
“connections…to UK companies and political figures.”
That is corruption at the heart of the British Government, is it not?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely and utterly. It would take all day—longer than I am allowed—just to list the corruption and sleaze in even the scantiest of detail. Conservative Members are up to their necks in it. They might wish, as they have been doing all afternoon, that the public did not care about it, but the public care very much. I will tell them who they have to blame: the very man mentioned in the motion. It is their Prime Minister who has led them to fall in the polls. I thought they would be rushing to join us this evening—come and roam in the gloaming with us in the Aye Lobby as we censure the Prime Minister—because he has treated them appallingly, almost to the point of cruelty. They are having to defend themselves against their constituents. They are actually having to say to their constituents that Peppa Pig is not a Government Minister, such is the confusion that abounds. They should join us tonight: they know it is the right thing to do. The Prime Minister has treated them appallingly and they should help us this evening.
The Prime Minister has gone from being Conservative Members’ brightest Brexit asset to being their biggest liability. Forget about being led to the top of the hill; they have had to carve out a new gorge and mountain range for the amount of mountaineering they have had to do. That is why they should help us. They thought they would saunter to their next election victory, but the Prime Minister has sorted that.
I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber that I am a bit conflicted by the motion. I am conflicted not in the sense that I do not think we have a disgrace of a Prime Minister—somebody who should not get within several feet of Larry the cat, let alone the No. 10 sitting room—but because this Prime Minister is the best recruiting sergeant that we have for the cause of Scottish independence. What would we do without him? [Interruption.] They are all agreeing with me on the Government Benches. He is! More than anybody else, he has made sure that the cause of Scottish independence has been promoted in the way it has and we have to thank him for that. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that I am a little bit conflicted. I will back the motion because the Prime Minister is useless, because he is corrupt, because he is sleazeworthy, and because he lies to this House, but, by God, what a job he has done for the cause of Scottish independence. For that, we have him to thank.
As I have been thanking people over the course of this debate, it would be lax of me not to also thank the Conservative Back-Bench Members. I thank them for their efforts today—they were absolutely fantastic. Something that they always forget when they get up and make their stupid speeches is that the people of Scotland are watching them. They were enamoured by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—he is not in his place, which is really unfortunate—because of his disgraceful speech. People of Scotland watched these speeches and thought, “Why on earth would I want to be in this minging midden with these people speaking about my nation in such a way?” For that, I thank the Tory Back Benchers most sincerely. They have done a stellar job today in ensuring that Scottish independence happens.
There is a whole list of things to talk about, but there is just one issue that I will touch on—[Interruption.] My Tory fans are really backing what I am saying today. There is one issue that we really need to touch on because it has been mentioned so often by my hon. Friends: it is that place down the end of the corridor. What a place! The House of Lords is now Ground Zero of Tory corruption. The fact is that all but one of the last nine Tory treasurers were in that place. I looked up all of them. I was looking for philanthropy, good causes and charities, but the only thing that unites them—the only one defining feature—is this rare ability to be able to give £3 million to Tory coffers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is veering very close to the line here. He must not accuse individuals from the House of Lords. I know that he will want to be finishing off quite soon.
Pete Wishart
I will obviously follow your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not referring to individuals. I am referring to that place down the corridor.
Hardly any of the Labour party turned up today; two Back Benchers came along. I say to them all, “Help us! Help us to clean that place out”. They should not accept any more Members of the House of Lords, for goodness sake. We have this one opportunity, with all this Tory corruption going on.
I was listening to the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I like her. She is one of these genuine Labour Front Benchers. But there was nobody else from the Labour party today. What is that about? This is serious stuff. This is the behaviour of the Prime Minister. We are talking about his conduct generally and we need to make sure that the Labour party is with us in order to take this on.
We will not stop this. We want out of this House. Scotland will be an independent nation. We will not be here for much longer. The Scottish people are observing how business is done here, and they do not like it one bit. They do not like the speeches from the hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on the Back Benches. They cannot stand this Prime Minister. More and more, the Scottish people are looking at this place and deciding that what they want is a nation of their own, a country that they can design in their own fashion and not have it determined by a Tory Prime Minister, and they are going to get it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
May I start by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and colleagues across the House, a very happy St Andrew’s Day. Perhaps after this heated and charged debate, we might all enjoy a little of Scotland’s national drink to toast what unites us and what divides us.
I will endeavour to reply to as many Members as possible in the few minutes that I have. I apologise if I am not able to pick up on everyone’s comments. As it is St Andrew’s Day, it is probably appropriate for me to start by referring to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) who is, sadly, not in her place at the minute, but her seat contains St Andrew’s. She made a couple of important points, but this debate is a wasted opportunity today. If the real concern for the separatists on the SNP Benches was to take forward the debate on standards in public life, we could have had a debate on the Committee’s report and some of the related issues on that, but, no, they chose not to do so. The hon. Lady also suggested that the centralising power of the Scottish Government could properly be examined—issues that really matter to people in Scotland. But no, we did not discuss that.
It is disappointing but not entirely surprising that we have spent our time today responding to the desire of SNP Members once again to engage in the divisive, splitting-up policies that appeal to their fan base in the wake of their recent conference. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) pointed out, it is to give them fresh social media clips to post on Twitter and elsewhere. It was pointed out to me during the debate that SNP command and control was tweeting about this debate using an old photograph of the Chamber, so unless SNP Members have had a complete costume change during the debate, perhaps this is the fresh material that they need.
Of course, I did not expect SNP Members to arrive here with a long list of the ways in which membership of the Union benefits Scotland, or the many ways in which this Government are investing in the future of Scotland as we navigate our way through the pandemic. They want to talk of the Prime Minister’s conduct. I am happy to talk of the Prime Minister’s conduct in securing for Scotland the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine, saving lives and stopping the spread of the virus. Today, the conduct of the Prime Minister has been to set out how we are going to ramp up the booster programme to give us the best possible defence against the current variant.
Iain Stewart
The hon. Lady must forgive me; I have to respond to a lot of her colleagues.
We could have been debating the important issue of how we respond sensibly to this new variant. Of course, I would not expect the SNP to highlight the way in which this Government have supported thousands of businesses in Scotland, with more than £4 billion of loans through the bounce back loan scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. It took 13 minutes only for the reality to be revealed—that this is actually all about separation and the SNP’s desire to achieve it. That is what this is all about, not the real issues that are of importance to the people of Scotland.
Let me turn to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I do feel some sympathy for her, given the massed ranks of two colleagues with her—two and half perhaps; I am not quite sure where Labour is with that. The hon. Lady said something quite surprising. She said that Labour Members are not here today because it is an SNP debate, as if that exempts them from talking about these issues. Has Labour given up in Scotland? Does it fall solely to the Conservative party to be the defender of the Union? I really think that her colleagues should take a little bit more interest in this matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) made a hugely important contribution, spelling out the reality amid all the false accusations about the procurement of vital equipment during the early stages of the pandemic. We were in a race against time to get that equipment, and he rightly spelt out what happened. This nonsense about crony contracts is just not fit for purpose. He also made the important point that our vaccine programme was UK-funded, using universities across the UK; that is the reality of the Union.
The right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), for whom I have a lot of affection—we have worked collaboratively on issues affecting his constituency or nearby—made a number of accusations that I really cannot allow to lie. First, he said that we were engaged in various acts of voter suppression regarding voter ID. I have to reveal to him that we already have voter ID in one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—and there is no evidence that it suppresses voter turnout. He also cited the boundary review, as if it was unnecessary. I looked up the electorate in his constituency, which is approximately 66,000. I have nearly 100,000 electors, and is it not a basic point of fairness that we each represent approximately the same number of voters? His final point was to reference a Supreme Court judgment. He seems to have forgotten that the Supreme Court recently ruled against the Scottish Government when they tried to exceed the powers of the devolution settlement—and this is a party that talks about respecting devolution. I have to say it was off the mark.
I am not going to be able to respond to many more contributions, but I do have to respond to the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). At the moment his constituents are without power, heating and basic services. He wants to know how this Government and the Scottish Government can work together to help those people in his constituency. That is what we should be debating today, not partisan red meat to throw at the fanbase to cover up internal divisions over the next steps to independence.
This Prime Minister is passionate about the United Kingdom. He is setting out some of the long-term solutions to the challenges we face, like on social care—an issue that has been ducked by Government for too long. That is the conduct of this Prime Minister. It is a Prime Minister I am proud to serve in this Government, and I urge colleagues to reject the motion before us tonight.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6 and 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the draft Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 1 November, be approved.
Transport
That the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6), and Order, 17 November),
Airport and Ground Operations Support Scheme Winter 2021-22 Renewal
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £30 million with an estimated total sum of £44 million, to be made available, through the extended Airport and Ground Operations Support Scheme announced in the Budget, to eligible commercial airports and ground operators to compensate for the continuing damage caused by Covid-19 to the aviation sector, on the basis of business rates liabilities or Covid-19 losses, whichever is lower, from October 2021 - March 2022, subject to certain conditions and a cap of £4 million per eligible company.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Committee on Public Accounts
Ordered,
That Kemi Badenoch be discharged from the Committee on Public Accounts and Helen Whately be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
NICE-Approved Products: Patient Access
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I rise to address the challenging issue of access for patients to medicines and medical devices. We all believe absolutely passionately that we should have access to doctors and nurses, good hospitals and operating theatres, but I think the pandemic has shown beyond question that access to medicines and medical devices goes hand in hand, and without that we do not have the NHS that I think we all believe everyone deserves.
What is the problem? The problem, I shall explain, is as follows. When a medicine is approved, it goes through two processes: first, with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which checks whether or not a drug is actually safe and does effectively what it says on the tin; and then it goes to a separate process run by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which looks at cost-effectiveness and value for money. The theory goes that, once those two hurdles have been passed, the medicine is then accessible to anyone. It is very clear in the NHS constitution, which explains that there is a legal right for people to have NHS NICE-approved drugs if it is right for their particular circumstances. Indeed, the NICE guidelines say that there should be automatic adoption, if clinically appropriate and relevant, within 90 days of approval. So where is the problem?
The problem is partly in the system and partly in the words. The words in the constitution are effectively caveated: people can have a medicine if it is right for their particular circumstances. Likewise, according to the NICE guidelines, it will be automatically adopted if clinically appropriate and relevant. The challenge is that, in the current system, NICE will approve medicines for the condition for which they are most cost-effective, so in this country we do not have the ability to approve a medicine for multiple conditions—multiple indications, in the jargon. It is what is most cost-effective that gets approved, and others do not, and there is not a system, either than paying privately, to ensure that the medicine that has been approved for the condition for which it is most cost-effective is available to those with other conditions, but that medicine may in fact still be the only possible solution.
Assuming we get over that hurdle, there is a second hurdle, because not only must NICE have approved the drug, but it has to go on the approved list of drugs locally in the local health authorities—now integrated care systems. The problem is that to get on those formularies, somebody has to put it on those formularies. Currently, while in theory under the NHS NICE guidelines there is a system, it does not actually happen. There is currently a drug for multiple sclerosis, and research shows that people are still waiting after 150 days for it to go on the formularies in something like 25% of the local health systems across the country. So the system, fundamentally, does not work.
What does this result in? It results in a postcode lottery. If someone has type 1 diabetes, it is absolutely crucial that they monitor their condition. There is a device, a flash monitor, that is state of the art, and research shows that the uptake across the country varies between 16% and 65%. What is most worrying is that those parts of the country with the greatest levels of deprivation have the lowest levels of uptake. We all think we have access to medicines for cancer given that we now have the highly innovative and very welcome cancer drugs fund. However, that drugs fund is only relevant when the particular drug is approved for a particular type of cancer. So there will be some drugs—Avastin, for example—which those with the appropriate cancer can get through the CDF, but those with a different type of cancer or who do not fit the profile again have to pay for it privately, costing £252 to £1,088 per cycle, which is every three months.
Sadly, NICE does not approve much for those with skin conditions. For those with mastocytosis—blotches on the skin and boils causing vomiting and diarrhoea—the only solution is usually NICE-approved food allergy drugs, but they are approved for NICE allergies not skin conditions so they have to be paid for privately. For cystinosis, the accumulation of amino acids, which gives rise to kidney problems and kidney damage, the drug Procysbi has been approved by NICE but, bizarrely, there seems to be no uptake of that to date at all. That is important because that drug is, unlike the existing drug, a slow-release drug and therefore mums and dads do not have to keep waking up their kids in the middle of the night to give them the next dose, which, as we can imagine, takes a real toll on family life.
For those with an obesity problem there is a good solution in Saxenda, but that is approved for diabetes. So those whose obesity does not give rise to diabetes will not get access except by case-by-case approval. I am pleased to say that Imperial has finally accepted and approved.
How are we going to resolve some of these issues to make sure there is no longer a postcode lottery? First, let us look at the simple case of those drugs that are deemed to give the most health benefit and are therefore in theory approved and people can get hold of them. What can we do to make sure they do actually finally appear on those formularies and how can we then make sure the system for take-up is actually in place? One of the problems is that there is nobody sitting in these health bodies who monitors NICE drugs coming up, and therefore no one who looks to see whether in their health community they may be of benefit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on this topic. As she says, this is about NICE-approved products as well as drugs. One of those products is cognitive rehabilitation therapy, an important intervention for those with dementia, enabling them to live independently for longer. However, despite being listed in the NICE recommendations there is a barrier to delivery. Occupational therapists and other staff in memory clinics do not have the capacity to deliver programmes that are National Institute for Health Research and Alzheimer’s Society-funded. Does the hon. Lady agree that the NICE recommendations must address not just drugs but also products?
Anne Marie Morris
I could not agree more. It is crucial to realise we are talking not just about medicines and drugs but also devices and, as the hon. Gentleman says, the processes, which are often the connection between the medicine, the device and the patient.
Within these health bodies, there is no training and nobody specifically focused on monitoring innovation, and there is no obligation to prescribe. Even more peculiarly, for these drugs there is an agreement between the industry and the NHS, the voluntary payment scheme or VPAS, under which manufacturers that are members of the scheme effectively agree with Government when the medicine or device is approved that it will be supplied at a well-discounted price. In addition, there is an agreement that sets a cap so that if, as it happens, more prescriptions are written for that particular drug, it is agreed that the extra cost that the NHS has incurred will be reimbursed by the manufacturer.
So if there is excessive prescribing—we assume that is why there is an attempt to limit how much goes on to formularies—why is that a problem when we have the VPAS scheme? It is a problem because the scheme does not the pass the benefit, other than the reduced price, down to the local health authority. The money is put into a separate pot, and that pot is then used generally to support the NHS writ broadly; it is not ringfenced, either for medicines or to be used, as it could be, to support local health authorities—integrated care systems—when their budgets are put under pressure, which is why they do not want too many things on their formularies. This would help them pay the price.
It seems to me, Minister, that there are some solutions here. You will be aware that I raised three of them in proceedings on the Health and Care Bill. To deal with the imperfections of the current arrangements, if those drugs that were approved by NICE—we are talking about the most cost-effective drugs—were mandated to be on formularies within 28 days automatically, so no one had to decide whether they went on or not, that would be a good system. It would also ensure that the decision was in the hands of the clinician and not of the bureaucracy of the health authority.
It seems to me, Minister, that the second suggestion I made—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is quite important not to address the Minister directly; he should be addressed through me.
Anne Marie Morris
Thank you for the correction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My second proposal is that there should be an innovation officer specifically appointed to look at and manage these issues. Failing all else, there should be a final provision that specifically puts an obligation on the health authority to provide any NICE-approved medicine. Then, as a matter of practicality that is not a matter for the Health and Care Bill, there should be a new arrangement under which the NHS would agree that this pot, rather than going into the general NHS coffers, is put aside specifically to reimburse local authorities.
What about the second category—those drugs that are approved by NICE but not used for the most cost-effective indication? That is called off-label prescribing. We know that a drug in that category does what it says on the tin and we know that it is cost-effective, but it is not sufficiently cost-effective to have got a tick in the box from NICE. Access then is a matter for negotiation between the integrated care system, the NHS and the manufacturer. Often, the starting point will be the list price, but bear in mind that that list price is a lot more than the NHS is paying. The result is that in different health authorities and different hospitals, different patients are offered different costs to be able to access the drug.
There is a real problem on top of all this. To ensure that there is no gaming of the system between access to private healthcare and state healthcare, someone cannot mix the two—quite rightly, we do not want gaming of the system so that people can effectively jump waiting lists—so there is an agreement to enable people to do a bit privately and then jump straight back into the NHS. If there is an episode where someone takes a drug and pays for it privately, technically they cannot then have the ongoing monitoring of their cancer—screening and so on—on the NHS. Individual health authorities recognise that that is rather absurd when we are talking not about a private patient with health insurance but about someone for whom the only way to get the drug is to pay for it, but that recognition is not universal.
So what is the solution for this one?
We need to look at NICE, supported by NHS England, accepting multi-indication approvals. That means a drug company can take a drug and apply, at the same time, for the drug to be approved for different health issues that have different ranges of health benefit. Clearly, the NHS will say, “Hold on a minute. I am not going to pay the same price for something which delivers less health benefit.” That means we need a system of differential pricing, so that a different amount is paid by the NHS for the drug, depending on the use to which it is to be put. That is entirely possible. It is done all over the world.
The Office of Health Economics put out a report, an international study, just this month on “Payment Models for Multi-Indication Therapies”. It concluded:
“Inflexible uniform pricing does not optimally support innovation and access. The most important consequence is lost treatment opportunities for patients.”
I respectfully suggest that the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care might sensibly look at that. I also suggest, given the clear importance of payment support through industry, that as we move to the next iteration and renegotiation of VPAS, the agreement under which the industry agrees reduced pricing for mass purchase above a certain cap, it will reimburse the Government. That renegotiation needs to include provision for the multi-indication approvals process and differential pricing. 2023 is not very far away and I urge the NHS and the Government to take it forward very quickly. Meanwhile, there should be agreed standard pricing which is effectively paid for and underwritten by the pot set aside as a result of the cap.
There is one final area that needs to be addressed: drugs approved by NICE through a managed access agreement. For some treatments—typically gene therapy, where you are taking body fluids out, effectively changing the genetic make-up, and then putting them back in again—a hub needs to be set up in a hospital. Often, when drugs are approved, exactly how they are going to be delivered is not approved at the same time. Those drugs and processes need to be agreed not just in principle, but together with a package that ensures they can be implemented. As things stand, it can often take three years and much argument before hubs are established and the funding can then flow.
In summary, I ask for a number of things. First, my three new clauses to the Health and Care Bill would require local health system formularies to include NICE-approved drugs within 28 days. Secondly, there ought to be included in the Bill an absolute obligation to provide NICE drugs. It would then be for the individual health authority to work out how to provide them, but there should be an underpinning payment mechanism provided by the NHS. Thirdly—again, I have tabled a new clause on this—we need an innovation officer to ensure the system runs smoothly and that the things that would give best benefit are put on those formularies.
Fourthly—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are eight of these—I would like the Government to look very closely at a multi-indication approval system, fifthly, at a differential pricing system and, sixthly, at an appropriate VPAS agreement for 2023. My last asks are about how the money is used. Seventhly, the pot of money, an accumulation of money paid by industry because more of the drug was prescribed, should be made available to local health systems, the integrated care systems, to cover the costs that are not in their mainstream budget. Finally, we should put in place a formal delivery mechanism for every managed access treatment to ensure that it is not just a promise, but actuality. I wonder whether it might therefore be appropriate for this Minister, the life sciences Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—and the innovation Minister, Lord Kamall, to meet me, because all three have a critical role, given their involvement in access, industry and licensing. I wonder whether it might be possible to persuade them to accept my three amendments to the Health and Care Bill.
It might also be helpful if these matters were raised with the National Audit Office, which could review the current system and look at whether it offers value for money. That would be a very good use of their time. I am sure that the doughty hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, might also be interested in looking at this issue. After all, value for money is critical.
In conclusion, we have a world-beating system but, as it currently stands, it does not provide value for money for all. It does not serve the best interests of all patients, and it does not serve the best interests of delivering the UK life sciences strategy. Indeed, I have one constituent who moved house from Devon to Southampton so that he could get a medical treatment.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
As ever, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing this debate and I pay tribute to her work in this area. That work has been sustained for as long as I have been a Member of the House—I was first elected in 2015—but I suspect that this area was of interest to her long before then. I pay tribute to her for her continued engagement on this area, which is not always top of the news or top of the political agenda, but is hugely important none the less, so I pay tribute to her work in this space.
I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government share this priority. She is right—I characterise this in these terms and I hope that she will not demur from this—that although the NHS workforce is the beating heart of our NHS, it is beholden on us to give them the tools that they need to be able to use their skills to treat and support the maximum number of possible patients in the most effective way. I think that is a fair reflection of the point that she made at the outset.
Edward Argar
That is an encouraging start. That is why NICE exists. It plays a vital role in supporting patient access to new treatments. Through its technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programme, NICE makes recommendations for the NHS on whether all new medicines represent value for money for the taxpayer.
NICE aims to publish guidance on new medicines as soon as possible after licensing and is committed to publishing draft recommendations on medicines around the time of marketing authorisation, wherever that is possible. It has a well-earned reputation as a world leader in the field of health technology assessment and it is right that, where NICE recommends a medicine or a medical device, it should be available to patients who stand to benefit. Value for money is important and I will come to that. I suggest that whether the NAO or the Public Accounts Committee wish to look at this is a matter for them, but as my hon. Friend said, she may wish to take that up with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who may well share her interest—I would not wish to presume, but the hon. Member may well.
Making treatments available is why NHS England and clinical commissioning groups are already under a statutory obligation to fund any treatment recommended by NICE through its technology appraisal or highly specialised technologies programmes, usually within three months of guidance. I will turn to my hon. Friend’s point on timing shortly. This will also be a statutory obligation for integrated care boards. As my hon. Friend has set out, the NHS constitution states that patients and the public
“have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE for use in the NHS, if your doctor”—
the treating clinician—
“says they are clinically appropriate for you.”
That is an important point, because we rightly rely on clinical judgment in such circumstances. As my hon. Friend will be aware, NICE recommends the vast majority of new medicines—indeed, in 2020-21 it recommended 100% of them, often thanks to commercial agreements negotiated between NHS England, NICE and companies in parallel with the NICE assessment process—but it is right that that clinical appropriateness filter is there.
I am conscious of time, but before I turn to specific points that my hon. Friend made, I would like to say a few brief words about the success of the cancer drugs fund in supporting patient access to new medicines. The cancer drugs fund was originally introduced to support patient access to medicines that NICE was unable to recommend as cost-effective. Since 2016, however, the fund has been linked to the NICE appraisal process and supports patient access to promising new medicines where the evidence is not mature enough for NICE to recommend routine funding at that point. This has benefited more than 73,000 patients, who have been able to access 91 medicines through the cancer drugs fund, treating more than 200 cancers.
We are building on that fabulous achievement with our manifesto commitment to extend the cancer drugs fund model to non-cancer treatments by creating an innovative medicines fund. I think that there are lessons that we can learn from the cancer drugs fund. NHS England has also recently launched a consultation on proposals for the establishment of the innovative medicines fund. I encourage anyone with an interest to engage; knowing my hon. Friend, I suspect that she has probably pre-empted me and done so already.
I turn briefly to medical devices and treatments. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was quite right to highlight that, although debate often focuses on drugs and specific medicinal or therapeutic treatments, we also need to look more widely at medical devices and at treatments that take other forms than therapeutic treatment. I know that he takes a close interest in the treatment and support of those with dementia, as I did before I was a Minister; I am grateful, as ever, for his contribution to the debate.
As hon. Members will know, NICE can also make recommendations on treatments through its clinical guidelines programme. Guidelines provide authoritative, evidence-based guidance for healthcare professionals and play an important role in driving best practice in the health and care system and supporting improved patient outcomes. However, they often make dozens of recommendations that can be complicated to implement at a local level. For that reason, they are not mandatory, but I assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that the Government expect the healthcare system to take guideline recommendations fully into account in designing services that meet the needs of the local population and in working towards their implementation over time. It is right, however, that that implementation reflects local circumstance and is done at a local level.
I turn to local formularies; time is getting short, but I may also turn briefly to the eight points that my hon. Friend made—let us see how we do. She has raised concerns, not only in this debate but during the Health and Care Bill’s passage through the Commons and in conversations with me, that despite positive NICE guidance, some medicines are not available to NHS patients because they are not included on local formularies. In addition to the statutory funding requirement that applies to NICE-recommended treatments, NICE’S guideline “Developing and updating local formularies” recommends that, when NICE approves the use of a medicine through a technology appraisal, it should be automatically adopted into local formularies.
The standard contract mandated by NHS England for use by commissioners stipulates that providers must ensure that formularies include all NICE-recommended treatments. That process should take place within three months, allowing services a realistic timeframe to prepare for the introduction of a new technology. I appreciate that my hon. Friend went a little further on tightening the timeframe and the compulsion element, but given the complexity of some new treatments, I think that three months probably remains an appropriate timescale. I suspect that she will continue to push me on it, but at the moment I believe it is the right approach.
My hon. Friend is right that the system needs monitoring. She called for an obligation on integrated care boards to report uptake of new medicines annually, which is effectively monitoring. I am pleased to say that the Government support the view that uptake of NICE-recommended medicines should be monitored. Since 2013, NHS Digital has published an innovation scorecard that reports, at a national and a local level, the uptake of selected medicines that NICE has recommended in the last five years. I believe that it is more appropriate and proportionate that that information is collected and published by a single national body using agreed methodology, rather than multiple organisations that may have different ways of measuring and presenting the data.
My hon. Friend made a number of other points. Given the time constraints, I fear that I cannot address them all, but I will reflect carefully, as ever, on what she has said. Given that neither of them are present in the Chamber, it is a pleasure, as always, to agree on their behalf that my noble Friend the innovation Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—the life sciences Minister—will be delighted to meet her to discuss the matter in more detail. I am very grateful to her for bringing this evening’s debate to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry) (No.2) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry) (No. 2) Regulations.
This pandemic has touched every corner of our society and presented huge challenges to us all. The Coronavirus Act 2020 has been crucial to the Government’s approach to maintaining public services, including the NHS, and providing financial support to individual and businesses at this time of need. The Act has enabled the temporary registration of nurses, healthcare professionals and social workers to bolster the workforce. It has reduced administrative tasks that front-line staff have to perform during this time of pressure. It has also allowed the Government to provide an extraordinary level of support to people and businesses impacted by covid-19. That support includes the coronavirus job retention scheme, which supported 11.7 million jobs, and the self-employment income support scheme, which supported almost 3 million self-employed individuals.
As the course of the pandemic continues to change, it is right that we continue to assess the legislative powers that are in place. The Government are committed to ensuring that emergency powers are in place only for as long as they are needed. The most recent six-month review of the Coronavirus Act 2020 in September identified seven provisions, and parts of an eighth, that could be expired. The regulations that we are debating today will expire those provisions. That includes expiring powers under schedule 21 relating to potentially infectious persons, and powers under schedule 22 to issue directions relating to events, gatherings and premises.
Sufficient resilience has been built up within the system to expire power under section 23 to vary time limits in relation to urgent warrants under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and, following an amendment to the Magistrates’ Courts Rules earlier this year, and upon expiry of schedule 21, powers under section 56 for live links in magistrates court appeals are also to be expired. We are also expiring powers under section 37 and parts of the provisions under section 38 relating to education, training and childcare. We will retain only those provisions that may be needed to ensure that we have relevant protections for individuals and the sector.
We are also expiring sections 77 and 78, which relate to time-limited powers and so are no longer needed, and a further provision on behalf of Northern Ireland. That means that Parliament will have been able to expire half of the original 40 temporary, non-devolved powers in the Coronavirus Act, ahead of schedule.
The 2020 Act continues to be a critical part of our country’s response to the pandemic. I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed about how some of the powers in the Act have been used, but the Government have sought to use them appropriately and proportionately, with arrangements in place to ensure accountability, including to Parliament. We are grateful to members of both Houses and to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their helpful comments.
Following the third six-month review of the 2020 Act, the House confirmed that it was content for the temporary provisions to continue to support the Government’s ongoing response to the pandemic. The remaining provisions in the Act will help to support the NHS, individuals and businesses throughout the months ahead.
The pandemic is not yet over, and we know that there are challenges ahead, which is why we set out the steps we are taking in our autumn and winter plan. The virus has presented the greatest public health threat to the United Kingdom in recent history. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in extending immense thanks to everyone who has made sacrifices and worked so gallantly in the fight against the virus, including our health and social care workers, all those who have volunteered in their communities, and those who have supported the vaccination programme and continue to do so.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to start this parliamentary day just as I finished yesterday’s with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. It is characteristic of this pandemic that we are discussing removing restrictions on the day that we will later discuss imposing other restrictions, but I am afraid that is how things move with it.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 was significant legislation. I am sure, like me, all colleagues received emails when we passed the legislation, and when we renewed it, from constituents who thought it overbearing and excessive and that it should not be renewed. I never agreed with that analysis. As the Minister said, the legislation contains important provisions relating to professional registration and people’s finances—those provisions remain crucial. However, I do not believe any right hon. or hon. Member missed the point that it was unprecedented legislation. When we were all standing for election three months prior to its introduction, I do not think any of us expected to be passing anything like it. However, extraordinary circumstances have called for extraordinary action. I always ask constituents to look beyond the endurance of the Act as an individual entity and down into the provisions, and to consider what powers have been expired. Post its renewal, the terms of the legislation are very different and much more modest in comparison with the law passed 18 months ago. If powers are not needed or are not being used, it is right that they should not lie on the statute book.
The Opposition will not divide the Committee on today’s regulations, and I hope that people across the country will welcome that some powers have been removed from the scope of the 2020 Act. Those powers include section 56 powers that relate to magistrates courts, schedule 16 and section 37 powers relating to the temporary closure of educational institutions and childcare premises. Those latter powers have not been used, and it is right that they should be turned off. Similarly, section 78 powers relating to local authority meetings are out of date and it is right that they are removed from the statute book. One of the concerns raised with me by constituents—unfounded in my opinion—relates to the powers to detain potentially infectious people. I do not believe there is any evidence that the state has used that power as a tool to be overbearing towards its subjects, nevertheless, given that that power has not been used greatly—only 10 times, and not since last October—it is right that it be expired. I hope that gives comfort to those who have concerns about the 2020 Act, and demonstrates that it is not being used in an overbearing manner.
The only provision I query is the element relating to the end of working tax credit. I and my Opposition colleagues have said that the Government have a blindspot to the financial pressures felt by people in the country. Turning off the universal credit uplift was a dreadful idea and has pushed families to the brink—our local food banks will vouch for that. The provision will cost the poorest £1,000, and I note that there is no impact assessment attached to the regulations. I keen to know from the Minister how many families will be affected by the change.
The explanatory notes probably get to the root of the Government’s misunderstanding. They note that the Act was about supporting individuals’ incomes during an unprecedented time, but the reality is that the pandemic has not shown that we need to provide temporary extra income to individuals but rather that in many cases personal income is far, far too low. That is even more apparent when set against the rising cost of living. Turning off certain support does not remove the fact that individuals will then return to living as they did before the pandemic—struggling to make ends meet and living with attendant health problems and injuries. I hope that the Minister will offer a reflection on that.
Given what we will debate later today, what consideration has the Minister given to whether powers will need to be turned back on at some point, or new powers sought? What is the Government’s current thinking on that?
Maggie Throup
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his constructive contribution to the debate. He is right that the majority of the measures that have been expired had not been used, or used very rarely. The Coronavirus Act 2020, however, continues to be a critical part of our country’s response to the pandemic. It has enabled the Government to provide help and support to people, businesses and our healthcare and public services.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Act is underpinned by regular and careful reviews and parliamentary scrutiny. We are confident that the Act has been fundamental to facilitating a fast and effective response to the pandemic. During the most recent review, the Government assessed the remaining provisions to identify those suitable for expiry, while remaining mindful of the challenges that we may face over the winter and, as we have found out, the potential emergence of new variants of concern.
The powers outlined in the regulations for expiry are deemed as being no longer needed and each has a clear rationale for inclusion. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we may need to introduce further powers. The 2020 Act is enabling legislation and the majority of the other measures required were brought in under the terms of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. I feel that we have got it right in terms of the enabling ability of the 2020 Act.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the expiry of section 77 that allowed for the uprating of working tax credits for 2020-21. Throughout the crisis, the Government have sought to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods while also supporting businesses and public services across the UK. To that end, the Government announced a package worth a total of £352 billion in 2020-21 and 2021-22 to provide that support. The Government were always clear that the £20 increase was a temporary measure to support households most affected by the economic shock of covid-19.
During the recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that since restrictions had been lifted, economic growth had exceeded expectations and the labour market was recovering strongly. In the light of that, the Government are focusing on supporting people to move into and progress in work. The Government’s comprehensive plan for jobs is helping people move back into employment, so that they can earn a regular wage, progress and increase their financial resilience.
Workers leaving the furlough scheme and unemployed people over the age of 50 will be helped back into work as part of the expansion of the Government’s plan for jobs, worth more than £500 million. Those on the lowest wages will also be helped to progress in their careers and existing schemes targeting young people will be extended into next year. That assistance is part of the new package of support that could help hundreds of thousands of people into work.
The Government are committed to keeping powers in force only where they are judged to be absolutely necessary and part of the Government’s response to the virus. As the hon. Gentleman said, a number of provisions have never been used since coming into force, and to maintain them on the statute book would be disproportionate considering the progress that we have made. Given the minimal use of the powers and the alternative measures available, the Government deemed it appropriate for the powers under schedule 21 relating to the detention of potentially infectious persons to be expired. Those powers have not been used since October last year, and nor have they been relied on to tackle some of our toughest challenges.
We have strengthened our defences against the virus even further, and therefore it is the right time for the powers listed in the regulations to be expired. The Government retain only those powers that are critical to our response to and recovery from the pandemic. The powers to be maintained include those that allow the temporary registration of healthcare professionals, which will help to support the NHS as we head into winter.
The Government urge everyone to be sensible and responsible and to continue to follow safe behaviours and measures now in place. People should get the covid-19 vaccine and the flu jab where eligible. That will help to protect the progress that we have made and protect the NHS in the months ahead. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed.
Draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming in to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2021.
Good morning, Ms Rees. Thank you for that introduction and for your reminders to us all. The order provides for the continuation of the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers, or terrorism prevention and investigation measures powers, for a period of five years.
The Government take all necessary steps to protect the public. The threat we face from individuals and groups who wish us harm is significant and enduring. It is vital that we have the tools necessary to keep our country safe. Although it is right that our first response to terrorism-related activity should be to prosecute or deport those involved, this is not always possible. This is why we continue to require the powers conferred on the office of the Home Secretary in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
Section 21(1) of the Act states that the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers will expire at the end of five years from the date the Act was passed. Because of the continuing threat to the UK from terrorism, and following consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director-general of the Security Service, there can be no doubt that TPIMs remain an essential component of our toolkit to manage the threat from terrorism.
The Act provides the Secretary of State with powers to impose a TPIM notice on an individual if the conditions set out in section 3 of the Act are assessed by the Secretary of State to have been met, namely that she reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and that she reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to impose such measures on the individual. In addition to the power to impose a TPIM notice, the Secretary of State has powers to extend and vary a TPIM notice that is in force, and to revive a TPIM notice that has been revoked.
Since the introduction of the Act in 2011, 24 TPIMs have been imposed. As of the last published set of figures on 21 October, five TPIMs were in force. If the TPIM powers are not extended, those five dangerous individuals will be at large without any measures in place to reduce the risk they pose to the public. TPIMs are imposed as a tool of last resort when the Security Service judges there are no other means, or that a TPIM notice is the only satisfactory means, to manage that risk.
It may be helpful for me to provide some background on the TPIM powers. They are civil preventative measures designed to manage the threat posed by individuals who cannot be prosecuted for a terrorism-related offence—or deported in the case of foreign nationals. There is no question but that TPIMs are extraordinary measures. That is why the 2011 Act provides for broad judicial oversight, including: a requirement for High Court permission to impose the measures, except in urgent cases, where the notice must be immediately referred to the Court for confirmation; an automatic review hearing in each case, unless the individual requests the hearing be discontinued; and rights of appeal for the individual against the refusal of a request to revoke or vary a measure.
The TPIM legislation also places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the prospects of prosecuting an individual before measures may be imposed, and a duty to keep the necessity of measures under review while they are in force. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, which amended existing and introduced new TPIM measures, also reintroduced a requirement on the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation publicly to report on the operation of the TPIM Act. The Act has been extended once already, in 2016. Unless a new order is made under section 21(2)(c), the powers in the Act will expire at midnight on 13 December. Just as was the case five years ago, it is essential that we have now all the necessary powers to protect the public from terrorism-related activity.
Having consulted as required by the Act, the Home Secretary has, due to the significant terrorist threat facing this country, decided to make this statutory instrument to provide for the continuation of TPIM powers for a further five years—the maximum period allowable in the legislation. It is essential that our counter-terrorism strategy enables us to tackle the full spectrum of activity. TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts and successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, while the police and Security Service believe they have been effective in reducing the national security risk posed by those subject to the measures.
Our message is clear: we remain steadfast in our determination to defeat terrorism and we will take every necessary action to counter the threat from those who hate the values that we cherish. The safety and security of the public is our No. 1 priority. I commend the order to the Committee.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Bore da, Ms Rees. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and opposite the Minister. It is important to say that the security job, both in opposition and in government—I see a former Security Minister here—is unique, because such is the nature of our Parliament and politics that we debate these matters robustly. The current Minister has been impeccable in ensuring that the Opposition are briefed on all these important measures. We appreciate that, and I hope we can continue to work together in that constructive spirit.
Although these are technical measures, the statutory instrument has important implications for security and keeping our citizens, their families and communities safe. That is the priority for all hon. Members across the House. As I said during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, we want TPIMs to be robust and impactful, but agile enough to adapt to fast-changing threats. TPIMs are, without doubt, a critical tool in our arsenal, but given the potentially far-reaching implications for subjects of a TPIM, we also recognise the need for them to be proportional, exceptional and imposed only where necessary, backed by the strongest safeguards and clear exit strategies.
We made important progress through amendments that we, with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, won during the passage of the 2021 Act, particularly on maintaining a higher standard of proof than was initially envisaged, on time limits for a TPIMs notice, and on vital additional oversight and review functions for the Independent Reviewer. Given TPIMs’ importance, we all agree it would be incomprehensible were we to let these powers lapse suddenly at midnight on 13 December, as they would if the instrument was not passed. We will not let that happen. We welcome the clarity the measures gives law enforcement, the security services and their partners, who work so hard on our behalf to protect people. We also acknowledge the support of the Independent Reviewer and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Are the Government happy with the effectiveness of TPIMs and the level of the resources given to administer and monitor them? What impact have recent changes had operationally? As he said, as of October, there are five TPIMs in force, which is a relatively stable number. Does he envisage that continuing? We know that the terrorism threat is evolving in complexity, as we saw most recently in my region, Merseyside, at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital, and of course our tools must keep up. The impact of self-initiated, lone actor terrorism is growing rapidly. That is why we called on Ministers to look into that specifically and to publish their findings. I hope the Government will consider doing that. Tools such as TPIMs combat such threats and help to tackle individuals radicalised under the authorities’ radar—for example, online.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s early remarks and the tone of his speech. On lone actors, as he notes, there is a growing fear that people like the fellow in Liverpool—we acknowledge that the investigation is in its early stages—may not be known to the security services prior to their attack. How important does he think it is that we monitor internet activity closely, given that it is clearly being used by people to self-radicalise? These are very difficult and challenging matters, but that may well be the means by which we try to anticipate those kinds of activity.
Conor McGinn
The right hon. Gentleman makes hugely important point. That is the sphere that poses the fastest growing and most dangerous threat. I know the Government are bringing forward their draft Online Safety Bill, and I hope it will enable us to consider measures that directly address this threat. It is hugely important to ensure that our security services, the National Cyber Security Centre and GCHQ have all the tools they need to have at their disposal to monitor internet activity, but the truth is that it is very difficult, given people’s ability to remain anonymous, to self-radicalise and to plot acts of terrorism from a bedsit. I think we need to look at that alongside lone actor activity generally and specifically at how online activity is used. We will of course work with the Government however we can to support that, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a hugely important point.
We support the statutory instrument and the clarity the renewal of the powers brings. It would be a dereliction of duty were we to allow the tools to lapse suddenly, and we will act with the Government to prevent that. We will continue to hold the Government to account, working together in the national interest but scrutinising in the national interest too.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Rees. I rise to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for St Helens North and to thank him for the questions he asked the Minister. I will find the answers interesting and helpful.
I have consulted my colleagues and Scotland’s Justice Secretary about this matter. The Scottish Government are very content to support the continuation of the measures, as is the Scottish National party Westminster group. I have one question for the Minister, though. What ongoing discussions has he had with Scottish Government counterparts about these matters?
Damian Hinds
I thank all members of the Committee for being here today. I also thank the Opposition speaker, the hon. Member for St Helens North, not only for his kind words, which I reflect back at him, but more generally for his constructive approach and specifically for his and the Opposition’s support for this important measure. He is quite right that the Opposition’s most important role is to hold the Government to account and to make sure measures are subjected to scrutiny, whereby we end up with better laws and better public administration. We greatly appreciate that and we know it can be done constructively and co-operatively when it comes to matters of the utmost importance that affect our national security.
The hon. Gentleman says he wants TPIMs to be robust, impactful and agile. That sums up the objectives well. The 2011 Act was updated by the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, as he mentioned, to improve our ability to monitor and manage the risk posed by terrorist offenders and individuals of concern outside custody. That allows for more effective intervention. As he also said, if the powers are not extended, those essential changes will not be effective and our ability to manage the risk posed by individuals will be severely compromised. Subject to the agreement of the Committee and the other place, the order will come into force on 13 December.
In response to the points raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens North and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, I reassure the hon. and learned Lady that officials are in regular contact, and rightly so. These are national matters of security that affect us all. I am conscious, however, that there is a different legal system and tradition in Scotland and we must always be mindful of that.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are happy with the regime’s effectiveness, and referred to the relatively small number of TPIMs in force. He asked whether that would continue to be the case. We are content with its effectiveness. The Committee will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but when the courts have renewed the imposition of a notice, they have all ruled that the TPIM has been imposed lawfully. The system continues to have the support of the Security Service, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. It remains a tool of last resort and is not something that any Government would want to use extensively. That said, we cannot predict the future and we must retain the flexibility and agility to do what is required.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about lone actors and how the terrorist threat has evolved and referred to the Opposition’s argument that one should look further into the development of lone acts. I reassure him that we are constantly looking at the evolution of the terror threat and its different aspects, part of which is the development of lone acts. We can make some of that analysis available to the Intelligence and Security Committee, if desired.
The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings also referred to the online aspect of terrorist plots—pretty much every such plot has some sort of online angle these days. That is an incredibly important front of our resistance to terrorism and mitigating that threat. The draft Online Safety Bill is important landmark legislation that specifically contains important provisions to tackle terror content. Two categories of illegal content have been identified as priority legal harms to tackle through the legislation from the very start—there will be others—namely, child sexual abuse and exploitation and terrorism. The interim codes of practice have been published and are in effect.
TPIMs give the Security Service and the police powerful and vital measures to help manage the risk posed by people of national security concern. They are used as a last resort when prosecution or deportation is not available. The TPIM Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to impose measures on an individual where she reasonably believes that that individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support this essential order to keep our country safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (First sitting)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: Clive Efford, † Mrs Maria Miller
Ali, Tahir (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
† Bradley, Ben (Mansfield) (Con)
† Burghart, Alex (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education)
† Carter, Andy (Warrington South) (Con)
† Clarke-Smith, Brendan (Bassetlaw) (Con)
† Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
† Hardy, Emma (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South) (Lab)
† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)
† Hunt, Tom (Ipswich) (Con)
† Johnson, Kim (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
† Johnston, David (Wantage) (Con)
† Nici, Lia (Great Grimsby) (Con)
† Perkins, Mr Toby (Chesterfield) (Lab)
† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)
† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Western, Matt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Sarah Thatcher, Bradley Albrow, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 30 November 2021
(Morning)
[Mrs Maria Miller in the Chair]
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. I encourage Members to wear a face covering, except when they are speaking or if they are exempt. That is in line with the Commission’s recommendations. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to the usual address. I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. The programme motion, which stands in the Minister’s name, was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 30 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 2 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 December;
2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 7 December.—(Alex Burghart.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Burghart.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email in the usual way.
The Committee will now proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available on the table; it shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
A number of newer Members are present, so I will go through this for clarity. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment, or seek a decision—a vote. If a Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I am not a mind reader—bear that in mind.
Clause 1
Local skills improvement plans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out “subsection (6)” and insert “subsections (6) and (6A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 5.
Alex Burghart
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller? I have no doubt that you will guide us, chivvy us and harry us through the six sittings ahead of us. It is my pleasure to speak to amendments 4 and 5 in my name, relating to local skills improvement plans and the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority in their development.
Mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority play a vital role in supporting local communities, developing local economies and strengthening local skills systems. The Government recognise the importance of their work in their area as a commissioner and convenor with devolved adult education functions. As part of devolution, a sizeable proportion of the national adult education budget has been transferred to them. Their views and priorities therefore need to be brought to bear in the development of local skills improvement plans to help ensure that they are effective. That is already happening in our trailblazer areas, which deliberately feature a number with mayoral combined authorities. In recognition of their important role, the Government are bringing forward amendment 5, which will place on the Secretary of State a duty to approve and publish a local skills improvement plan only when satisfied that the designated employer representative body has, during the development of that plan, given due consideration to the views of the mayoral combined authority or Greater London Authority, where it covers the specified area.
We will set out further details in statutory guidance, which will be informed by our ongoing engagement with MCAs, the GLA, other key stakeholders and evidence from our trailblazers. This amendment, in addition to the statutory guidance, will ensure that MCAs and the GLA play a meaningful role in supporting the success of local skills improvement plans.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I would like to take a moment at the start of these proceedings to talk about the importance of the Bill and the approach that the Labour party will be taking to it, alongside Government amendments 4 and 5.
The skills Bill is of tremendous importance. We recognise that there has been, for a significant time, too little investment in skills and in the next generation. In particular, the drastic funding cuts during the past 11 years have had a dramatic impact on our further education sector and on the skills of the nation. It is recognised by many businesses, employers and players in the further education sector that we have fallen behind.
The Bill represents the Government’s approach to addressing the backlog, and they tell us that this approach places employers at the heart of the skills strategy and skills agenda. When I first heard that, it sounded familiar to me, having been a Member of Parliament for the past 11 years. I thought, “Where have I heard it said before that employers will be at the heart of the skills strategy?” I believed that I had heard that from a previous skills Minister, so we did a bit of research in my office, and it turns out that we have heard it from almost all of them.
Back in January 2011, the then skills Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), said of the Government’s approach to skills and apprenticeships:
“The entire focus of our Skills Strategy is in building a training system that is employer led…Indeed helping meet those skills needs, in businesses across the country, will make a major contribution to economic growth.”
In 2015, the apprenticeship levy was introduced, and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, told us that we now had a system in the hands of an employer-led institute for apprenticeships, and that his levy would be a
“radical, long overdue” new approach to apprenticeship funding. He said in this place that it was
“to raise the skills of the nation and address one of the enduring weaknesses of the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1370.]
His skills Minister at the time, former Tory MP Nick Boles, said:
“At the heart of the apprenticeship drive is the principle that no one better understands the skills employers need than employers themselves.”
By 2017, the Government were telling us this:
“The Apprenticeship Levy is a cornerstone of the government’s skills agenda, creating a system which puts employers at the heart of designing and funding apprenticeships to support productivity and growth.”
In 2018, the then Education Secretary, now the Minister for Security and Borders, told us that local enterprise partnerships were
“business-led partnerships…at the heart of responding to skills needs and building local industrial strategies that will help individuals and businesses gain the skills they need to grow.”
The rhetoric behind this Bill is exactly the rhetoric that we have been listening to for the past 11 years. Indeed, if the approaches of the past 11 years, which we were told placed employers at the heart of skills policy, had worked, we would not need this Bill. The Government are once again returning with the same prescription for the same ailment. They are once again failing to meet the size of the challenge, and in some cases are heading in the wrong direction altogether.
We have a new Secretary of State in post, of course. He is at great pains to tell people that there will be a change of tone and approach. The Bill was the brainchild of the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), if that is not an oxymoron, who was his predecessor—a man who believed in seizing as much power for himself as possible. Since the appointment of the new Secretary of State, we have been told there will be a change of tone and approach, but the Government’s approach to the cross-party amendments brought by their Lordships is not promising.
We entirely support the amendments in this group, which are about the mayoral combined authorities, but it is remarkable that the Government needed to introduce them; that demonstrates that the Government produced the skills Bill without any recognition of the issue.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has identified a key challenge that the Government are looking to tackle. It will clearly be difficult, but we hope that they will be successful. Does he agree that part of the reason why the challenge is so significant is that the previous Labour Government almost entirely ignored technical education and skills, with their obsession with universities and a 50% target?
Mr Perkins
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question. That has long been the lament. I speak to my colleagues who were involved in skills policy under the Labour Government, and their retort is that the investment in skills under the Labour Government was far greater than what we have seen in the 11 years that followed. There is nothing contradictory in wanting a strategy that allows as many people who want a university education and who are capable of it to have one, and that also has a real commitment to investment in skills.
Over the 11 years of this Government, we have seen the trashing of the idea that universities should be an aspiration for everyone. Alongside that rhetoric—an example of which we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman—we have seen a massive reduction in the investment in skills, and we have seen policies that do not work. The apprenticeship levy led to a massive reduction in the number of apprenticeships. What is said is one thing; what is done is quite another.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Back in the mid-2000s, did not the Labour Government, who predated my time here, introduce national skills academies? The whole point of them was to develop skills across the piece and drive the development of courses that could run in colleges across the UK.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We feel very strongly that we need investment in skills, but we also need a strategic approach that brings in different Government Departments and recognises that skills are the responsibility of not just the Department for Education, but of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury. There has to be recognition that this is about the kind of economy, as well as the kind of skills system, that we are looking to build. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on the Labour Government’s approach, and the investments they made.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I was a college lecturer in the era that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned. Curriculum 2000 was an absolute, unmitigated disaster. AVCEs—advanced vocational certificates of education—were withdrawn very quickly. The money that was pumped in was pumped into all the wrong places, and we ended up in a situation where people went to university because there were no proper options for BTECs at level 4 or level 5, or Cambridge technicals or City and Guilds, or anything else. It is not just BTECs but the Pearson monolith we are talking about here.
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I accept that she has a long track record in this sector, and that is an important contribution to this debate. The investment in skills then was on a different level from the investment that has taken place since. I am very happy to spend the entire debate talking about the previous 20 years; it would be interesting but not entirely fruitful. I accept that she feels, as she said on Second Reading, that changes to higher national diplomas were damaging; she was negative about the drive towards university education. Like the Labour Government, I believe that we should recognise that it is a brutal world for those who do not have skill. A drive towards university education should not be at the expense of college education; they should be two hands working closely together.
Lia Nici
The reality is that university education is not skills education. That is the problem. We have people doing lots of different types of degrees, and they are leaving, as graduates, with no skills, and are not employable in the majority of places.
The Chair
Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I will allow Mr Perkins to respond.
Mr Perkins
It was such a controversial intervention that people wanted to intervene on it. I do not entirely accept what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby says—that a university degree is not a contribution to the skills of the nation. She hits on a view that is at the heart of much of this Government’s approach, which is that education has value only in so far as it is used in the work that someone goes on to do, and that there is a very narrow distinction between skills or vocational education, which is useful, and university education, which is theoretical, abstract, and of little value. I do not recognise that distinction at all.
The Chair
May I gently remind people that, while I think it is appropriate to have a broader debate at the beginning, we are talking about amendments 4 and 5?
Mr Perkins
Sure. I take your point, Mrs Miller. However, the intervention from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby highlights an important broader issue: of course skills and vocational education will always need to lead people being able to find work, but constantly decrying university education, on the basis that it is somehow not delivering that, is mistaken. There has been a real drive by this Government to frame the further education and higher education sectors as enemies that must be pitted against each other. Our approach recognises them as two important, powerful strongholds in supporting this nation to be the kind of nation that it wants to be.
Mr Perkins
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish; then, if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South wishes to come in, I will take her intervention.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think he is absolutely right: we are heading into that age-old trap of not only dividing the academic from the vocational in further education, but implying that higher education is solely an academic route. There are many vocational higher education qualifications out there, and we must not ignore that. On Government amendment 5, the exact point that Andy Burnham—the Mayor of Greater Manchester—and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority have been making for years is that for the Greater Manchester city region to succeed, we must ensure that its skills agenda embraces not only the academic but the vocational, so that we have the skills for the jobs of tomorrow.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman has neatly brought us back onto the subject of this debate, so I thank him for that.
Mr Perkins
I encourage my hon. Friend to expand on that point, because he is absolutely right. It is remarkable that the Government have been forced to introduce Government amendment 5, because it means that they brought the Bill forward without recognising any role for authorities that already have this funding devolved to them in the first place. It is a fairly dramatic change. The approach that Labour would take to local skills improvement plans is fundamentally different from that of the Government.
The Government are taking the approach that these are employer-led documents—that phrase again. They are documents of tremendous importance, so presumably the chambers of commerce will be holding the pen on them and will now, as a result of Government amendment 5, be forced to convince the Secretary of State that they have properly taken on board the views of those democratically elected to lead on skills policy in their areas. So many other important contributors are left on the side lines.
Labour’s approach would be to say that we need to recognise the importance of local skills improvement plans that will dictate the direction of skills policy. What we need is a local skills improvement plan that brings together the role of public and private sector employers; that brings in further education colleges; that brings in significant independent training providers within an area; and that is held together by those with democratic accountability, such as metro Mayors and local authorities. That holistic approach would deliver a skills policy that everyone would be able to get behind and recognise as representative.
The Government’s approach is very much about placing the chambers of commerce at the heart of this, but in fact they have had to bring forward an amendment to even put the metro Mayors and combined authorities back into that role. We support Government amendment 5, but it is remarkable that it was necessary at all.
I would like the Minister to expand on whether Government amendment 4 impacts clause 6 in terms of the duty placed on local skills improvement plans for compliance with section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008. It is crucial that skills policy drives us towards a net zero future, so it is important to understand whether the intention is to undermine that commitment when it comes to Government amendment 4.
Again, we support Government amendment 5, although we are confused about why it is needed and why it was not central to the approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, it is important that we recognise that mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority already have responsibilities in terms of policy and funding for further education and skills, and that they both have good professional relationships with employers, colleges and training providers in their areas. I have been along to meet them in Manchester and have seen their excellent work on careers guidance and their constructive approach to independent providers and the FE sector. That is a great example of how devolved decision makers are better in touch with the needs of their communities than a centralised approach.
It is a shame that the Bill, the brainchild of the former Secretary of State, is a return to the centralisation agenda that has too often bedevilled Whitehall thinking. It was clearly a driving force in the legislation. It is inconceivable that local skills improvement plans could have flown in the face of decisions made locally. It is therefore important to understand what protections there will be for existing funding arrangements with regard to those put in place by metro Mayors. Will they be transferred to employer representative bodies or will there be a dual system?
The Government propose that employer representative bodies consider the views of mayoral combined authorities or the Greater London Authority but, as was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich on Second Reading, what does that say about those communities that are not within metro Mayor areas? The majority of my colleagues on the Labour Benches are in metro Mayor areas—I am one of the relatively few who are not—but many colleagues on the Conservative Benches are in areas that have local enterprise partnerships, which were originally meant to bring together many of the different power brokers. It seems that democratic accountability is missing entirely in areas outside the metro Mayor areas.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
This is a crucial point, which I hope we will come to as our consideration of the Bill develops: how do we define regions and regional consultation? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby might have an idea completely different from mine about what constitutes the best region when looking at skills and skills development. I hope that the Minister will take that point away and look to define that later as we go through the Bill.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely. To return to the subject of the amendment concerning mayoral combined authorities, the phrase “due consideration” is noticeably vague. The kind of due consideration that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire might have given to the views of the Mayor of Manchester would have left me—and, no doubt, the Mayor of Manchester—with sleepless nights. We hope that a more thoughtful approach is now in place and we welcome the change of tone, but we are not seeing a change in policy.
Emma Hardy
On that issue of “due consideration” and its vagueness, will the Minister agree to look at producing some guidance on what constitutes due consideration? Is that a consultation that has happened on one occasion, or on a number of occasions? How do we define “due consideration” to ensure that the democratic accountability to which my hon. Friend is referring is put at the heart of the Bill?
Mr Perkins
I agree with that absolutely. The next part of that—to extend what my hon. Friend is saying—is to ask whether there is a right of appeal for a combined authority or metro Mayor in the event that they do not consider that due consideration has been given to their views. If they think that the employer representative body has put together a local skills improvement plan that has not taken into account the representations made on one or more areas, will there be a right of appeal? Will the fact that the metro Mayor considers that due consideration was not given be able to pause the local skills improvement plan and bring people together?
What role does the Secretary of State consider that he will have? As I said, the previous Secretary of State was very much a centraliser—he wanted his hands on every single decision—and that clearly runs through the Bill. He had all these frustrations with the fact that individual organisations were not doing exactly what he wanted, so he wanted the power to tell them that they had to. Is that the sort of approach that this Secretary of State will take? Having appointed the chambers of commerce to make decisions before those who are democratically elected to do so, he appears to be positioning himself as the arbiter in a whole variety of local decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Emma Hardy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. Looking at the room, I see that people on both sides are genuinely interested in education matters. I hope that this will be a good Committee that really scrutinises the legislation before us in a shared ambition to make the Bill the best that it can be.
I will be brief. I have already made an intervention about guidance on what constitutes due consideration and about the arbitration processes for conflict over whether someone believes they have been duly considered. Will there be a timeframe for that due consideration? Local engagement and agreement for the skills plans is absolutely crucial, so having that clearly laid out is fundamental.
I hope the Minister will clarify something. I may be misreading the Bill, but am I right in thinking that further education colleges have been removed from consultation, or is that part of a later amendment? The Lords tabled an amendment to ensure that local school improvement plans are co-developed with colleges, local government, elected Mayors, employers and so on. Am I right in thinking that colleges are no longer listed as part of the consultation process, or will that be addressed in another amendment? I may have made a mistake, in which case the Minister will correct me.
We are basing everything on employers and the jobs available now, but has the Minister thought about future-proofing the local skills development plans to include industries that will be developed in future, especially in relation to climate, green changes and so on? We might create the best possible plan for jobs that exist now, but that might not be the plan that we want in five years’ time, so will such future-proofing be included?
Tom Hunt
I will make just a few very brief comments. I think that the local skills improvement plans are a huge step in the right direction. It is clearly crucial that local businesses should play a role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges. We need to have far more of an ecosystem approach when it comes to the role of employers, schools, FE colleges and further education. Too often, it seems as if they are kind of on the sides.
Mr Perkins
What does the hon. Gentleman say to my earlier point, which was that what he is saying is exactly what has been said about every single Conservative skills reform in the last 11 years? They always claim that they are putting employers at the heart of the measures. Why does he think those previous approaches have failed?
Tom Hunt
To be honest, we are dealing with the Government we have today. I can say, as somebody with an interest in further education and skills, that this Bill is actually the most significant and potentially game-changing piece of Government legislation. My job is to look at the Bill before us today, and I think it is hugely in the right place. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made at this stage, and we will engage in doing that.
There is one quick point that I would like to make. When we talk about the local skills improvement plans and local employers playing a greater role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges, I think it is important that we consider what might happen. I imagine that the vast majority of education providers will play ball and welcome that input from local business, but on occasions where there may be some resistance and that does not quite work, is there something that could be done to ensure that they come to the table to accept the advice and a steer from local business?
On my comments on Second Reading, which the hon. Member for Chesterfield has often mentioned, I recognise that there is a significant difference between mayoral combined authorities and regular upper-tier local authorities. Certain powers and funding have been devolved to mayoral combined authorities, and we do not have them in every area. I accept that, and I accept why the Government are treating mayoral combined authorities slightly differently from regular upper-tier authorities such as Suffolk County Council. I guess my view would be that the solution is to have more devolution. As somebody who recently, with other Suffolk colleagues, supported a bid for One Suffolk, I would be very happy if there were positive movements so that Suffolk was in a place to have the powers for its principal authority to play a role in local improvement plans.
Andrew Gwynne
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. My comments follow neatly on from those of the hon. Member for Ipswich, because the reality is that much of what the Government want to achieve in the Bill is starting to happen anyway in devolved combined authority areas where the skills agenda has been devolved. I welcome the emphasis on skills improvement plans and, now, the involvement of the mayoral combined authorities in them. It was perhaps remiss that that was not in the Bill originally, and I am pleased that the Minister has tabled an amendment to ensure that it is clearly in the Bill.
Devolution matters. It works, and it is working. It was a Labour Government who introduced the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which facilitates the devolution agenda. Greater Manchester, my own city region, was the first to have a combined authority in 2011. It had an interim Mayor in 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)—and a Mayor in 2017: Andy Burnham. The skills agenda is at the heart of the Greater Manchester combined authority’s strategies. It has a local industrial strategy. It has the Greater Manchester work and skills strategy and priorities. In 2019, it had the adult education budget devolved to it. It has Bridge GM, which links schools and employers.
The thing that I am most proud of, and which fits neatly in the agenda of the Bill, is the Greater Manchester skills for growth strategy, which is designed to fill occupational skills gaps in the Greater Manchester city region, and provide young people and adults with the skills needed to fill the gaps.
However, we need to go beyond that, and I urge the Minister to encourage combined authorities to future-proof and devolve them the powers to do so. Technology is moving at a rapid speed. Our city region economies are changing dramatically in a short space of time, and we need to ensure that the workforce of tomorrow has the skills of tomorrow, not the skills of today. I welcome the fact that the mayoral combined authorities will be included in the Bill.
Emma Hardy
On the skills for tomorrow, there is a huge concern about amendment 4, which removes subsection (6) on future issues around climate change and environmental goals. Surely those issues will only grow in importance. Removing that from the Bill seems incomprehensible.
Andrew Gwynne
It absolutely does. My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight that, because they are not only the challenges but the opportunities of tomorrow. I firmly believe that the United Kingdom can be a world leader in developing the technologies and equipment to help tackle some of the environmental challenges that the whole globe will face in the years to come. That is certainly true of my city region. It is also true of Hull, where there are huge opportunities not just on renewable power but to develop the next generation of technology.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend has prompted me to point out that wind turbines are made in the great city of Hull, and we are going to be one of the green energy capitals of the UK. I wanted to get that in Hansard.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—probably almost as grateful as she is to have had the chance to make that press release—and she is absolutely right.
I firmly believe that the skills agenda is linked to the industrial strategy agenda, not just for individual city regions, towns and counties, but for the country. If we want Britain to succeed, we must think not just about the here and now, but about the future. That involves bringing together skills and industrial strategy. In a small way, that is what we are doing in Greater Manchester through the devolution agenda.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point, which is at the heart of the difference between Labour and Conservative approaches. This Government’s approach is about moving towards a German-style skills system, but the Treasury and Business teams do not want a German-style economy. I very much welcome a step towards the German-style approach, but the Government are trying to impose a model on top of our economy, and that cannot be done without the drive towards an industrial strategy.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend must have eyes in the back of his head, because that was pretty much the next point that I wanted to make. It all hinges on the term “due consideration”. We are doing this in city regions such as Greater Manchester, and we are getting there. We have the skills, and we have good collaboration with local businesses to shape the agenda. We have a shared vision. I accept that that might not be the case in other devolved areas—there might be a degree of friction between the business community and the combined authority—but in Greater Manchester, it is genuinely a partnership. The skills programmes, strategies and priorities are genuinely developed in partnership.
The Minister talks about “due consideration” in relation to the amendment, but I want assurances from him that Ministers will take a genuinely collaborative approach and we will not end up with some monolithic, top-down and Whitehall-knows-best approach being imposed on city regions that are already starting to develop the very skills strategies that are envisaged in the Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister can address my concerns.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I will keep my comments brief, but I want to touch on some of the issues raised by colleagues.
First, LEPs, chambers of commerce and other instances of local involvement in skills plans have been mentioned. Some of those are excellent and some are awful. Will the Minister touch on what safeguards might exist for those plans, particularly in areas without combined authorities? Combined authorities have devolved local oversight or engagement in the plans, but for areas that do not, where will the safeguard be if chambers of commerce that are not delivering for business bring forward less effective plans?
Secondly, I should declare an interest as a local government leader in talks with Government about devolution. In all honesty, I would devolve adult skills to all upper-tier local authorities. However, recognising that areas with combined authorities will have local engagement in the discussion—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has mentioned future-proofing the Bill—does the Minister acknowledge that the Government are in talks about devolution with counties that will not be part of combined authorities, but that might have powers over adult skills? Is that something that has been considered in the wording of the Bill? Such areas might have that local input or devolved skills budgets and options available to them in future, although they might not be covered by the term combined authority.
Matt Western
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle was saying, it is great to be in a room that contains so many educationalists and educators, including my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who will bring a lot to bear on the Bill.
I will preface my remarks by turning to earlier comments on vocational qualifications and the relative value of one sector versus another. We must remind ourselves to talk about the HE sector as opposed to universities and think about the great breadth brought to our educational sector by higher education providers, who are diverse in nature.
On Government amendment 4, given that COP was a month ago and how disappointing it was, we must ensure that all Bills include elements that remind us of the importance of climate change, which is the issue of our time and that of decades to come. The Government are seeking to remove subsection (6), inserted by the Peers for the Planet group, which importantly sees LSIPs granted to authorities by the Secretary of State only if they comply with the duty in the Climate Change Act 2008. We must ensure that, at every opportunity, in every piece of legislation, that duty is embedded in our thinking, and future generations must know of our determination on that.
I am sure that the Government are committed to environmentalism—they certainly talk about their commitment—and addressing the issue. I urge Government Members to think about this measure as it is particularly important in terms of education and what is being shared with the next generation. I remind the Committee that it was a concession in the Lords, so I am surprised that it should be opposed in the Commons.
I turn to Government amendment 5. It is important when designating LSIPs to consider the views and wishes of the mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority. The Association of Colleges made that clear when it said:
“The voice of employers is critical—but it is also important that LSIPs reflect wider priorities too”.
Through the pandemic, we should have learned just how important localism is. One of the great successes was the delivery of track and trace and the vaccine programme locally. The same should be said of how we design our needs for skills and education in our regions. The principle of subsidiarity—decisions being made at the local level—is really important.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. We have a couple of enthusiasts for devolution of power on the Government side of the Committee, but I fear they may be disappointed because the Government’s approach to devolution is very much less enthusiastic than that of the previous Conservative Governments in 2015 and 2017. The Bill, which seeks to bring a lot of power back to the centre, seems to prove that.
Matt Western
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mansfield, will be disappointed about that. It is really important that the Government send clear messages about devolution and what they want to see, but in many facets of Government business there seems to be a greater concentration of powers coming into Whitehall and Ministers’ offices than devolution to the likes of Mansfield, Manchester, Liverpool the north-east and so on.
As I said, one of the great learnings of the last 20 months is just how brilliantly our local services and authorities can deliver things. That is because they understand their geography, their communities and their populations. I am concerned about how due consideration, a much-vented issue in the last half hour, might work, particularly given the reliance on the personality of the individual who happens to be in the seat at the time. I will not go into any further detail on that because it has already been much explored.
Will the Minister provide a bit more information on what factors will be considered in the designation of an LSIP? The Local Government Association has stated:
“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach. Without a meaningful role for local authorities, the reforms risk creating an even more fragmented skills system, with different providers subject to different skills plans”
I urge the Government and the Minister to listen and respond to the experience of the Local Government Association.
Emma Hardy
Let me offer the Minister a concrete example of the situation in Hull. We have the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce, which reaches over to the south bank, and we have a newly formed LEP that serves just Hull and the East Riding. We have a careers scheme for Hull and the Humber, and separate counties that have no overall mayoral authority, but an elected police commissioner for the whole of the Humber. To say that is muddled does not go far enough. I really feel that the amendment should make allowances for areas that are as muddled as Hull.
Matt Western
That is a good illustration of just how complicated these matters can be. I hope that there will be greater clarity on how the measures will work in future.
We have heard from colleagues how well things can work, including my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who told us about how Manchester is just getting on with it. Having been up there recently, I have seen the extraordinary work of that cluster of universities and colleges, and how they are co-operating and collaborating in their brilliant work to bring skills to their known geography—I want to place on the record how mighty impressive that was. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield on counties and how they work in their regions; that must be clarified as well.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I ran a business in Greater Manchester’s Media City for many years. I saw the work of universities; in fact, I saw the universities arrive in MediaCity while I was working there. It was employers who actually drove that forward. I have listened to Opposition Members talking about local government and universities driving things forward, but businesses have been driving forward the skills agenda in Greater Manchester for many years. We have to put on the record the important role that business plays in that. The skills agenda is not being driven by local government alone; businesses are really at the heart of it.
Matt Western
I knew it was Warrington. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—I worked in the industry for many years myself. Businesses have an important part to play as consultees, but my concern is about the balance struck between what business wants and wider needs—we have to get an absolute balance between that.
To give the hon. Gentleman a small example, Warwick University, which is close to my constituency, was founded back in the 1960s, but it was founded off the back of the automotive industry. That did not mean that it should be an automotive industry establishment, and it is not. It happens to be one of the best universities in the UK and globally, but it was part founded by industry. That is where collaboration can work, and the last Labour Government certainly looked very closely at that when developing regional plans to promote industries. I take on board his point that industries and businesses have an important role to play as consultees, but plans should not be explicitly or purely at their direction.
Alex Burghart
What an interesting debate to start off the Committee stage of the Bill. There are so many comments to come back to. As a general observation, it was very nice to hear the hon. Member for Chesterfield praise Conservative predecessors of mine for their comments about an employer-led system, which we have indeed been building up during our time in power. The Bill is simply the next stage in that process.
The fact that that process was required was first highlighted in a 2011 report by the Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. I do not want to get into the deep politics of it—we have the Bill to consider—but that report was written after Labour had been in power for 13 years. He felt that it was necessary to begin long-term reform of the skills system to make it more responsive to the needs of business and to make sure that students could get the qualifications they needed and the technical skills to go into the jobs that the economy demands. It is a great honour to present the Bill as a means of taking those ideas on to their next stage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesterfield for saying that Labour will support the amendments and the local skills improvement plans. However, I need to clarify a point made by a number of Opposition Members: the Government are not removing clause 1(6). That seems to be a point of confusion. Clause 1(6) stands part of the Bill. Government amendment 5 would insert subsection (6A) to clause 1, on page 2, in line 32. It does not do anything to clause 1(6).
Emma Hardy
On a point of clarity—forgive me if I have this wrong— amendment 4 does seem to leave out subsection (6). My mistake—it says
“leave out ‘subsection (6)’ and insert ‘subsections (6) and (6A)’”.
Alex Burghart
With that in mind, and in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on the impact of Government amendment 4 on clause 6, there is no friction at all between Government amendment 4 and clause 6. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to clause 1(6) and (6A) when deciding to approve and publish a plan. I hope that has cleared that up.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised a point about LSIPs and colleges, which will be dealt with in statutory guidance. The Secretary of State will lay very good statutory guidance on how employer representative bodies will work and how local skills improvement plans will be written.
We expect the whole process to be collaborative. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke very well about the existing collaboration in the system. It is something that we recognise in all of our combined mayoral authorities. We do not see there being any great friction or need for friction. We want to see authorities, businesses and providers working in harmony, as many of them already do. What we are doing in the Bill, and in these clauses, is simply creating a process that helps establish that good working.
I was up in Salford not long ago, in MediaCity, where I saw some of the Government’s fantastic digital boot camps. Young people—and some not so young people—are learning the skills of tomorrow at speed in 16-week courses, getting apprenticeships in MediaCity and meeting people who have previously done the apprenticeships, who now have jobs in MediaCity. We saw that Government initiative backed by local business is not in friction with the good work the local Mayor was doing—instead, it complements it. We also saw the local economy boosted as a result.
Some of the remarks made by hon. Members suggested that there is always going to be a terrible tension between what local political leadership and businesses are trying to do, and what local providers want to do. I do not think that will be the case. In fact, there is an enormous amount of goodwill in the system and people are desirous of working towards the same aims.
On the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich and for Mansfield, do I see before me two future leaders in their respective areas? Well, one leader already, but who knows if they will become greater leaders still? Obviously, at the moment combined authorities have a greater responsibility for adult skills than local authorities do, which is why we put them on the face of the Bill. In the course of statutory guidance and as situations evolve, perhaps it will be possible for us to set out how we expect that work to evolve.
I do not recognise the comments made by some Opposition Members about this Government not having an appetite for devolution. Success has many fathers. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about how Labour’s devolutionary reforms led to mayoral combined authorities, but I remember the Manchester devolution deal being done under the Conservatives.
Andrew Gwynne
I can second-guess where the Minister is going and I am grateful to him for giving way, but I was merely pointing out that the piece of legislation that permits combined authorities was one of the last pieces of legislation that was introduced by a Labour Government. It was clear that was where Labour was heading, but credit where it is due. David Cameron and George Osborne did allow significant devolution to my city region.
The Chair
Order. As interesting as devolution is, can we remind ourselves that we are talking about local skills improvement plans?
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Mrs Miller, and with your prompting I will refer to one more point.
Emma Hardy
I apologise if I am being tiresome, but just so I have understood this correctly, can the Minister confirm that the amendment leaves out subsections (6)(b), “adaptation to climate change” and (6)(c), “meeting other environmental goals”, but leaves subsection (6)(a)? Does the amendment remove paragraphs (b) and (c), lines 30 to 32, with those specific references to “climate change” and “other environmental goals”?
Alex Burghart
In the amendment, subsections (6)(b) and (6)(c) will not stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
So that we are all clear, does that mean that “adaptation to climate change” and “meeting other environmental goals” are being removed?
The Chair
Minister, would you like to complete your remarks and maybe others can provide you with a little bit more information?
Alex Burghart
That is very kind, Mrs Miller. I will seek absolute clarity on this point, but my understanding is that the Secretary of State will still have to have regard to section 1 of the Climate Change 2008. That is an important concession that was made in the House of Lords, for obvious reasons.
To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, one of the major players—perhaps the major player—in what this Bill seeks to achieve is business. It is often business that drives, through its work with local providers, a responsive system, which means that the employers of today ensure that the employees of tomorrow have the skills that they need.
Andy Carter
In Warrington, we have used the town deal to put a focus on skills, with the employer at the heart of it. A digital skills academy has been created in Warrington, driven by employers but facilitated by the local authority, allowing the focus for colleges and for future growth in those areas. Businesses have really been at the heart of that work, which for me is so important.-
Alex Burghart
That point is well made, and I very much hope to visit Warrington in the near future and see that good work.
Mr Perkins
The Minister may have received guidance that might help him, but as I understood it, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (6) all remain in the Bill; he is simply adding proposed new subsection (6A), which we have just been debating. The amendment does not take out any of the paragraphs in subsection (6), unless I have misunderstood it.
Alex Burghart
To bring a bit of clarification to proceedings, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. Contrary to some of the messages that Opposition Members gave earlier, we are keeping all of clause 1(6)—that means paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment made: 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
‘(6A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a relevant authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that in the development of the plan due consideration was given to the views of the relevant authority.
For this purpose “relevant authority” means—
(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning of Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (see section 107A(8) of that Act), or
(b) the Greater London Authority.’—(Alex Burghart.)
The effect of this amendment is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that due consideration has been given to the views of a mayoral combined authority or the Greater London Authority before approving a local skills improvement plan for an area that covers any of their area.
The Chair
We had some quite general debate on that group. I hope people have got things off their chest. Perhaps we could have a slightly more focused debate as we move forward.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, leave out from “body” to “for” in line 37.
The effect of this amendment is that a local skills improvement plan will be a plan developed by an employer representative body which is designated for a specified area. This amendment, together with Amendments 7, 8 and 9, reverse an amendment made at Lords Report.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 7, 8 and 9.
Alex Burghart
The amendments strip back some of the detail in clause 1(7), which can be better dealt with in statutory guidance. As well as engaging a wide range of employers, a designated employer representative body should work closely with all relevant providers, local authorities and other key local stakeholders to develop its plan. Without such widespread engagement, the resulting plan is not likely to be very effective. Key stakeholders with valuable local intelligence include, but are not limited to, the Careers and Enterprise Company, local careers hubs, National Careers Service area-based contractors and Jobcentre Plus. Our expectations on local stakeholder engagement will be set out clearly within the statutory guidance. The guidance can be updated regularly to reflect evolving needs and priorities, as well as best practice. It also enables the required level of detail to be captured.
Clause 1 already places duties on relevant providers to co-operate with employer representative bodies to ensure that their valuable knowledge and experience directly inform the development of the plans, so that they are evidence-based, credible and actionable. Clause 4 makes it clear that relevant providers include independent training providers and universities. I therefore do not believe that the Lords amendment is needed, particularly given the MCA and GLA amendment that we have just discussed.
Mr Perkins
These are four significant amendments. Notwithstanding the assurances that we have just received from the Minister, they specifically take out what I think was a very strong amendment, supported by Members across the House of Lords, that added the importance of a collaborative approach to the Bill. For all the Minister said in that contribution, and the one before, about the importance of these partnership arrangements, it is not really a partnership arrangement. It is clear that all those consultees are subservient to the chamber of commerce which, ultimately, holds the pen and makes the decision. That report will then have to meet with the approval of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Mansfield raised in a previous debate the question of what happens, given the huge variety in the strength of different chambers of commerce, different local enterprise partnerships and so on, in the event that a local skills improvement plan goes to the Secretary of State and is considered not be adequate? Obviously, we can only assume that the Secretary of State would send it back.
Chambers of commerce are very varied organisations; I think everyone would recognise that there are some excellent ones—I count those in Derbyshire and the east midlands as an example of that. However, there are others that are much smaller and have very different areas of responsibility. Chambers of commerce are membership organisations that represent some of the businesses in their community; that is unlike chambers of commerce in Germany, which are compulsory for businesses to join, and therefore are representative, quasi-governmental organisations. In this country, chambers of commerce are one of many different business organisations that businesses might choose to join. Different chambers have different areas of priority and expertise and different industries that are particularly important to them. Even among their memberships they have, in my experience, a small number of members who are very active within them, and large numbers of members who take a much less active role.
What we have in the context of many of the consultees that the Minister referred to going into the guidance notes, are a number of organisations that are in some ways more consistent, and will definitely offer a breadth of approach. Therefore, the fundamental difference of the approach that Labour would take in the Bill, compared with the Government, is around whether it is a true partnership. The difference is whether it is a partnership that recognises the voices of public and private sector employers and of further education colleges, that recognises the power of those independent training providers that do such great work across the country, and that recognises statutory organisations such as jobcentres, all of which have a role in this, or whether, as the Bill says, they are all consultees, but the chamber of commerce ultimately writes this plan. We would like to see far greater parity in that power; we think it is a local skills improvement plan that would have more buy-in and more belief in the local community, and would be much more respected on that basis.
Emma Hardy
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern, given amendment 6, that the specific reference to further education providers is removed from the Bill. Any local skills plan needs to be done in conjunction with further education providers; there is no point writing a Bill that does not have the capacity to deliver in that local area. It seems slightly odd that a specific reference to further education has been taken out of the Bill.
Mr Perkins
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that Government amendment 6 removes the words,
“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.
The Minister says that we should not worry, it will be in the guidance. However, the different approach by the Lords recognised that it was a genuine partnership. These organisations are now consultees that will make their representations to the chamber of commerce, and hope that the chamber of commerce smiles on the view they put forward. It is a totally different type of relationship. The relationship is either one of partnership or of subservience; the approach the Government choose to take is one of subservience.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. On the face of it, it would seem that the Government seek to make local employers’ organisations ultimately responsible for the direction and control of our colleges, and potentially our universities as well.
Mr Perkins
In terms of areas that are not already devolved, that is absolutely right, and adult education budgets will be very relevant.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not dwell on the subsequent amendments, because we will have an opportunity to debate them, but I will touch on some of our concerns about the way in which the needs of learners might not necessarily be at the forefront of people’s minds in chambers of commerce. For example, to what extent will chambers of commerce be aware of the specific needs of people with education and healthcare plans or other disabilities? The amendments seek to reduce the extent to which it is partnership working and move to a hierarchy, with the chamber of commerce holding the pen and driving the bus, and others making suggestions about the route.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right as to whether it is a true partnership relationship or a relationship of subservience. I draw hon. Members’ attention to amendment 7. Not only does amendment 6 leave out specific reference to further education providers; amendment 7 leaves out specific reference to community learning providers, designated institutions and universities. Again, it is no longer a partnership, as was written in the Lords amendment. It becomes a situation in which central Government make the decisions and education providers are in a subservient relationship with them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and I agree. Government amendment 7 is consequential to Government amendment 6, and she is right about what that means. We have real concerns about how employer-representative bodies and LSIPs will fit within sectoral expertise in sectors such as construction and manufacturing, which transcend local areas but are incredibly important, particularly where our economy is hugely lacking in the development of the next generation.
It is really important to recognise that we have huge skills shortages in the public sector as well as the private sector. Health and social care is a classic example, but there are many others. The voice of the public sector must be heard, and we must ensure that it is able to support people who aim to get from unemployment into a trained-up place in the workplace, because they are also central to this sort of approach. I am interested to hear from the Minister what framework he envisages for LSIPs aligning with sectoral programmes and a national industrial strategy.
Government amendment 8 removes the words, “by people resident”, from the sentence about the skills required in a local area. The purpose of the Lords amendment was important: it was to ensure that LSIPs focused not just on the needs of employers but on the people resident in a community. What would happen in a situation whereby employers were satisfied with the extent to which they were able to access the skills that they needed, but a large number of people were employed and unable to get into the labour market? Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of chambers of commerce to address youth unemployment; it is the Government’s responsibility. If businesses consider that they are able to access the skills that they need, but there is still a large number of people who are unemployed, who takes responsibility for that? The Lords amendment ensured that the people who were resident in a local area were considered in the local skills improvement plan. The Government are taking those words out, which means that it goes back to being a plan put together by businesses to solve the needs of businesses, regardless of whether that addresses the problems of people struggling to access the labour market.
Emma Hardy
My other concern with the amendments, which I hope the Minister will address, is about areas with many small and medium-sized enterprises. Areas with large numbers of big employers can obviously exercise that strong voice, for example through chambers of commerce, but I am worried that in areas such as Hull, with predominantly SMEs, as I am sure Government Members will recognise, that voice will not come through as strongly.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend worries with due cause. Since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, small businesses have found it incredibly difficult to access apprenticeships. There has been a huge driving down in the number of people getting apprenticeships within small businesses. In areas such as Chesterfield, where smaller employers make up the majority of the economy, the apprenticeship opportunities are much lower than they were a few years before. Ensuring that the voice of small business is heard within this is incredibly important.
The Minister did not really talk about this amendment at all, but the Government might say that the skills plan also needs to have a focus on those relevant to a local employer who are not currently resident—we might call it the “on your bike” amendment, with the Government saying, “We want an approach that identifies skills needs of people who are not currently here.” If that was their intention, then it could have been worded to ensure that there was a strategy for attracting new workers. Simply taking those words out means that this is a plan for the employer community that does not have to consider those questions around the learners who are excluded from the labour market if those employers consider that they are relatively satisfied with what they are able to attract.
There is an important point here. At the moment, shortly after Brexit, there is a lot of focus is on skills shortages and staff shortages, and the sense, which I totally agree with, that we need to make more of the people we have. However, there may be other times when there is a real surplus of unemployed people, and we need a strategic approach that, in those times, supports those people into work, even if there are not a huge number of vacancies in the labour market. I think that those words are important.
Government amendment 9 removes the words “and other local bodies” from the clause concerning post-16 technical education, which was an amendment that the much-respected Lord Baker of Dorking added to the Bill. The Lords amendment that this Government amendment seeks to undo was drafted to avoid being too prescriptive, but it would have allowed LSIPs to work closely with other agencies, including Jobcentre Plus and careers advisory services, in providing careers information, advice and guidance.
All those organisations are important to ensuring that they are able to get into schools and support young people to get representation and ideas from both the business community and environments that they have not been familiar with. I would have thought that an amendment recognising that the careers responsibility is not just a responsibility of schools, but something that should be open to businesses, would have very much fitted with the spirit of the Bill. It was an opportunity for the Government to enable other bodies to play an important role in that post-16 technical education and careers guidance, and it is therefore disappointing that it was taken out.
We agree with their lordships on the introduction of these amendments, and we are disappointed that the Government are seeking to remove them. On that basis, we will look to support the amendments brought in by their lordships and disagree with these Government amendments.
Rachel Hopkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is appropriate that I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College. I support the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, the shadow Minister; I was also very disappointed.
The irony is not lost on me that a slightly less democratic place wanted to put more democracy into this Bill, which I was very pleased to see. The Government amendments take out democracy by removing the references to local authorities and mayoral combined authorities. I heard the Minister’s comments about expecting it to be collaborative and wanting good will between the different organisations. In order to ensure that all parts—the legs of the chair, so to speak—are in the Bill, the amendments made in the House of Lords should stay there.
I have a great passion for local authorities and the role they play in adult education. They have already been doing great work, understanding their own areas. In the general debate the point was raised about the role that locally elected leaders, local authorities and combined authorities play in place making, and the skills agenda is key to that. One of the points that has not been referred to specifically comes under amendment 7, which would take out the reference to the “long-term national skills” strategies. That is wholly important and not just secured through local businesses thinking about the skills they need roughly now. Retaining that reference to the long term and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities and combined authorities in the Bill would create a much firmer and stronger situation in our local areas. I speak as a former councillor on Luton Council. Great work is done at local grassroots levels.
Matt Western
It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way. She was in full flow and I did not want to interrupt her. In response to her point, it is fine to consult and get the views of businesses in developing a plan, but they do not necessarily know what is coming down the track: future opportunities, future business and future sectors that do not even exist yet. That is why it is important to keep as broad a base as possible. That was one of the points she was making well, but I wanted to amplify that.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.
Emma Hardy
On that point, I hope that the Minister will clarify that this will be statutory guidance, not just guidance that has been issued as a general idea that we can do it if we would like to. Statutory guidance is needed.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point about statutory guidance. In fact, if the guidance is going to be statutory, why not just make it statute and have it in the Bill? That is what I would like to see. It is important that local people have democratic oversight of what is happening in their areas. That is why I want to see local authorities, combined authorities and other organisations that can shape what is going on in their local areas.
Emma Hardy
On that point, the removal of
“schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”
means the people who actually deliver the skills strategies are being removed from a Bill about skills. It is a little odd.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making yet another fantastic intervention. Yes, it is a little odd. Equally, amendment 9 removes other organisations, such as our Jobcentre Plus.
Mrs Miller, you will forgive me for intervening on an earlier intervention. What I was trying to get at with regard to universities is that they are also very much involved in skills development. I refer to the University of Bedfordshire, which is in my constituency. It has a fantastic new STEM building—science, technology, engineering and maths. Industry-standard equipment has been brought into the science labs, so the students studying for degrees such as biochemistry are using the equipment that is used out in industry. This is not just about theoretical and academic issues; it is also about key skills.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how incorrect the intervention was. One of the areas where we are desperately short of workers is social work. How do we train up social workers? They are trained up at a university. The idea that universities are only for academic knowledge and not places where people can be trained for jobs is ludicrous.
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.
I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.
Matt Western
What is concerning about these amendments is the direction of travel. What is it that the Government are trying to achieve by removing these Lords amendments, because they seem to be incredibly positive and constructive about getting the right and relevant organisations across the piece to be involved in the development of a plan? The idea of a LSIP is a very good thing, but it must draw on the skills, knowledge and expertise of these bodies from a region, so that they can bring them to bear on the design of a LSIP, to ensure that the present and future needs of a region can be met.
My fear, having listened to the debate over the last few minutes, is that there is a horrible parallel with what is going on with the integrated care systems, whereby we are seeing more involvement by the private sector and a diminution of the provision from the public sector. When we look at individual placement and support, or IPS, we see that there is an absolute withdrawal of the public sector. The public sector will also have little to no say on what will happen with the delivery of skills in a region. That runs counter to what the Local Government Association believes.
The LGA says in its written evidence that it believes
“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach.”
We have also heard evidence from the Association of Colleges, which said it was
“disappointed the Government have tabled an amendment to remove”
the reference to post-16 education providers. It is quite rightly disappointed.
Warwickshire College Group, based in my town, is a huge college that covers Warwickshire—I think it is still the sixth largest in the country, so it is a college of some substance. It wrote to me to say that it wants to ensure that colleges are co-constructing LSIPs with employers and that it very much needs to be involved, because it is within the power of colleges to further think strategically—that comes back to the point I was making earlier—and innovate for the skills needs of their communities.
We have also heard from the Workers Education Association. Its submission said:
“We are pleased that the Bill…should “draw on the views of”…further education institutions, community learning providers”,
and others, and that:
“We hope to see this retained and strengthened in the…Act.”
Then we get to organisations such as Central YMCA, which said that, as an independent training provider, it believes it is vital that LSIPs should draw on the views of organisations such as themselves, as well as those of schools and FE colleges.
The LGA believes that the Lords amendment should be maintained, to ensure that all employer representative bodies across England should
“work with local democratic organisations to better coordinate provision and align pathways of progression for learners.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said at the outset, we are extremely concerned that removing these organisations—removing, wholesale, the likes of schools, specialist designated institutions and universities from participating in the design of the plans—seems ignorant in the pure sense of the word. It weakens the plans. It does not maximise the true potential of what the region can do with collaboration between the public and private sector in the design of those plans. The Lords got it right, and it is really disappointing that the Government, for whatever reason—ideological, perhaps—should now be seeking to remove this provision.
Andrew Gwynne
I do not want to prolong the debate on this group, but the Minister, in the discussion on the previous group, sought to assure the Committee that the approach was genuinely collaborative. Yet this group of amendments strikes out Lords amendments that would make the approach genuinely collaborative. I do not understand the thinking here. I cannot understand what the Minister thinks he is gaining or achieving by striking out the Lords amendments.
Let us look at the amendments in detail. Government amendment 6 would strike out, in clause 1(7)(a),
“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers”.
The explanatory notes state that the reference to mayoral combined authorities is not required because that point has now been made clear through the earlier Government amendment that we have passed. I accept that point, but there is still a role for other local, non-mayoral combined authorities to have a view and an input into the skills agenda for their area, whether that is a unitary authority or a county council. These issues are part and parcel of what those local authorities do.
Emma Hardy
It feels like removing the Lords amendment will result in democratic accountability if the area has a Mayor; if it does not, there is no democratic accountability. An area such as Hull, which has no mayoral authority, has no democratic accountability or reference in the Bill. That feels unfair.
Andrew Gwynne
It not only feels unfair; it is unfair. I get that mayoral combined authorities have specific skills responsibilities devolved to them, so clearly the level of input from a mayoral combined authority is greater than that of a county council or a unitary authority that does not have those specific responsibilities devolved to them, but the council’s strategy for that area will involve education, skills and economic development. Those are important elements for county and unitary authorities.
Mr Perkins
I fear it is actually worse. The Government amendment agreed by the Committee a moment ago did give a role to mayoral combined authorities, but that role was that the Secretary of State had to satisfy himself that they had been consulted. The pen is still held by the chamber of commerce. The Lords amendment that the Government amendments in this group get rid of are about genuine partnership. The Bill, as brought from the Lords, states that it will include
“an employer representative body in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.
That partnership is being entirely removed. Metro Mayors are being left as a statutory consultee, which the Secretary of State must satisfy himself are being consulted. The other partners will have no role whatsoever, except for in guidance, which will say, “Make sure you talk to them.” This change is about moving from a partnership approach to a consultee, subservient approach.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is absolutely right. When we look at what else is being deleted from clause 1, subsection (7)(b)(ii) talks about
“regional and local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities, within the specified area with specific reference to published plans and strategies which have been developed by these authorities”.
All those authorities have plans and strategies; I listed a number of them in relation to Greater Manchester. If the mayoral combined authorities are going to be involved in this, why take out a specific reference to the plans that have been developed by them? As I said previously, unitary authorities and county authorities have those strategies too, yet they have no say whatsoever.
Andrew Gwynne
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because he was first, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and I would like to draw him further on it. I accept and respect what the Government are doing with some of the allocations of moneys to towns through the towns fund and so on, but it seems odd that we have some visionary authorities, not just at county level but at town and district level, that are doing extremely good work—I include my own in that—and they are not included. They should be party to this. They know what they want to do, they know what they are capable of, they know the areas where they can develop and they need those skills to ensure it is realised. I emphasise that those sorts of authorities should be included as well.
Andrew Gwynne
I completely agree. Every layer of local government has an interest in the health and wellbeing—in the broadest sense—of the population. The best way to improve the health and wellbeing of the population is to ensure that people have good skills, good education and good job opportunities. That is the route to health and wellbeing, and that is true both at the district level and at upper levels.
Emma Hardy
I want to highlight to Government Members, although I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield will know this as leader of a local council, that local councils have a statutory duty for all children with special educational needs or disabilities up to the age of 25. They have a statutory duty for looked-after children. They have a statutory duty regarding the number of young people not in employment, education or training—NEETs—as well. They have those statutory duties, yet the Government amendments remove their voice from the local skills plan. That does not seem right.
Andrew Gwynne
It absolutely does not seem right. I have spent a lot of time on local government, but the same part of subsection (7)(b) that will be struck out if Government amendment 7 is made goes further. While the line
“draws on the views of…employers operating within the specified area”
stays in, regional and local authorities, mayoral combined authorities and their strategies are taken out, but so are
“post-16 education providers active in the specified area, including schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”.
It is incomprehensible that those bodies would not be part and parcel of the deliberations on and the creation of the strategies.
Matt Western
If I may make one final point to address my hon. Friend’s own point, universities and higher education providers across the country are working well—some extremely well—in collaborating and co-sponsoring courses with their FE institutions. The idea that they would be excluded from the plans seems beyond ridiculous.
Andrew Gwynne
It is barmy—there is no other word for it. We are here debating a Skills and Post-16 Education Bill and we are excluding the very bodies that have a direct interest in skills and post-16 education. I just do not understand the Government’s thinking. They have promised collaboration, but you cannot have collaboration if the people and bodies delivering the skills agenda on the ground are explicitly excluded from the creation of those plans.
Tom Hunt
Of course, the bodies that are delivering technical and skills qualifications will continue to have a significant role. Surely the hon. Member must realise that the whole point of local skills improvement plans is to give a strong voice to local businesses? There are other avenues and ways in which providers can shape the offering.
Andrew Gwynne
I would like to know what the avenues are and why they are not in the Bill. If we are talking about developing a genuine partnership and collaboration, and if we are saying, “This is the skills agenda for our country. These are the needs of the next generation of workers in our country. This is where our country is heading with the jobs of tomorrow. This is the inward investment we want to bring in to our country. These are the things we want to make and do and build in our country,” we cannot do that just through business. Business is the way we create jobs, but it is educational institutions, universities and colleges that give the next generation the skills to deliver the strategy on the ground.
Matt Western
To give one simple example, and to be fair to the Government, the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre was developed through a university working with a local authority and a series of businesses. That is what we are talking about. It is about how we bring bodies together to develop plans, have a vision and then get the skills needed to deliver it. That is one brilliant example. We cannot have these plans simply designed by businesses.
Andrew Gwynne
No, we cannot. In other countries where there is a partnership between academia and industry, I have seen that the concepts of products are developed in universities, enterprise parks and science parks, and with the support of business they are brought to the market and developed across the world. I know that I have spoken a lot about Manchester, but one good example is the development of graphene by the University of Manchester. We are a world leader in that technology, and that was born out of genuine collaboration. Excluding universities and colleges from the plans for the economic development of our country is therefore barmy.
Ben Bradley
It is important to clarify this point, and I assume the Minister will do so as well. The hon. Member keeps using the word “exclude” as if others will be unable to take part in these conversations, and that is certainty not what amendment 7 says. Opposition Members have argued that the Government are taking too much central control, but when the Government try to give those at the local level flexibility to include the people they want to include, as opposed to mandating that certain groups be included, the hon. Member says that it is not specific enough. I wonder which one he is actually after.
Surely it would be better for local skills plans to be put together by partners who want to be involved, because not all the businesses or local bodies that he mentions will want or have the capacity to engage, and to have local flexibility to choose the most representative groups, rather than it being decreed that all such organisations must be involved in the discussions. It could become very unwieldly if we had to include every sixth form or FE provider in a whole region in those bodies. Surely flexibility is a good thing.
Andrew Gwynne
Clearly their lordships thought differently from the hon. Gentleman, and I think he is reading a different Bill. I will read it out to him. It says:
“draw on the views of employers operating within the specified area”.
The plans will be drawn from the views of employers.
Andrew Gwynne
Why does it need to specify employers, and only employers? It is a very one-sided view, and it strikes out regional and local authorities, post-16 education providers that are active in the area, schools, FE institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities.
To come on to my final point, why is
“such sources of information on long-term national skills needs as the Secretary of State may specify”
being removed? If the Government spotted on the horizon that there was likely to be a skills shortage, especially in our brave new world where we have taken back control and will upskill our own population to meet the coming challenges, I would expect the Secretary of State to ensure that our long-term national skills needs were included in every single one of those plans across England. Again, it is incomprehensible to think that the Secretary of State would not say to each and every one of those local areas, “We need to make sure that we have enough skills to do x, y or z, because we will face skills shortages in the future.”
To conclude, I cannot fathom the logic behind striking out these Lords amendments. Doing so runs against everything the Minister said a moment ago about collaboration. If he believed in true collaboration—a true partnership— he would not be doing this today.
Alex Burghart
It has been another lively and interesting debate on this group of amendments. The Government want to build an employer-led system, but the statutory guidance—yes, statutory guidance—will make it clear that the employer representative bodies that the Bill creates must consult a range of partners and collaborate with them.
On the removal of schools and other providers, the Bill is already clear that all relevant providers, including further education colleges, independent training providers, universities and sixth-form colleges need to be involved in the development of the LSIP—that is stated in subsection (4)—and if designated employer representative bodies do not have regard to relevant statutory guidance on engaging with relevant providers and do not comply with the terms and conditions of their designation, the Secretary of State may not approve or publish the local schools improvement plan and could remove their designation.
The national dimension is very important, and we expect local skills improvement plans to be informed by national skills priorities and to help address national, as well as local, skills needs. However, where there are national skills shortages in critical areas, we can expect the Government to carry on playing a role in helping alleviate them, as we are doing at the moment. We put £17 million into rapidly upskilling people to help meet the needs of the heavy goods vehicle sector, where we have significant shortages, and I have been pleased to see that that is going very well. That will not fall away.
Turning to the question of dropping the reference to long-term national skill needs, the Bill already makes reference to the fact that LSIPs will need to look at future skills needs—that is stated in subsections (2) and (7)(b)(iii). The Opposition made a very important point about the role of the public sector. Let us think about the phrase “employer representative bodies”: there is a very big role for business, but in many areas, the public sector is a major employer and will need to be involved in this process. We want ERBs to reach beyond their existing membership and cover both public and private employers.
Emma Hardy
The Minister has mentioned the employer-led bodies in the public sector. Could he pick up on my point about SMEs, which might not be part of an employer-led body but, in some regions, are the main employers?
Alex Burghart
We are expecting ERBs to draw up local skills improvement plans that take account of the economic area that they represent, which should absolutely include small and medium-sized employers, as well as self-employment opportunities.
While Opposition Members may feel that these things can be done only if every detail is written out in primary legislation, we know that that is not the case, because we have eight excellent trailblazer areas at the moment that are doing this job without a mite of primary legislation. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 40, leave out from beginning to “and” in line 6 on page 3.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment amends the definition of local skills improvement plan with the effect that a plan for a specified area must draw on the views of employers operating within the specified area, and any other evidence. Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9 reverse an amendment made at Lords Report.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Mr Perkins
On a point of order, Mrs Miller. Do we not decide on the other Government amendments? Are we doing those later?
The Chair
No, this is one of the wonderful complications of the Committee system. We do that later.
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(iv) groups representing the interests of people with disabilities,”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans draw on the views of groups representing the interests of people with disabilities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, after “evidence” insert
“, including the views of relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people,”.
This amendment intends to ensure that the evidence informing LSIP development includes information directly relevant to improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies actions to be taken to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the LSIP is used as a vehicle for improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 28, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans identify positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area covered by the Plans.
Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) lists specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.”
This amendment would require that local skills improvement plans list specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(iii) the body is composed of employers who demonstrate reputable practice in relation to equality and diversity in employment, including in relation to disability, and”.
This amendment intends to ensure that members of the body with primary responsibility for creating the LSIP have sufficient understanding of and commitment to equality and diversity, including in relation to disability, to enable them to create an inclusive plan.
Mr Perkins
Amendment 27 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. Amendment 27 and amendment 1 would add the words
“groups representing the interests of people with disabilities”
and
“relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people”
to clause 1, on local skills improvement plans. Given the discussion that we have just had, it is incredibly important that the consultees include those who represent people with learning disabilities and those who might be furthest from the labour market for a variety of reasons. Given the votes that have just taken place and are scheduled to take place, we are particularly concerned that there is a possibility that people furthest from the labour market, who will take the most work in order to contribute in meaningful employment, will be excluded. There is a disturbing lack of attention paid in the Bill to people with special needs or disabilities.
Amendment 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), would enshrine a role for representative bodies to devise specific plans of support for people with disabilities in local skills improvement plans. That is of tremendous importance. One of the things that is most important for the FE sector, and one of the greatest contributions it makes, is to support those people who are furthest from the labour market to get the skills that they need, through such things as supported internships and other innovative ideas that many of us have seen in action in our local colleges. Those programmes often take a considerable amount of work, but they make a life-changing difference to those people. A skills Bill that genuinely represents everyone must be mindful of the need for the local skills improvement plan to ensure that no one is left behind.
Amendment 2, which also appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, is the same as amendment 28, and adds the need for an LSIP to identify positive—
The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 30th November 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 November 2021 - (30 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, after “evidence” insert “, including the views of relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people,”
This amendment intends to ensure that the evidence informing LSIP development includes information directly relevant to improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies actions to be taken to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the LSIP is used as a vehicle for improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 28, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans identify positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area covered by the Plans.
Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) lists specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.”
This amendment would require that local skills improvement plans list specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
(iii) the body is composed of employers who demonstrate reputable practice in relation to equality and diversity in employment, including in relation to disability, and”
This amendment intends to ensure that members of the body with primary responsibility for creating the LSIP have sufficient understanding of and commitment to equality and diversity, including in relation to disability, to enable them to create an inclusive plan.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I was coming on to discuss amendment 34, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, which adds a new line to clause 1:
“lists specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.”
Supported internships have huge potential. I saw an excellent example when I visited Derbyshire Education Business Partnership, which serves my constituency of Chesterfield, and witnessed its supported internship programme in Derby at first hand. Supported internships are incredibly important in supporting people who may be further away from the labour market, but they currently have a tiny take-up. Everything that can be done to drive up the number of supported internships should be done. They support people who might not be ready to go into the world of work right away but who, with the benefit of a programme like this, can get to know an employer really well; the employer can get to know their strengths as well as their challenges, and they can get into the world of work.
We tabled amendment 34 not only to encourage the Government to insist that strategies for those with special educational needs are expressly considered in local skills improvement plans, but to talk specifically about supported internships, which would make a real difference. Many of us are concerned that chambers of commerce and employers, who are experts in the needs of their workplaces and what skills they need, will not necessarily be aware of the challenges faced by those who are furthest from the labour market. They might be less likely to have strategies of that kind in LSIPs. However, if colleges had a more central role in the plans, chambers of commerce and employers would absolutely recognise the need for programmes of this sort.
I share the belief of my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, and many others who put their names to the amendments, that employer representative bodies should have the required training, knowledge and understanding of the educational and health needs of people with disabilities in general and of how people with disabilities can best be supported within a local area in particular. I hope that, when he responds to this group of amendments, the Minister will commit to ensuring that people with disabilities are not forgotten in the Bill, and signal that the Government have specific strategies to ensure that employer bodies have a duty to represent the needs of people with disabilities and support them into the workplace, so that they are not excluded any more.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak in favour of amendments 27 and 28 in my name, and amendments 1, 2 and 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I want highlight that the Library briefing on the Bill states that 18% of the learners currently in the FE and skills sector have a recognised learning difficulty or disability. When we talk about people with disabilities, we are not talking about a very small minority; we are talking about 18% of those people. The amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham have tabled are very similar. They all basically try to do the same thing: to ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard and recognised in the Bill. They also address the disability employment gap. Mr Efford, I should have mentioned that I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on SEND, which is where a lot of my interest comes from. I know from the work of the APPG and on the amendments that there is a lot of cross-party support for these measures, which we also saw in the Lords. This is not a party political issue. I hope the Minister takes it seriously.
Recent figures show that disabled people have an employment rate that is 28.4 percentage points lower than people who are not disabled. There is a huge disability employment gap and the amendments hope to address that. I recognise that the issue is complex and that there are a number of Government initiatives to address it, but it would be a missed opportunity not to use the Bill and the new process of skills planning that it brings about to help ensure that people with disabilities can contribute to their local economy and that their voices are heard in the discussion of what that local economy should look like. All too often, people with disabilities feel that their voices are not heard. The amendments aim to ensure they are listened to and recognised, and that some action is taken on the disability employment gap. That is the aim of all the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Efford. I want to lend my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and others on this group of amendments. They seek to ensure that the LSIPs take the needs of disabled people and those with special educational needs into account.
Currently, further education caters for a large number of students with such needs, which can be complex. The latest data shows that roughly half of disabled people are in employment—just 53%—compared with just over four out of five non-disabled people. The employment rate for disabled people with severe or specific learning difficulties was 18% back in 2019, the lowest rate of any impairment group. The House of Commons Library briefing notes that 52% of disabled people were in employment, down from 54%, which is really concerning.
The Workers Educational Association notes that
“adult learners in community provision are those with low or no qualifications, who require the most support in order to progress to higher level qualifications.”
Learning disabilities add to that complex state of affairs, which justifies the inclusion of an amendment to provide more support for people with learning disabilities. In its evidence to the Committee, Engineering UK said:
“38% of respondents…reported a lack of role models to be a barrier for pupils with special educational needs”.
One of the employers in my region, the National Grid, is doing extraordinary stuff in engaging and giving work opportunities to young people with complex needs, through its EmployAbility scheme. It is an exemplar project that it has been running for several years.
Those are some of the reasons why the amendments are important to the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment says that those from SEND backgrounds are “disproportionately” likely to be affected, and it is therefore a cruelty not to legislate where possible to mitigate that disproportionate impact. We think it is vital that such provisions be written into the Bill, which is why the amendments have been tabled. We need to highlight the challenges and make sure that we are as inclusive a society as possible, and that we allow for the needs of people with SEND in skills provisions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2 and 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, amendments 27 and 28 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, and amendment 34 tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington.
Those amendments all relate to LSIPs and the importance that we all place on improving the employment prospects of people with disabilities. The criteria for designation of employer representative bodies in the Bill are intentionally focused on the key characteristics and capabilities required for that specific role. We do, of course, want all employers to demonstrate good practice in equality and diversity in employment, including in relation to disability. The Bill is clear that LSIPs should draw on a range of evidence, but we do not consider it appropriate to list all that evidence in the Bill. Instead, I assure Opposition Members that we will set out further details in statutory guidance and continue to engage key stakeholders representing learners with special educational needs and disabilities as that guidance is developed.
The guidance will make it clear that employer representative bodies should absolutely engage groups that can help them to understand the needs of learners with disabilities and the barriers they face, and consider how people with disabilities can be supported to progress into good jobs that meet local skills needs, thereby supporting activity to reduce the disability employment gap. In the work I have been doing in the run-up to the Bill, among many other stakeholders, I spoke to a specialist college in Kent, which had a very powerful message for me. They said that they had catered for a lot of young people whom they believed had a bigger role to play in the local economy, which would be good for employers and the economy, but particularly important for the individuals themselves. That very much reflects my own experience.
For eight years, I was vice-chair of governors at a special school for children with autism in west London. It was an excellent school, not because of my vice-chairmanship but because we had an exceptional head and exceptional staff. It started as a primary school, but went on to become an all-through school. The work the school was engaging in when I left to enter politics was to make sure that it could help young people—often with really profound needs—to transition into the workplace. The alternative for too many people is a life of isolation and loneliness.
I commend the work that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is doing on the APPG. I am sure that the APPG will want to look at the statutory guidance when it comes out and feed back to us, and we welcome that conversation. There are great opportunities here for dialogue between the ERBs, local providers, and local disability groups to make sure that the needs and the talents of young people with special educational needs are reflected.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is actually the most logical fit for businesses to embrace and be accessible to those who have learning disabilities? As we know, they are often among the most unconventional, creative and brilliant thinkers.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is absolutely right; something I will come on to in a moment is that when we help young people with special educational needs overcome the barriers to employment, and when we help employers overcome some of the barriers that they may feel exist to employing those young people, it is an extraordinarily mutually beneficial relationship.
Emma Hardy
I want to push the Minister a little more on the guidance. He has mentioned that it will be statutory, which I welcome, but I wonder whether it will include some of the wording that is in this amendment, which looks specifically at what action will be taken to reduce the disability employment gap. Will that be seen in the statutory guidance?
Alex Burghart
Obviously, we are very keen to reduce the disability employment gap, and we are always mindful of ways in which we can achieve that. I am sure that it will be in the Secretary of State’s mind when he considers the statutory guidance.
Local skills improvement plans are not the only solution to this issue. Colleges already have a duty to use their best endeavours to secure the special educational provision called for by a student with special educational needs, as set out in the SEND code of practice. That should include a focus on preparing the young person for adulthood, including employment.
In addition to the duties on providers in relation to LSIPs, clause 5 introduces a broader duty for colleges and designated institutions to review how well their whole curriculum offer meets local needs. The duty requires governing bodies to consider the needs of all learners, including current and future learners, and those with special educational needs or a disability.
Mr Perkins
I appreciate the tone of the Minister’s response, but he has not really given us any detail on why he does not think it appropriate to have the wording in the Bill. Instead, he asks us to take it on trust that we will like the guidance when we eventually see it. We have to vote on the amendment. We have no idea what will be in the guidance. He has not said, “It’s written. It’s going to look like this—I just can’t show it to you.” There will be guidance and at some point we will see it, so can the Minister explain why it is not appropriate that we simply have a commitment in the Bill that LSIPs will have a strategy around supported internships?
Alex Burghart
On supported internships, I was very interested to hear about what the hon. Gentleman has seen going on in his constituency. I assure him that we are continuing to work to improve supported internships in England, including updating our guidance and, through our contract grant delivery partnerships in this financial year, developing a self-assessment quality framework for providers and helping local authorities to develop local supported employment forums. I respect his desire to see supported internships improve and go further. We share his ambition, but we are not putting every particular intervention that we favour in the Bill, so we will not single that one out for special treatment.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
We already know that these kinds of activities are happening. I declare an interest as the chair of the apprenticeship diversity champions network. Employers are recognising that they need to offer these skills and support already. I am sure that the Minister knows that that is already happening.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Government are also developing an adjustments passport that aims to smooth the transition into employment and support people changing jobs, including people with special educational needs and disabilities. That goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made. When I was on the Work and Pensions Committee with the great Frank Field, that was exactly the sort of thing that we were calling for. I am very pleased that this Administration have seen it go out.
The 12-month pilots of the adjustments passport that are under way in HE and post-16 provider pilot sites are capturing the in-work support needs of the individual and we hope that they will empower individuals to have confident discussions about adjustments with employers. It goes back to my point about breaking down barriers both for the individual and for the employer. More broadly, the Government’s national disability strategy sets out how we will help disabled people to fulfil their potential through work, to help reduce the disability employment gap further.
Emma Hardy
With respect to the comments made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, if everything were all fine and dandy as it is, we would not have a 28 percentage points disability employment gap. The Minister talks about the statutory guidance. Will there be some sticks as well as carrots in the guidance? If employers and people do not feel that they are being represented, and they are not taking effective measures to deal with the disability employment gap, will there be sanctions?
Alex Burghart
As I said in the previous sitting, statutory guidance is a powerful tool. If employer representative bodies do not adhere to statutory guidance, they may lose their designation. That is in the essence of statutory guidance. Given the significant amount of work already under way in this space, we do not believe that the amendments are necessary, but we agree with the direction in which they push.
Mr Perkins
I appreciate what the Minister has said. He has not really given us any detail on why he does not think that it is appropriate. I take his point on supported internships being one strategy: our amendment acknowledged that. However, in terms of amendment 1 on people with disabilities, we are not talking about a fractional thing that is not worth mentioning because there are so many other things that could be mentioned, but about a substantial body of people who have often been missed out by education providers. This is an opportunity to ensure that when the chambers of commerce, or whoever the employer representative bodies are, are writing their local skills improvement plans, those people do not continue to be left out.
I still think that amendment 1 should be accepted, so we will press it to a vote. I am willing to not press the other amendments in this group to a vote, but will look very carefully at the statutory guidance. I think that many people—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and the cross-party group, which was very supportive of this—will listen to the Minister’s response and still wonder why the amendment is not appropriate. For future amendments, it would be useful if we had a bit more of a response as to why the Government are against it, rather than just the fact that they are.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I might try to give the hon. Gentleman a clue on that question. We spent much of the morning arguing about why this policy needed to be locally led, why we wanted devolved authorities to take more control over it and why local government should have more of a say in it. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise how asking Government to dictate what must be in it conflicts with the arguments he has already made today?
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but what kind of devolution is it if we say “Well, look, it is up to local chambers of commerce to decide whether or not they have a strategy to support those who are disabled or furthest from the labour market”? If we have a document that must be signed off by the Secretary of State—so on the devolution argument, it is more “devolution of a sort”—what is wrong with saying, “And by the way, for that document that you sign off, we’d better know what the strategy is around disabilities”?
I do not think that the devolution argument is a strong one. Maybe, at a future point in the hon. Gentleman’s career, he will argue for devolution in some kind of role and say, “But trust me, I won’t be having any strategies for disabled people”. I cannot imagine that he would do that, or that any others would. Amendment 1 is just about making sure that those employment representative bodies understand the importance of this issue; that is why we will press it to a vote.
The Chair
We will come to a vote on amendment 1 after the next group of amendments. Do you wish to withdraw amendment 27?
Mr Perkins
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(iv) Local Enterprise Partnerships and the skills and productivity board,”
This amendment would require that local skills improvement plans draw on the views of Local Enterprise Partnerships and the skills productivity board, in addition to those bodies already set out in the subsection.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) takes account of a provider of designated distance learning courses that are undertaken by residents of the specified area.”
This amendment would ensure that local skills improvement plans take account of distance learning providers.
Amendment 39, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) these conditions to include the requirement for the LSIP to give due regard to a national strategy for education and skills, which is agreed across the Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities.”
This amendment would require Government to have a national strategy for education and skills, which is agreed across DfE, DWP, BEIS and DLUHC for which LSIPs would have to take account of.
Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance setting out the criteria used to determine the boundaries of a specified area for the purpose of this section.”
This is a probing amendment regarding the criteria the Government will use to determine what constitutes “local”.
Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) Before local skills improvement plans are introduced outside of trailblazer areas, the Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to their implementation, subject to consultation of all Mayoral Combined Authorities and, where there is not one, the relevant local authority.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that local and combined authorities are consulted on the Government’s plans for the roll out of local skills improvement plans and are in a position to highlight any issues before publication.
Amendment 44, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) Colleges and other providers may propose revisions where they consider that the plans do not appropriately reflect the full diversity of priorities across the locality.”
This amendment would allow colleges and other providers to propose revisions to LSIPs if they consider that plans do not reflect the full diversity of priorities across the locality.
Mr Perkins
I will go through these amendments relatively briefly. Amendment 33 is a probing amendment on the subject of the role of local enterprise partnerships and skills productivity boards. As I said at the start of this debate, those of us who were here in 2010 heard a huge amount from the Government about the role of LEPs. We have subsequently heard about the roles of SPBs, and they both sounded very similar in expectation to what we are now hearing, on a local level, for employer representative bodies.
It therefore strikes me that the Government do not have a great deal of confidence in the LEPs that they created, nor in the SPBs. If I was a chief executive of a LEP, I do not think I would be taking up any credit agreements right now. They must be looking at this Bill and wondering what the future holds for them.
I am interested in the Government’s response to this. Why is it that local enterprise partnerships, which—as we will all remember—were put forward as the way for business and Government to work together on a local basis on a variety of measures to drive economic growth, particularly around skills, are now seen as entirely superfluous in this Bill? Is this the beginning of the end of local enterprise partnerships?
I am interested in whether the Minister feels there should be a duty for employer representative bodies to work in collaboration with them, and what this says about the future of those organisations. Does he accept that it is a failure of Government policy to have set up these organisations that now appear to be being ignored at a time when there is a function that we would naturally think would fall to them?
Amendment 38 relates to designated distance learning. If the covid crisis has taught us anything, it is that more and more has gone online. In the skills arena in particular, that has been hugely transformational for the sector and for many learners. It creates opportunities that were not there previously. We are very concerned that designated distance learning is absent from the Bill, and that is why we have tabled amendment 38. Again, we are keen to hear the Government’s view on that.
Amendment 39 is about Government Departments working together; I think we have all been conscious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said previously, that that is not a particular strength of this Government. We saw that more than ever during the covid crisis when, on the one hand, there was a real lack of strategy around increasing apprenticeships at a time when we knew there was a boom in youth unemployment and, on the other hand, we had the Department for Work and Pensions introducing the kickstart scheme, which was much more expensive than apprenticeships and offered much less to young people. There was no sense that the different Government Departments were working together.
Our amendment would require the Government and any future Government to have a national strategy for education and skills that is agreed across the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and of which all local skills improvement plans would have to take account. Our particular concern is the lack of cross-departmental work between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education; that is something the Labour party takes very seriously, and there have been regular meetings between teams to work on that whole area.
Amendment 40 asks the Government to publish guidance setting out the criteria used to determine the boundaries of a specified area. There is a real lack of clarity about what is meant by “local area”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referred to, in different parts of our forms of local government. What is our local area keeps changing. Again, that is not specified within the Bill and I think there will be real concern that we now have this document, which is of tremendous importance to an FE college; it could be the reason why a chief executive loses their job—
Emma Hardy
I mentioned to the Minister before that I have a lot of sympathy for the Government trying to work out what constitutes a local area. I was talking to a local Conservative MP and we were having a bit of a laugh about it ourselves, because in our area we have Humberside Police, Humberside Fire & Rescue Service and a police and crime commissioner for Humberside, but then we have the Hull and East Yorkshire LEP, and the regional schools commissioner, who has a different geographical area from the LEP, which has a different geographical area from the area that Ofsted covers. Apparently, they are creating a pan-Humber organisation, after the LEP was removed, to look at skills in the area. Good luck to the Minister in trying to work out what exactly the local area looks like, because it is incredibly complicated when we have a myriad different organisations with different geographical boundaries.
Mr Perkins
I think we are all dying to know who this Conservative Member of Parliament was—I have a suspicion who it may have been. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. If it is, “Good luck to the Minister”, more importantly, it is “Good luck to employers” in actually working out where they should go, which area they are a part of and which local skills improvement plan is responsible for them if they have two sites that are 10 miles apart and there are different providers they have to engage with. This is something that puts businesses off engaging in this kind of skills arena. We have seen it with apprenticeships and the barriers that have been put in the way for businesses to take up apprentices; making it difficult for businesses to engage guarantees that they will not do so. That is a really important point and it is why we have moved this probing amendment.
Mr Perkins
As I said previously, we support the principle of local skills improvement plans. Having something that everyone understands is of real value. We are not saying that there should not be any localisation. This is a probing amendment to help us understand. Colleges tend to have a specified area. The Government decided that the local enterprise partnerships would all have their own area. We cannot be, as we used to be in Chesterfield, across two different local enterprise partnerships. We are in one area. The Government have attempted to put firm lines around it, but it has been made slightly more fuzzy.
Emma Hardy
I think the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has misunderstood. When creating a local skills plan, we need to define a local area. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whose constituency is opposite mine on the south bank, will be fully aware, the chamber of commerce is actually a pan-Humber organisation, but the LEPs are separate organisations. I am pointing out to the Minister that, if we are looking at creating a local skills plan for a local area, quite obviously we need to work out what that local area is.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend puts it very well.
Amendment 41 asks the Secretary of State to publish guidance relating to implementation, subject to consultation with the metro Mayor or relevant local authority. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State has the potential to amass new powers, which could be used without appropriate consultation or due diligence. We can see the hand of the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) right through the Bill. I am confident that if the Bill had been devised when the current Secretary of State had been in place for a year or two, it would look very different. The sense of a man who had lost control and was desperately trying to get back control runs right through the Bill.
Our amendments seek to establish a clear duty for the Secretary of State to consult with combined and local authorities before local skills improvement plans are finalised in areas that do not have metro Mayors, ensuring that the relevant local representative bodies are part of the formation of a board. It is about bringing together the various different organisations that would make up a strategic approach to skills. We are saying that, if there is not an employer representative body that is able to broadly represent private and public sector employers, further education colleges, independent training providers and such, the Government should appoint a board made up of those in order to deliver that local skills improvement plan, rather than the current approach, which is just a single body. Amendment 44 says that colleges and other providers
“may propose revisions where they consider that the plans do not appropriately reflect the full diversity of priorities across the locality.”
I am keen to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend has given a thorough analysis on all these amendments; I will just pick up on a couple of points. On amendment 33, I want to highlight how important the skills and productivity board is, given where the country finds itself in terms of its poor productivity relative to most of our economic peers—not just in Europe, but across the globe. We have to work much more closely with that board; that is what amendment 33 is driving at, and that is why it is important to include it.
I will talk specifically about amendment 38, which is on distance learning. There are 70% fewer new part-time graduates entering and accessing higher education every year compared with a decade ago. Distance learning is really important; it is a brilliant way of encouraging people to pick up part-time study. The Open University has 72% of students in full or part-time employment. We are seeing a very concerning regional picture; the Open University’s statistics show a 40% fall in higher education participation in the north-east of the country, and a 32% fall in the north-west and Yorkshire. If the Government are really serious about their agenda, surely we have to provide and invest in more and better opportunities for distance learning—that is why amendment 38 is important. The cost of study is obviously one of the biggest barriers to adult learning. If we consider the needs of distance learners, that barrier is eradicated.
We all know that the Open University is a great institution, started in the 1960s—we will claim that as a terrific Labour success. I do not think any of my colleagues were around at that time, so none of us can claim it in particular. However, it was a great success, and I think that societally, culturally and economically we have benefited greatly from that particular institution. It is one of the five biggest higher education providers in 90% of parliamentary constituencies. It is really important that all of us remember the contribution that it makes. The Open University is also the largest HE provider in 63 of 314 English local authorities—that is 20%. It is also worth highlighting that it is a substantial provider in what might be called higher education “cold spots”, where there is limited face-to-face provision. The importance of distance learning in our education provision must be underlined.
Amendment 41 makes sure that local and combined authorities are consulted on the LSIP before roll-out. I want to echo the previous calls on the importance of including our health boards in the process. In the pandemic, we have seen the importance of local public health provision in regions, and the skills needed to be able to provide that are absolutely essential. We must be clear about how important it is to achieve the regionalisation of drawing those skills. In the visits that have been making up and down the country, that is something that has been made loud and clear to me by colleges and HE providers.
Devolved responsibilities are important but so too is the national strategy. That strategy should be extended across the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Department and what I would call DHCLG – the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government as was. The Association of Colleges wrote to say that it wanted to
“enshrine the creation of a national 10-year education and skills strategy sitting across government to deliver on wider policy agendas and to give stability to all parts of the system.”
It added:
“there is a lack of a comprehensive, long-term education and skills plan that brings together all parts of the system towards the same vision…this means that the role of education and skills in addressing wider policy priorities and strategies are not always recognised, for example the role of colleges in welfare, health and net-zero policies.”
I spoke about health a moment ago, but let us consider net zero policies. The Government understand their importance but I want to centre on two things that are massive national issues right now and should be critical to the skills strategy. The first is the delivery of an electric vehicle infrastructure plan, on which we way off the pace. We need to get the skills out there to put in place the necessary infrastructure. We have a growing market for electric vehicles—potentially for hydrogen vehicles as well but EV is the critical one. Manufacturers are making the vehicles, but we do not have the necessary public charging points. We are behind the curve compared with our European neighbours and other leading global economies. That is the sort of stuff that a national strategy could help to deliver. If we are serious about the sustainability agenda, the amendment can help to deliver it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said about amendment 39, particularly the need for a national strategy for education and skills. It is perfectly reasonable to expect such a strategy. The driving force for it must come from Government, and monitoring of progress across the country must also come from Government. In that way we can ensure that every part of England is firing on all cylinders, narrow the gap and properly ensure that every part of the country is performing as it should.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the productivity gap, because that is a serious problem not just across the country and for the national economy, but within different regions and sub-regions; some are performing very well, others less so. We need a concerted effort across Government and all Departments. If we are serious about levelling up, obviously the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities must be at the heart of that along with the Department for Education, BEIS and, I would argue, the Treasury. If we do not have buy-in from the Treasury to ensure that economic growth is spread fairly across the country, any national strategy is doomed to failure.
I am a devolutionist as well; I want to see strategies developed locally that meet the needs of the locality. That was put perfectly when we talked many years ago about health devolution and Greater Manchester in particular, which had responsibility for health devolved to it. Of course, it remains part of a national health service, just as any local strategy would remain part of the national skills strategy. The “what” is set at the centre, but the “how” is determined locally to meet the needs of that locality. That is exactly what the amendment is designed to achieve.
Matt Western
To illustrate that point, clearly in the health sector we need to assess what the challenges are for our communities and populations. While there is a national picture, there will be different needs in a city such as Coventry, which is close to me and has one of the youngest populations in the whole of the UK, versus a pleasant coastal area, which might be an area that people retire to and will have particular needs as regards the provisions for health.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely, and the same is true even at the level below that, within a city region. I can speak with experience about my own city region, where there are divergent trends between those living in the north of Greater Manchester, where there are fewer opportunities, and those living in the so-called arc of prosperity around south Manchester. We need to finely tune our local skills strategies to reflect the different make-ups of particular areas.
Talking about how we define areas, I think amendment 40 matters. We are talking about defining “local” which matters for several reasons. First, I am a bit of an obsessive compulsive disorder neurotic and I like things to be neat and tidy. For clarity of purpose, it makes sense to have coterminosity, wherever possible, with other organisations and bodies.
Again, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I am lucky that my local enterprise partnership, my chamber of commerce, my combined authority and all 10 local councils in Greater Manchester all cover the same boundaries.
Andrew Gwynne
Things get a little bit messy. I was nervous when my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned health trusts, because my own health trust, Tameside and Glossop, crosses the county boundary, although that will be sorted out by the Bill currently going through Parliament. That is the only bit of non-coterminosity I have.
These boundaries matter because if we draw up strategies, plans and proposals, and we want to collaborate with business, education providers, local government and the wider public sector, then we have to have a defined set of boundaries. The closer those boundaries match, the easier it will be to get a strategy in place.
Lia Nici
Employers and jobs are not coterminous in a particular area. In southern Humberside and Lincolnshire, we want to ensure that our local skills plans cross those borders, because that is where the jobs are. Coterminosity with local government and quasi-local government does not work, and it will not work for employers. Realistically, it needs to be where the jobs are and where people can travel to.
Andrew Gwynne
I know it is probably an unpopular thing to say of her neck of the woods, but I think the hon. Lady has just made the case for Humberside.
Andrew Gwynne
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s bit of Warrington is in Cheshire or Lancashire based on the old boundaries.
Andrew Gwynne
Boundaries matter. I say that as a patron of the Friends of Real Lancashire.
Coming back to amendment 40, the cleaner these boundaries can be, the better. I get that local economies can spread across artificial local government boundaries. I know that because just down the road from where I live is Glossop, in the High Peak in Derbyshire. To all intents and purposes, Glossop is a Greater Manchester town. It looks to Greater Manchester, all its transport links are into Manchester and its healthcare is currently part of Greater Manchester. I get that there is always going to be a degree of “This boundary does not work,” but if we are looking at a particular strategy and then having to engage with a whole range of public bodies in developing and signing off that strategy, it gets overly complicated if we end up having a mismatch of different boundaries, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has already described.
Emma Hardy
To return to the conversation we were having about SEND and disabilities, and the disability employment gap, we will have to collect data to know whether the skills plan is delivering on its objectives and addressing the disability employment gap, so we will need some kind of boundary or defined area from which to collect that data. The Minister said that the guidance would include information on the disability employment gap, but unless there is a boundary, we cannot accurately collect data and we cannot judge whether the plan is a success.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, but it is more than that; we also need to ensure that the strategy works for the entire area. However we define the geographical area, there will be a strategy for it. If there is a mismatch of different public bodies and local authorities in that area, we may well find that one local authority thinks the strategy is working brilliantly in its area—it may well be—but the neighbouring local authority, whose area might be only partly covered by the strategy, might feel like the poor relation without a voice. I am worried about that. I want clarity and for things to be tidy, which is why I support amendment 40. Before I sit down, I promised to give way to, I hope, a fellow Lancastrian.
Andy Carter
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I am in Cheshire—[Laughter.] I understand the point that he is making, but it is not a clear situation. Warrington is a really interesting area because, although many people who live in Warrington work in Manchester or Liverpool, the skills strategy is set by Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership. We are a mid-way commuter town, and although we might want to set a skills strategy for Warrington, the employers that people look towards are in the two major cities that sit either side. His OCD situation may well find that challenging, but it is not as simple or as clear for many areas around the country.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman has made a great case for north-west regional devolution in that case. I get what he says, but if Greater Manchester is to have a strategy, the Greater Manchester chamber, which will lead on the strategy, and the combined authority and Mayor, who have to be consulted on the strategy, cover the whole of Greater Manchester—that is nice and tidy. If he wants to make the case for Warrington to become an 11th borough of Greater Manchester so that we can placate my OCD-ness, I am more than happy to welcome Warrington into the club.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Member for Warrington South also made a powerful argument for an amendment that he had a chance to vote for a while ago, which would have ensured that the strategy is for residents. We would then have a strategy based on all the people resident in the area, regardless of where they end up working.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely; my hon. Friend could not have put it better. The views of residents matter as well because, as we know, although public bodies, local authorities, LEPs and chambers of commerce operate within defined boundaries, people do not. They do not necessarily know where parliamentary constituency boundaries or council ward boundaries are, and they do not always know where council boundaries are—people are fluid throughout. My hon. Friend is right that there was an opportunity to include the views of residents in the development of the plans. Unfortunately, that amendment was not passed.
Alex Burghart
I rise to speak to amendments 33, 38 to 41, and 44. I will start with amendments 33 and 38 in the names of the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington.
Amendment 33 would require that local skills improvement plans draw on the views of local enterprise partnerships and the Skills and Productivity Board. We have been clear that local skills improvement plans should be informed by the work of the national Skills and Productivity Board and build on the work of local enterprise partnerships and their skills advisory panels. We will reiterate that in statutory guidance.
Emma Hardy
This is a quick one on statutory guidance. To clarify, will that statutory guidance state “act in accordance with” or “have regard to”? We all know that statutory guidance that states “have regard to” means “read and ignore.”
Alex Burghart
I am horrified to hear the hon. Lady’s attitude to statutory guidance. Our intention will be set out in statutory guidance, so that local skills improvement plans will be informed by the work of the national Skills and Productivity Board and build on the work of local enterprise partnerships and their skills advisory panels.
Mr Perkins
The Minister talks about speaking to local enterprise partnerships, but he must see the point that this is precisely the kind of role that was envisaged for local enterprise partnerships when they were invented. The very fact that he now says that we will go to the employer representative bodies, which we assume are likely to be chambers of commerce, rather than to local enterprise partnerships, must make people wonder, “Is there a future for local enterprise partnerships?” Will he tell us why he thought that local enterprise partnerships were not the right organisation to be the employer representative body in such cases?
Alex Burghart
We have been clear that we want to have an approach that is completely employer-led. Local enterprise partnerships, which have much to recommend them, are partially informed by employers, but they are public-private partnerships and we want an employer-led process.
Amendment 38 relates to local skills improvement plans taking account of providers of distance learning. I very much acknowledge the remarks made by Opposition Members about the importance of distance learning and how valuable it is to many members of the public who are studying. All relevant providers that provide English-funded post-16 technical education or training that is material to a specified area will have a duty to co-operate with the designated employer representative body for that area in developing a plan. That will be true even if they are based elsewhere and offer the provision by distance or online learning. That will help to ensure that the views of distance learning providers are taken into account.
Amendment 39, tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington, would require the Government to have a national strategy for education skills that is agreed across DFE, DWP, BEIS and DLUHC, and of which LSIPs would have to take account. The Government have already set out their strategy for skills reform in the “Skills for jobs” White Paper published in January last year, which was agreed by all Departments—not just the ones listed in the amendment. The proposals set out the aim to support people to develop the skills that they need to get good jobs. They form the basis of the legislation we are discussing.
On the local skills improvement plans, we have been clear that they should take account of the relevant national strategies and priorities related to skills, as well as being informed by the work of the national Skills and Productivity Board. The specific strategies and priorities will evolve and change over time. We think the best place to do that is in statutory guidance.
Amendment 40, tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington, relates to the publication of guidance setting out the criteria used to determine a specific area. The specified areas for local skills improvement plans will be based on functional economic areas. The Government are working with local enterprise partnerships to refine the role of business engagement in local economic strategy, including skills, and to ensure that the structures are fit for purpose for the future. That includes looking at geographies—
Alex Burghart
I am sure that the Secretary of State, as he engages in the process, will be mindful of the muddle that is Hull and, indeed, mindful of the many economic areas in which hon. Members find their constituencies.
Emma Hardy
I want to clarify that, whatever boundary it might be, defined boundaries will be set. If we do not set a defined boundary of any type, I cannot see how it will be possible to collect the data and the intelligence to know whether a strategy is working.
Alex Burghart
We are clear that these will be based on functional economic areas, that they will have a defined geography and that we will ensure that no part of the country is left out.
Mr Perkins
Will the Minister also clarify this? Is it possible that an area could be in two different local skills improvement plans? For example, Chesterfield was originally part of both the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire local enterprise partnership and the Sheffield City Region one. Both were considered functional drive-to-work areas. Is it possible that an area such as Chesterfield might be in two different local skills improvement plans, or is it the case that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle says, there will be a defined area and everyone will just be in one?
Alex Burghart
We are working on the basis that there will be a defined area for each one, but we will be mindful of the fact that in some areas the geography does not neatly fit reality. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South was making.
We will consider this work, alongside evidence from the local skills improvement plan trailblazers, before making final decisions about the specified areas that local skills improvement plans will cover. However, let me reassure members of the Committee that through the designation process, the Secretary of State will ensure that there are no gaps in the coverage of local skills improvement plans across the country.
I turn now to amendments 41 and 44. Amendment 41 relates to consulting local authorities and mayoral combined authorities on guidance for the roll-out of local skills improvement plans. We regularly engage mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority, for example in relation to this Bill and the LSIP trailblazers, and we will continue to do so as we develop our plans for the wider roll-out of LSIPs and the accompanying statutory guidance. We will also engage the Local Government Association and other key stakeholders and make use of the evidence collected from the evaluation of our trailblazers.
Amendment 44 aims to allow colleges and other providers to propose revisions to local skills improvement plans. The Bill already places duties on relevant providers to co-operate with employer representative bodies in developing the plans and keeping them under review. That will give providers the opportunity to propose revisions and help to ensure that the plans are evidence-based, credible and actionable. We expect local skills improvement plans to focus on key priorities for change to make provision more responsive to local labour market skills needs, but it is important to note that those will be changes that providers themselves will have had a role in specifying.
Once an LSIP has been signed off, a provider will be required to have regard to it. The plan will not tell providers what to do. Providers will remain responsible for making decisions as part of their business planning, but they will have the benefit of those decisions being informed by a credibly articulated and evidence-based statement of priorities from business that they will, in turn, be empowered and incentivised to respond to.
Mr Perkins
We have heard the Minister’s response on those issues. Amendments 33 and 38 to 40 were probing amendments through which we sought to understand the role of the different organisations and how Government would define the different areas. I understood the Minister’s response to mean that no area would be left out, but also that no area would be in two LSIPs —I think that that is what he was saying. That is quite important because if an area ends up being in two, because it is in two different functional drive-to-work areas, that will make the data collection aspect impossible.
There has been a lot of important narrative in this debate about recognising that areas may well look in two different directions. The point that the hon. Member for Warrington South made about looking towards Liverpool and towards Manchester, as well as towards the rest of Cheshire, is important. If Warrington does not end up being in one area or another, the data collection will become impossible, in terms of the success of those particular areas. We will obviously look to the statutory guidance and, if I have misunderstood what the Minister has said, he has the opportunity now to put me right. I think that it is really important to understand whether an area could be in two different local skills improvement plans.
On the basis of the responses and the fact that the amendments were probing, I propose to withdraw amendments 33 and 38 to 40. We would like to put amendment 41 to a vote, because we believe that it is not only consultation with combined authorities that is relevant; we are very concerned that areas that are outside a combined authority will have no democratic oversight whatever. We think that people within those areas will also want to know that there has been some consultation.
Emma Hardy
I know I am not intervening on the Minister, but I wonder whether a proposed map of the different areas will be put out for consultation before they are agreed and set by Government, and whether there will be an opportunity for local people to influence what the geographical areas will be.
Mr Perkins
It is the boundaries nightmare all over again. The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s question, and I am sure that he and his officers will think carefully on it. Again, we will put only one amendment in this group to a vote. We will not press amendment 44, but we will divide the Committee on amendment 41. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, after “evidence” insert
“, including the views of relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people,”.—(Mr Perkins.)
This amendment intends to ensure that the evidence informing LSIP development includes information directly relevant to improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 1, page 3, line 10, after “any” insert “English-funded”.
This amendment limits the post-16 technical education or training about which a local skills improvement plan must identify actions that can be taken to such education or training that is English-funded.
Alex Burghart
Officials in my Department have engaged closely with counterparts in the Welsh Government, and we believe that we have reached a satisfactory position from a devolution perspective. Government amendments 11, 12, 13 and 14 provide further clarification as to the definition of ‘relevant providers’ that may be in scope of the duties relating to local skills improvement plans in clause 1.
The amendments make it clear that those duties can only apply to institutions within the further education sector in England, English higher education providers, and independent training providers that provide post-16 technical education or training in England. Local authorities, 16-to-19 academies and schools in England may also be subject to the duties in the future should the Secretary of State exercise their power to make regulations under clause 4. Relevant providers will only be subject to the duties relating to local skills improvement plans if they provide English-funded post-16 technical education or training that is material to a specified area in England, including by distance or online learning.
Government amendments 10, 15, 16 and 17 provide further clarity in relation to the scope of local skills improvement plans. Amendment 10 limits the post-16 technical education or training about which a local skills improvement plan must identify actions that can be taken to such education or training that is English-funded. Education or training should be treated as English-funded where amounts are paid directly to providers in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State under certain legislation, including, for instance, payments made in respect of student loans.
Mr Perkins
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. The only question I wanted clarification on, given the conversation we have just had about areas, is about what thought had been given to the responsibilities of providers that are close to borders and provide services across them. We are supportive of Government amendments 11 to 14 and the clarifications established by Government amendments 15 to 17.
Alex Burghart
As I made clear in my remarks, it depends on whether provision is English-funded; that is, whether the money comes from England. That is how we explain the jurisdiction.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 41, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) Before local skills improvement plans are introduced outside of trailblazer areas, the Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to their implementation, subject to consultation of all Mayoral Combined Authorities and, where there is not one, the relevant local authority.”.—(Mr Perkins.)
This amendment seeks to ensure that local and combined authorities are consulted on the Government’s plans for the roll out of local skills improvement plans and are in a position to highlight any issues before publication.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
It will be a great pleasure for everyone to hear that after three and a quarter hours of debate, we have nearly completed clause 1 of our 39-clause Bill. I will try not to detain the Committee for more than 45 minutes at this point.
With local skills improvement plans, clause 1 provides an important vehicle to give employers a more central role in local skills systems, working with providers, mayoral combined authorities and other key stakeholders to reshape provision to tackle skill mismatches and respond better to local labour market skills needs. To develop those plans, designated employer representative bodies will need to engage the widest possible range of employers and draw on a range of evidence, including existing analyses of skills supply and demand.
Local skills improvement plans will give providers an evidence-based summary of the skills, capabilities and expertise required by local employers, helping them to prioritise and focus investment in skills provision. The clause places a duty on providers to have regard to the plans, once developed, when making relevant decisions in relation to the provision of post-16 technical education and training in the area.
The clause will ensure the information, knowledge and expertise possessed by employers, providers and stakeholders is utilised to agree priority actions to align provision to better meet employer needs and support learners. The Bill is about making sure that we have qualifications, designed with employers, that ensure students get the skills the economy demands. Clause 1 is absolutely central to that mission.
Mr Perkins
I regret that the clause will leave this Committee in less good shape than when it arrived. The amendments agreed by the House of Lords were entirely sensible. They had cross-party support; they were agreed to only because they were voted for by Conservative Members who have tremendous knowledge and experience of these matters and who are much respected, alongside others. It is a matter of great regret that the Government have failed to take on board those helpful amendments, which were added in entirely the right spirit.
We believe that local skills improvement plans are an innovation that is of value, but we are very concerned that the way they are envisaged will make it difficult for them to achieve what might have been achieved. When we come to clause 2, we will get into the debate about how local skills improvement plans might be more representative. What will happen in the event that things go wrong with the employer representative bodies is important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those points.
We support clause 1 standing part, but we are disappointed that it leaves the Committee in less good shape than when it arrived.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Designation of employer representative bodies
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, after “the” and before “employers” insert “public and private sector”.
This amendment would specify that employers operating within specified areas for the purposes of section 2(1)(a) can be both public and private sector.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, leave out “reasonably”.
This is a probing amendment to test how the Secretary of State will determine what mix of employers is considered “reasonably representative”.
Amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, after “employers” insert
“, local Further Education colleges, independent training providers, local authority (including Mayoral combined authorities) and Local enterprise partnerships”.
This amendment would add local Further Education college, independent raining providers, local authority (including Mayoral combined authorities) and Local enterprise partnerships to those of which employer representative bodies much be representative, in order to be designated as a representative body by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, after “area,” insert
“including the interests of small and medium sized enterprises, the self-employed and public and voluntary sector employers,”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that employer representative boards include a wider range of local employer interests including small and medium sized enterprises, the self-employed, and public and third sector employers.
Amendment 37, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(iii) in the event that there is no body in the local area that is representative of the organisations listed under subsection (1)(a)(ii) the Secretary of State will instruct the Local Enterprise Partnership or Metro mayor to bring together a board which is representative of all the organisations outlined in subsection (1)(a)(ii), who will take on responsibility for drawing up the local skills improvement plan.”.
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, in the event that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an eligible body is not reasonably representative of the employers operating within the specified area.
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
“(c) the Secretary of State has received in writing the consent of the relevant local authority or Mayoral Combined Authority.”.
This amendment provides for local authorities to give consent in the designation of employer representative bodies.
Mr Perkins
We appear to have raced on to clause 2. Amendment 35 is important, because so much of the Government’s narrative makes it clear that when they talk about employers, they really mean private sector employers. There are huge skills shortages within the public sector. The public sector is an important employer, and it is of particular importance in some of the most deprived communities. Labour’s approach to the Bill will be about asking the Government to place employers and those responsible for education at the heart of a skills strategy.
It is essential that employers in the public sector, including those in health and social care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned, be consulted in the formation of local skills improvement plans. Employer representative bodies must ensure that LSIPs fully reflect both private and public sector employers.
Amendment 45 is a probing amendment designed to test how the Secretary of State will determine what mix of employers is considered “reasonably representative”. The Bill refers to the Secretary of State being
“satisfied that…the body is reasonably representative”.
I think it would be interesting to define what exactly is a reasonably representative mix of employers on LSIPs. It is highly likely that chambers of commerce will be the employer representative body by default in most LSIP areas. We have had representations from organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, which has concerns about the powers to be handed to those chambers.
The Minister has said that ERBs that are not performing could be sacked and potentially replaced, but there are not numerous organisations that have the capacity to undertake that kind of work. Indeed, there is some question over whether many chambers of commerce will immediately have that capacity, but they will have the responsibility either way. As has been said, some areas have an active and vibrant chamber of commerce, and our proposals should not be viewed as being hostile to them. There are many excellent professionals in chambers of commerce and many really excellent chambers that make an incredibly important contribution to our local economies and to skills. However, it is important to recognise that membership and attendance can vary greatly within localities. The priorities of some chambers can be dominated by a small number of particularly loud voices. It is important that there are safeguards to ensure that any ERB is representative. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that that will be the case and that ERBs will consult widely in the formation of the LSIP.
What mechanisms are in place should the Secretary of State consider that an ERB is not representative? What mechanisms are in place to deal with complaints from others, such as further education colleges, which may consider that an ERB is not representative?
Emma Hardy
Much as I hate to return to the boundary issue, our local chamber of commerce is the Humber-based chamber, which may not end up being the geographical area represented by the skills body. To return to small and medium-sized enterprises, and the concerns of the Federation of Small Businesses to which my hon. Friend referred, in areas where most employment comes from SMEs or the public sector, how can we ensure that they are heard when the skills plan is developed?
Mr Perkins
That is a really important point. In some cases, chambers of commerce and branches of the Federation of Small Businesses have constructive relationships; in other areas the relationship is less constructive. To place the role of one above the other in respect of an ERB is potentially exclusive.
Amendment 36 would add local further education colleges, independent training providers, local authorities, including mayoral combined authorities, and local enterprise partnerships to those of which employer representative bodies must be representative to be designated as a representative body by the Secretary of State. We are seeking to ensure that colleges, independent training providers, local authorities and LEPs are not shut out of LSIPs and that all form part of the consultation when LSIPs are drafted by ERBs.
Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that ERBs include a wider range of local employer interests, including SMEs, the self-employed, sole trader businesses, and public and third sector employers. In some sectors such as construction, a huge number of those responsible for ensuring that a new generation of people come into the sector are self-employed or sole traders. Historically, they would just have taken on a young apprentice to work with them; they will now potentially be excluded from doing that. We have seen the danger in the way the apprenticeship levy was introduced. Big business was very much in mind when it was introduced, and the way it was designed has massively reduced the number of small businesses offering apprenticeships.
There is a danger of SMEs being excluded from the measures in the clause, particularly in smaller town communities where there are not the major employers that there are in larger cities. We are really concerned that SMEs, alongside charities, community organisations and others, will be excluded from the decision-making process in the formation of LSIPs. Amendment 46 would ensure a role for them, alongside the self-employed, in the drafting of LSIPs.
Amendment 37 moves towards the heart of what a Labour local skills improvement plan would look like. The other amendments attempt to ensure that there is proper consultation by the employer representative body. Given that the Bill gives wide-ranging, undetermined powers to the Secretary of State, we want to ensure that local enterprise partnerships and metro Mayors have their role in local decision making enshrined in the Bill. Amendment 37 therefore proposes that, if no suitable employer representative body is found that can represent all aspects, the Secretary of State be required to set up a board in that area, which would have wider representation from organisations like FE colleges, metro Mayors and local authorities.
Emma Hardy
I recall the Minister saying that the Secretary of State will have the power to take control from chambers of commerce if they are seen not to be working properly. I wonder whether the Minister would seriously consider our amendment as a model they could use. If there is only one chamber in the area, and that chamber loses control or oversight, who are we going to use instead? Does the Minister anticipate that there will be some form of inspection to check the competency of chambers? Will there be key performance indicators, or some way of flagging whether the chamber is successful or deemed to be failing?
Mr Perkins
Those are all important questions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are significant warnings to employer representative bodies in the Bill about failing to satisfy the Secretary of State. In the event that they are dismissed, as the Bill makes clear may happen, who is responsible for the local skills improvement plan after that? Many Members have said that some chambers are really strong, others have different strengths and others are not so strong. Putting all our eggs in one basket, which the Bill pretty much does in the vast majority of geographies, is a cause for concern.
Amendment 42 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult and seek consent from local authorities and combined authorities on the formation of employer representative bodies. Given that ERBs will be responsible for the formation of LSIPs, which will have budgetary commitments, it is vital that they have the confidence of local authorities and combined authorities, and that organisations are working in collaboration rather than in opposition, as we have said time and again would be the Labour approach.
Andrew Gwynne
I rise briefly to support the amendments. The nub of what my hon. Friend has set out to the Committee could easily have been resolved in our earlier deliberations, when the Minister promised genuine collaboration between the local chamber of commerce and a whole range of public and private sector bodies in developing the plans. The list in the Bill of those public and private sector bodies has been struck out by the defeat of the Lords amendments, so it is right that we have another go here.
Emma Hardy
I hope that when the Minister responds, he defines whether there is going to be a transparent judgment or transparent criteria. Will the criteria be judged and evaluated? Who will do that judgment and evaluation to determine whether a chamber has failed? It surely cannot be at the whim of the current Secretary of State, whoever that may be, to decide whether a chamber is seen as successful or failing.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is right. There has to be a fair arbitration process as well, because it may well be that the chamber of commerce does not agree that it is failing, in which case we will have a problem in trying to resolve the matter. I do not want to focus on possible failure, but we have to legislate for it, just in case. I want each and every one of these bodies to be a success but if, for whatever reason, one is not, we must know what the mechanisms are to ensure that the skills strategy for a given geographical area is carried on and made successful. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield’s amendment seeks to get that information from Ministers on what happens if, for whatever reason, things go wrong.
Lastly, I come back to the issue of how boundaries matter. If, for whatever reason, the boundaries for the skills strategy are different from those of whoever takes over that responsibility in the event of the chamber of commerce failing, we need to make sure that it is clear that the replacement covers the same area as what went before it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to support amendments 35, 45, 36 and 46, which were well presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. It is particularly important to reflect the points well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish about public and private employers. Much has been said about the potential for formulating the employer representative body from the chamber of commerce. The clue is in the name: it is about commerce and business, as much as employers.
That leads me on to the bit in between: our strong and vibrant voluntary sector. Recently, we have seen the greater rise of commissioning over many years by many public sector organisations. They have had 10 years of cuts, to be frank, so they have thought of innovative ways to deliver what I believe to be public services still. They have commissioned the voluntary sector, and it is vital for the voluntary sector—as suggested by amendment 46 —to have a seat on that employer representative body, whether as a collective in an overarching grouping or as key individual employers in the designated area, whatever it might be. Equally, we must ensure an interrelationship with other significant public sector bodies—put well by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. Not being explicit is not recognising what the employment market looks like.
Emma Hardy
When the Government design the LSIP areas, I wonder whether it would be helpful to produce some data on the respective public-private employer difference in each area. Each area will look different, so I imagine that the employer representatives would be reflective of that particular labour market.
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Exactly that—this is an employer representative body. The Bill must be open and explicit about ensuring that the public and voluntary sectors, and others—small businesses, the self-employed—have a seat at the table, through whatever mechanism. It is for them to outline how they wish to do that, but perhaps through something like the Federation of Small Businesses. I think that is vital, because otherwise it just gets lost in the grain. If the measure is to be a success in pushing forward on the skills agenda, we need to be explicit about who is at the table, who is shaping the plans and which areas. I hope that the Minister addresses my comments in his response.
Matt Western
Briefly, the amendments seek to reflect the reality on the ground, as we have heard. Let us think about HS2 and what has been happening. We have had years—decades—of plans for HS2, but we have seen skills sucked out of the regions so that we cannot get normal construction projects completed. That is because there has not been the co-ordination that there should have been. How was that allowed to happen? The result has been a huge impact on our regional economies.
Amendment 35 looks at the inclusion of public and private sectors as employers on the ERB. How can we not include the national health service, for example, and yet are able to include Virgin Care or Circle and others? It is bizarre that the public sector is not included.
On linking to the public sector, amendment 46 also seeks to include other employers, such as SMEs, the self-employed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—and public and third-sector employers. Right2Learn, in a written submission, stated:
“We believe it is critical that local skills and training strategies need to look far more widely at including third sector organisations, as well as HE and FE providers. There must be far more opportunities for the direct involvement of SME clusters and organisations and the so-called gig economy which the Taylor Commission highlighted, including co-operatives and self-employed.”
I have said before, we must include charity-heavy provision and I gave the example of the Workers’ Educational Association.
Amendment 46 states that we need to include the third sector and the local health boards. As I said, we have seen how good that can be through the pandemic. Local primary care networks and public health in our localities really stepped up and showed that what they do is what they know, which is their regions, their populations and their geographies, to deliver good services. The same would apply to the provision of skills across our regions.
Alex Burghart
I rise to speak to amendments 35 to 37, 42, 45 and 46. Amendment 36 would require designated employer representative bodies to be reasonably representative of a broad range of local stakeholders. We have already been clear that we want local skills improvement plans to be employer led, which means led by genuine employer representative bodies, but we have also been very clear that designated employer representative bodies should work closely with key local stakeholders to gather intelligence and consider their views and priorities when developing local skills improvement plans.
That includes local post-16 technical education and training providers and mayoral combined authorities, which, through our Government amendment, are already specified in the Bill as playing a key role. It also includes local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, among others. This will be covered in more detail in the statutory guidance.
Amendment 45 seeks to test how the Secretary of State will determine what mix of employers is considered “reasonably representative”. When making a judgment on whether an ERB is reasonably representative, the Secretary of State will take into consideration the characteristics of its membership compared with the overall population of employers in the area. That speaks to the point that a number of Opposition Members have made.
We certainly expect designated employer representative bodies to draw on the views of a wide range of local employers of all sizes, reaching beyond their existing membership and covering both private and public employers. They will also need to draw on other evidence, such as other representative and sector bodies, to summarise the skills, capabilities or expertise required in a specified area. That type of engagement is already happening, and happening brilliantly, in our trailblazer areas.
Amendment 35 seeks to ensure that designated employer representative bodies are reasonably representative of both public and private sector employers. The Bill already ensures that that is the case. Clause 4 gives a definition of “employer” for the purposes of interpreting clauses 1 to 3 that covers public authorities and charitable institutions—to the point made by the hon. Member for Luton South—as well as private sector employers.
Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that designated bodies represent the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, the self-employed, and public and voluntary sector employers. Public and voluntary sector employers are also already covered under the definition of employer in the Bill. Designated employer representative bodies must of course represent the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises in order to be reasonably representative.
Many existing employer representative bodies already do this effectively. For example, SMEs comprise the vast majority of the membership of local chambers of commerce. In drawing on other evidence, designated ERBs may also need to consider the key skills needs of the self-employed in order to effectively summarise the current and future skills required in the area, and that will be referenced in statutory guidance.
Amendment 37 concerns a scenario where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that there is an eligible body within a specified area that is reasonably representative of local employers. We have thought about that, but we really do not think it is likely to happen. Although the “Skills for Jobs” White Paper mentioned accredited chambers of commerce, there are other employer representative bodies with either a national or local presence. We saw evidence of that from the expressions of interest process we ran to select the local skills improvement plan trailblazers, for which we received 40 applications despite only looking for six to eight trailblazers. Many hon. Members today have spoken about chambers of commerce, but the Government are entirely open to representatives from the Federation of Small Businesses and other geographically based organisations that could also be eligible.
Mr Perkins
To clarify, how many of the trailblazer organisations were not chambers of commerce?
Alex Burghart
All eight trailblazers were chambers of commerce. However, I believe there were expressions of interest and applications from others. For the record, we are not saying that this is solely the preserve of chambers of commerce. We are supporting the trailblazers with £4 million of funding this financial year, and we will continue to support ERBs as they are designated, so that they can develop credible and robust local skills improvement plans.
Mr Perkins
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I remain of the view that public and private sector employers should feature in the Bill, so I will press amendment 37, which spells out Labour’s much more collaborative approach to this matter, to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 37, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(iii) in the event that there is no body in the local area that is representative of the organisations listed under subsection (1)(a)(ii) the Secretary of State will instruct the Local Enterprise Partnership or Metro mayor to bring together a board which is representative of all the organisations outlined in subsection (1)(a)(ii), who will take on responsibility for drawing up the local skills improvement plan.”—(Mr Perkins.)
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, in the event that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an eligible body is not reasonably representative of the employers operating within the specified area.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 30th November 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 November 2021 - (30 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. I encourage Members to wear a face covering, except when they are speaking or if they are exempt. That is in line with the Commission’s recommendations. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to the usual address. I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. The programme motion, which stands in the Minister’s name, was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 30 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 2 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 December;
2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 7 December.—(Alex Burghart.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Burghart.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email in the usual way.
The Committee will now proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available on the table; it shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
A number of newer Members are present, so I will go through this for clarity. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment, or seek a decision—a vote. If a Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I am not a mind reader—bear that in mind.
Clause 1
Local skills improvement plans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out “subsection (6)” and insert “subsections (6) and (6A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Alex Burghart
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller? I have no doubt that you will guide us, chivvy us and harry us through the six sittings ahead of us. It is my pleasure to speak to amendments 4 and 5 in my name, relating to local skills improvement plans and the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority in their development.
Mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority play a vital role in supporting local communities, developing local economies and strengthening local skills systems. The Government recognise the importance of their work in their area as a commissioner and convenor with devolved adult education functions. As part of devolution, a sizeable proportion of the national adult education budget has been transferred to them. Their views and priorities therefore need to be brought to bear in the development of local skills improvement plans to help ensure that they are effective. That is already happening in our trailblazer areas, which deliberately feature a number with mayoral combined authorities. In recognition of their important role, the Government are bringing forward amendment 5, which will place on the Secretary of State a duty to approve and publish a local skills improvement plan only when satisfied that the designated employer representative body has, during the development of that plan, given due consideration to the views of the mayoral combined authority or Greater London Authority, where it covers the specified area.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I would like to take a moment at the start of these proceedings to talk about the importance of the Bill and the approach that the Labour party will be taking to it, alongside Government amendments 4 and 5.
The skills Bill is of tremendous importance. We recognise that there has been, for a significant time, too little investment in skills and in the next generation. In particular, the drastic funding cuts during the past 11 years have had a dramatic impact on our further education sector and on the skills of the nation. It is recognised by many businesses, employers and players in the further education sector that we have fallen behind.
The Bill represents the Government’s approach to addressing the backlog, and they tell us that this approach places employers at the heart of the skills strategy and skills agenda. When I first heard that, it sounded familiar to me, having been a Member of Parliament for the past 11 years. I thought, “Where have I heard it said before that employers will be at the heart of the skills strategy?” I believed that I had heard that from a previous skills Minister, so we did a bit of research in my office, and it turns out that we have heard it from almost all of them.
Back in January 2011, the then skills Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), said of the Government’s approach to skills and apprenticeships:
“The entire focus of our Skills Strategy is in building a training system that is employer led…Indeed helping meet those skills needs, in businesses across the country, will make a major contribution to economic growth.”
In 2015, the apprenticeship levy was introduced, and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, told us that we now had a system in the hands of an employer-led institute for apprenticeships, and that his levy would be a
“radical, long overdue” new approach to apprenticeship funding. He said in this place that it was
“to raise the skills of the nation and address one of the enduring weaknesses of the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1370.]
His skills Minister at the time, former Tory MP Nick Boles, said:
“At the heart of the apprenticeship drive is the principle that no one better understands the skills employers need than employers themselves.”
By 2017, the Government were telling us this:
“The Apprenticeship Levy is a cornerstone of the government’s skills agenda, creating a system which puts employers at the heart of designing and funding apprenticeships to support productivity and growth.”
In 2018, the then Education Secretary, now the Minister for Security and Borders, told us that local enterprise partnerships were
“business-led partnerships…at the heart of responding to skills needs and building local industrial strategies that will help individuals and businesses gain the skills they need to grow.”
The rhetoric behind this Bill is exactly the rhetoric that we have been listening to for the past 11 years. Indeed, if the approaches of the past 11 years, which we were told placed employers at the heart of skills policy, had worked, we would not need this Bill. The Government are once again returning with the same prescription for the same ailment. They are once again failing to meet the size of the challenge, and in some cases are heading in the wrong direction altogether.
We have a new Secretary of State in post, of course. He is at great pains to tell people that there will be a change of tone and approach. The Bill was the brainchild of the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), if that is not an oxymoron, who was his predecessor—a man who believed in seizing as much power for himself as possible. Since the appointment of the new Secretary of State, we have been told there will be a change of tone and approach, but the Government’s approach to the cross-party amendments brought by their Lordships is not promising.
We entirely support the amendments in this group, which are about the mayoral combined authorities, but it is remarkable that the Government needed to introduce them; that demonstrates that the Government produced the skills Bill without any recognition of the issue.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has identified a key challenge that the Government are looking to tackle. It will clearly be difficult, but we hope that they will be successful. Does he agree that part of the reason why the challenge is so significant is that the previous Labour Government almost entirely ignored technical education and skills, with their obsession with universities and a 50% target?
Mr Perkins
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question. That has long been the lament. I speak to my colleagues who were involved in skills policy under the Labour Government, and their retort is that the investment in skills under the Labour Government was far greater than what we have seen in the 11 years that followed. There is nothing contradictory in wanting a strategy that allows as many people who want a university education and who are capable of it to have one, and that also has a real commitment to investment in skills.
Over the 11 years of this Government, we have seen the trashing of the idea that universities should be an aspiration for everyone. Alongside that rhetoric—an example of which we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman—we have seen a massive reduction in the investment in skills, and we have seen policies that do not work. The apprenticeship levy led to a massive reduction in the number of apprenticeships. What is said is one thing; what is done is quite another.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Back in the mid-2000s, did not the Labour Government, who predated my time here, introduce national skills academies? The whole point of them was to develop skills across the piece and drive the development of courses that could run in colleges across the UK.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We feel very strongly that we need investment in skills, but we also need a strategic approach that brings in different Government Departments and recognises that skills are the responsibility of not just the Department for Education, but of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury. There has to be recognition that this is about the kind of economy, as well as the kind of skills system, that we are looking to build. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on the Labour Government’s approach, and the investments they made.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I was a college lecturer in the era that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned. Curriculum 2000 was an absolute, unmitigated disaster. AVCEs—advanced vocational certificates of education—were withdrawn very quickly. The money that was pumped in was pumped into all the wrong places, and we ended up in a situation where people went to university because there were no proper options for BTECs at level 4 or level 5, or Cambridge technicals or City and Guilds, or anything else. It is not just BTECs but the Pearson monolith we are talking about here.
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I accept that she has a long track record in this sector, and that is an important contribution to this debate. The investment in skills then was on a different level from the investment that has taken place since. I am very happy to spend the entire debate talking about the previous 20 years; it would be interesting but not entirely fruitful. I accept that she feels, as she said on Second Reading, that changes to higher national diplomas were damaging; she was negative about the drive towards university education. Like the Labour Government, I believe that we should recognise that it is a brutal world for those who do not have skill. A drive towards university education should not be at the expense of college education; they should be two hands working closely together.
The Chair
Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I will allow Mr Perkins to respond.
Mr Perkins
It was such a controversial intervention that people wanted to intervene on it. I do not entirely accept what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby says—that a university degree is not a contribution to the skills of the nation. She hits on a view that is at the heart of much of this Government’s approach, which is that education has value only in so far as it is used in the work that someone goes on to do, and that there is a very narrow distinction between skills or vocational education, which is useful, and university education, which is theoretical, abstract, and of little value. I do not recognise that distinction at all.
The Chair
May I gently remind people that, while I think it is appropriate to have a broader debate at the beginning, we are talking about amendments 4 and 5?
Mr Perkins
Sure. I take your point, Mrs Miller. However, the intervention from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby highlights an important broader issue: of course skills and vocational education will always need to lead people being able to find work, but constantly decrying university education, on the basis that it is somehow not delivering that, is mistaken. There has been a real drive by this Government to frame the further education and higher education sectors as enemies that must be pitted against each other. Our approach recognises them as two important, powerful strongholds in supporting this nation to be the kind of nation that it wants to be.
Mr Perkins
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish; then, if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South wishes to come in, I will take her intervention.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think he is absolutely right: we are heading into that age-old trap of not only dividing the academic from the vocational in further education, but implying that higher education is solely an academic route. There are many vocational higher education qualifications out there, and we must not ignore that. On Government amendment 5, the exact point that Andy Burnham—the Mayor of Greater Manchester—and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority have been making for years is that for the Greater Manchester city region to succeed, we must ensure that its skills agenda embraces not only the academic but the vocational, so that we have the skills for the jobs of tomorrow.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman has neatly brought us back onto the subject of this debate, so I thank him for that.
Mr Perkins
I encourage my hon. Friend to expand on that point, because he is absolutely right. It is remarkable that the Government have been forced to introduce Government amendment 5, because it means that they brought the Bill forward without recognising any role for authorities that already have this funding devolved to them in the first place. It is a fairly dramatic change. The approach that Labour would take to local skills improvement plans is fundamentally different from that of the Government.
The Government are taking the approach that these are employer-led documents—that phrase again. They are documents of tremendous importance, so presumably the chambers of commerce will be holding the pen on them and will now, as a result of Government amendment 5, be forced to convince the Secretary of State that they have properly taken on board the views of those democratically elected to lead on skills policy in their areas. So many other important contributors are left on the side lines.
Labour’s approach would be to say that we need to recognise the importance of local skills improvement plans that will dictate the direction of skills policy. What we need is a local skills improvement plan that brings together the role of public and private sector employers; that brings in further education colleges; that brings in significant independent training providers within an area; and that is held together by those with democratic accountability, such as metro Mayors and local authorities. That holistic approach would deliver a skills policy that everyone would be able to get behind and recognise as representative.
The Government’s approach is very much about placing the chambers of commerce at the heart of this, but in fact they have had to bring forward an amendment to even put the metro Mayors and combined authorities back into that role. We support Government amendment 5, but it is remarkable that it was necessary at all.
I would like the Minister to expand on whether Government amendment 4 impacts clause 6 in terms of the duty placed on local skills improvement plans for compliance with section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008. It is crucial that skills policy drives us towards a net zero future, so it is important to understand whether the intention is to undermine that commitment when it comes to Government amendment 4.
Again, we support Government amendment 5, although we are confused about why it is needed and why it was not central to the approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, it is important that we recognise that mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority already have responsibilities in terms of policy and funding for further education and skills, and that they both have good professional relationships with employers, colleges and training providers in their areas. I have been along to meet them in Manchester and have seen their excellent work on careers guidance and their constructive approach to independent providers and the FE sector. That is a great example of how devolved decision makers are better in touch with the needs of their communities than a centralised approach.
It is a shame that the Bill, the brainchild of the former Secretary of State, is a return to the centralisation agenda that has too often bedevilled Whitehall thinking. It was clearly a driving force in the legislation. It is inconceivable that local skills improvement plans could have flown in the face of decisions made locally. It is therefore important to understand what protections there will be for existing funding arrangements with regard to those put in place by metro Mayors. Will they be transferred to employer representative bodies or will there be a dual system?
The Government propose that employer representative bodies consider the views of mayoral combined authorities or the Greater London Authority but, as was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich on Second Reading, what does that say about those communities that are not within metro Mayor areas? The majority of my colleagues on the Labour Benches are in metro Mayor areas—I am one of the relatively few who are not—but many colleagues on the Conservative Benches are in areas that have local enterprise partnerships, which were originally meant to bring together many of the different power brokers. It seems that democratic accountability is missing entirely in areas outside the metro Mayor areas.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
This is a crucial point, which I hope we will come to as our consideration of the Bill develops: how do we define regions and regional consultation? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby might have an idea completely different from mine about what constitutes the best region when looking at skills and skills development. I hope that the Minister will take that point away and look to define that later as we go through the Bill.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely. To return to the subject of the amendment concerning mayoral combined authorities, the phrase “due consideration” is noticeably vague. The kind of due consideration that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire might have given to the views of the Mayor of Manchester would have left me—and, no doubt, the Mayor of Manchester—with sleepless nights. We hope that a more thoughtful approach is now in place and we welcome the change of tone, but we are not seeing a change in policy.
Emma Hardy
On that issue of “due consideration” and its vagueness, will the Minister agree to look at producing some guidance on what constitutes due consideration? Is that a consultation that has happened on one occasion, or on a number of occasions? How do we define “due consideration” to ensure that the democratic accountability to which my hon. Friend is referring is put at the heart of the Bill?
Mr Perkins
I agree with that absolutely. The next part of that—to extend what my hon. Friend is saying—is to ask whether there is a right of appeal for a combined authority or metro Mayor in the event that they do not consider that due consideration has been given to their views. If they think that the employer representative body has put together a local skills improvement plan that has not taken into account the representations made on one or more areas, will there be a right of appeal? Will the fact that the metro Mayor considers that due consideration was not given be able to pause the local skills improvement plan and bring people together?
What role does the Secretary of State consider that he will have? As I said, the previous Secretary of State was very much a centraliser—he wanted his hands on every single decision—and that clearly runs through the Bill. He had all these frustrations with the fact that individual organisations were not doing exactly what he wanted, so he wanted the power to tell them that they had to. Is that the sort of approach that this Secretary of State will take? Having appointed the chambers of commerce to make decisions before those who are democratically elected to do so, he appears to be positioning himself as the arbiter in a whole variety of local decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Emma Hardy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. Looking at the room, I see that people on both sides are genuinely interested in education matters. I hope that this will be a good Committee that really scrutinises the legislation before us in a shared ambition to make the Bill the best that it can be.
I will be brief. I have already made an intervention about guidance on what constitutes due consideration and about the arbitration processes for conflict over whether someone believes they have been duly considered. Will there be a timeframe for that due consideration? Local engagement and agreement for the skills plans is absolutely crucial, so having that clearly laid out is fundamental.
I hope the Minister will clarify something. I may be misreading the Bill, but am I right in thinking that further education colleges have been removed from consultation, or is that part of a later amendment? The Lords tabled an amendment to ensure that local school improvement plans are co-developed with colleges, local government, elected Mayors, employers and so on. Am I right in thinking that colleges are no longer listed as part of the consultation process, or will that be addressed in another amendment? I may have made a mistake, in which case the Minister will correct me.
We are basing everything on employers and the jobs available now, but has the Minister thought about future-proofing the local skills development plans to include industries that will be developed in future, especially in relation to climate, green changes and so on? We might create the best possible plan for jobs that exist now, but that might not be the plan that we want in five years’ time, so will such future-proofing be included?
Tom Hunt
I will make just a few very brief comments. I think that the local skills improvement plans are a huge step in the right direction. It is clearly crucial that local businesses should play a role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges. We need to have far more of an ecosystem approach when it comes to the role of employers, schools, FE colleges and further education. Too often, it seems as if they are kind of on the sides.
Mr Perkins
What does the hon. Gentleman say to my earlier point, which was that what he is saying is exactly what has been said about every single Conservative skills reform in the last 11 years? They always claim that they are putting employers at the heart of the measures. Why does he think those previous approaches have failed?
Tom Hunt
To be honest, we are dealing with the Government we have today. I can say, as somebody with an interest in further education and skills, that this Bill is actually the most significant and potentially game-changing piece of Government legislation. My job is to look at the Bill before us today, and I think it is hugely in the right place. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made at this stage, and we will engage in doing that.
There is one quick point that I would like to make. When we talk about the local skills improvement plans and local employers playing a greater role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges, I think it is important that we consider what might happen. I imagine that the vast majority of education providers will play ball and welcome that input from local business, but on occasions where there may be some resistance and that does not quite work, is there something that could be done to ensure that they come to the table to accept the advice and a steer from local business?
On my comments on Second Reading, which the hon. Member for Chesterfield has often mentioned, I recognise that there is a significant difference between mayoral combined authorities and regular upper-tier local authorities. Certain powers and funding have been devolved to mayoral combined authorities, and we do not have them in every area. I accept that, and I accept why the Government are treating mayoral combined authorities slightly differently from regular upper-tier authorities such as Suffolk County Council. I guess my view would be that the solution is to have more devolution. As somebody who recently, with other Suffolk colleagues, supported a bid for One Suffolk, I would be very happy if there were positive movements so that Suffolk was in a place to have the powers for its principal authority to play a role in local improvement plans.
Andrew Gwynne
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. My comments follow neatly on from those of the hon. Member for Ipswich, because the reality is that much of what the Government want to achieve in the Bill is starting to happen anyway in devolved combined authority areas where the skills agenda has been devolved. I welcome the emphasis on skills improvement plans and, now, the involvement of the mayoral combined authorities in them. It was perhaps remiss that that was not in the Bill originally, and I am pleased that the Minister has tabled an amendment to ensure that it is clearly in the Bill.
Devolution matters. It works, and it is working. It was a Labour Government who introduced the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which facilitates the devolution agenda. Greater Manchester, my own city region, was the first to have a combined authority in 2011. It had an interim Mayor in 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)—and a Mayor in 2017: Andy Burnham. The skills agenda is at the heart of the Greater Manchester combined authority’s strategies. It has a local industrial strategy. It has the Greater Manchester work and skills strategy and priorities. In 2019, it had the adult education budget devolved to it. It has Bridge GM, which links schools and employers.
The thing that I am most proud of, and which fits neatly in the agenda of the Bill, is the Greater Manchester skills for growth strategy, which is designed to fill occupational skills gaps in the Greater Manchester city region, and provide young people and adults with the skills needed to fill the gaps.
However, we need to go beyond that, and I urge the Minister to encourage combined authorities to future-proof and devolve them the powers to do so. Technology is moving at a rapid speed. Our city region economies are changing dramatically in a short space of time, and we need to ensure that the workforce of tomorrow has the skills of tomorrow, not the skills of today. I welcome the fact that the mayoral combined authorities will be included in the Bill.
Emma Hardy
On the skills for tomorrow, there is a huge concern about amendment 4, which removes subsection (6) on future issues around climate change and environmental goals. Surely those issues will only grow in importance. Removing that from the Bill seems incomprehensible.
Andrew Gwynne
It absolutely does. My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight that, because they are not only the challenges but the opportunities of tomorrow. I firmly believe that the United Kingdom can be a world leader in developing the technologies and equipment to help tackle some of the environmental challenges that the whole globe will face in the years to come. That is certainly true of my city region. It is also true of Hull, where there are huge opportunities not just on renewable power but to develop the next generation of technology.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend has prompted me to point out that wind turbines are made in the great city of Hull, and we are going to be one of the green energy capitals of the UK. I wanted to get that in Hansard.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—probably almost as grateful as she is to have had the chance to make that press release—and she is absolutely right.
I firmly believe that the skills agenda is linked to the industrial strategy agenda, not just for individual city regions, towns and counties, but for the country. If we want Britain to succeed, we must think not just about the here and now, but about the future. That involves bringing together skills and industrial strategy. In a small way, that is what we are doing in Greater Manchester through the devolution agenda.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point, which is at the heart of the difference between Labour and Conservative approaches. This Government’s approach is about moving towards a German-style skills system, but the Treasury and Business teams do not want a German-style economy. I very much welcome a step towards the German-style approach, but the Government are trying to impose a model on top of our economy, and that cannot be done without the drive towards an industrial strategy.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend must have eyes in the back of his head, because that was pretty much the next point that I wanted to make. It all hinges on the term “due consideration”. We are doing this in city regions such as Greater Manchester, and we are getting there. We have the skills, and we have good collaboration with local businesses to shape the agenda. We have a shared vision. I accept that that might not be the case in other devolved areas—there might be a degree of friction between the business community and the combined authority—but in Greater Manchester, it is genuinely a partnership. The skills programmes, strategies and priorities are genuinely developed in partnership.
The Minister talks about “due consideration” in relation to the amendment, but I want assurances from him that Ministers will take a genuinely collaborative approach and we will not end up with some monolithic, top-down and Whitehall-knows-best approach being imposed on city regions that are already starting to develop the very skills strategies that are envisaged in the Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister can address my concerns.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I will keep my comments brief, but I want to touch on some of the issues raised by colleagues.
First, LEPs, chambers of commerce and other instances of local involvement in skills plans have been mentioned. Some of those are excellent and some are awful. Will the Minister touch on what safeguards might exist for those plans, particularly in areas without combined authorities? Combined authorities have devolved local oversight or engagement in the plans, but for areas that do not, where will the safeguard be if chambers of commerce that are not delivering for business bring forward less effective plans?
Secondly, I should declare an interest as a local government leader in talks with Government about devolution. In all honesty, I would devolve adult skills to all upper-tier local authorities. However, recognising that areas with combined authorities will have local engagement in the discussion—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has mentioned future-proofing the Bill—does the Minister acknowledge that the Government are in talks about devolution with counties that will not be part of combined authorities, but that might have powers over adult skills? Is that something that has been considered in the wording of the Bill? Such areas might have that local input or devolved skills budgets and options available to them in future, although they might not be covered by the term combined authority.
Matt Western
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle was saying, it is great to be in a room that contains so many educationalists and educators, including my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who will bring a lot to bear on the Bill.
I will preface my remarks by turning to earlier comments on vocational qualifications and the relative value of one sector versus another. We must remind ourselves to talk about the HE sector as opposed to universities and think about the great breadth brought to our educational sector by higher education providers, who are diverse in nature.
On Government amendment 4, given that COP was a month ago and how disappointing it was, we must ensure that all Bills include elements that remind us of the importance of climate change, which is the issue of our time and that of decades to come. The Government are seeking to remove subsection (6), inserted by the Peers for the Planet group, which importantly sees LSIPs granted to authorities by the Secretary of State only if they comply with the duty in the Climate Change Act 2008. We must ensure that, at every opportunity, in every piece of legislation, that duty is embedded in our thinking, and future generations must know of our determination on that.
I am sure that the Government are committed to environmentalism—they certainly talk about their commitment—and addressing the issue. I urge Government Members to think about this measure as it is particularly important in terms of education and what is being shared with the next generation. I remind the Committee that it was a concession in the Lords, so I am surprised that it should be opposed in the Commons.
I turn to Government amendment 5. It is important when designating LSIPs to consider the views and wishes of the mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority. The Association of Colleges made that clear when it said:
“The voice of employers is critical—but it is also important that LSIPs reflect wider priorities too”.
Through the pandemic, we should have learned just how important localism is. One of the great successes was the delivery of track and trace and the vaccine programme locally. The same should be said of how we design our needs for skills and education in our regions. The principle of subsidiarity—decisions being made at the local level—is really important.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. We have a couple of enthusiasts for devolution of power on the Government side of the Committee, but I fear they may be disappointed because the Government’s approach to devolution is very much less enthusiastic than that of the previous Conservative Governments in 2015 and 2017. The Bill, which seeks to bring a lot of power back to the centre, seems to prove that.
Matt Western
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mansfield, will be disappointed about that. It is really important that the Government send clear messages about devolution and what they want to see, but in many facets of Government business there seems to be a greater concentration of powers coming into Whitehall and Ministers’ offices than devolution to the likes of Mansfield, Manchester, Liverpool the north-east and so on.
As I said, one of the great learnings of the last 20 months is just how brilliantly our local services and authorities can deliver things. That is because they understand their geography, their communities and their populations. I am concerned about how due consideration, a much-vented issue in the last half hour, might work, particularly given the reliance on the personality of the individual who happens to be in the seat at the time. I will not go into any further detail on that because it has already been much explored.
Will the Minister provide a bit more information on what factors will be considered in the designation of an LSIP? The Local Government Association has stated:
“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach. Without a meaningful role for local authorities, the reforms risk creating an even more fragmented skills system, with different providers subject to different skills plans”
I urge the Government and the Minister to listen and respond to the experience of the Local Government Association.
Emma Hardy
Let me offer the Minister a concrete example of the situation in Hull. We have the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce, which reaches over to the south bank, and we have a newly formed LEP that serves just Hull and the East Riding. We have a careers scheme for Hull and the Humber, and separate counties that have no overall mayoral authority, but an elected police commissioner for the whole of the Humber. To say that is muddled does not go far enough. I really feel that the amendment should make allowances for areas that are as muddled as Hull.
Matt Western
That is a good illustration of just how complicated these matters can be. I hope that there will be greater clarity on how the measures will work in future.
We have heard from colleagues how well things can work, including my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who told us about how Manchester is just getting on with it. Having been up there recently, I have seen the extraordinary work of that cluster of universities and colleges, and how they are co-operating and collaborating in their brilliant work to bring skills to their known geography—I want to place on the record how mighty impressive that was. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield on counties and how they work in their regions; that must be clarified as well.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I ran a business in Greater Manchester’s Media City for many years. I saw the work of universities; in fact, I saw the universities arrive in MediaCity while I was working there. It was employers who actually drove that forward. I have listened to Opposition Members talking about local government and universities driving things forward, but businesses have been driving forward the skills agenda in Greater Manchester for many years. We have to put on the record the important role that business plays in that. The skills agenda is not being driven by local government alone; businesses are really at the heart of it.
Matt Western
I knew it was Warrington. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—I worked in the industry for many years myself. Businesses have an important part to play as consultees, but my concern is about the balance struck between what business wants and wider needs—we have to get an absolute balance between that.
To give the hon. Gentleman a small example, Warwick University, which is close to my constituency, was founded back in the 1960s, but it was founded off the back of the automotive industry. That did not mean that it should be an automotive industry establishment, and it is not. It happens to be one of the best universities in the UK and globally, but it was part founded by industry. That is where collaboration can work, and the last Labour Government certainly looked very closely at that when developing regional plans to promote industries. I take on board his point that industries and businesses have an important role to play as consultees, but plans should not be explicitly or purely at their direction.
Alex Burghart
What an interesting debate to start off the Committee stage of the Bill. There are so many comments to come back to. As a general observation, it was very nice to hear the hon. Member for Chesterfield praise Conservative predecessors of mine for their comments about an employer-led system, which we have indeed been building up during our time in power. The Bill is simply the next stage in that process.
The fact that that process was required was first highlighted in a 2011 report by the Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. I do not want to get into the deep politics of it—we have the Bill to consider—but that report was written after Labour had been in power for 13 years. He felt that it was necessary to begin long-term reform of the skills system to make it more responsive to the needs of business and to make sure that students could get the qualifications they needed and the technical skills to go into the jobs that the economy demands. It is a great honour to present the Bill as a means of taking those ideas on to their next stage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesterfield for saying that Labour will support the amendments and the local skills improvement plans. However, I need to clarify a point made by a number of Opposition Members: the Government are not removing clause 1(6). That seems to be a point of confusion. Clause 1(6) stands part of the Bill. Government amendment 5 would insert subsection (6A) to clause 1, on page 2, in line 32. It does not do anything to clause 1(6).
Emma Hardy
On a point of clarity—forgive me if I have this wrong— amendment 4 does seem to leave out subsection (6). My mistake—it says
“leave out ‘subsection (6)’ and insert ‘subsections (6) and (6A)’”.
Alex Burghart
With that in mind, and in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on the impact of Government amendment 4 on clause 6, there is no friction at all between Government amendment 4 and clause 6. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to clause 1(6) and (6A) when deciding to approve and publish a plan. I hope that has cleared that up.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised a point about LSIPs and colleges, which will be dealt with in statutory guidance. The Secretary of State will lay very good statutory guidance on how employer representative bodies will work and how local skills improvement plans will be written.
We expect the whole process to be collaborative. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke very well about the existing collaboration in the system. It is something that we recognise in all of our combined mayoral authorities. We do not see there being any great friction or need for friction. We want to see authorities, businesses and providers working in harmony, as many of them already do. What we are doing in the Bill, and in these clauses, is simply creating a process that helps establish that good working.
I was up in Salford not long ago, in MediaCity, where I saw some of the Government’s fantastic digital boot camps. Young people—and some not so young people—are learning the skills of tomorrow at speed in 16-week courses, getting apprenticeships in MediaCity and meeting people who have previously done the apprenticeships, who now have jobs in MediaCity. We saw that Government initiative backed by local business is not in friction with the good work the local Mayor was doing—instead, it complements it. We also saw the local economy boosted as a result.
Some of the remarks made by hon. Members suggested that there is always going to be a terrible tension between what local political leadership and businesses are trying to do, and what local providers want to do. I do not think that will be the case. In fact, there is an enormous amount of goodwill in the system and people are desirous of working towards the same aims.
On the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich and for Mansfield, do I see before me two future leaders in their respective areas? Well, one leader already, but who knows if they will become greater leaders still? Obviously, at the moment combined authorities have a greater responsibility for adult skills than local authorities do, which is why we put them on the face of the Bill. In the course of statutory guidance and as situations evolve, perhaps it will be possible for us to set out how we expect that work to evolve.
I do not recognise the comments made by some Opposition Members about this Government not having an appetite for devolution. Success has many fathers. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about how Labour’s devolutionary reforms led to mayoral combined authorities, but I remember the Manchester devolution deal being done under the Conservatives.
Andrew Gwynne
I can second-guess where the Minister is going and I am grateful to him for giving way, but I was merely pointing out that the piece of legislation that permits combined authorities was one of the last pieces of legislation that was introduced by a Labour Government. It was clear that was where Labour was heading, but credit where it is due. David Cameron and George Osborne did allow significant devolution to my city region.
The Chair
Order. As interesting as devolution is, can we remind ourselves that we are talking about local skills improvement plans?
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Mrs Miller, and with your prompting I will refer to one more point.
Emma Hardy
I apologise if I am being tiresome, but just so I have understood this correctly, can the Minister confirm that the amendment leaves out subsections (6)(b), “adaptation to climate change” and (6)(c), “meeting other environmental goals”, but leaves subsection (6)(a)? Does the amendment remove paragraphs (b) and (c), lines 30 to 32, with those specific references to “climate change” and “other environmental goals”?
Alex Burghart
I believe I am right in saying that the amendment keeps clause 1(6)(a).
Alex Burghart
In the amendment, subsections (6)(b) and (6)(c) will not stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
So that we are all clear, does that mean that “adaptation to climate change” and “meeting other environmental goals” are being removed?
The Chair
Minister, would you like to complete your remarks and maybe others can provide you with a little bit more information?
Alex Burghart
That is very kind, Mrs Miller. I will seek absolute clarity on this point, but my understanding is that the Secretary of State will still have to have regard to section 1 of the Climate Change 2008. That is an important concession that was made in the House of Lords, for obvious reasons.
To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, one of the major players—perhaps the major player—in what this Bill seeks to achieve is business. It is often business that drives, through its work with local providers, a responsive system, which means that the employers of today ensure that the employees of tomorrow have the skills that they need.
Andy Carter
In Warrington, we have used the town deal to put a focus on skills, with the employer at the heart of it. A digital skills academy has been created in Warrington, driven by employers but facilitated by the local authority, allowing the focus for colleges and for future growth in those areas. Businesses have really been at the heart of that work, which for me is so important.-
Alex Burghart
That point is well made, and I very much hope to visit Warrington in the near future and see that good work.
Mr Perkins
The Minister may have received guidance that might help him, but as I understood it, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (6) all remain in the Bill; he is simply adding proposed new subsection (6A), which we have just been debating. The amendment does not take out any of the paragraphs in subsection (6), unless I have misunderstood it.
Alex Burghart
To bring a bit of clarification to proceedings, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. Contrary to some of the messages that Opposition Members gave earlier, we are keeping all of clause 1(6)—that means paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment made: 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
‘(6A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a relevant authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that in the development of the plan due consideration was given to the views of the relevant authority.
For this purpose “relevant authority” means—
(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning of Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (see section 107A(8) of that Act), or
(b) the Greater London Authority.’—(Alex Burghart.)
The effect of this amendment is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that due consideration has been given to the views of a mayoral combined authority or the Greater London Authority before approving a local skills improvement plan for an area that covers any of their area.
The Chair
We had some quite general debate on that group. I hope people have got things off their chest. Perhaps we could have a slightly more focused debate as we move forward.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, leave out from “body” to “for” in line 37.
The effect of this amendment is that a local skills improvement plan will be a plan developed by an employer representative body which is designated for a specified area. This amendment, together with Amendments 7, 8 and 9, reverse an amendment made at Lords Report.
Alex Burghart
The amendments strip back some of the detail in clause 1(7), which can be better dealt with in statutory guidance. As well as engaging a wide range of employers, a designated employer representative body should work closely with all relevant providers, local authorities and other key local stakeholders to develop its plan. Without such widespread engagement, the resulting plan is not likely to be very effective. Key stakeholders with valuable local intelligence include, but are not limited to, the Careers and Enterprise Company, local careers hubs, National Careers Service area-based contractors and Jobcentre Plus. Our expectations on local stakeholder engagement will be set out clearly within the statutory guidance. The guidance can be updated regularly to reflect evolving needs and priorities, as well as best practice. It also enables the required level of detail to be captured.
Clause 1 already places duties on relevant providers to co-operate with employer representative bodies to ensure that their valuable knowledge and experience directly inform the development of the plans, so that they are evidence-based, credible and actionable. Clause 4 makes it clear that relevant providers include independent training providers and universities. I therefore do not believe that the Lords amendment is needed, particularly given the MCA and GLA amendment that we have just discussed.
Mr Perkins
These are four significant amendments. Notwithstanding the assurances that we have just received from the Minister, they specifically take out what I think was a very strong amendment, supported by Members across the House of Lords, that added the importance of a collaborative approach to the Bill. For all the Minister said in that contribution, and the one before, about the importance of these partnership arrangements, it is not really a partnership arrangement. It is clear that all those consultees are subservient to the chamber of commerce which, ultimately, holds the pen and makes the decision. That report will then have to meet with the approval of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Mansfield raised in a previous debate the question of what happens, given the huge variety in the strength of different chambers of commerce, different local enterprise partnerships and so on, in the event that a local skills improvement plan goes to the Secretary of State and is considered not be adequate? Obviously, we can only assume that the Secretary of State would send it back.
Chambers of commerce are very varied organisations; I think everyone would recognise that there are some excellent ones—I count those in Derbyshire and the east midlands as an example of that. However, there are others that are much smaller and have very different areas of responsibility. Chambers of commerce are membership organisations that represent some of the businesses in their community; that is unlike chambers of commerce in Germany, which are compulsory for businesses to join, and therefore are representative, quasi-governmental organisations. In this country, chambers of commerce are one of many different business organisations that businesses might choose to join. Different chambers have different areas of priority and expertise and different industries that are particularly important to them. Even among their memberships they have, in my experience, a small number of members who are very active within them, and large numbers of members who take a much less active role.
What we have in the context of many of the consultees that the Minister referred to going into the guidance notes, are a number of organisations that are in some ways more consistent, and will definitely offer a breadth of approach. Therefore, the fundamental difference of the approach that Labour would take in the Bill, compared with the Government, is around whether it is a true partnership. The difference is whether it is a partnership that recognises the voices of public and private sector employers and of further education colleges, that recognises the power of those independent training providers that do such great work across the country, and that recognises statutory organisations such as jobcentres, all of which have a role in this, or whether, as the Bill says, they are all consultees, but the chamber of commerce ultimately writes this plan. We would like to see far greater parity in that power; we think it is a local skills improvement plan that would have more buy-in and more belief in the local community, and would be much more respected on that basis.
Emma Hardy
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern, given amendment 6, that the specific reference to further education providers is removed from the Bill. Any local skills plan needs to be done in conjunction with further education providers; there is no point writing a Bill that does not have the capacity to deliver in that local area. It seems slightly odd that a specific reference to further education has been taken out of the Bill.
Mr Perkins
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that Government amendment 6 removes the words,
“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.
The Minister says that we should not worry, it will be in the guidance. However, the different approach by the Lords recognised that it was a genuine partnership. These organisations are now consultees that will make their representations to the chamber of commerce, and hope that the chamber of commerce smiles on the view they put forward. It is a totally different type of relationship. The relationship is either one of partnership or of subservience; the approach the Government choose to take is one of subservience.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. On the face of it, it would seem that the Government seek to make local employers’ organisations ultimately responsible for the direction and control of our colleges, and potentially our universities as well.
Mr Perkins
In terms of areas that are not already devolved, that is absolutely right, and adult education budgets will be very relevant.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not dwell on the subsequent amendments, because we will have an opportunity to debate them, but I will touch on some of our concerns about the way in which the needs of learners might not necessarily be at the forefront of people’s minds in chambers of commerce. For example, to what extent will chambers of commerce be aware of the specific needs of people with education and healthcare plans or other disabilities? The amendments seek to reduce the extent to which it is partnership working and move to a hierarchy, with the chamber of commerce holding the pen and driving the bus, and others making suggestions about the route.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right as to whether it is a true partnership relationship or a relationship of subservience. I draw hon. Members’ attention to amendment 7. Not only does amendment 6 leave out specific reference to further education providers; amendment 7 leaves out specific reference to community learning providers, designated institutions and universities. Again, it is no longer a partnership, as was written in the Lords amendment. It becomes a situation in which central Government make the decisions and education providers are in a subservient relationship with them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and I agree. Government amendment 7 is consequential to Government amendment 6, and she is right about what that means. We have real concerns about how employer-representative bodies and LSIPs will fit within sectoral expertise in sectors such as construction and manufacturing, which transcend local areas but are incredibly important, particularly where our economy is hugely lacking in the development of the next generation.
It is really important to recognise that we have huge skills shortages in the public sector as well as the private sector. Health and social care is a classic example, but there are many others. The voice of the public sector must be heard, and we must ensure that it is able to support people who aim to get from unemployment into a trained-up place in the workplace, because they are also central to this sort of approach. I am interested to hear from the Minister what framework he envisages for LSIPs aligning with sectoral programmes and a national industrial strategy.
Government amendment 8 removes the words, “by people resident”, from the sentence about the skills required in a local area. The purpose of the Lords amendment was important: it was to ensure that LSIPs focused not just on the needs of employers but on the people resident in a community. What would happen in a situation whereby employers were satisfied with the extent to which they were able to access the skills that they needed, but a large number of people were employed and unable to get into the labour market? Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of chambers of commerce to address youth unemployment; it is the Government’s responsibility. If businesses consider that they are able to access the skills that they need, but there is still a large number of people who are unemployed, who takes responsibility for that? The Lords amendment ensured that the people who were resident in a local area were considered in the local skills improvement plan. The Government are taking those words out, which means that it goes back to being a plan put together by businesses to solve the needs of businesses, regardless of whether that addresses the problems of people struggling to access the labour market.
Emma Hardy
My other concern with the amendments, which I hope the Minister will address, is about areas with many small and medium-sized enterprises. Areas with large numbers of big employers can obviously exercise that strong voice, for example through chambers of commerce, but I am worried that in areas such as Hull, with predominantly SMEs, as I am sure Government Members will recognise, that voice will not come through as strongly.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend worries with due cause. Since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, small businesses have found it incredibly difficult to access apprenticeships. There has been a huge driving down in the number of people getting apprenticeships within small businesses. In areas such as Chesterfield, where smaller employers make up the majority of the economy, the apprenticeship opportunities are much lower than they were a few years before. Ensuring that the voice of small business is heard within this is incredibly important.
The Minister did not really talk about this amendment at all, but the Government might say that the skills plan also needs to have a focus on those relevant to a local employer who are not currently resident—we might call it the “on your bike” amendment, with the Government saying, “We want an approach that identifies skills needs of people who are not currently here.” If that was their intention, then it could have been worded to ensure that there was a strategy for attracting new workers. Simply taking those words out means that this is a plan for the employer community that does not have to consider those questions around the learners who are excluded from the labour market if those employers consider that they are relatively satisfied with what they are able to attract.
There is an important point here. At the moment, shortly after Brexit, there is a lot of focus is on skills shortages and staff shortages, and the sense, which I totally agree with, that we need to make more of the people we have. However, there may be other times when there is a real surplus of unemployed people, and we need a strategic approach that, in those times, supports those people into work, even if there are not a huge number of vacancies in the labour market. I think that those words are important.
Government amendment 9 removes the words “and other local bodies” from the clause concerning post-16 technical education, which was an amendment that the much-respected Lord Baker of Dorking added to the Bill. The Lords amendment that this Government amendment seeks to undo was drafted to avoid being too prescriptive, but it would have allowed LSIPs to work closely with other agencies, including Jobcentre Plus and careers advisory services, in providing careers information, advice and guidance.
All those organisations are important to ensuring that they are able to get into schools and support young people to get representation and ideas from both the business community and environments that they have not been familiar with. I would have thought that an amendment recognising that the careers responsibility is not just a responsibility of schools, but something that should be open to businesses, would have very much fitted with the spirit of the Bill. It was an opportunity for the Government to enable other bodies to play an important role in that post-16 technical education and careers guidance, and it is therefore disappointing that it was taken out.
We agree with their lordships on the introduction of these amendments, and we are disappointed that the Government are seeking to remove them. On that basis, we will look to support the amendments brought in by their lordships and disagree with these Government amendments.
Rachel Hopkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is appropriate that I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College. I support the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, the shadow Minister; I was also very disappointed.
The irony is not lost on me that a slightly less democratic place wanted to put more democracy into this Bill, which I was very pleased to see. The Government amendments take out democracy by removing the references to local authorities and mayoral combined authorities. I heard the Minister’s comments about expecting it to be collaborative and wanting good will between the different organisations. In order to ensure that all parts—the legs of the chair, so to speak—are in the Bill, the amendments made in the House of Lords should stay there.
I have a great passion for local authorities and the role they play in adult education. They have already been doing great work, understanding their own areas. In the general debate the point was raised about the role that locally elected leaders, local authorities and combined authorities play in place making, and the skills agenda is key to that. One of the points that has not been referred to specifically comes under amendment 7, which would take out the reference to the “long-term national skills” strategies. That is wholly important and not just secured through local businesses thinking about the skills they need roughly now. Retaining that reference to the long term and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities and combined authorities in the Bill would create a much firmer and stronger situation in our local areas. I speak as a former councillor on Luton Council. Great work is done at local grassroots levels.
Matt Western
It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way. She was in full flow and I did not want to interrupt her. In response to her point, it is fine to consult and get the views of businesses in developing a plan, but they do not necessarily know what is coming down the track: future opportunities, future business and future sectors that do not even exist yet. That is why it is important to keep as broad a base as possible. That was one of the points she was making well, but I wanted to amplify that.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.
Emma Hardy
On that point, I hope that the Minister will clarify that this will be statutory guidance, not just guidance that has been issued as a general idea that we can do it if we would like to. Statutory guidance is needed.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point about statutory guidance. In fact, if the guidance is going to be statutory, why not just make it statute and have it in the Bill? That is what I would like to see. It is important that local people have democratic oversight of what is happening in their areas. That is why I want to see local authorities, combined authorities and other organisations that can shape what is going on in their local areas.
Emma Hardy
On that point, the removal of
“schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”
means the people who actually deliver the skills strategies are being removed from a Bill about skills. It is a little odd.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making yet another fantastic intervention. Yes, it is a little odd. Equally, amendment 9 removes other organisations, such as our Jobcentre Plus.
Mrs Miller, you will forgive me for intervening on an earlier intervention. What I was trying to get at with regard to universities is that they are also very much involved in skills development. I refer to the University of Bedfordshire, which is in my constituency. It has a fantastic new STEM building—science, technology, engineering and maths. Industry-standard equipment has been brought into the science labs, so the students studying for degrees such as biochemistry are using the equipment that is used out in industry. This is not just about theoretical and academic issues; it is also about key skills.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how incorrect the intervention was. One of the areas where we are desperately short of workers is social work. How do we train up social workers? They are trained up at a university. The idea that universities are only for academic knowledge and not places where people can be trained for jobs is ludicrous.
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.
I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.
Matt Western
What is concerning about these amendments is the direction of travel. What is it that the Government are trying to achieve by removing these Lords amendments, because they seem to be incredibly positive and constructive about getting the right and relevant organisations across the piece to be involved in the development of a plan? The idea of a LSIP is a very good thing, but it must draw on the skills, knowledge and expertise of these bodies from a region, so that they can bring them to bear on the design of a LSIP, to ensure that the present and future needs of a region can be met.
My fear, having listened to the debate over the last few minutes, is that there is a horrible parallel with what is going on with the integrated care systems, whereby we are seeing more involvement by the private sector and a diminution of the provision from the public sector. When we look at individual placement and support, or IPS, we see that there is an absolute withdrawal of the public sector. The public sector will also have little to no say on what will happen with the delivery of skills in a region. That runs counter to what the Local Government Association believes.
The LGA says in its written evidence that it believes
“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach.”
We have also heard evidence from the Association of Colleges, which said it was
“disappointed the Government have tabled an amendment to remove”
the reference to post-16 education providers. It is quite rightly disappointed.
Warwickshire College Group, based in my town, is a huge college that covers Warwickshire—I think it is still the sixth largest in the country, so it is a college of some substance. It wrote to me to say that it wants to ensure that colleges are co-constructing LSIPs with employers and that it very much needs to be involved, because it is within the power of colleges to further think strategically—that comes back to the point I was making earlier—and innovate for the skills needs of their communities.
We have also heard from the Workers Education Association. Its submission said:
“We are pleased that the Bill…should “draw on the views of”…further education institutions, community learning providers”,
and others, and that:
“We hope to see this retained and strengthened in the…Act.”
Then we get to organisations such as Central YMCA, which said that, as an independent training provider, it believes it is vital that LSIPs should draw on the views of organisations such as themselves, as well as those of schools and FE colleges.
The LGA believes that the Lords amendment should be maintained, to ensure that all employer representative bodies across England should
“work with local democratic organisations to better coordinate provision and align pathways of progression for learners.”
Andrew Gwynne
I do not want to prolong the debate on this group, but the Minister, in the discussion on the previous group, sought to assure the Committee that the approach was genuinely collaborative. Yet this group of amendments strikes out Lords amendments that would make the approach genuinely collaborative. I do not understand the thinking here. I cannot understand what the Minister thinks he is gaining or achieving by striking out the Lords amendments.
Let us look at the amendments in detail. Government amendment 6 would strike out, in clause 1(7)(a),
“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers”.
The explanatory notes state that the reference to mayoral combined authorities is not required because that point has now been made clear through the earlier Government amendment that we have passed. I accept that point, but there is still a role for other local, non-mayoral combined authorities to have a view and an input into the skills agenda for their area, whether that is a unitary authority or a county council. These issues are part and parcel of what those local authorities do.
Emma Hardy
It feels like removing the Lords amendment will result in democratic accountability if the area has a Mayor; if it does not, there is no democratic accountability. An area such as Hull, which has no mayoral authority, has no democratic accountability or reference in the Bill. That feels unfair.
Andrew Gwynne
It not only feels unfair; it is unfair. I get that mayoral combined authorities have specific skills responsibilities devolved to them, so clearly the level of input from a mayoral combined authority is greater than that of a county council or a unitary authority that does not have those specific responsibilities devolved to them, but the council’s strategy for that area will involve education, skills and economic development. Those are important elements for county and unitary authorities.
Mr Perkins
I fear it is actually worse. The Government amendment agreed by the Committee a moment ago did give a role to mayoral combined authorities, but that role was that the Secretary of State had to satisfy himself that they had been consulted. The pen is still held by the chamber of commerce. The Lords amendment that the Government amendments in this group get rid of are about genuine partnership. The Bill, as brought from the Lords, states that it will include
“an employer representative body in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.
That partnership is being entirely removed. Metro Mayors are being left as a statutory consultee, which the Secretary of State must satisfy himself are being consulted. The other partners will have no role whatsoever, except for in guidance, which will say, “Make sure you talk to them.” This change is about moving from a partnership approach to a consultee, subservient approach.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is absolutely right. When we look at what else is being deleted from clause 1, subsection (7)(b)(ii) talks about
“regional and local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities, within the specified area with specific reference to published plans and strategies which have been developed by these authorities”.
All those authorities have plans and strategies; I listed a number of them in relation to Greater Manchester. If the mayoral combined authorities are going to be involved in this, why take out a specific reference to the plans that have been developed by them? As I said previously, unitary authorities and county authorities have those strategies too, yet they have no say whatsoever.
Andrew Gwynne
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because he was first, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and I would like to draw him further on it. I accept and respect what the Government are doing with some of the allocations of moneys to towns through the towns fund and so on, but it seems odd that we have some visionary authorities, not just at county level but at town and district level, that are doing extremely good work—I include my own in that—and they are not included. They should be party to this. They know what they want to do, they know what they are capable of, they know the areas where they can develop and they need those skills to ensure it is realised. I emphasise that those sorts of authorities should be included as well.
Andrew Gwynne
I completely agree. Every layer of local government has an interest in the health and wellbeing—in the broadest sense—of the population. The best way to improve the health and wellbeing of the population is to ensure that people have good skills, good education and good job opportunities. That is the route to health and wellbeing, and that is true both at the district level and at upper levels.
Emma Hardy
I want to highlight to Government Members, although I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield will know this as leader of a local council, that local councils have a statutory duty for all children with special educational needs or disabilities up to the age of 25. They have a statutory duty for looked-after children. They have a statutory duty regarding the number of young people not in employment, education or training—NEETs—as well. They have those statutory duties, yet the Government amendments remove their voice from the local skills plan. That does not seem right.
Andrew Gwynne
It absolutely does not seem right. I have spent a lot of time on local government, but the same part of subsection (7)(b) that will be struck out if Government amendment 7 is made goes further. While the line
“draws on the views of…employers operating within the specified area”
stays in, regional and local authorities, mayoral combined authorities and their strategies are taken out, but so are
“post-16 education providers active in the specified area, including schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”.
It is incomprehensible that those bodies would not be part and parcel of the deliberations on and the creation of the strategies.
Matt Western
If I may make one final point to address my hon. Friend’s own point, universities and higher education providers across the country are working well—some extremely well—in collaborating and co-sponsoring courses with their FE institutions. The idea that they would be excluded from the plans seems beyond ridiculous.
Andrew Gwynne
It is barmy—there is no other word for it. We are here debating a Skills and Post-16 Education Bill and we are excluding the very bodies that have a direct interest in skills and post-16 education. I just do not understand the Government’s thinking. They have promised collaboration, but you cannot have collaboration if the people and bodies delivering the skills agenda on the ground are explicitly excluded from the creation of those plans.
Tom Hunt
Of course, the bodies that are delivering technical and skills qualifications will continue to have a significant role. Surely the hon. Member must realise that the whole point of local skills improvement plans is to give a strong voice to local businesses? There are other avenues and ways in which providers can shape the offering.
Andrew Gwynne
I would like to know what the avenues are and why they are not in the Bill. If we are talking about developing a genuine partnership and collaboration, and if we are saying, “This is the skills agenda for our country. These are the needs of the next generation of workers in our country. This is where our country is heading with the jobs of tomorrow. This is the inward investment we want to bring in to our country. These are the things we want to make and do and build in our country,” we cannot do that just through business. Business is the way we create jobs, but it is educational institutions, universities and colleges that give the next generation the skills to deliver the strategy on the ground.
Matt Western
To give one simple example, and to be fair to the Government, the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre was developed through a university working with a local authority and a series of businesses. That is what we are talking about. It is about how we bring bodies together to develop plans, have a vision and then get the skills needed to deliver it. That is one brilliant example. We cannot have these plans simply designed by businesses.
Andrew Gwynne
No, we cannot. In other countries where there is a partnership between academia and industry, I have seen that the concepts of products are developed in universities, enterprise parks and science parks, and with the support of business they are brought to the market and developed across the world. I know that I have spoken a lot about Manchester, but one good example is the development of graphene by the University of Manchester. We are a world leader in that technology, and that was born out of genuine collaboration. Excluding universities and colleges from the plans for the economic development of our country is therefore barmy.
Ben Bradley
It is important to clarify this point, and I assume the Minister will do so as well. The hon. Member keeps using the word “exclude” as if others will be unable to take part in these conversations, and that is certainty not what amendment 7 says. Opposition Members have argued that the Government are taking too much central control, but when the Government try to give those at the local level flexibility to include the people they want to include, as opposed to mandating that certain groups be included, the hon. Member says that it is not specific enough. I wonder which one he is actually after.
Surely it would be better for local skills plans to be put together by partners who want to be involved, because not all the businesses or local bodies that he mentions will want or have the capacity to engage, and to have local flexibility to choose the most representative groups, rather than it being decreed that all such organisations must be involved in the discussions. It could become very unwieldly if we had to include every sixth form or FE provider in a whole region in those bodies. Surely flexibility is a good thing.
Andrew Gwynne
Clearly their lordships thought differently from the hon. Gentleman, and I think he is reading a different Bill. I will read it out to him. It says:
“draw on the views of employers operating within the specified area”.
The plans will be drawn from the views of employers.
Andrew Gwynne
Why does it need to specify employers, and only employers? It is a very one-sided view, and it strikes out regional and local authorities, post-16 education providers that are active in the area, schools, FE institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities.
To come on to my final point, why is
“such sources of information on long-term national skills needs as the Secretary of State may specify”
being removed? If the Government spotted on the horizon that there was likely to be a skills shortage, especially in our brave new world where we have taken back control and will upskill our own population to meet the coming challenges, I would expect the Secretary of State to ensure that our long-term national skills needs were included in every single one of those plans across England. Again, it is incomprehensible to think that the Secretary of State would not say to each and every one of those local areas, “We need to make sure that we have enough skills to do x, y or z, because we will face skills shortages in the future.”
To conclude, I cannot fathom the logic behind striking out these Lords amendments. Doing so runs against everything the Minister said a moment ago about collaboration. If he believed in true collaboration—a true partnership— he would not be doing this today.
Alex Burghart
It has been another lively and interesting debate on this group of amendments. The Government want to build an employer-led system, but the statutory guidance—yes, statutory guidance—will make it clear that the employer representative bodies that the Bill creates must consult a range of partners and collaborate with them.
On the removal of schools and other providers, the Bill is already clear that all relevant providers, including further education colleges, independent training providers, universities and sixth-form colleges need to be involved in the development of the LSIP—that is stated in subsection (4)—and if designated employer representative bodies do not have regard to relevant statutory guidance on engaging with relevant providers and do not comply with the terms and conditions of their designation, the Secretary of State may not approve or publish the local skills improvement plan and could remove their designation.
The national dimension is very important, and we expect local skills improvement plans to be informed by national skills priorities and to help address national, as well as local, skills needs. However, where there are national skills shortages in critical areas, we can expect the Government to carry on playing a role in helping alleviate them, as we are doing at the moment. We put £17 million into rapidly upskilling people to help meet the needs of the heavy goods vehicle sector, where we have significant shortages, and I have been pleased to see that that is going very well. That will not fall away.
Turning to the question of dropping the reference to long-term national skill needs, the Bill already makes reference to the fact that LSIPs will need to look at future skills needs—that is stated in subsections (2) and (7)(b)(iii). The Opposition made a very important point about the role of the public sector. Let us think about the phrase “employer representative bodies”: there is a very big role for business, but in many areas, the public sector is a major employer and will need to be involved in this process. We want ERBs to reach beyond their existing membership and cover both public and private employers.
Emma Hardy
The Minister has mentioned the employer-led bodies in the public sector. Could he pick up on my point about SMEs, which might not be part of an employer-led body but, in some regions, are the main employers?
Alex Burghart
We are expecting ERBs to draw up local skills improvement plans that take account of the economic area that they represent, which should absolutely include small and medium-sized employers, as well as self-employment opportunities.
While Opposition Members may feel that these things can be done only if every detail is written out in primary legislation, we know that that is not the case, because we have eight excellent trailblazer areas at the moment that are doing this job without a mite of primary legislation. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Perkins
On a point of order, Mrs Miller. Do we not decide on the other Government amendments? Are we doing those later?
The Chair
No, this is one of the wonderful complications of the Committee system. We do that later.
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(iv) groups representing the interests of people with disabilities,”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans draw on the views of groups representing the interests of people with disabilities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, after “evidence” insert
“, including the views of relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people,”.
This amendment intends to ensure that the evidence informing LSIP development includes information directly relevant to improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies actions to be taken to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the LSIP is used as a vehicle for improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 28, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans identify positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area covered by the Plans.
Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) lists specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.”
This amendment would require that local skills improvement plans list specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(iii) the body is composed of employers who demonstrate reputable practice in relation to equality and diversity in employment, including in relation to disability, and”.
This amendment intends to ensure that members of the body with primary responsibility for creating the LSIP have sufficient understanding of and commitment to equality and diversity, including in relation to disability, to enable them to create an inclusive plan.
Mr Perkins
Amendment 27 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. Amendment 27 and amendment 1 would add the words
“groups representing the interests of people with disabilities”
and
“relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people”
to clause 1, on local skills improvement plans. Given the discussion that we have just had, it is incredibly important that the consultees include those who represent people with learning disabilities and those who might be furthest from the labour market for a variety of reasons. Given the votes that have just taken place and are scheduled to take place, we are particularly concerned that there is a possibility that people furthest from the labour market, who will take the most work in order to contribute in meaningful employment, will be excluded. There is a disturbing lack of attention paid in the Bill to people with special needs or disabilities.
Amendment 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), would enshrine a role for representative bodies to devise specific plans of support for people with disabilities in local skills improvement plans. That is of tremendous importance. One of the things that is most important for the FE sector, and one of the greatest contributions it makes, is to support those people who are furthest from the labour market to get the skills that they need, through such things as supported internships and other innovative ideas that many of us have seen in action in our local colleges. Those programmes often take a considerable amount of work, but they make a life-changing difference to those people. A skills Bill that genuinely represents everyone must be mindful of the need for the local skills improvement plan to ensure that no one is left behind.
Amendment 2, which also appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, is the same as amendment 28, and adds the need for an LSIP to identify positive—
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. I encourage Members to wear a face covering, except when they are speaking or if they are exempt. That is in line with the Commission’s recommendations. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to the usual address. I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. The programme motion, which stands in the Minister’s name, was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 30 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 2 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 December;
2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 7 December.—(Alex Burghart.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Burghart.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email in the usual way.
The Committee will now proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available on the table; it shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
A number of newer Members are present, so I will go through this for clarity. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment, or seek a decision—a vote. If a Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I am not a mind reader—bear that in mind.
Clause 1
Local skills improvement plans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out “subsection (6)” and insert “subsections (6) and (6A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Alex Burghart
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller? I have no doubt that you will guide us, chivvy us and harry us through the six sittings ahead of us. It is my pleasure to speak to amendments 4 and 5 in my name, relating to local skills improvement plans and the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority in their development.
Mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority play a vital role in supporting local communities, developing local economies and strengthening local skills systems. The Government recognise the importance of their work in their area as a commissioner and convenor with devolved adult education functions. As part of devolution, a sizeable proportion of the national adult education budget has been transferred to them. Their views and priorities therefore need to be brought to bear in the development of local skills improvement plans to help ensure that they are effective. That is already happening in our trailblazer areas, which deliberately feature a number with mayoral combined authorities. In recognition of their important role, the Government are bringing forward amendment 5, which will place on the Secretary of State a duty to approve and publish a local skills improvement plan only when satisfied that the designated employer representative body has, during the development of that plan, given due consideration to the views of the mayoral combined authority or Greater London Authority, where it covers the specified area.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I would like to take a moment at the start of these proceedings to talk about the importance of the Bill and the approach that the Labour party will be taking to it, alongside Government amendments 4 and 5.
The skills Bill is of tremendous importance. We recognise that there has been, for a significant time, too little investment in skills and in the next generation. In particular, the drastic funding cuts during the past 11 years have had a dramatic impact on our further education sector and on the skills of the nation. It is recognised by many businesses, employers and players in the further education sector that we have fallen behind.
The Bill represents the Government’s approach to addressing the backlog, and they tell us that this approach places employers at the heart of the skills strategy and skills agenda. When I first heard that, it sounded familiar to me, having been a Member of Parliament for the past 11 years. I thought, “Where have I heard it said before that employers will be at the heart of the skills strategy?” I believed that I had heard that from a previous skills Minister, so we did a bit of research in my office, and it turns out that we have heard it from almost all of them.
Back in January 2011, the then skills Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), said of the Government’s approach to skills and apprenticeships:
“The entire focus of our Skills Strategy is in building a training system that is employer led…Indeed helping meet those skills needs, in businesses across the country, will make a major contribution to economic growth.”
In 2015, the apprenticeship levy was introduced, and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, told us that we now had a system in the hands of an employer-led institute for apprenticeships, and that his levy would be a
“radical, long overdue” new approach to apprenticeship funding. He said in this place that it was
“to raise the skills of the nation and address one of the enduring weaknesses of the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1370.]
His skills Minister at the time, former Tory MP Nick Boles, said:
“At the heart of the apprenticeship drive is the principle that no one better understands the skills employers need than employers themselves.”
By 2017, the Government were telling us this:
“The Apprenticeship Levy is a cornerstone of the government’s skills agenda, creating a system which puts employers at the heart of designing and funding apprenticeships to support productivity and growth.”
In 2018, the then Education Secretary, now the Minister for Security and Borders, told us that local enterprise partnerships were
“business-led partnerships…at the heart of responding to skills needs and building local industrial strategies that will help individuals and businesses gain the skills they need to grow.”
The rhetoric behind this Bill is exactly the rhetoric that we have been listening to for the past 11 years. Indeed, if the approaches of the past 11 years, which we were told placed employers at the heart of skills policy, had worked, we would not need this Bill. The Government are once again returning with the same prescription for the same ailment. They are once again failing to meet the size of the challenge, and in some cases are heading in the wrong direction altogether.
We have a new Secretary of State in post, of course. He is at great pains to tell people that there will be a change of tone and approach. The Bill was the brainchild of the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), if that is not an oxymoron, who was his predecessor—a man who believed in seizing as much power for himself as possible. Since the appointment of the new Secretary of State, we have been told there will be a change of tone and approach, but the Government’s approach to the cross-party amendments brought by their Lordships is not promising.
We entirely support the amendments in this group, which are about the mayoral combined authorities, but it is remarkable that the Government needed to introduce them; that demonstrates that the Government produced the skills Bill without any recognition of the issue.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has identified a key challenge that the Government are looking to tackle. It will clearly be difficult, but we hope that they will be successful. Does he agree that part of the reason why the challenge is so significant is that the previous Labour Government almost entirely ignored technical education and skills, with their obsession with universities and a 50% target?
Mr Perkins
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question. That has long been the lament. I speak to my colleagues who were involved in skills policy under the Labour Government, and their retort is that the investment in skills under the Labour Government was far greater than what we have seen in the 11 years that followed. There is nothing contradictory in wanting a strategy that allows as many people who want a university education and who are capable of it to have one, and that also has a real commitment to investment in skills.
Over the 11 years of this Government, we have seen the trashing of the idea that universities should be an aspiration for everyone. Alongside that rhetoric—an example of which we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman—we have seen a massive reduction in the investment in skills, and we have seen policies that do not work. The apprenticeship levy led to a massive reduction in the number of apprenticeships. What is said is one thing; what is done is quite another.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Back in the mid-2000s, did not the Labour Government, who predated my time here, introduce national skills academies? The whole point of them was to develop skills across the piece and drive the development of courses that could run in colleges across the UK.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We feel very strongly that we need investment in skills, but we also need a strategic approach that brings in different Government Departments and recognises that skills are the responsibility of not just the Department for Education, but of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury. There has to be recognition that this is about the kind of economy, as well as the kind of skills system, that we are looking to build. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on the Labour Government’s approach, and the investments they made.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I was a college lecturer in the era that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned. Curriculum 2000 was an absolute, unmitigated disaster. AVCEs—advanced vocational certificates of education—were withdrawn very quickly. The money that was pumped in was pumped into all the wrong places, and we ended up in a situation where people went to university because there were no proper options for BTECs at level 4 or level 5, or Cambridge technicals or City and Guilds, or anything else. It is not just BTECs but the Pearson monolith we are talking about here.
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I accept that she has a long track record in this sector, and that is an important contribution to this debate. The investment in skills then was on a different level from the investment that has taken place since. I am very happy to spend the entire debate talking about the previous 20 years; it would be interesting but not entirely fruitful. I accept that she feels, as she said on Second Reading, that changes to higher national diplomas were damaging; she was negative about the drive towards university education. Like the Labour Government, I believe that we should recognise that it is a brutal world for those who do not have skill. A drive towards university education should not be at the expense of college education; they should be two hands working closely together.
The Chair
Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I will allow Mr Perkins to respond.
Mr Perkins
It was such a controversial intervention that people wanted to intervene on it. I do not entirely accept what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby says—that a university degree is not a contribution to the skills of the nation. She hits on a view that is at the heart of much of this Government’s approach, which is that education has value only in so far as it is used in the work that someone goes on to do, and that there is a very narrow distinction between skills or vocational education, which is useful, and university education, which is theoretical, abstract, and of little value. I do not recognise that distinction at all.
The Chair
May I gently remind people that, while I think it is appropriate to have a broader debate at the beginning, we are talking about amendments 4 and 5?
Mr Perkins
Sure. I take your point, Mrs Miller. However, the intervention from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby highlights an important broader issue: of course skills and vocational education will always need to lead people being able to find work, but constantly decrying university education, on the basis that it is somehow not delivering that, is mistaken. There has been a real drive by this Government to frame the further education and higher education sectors as enemies that must be pitted against each other. Our approach recognises them as two important, powerful strongholds in supporting this nation to be the kind of nation that it wants to be.
Mr Perkins
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish; then, if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South wishes to come in, I will take her intervention.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think he is absolutely right: we are heading into that age-old trap of not only dividing the academic from the vocational in further education, but implying that higher education is solely an academic route. There are many vocational higher education qualifications out there, and we must not ignore that. On Government amendment 5, the exact point that Andy Burnham—the Mayor of Greater Manchester—and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority have been making for years is that for the Greater Manchester city region to succeed, we must ensure that its skills agenda embraces not only the academic but the vocational, so that we have the skills for the jobs of tomorrow.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman has neatly brought us back onto the subject of this debate, so I thank him for that.
Mr Perkins
I encourage my hon. Friend to expand on that point, because he is absolutely right. It is remarkable that the Government have been forced to introduce Government amendment 5, because it means that they brought the Bill forward without recognising any role for authorities that already have this funding devolved to them in the first place. It is a fairly dramatic change. The approach that Labour would take to local skills improvement plans is fundamentally different from that of the Government.
The Government are taking the approach that these are employer-led documents—that phrase again. They are documents of tremendous importance, so presumably the chambers of commerce will be holding the pen on them and will now, as a result of Government amendment 5, be forced to convince the Secretary of State that they have properly taken on board the views of those democratically elected to lead on skills policy in their areas. So many other important contributors are left on the side lines.
Labour’s approach would be to say that we need to recognise the importance of local skills improvement plans that will dictate the direction of skills policy. What we need is a local skills improvement plan that brings together the role of public and private sector employers; that brings in further education colleges; that brings in significant independent training providers within an area; and that is held together by those with democratic accountability, such as metro Mayors and local authorities. That holistic approach would deliver a skills policy that everyone would be able to get behind and recognise as representative.
The Government’s approach is very much about placing the chambers of commerce at the heart of this, but in fact they have had to bring forward an amendment to even put the metro Mayors and combined authorities back into that role. We support Government amendment 5, but it is remarkable that it was necessary at all.
I would like the Minister to expand on whether Government amendment 4 impacts clause 6 in terms of the duty placed on local skills improvement plans for compliance with section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008. It is crucial that skills policy drives us towards a net zero future, so it is important to understand whether the intention is to undermine that commitment when it comes to Government amendment 4.
Again, we support Government amendment 5, although we are confused about why it is needed and why it was not central to the approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, it is important that we recognise that mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority already have responsibilities in terms of policy and funding for further education and skills, and that they both have good professional relationships with employers, colleges and training providers in their areas. I have been along to meet them in Manchester and have seen their excellent work on careers guidance and their constructive approach to independent providers and the FE sector. That is a great example of how devolved decision makers are better in touch with the needs of their communities than a centralised approach.
It is a shame that the Bill, the brainchild of the former Secretary of State, is a return to the centralisation agenda that has too often bedevilled Whitehall thinking. It was clearly a driving force in the legislation. It is inconceivable that local skills improvement plans could have flown in the face of decisions made locally. It is therefore important to understand what protections there will be for existing funding arrangements with regard to those put in place by metro Mayors. Will they be transferred to employer representative bodies or will there be a dual system?
The Government propose that employer representative bodies consider the views of mayoral combined authorities or the Greater London Authority but, as was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich on Second Reading, what does that say about those communities that are not within metro Mayor areas? The majority of my colleagues on the Labour Benches are in metro Mayor areas—I am one of the relatively few who are not—but many colleagues on the Conservative Benches are in areas that have local enterprise partnerships, which were originally meant to bring together many of the different power brokers. It seems that democratic accountability is missing entirely in areas outside the metro Mayor areas.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
This is a crucial point, which I hope we will come to as our consideration of the Bill develops: how do we define regions and regional consultation? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby might have an idea completely different from mine about what constitutes the best region when looking at skills and skills development. I hope that the Minister will take that point away and look to define that later as we go through the Bill.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely. To return to the subject of the amendment concerning mayoral combined authorities, the phrase “due consideration” is noticeably vague. The kind of due consideration that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire might have given to the views of the Mayor of Manchester would have left me—and, no doubt, the Mayor of Manchester—with sleepless nights. We hope that a more thoughtful approach is now in place and we welcome the change of tone, but we are not seeing a change in policy.
Emma Hardy
On that issue of “due consideration” and its vagueness, will the Minister agree to look at producing some guidance on what constitutes due consideration? Is that a consultation that has happened on one occasion, or on a number of occasions? How do we define “due consideration” to ensure that the democratic accountability to which my hon. Friend is referring is put at the heart of the Bill?
Mr Perkins
I agree with that absolutely. The next part of that—to extend what my hon. Friend is saying—is to ask whether there is a right of appeal for a combined authority or metro Mayor in the event that they do not consider that due consideration has been given to their views. If they think that the employer representative body has put together a local skills improvement plan that has not taken into account the representations made on one or more areas, will there be a right of appeal? Will the fact that the metro Mayor considers that due consideration was not given be able to pause the local skills improvement plan and bring people together?
What role does the Secretary of State consider that he will have? As I said, the previous Secretary of State was very much a centraliser—he wanted his hands on every single decision—and that clearly runs through the Bill. He had all these frustrations with the fact that individual organisations were not doing exactly what he wanted, so he wanted the power to tell them that they had to. Is that the sort of approach that this Secretary of State will take? Having appointed the chambers of commerce to make decisions before those who are democratically elected to do so, he appears to be positioning himself as the arbiter in a whole variety of local decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Emma Hardy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. Looking at the room, I see that people on both sides are genuinely interested in education matters. I hope that this will be a good Committee that really scrutinises the legislation before us in a shared ambition to make the Bill the best that it can be.
I will be brief. I have already made an intervention about guidance on what constitutes due consideration and about the arbitration processes for conflict over whether someone believes they have been duly considered. Will there be a timeframe for that due consideration? Local engagement and agreement for the skills plans is absolutely crucial, so having that clearly laid out is fundamental.
I hope the Minister will clarify something. I may be misreading the Bill, but am I right in thinking that further education colleges have been removed from consultation, or is that part of a later amendment? The Lords tabled an amendment to ensure that local school improvement plans are co-developed with colleges, local government, elected Mayors, employers and so on. Am I right in thinking that colleges are no longer listed as part of the consultation process, or will that be addressed in another amendment? I may have made a mistake, in which case the Minister will correct me.
We are basing everything on employers and the jobs available now, but has the Minister thought about future-proofing the local skills development plans to include industries that will be developed in future, especially in relation to climate, green changes and so on? We might create the best possible plan for jobs that exist now, but that might not be the plan that we want in five years’ time, so will such future-proofing be included?
Tom Hunt
I will make just a few very brief comments. I think that the local skills improvement plans are a huge step in the right direction. It is clearly crucial that local businesses should play a role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges. We need to have far more of an ecosystem approach when it comes to the role of employers, schools, FE colleges and further education. Too often, it seems as if they are kind of on the sides.
Mr Perkins
What does the hon. Gentleman say to my earlier point, which was that what he is saying is exactly what has been said about every single Conservative skills reform in the last 11 years? They always claim that they are putting employers at the heart of the measures. Why does he think those previous approaches have failed?
Tom Hunt
To be honest, we are dealing with the Government we have today. I can say, as somebody with an interest in further education and skills, that this Bill is actually the most significant and potentially game-changing piece of Government legislation. My job is to look at the Bill before us today, and I think it is hugely in the right place. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made at this stage, and we will engage in doing that.
There is one quick point that I would like to make. When we talk about the local skills improvement plans and local employers playing a greater role in shaping the curriculum of further education colleges, I think it is important that we consider what might happen. I imagine that the vast majority of education providers will play ball and welcome that input from local business, but on occasions where there may be some resistance and that does not quite work, is there something that could be done to ensure that they come to the table to accept the advice and a steer from local business?
On my comments on Second Reading, which the hon. Member for Chesterfield has often mentioned, I recognise that there is a significant difference between mayoral combined authorities and regular upper-tier local authorities. Certain powers and funding have been devolved to mayoral combined authorities, and we do not have them in every area. I accept that, and I accept why the Government are treating mayoral combined authorities slightly differently from regular upper-tier authorities such as Suffolk County Council. I guess my view would be that the solution is to have more devolution. As somebody who recently, with other Suffolk colleagues, supported a bid for One Suffolk, I would be very happy if there were positive movements so that Suffolk was in a place to have the powers for its principal authority to play a role in local improvement plans.
Andrew Gwynne
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. My comments follow neatly on from those of the hon. Member for Ipswich, because the reality is that much of what the Government want to achieve in the Bill is starting to happen anyway in devolved combined authority areas where the skills agenda has been devolved. I welcome the emphasis on skills improvement plans and, now, the involvement of the mayoral combined authorities in them. It was perhaps remiss that that was not in the Bill originally, and I am pleased that the Minister has tabled an amendment to ensure that it is clearly in the Bill.
Devolution matters. It works, and it is working. It was a Labour Government who introduced the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which facilitates the devolution agenda. Greater Manchester, my own city region, was the first to have a combined authority in 2011. It had an interim Mayor in 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)—and a Mayor in 2017: Andy Burnham. The skills agenda is at the heart of the Greater Manchester combined authority’s strategies. It has a local industrial strategy. It has the Greater Manchester work and skills strategy and priorities. In 2019, it had the adult education budget devolved to it. It has Bridge GM, which links schools and employers.
The thing that I am most proud of, and which fits neatly in the agenda of the Bill, is the Greater Manchester skills for growth strategy, which is designed to fill occupational skills gaps in the Greater Manchester city region, and provide young people and adults with the skills needed to fill the gaps.
However, we need to go beyond that, and I urge the Minister to encourage combined authorities to future-proof and devolve them the powers to do so. Technology is moving at a rapid speed. Our city region economies are changing dramatically in a short space of time, and we need to ensure that the workforce of tomorrow has the skills of tomorrow, not the skills of today. I welcome the fact that the mayoral combined authorities will be included in the Bill.
Emma Hardy
On the skills for tomorrow, there is a huge concern about amendment 4, which removes subsection (6) on future issues around climate change and environmental goals. Surely those issues will only grow in importance. Removing that from the Bill seems incomprehensible.
Andrew Gwynne
It absolutely does. My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight that, because they are not only the challenges but the opportunities of tomorrow. I firmly believe that the United Kingdom can be a world leader in developing the technologies and equipment to help tackle some of the environmental challenges that the whole globe will face in the years to come. That is certainly true of my city region. It is also true of Hull, where there are huge opportunities not just on renewable power but to develop the next generation of technology.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend has prompted me to point out that wind turbines are made in the great city of Hull, and we are going to be one of the green energy capitals of the UK. I wanted to get that in Hansard.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—probably almost as grateful as she is to have had the chance to make that press release—and she is absolutely right.
I firmly believe that the skills agenda is linked to the industrial strategy agenda, not just for individual city regions, towns and counties, but for the country. If we want Britain to succeed, we must think not just about the here and now, but about the future. That involves bringing together skills and industrial strategy. In a small way, that is what we are doing in Greater Manchester through the devolution agenda.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point, which is at the heart of the difference between Labour and Conservative approaches. This Government’s approach is about moving towards a German-style skills system, but the Treasury and Business teams do not want a German-style economy. I very much welcome a step towards the German-style approach, but the Government are trying to impose a model on top of our economy, and that cannot be done without the drive towards an industrial strategy.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend must have eyes in the back of his head, because that was pretty much the next point that I wanted to make. It all hinges on the term “due consideration”. We are doing this in city regions such as Greater Manchester, and we are getting there. We have the skills, and we have good collaboration with local businesses to shape the agenda. We have a shared vision. I accept that that might not be the case in other devolved areas—there might be a degree of friction between the business community and the combined authority—but in Greater Manchester, it is genuinely a partnership. The skills programmes, strategies and priorities are genuinely developed in partnership.
The Minister talks about “due consideration” in relation to the amendment, but I want assurances from him that Ministers will take a genuinely collaborative approach and we will not end up with some monolithic, top-down and Whitehall-knows-best approach being imposed on city regions that are already starting to develop the very skills strategies that are envisaged in the Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister can address my concerns.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I will keep my comments brief, but I want to touch on some of the issues raised by colleagues.
First, LEPs, chambers of commerce and other instances of local involvement in skills plans have been mentioned. Some of those are excellent and some are awful. Will the Minister touch on what safeguards might exist for those plans, particularly in areas without combined authorities? Combined authorities have devolved local oversight or engagement in the plans, but for areas that do not, where will the safeguard be if chambers of commerce that are not delivering for business bring forward less effective plans?
Secondly, I should declare an interest as a local government leader in talks with Government about devolution. In all honesty, I would devolve adult skills to all upper-tier local authorities. However, recognising that areas with combined authorities will have local engagement in the discussion—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has mentioned future-proofing the Bill—does the Minister acknowledge that the Government are in talks about devolution with counties that will not be part of combined authorities, but that might have powers over adult skills? Is that something that has been considered in the wording of the Bill? Such areas might have that local input or devolved skills budgets and options available to them in future, although they might not be covered by the term combined authority.
Matt Western
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle was saying, it is great to be in a room that contains so many educationalists and educators, including my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who will bring a lot to bear on the Bill.
I will preface my remarks by turning to earlier comments on vocational qualifications and the relative value of one sector versus another. We must remind ourselves to talk about the HE sector as opposed to universities and think about the great breadth brought to our educational sector by higher education providers, who are diverse in nature.
On Government amendment 4, given that COP was a month ago and how disappointing it was, we must ensure that all Bills include elements that remind us of the importance of climate change, which is the issue of our time and that of decades to come. The Government are seeking to remove subsection (6), inserted by the Peers for the Planet group, which importantly sees LSIPs granted to authorities by the Secretary of State only if they comply with the duty in the Climate Change Act 2008. We must ensure that, at every opportunity, in every piece of legislation, that duty is embedded in our thinking, and future generations must know of our determination on that.
I am sure that the Government are committed to environmentalism—they certainly talk about their commitment—and addressing the issue. I urge Government Members to think about this measure as it is particularly important in terms of education and what is being shared with the next generation. I remind the Committee that it was a concession in the Lords, so I am surprised that it should be opposed in the Commons.
I turn to Government amendment 5. It is important when designating LSIPs to consider the views and wishes of the mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority. The Association of Colleges made that clear when it said:
“The voice of employers is critical—but it is also important that LSIPs reflect wider priorities too”.
Through the pandemic, we should have learned just how important localism is. One of the great successes was the delivery of track and trace and the vaccine programme locally. The same should be said of how we design our needs for skills and education in our regions. The principle of subsidiarity—decisions being made at the local level—is really important.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. We have a couple of enthusiasts for devolution of power on the Government side of the Committee, but I fear they may be disappointed because the Government’s approach to devolution is very much less enthusiastic than that of the previous Conservative Governments in 2015 and 2017. The Bill, which seeks to bring a lot of power back to the centre, seems to prove that.
Matt Western
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mansfield, will be disappointed about that. It is really important that the Government send clear messages about devolution and what they want to see, but in many facets of Government business there seems to be a greater concentration of powers coming into Whitehall and Ministers’ offices than devolution to the likes of Mansfield, Manchester, Liverpool the north-east and so on.
As I said, one of the great learnings of the last 20 months is just how brilliantly our local services and authorities can deliver things. That is because they understand their geography, their communities and their populations. I am concerned about how due consideration, a much-vented issue in the last half hour, might work, particularly given the reliance on the personality of the individual who happens to be in the seat at the time. I will not go into any further detail on that because it has already been much explored.
Will the Minister provide a bit more information on what factors will be considered in the designation of an LSIP? The Local Government Association has stated:
“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach. Without a meaningful role for local authorities, the reforms risk creating an even more fragmented skills system, with different providers subject to different skills plans”
I urge the Government and the Minister to listen and respond to the experience of the Local Government Association.
Emma Hardy
Let me offer the Minister a concrete example of the situation in Hull. We have the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce, which reaches over to the south bank, and we have a newly formed LEP that serves just Hull and the East Riding. We have a careers scheme for Hull and the Humber, and separate counties that have no overall mayoral authority, but an elected police commissioner for the whole of the Humber. To say that is muddled does not go far enough. I really feel that the amendment should make allowances for areas that are as muddled as Hull.
Matt Western
That is a good illustration of just how complicated these matters can be. I hope that there will be greater clarity on how the measures will work in future.
We have heard from colleagues how well things can work, including my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who told us about how Manchester is just getting on with it. Having been up there recently, I have seen the extraordinary work of that cluster of universities and colleges, and how they are co-operating and collaborating in their brilliant work to bring skills to their known geography—I want to place on the record how mighty impressive that was. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield on counties and how they work in their regions; that must be clarified as well.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I ran a business in Greater Manchester’s Media City for many years. I saw the work of universities; in fact, I saw the universities arrive in MediaCity while I was working there. It was employers who actually drove that forward. I have listened to Opposition Members talking about local government and universities driving things forward, but businesses have been driving forward the skills agenda in Greater Manchester for many years. We have to put on the record the important role that business plays in that. The skills agenda is not being driven by local government alone; businesses are really at the heart of it.
Matt Western
I knew it was Warrington. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—I worked in the industry for many years myself. Businesses have an important part to play as consultees, but my concern is about the balance struck between what business wants and wider needs—we have to get an absolute balance between that.
To give the hon. Gentleman a small example, Warwick University, which is close to my constituency, was founded back in the 1960s, but it was founded off the back of the automotive industry. That did not mean that it should be an automotive industry establishment, and it is not. It happens to be one of the best universities in the UK and globally, but it was part founded by industry. That is where collaboration can work, and the last Labour Government certainly looked very closely at that when developing regional plans to promote industries. I take on board his point that industries and businesses have an important role to play as consultees, but plans should not be explicitly or purely at their direction.
Alex Burghart
What an interesting debate to start off the Committee stage of the Bill. There are so many comments to come back to. As a general observation, it was very nice to hear the hon. Member for Chesterfield praise Conservative predecessors of mine for their comments about an employer-led system, which we have indeed been building up during our time in power. The Bill is simply the next stage in that process.
The fact that that process was required was first highlighted in a 2011 report by the Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. I do not want to get into the deep politics of it—we have the Bill to consider—but that report was written after Labour had been in power for 13 years. He felt that it was necessary to begin long-term reform of the skills system to make it more responsive to the needs of business and to make sure that students could get the qualifications they needed and the technical skills to go into the jobs that the economy demands. It is a great honour to present the Bill as a means of taking those ideas on to their next stage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesterfield for saying that Labour will support the amendments and the local skills improvement plans. However, I need to clarify a point made by a number of Opposition Members: the Government are not removing clause 1(6). That seems to be a point of confusion. Clause 1(6) stands part of the Bill. Government amendment 5 would insert subsection (6A) to clause 1, on page 2, in line 32. It does not do anything to clause 1(6).
Emma Hardy
On a point of clarity—forgive me if I have this wrong— amendment 4 does seem to leave out subsection (6). My mistake—it says
“leave out ‘subsection (6)’ and insert ‘subsections (6) and (6A)’”.
Alex Burghart
With that in mind, and in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on the impact of Government amendment 4 on clause 6, there is no friction at all between Government amendment 4 and clause 6. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to clause 1(6) and (6A) when deciding to approve and publish a plan. I hope that has cleared that up.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised a point about LSIPs and colleges, which will be dealt with in statutory guidance. The Secretary of State will lay very good statutory guidance on how employer representative bodies will work and how local skills improvement plans will be written.
We expect the whole process to be collaborative. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke very well about the existing collaboration in the system. It is something that we recognise in all of our combined mayoral authorities. We do not see there being any great friction or need for friction. We want to see authorities, businesses and providers working in harmony, as many of them already do. What we are doing in the Bill, and in these clauses, is simply creating a process that helps establish that good working.
I was up in Salford not long ago, in MediaCity, where I saw some of the Government’s fantastic digital boot camps. Young people—and some not so young people—are learning the skills of tomorrow at speed in 16-week courses, getting apprenticeships in MediaCity and meeting people who have previously done the apprenticeships, who now have jobs in MediaCity. We saw that Government initiative backed by local business is not in friction with the good work the local Mayor was doing—instead, it complements it. We also saw the local economy boosted as a result.
Some of the remarks made by hon. Members suggested that there is always going to be a terrible tension between what local political leadership and businesses are trying to do, and what local providers want to do. I do not think that will be the case. In fact, there is an enormous amount of goodwill in the system and people are desirous of working towards the same aims.
On the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich and for Mansfield, do I see before me two future leaders in their respective areas? Well, one leader already, but who knows if they will become greater leaders still? Obviously, at the moment combined authorities have a greater responsibility for adult skills than local authorities do, which is why we put them on the face of the Bill. In the course of statutory guidance and as situations evolve, perhaps it will be possible for us to set out how we expect that work to evolve.
I do not recognise the comments made by some Opposition Members about this Government not having an appetite for devolution. Success has many fathers. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about how Labour’s devolutionary reforms led to mayoral combined authorities, but I remember the Manchester devolution deal being done under the Conservatives.
Andrew Gwynne
I can second-guess where the Minister is going and I am grateful to him for giving way, but I was merely pointing out that the piece of legislation that permits combined authorities was one of the last pieces of legislation that was introduced by a Labour Government. It was clear that was where Labour was heading, but credit where it is due. David Cameron and George Osborne did allow significant devolution to my city region.
The Chair
Order. As interesting as devolution is, can we remind ourselves that we are talking about local skills improvement plans?
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Mrs Miller, and with your prompting I will refer to one more point.
Emma Hardy
I apologise if I am being tiresome, but just so I have understood this correctly, can the Minister confirm that the amendment leaves out subsections (6)(b), “adaptation to climate change” and (6)(c), “meeting other environmental goals”, but leaves subsection (6)(a)? Does the amendment remove paragraphs (b) and (c), lines 30 to 32, with those specific references to “climate change” and “other environmental goals”?
Alex Burghart
I believe I am right in saying that the amendment keeps clause 1(6)(a).
Alex Burghart
In the amendment, subsections (6)(b) and (6)(c) will not stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
So that we are all clear, does that mean that “adaptation to climate change” and “meeting other environmental goals” are being removed?
The Chair
Minister, would you like to complete your remarks and maybe others can provide you with a little bit more information?
Alex Burghart
That is very kind, Mrs Miller. I will seek absolute clarity on this point, but my understanding is that the Secretary of State will still have to have regard to section 1 of the Climate Change 2008. That is an important concession that was made in the House of Lords, for obvious reasons.
To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, one of the major players—perhaps the major player—in what this Bill seeks to achieve is business. It is often business that drives, through its work with local providers, a responsive system, which means that the employers of today ensure that the employees of tomorrow have the skills that they need.
Andy Carter
In Warrington, we have used the town deal to put a focus on skills, with the employer at the heart of it. A digital skills academy has been created in Warrington, driven by employers but facilitated by the local authority, allowing the focus for colleges and for future growth in those areas. Businesses have really been at the heart of that work, which for me is so important.
Alex Burghart
That point is well made, and I very much hope to visit Warrington in the near future and see that good work.
Mr Perkins
The Minister may have received guidance that might help him, but as I understood it, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (6) all remain in the Bill; he is simply adding proposed new subsection (6A), which we have just been debating. The amendment does not take out any of the paragraphs in subsection (6), unless I have misunderstood it.
Alex Burghart
To bring a bit of clarification to proceedings, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. Contrary to some of the messages that Opposition Members gave earlier, we are keeping all of clause 1(6)—that means paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment made: 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
‘(6A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a relevant authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that in the development of the plan due consideration was given to the views of the relevant authority.
For this purpose “relevant authority” means—
(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning of Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (see section 107A(8) of that Act), or
(b) the Greater London Authority.’—(Alex Burghart.)
The effect of this amendment is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that due consideration has been given to the views of a mayoral combined authority or the Greater London Authority before approving a local skills improvement plan for an area that covers any of their area.
The Chair
We had some quite general debate on that group. I hope people have got things off their chest. Perhaps we could have a slightly more focused debate as we move forward.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, leave out from “body” to “for” in line 37.
The effect of this amendment is that a local skills improvement plan will be a plan developed by an employer representative body which is designated for a specified area. This amendment, together with Amendments 7, 8 and 9, reverse an amendment made at Lords Report.
Alex Burghart
The amendments strip back some of the detail in clause 1(7), which can be better dealt with in statutory guidance. As well as engaging a wide range of employers, a designated employer representative body should work closely with all relevant providers, local authorities and other key local stakeholders to develop its plan. Without such widespread engagement, the resulting plan is not likely to be very effective. Key stakeholders with valuable local intelligence include, but are not limited to, the Careers and Enterprise Company, local careers hubs, National Careers Service area-based contractors and Jobcentre Plus. Our expectations on local stakeholder engagement will be set out clearly within the statutory guidance. The guidance can be updated regularly to reflect evolving needs and priorities, as well as best practice. It also enables the required level of detail to be captured.
Clause 1 already places duties on relevant providers to co-operate with employer representative bodies to ensure that their valuable knowledge and experience directly inform the development of the plans, so that they are evidence-based, credible and actionable. Clause 4 makes it clear that relevant providers include independent training providers and universities. I therefore do not believe that the Lords amendment is needed, particularly given the MCA and GLA amendment that we have just discussed.
Mr Perkins
These are four significant amendments. Notwithstanding the assurances that we have just received from the Minister, they specifically take out what I think was a very strong amendment, supported by Members across the House of Lords, that added the importance of a collaborative approach to the Bill. For all the Minister said in that contribution, and the one before, about the importance of these partnership arrangements, it is not really a partnership arrangement. It is clear that all those consultees are subservient to the chamber of commerce which, ultimately, holds the pen and makes the decision. That report will then have to meet with the approval of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Mansfield raised in a previous debate the question of what happens, given the huge variety in the strength of different chambers of commerce, different local enterprise partnerships and so on, in the event that a local skills improvement plan goes to the Secretary of State and is considered not be adequate? Obviously, we can only assume that the Secretary of State would send it back.
Chambers of commerce are very varied organisations; I think everyone would recognise that there are some excellent ones—I count those in Derbyshire and the east midlands as an example of that. However, there are others that are much smaller and have very different areas of responsibility. Chambers of commerce are membership organisations that represent some of the businesses in their community; that is unlike chambers of commerce in Germany, which are compulsory for businesses to join, and therefore are representative, quasi-governmental organisations. In this country, chambers of commerce are one of many different business organisations that businesses might choose to join. Different chambers have different areas of priority and expertise and different industries that are particularly important to them. Even among their memberships they have, in my experience, a small number of members who are very active within them, and large numbers of members who take a much less active role.
What we have in the context of many of the consultees that the Minister referred to going into the guidance notes, are a number of organisations that are in some ways more consistent, and will definitely offer a breadth of approach. Therefore, the fundamental difference of the approach that Labour would take in the Bill, compared with the Government, is around whether it is a true partnership. The difference is whether it is a partnership that recognises the voices of public and private sector employers and of further education colleges, that recognises the power of those independent training providers that do such great work across the country, and that recognises statutory organisations such as jobcentres, all of which have a role in this, or whether, as the Bill says, they are all consultees, but the chamber of commerce ultimately writes this plan. We would like to see far greater parity in that power; we think it is a local skills improvement plan that would have more buy-in and more belief in the local community, and would be much more respected on that basis.
Emma Hardy
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern, given amendment 6, that the specific reference to further education providers is removed from the Bill. Any local skills plan needs to be done in conjunction with further education providers; there is no point writing a Bill that does not have the capacity to deliver in that local area. It seems slightly odd that a specific reference to further education has been taken out of the Bill.
Mr Perkins
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that Government amendment 6 removes the words,
“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.
The Minister says that we should not worry, it will be in the guidance. However, the different approach by the Lords recognised that it was a genuine partnership. These organisations are now consultees that will make their representations to the chamber of commerce, and hope that the chamber of commerce smiles on the view they put forward. It is a totally different type of relationship. The relationship is either one of partnership or of subservience; the approach the Government choose to take is one of subservience.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. On the face of it, it would seem that the Government seek to make local employers’ organisations ultimately responsible for the direction and control of our colleges, and potentially our universities as well.
Mr Perkins
In terms of areas that are not already devolved, that is absolutely right, and adult education budgets will be very relevant.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not dwell on the subsequent amendments, because we will have an opportunity to debate them, but I will touch on some of our concerns about the way in which the needs of learners might not necessarily be at the forefront of people’s minds in chambers of commerce. For example, to what extent will chambers of commerce be aware of the specific needs of people with education and healthcare plans or other disabilities? The amendments seek to reduce the extent to which it is partnership working and move to a hierarchy, with the chamber of commerce holding the pen and driving the bus, and others making suggestions about the route.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right as to whether it is a true partnership relationship or a relationship of subservience. I draw hon. Members’ attention to amendment 7. Not only does amendment 6 leave out specific reference to further education providers; amendment 7 leaves out specific reference to community learning providers, designated institutions and universities. Again, it is no longer a partnership, as was written in the Lords amendment. It becomes a situation in which central Government make the decisions and education providers are in a subservient relationship with them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and I agree. Government amendment 7 is consequential to Government amendment 6, and she is right about what that means. We have real concerns about how employer-representative bodies and LSIPs will fit within sectoral expertise in sectors such as construction and manufacturing, which transcend local areas but are incredibly important, particularly where our economy is hugely lacking in the development of the next generation.
It is really important to recognise that we have huge skills shortages in the public sector as well as the private sector. Health and social care is a classic example, but there are many others. The voice of the public sector must be heard, and we must ensure that it is able to support people who aim to get from unemployment into a trained-up place in the workplace, because they are also central to this sort of approach. I am interested to hear from the Minister what framework he envisages for LSIPs aligning with sectoral programmes and a national industrial strategy.
Government amendment 8 removes the words, “by people resident”, from the sentence about the skills required in a local area. The purpose of the Lords amendment was important: it was to ensure that LSIPs focused not just on the needs of employers but on the people resident in a community. What would happen in a situation whereby employers were satisfied with the extent to which they were able to access the skills that they needed, but a large number of people were employed and unable to get into the labour market? Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of chambers of commerce to address youth unemployment; it is the Government’s responsibility. If businesses consider that they are able to access the skills that they need, but there is still a large number of people who are unemployed, who takes responsibility for that? The Lords amendment ensured that the people who were resident in a local area were considered in the local skills improvement plan. The Government are taking those words out, which means that it goes back to being a plan put together by businesses to solve the needs of businesses, regardless of whether that addresses the problems of people struggling to access the labour market.
Emma Hardy
My other concern with the amendments, which I hope the Minister will address, is about areas with many small and medium-sized enterprises. Areas with large numbers of big employers can obviously exercise that strong voice, for example through chambers of commerce, but I am worried that in areas such as Hull, with predominantly SMEs, as I am sure Government Members will recognise, that voice will not come through as strongly.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend worries with due cause. Since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, small businesses have found it incredibly difficult to access apprenticeships. There has been a huge driving down in the number of people getting apprenticeships within small businesses. In areas such as Chesterfield, where smaller employers make up the majority of the economy, the apprenticeship opportunities are much lower than they were a few years before. Ensuring that the voice of small business is heard within this is incredibly important.
The Minister did not really talk about this amendment at all, but the Government might say that the skills plan also needs to have a focus on those relevant to a local employer who are not currently resident—we might call it the “on your bike” amendment, with the Government saying, “We want an approach that identifies skills needs of people who are not currently here.” If that was their intention, then it could have been worded to ensure that there was a strategy for attracting new workers. Simply taking those words out means that this is a plan for the employer community that does not have to consider those questions around the learners who are excluded from the labour market if those employers consider that they are relatively satisfied with what they are able to attract.
There is an important point here. At the moment, shortly after Brexit, there is a lot of focus is on skills shortages and staff shortages, and the sense, which I totally agree with, that we need to make more of the people we have. However, there may be other times when there is a real surplus of unemployed people, and we need a strategic approach that, in those times, supports those people into work, even if there are not a huge number of vacancies in the labour market. I think that those words are important.
Government amendment 9 removes the words “and other local bodies” from the clause concerning post-16 technical education, which was an amendment that the much-respected Lord Baker of Dorking added to the Bill. The Lords amendment that this Government amendment seeks to undo was drafted to avoid being too prescriptive, but it would have allowed LSIPs to work closely with other agencies, including Jobcentre Plus and careers advisory services, in providing careers information, advice and guidance.
All those organisations are important to ensuring that they are able to get into schools and support young people to get representation and ideas from both the business community and environments that they have not been familiar with. I would have thought that an amendment recognising that the careers responsibility is not just a responsibility of schools, but something that should be open to businesses, would have very much fitted with the spirit of the Bill. It was an opportunity for the Government to enable other bodies to play an important role in that post-16 technical education and careers guidance, and it is therefore disappointing that it was taken out.
We agree with their lordships on the introduction of these amendments, and we are disappointed that the Government are seeking to remove them. On that basis, we will look to support the amendments brought in by their lordships and disagree with these Government amendments.
Rachel Hopkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is appropriate that I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College. I support the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, the shadow Minister; I was also very disappointed.
The irony is not lost on me that a slightly less democratic place wanted to put more democracy into this Bill, which I was very pleased to see. The Government amendments take out democracy by removing the references to local authorities and mayoral combined authorities. I heard the Minister’s comments about expecting it to be collaborative and wanting good will between the different organisations. In order to ensure that all parts—the legs of the chair, so to speak—are in the Bill, the amendments made in the House of Lords should stay there.
I have a great passion for local authorities and the role they play in adult education. They have already been doing great work, understanding their own areas. In the general debate the point was raised about the role that locally elected leaders, local authorities and combined authorities play in place making, and the skills agenda is key to that. One of the points that has not been referred to specifically comes under amendment 7, which would take out the reference to the “long-term national skills” strategies. That is wholly important and not just secured through local businesses thinking about the skills they need roughly now. Retaining that reference to the long term and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities and combined authorities in the Bill would create a much firmer and stronger situation in our local areas. I speak as a former councillor on Luton Council. Great work is done at local grassroots levels.
Matt Western
It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way. She was in full flow and I did not want to interrupt her. In response to her point, it is fine to consult and get the views of businesses in developing a plan, but they do not necessarily know what is coming down the track: future opportunities, future business and future sectors that do not even exist yet. That is why it is important to keep as broad a base as possible. That was one of the points she was making well, but I wanted to amplify that.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.
Emma Hardy
On that point, I hope that the Minister will clarify that this will be statutory guidance, not just guidance that has been issued as a general idea that we can do it if we would like to. Statutory guidance is needed.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point about statutory guidance. In fact, if the guidance is going to be statutory, why not just make it statute and have it in the Bill? That is what I would like to see. It is important that local people have democratic oversight of what is happening in their areas. That is why I want to see local authorities, combined authorities and other organisations that can shape what is going on in their local areas.
Emma Hardy
On that point, the removal of
“schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”
means the people who actually deliver the skills strategies are being removed from a Bill about skills. It is a little odd.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making yet another fantastic intervention. Yes, it is a little odd. Equally, amendment 9 removes other organisations, such as our Jobcentre Plus.
Mrs Miller, you will forgive me for intervening on an earlier intervention. What I was trying to get at with regard to universities is that they are also very much involved in skills development. I refer to the University of Bedfordshire, which is in my constituency. It has a fantastic new STEM building—science, technology, engineering and maths. Industry-standard equipment has been brought into the science labs, so the students studying for degrees such as biochemistry are using the equipment that is used out in industry. This is not just about theoretical and academic issues; it is also about key skills.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how incorrect the intervention was. One of the areas where we are desperately short of workers is social work. How do we train up social workers? They are trained up at a university. The idea that universities are only for academic knowledge and not places where people can be trained for jobs is ludicrous.
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.
I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.
Matt Western
What is concerning about these amendments is the direction of travel. What is it that the Government are trying to achieve by removing these Lords amendments, because they seem to be incredibly positive and constructive about getting the right and relevant organisations across the piece to be involved in the development of a plan? The idea of a LSIP is a very good thing, but it must draw on the skills, knowledge and expertise of these bodies from a region, so that they can bring them to bear on the design of a LSIP, to ensure that the present and future needs of a region can be met.
My fear, having listened to the debate over the last few minutes, is that there is a horrible parallel with what is going on with the integrated care systems, whereby we are seeing more involvement by the private sector and a diminution of the provision from the public sector. When we look at individual placement and support, or IPS, we see that there is an absolute withdrawal of the public sector. The public sector will also have little to no say on what will happen with the delivery of skills in a region. That runs counter to what the Local Government Association believes.
The LGA says in its written evidence that it believes
“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach.”
We have also heard evidence from the Association of Colleges, which said it was
“disappointed the Government have tabled an amendment to remove”
the reference to post-16 education providers. It is quite rightly disappointed.
Warwickshire College Group, based in my town, is a huge college that covers Warwickshire—I think it is still the sixth largest in the country, so it is a college of some substance. It wrote to me to say that it wants to ensure that colleges are co-constructing LSIPs with employers and that it very much needs to be involved, because it is within the power of colleges to further think strategically—that comes back to the point I was making earlier—and innovate for the skills needs of their communities.
We have also heard from the Workers Education Association. Its submission said:
“We are pleased that the Bill…should “draw on the views of”…further education institutions, community learning providers”,
and others, and that:
“We hope to see this retained and strengthened in the…Act.”
Then we get to organisations such as Central YMCA, which said that, as an independent training provider, it believes it is vital that LSIPs should draw on the views of organisations such as themselves, as well as those of schools and FE colleges.
The LGA believes that the Lords amendment should be maintained, to ensure that all employer representative bodies across England should
“work with local democratic organisations to better coordinate provision and align pathways of progression for learners.”
Andrew Gwynne
I do not want to prolong the debate on this group, but the Minister, in the discussion on the previous group, sought to assure the Committee that the approach was genuinely collaborative. Yet this group of amendments strikes out Lords amendments that would make the approach genuinely collaborative. I do not understand the thinking here. I cannot understand what the Minister thinks he is gaining or achieving by striking out the Lords amendments.
Let us look at the amendments in detail. Government amendment 6 would strike out, in clause 1(7)(a),
“in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers”.
The explanatory notes state that the reference to mayoral combined authorities is not required because that point has now been made clear through the earlier Government amendment that we have passed. I accept that point, but there is still a role for other local, non-mayoral combined authorities to have a view and an input into the skills agenda for their area, whether that is a unitary authority or a county council. These issues are part and parcel of what those local authorities do.
Emma Hardy
It feels like removing the Lords amendment will result in democratic accountability if the area has a Mayor; if it does not, there is no democratic accountability. An area such as Hull, which has no mayoral authority, has no democratic accountability or reference in the Bill. That feels unfair.
Andrew Gwynne
It not only feels unfair; it is unfair. I get that mayoral combined authorities have specific skills responsibilities devolved to them, so clearly the level of input from a mayoral combined authority is greater than that of a county council or a unitary authority that does not have those specific responsibilities devolved to them, but the council’s strategy for that area will involve education, skills and economic development. Those are important elements for county and unitary authorities.
Mr Perkins
I fear it is actually worse. The Government amendment agreed by the Committee a moment ago did give a role to mayoral combined authorities, but that role was that the Secretary of State had to satisfy himself that they had been consulted. The pen is still held by the chamber of commerce. The Lords amendment that the Government amendments in this group get rid of are about genuine partnership. The Bill, as brought from the Lords, states that it will include
“an employer representative body in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area”.
That partnership is being entirely removed. Metro Mayors are being left as a statutory consultee, which the Secretary of State must satisfy himself are being consulted. The other partners will have no role whatsoever, except for in guidance, which will say, “Make sure you talk to them.” This change is about moving from a partnership approach to a consultee, subservient approach.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is absolutely right. When we look at what else is being deleted from clause 1, subsection (7)(b)(ii) talks about
“regional and local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities, within the specified area with specific reference to published plans and strategies which have been developed by these authorities”.
All those authorities have plans and strategies; I listed a number of them in relation to Greater Manchester. If the mayoral combined authorities are going to be involved in this, why take out a specific reference to the plans that have been developed by them? As I said previously, unitary authorities and county authorities have those strategies too, yet they have no say whatsoever.
Andrew Gwynne
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because he was first, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and I would like to draw him further on it. I accept and respect what the Government are doing with some of the allocations of moneys to towns through the towns fund and so on, but it seems odd that we have some visionary authorities, not just at county level but at town and district level, that are doing extremely good work—I include my own in that—and they are not included. They should be party to this. They know what they want to do, they know what they are capable of, they know the areas where they can develop and they need those skills to ensure it is realised. I emphasise that those sorts of authorities should be included as well.
Andrew Gwynne
I completely agree. Every layer of local government has an interest in the health and wellbeing—in the broadest sense—of the population. The best way to improve the health and wellbeing of the population is to ensure that people have good skills, good education and good job opportunities. That is the route to health and wellbeing, and that is true both at the district level and at upper levels.
Emma Hardy
I want to highlight to Government Members, although I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield will know this as leader of a local council, that local councils have a statutory duty for all children with special educational needs or disabilities up to the age of 25. They have a statutory duty for looked-after children. They have a statutory duty regarding the number of young people not in employment, education or training—NEETs—as well. They have those statutory duties, yet the Government amendments remove their voice from the local skills plan. That does not seem right.
Andrew Gwynne
It absolutely does not seem right. I have spent a lot of time on local government, but the same part of subsection (7)(b) that will be struck out if Government amendment 7 is made goes further. While the line
“draws on the views of…employers operating within the specified area”
stays in, regional and local authorities, mayoral combined authorities and their strategies are taken out, but so are
“post-16 education providers active in the specified area, including schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities”.
It is incomprehensible that those bodies would not be part and parcel of the deliberations on and the creation of the strategies.
Matt Western
If I may make one final point to address my hon. Friend’s own point, universities and higher education providers across the country are working well—some extremely well—in collaborating and co-sponsoring courses with their FE institutions. The idea that they would be excluded from the plans seems beyond ridiculous.
Andrew Gwynne
It is barmy—there is no other word for it. We are here debating a Skills and Post-16 Education Bill and we are excluding the very bodies that have a direct interest in skills and post-16 education. I just do not understand the Government’s thinking. They have promised collaboration, but you cannot have collaboration if the people and bodies delivering the skills agenda on the ground are explicitly excluded from the creation of those plans.
Tom Hunt
Of course, the bodies that are delivering technical and skills qualifications will continue to have a significant role. Surely the hon. Member must realise that the whole point of local skills improvement plans is to give a strong voice to local businesses? There are other avenues and ways in which providers can shape the offering.
Andrew Gwynne
I would like to know what the avenues are and why they are not in the Bill. If we are talking about developing a genuine partnership and collaboration, and if we are saying, “This is the skills agenda for our country. These are the needs of the next generation of workers in our country. This is where our country is heading with the jobs of tomorrow. This is the inward investment we want to bring in to our country. These are the things we want to make and do and build in our country,” we cannot do that just through business. Business is the way we create jobs, but it is educational institutions, universities and colleges that give the next generation the skills to deliver the strategy on the ground.
Matt Western
To give one simple example, and to be fair to the Government, the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre was developed through a university working with a local authority and a series of businesses. That is what we are talking about. It is about how we bring bodies together to develop plans, have a vision and then get the skills needed to deliver it. That is one brilliant example. We cannot have these plans simply designed by businesses.
Andrew Gwynne
No, we cannot. In other countries where there is a partnership between academia and industry, I have seen that the concepts of products are developed in universities, enterprise parks and science parks, and with the support of business they are brought to the market and developed across the world. I know that I have spoken a lot about Manchester, but one good example is the development of graphene by the University of Manchester. We are a world leader in that technology, and that was born out of genuine collaboration. Excluding universities and colleges from the plans for the economic development of our country is therefore barmy.
Ben Bradley
It is important to clarify this point, and I assume the Minister will do so as well. The hon. Member keeps using the word “exclude” as if others will be unable to take part in these conversations, and that is certainty not what amendment 7 says. Opposition Members have argued that the Government are taking too much central control, but when the Government try to give those at the local level flexibility to include the people they want to include, as opposed to mandating that certain groups be included, the hon. Member says that it is not specific enough. I wonder which one he is actually after.
Surely it would be better for local skills plans to be put together by partners who want to be involved, because not all the businesses or local bodies that he mentions will want or have the capacity to engage, and to have local flexibility to choose the most representative groups, rather than it being decreed that all such organisations must be involved in the discussions. It could become very unwieldly if we had to include every sixth form or FE provider in a whole region in those bodies. Surely flexibility is a good thing.
Andrew Gwynne
Clearly their lordships thought differently from the hon. Gentleman, and I think he is reading a different Bill. I will read it out to him. It says:
“draw on the views of employers operating within the specified area”.
The plans will be drawn from the views of employers.
Andrew Gwynne
Why does it need to specify employers, and only employers? It is a very one-sided view, and it strikes out regional and local authorities, post-16 education providers that are active in the area, schools, FE institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities.
To come on to my final point, why is
“such sources of information on long-term national skills needs as the Secretary of State may specify”
being removed? If the Government spotted on the horizon that there was likely to be a skills shortage, especially in our brave new world where we have taken back control and will upskill our own population to meet the coming challenges, I would expect the Secretary of State to ensure that our long-term national skills needs were included in every single one of those plans across England. Again, it is incomprehensible to think that the Secretary of State would not say to each and every one of those local areas, “We need to make sure that we have enough skills to do x, y or z, because we will face skills shortages in the future.”
To conclude, I cannot fathom the logic behind striking out these Lords amendments. Doing so runs against everything the Minister said a moment ago about collaboration. If he believed in true collaboration—a true partnership— he would not be doing this today.
Alex Burghart
It has been another lively and interesting debate on this group of amendments. The Government want to build an employer-led system, but the statutory guidance—yes, statutory guidance—will make it clear that the employer representative bodies that the Bill creates must consult a range of partners and collaborate with them.
On the removal of schools and other providers, the Bill is already clear that all relevant providers, including further education colleges, independent training providers, universities and sixth-form colleges need to be involved in the development of the LSIP—that is stated in subsection (4)—and if designated employer representative bodies do not have regard to relevant statutory guidance on engaging with relevant providers and do not comply with the terms and conditions of their designation, the Secretary of State may not approve or publish the local skills improvement plan and could remove their designation.
The national dimension is very important, and we expect local skills improvement plans to be informed by national skills priorities and to help address national, as well as local, skills needs. However, where there are national skills shortages in critical areas, we can expect the Government to carry on playing a role in helping alleviate them, as we are doing at the moment. We put £17 million into rapidly upskilling people to help meet the needs of the heavy goods vehicle sector, where we have significant shortages, and I have been pleased to see that that is going very well. That will not fall away.
Turning to the question of dropping the reference to long-term national skill needs, the Bill already makes reference to the fact that LSIPs will need to look at future skills needs—that is stated in subsections (2) and (7)(b)(iii). The Opposition made a very important point about the role of the public sector. Let us think about the phrase “employer representative bodies”: there is a very big role for business, but in many areas, the public sector is a major employer and will need to be involved in this process. We want ERBs to reach beyond their existing membership and cover both public and private employers.
Emma Hardy
The Minister has mentioned the employer-led bodies in the public sector. Could he pick up on my point about SMEs, which might not be part of an employer-led body but, in some regions, are the main employers?
Alex Burghart
We are expecting ERBs to draw up local skills improvement plans that take account of the economic area that they represent, which should absolutely include small and medium-sized employers, as well as self-employment opportunities.
While Opposition Members may feel that these things can be done only if every detail is written out in primary legislation, we know that that is not the case, because we have eight excellent trailblazer areas at the moment that are doing this job without a mite of primary legislation. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Perkins
On a point of order, Mrs Miller. Do we not decide on the other Government amendments? Are we doing those later?
The Chair
No, this is one of the wonderful complications of the Committee system. We do that later.
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(iv) groups representing the interests of people with disabilities,”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans draw on the views of groups representing the interests of people with disabilities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, after “evidence” insert
“, including the views of relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people,”.
This amendment intends to ensure that the evidence informing LSIP development includes information directly relevant to improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies actions to be taken to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the LSIP is used as a vehicle for improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 28, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans identify positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area covered by the Plans.
Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) lists specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.”
This amendment would require that local skills improvement plans list specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(iii) the body is composed of employers who demonstrate reputable practice in relation to equality and diversity in employment, including in relation to disability, and”.
This amendment intends to ensure that members of the body with primary responsibility for creating the LSIP have sufficient understanding of and commitment to equality and diversity, including in relation to disability, to enable them to create an inclusive plan.
Mr Perkins
Amendment 27 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. Amendment 27 and amendment 1 would add the words
“groups representing the interests of people with disabilities”
and
“relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people”
to clause 1, on local skills improvement plans. Given the discussion that we have just had, it is incredibly important that the consultees include those who represent people with learning disabilities and those who might be furthest from the labour market for a variety of reasons. Given the votes that have just taken place and are scheduled to take place, we are particularly concerned that there is a possibility that people furthest from the labour market, who will take the most work in order to contribute in meaningful employment, will be excluded. There is a disturbing lack of attention paid in the Bill to people with special needs or disabilities.
Amendment 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), would enshrine a role for representative bodies to devise specific plans of support for people with disabilities in local skills improvement plans. That is of tremendous importance. One of the things that is most important for the FE sector, and one of the greatest contributions it makes, is to support those people who are furthest from the labour market to get the skills that they need, through such things as supported internships and other innovative ideas that many of us have seen in action in our local colleges. Those programmes often take a considerable amount of work, but they make a life-changing difference to those people. A skills Bill that genuinely represents everyone must be mindful of the need for the local skills improvement plan to ensure that no one is left behind.
Amendment 2, which also appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, is the same as amendment 28, and adds the need for an LSIP to identify positive—
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, after “evidence” insert “, including the views of relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people,”
This amendment intends to ensure that the evidence informing LSIP development includes information directly relevant to improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies actions to be taken to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the LSIP is used as a vehicle for improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Amendment 28, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) identifies positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area.”
This amendment intends to ensure that Local Skills Improvement Plans identify positive actions to reduce the disability employment gap within the specified area covered by the Plans.
Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) lists specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.”
This amendment would require that local skills improvement plans list specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
(iii) the body is composed of employers who demonstrate reputable practice in relation to equality and diversity in employment, including in relation to disability, and”
This amendment intends to ensure that members of the body with primary responsibility for creating the LSIP have sufficient understanding of and commitment to equality and diversity, including in relation to disability, to enable them to create an inclusive plan.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I was coming on to discuss amendment 34, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, which adds a new line to clause 1:
“lists specific strategies to support learners who have or have previously had, a statement of Special Educational Need or an Education and Health Care Plan into employment, including but not limited to provision for supported internships.”
Supported internships have huge potential. I saw an excellent example when I visited Derbyshire Education Business Partnership, which serves my constituency of Chesterfield, and witnessed its supported internship programme in Derby at first hand. Supported internships are incredibly important in supporting people who may be further away from the labour market, but they currently have a tiny take-up. Everything that can be done to drive up the number of supported internships should be done. They support people who might not be ready to go into the world of work right away but who, with the benefit of a programme like this, can get to know an employer really well; the employer can get to know their strengths as well as their challenges, and they can get into the world of work.
We tabled amendment 34 not only to encourage the Government to insist that strategies for those with special educational needs are expressly considered in local skills improvement plans, but to talk specifically about supported internships, which would make a real difference. Many of us are concerned that chambers of commerce and employers, who are experts in the needs of their workplaces and what skills they need, will not necessarily be aware of the challenges faced by those who are furthest from the labour market. They might be less likely to have strategies of that kind in LSIPs. However, if colleges had a more central role in the plans, chambers of commerce and employers would absolutely recognise the need for programmes of this sort.
I share the belief of my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, and many others who put their names to the amendments, that employer representative bodies should have the required training, knowledge and understanding of the educational and health needs of people with disabilities in general and of how people with disabilities can best be supported within a local area in particular. I hope that, when he responds to this group of amendments, the Minister will commit to ensuring that people with disabilities are not forgotten in the Bill, and signal that the Government have specific strategies to ensure that employer bodies have a duty to represent the needs of people with disabilities and support them into the workplace, so that they are not excluded any more.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak in favour of amendments 27 and 28 in my name, and amendments 1, 2 and 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I want highlight that the Library briefing on the Bill states that 18% of the learners currently in the FE and skills sector have a recognised learning difficulty or disability. When we talk about people with disabilities, we are not talking about a very small minority; we are talking about 18% of those people. The amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham have tabled are very similar. They all basically try to do the same thing: to ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard and recognised in the Bill. They also address the disability employment gap. Mr Efford, I should have mentioned that I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on SEND, which is where a lot of my interest comes from. I know from the work of the APPG and on the amendments that there is a lot of cross-party support for these measures, which we also saw in the Lords. This is not a party political issue. I hope the Minister takes it seriously.
Recent figures show that disabled people have an employment rate that is 28.4 percentage points lower than people who are not disabled. There is a huge disability employment gap and the amendments hope to address that. I recognise that the issue is complex and that there are a number of Government initiatives to address it, but it would be a missed opportunity not to use the Bill and the new process of skills planning that it brings about to help ensure that people with disabilities can contribute to their local economy and that their voices are heard in the discussion of what that local economy should look like. All too often, people with disabilities feel that their voices are not heard. The amendments aim to ensure they are listened to and recognised, and that some action is taken on the disability employment gap. That is the aim of all the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Efford. I want to lend my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and others on this group of amendments. They seek to ensure that the LSIPs take the needs of disabled people and those with special educational needs into account.
Currently, further education caters for a large number of students with such needs, which can be complex. The latest data shows that roughly half of disabled people are in employment—just 53%—compared with just over four out of five non-disabled people. The employment rate for disabled people with severe or specific learning difficulties was 18% back in 2019, the lowest rate of any impairment group. The House of Commons Library briefing notes that 52% of disabled people were in employment, down from 54%, which is really concerning.
The Workers Educational Association notes that
“adult learners in community provision are those with low or no qualifications, who require the most support in order to progress to higher level qualifications.”
Learning disabilities add to that complex state of affairs, which justifies the inclusion of an amendment to provide more support for people with learning disabilities. In its evidence to the Committee, Engineering UK said:
“38% of respondents…reported a lack of role models to be a barrier for pupils with special educational needs”.
One of the employers in my region, the National Grid, is doing extraordinary stuff in engaging and giving work opportunities to young people with complex needs, through its EmployAbility scheme. It is an exemplar project that it has been running for several years.
Those are some of the reasons why the amendments are important to the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment says that those from SEND backgrounds are “disproportionately” likely to be affected, and it is therefore a cruelty not to legislate where possible to mitigate that disproportionate impact. We think it is vital that such provisions be written into the Bill, which is why the amendments have been tabled. We need to highlight the challenges and make sure that we are as inclusive a society as possible, and that we allow for the needs of people with SEND in skills provisions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2 and 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, amendments 27 and 28 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, and amendment 34 tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington.
Those amendments all relate to LSIPs and the importance that we all place on improving the employment prospects of people with disabilities. The criteria for designation of employer representative bodies in the Bill are intentionally focused on the key characteristics and capabilities required for that specific role. We do, of course, want all employers to demonstrate good practice in equality and diversity in employment, including in relation to disability. The Bill is clear that LSIPs should draw on a range of evidence, but we do not consider it appropriate to list all that evidence in the Bill. Instead, I assure Opposition Members that we will set out further details in statutory guidance and continue to engage key stakeholders representing learners with special educational needs and disabilities as that guidance is developed.
The guidance will make it clear that employer representative bodies should absolutely engage groups that can help them to understand the needs of learners with disabilities and the barriers they face, and consider how people with disabilities can be supported to progress into good jobs that meet local skills needs, thereby supporting activity to reduce the disability employment gap. In the work I have been doing in the run-up to the Bill, among many other stakeholders, I spoke to a specialist college in Kent, which had a very powerful message for me. They said that they had catered for a lot of young people whom they believed had a bigger role to play in the local economy, which would be good for employers and the economy, but particularly important for the individuals themselves. That very much reflects my own experience.
For eight years, I was vice-chair of governors at a special school for children with autism in west London. It was an excellent school, not because of my vice-chairmanship but because we had an exceptional head and exceptional staff. It started as a primary school, but went on to become an all-through school. The work the school was engaging in when I left to enter politics was to make sure that it could help young people—often with really profound needs—to transition into the workplace. The alternative for too many people is a life of isolation and loneliness.
I commend the work that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is doing on the APPG. I am sure that the APPG will want to look at the statutory guidance when it comes out and feed back to us, and we welcome that conversation. There are great opportunities here for dialogue between the ERBs, local providers, and local disability groups to make sure that the needs and the talents of young people with special educational needs are reflected.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is actually the most logical fit for businesses to embrace and be accessible to those who have learning disabilities? As we know, they are often among the most unconventional, creative and brilliant thinkers.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is absolutely right; something I will come on to in a moment is that when we help young people with special educational needs overcome the barriers to employment, and when we help employers overcome some of the barriers that they may feel exist to employing those young people, it is an extraordinarily mutually beneficial relationship.
Emma Hardy
I want to push the Minister a little more on the guidance. He has mentioned that it will be statutory, which I welcome, but I wonder whether it will include some of the wording that is in this amendment, which looks specifically at what action will be taken to reduce the disability employment gap. Will that be seen in the statutory guidance?
Alex Burghart
Obviously, we are very keen to reduce the disability employment gap, and we are always mindful of ways in which we can achieve that. I am sure that it will be in the Secretary of State’s mind when he considers the statutory guidance.
Local skills improvement plans are not the only solution to this issue. Colleges already have a duty to use their best endeavours to secure the special educational provision called for by a student with special educational needs, as set out in the SEND code of practice. That should include a focus on preparing the young person for adulthood, including employment.
In addition to the duties on providers in relation to LSIPs, clause 5 introduces a broader duty for colleges and designated institutions to review how well their whole curriculum offer meets local needs. The duty requires governing bodies to consider the needs of all learners, including current and future learners, and those with special educational needs or a disability.
Mr Perkins
I appreciate the tone of the Minister’s response, but he has not really given us any detail on why he does not think it appropriate to have the wording in the Bill. Instead, he asks us to take it on trust that we will like the guidance when we eventually see it. We have to vote on the amendment. We have no idea what will be in the guidance. He has not said, “It’s written. It’s going to look like this—I just can’t show it to you.” There will be guidance and at some point we will see it, so can the Minister explain why it is not appropriate that we simply have a commitment in the Bill that LSIPs will have a strategy around supported internships?
Alex Burghart
On supported internships, I was very interested to hear about what the hon. Gentleman has seen going on in his constituency. I assure him that we are continuing to work to improve supported internships in England, including updating our guidance and, through our contract grant delivery partnerships in this financial year, developing a self-assessment quality framework for providers and helping local authorities to develop local supported employment forums. I respect his desire to see supported internships improve and go further. We share his ambition, but we are not putting every particular intervention that we favour in the Bill, so we will not single that one out for special treatment.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
We already know that these kinds of activities are happening. I declare an interest as the chair of the apprenticeship diversity champions network. Employers are recognising that they need to offer these skills and support already. I am sure that the Minister knows that that is already happening.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Government are also developing an adjustments passport that aims to smooth the transition into employment and support people changing jobs, including people with special educational needs and disabilities. That goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made. When I was on the Work and Pensions Committee with the great Frank Field, that was exactly the sort of thing that we were calling for. I am very pleased that this Administration have seen it go out.
The 12-month pilots of the adjustments passport that are under way in HE and post-16 provider pilot sites are capturing the in-work support needs of the individual and we hope that they will empower individuals to have confident discussions about adjustments with employers. It goes back to my point about breaking down barriers both for the individual and for the employer. More broadly, the Government’s national disability strategy sets out how we will help disabled people to fulfil their potential through work, to help reduce the disability employment gap further.
Emma Hardy
With respect to the comments made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, if everything were all fine and dandy as it is, we would not have a 28 percentage points disability employment gap. The Minister talks about the statutory guidance. Will there be some sticks as well as carrots in the guidance? If employers and people do not feel that they are being represented, and they are not taking effective measures to deal with the disability employment gap, will there be sanctions?
Alex Burghart
As I said in the previous sitting, statutory guidance is a powerful tool. If employer representative bodies do not adhere to statutory guidance, they may lose their designation. That is in the essence of statutory guidance. Given the significant amount of work already under way in this space, we do not believe that the amendments are necessary, but we agree with the direction in which they push.
Mr Perkins
I appreciate what the Minister has said. He has not really given us any detail on why he does not think that it is appropriate. I take his point on supported internships being one strategy: our amendment acknowledged that. However, in terms of amendment 1 on people with disabilities, we are not talking about a fractional thing that is not worth mentioning because there are so many other things that could be mentioned, but about a substantial body of people who have often been missed out by education providers. This is an opportunity to ensure that when the chambers of commerce, or whoever the employer representative bodies are, are writing their local skills improvement plans, those people do not continue to be left out.
I still think that amendment 1 should be accepted, so we will press it to a vote. I am willing to not press the other amendments in this group to a vote, but will look very carefully at the statutory guidance. I think that many people—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and the cross-party group, which was very supportive of this—will listen to the Minister’s response and still wonder why the amendment is not appropriate. For future amendments, it would be useful if we had a bit more of a response as to why the Government are against it, rather than just the fact that they are.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I might try to give the hon. Gentleman a clue on that question. We spent much of the morning arguing about why this policy needed to be locally led, why we wanted devolved authorities to take more control over it and why local government should have more of a say in it. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise how asking Government to dictate what must be in it conflicts with the arguments he has already made today?
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but what kind of devolution is it if we say “Well, look, it is up to local chambers of commerce to decide whether or not they have a strategy to support those who are disabled or furthest from the labour market”? If we have a document that must be signed off by the Secretary of State—so on the devolution argument, it is more “devolution of a sort”—what is wrong with saying, “And by the way, for that document that you sign off, we’d better know what the strategy is around disabilities”?
I do not think that the devolution argument is a strong one. Maybe, at a future point in the hon. Gentleman’s career, he will argue for devolution in some kind of role and say, “But trust me, I won’t be having any strategies for disabled people”. I cannot imagine that he would do that, or that any others would. Amendment 1 is just about making sure that those employment representative bodies understand the importance of this issue; that is why we will press it to a vote.
The Chair
We will come to a vote on amendment 1 after the next group of amendments. Do you wish to withdraw amendment 27?
Mr Perkins
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(iv) Local Enterprise Partnerships and the skills and productivity board,”
This amendment would require that local skills improvement plans draw on the views of Local Enterprise Partnerships and the skills productivity board, in addition to those bodies already set out in the subsection.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) takes account of a provider of designated distance learning courses that are undertaken by residents of the specified area.”
This amendment would ensure that local skills improvement plans take account of distance learning providers.
Amendment 39, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) these conditions to include the requirement for the LSIP to give due regard to a national strategy for education and skills, which is agreed across the Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities.”
This amendment would require Government to have a national strategy for education and skills, which is agreed across DfE, DWP, BEIS and DLUHC for which LSIPs would have to take account of.
Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance setting out the criteria used to determine the boundaries of a specified area for the purpose of this section.”
This is a probing amendment regarding the criteria the Government will use to determine what constitutes “local”.
Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) Before local skills improvement plans are introduced outside of trailblazer areas, the Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to their implementation, subject to consultation of all Mayoral Combined Authorities and, where there is not one, the relevant local authority.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that local and combined authorities are consulted on the Government’s plans for the roll out of local skills improvement plans and are in a position to highlight any issues before publication.
Amendment 44, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) Colleges and other providers may propose revisions where they consider that the plans do not appropriately reflect the full diversity of priorities across the locality.”
This amendment would allow colleges and other providers to propose revisions to LSIPs if they consider that plans do not reflect the full diversity of priorities across the locality.
Mr Perkins
I will go through these amendments relatively briefly. Amendment 33 is a probing amendment on the subject of the role of local enterprise partnerships and skills productivity boards. As I said at the start of this debate, those of us who were here in 2010 heard a huge amount from the Government about the role of LEPs. We have subsequently heard about the roles of SPBs, and they both sounded very similar in expectation to what we are now hearing, on a local level, for employer representative bodies.
It therefore strikes me that the Government do not have a great deal of confidence in the LEPs that they created, nor in the SPBs. If I was a chief executive of a LEP, I do not think I would be taking up any credit agreements right now. They must be looking at this Bill and wondering what the future holds for them.
I am interested in the Government’s response to this. Why is it that local enterprise partnerships, which—as we will all remember—were put forward as the way for business and Government to work together on a local basis on a variety of measures to drive economic growth, particularly around skills, are now seen as entirely superfluous in this Bill? Is this the beginning of the end of local enterprise partnerships?
I am interested in whether the Minister feels there should be a duty for employer representative bodies to work in collaboration with them, and what this says about the future of those organisations. Does he accept that it is a failure of Government policy to have set up these organisations that now appear to be being ignored at a time when there is a function that we would naturally think would fall to them?
Amendment 38 relates to designated distance learning. If the covid crisis has taught us anything, it is that more and more has gone online. In the skills arena in particular, that has been hugely transformational for the sector and for many learners. It creates opportunities that were not there previously. We are very concerned that designated distance learning is absent from the Bill, and that is why we have tabled amendment 38. Again, we are keen to hear the Government’s view on that.
Amendment 39 is about Government Departments working together; I think we have all been conscious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said previously, that that is not a particular strength of this Government. We saw that more than ever during the covid crisis when, on the one hand, there was a real lack of strategy around increasing apprenticeships at a time when we knew there was a boom in youth unemployment and, on the other hand, we had the Department for Work and Pensions introducing the kickstart scheme, which was much more expensive than apprenticeships and offered much less to young people. There was no sense that the different Government Departments were working together.
Our amendment would require the Government and any future Government to have a national strategy for education and skills that is agreed across the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and of which all local skills improvement plans would have to take account. Our particular concern is the lack of cross-departmental work between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education; that is something the Labour party takes very seriously, and there have been regular meetings between teams to work on that whole area.
Amendment 40 asks the Government to publish guidance setting out the criteria used to determine the boundaries of a specified area. There is a real lack of clarity about what is meant by “local area”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referred to, in different parts of our forms of local government. What is our local area keeps changing. Again, that is not specified within the Bill and I think there will be real concern that we now have this document, which is of tremendous importance to an FE college; it could be the reason why a chief executive loses their job—
Emma Hardy
I mentioned to the Minister before that I have a lot of sympathy for the Government trying to work out what constitutes a local area. I was talking to a local Conservative MP and we were having a bit of a laugh about it ourselves, because in our area we have Humberside Police, Humberside Fire & Rescue Service and a police and crime commissioner for Humberside, but then we have the Hull and East Yorkshire LEP, and the regional schools commissioner, who has a different geographical area from the LEP, which has a different geographical area from the area that Ofsted covers. Apparently, they are creating a pan-Humber organisation, after the LEP was removed, to look at skills in the area. Good luck to the Minister in trying to work out what exactly the local area looks like, because it is incredibly complicated when we have a myriad different organisations with different geographical boundaries.
Mr Perkins
I think we are all dying to know who this Conservative Member of Parliament was—I have a suspicion who it may have been. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. If it is, “Good luck to the Minister”, more importantly, it is “Good luck to employers” in actually working out where they should go, which area they are a part of and which local skills improvement plan is responsible for them if they have two sites that are 10 miles apart and there are different providers they have to engage with. This is something that puts businesses off engaging in this kind of skills arena. We have seen it with apprenticeships and the barriers that have been put in the way for businesses to take up apprentices; making it difficult for businesses to engage guarantees that they will not do so. That is a really important point and it is why we have moved this probing amendment.
Mr Perkins
As I said previously, we support the principle of local skills improvement plans. Having something that everyone understands is of real value. We are not saying that there should not be any localisation. This is a probing amendment to help us understand. Colleges tend to have a specified area. The Government decided that the local enterprise partnerships would all have their own area. We cannot be, as we used to be in Chesterfield, across two different local enterprise partnerships. We are in one area. The Government have attempted to put firm lines around it, but it has been made slightly more fuzzy.
Emma Hardy
I think the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has misunderstood. When creating a local skills plan, we need to define a local area. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whose constituency is opposite mine on the south bank, will be fully aware, the chamber of commerce is actually a pan-Humber organisation, but the LEPs are separate organisations. I am pointing out to the Minister that, if we are looking at creating a local skills plan for a local area, quite obviously we need to work out what that local area is.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend puts it very well.
Amendment 41 asks the Secretary of State to publish guidance relating to implementation, subject to consultation with the metro Mayor or relevant local authority. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State has the potential to amass new powers, which could be used without appropriate consultation or due diligence. We can see the hand of the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) right through the Bill. I am confident that if the Bill had been devised when the current Secretary of State had been in place for a year or two, it would look very different. The sense of a man who had lost control and was desperately trying to get back control runs right through the Bill.
Our amendments seek to establish a clear duty for the Secretary of State to consult with combined and local authorities before local skills improvement plans are finalised in areas that do not have metro Mayors, ensuring that the relevant local representative bodies are part of the formation of a board. It is about bringing together the various different organisations that would make up a strategic approach to skills. We are saying that, if there is not an employer representative body that is able to broadly represent private and public sector employers, further education colleges, independent training providers and such, the Government should appoint a board made up of those in order to deliver that local skills improvement plan, rather than the current approach, which is just a single body. Amendment 44 says that colleges and other providers
“may propose revisions where they consider that the plans do not appropriately reflect the full diversity of priorities across the locality.”
I am keen to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend has given a thorough analysis on all these amendments; I will just pick up on a couple of points. On amendment 33, I want to highlight how important the skills and productivity board is, given where the country finds itself in terms of its poor productivity relative to most of our economic peers—not just in Europe, but across the globe. We have to work much more closely with that board; that is what amendment 33 is driving at, and that is why it is important to include it.
I will talk specifically about amendment 38, which is on distance learning. There are 70% fewer new part-time graduates entering and accessing higher education every year compared with a decade ago. Distance learning is really important; it is a brilliant way of encouraging people to pick up part-time study. The Open University has 72% of students in full or part-time employment. We are seeing a very concerning regional picture; the Open University’s statistics show a 40% fall in higher education participation in the north-east of the country, and a 32% fall in the north-west and Yorkshire. If the Government are really serious about their agenda, surely we have to provide and invest in more and better opportunities for distance learning—that is why amendment 38 is important. The cost of study is obviously one of the biggest barriers to adult learning. If we consider the needs of distance learners, that barrier is eradicated.
We all know that the Open University is a great institution, started in the 1960s—we will claim that as a terrific Labour success. I do not think any of my colleagues were around at that time, so none of us can claim it in particular. However, it was a great success, and I think that societally, culturally and economically we have benefited greatly from that particular institution. It is one of the five biggest higher education providers in 90% of parliamentary constituencies. It is really important that all of us remember the contribution that it makes. The Open University is also the largest HE provider in 63 of 314 English local authorities—that is 20%. It is also worth highlighting that it is a substantial provider in what might be called higher education “cold spots”, where there is limited face-to-face provision. The importance of distance learning in our education provision must be underlined.
Amendment 41 makes sure that local and combined authorities are consulted on the LSIP before roll-out. I want to echo the previous calls on the importance of including our health boards in the process. In the pandemic, we have seen the importance of local public health provision in regions, and the skills needed to be able to provide that are absolutely essential. We must be clear about how important it is to achieve the regionalisation of drawing those skills. In the visits that have been making up and down the country, that is something that has been made loud and clear to me by colleges and HE providers.
Devolved responsibilities are important but so too is the national strategy. That strategy should be extended across the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Department and what I would call DHCLG – the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government as was. The Association of Colleges wrote to say that it wanted to
“enshrine the creation of a national 10-year education and skills strategy sitting across government to deliver on wider policy agendas and to give stability to all parts of the system.”
It added:
“there is a lack of a comprehensive, long-term education and skills plan that brings together all parts of the system towards the same vision…this means that the role of education and skills in addressing wider policy priorities and strategies are not always recognised, for example the role of colleges in welfare, health and net-zero policies.”
I spoke about health a moment ago, but let us consider net zero policies. The Government understand their importance but I want to centre on two things that are massive national issues right now and should be critical to the skills strategy. The first is the delivery of an electric vehicle infrastructure plan, on which we way off the pace. We need to get the skills out there to put in place the necessary infrastructure. We have a growing market for electric vehicles—potentially for hydrogen vehicles as well but EV is the critical one. Manufacturers are making the vehicles, but we do not have the necessary public charging points. We are behind the curve compared with our European neighbours and other leading global economies. That is the sort of stuff that a national strategy could help to deliver. If we are serious about the sustainability agenda, the amendment can help to deliver it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said about amendment 39, particularly the need for a national strategy for education and skills. It is perfectly reasonable to expect such a strategy. The driving force for it must come from Government, and monitoring of progress across the country must also come from Government. In that way we can ensure that every part of England is firing on all cylinders, narrow the gap and properly ensure that every part of the country is performing as it should.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the productivity gap, because that is a serious problem not just across the country and for the national economy, but within different regions and sub-regions; some are performing very well, others less so. We need a concerted effort across Government and all Departments. If we are serious about levelling up, obviously the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities must be at the heart of that along with the Department for Education, BEIS and, I would argue, the Treasury. If we do not have buy-in from the Treasury to ensure that economic growth is spread fairly across the country, any national strategy is doomed to failure.
I am a devolutionist as well; I want to see strategies developed locally that meet the needs of the locality. That was put perfectly when we talked many years ago about health devolution and Greater Manchester in particular, which had responsibility for health devolved to it. Of course, it remains part of a national health service, just as any local strategy would remain part of the national skills strategy. The “what” is set at the centre, but the “how” is determined locally to meet the needs of that locality. That is exactly what the amendment is designed to achieve.
Matt Western
To illustrate that point, clearly in the health sector we need to assess what the challenges are for our communities and populations. While there is a national picture, there will be different needs in a city such as Coventry, which is close to me and has one of the youngest populations in the whole of the UK, versus a pleasant coastal area, which might be an area that people retire to and will have particular needs as regards the provisions for health.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely, and the same is true even at the level below that, within a city region. I can speak with experience about my own city region, where there are divergent trends between those living in the north of Greater Manchester, where there are fewer opportunities, and those living in the so-called arc of prosperity around south Manchester. We need to finely tune our local skills strategies to reflect the different make-ups of particular areas.
Talking about how we define areas, I think amendment 40 matters. We are talking about defining “local” which matters for several reasons. First, I am a bit of an obsessive compulsive disorder neurotic and I like things to be neat and tidy. For clarity of purpose, it makes sense to have coterminosity, wherever possible, with other organisations and bodies.
Again, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I am lucky that my local enterprise partnership, my chamber of commerce, my combined authority and all 10 local councils in Greater Manchester all cover the same boundaries.
Andrew Gwynne
Things get a little bit messy. I was nervous when my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned health trusts, because my own health trust, Tameside and Glossop, crosses the county boundary, although that will be sorted out by the Bill currently going through Parliament. That is the only bit of non-coterminosity I have.
These boundaries matter because if we draw up strategies, plans and proposals, and we want to collaborate with business, education providers, local government and the wider public sector, then we have to have a defined set of boundaries. The closer those boundaries match, the easier it will be to get a strategy in place.
Lia Nici
Employers and jobs are not coterminous in a particular area. In southern Humberside and Lincolnshire, we want to ensure that our local skills plans cross those borders, because that is where the jobs are. Coterminosity with local government and quasi-local government does not work, and it will not work for employers. Realistically, it needs to be where the jobs are and where people can travel to.
Andrew Gwynne
I know it is probably an unpopular thing to say of her neck of the woods, but I think the hon. Lady has just made the case for Humberside.
Andrew Gwynne
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s bit of Warrington is in Cheshire or Lancashire based on the old boundaries.
Andrew Gwynne
Boundaries matter. I say that as a patron of the Friends of Real Lancashire.
Coming back to amendment 40, the cleaner these boundaries can be, the better. I get that local economies can spread across artificial local government boundaries. I know that because just down the road from where I live is Glossop, in the High Peak in Derbyshire. To all intents and purposes, Glossop is a Greater Manchester town. It looks to Greater Manchester, all its transport links are into Manchester and its healthcare is currently part of Greater Manchester. I get that there is always going to be a degree of “This boundary does not work,” but if we are looking at a particular strategy and then having to engage with a whole range of public bodies in developing and signing off that strategy, it gets overly complicated if we end up having a mismatch of different boundaries, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has already described.
Emma Hardy
To return to the conversation we were having about SEND and disabilities, and the disability employment gap, we will have to collect data to know whether the skills plan is delivering on its objectives and addressing the disability employment gap, so we will need some kind of boundary or defined area from which to collect that data. The Minister said that the guidance would include information on the disability employment gap, but unless there is a boundary, we cannot accurately collect data and we cannot judge whether the plan is a success.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, but it is more than that; we also need to ensure that the strategy works for the entire area. However we define the geographical area, there will be a strategy for it. If there is a mismatch of different public bodies and local authorities in that area, we may well find that one local authority thinks the strategy is working brilliantly in its area—it may well be—but the neighbouring local authority, whose area might be only partly covered by the strategy, might feel like the poor relation without a voice. I am worried about that. I want clarity and for things to be tidy, which is why I support amendment 40. Before I sit down, I promised to give way to, I hope, a fellow Lancastrian.
Andy Carter
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I am in Cheshire—[Laughter.] I understand the point that he is making, but it is not a clear situation. Warrington is a really interesting area because, although many people who live in Warrington work in Manchester or Liverpool, the skills strategy is set by Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership. We are a mid-way commuter town, and although we might want to set a skills strategy for Warrington, the employers that people look towards are in the two major cities that sit either side. His OCD situation may well find that challenging, but it is not as simple or as clear for many areas around the country.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman has made a great case for north-west regional devolution in that case. I get what he says, but if Greater Manchester is to have a strategy, the Greater Manchester chamber, which will lead on the strategy, and the combined authority and Mayor, who have to be consulted on the strategy, cover the whole of Greater Manchester—that is nice and tidy. If he wants to make the case for Warrington to become an 11th borough of Greater Manchester so that we can placate my OCD-ness, I am more than happy to welcome Warrington into the club.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Member for Warrington South also made a powerful argument for an amendment that he had a chance to vote for a while ago, which would have ensured that the strategy is for residents. We would then have a strategy based on all the people resident in the area, regardless of where they end up working.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely; my hon. Friend could not have put it better. The views of residents matter as well because, as we know, although public bodies, local authorities, LEPs and chambers of commerce operate within defined boundaries, people do not. They do not necessarily know where parliamentary constituency boundaries or council ward boundaries are, and they do not always know where council boundaries are—people are fluid throughout. My hon. Friend is right that there was an opportunity to include the views of residents in the development of the plans. Unfortunately, that amendment was not passed.
Alex Burghart
I rise to speak to amendments 33, 38 to 41, and 44. I will start with amendments 33 and 38 in the names of the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington.
Amendment 33 would require that local skills improvement plans draw on the views of local enterprise partnerships and the Skills and Productivity Board. We have been clear that local skills improvement plans should be informed by the work of the national Skills and Productivity Board and build on the work of local enterprise partnerships and their skills advisory panels. We will reiterate that in statutory guidance.
Emma Hardy
This is a quick one on statutory guidance. To clarify, will that statutory guidance state “act in accordance with” or “have regard to”? We all know that statutory guidance that states “have regard to” means “read and ignore.”
Alex Burghart
I am horrified to hear the hon. Lady’s attitude to statutory guidance. Our intention will be set out in statutory guidance, so that local skills improvement plans will be informed by the work of the national Skills and Productivity Board and build on the work of local enterprise partnerships and their skills advisory panels.
Mr Perkins
The Minister talks about speaking to local enterprise partnerships, but he must see the point that this is precisely the kind of role that was envisaged for local enterprise partnerships when they were invented. The very fact that he now says that we will go to the employer representative bodies, which we assume are likely to be chambers of commerce, rather than to local enterprise partnerships, must make people wonder, “Is there a future for local enterprise partnerships?” Will he tell us why he thought that local enterprise partnerships were not the right organisation to be the employer representative body in such cases?
Alex Burghart
We have been clear that we want to have an approach that is completely employer-led. Local enterprise partnerships, which have much to recommend them, are partially informed by employers, but they are public-private partnerships and we want an employer-led process.
Amendment 38 relates to local skills improvement plans taking account of providers of distance learning. I very much acknowledge the remarks made by Opposition Members about the importance of distance learning and how valuable it is to many members of the public who are studying. All relevant providers that provide English-funded post-16 technical education or training that is material to a specified area will have a duty to co-operate with the designated employer representative body for that area in developing a plan. That will be true even if they are based elsewhere and offer the provision by distance or online learning. That will help to ensure that the views of distance learning providers are taken into account.
Amendment 39, tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington, would require the Government to have a national strategy for education skills that is agreed across DFE, DWP, BEIS and DLUHC, and of which LSIPs would have to take account. The Government have already set out their strategy for skills reform in the “Skills for jobs” White Paper published in January last year, which was agreed by all Departments—not just the ones listed in the amendment. The proposals set out the aim to support people to develop the skills that they need to get good jobs. They form the basis of the legislation we are discussing.
On the local skills improvement plans, we have been clear that they should take account of the relevant national strategies and priorities related to skills, as well as being informed by the work of the national Skills and Productivity Board. The specific strategies and priorities will evolve and change over time. We think the best place to do that is in statutory guidance.
Amendment 40, tabled by the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Warwick and Leamington, relates to the publication of guidance setting out the criteria used to determine a specific area. The specified areas for local skills improvement plans will be based on functional economic areas. The Government are working with local enterprise partnerships to refine the role of business engagement in local economic strategy, including skills, and to ensure that the structures are fit for purpose for the future. That includes looking at geographies—
Alex Burghart
I am sure that the Secretary of State, as he engages in the process, will be mindful of the muddle that is Hull and, indeed, mindful of the many economic areas in which hon. Members find their constituencies.
Emma Hardy
I want to clarify that, whatever boundary it might be, defined boundaries will be set. If we do not set a defined boundary of any type, I cannot see how it will be possible to collect the data and the intelligence to know whether a strategy is working.
Alex Burghart
We are clear that these will be based on functional economic areas, that they will have a defined geography and that we will ensure that no part of the country is left out.
Mr Perkins
Will the Minister also clarify this? Is it possible that an area could be in two different local skills improvement plans? For example, Chesterfield was originally part of both the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire local enterprise partnership and the Sheffield City Region one. Both were considered functional drive-to-work areas. Is it possible that an area such as Chesterfield might be in two different local skills improvement plans, or is it the case that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle says, there will be a defined area and everyone will just be in one?
Alex Burghart
We are working on the basis that there will be a defined area for each one, but we will be mindful of the fact that in some areas the geography does not neatly fit reality. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South was making.
We will consider this work, alongside evidence from the local skills improvement plan trailblazers, before making final decisions about the specified areas that local skills improvement plans will cover. However, let me reassure members of the Committee that through the designation process, the Secretary of State will ensure that there are no gaps in the coverage of local skills improvement plans across the country.
I turn now to amendments 41 and 44. Amendment 41 relates to consulting local authorities and mayoral combined authorities on guidance for the roll-out of local skills improvement plans. We regularly engage mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority, for example in relation to this Bill and the LSIP trailblazers, and we will continue to do so as we develop our plans for the wider roll-out of LSIPs and the accompanying statutory guidance. We will also engage the Local Government Association and other key stakeholders and make use of the evidence collected from the evaluation of our trailblazers.
Amendment 44 aims to allow colleges and other providers to propose revisions to local skills improvement plans. The Bill already places duties on relevant providers to co-operate with employer representative bodies in developing the plans and keeping them under review. That will give providers the opportunity to propose revisions and help to ensure that the plans are evidence-based, credible and actionable. We expect local skills improvement plans to focus on key priorities for change to make provision more responsive to local labour market skills needs, but it is important to note that those will be changes that providers themselves will have had a role in specifying.
Once an LSIP has been signed off, a provider will be required to have regard to it. The plan will not tell providers what to do. Providers will remain responsible for making decisions as part of their business planning, but they will have the benefit of those decisions being informed by a credibly articulated and evidence-based statement of priorities from business that they will, in turn, be empowered and incentivised to respond to.
Mr Perkins
We have heard the Minister’s response on those issues. Amendments 33 and 38 to 40 were probing amendments through which we sought to understand the role of the different organisations and how Government would define the different areas. I understood the Minister’s response to mean that no area would be left out, but also that no area would be in two LSIPs —I think that that is what he was saying. That is quite important because if an area ends up being in two, because it is in two different functional drive-to-work areas, that will make the data collection aspect impossible.
There has been a lot of important narrative in this debate about recognising that areas may well look in two different directions. The point that the hon. Member for Warrington South made about looking towards Liverpool and towards Manchester, as well as towards the rest of Cheshire, is important. If Warrington does not end up being in one area or another, the data collection will become impossible, in terms of the success of those particular areas. We will obviously look to the statutory guidance and, if I have misunderstood what the Minister has said, he has the opportunity now to put me right. I think that it is really important to understand whether an area could be in two different local skills improvement plans.
On the basis of the responses and the fact that the amendments were probing, I propose to withdraw amendments 33 and 38 to 40. We would like to put amendment 41 to a vote, because we believe that it is not only consultation with combined authorities that is relevant; we are very concerned that areas that are outside a combined authority will have no democratic oversight whatever. We think that people within those areas will also want to know that there has been some consultation.
Emma Hardy
I know I am not intervening on the Minister, but I wonder whether a proposed map of the different areas will be put out for consultation before they are agreed and set by Government, and whether there will be an opportunity for local people to influence what the geographical areas will be.
Mr Perkins
It is the boundaries nightmare all over again. The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s question, and I am sure that he and his officers will think carefully on it. Again, we will put only one amendment in this group to a vote. We will not press amendment 44, but we will divide the Committee on amendment 41. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, after “evidence” insert
“, including the views of relevant community groups including those representing the interests of disabled people,”.—(Mr Perkins.)
This amendment intends to ensure that the evidence informing LSIP development includes information directly relevant to improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 1, page 3, line 10, after “any” insert “English-funded”.
This amendment limits the post-16 technical education or training about which a local skills improvement plan must identify actions that can be taken to such education or training that is English-funded.
Alex Burghart
Officials in my Department have engaged closely with counterparts in the Welsh Government, and we believe that we have reached a satisfactory position from a devolution perspective. Government amendments 11, 12, 13 and 14 provide further clarification as to the definition of ‘relevant providers’ that may be in scope of the duties relating to local skills improvement plans in clause 1.
The amendments make it clear that those duties can only apply to institutions within the further education sector in England, English higher education providers, and independent training providers that provide post-16 technical education or training in England. Local authorities, 16-to-19 academies and schools in England may also be subject to the duties in the future should the Secretary of State exercise their power to make regulations under clause 4. Relevant providers will only be subject to the duties relating to local skills improvement plans if they provide English-funded post-16 technical education or training that is material to a specified area in England, including by distance or online learning.
Government amendments 10, 15, 16 and 17 provide further clarity in relation to the scope of local skills improvement plans. Amendment 10 limits the post-16 technical education or training about which a local skills improvement plan must identify actions that can be taken to such education or training that is English-funded. Education or training should be treated as English-funded where amounts are paid directly to providers in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State under certain legislation, including, for instance, payments made in respect of student loans.
Mr Perkins
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. The only question I wanted clarification on, given the conversation we have just had about areas, is about what thought had been given to the responsibilities of providers that are close to borders and provide services across them. We are supportive of Government amendments 11 to 14 and the clarifications established by Government amendments 15 to 17.
Alex Burghart
As I made clear in my remarks, it depends on whether provision is English-funded; that is, whether the money comes from England. That is how we explain the jurisdiction.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 41, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) Before local skills improvement plans are introduced outside of trailblazer areas, the Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to their implementation, subject to consultation of all Mayoral Combined Authorities and, where there is not one, the relevant local authority.”.—(Mr Perkins.)
This amendment seeks to ensure that local and combined authorities are consulted on the Government’s plans for the roll out of local skills improvement plans and are in a position to highlight any issues before publication.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
It will be a great pleasure for everyone to hear that after three and a quarter hours of debate, we have nearly completed clause 1 of our 39-clause Bill. I will try not to detain the Committee for more than 45 minutes at this point.
With local skills improvement plans, clause 1 provides an important vehicle to give employers a more central role in local skills systems, working with providers, mayoral combined authorities and other key stakeholders to reshape provision to tackle skill mismatches and respond better to local labour market skills needs. To develop those plans, designated employer representative bodies will need to engage the widest possible range of employers and draw on a range of evidence, including existing analyses of skills supply and demand.
Local skills improvement plans will give providers an evidence-based summary of the skills, capabilities and expertise required by local employers, helping them to prioritise and focus investment in skills provision. The clause places a duty on providers to have regard to the plans, once developed, when making relevant decisions in relation to the provision of post-16 technical education and training in the area.
The clause will ensure the information, knowledge and expertise possessed by employers, providers and stakeholders is utilised to agree priority actions to align provision to better meet employer needs and support learners. The Bill is about making sure that we have qualifications, designed with employers, that ensure students get the skills the economy demands. Clause 1 is absolutely central to that mission.
Mr Perkins
I regret that the clause will leave this Committee in less good shape than when it arrived. The amendments agreed by the House of Lords were entirely sensible. They had cross-party support; they were agreed to only because they were voted for by Conservative Members who have tremendous knowledge and experience of these matters and who are much respected, alongside others. It is a matter of great regret that the Government have failed to take on board those helpful amendments, which were added in entirely the right spirit.
We believe that local skills improvement plans are an innovation that is of value, but we are very concerned that the way they are envisaged will make it difficult for them to achieve what might have been achieved. When we come to clause 2, we will get into the debate about how local skills improvement plans might be more representative. What will happen in the event that things go wrong with the employer representative bodies is important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those points.
We support clause 1 standing part, but we are disappointed that it leaves the Committee in less good shape than when it arrived.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Designation of employer representative bodies
Mr Perkins
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, after “the” and before “employers” insert “public and private sector”.
This amendment would specify that employers operating within specified areas for the purposes of section 2(1)(a) can be both public and private sector.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, leave out “reasonably”.
This is a probing amendment to test how the Secretary of State will determine what mix of employers is considered “reasonably representative”.
Amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, after “employers” insert
“, local Further Education colleges, independent training providers, local authority (including Mayoral combined authorities) and Local enterprise partnerships”.
This amendment would add local Further Education college, independent raining providers, local authority (including Mayoral combined authorities) and Local enterprise partnerships to those of which employer representative bodies much be representative, in order to be designated as a representative body by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, after “area,” insert
“including the interests of small and medium sized enterprises, the self-employed and public and voluntary sector employers,”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that employer representative boards include a wider range of local employer interests including small and medium sized enterprises, the self-employed, and public and third sector employers.
Amendment 37, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(iii) in the event that there is no body in the local area that is representative of the organisations listed under subsection (1)(a)(ii) the Secretary of State will instruct the Local Enterprise Partnership or Metro mayor to bring together a board which is representative of all the organisations outlined in subsection (1)(a)(ii), who will take on responsibility for drawing up the local skills improvement plan.”.
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, in the event that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an eligible body is not reasonably representative of the employers operating within the specified area.
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
“(c) the Secretary of State has received in writing the consent of the relevant local authority or Mayoral Combined Authority.”.
This amendment provides for local authorities to give consent in the designation of employer representative bodies.
Mr Perkins
We appear to have raced on to clause 2. Amendment 35 is important, because so much of the Government’s narrative makes it clear that when they talk about employers, they really mean private sector employers. There are huge skills shortages within the public sector. The public sector is an important employer, and it is of particular importance in some of the most deprived communities. Labour’s approach to the Bill will be about asking the Government to place employers and those responsible for education at the heart of a skills strategy.
It is essential that employers in the public sector, including those in health and social care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned, be consulted in the formation of local skills improvement plans. Employer representative bodies must ensure that LSIPs fully reflect both private and public sector employers.
Amendment 45 is a probing amendment designed to test how the Secretary of State will determine what mix of employers is considered “reasonably representative”. The Bill refers to the Secretary of State being
“satisfied that…the body is reasonably representative”.
I think it would be interesting to define what exactly is a reasonably representative mix of employers on LSIPs. It is highly likely that chambers of commerce will be the employer representative body by default in most LSIP areas. We have had representations from organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, which has concerns about the powers to be handed to those chambers.
The Minister has said that ERBs that are not performing could be sacked and potentially replaced, but there are not numerous organisations that have the capacity to undertake that kind of work. Indeed, there is some question over whether many chambers of commerce will immediately have that capacity, but they will have the responsibility either way. As has been said, some areas have an active and vibrant chamber of commerce, and our proposals should not be viewed as being hostile to them. There are many excellent professionals in chambers of commerce and many really excellent chambers that make an incredibly important contribution to our local economies and to skills. However, it is important to recognise that membership and attendance can vary greatly within localities. The priorities of some chambers can be dominated by a small number of particularly loud voices. It is important that there are safeguards to ensure that any ERB is representative. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that that will be the case and that ERBs will consult widely in the formation of the LSIP.
What mechanisms are in place should the Secretary of State consider that an ERB is not representative? What mechanisms are in place to deal with complaints from others, such as further education colleges, which may consider that an ERB is not representative?
Emma Hardy
Much as I hate to return to the boundary issue, our local chamber of commerce is the Humber-based chamber, which may not end up being the geographical area represented by the skills body. To return to small and medium-sized enterprises, and the concerns of the Federation of Small Businesses to which my hon. Friend referred, in areas where most employment comes from SMEs or the public sector, how can we ensure that they are heard when the skills plan is developed?
Mr Perkins
That is a really important point. In some cases, chambers of commerce and branches of the Federation of Small Businesses have constructive relationships; in other areas the relationship is less constructive. To place the role of one above the other in respect of an ERB is potentially exclusive.
Amendment 36 would add local further education colleges, independent training providers, local authorities, including mayoral combined authorities, and local enterprise partnerships to those of which employer representative bodies must be representative to be designated as a representative body by the Secretary of State. We are seeking to ensure that colleges, independent training providers, local authorities and LEPs are not shut out of LSIPs and that all form part of the consultation when LSIPs are drafted by ERBs.
Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that ERBs include a wider range of local employer interests, including SMEs, the self-employed, sole trader businesses, and public and third sector employers. In some sectors such as construction, a huge number of those responsible for ensuring that a new generation of people come into the sector are self-employed or sole traders. Historically, they would just have taken on a young apprentice to work with them; they will now potentially be excluded from doing that. We have seen the danger in the way the apprenticeship levy was introduced. Big business was very much in mind when it was introduced, and the way it was designed has massively reduced the number of small businesses offering apprenticeships.
There is a danger of SMEs being excluded from the measures in the clause, particularly in smaller town communities where there are not the major employers that there are in larger cities. We are really concerned that SMEs, alongside charities, community organisations and others, will be excluded from the decision-making process in the formation of LSIPs. Amendment 46 would ensure a role for them, alongside the self-employed, in the drafting of LSIPs.
Amendment 37 moves towards the heart of what a Labour local skills improvement plan would look like. The other amendments attempt to ensure that there is proper consultation by the employer representative body. Given that the Bill gives wide-ranging, undetermined powers to the Secretary of State, we want to ensure that local enterprise partnerships and metro Mayors have their role in local decision making enshrined in the Bill. Amendment 37 therefore proposes that, if no suitable employer representative body is found that can represent all aspects, the Secretary of State be required to set up a board in that area, which would have wider representation from organisations like FE colleges, metro Mayors and local authorities.
Emma Hardy
I recall the Minister saying that the Secretary of State will have the power to take control from chambers of commerce if they are seen not to be working properly. I wonder whether the Minister would seriously consider our amendment as a model they could use. If there is only one chamber in the area, and that chamber loses control or oversight, who are we going to use instead? Does the Minister anticipate that there will be some form of inspection to check the competency of chambers? Will there be key performance indicators, or some way of flagging whether the chamber is successful or deemed to be failing?
Mr Perkins
Those are all important questions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are significant warnings to employer representative bodies in the Bill about failing to satisfy the Secretary of State. In the event that they are dismissed, as the Bill makes clear may happen, who is responsible for the local skills improvement plan after that? Many Members have said that some chambers are really strong, others have different strengths and others are not so strong. Putting all our eggs in one basket, which the Bill pretty much does in the vast majority of geographies, is a cause for concern.
Amendment 42 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult and seek consent from local authorities and combined authorities on the formation of employer representative bodies. Given that ERBs will be responsible for the formation of LSIPs, which will have budgetary commitments, it is vital that they have the confidence of local authorities and combined authorities, and that organisations are working in collaboration rather than in opposition, as we have said time and again would be the Labour approach.
Andrew Gwynne
I rise briefly to support the amendments. The nub of what my hon. Friend has set out to the Committee could easily have been resolved in our earlier deliberations, when the Minister promised genuine collaboration between the local chamber of commerce and a whole range of public and private sector bodies in developing the plans. The list in the Bill of those public and private sector bodies has been struck out by the defeat of the Lords amendments, so it is right that we have another go here.
Emma Hardy
I hope that when the Minister responds, he defines whether there is going to be a transparent judgment or transparent criteria. Will the criteria be judged and evaluated? Who will do that judgment and evaluation to determine whether a chamber has failed? It surely cannot be at the whim of the current Secretary of State, whoever that may be, to decide whether a chamber is seen as successful or failing.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is right. There has to be a fair arbitration process as well, because it may well be that the chamber of commerce does not agree that it is failing, in which case we will have a problem in trying to resolve the matter. I do not want to focus on possible failure, but we have to legislate for it, just in case. I want each and every one of these bodies to be a success but if, for whatever reason, one is not, we must know what the mechanisms are to ensure that the skills strategy for a given geographical area is carried on and made successful. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield’s amendment seeks to get that information from Ministers on what happens if, for whatever reason, things go wrong.
Lastly, I come back to the issue of how boundaries matter. If, for whatever reason, the boundaries for the skills strategy are different from those of whoever takes over that responsibility in the event of the chamber of commerce failing, we need to make sure that it is clear that the replacement covers the same area as what went before it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to support amendments 35, 45, 36 and 46, which were well presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. It is particularly important to reflect the points well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish about public and private employers. Much has been said about the potential for formulating the employer representative body from the chamber of commerce. The clue is in the name: it is about commerce and business, as much as employers.
That leads me on to the bit in between: our strong and vibrant voluntary sector. Recently, we have seen the greater rise of commissioning over many years by many public sector organisations. They have had 10 years of cuts, to be frank, so they have thought of innovative ways to deliver what I believe to be public services still. They have commissioned the voluntary sector, and it is vital for the voluntary sector—as suggested by amendment 46 —to have a seat on that employer representative body, whether as a collective in an overarching grouping or as key individual employers in the designated area, whatever it might be. Equally, we must ensure an interrelationship with other significant public sector bodies—put well by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. Not being explicit is not recognising what the employment market looks like.
Emma Hardy
When the Government design the LSIP areas, I wonder whether it would be helpful to produce some data on the respective public-private employer difference in each area. Each area will look different, so I imagine that the employer representatives would be reflective of that particular labour market.
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Exactly that—this is an employer representative body. The Bill must be open and explicit about ensuring that the public and voluntary sectors, and others—small businesses, the self-employed—have a seat at the table, through whatever mechanism. It is for them to outline how they wish to do that, but perhaps through something like the Federation of Small Businesses. I think that is vital, because otherwise it just gets lost in the grain. If the measure is to be a success in pushing forward on the skills agenda, we need to be explicit about who is at the table, who is shaping the plans and which areas. I hope that the Minister addresses my comments in his response.
Matt Western
Briefly, the amendments seek to reflect the reality on the ground, as we have heard. Let us think about HS2 and what has been happening. We have had years—decades—of plans for HS2, but we have seen skills sucked out of the regions so that we cannot get normal construction projects completed. That is because there has not been the co-ordination that there should have been. How was that allowed to happen? The result has been a huge impact on our regional economies.
Amendment 35 looks at the inclusion of public and private sectors as employers on the ERB. How can we not include the national health service, for example, and yet are able to include Virgin Care or Circle and others? It is bizarre that the public sector is not included.
On linking to the public sector, amendment 46 also seeks to include other employers, such as SMEs, the self-employed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—and public and third-sector employers. Right2Learn, in a written submission, stated:
“We believe it is critical that local skills and training strategies need to look far more widely at including third sector organisations, as well as HE and FE providers. There must be far more opportunities for the direct involvement of SME clusters and organisations and the so-called gig economy which the Taylor Commission highlighted, including co-operatives and self-employed.”
I have said before, we must include charity-heavy provision and I gave the example of the Workers’ Educational Association.
Amendment 46 states that we need to include the third sector and the local health boards. As I said, we have seen how good that can be through the pandemic. Local primary care networks and public health in our localities really stepped up and showed that what they do is what they know, which is their regions, their populations and their geographies, to deliver good services. The same would apply to the provision of skills across our regions.
Alex Burghart
I rise to speak to amendments 35 to 37, 42, 45 and 46. Amendment 36 would require designated employer representative bodies to be reasonably representative of a broad range of local stakeholders. We have already been clear that we want local skills improvement plans to be employer led, which means led by genuine employer representative bodies, but we have also been very clear that designated employer representative bodies should work closely with key local stakeholders to gather intelligence and consider their views and priorities when developing local skills improvement plans.
That includes local post-16 technical education and training providers and mayoral combined authorities, which, through our Government amendment, are already specified in the Bill as playing a key role. It also includes local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, among others. This will be covered in more detail in the statutory guidance.
Amendment 45 seeks to test how the Secretary of State will determine what mix of employers is considered “reasonably representative”. When making a judgment on whether an ERB is reasonably representative, the Secretary of State will take into consideration the characteristics of its membership compared with the overall population of employers in the area. That speaks to the point that a number of Opposition Members have made.
We certainly expect designated employer representative bodies to draw on the views of a wide range of local employers of all sizes, reaching beyond their existing membership and covering both private and public employers. They will also need to draw on other evidence, such as other representative and sector bodies, to summarise the skills, capabilities or expertise required in a specified area. That type of engagement is already happening, and happening brilliantly, in our trailblazer areas.
Amendment 35 seeks to ensure that designated employer representative bodies are reasonably representative of both public and private sector employers. The Bill already ensures that that is the case. Clause 4 gives a definition of “employer” for the purposes of interpreting clauses 1 to 3 that covers public authorities and charitable institutions—to the point made by the hon. Member for Luton South—as well as private sector employers.
Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that designated bodies represent the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, the self-employed, and public and voluntary sector employers. Public and voluntary sector employers are also already covered under the definition of employer in the Bill. Designated employer representative bodies must of course represent the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises in order to be reasonably representative.
Many existing employer representative bodies already do this effectively. For example, SMEs comprise the vast majority of the membership of local chambers of commerce. In drawing on other evidence, designated ERBs may also need to consider the key skills needs of the self-employed in order to effectively summarise the current and future skills required in the area, and that will be referenced in statutory guidance.
Amendment 37 concerns a scenario where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that there is an eligible body within a specified area that is reasonably representative of local employers. We have thought about that, but we really do not think it is likely to happen. Although the “Skills for Jobs” White Paper mentioned accredited chambers of commerce, there are other employer representative bodies with either a national or local presence. We saw evidence of that from the expressions of interest process we ran to select the local skills improvement plan trailblazers, for which we received 40 applications despite only looking for six to eight trailblazers. Many hon. Members today have spoken about chambers of commerce, but the Government are entirely open to representatives from the Federation of Small Businesses and other geographically based organisations that could also be eligible.
Mr Perkins
To clarify, how many of the trailblazer organisations were not chambers of commerce?
Alex Burghart
All eight trailblazers were chambers of commerce. However, I believe there were expressions of interest and applications from others. For the record, we are not saying that this is solely the preserve of chambers of commerce. We are supporting the trailblazers with £4 million of funding this financial year, and we will continue to support ERBs as they are designated, so that they can develop credible and robust local skills improvement plans.
Mr Perkins
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I remain of the view that public and private sector employers should feature in the Bill, so I will press amendment 37, which spells out Labour’s much more collaborative approach to this matter, to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 37, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(iii) in the event that there is no body in the local area that is representative of the organisations listed under subsection (1)(a)(ii) the Secretary of State will instruct the Local Enterprise Partnership or Metro mayor to bring together a board which is representative of all the organisations outlined in subsection (1)(a)(ii), who will take on responsibility for drawing up the local skills improvement plan.”—(Mr Perkins.)
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, in the event that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an eligible body is not reasonably representative of the employers operating within the specified area.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK-EU Fisheries Allocations
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate, which can be done either at the testing centre in Portcullis House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered allocations to UK-EU fisheries following the UK’s departure from the EU.
Thank you, Ms McVey, for allowing me to speak. I especially thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. We all tend to think that somebody else is going to request a debate on this topic, but when I spoke to the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), I realised that that had not happened. Therefore, we arranged it very quickly on Thursday evening and Friday morning, and were kindly given this spot.
It is so important to have this debate, and it is a pleasure to see so many right hon. and hon. Members in their places. I am especially pleased to see the Minister in her place. She has a wonderful appreciation of fishing and a good working relationship with the fishing organisations in Northern Ireland. They speak highly of her. I know them well, so I know that when they speak highly of somebody, they have earned it—well done for that.
Last Friday was a grey, breezy and cold day at Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass harbours in County Down. Part of the fleet was in port, part of the fleet is scattered around the British Isles, and some of them are fishing in the North sea. Others have diversified into offshore, energy-related projects and are deployed away from home. Some of the trawlers opted to stay at home and were tied up at the beginning of October, and they have no plans to put to sea until the new year. The prawn fishery is the mainstay of the County Down fleet and, by and large, catches drop off during the autumn. I hold an advice surgery in Portavogie on the second Saturday of every month, and my workload comes from the fishing issues in the village. Seasonal gales impact on fishing operations, too, as does the increased cost of fuel, which, other than crew wages, is the single biggest overhead for a trawler and has impacted substantially on the profitability of fishing operations, adding to the challenges.
Those are the factors that fishermen have to deal with year to year. However, in autumn 2021 they have been further complicated by the political closure of fishing grounds that fall within the maritime zone of Ireland, or the EU, in the Irish sea. As I often do, I will provide a Northern Ireland perspective—I am sure that hon. Members would be disappointed if I did not. The particular reason that I want to provide that perspective is that I represent the second biggest fishing port in Northern Ireland.
The sea border with Ireland is only a few minutes’ steaming time from Kilkeel. At this time of the year, access to those waters is vital for the local fleet. However, 11 months into the new relationship with the EU, issues such as mutual access by fishermen from both parts of the island to the waters are yet to be fully resolved.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
A key concern of industry is that the Government have not been clear about the benefits gained and losses made by leaving the EU. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must prioritise transparency and engagement with the industry?
Jim Shannon
I do agree with that. That is one of the thrusts of my comments this morning: the Minister and the Government must ensure that we have transparency and a settled perspective for the fishing fleets in Kilkeel, Portavogie in my constituency, Ardglass and across the whole of Northern Ireland.
French fishermen and the French Government complain about the UK not issuing enough fishing licences to fish in waters off the south coast of England. The sentiment in Northern Ireland is that we wish we had half of France’s problems when it comes to fishing opportunities and the ability to catch fish whenever we can. Following the 2016 referendum, a wagon train—or, to use a pun, a boatload—of officials from London visited County Down to gain an understanding of the fishing fleets’ operations and the path to market for seafood landed at the ports. The interdependence of fishing operations was recorded multiple times. The routes to the markets in GB, the EU and further afield were clearly explained. What was the result of that? We are still wondering.
The first part was the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. Senior fisheries officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Northern Ireland in early January 2020 to proclaim the benefits of the protocol for the fishing industry. We do not see those benefits. The “best of both worlds” was proclaimed on the tin and we heard that the proof of the pudding would be in the eating—we heard all the wee puns that we all use every day—but, as we often find, the devil is in the detail.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, having been to Portavogie and Kilkeel myself. Does he agree that one of the complications of the protocol relates to the movement of fish, particularly prawns and scampi, from Scotland to Northern Ireland? None of it is marketed in Northern Ireland, because it all goes back to Whitby, in my constituency, to be processed. Does he agree that this is a problem that needs sorting out? The movement between GB and Northern Ireland is not just about retail, but about processing goods as well.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank him for identifying that issue. He is a fellow member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I am very pleased that we visited Portavogie. I also know that he has a particular interest in fishing. Just last week, we discussed some fishing industry issues that were of interest to both of us, and we are on the same page on them.
On 24 December 2020, the second part of the result was unveiled: the trade and co-operation agreement. The UK’s objective of becoming an independent coastal state was realised. Increased shares of fishing opportunities were secured, albeit at lower levels than in the expectations that had been raised by London.
What did that mean for local fishermen? According to the protocol, access to the EU market would be near seamless for seafood from Northern Ireland. That was good news, but there was one issue: fishermen would have to catch and land the seafood before they exported it, as referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Regardless of neighbourhood agreements dating from the 1960s, Northern Ireland fishing vessels were excluded from all waters around Ireland, and vice versa, from 1 January.
The neighbourhood or voisinage agreement extends to inshore waters. Significant economic pain was endured until this matter was resolved in mid-2021. As we approach the first anniversary of the TCA, waters between six and 12 miles remain out of bounds, yet, right now, it is access to these waters that counts. To use an analogy, they are like a farm that straddles the land border. Imagine the headlines if a landowner was unable to work his land on the other side of the border to which he lives. We have examples of that in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is aware.
This is particularly frustrating because, despite the hours upon hours of explaining these issues to officials from London, and despite Dublin exuding its desire for free trade between both parts of the island, a deal was struck with the EU that ignored fishery access issues around the island of Ireland. The frustration that fishermen in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have is palatable. The TCA permitted access for EU fishermen—French fishermen—to waters off England’s south coast. English fishermen continue to be abhorred by that, and we support them.
To cap matters off, the TCA confirms that fishermen from the Isle of Man can have access to Irish or EU waters in the Irish sea, from which Northern Ireland’s fishermen remain excluded. My goodness, it is hard to believe. You could not write this story. You could not make this up. It is quite unbelievable.
Leaving the critical issue aside, there is then the issue of getting the fish and shellfish ashore so they can be processed, packed and exported. That is the very issue referred to by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). Fishermen can catch a fish beyond the harbour at Portavogie, Kilkeel or Ardglass, but when they bring it back in they are subjected to all sorts of rules, tariffs and levies.
Some £100 million-worth of seafood is exported annually from Northern Ireland. Around 60% by value goes to GB, including to Whitby and other places, while 30% goes to the EU and 10% to the rest of the world. The protocol and the TCA combined confirm that the waters around Northern Ireland, including the water that local fishing vessels float on in their home ports, is sovereign UK territory. It is the land mass that is the EU’s single market. Remember that what we currently have is implementation of some 20% of the protocol. It has permitted seamless trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, but what would the result be if the protocol was implemented in its entirety, as some would like?
It is ironic that if the protocol is implemented in its entirety, every time a locally owned fishing vessel, based in a local harbour such as Portavogie in my constituency, returned to its home port in Northern Ireland, it would have to comply with EU regulations requiring it to act as though it came from a third country—my goodness—such as Iceland, Norway or Russia. Northern Ireland’s fishermen would be foreigners in their home ports. It is simply absurd. It is hard to comprehend or understand, or to even find out why this is happening.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is alluding to the foolhardiness of some public representatives talking about the rigid implementation of the protocol, and has quite rightly alluded to the problems that would come about if it were to be fully implemented. Does he agree that this is all the more reason to put in place a specific, bespoke problem-solving process to bring this matter to a head between the EU and the United Kingdom Government, to try to resolve what, in the grand scheme of things, are comparatively small problems between the EU and the UK?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. It seems to us that the problems are not insurmountable: they can be overcome if there is a willingness to find a solution. I believe our Government are willing to do so, but I do not think there is the same willingness among the EU to participate and come up with solutions. My job, as a public representative—everyone else probably feels the same—is not about problems, but about solutions. We have solutions, so let us make sure that through our Minister and our Government, we can achieve them.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
On that point, what weight does the hon. Gentleman give to the Specialised Committee on Fisheries? Does he think that will be the conduit for coming up with some of those solutions?
Jim Shannon
My hope will always be that that committee will come up with workable solutions, so that we can solve some of these problems. However, this has gone on for so long that we are now getting to the stage where, if we do not do something quickly, we are going to have really serious problems.
Her Majesty’s Government have agreed that this is absurd. We were told that the matter would be resolved through the Joint Committee, but that did not happen. We read with interest the latest proposal from the European Commission to resolve the impasse, but there was nothing there. Over the past few weeks and months, representatives from the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation have met officials in London and the Minister, and I am really looking forward to her giving us an update in her response. I know that she has already had discussions with Minister Edwin Poots at the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, so I would be keen to get some idea of what is happening there as well. We have engaged with the fisheries Minister in Dublin on issues such as the designation of landing ports there, a subject in which the UK Minister understandably took a very keen interest recently. The sense they have is that commitments were made but that those were empty promises that have not materialised. To make another pun, actions speak louder than words, and we do not need words today, but actions.
Northern Ireland’s fishing industry is a problem child for some. The analogy is that Northern Ireland’s parents, London and Dublin, have gone through a divorce and the details are still being worked through. Unfortunately, it seems that neither of the parents actually wants us—I am sure the Minister will confirm that she wants us, and we will be greatly encouraged by that when we find it to be the case. In the meantime, the fishing fleet is in survival mode.
The covid pandemic has complicated the scene further, and markets have yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels against a background of increasing overhead costs. Northern Ireland’s fishermen have faced challenges before—worse challenges, some would suggest—and having represented the village of Portavogie at three levels for some 36 years, as a councillor, in the Northern Ireland Assembly and as its MP, I have a deep interest in fishing in Portavogie. My brother used to fish in those boats; I know many people who also fish in Portavogie, and we have regular contact with them. They are resilient, but for many, that resilience is running thin. There are potential solutions to the protocol-related issues, but they require meaningful engagement. I am seeking that meaningful engagement: I am seeking solutions, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) referred to in his intervention, not what the fishermen regard as a lack of interest from London and the begrudging approach by Dublin.
Seamless trade? Ask the processors who face expenses and disruption on a daily basis as they struggle with added bureaucracy when they move seafood from GB into Northern Ireland for processing, as the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to, before it is all shipped back to GB. We were immersed in red tape and bureaucracy when we were in the EU; now we are out of the EU, we are still immersed in it, so there has to be a change in how we do this.
The Government are committed to the levelling-up process. I have welcomed that, and will continue to welcome it in all places, but ask a Northern Ireland fisherman who has seen their share of the new Brexit quota diluted, and quota currencies such as North sea sandeels wiped out because of decisions taken by Ministers here at Westminster, about levelling up. My constituents have been left worse off than their GB colleagues. Despite the recommendation of the Migration Advisory Committee that fishermen be added to the list of skilled occupations, allowing managed recruitment from overseas, the Government have not yet fully addressed that recommendation. However, we did get some concessions on it, which I welcome.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. On the question of crew from outwith the European economic area, does he agree that the problem is that the level of language competence demanded in order to meet the skilled migrant profile will not actually be applicable to many of those seeking to come and work on these boats, and that for as long as that remains the case, the problem will be unresolved.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a very useful, honest and helpful intervention. Many of us think that the standards set are too high to be achieved. That is an issue that comes up whenever I do my constituency surgeries in Portavogie.
The Government have told us that we should wait until we see the impact on the labour market from the covid pandemic. Last week the Prime Minister confirmed that more people are in employment in the UK than ever before. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we need standards that are achievable, so that we can let people in and fill the vacant spaces in the fishing sector.
Margaret Ferrier
Labour shortages have put the processing side of the industry under increased pressure, too. A Scottish seafood processing business that supplies fish for the Queen said last month that it is having to turn away business as a result and desperately needs Government support. Does the hon. Member agree that this part of the industry must not be overlooked or forgotten when it comes to Government support packages?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my constituency, it is not just about catching fish offshore; it is also about the processing that we have on land. Everyone who speaks will refer to that. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to it in his intervention, and it is really important that we focus on the sector as a whole.
As I draw my speech to a close, I do not want to set the scene of Northern Ireland’s fishing sector as one of gloom and doom. However, those involved in the sector find it ironic that at this time of the year, the focus of intervention has not been on the annual round of total allowable catch negotiations, which are ongoing between the UK, EU and other coastal states. Fishing opportunities for nephrops, cod, haddock and herring in the Irish sea remain critical, and a solution to the abundance of spurdog is a priority for the management of the Irish sea’s ecosystem. As always, our fishermen face serious challenges every day.
Being a fisherman is probably the most dangerous job that anyone can do in the United Kingdom. There is a high level of fatalities, and fishermen go out in all weather. When I go to the harbour and visit fishermen, I can never really get my head around how people can sleep in the foetal position in about 3 feet of space while their boat is being tossed about in the water. That is the job that fishermen do. They acknowledge that there are more challenges on the horizon, driven by climate change targets and the increasingly shared nature of the marine environment. The marine protected areas, the promotion of offshore wind energy, and blue carbon are among the new issues on which our industry, through the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation and the good offices of Alan McCulla and Harry Wick, is seeking to be proactive.
There is a future for the sector in Northern Ireland. Let us be positive, and let us have the glass half full as we look forward. It can be done; we just need the will to do it. This is clearly spelled out in the DAERA report on the fisheries and seafood development programme, published earlier this year by my colleague Edwin Poots, the Northern Ireland Minister with responsibility for fisheries.
The UK has become an independent coastal state. Let us be proud of our fishing industry, rather than create a sense that it is expendable. It is not expendable, and it must never be expendable. It creates jobs and is a massive earner for my constituency of Strangford, as the Minister knows. It is an incredible earner for Ardglass, Kilkeel and Northern Ireland as a whole. As I said earlier, our products go all over the UK, the EU and the world, so we are keen and anxious to find out where we are in relation to the fishing sector in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—particularly in Northern Ireland, from my perspective.
Actions speak louder than words. With that being the case, I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope her words turn into actions, and then we will all benefit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I am not minded to set a speech limit, but everyone should know that we will go to the Front-Bench spokespersons at 10.25 am.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate.
It is fair to say, almost a year on from the signing of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, that its provisions were disappointing; that there have been subsequent developments that have been disturbing from the perspective of the domestic industry; and that we are yet to grasp the opportunity that managing our own fisheries provides to revitalise coastal communities all around the UK. That said, I retain both confidence and hope that UK fishing can have a bright future. Off the East Anglian coast, the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries initiative is moving forward. Its recommendations have been revised in the light of the trade and co-operation agreement and, with support from the Blue Marine Foundation, its strategy is now being implemented.
I shall briefly highlight some of the challenges that the Government must address, by looking at individual fish species. Lowestoft, as a fishing port historically, was built on herring. The good news is that herring are back in the southern North sea and are being landed in Lowestoft by vessels that are fishing in a sustainable and responsible way. However, two issues need to be addressed if we are to make the most of this opportunity.
First, the stocks must be nurtured and properly managed. That cannot be done if high-powered fly-shooter fishing boats, particularly from the Dutch fleet, are allowed to fish our waters without any restriction. It seems perverse that while that is happening, the Marine Management Organisation is spending its time crawling over vessels in Lowestoft, making sure that they comply by dotting every i and crossing every t of their regulations. Secondly, we need to rebuild the local processing sector, so that the full value of the catch can be retained in the local economy. At present, the herring are landed in Lowestoft and driven overland to Cornwall for processing. That is ridiculous, and funding, whether through the £100 million seafood fund, the shared prosperity fund or some other source, must be provided to help leverage investment into local processing facilities.
While increased herring catch is a fact, the opportunity to catch more sole and plaice is a fiction. The trade and co-operation agreement provided for the UK to receive a substantial uplift in sole and plaice quota, when the stocks did not exist. That was both a misrepresentation and highly irresponsible from the viewpoint of sustainably managing our fisheries. Can the Minister confirm that appropriate precautionary management measures have been put in place to ensure that, in future, the science and the reality are properly synchronised and are not so clearly out of step?
Finally, it was concerning that this year, the total allowable catches for non-quota species in UK waters were not enforced. That has proved disastrous, both from the perspective of sustainable fisheries management and for the UK inshore fleet. Large and well-resourced EU vessels licensed to fish in UK waters were, in effect, allowed a free rein to fish for valuable non-quota species. Can the Minister confirm that that mistake will not be repeated in the coming year, and that protective measures will be put in place to ensure that small boats are not crowded out by larger and better-resourced vessels?
In conclusion, the UK has not made an auspicious start to its return to being an independent coastal state. That said, in REAF and from all around the UK, there are people and businesses with great ideas and a desire to get on with the task of rebuilding our fishing industry. What they need from Government as quickly as possible—and I sense that time really is of the essence—is a coherent, sustainable strategy for the management of English fisheries that will be properly enforced. They need the opportunity to quickly roll out local fisheries management plans and they need provision of seedcorn funding for the rebuilding of our local infrastructure and facilities.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. There should be an annual fisheries debate in the parliamentary calendar, ahead of the December Fisheries Council, so that we can give as much power to the Minister’s elbow as possible to ensure that the deal that she goes to negotiate, albeit from outside the room, is as good for our fisheries as it can be.
Fishing matters. It matters in Plymouth, where there are nearly 1,000 jobs that rely on not only the catching but the processing sectors and the associated trades—supply chains and exporters. Fishing matters because it is part of our identity. Plymouth is no different from other coastal communities that I see represented around the room, in that we want to see our fishers get a better deal than they have so far.
I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) that we have started our time as an independent coastal state quite poorly. That is because of a botched Brexit deal, because of overpromising to our fishers and because, frankly, when it came to the crunch, fishers were regarded as disposable by the negotiators. They must not ever be regarded as disposable. This industry matters.
Fishing does take too many people; it is a dangerous profession. We need to remember people at home and abroad who lose their lives to accidents at sea or are injured. Progress is being made on safety. I would like to praise Clive Palfrey, RNLI coxswain and former fisherman, for his work taking the search out of search and rescue by starting to put locator beacons on lifejackets as part of the Plymouth lifejacket scheme, which the Minister supported with a grant. It has been a huge success, and we should continue to encourage its continued nationwide roll-out because it will save lives.
I pay tribute to the RNLI. It provides support for our fishers 24/7, all year round. In particular, I thank the people who have dedicated their entire lives to it. Milf—or Dave Milford, as he is better known—has given 32 years’ service to the RNLI at Plymouth. The fishing industry’s gratitude to him is echoed by me and many others whose lives he has saved. He also has an amazing nickname, which helps. Coastguards and the National Coastwatch Institution, which my stepmother is a member of, also do a super job all year round.
In the pandemic we saw the fishing industry hardest-hit, not only by a botched Brexit deal, but by the closure of the export and domestic markets. I want to give a shout-out to Call4Fish, a super Plymouth initiative that started out on a shoestring budget and is now supporting fishers nationwide to sell their catch directly from the back of their boats. That was thanks to the Seafarers’ Charity and fishmonger hall charities, who helped by putting their confidence in that. It shows that we continue to be pioneers in Plymouth. I would have liked a wee bit more support from DEFRA on that initiative, but there is still time.
I am afraid that, when it comes to fishing policy, all is not well. Fishers do feel betrayed, especially over the six to 12 mile promise that was broken. They feel betrayed that much of the money that has been promised to them in redeveloped opportunities has not come through. I know that the Minister will look kindly on an application made by Plymouth to help us redevelop our own fish market and bring our facilities into the 21st century. That will not only provide better, more cost-effective locations for landing, processing and selling fish, but will make sure that we have a sustainable future for the industry in Plymouth; we are also supporting the industry right around the south-west coast.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations report by former senior DEFRA negotiator Gary Taylor set out the numbers that many of us suspected. There were losses by our fishing industry of £64 million a year. That is not just eating away at margins, but breaking businesses. We need to recognise that exporters have been hit in particular because of the additional red tape and costs, and other problems. Many small exporters have simply stopped exporting—stopped selling into our EU markets.
Problems remain, especially with live bivalve molluscs around the south-west: although some waters have been reclassified as grade A—the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), from further up the Devon coast, is very cheerful about that—not all those waters have. Businesses that still fish in grade B waters are unable to export their live bivalve molluscs to markets in the European Union, and I worry whether, after another season of that, there will be any business available for them. That needs to be addressed.
The French disputes over the past few months have been difficult for our fishers. They have added extra caution for people going to sea and extra worry about fishing in French waters in particular. I would like the Minister, when she gets to her feet, to explain what lessons have been learned, especially from the details of the fishing boat that was detained having been left off the database provided to the French by the UK authorities. A little bit of honesty would go a long way in supporting that.
Jim Shannon
The point is that it is not just fishermen from the UK who are fishing and are in contact with the French; it is also those from Jersey. Maybe the Minister can give us an update and report on where the Jersey fisher sector is, as well.
Luke Pollard
Fishing in the Channel Islands is an important part of the sector; they are part of our big family that has been hit by a botched Brexit deal. I hope that the Minister responds to that point.
Turning to the December fisheries council, what are the Minister’s expectations around shared stocks and what is the science that we are asking for in relation to that? Much of the extra promised fish that the Government made a lot of in their announcement is paper fish: it only swims on spreadsheets. It does not exist in the sea; it was a fabrication and a fiction, and fishers know it. How can we ensure that any deal that may come out of the December fisheries council that affects our shared stocks will be based on science and will be catchable? What are we doing in relation to non-quota species? There is a real concern about how some of that sits.
I would like the Minister to recognise that the absence of a deal with Norway on fishing in distant waters is causing real pressure—not for fishers in Plymouth, but certainly for the fishers that I met when I went to Hull to see the distant water fleet there. There is a real concern that the lack of a deal with Norway will collapse that part of the sector, which is a proud part of not only Hull’s fishing past, but its present and future.
Finally, I would like to know the Government’s plan for net zero for fishing. Each and every time our fishing boats go to sea they consume an enormous amount of diesel, pumping a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere. I would like the Government to have a strategy with a date by which fishing will become net zero—not just because they are buying offsets for the larger companies, but because they are decarbonising their propulsion and fishing in more sustainable ways. I have posed quite some challenges there, but I have enjoyed my chance to serve on the Front Bench, and I warn the Minister that I will continue to ask difficult questions from the Back Benches about fishers, especially for those from Plymouth.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
If it is not too embarrassing to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), may I say how sorry we are to see him return to the Back Benches? He has been a fastidious voice on fishing and a champion of coastal communities, across the whole of the country but also in Devon. I for one will welcome the fact that he will be on the Back Benches and able to work with me on supporting coastal communities, not least in the south-west, and on what more we can do for the fishing community. I totally agree that we should have an annual debate on fisheries; I am sure that in an example of cross-party unity we can find a way to make that happen.
I want to add to the hon. Gentleman’s words that we should also thank the independent lifeboats that are not part of the RNLI. I am in the process of setting up an independent lifeboat association, which he may like to lend his support to. I am also working on an aquaculture all-party parliamentary group to specifically address the points around live bivalve molluscs. It is too broad just to have an APPG on fisheries when there are clearly opportunities for what we can do within the LBM sector and indeed the shellfish sector.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing it. As ever, he gives a unique perspective on the difficulties faced by Northern Ireland, but he also emphasised that fishing across the United Kingdom has a particular opportunity to improve, to enlarge, to expand, to grow and to become an industry that is worth a great deal more than it is now, and that the opportunity lies with DEFRA. Of course, within my own constituency I have Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth, and I am very proud of them as fishing communities. I was very proud, a few weeks ago, to spend 24 hours at sea on a Brixham trawler, doing two hours on, two hours off—I can tell you, Ms McVey, they made me work for it. It was an extraordinary insight into the skill required to be a fisher in the UK, the risks that are taken and the hard work that goes into it.
I do not believe that the Brexit deal is botched; I believe it has provided a great deal of opportunity. When I have talked to my fishermen, I have met only one in Brixham who regrets our leaving the European Union and, in fairness, he has been quite quiet of late. It is important to remember that there are some positives to be mentioned here: 25% of existing EU quota will be transferred to the UK over the next five and half years, with an estimated uplift of £27 million, making the total £333 million. There is also the specific percentage agreed for existing fish stocks.
I want to come on to what happens after the transition period, because DEFRA can add a great deal more clarity on where we go beyond 30 June 2026. After the transition period, we will be able to negotiate total allowable catch on each of the 87 stocks that are mentioned in fish annex I and II. As I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Strangford, the creation of a Specialised Committee on Fisheries is particularly welcome, as is the fact that it will be meeting three to five times a year. I will come to that in a second.
There is undoubtedly an uplift and a broadbrush approach in applying this to the whole of the United Kingdom, which comes with its own problems. However, today’s debate offers DEFRA and the Minister the chance to reassure the fishing community that we are going to address the areas about which it feels most aggrieved. The first, as has been mentioned, is the six to 12-mile limit. That is perhaps the most egregious of the compromises made around fishing, which is particularly well felt. Two weeks ago, in Salcombe we were all tracking a French vessel that we believe—I am cautious in saying—came within our six-mile limit, and indeed did a great deal of destruction to a whole load of Salcombe crab pots. The response was to go through the MMO to report it, but nothing has been heard from the MMO by my Salcombe fishermen. There is clearly something at odds there.
On the six to 12-mile limit, we have the opportunity after the transition period to be very clear about what we want for that area. I ask DEFRA now to start talking about its intentions. I used to be a negotiator in shipping, and I understand that no one wants to reveal their hand, but it is important to give the clarity that we are going to go forward and ensure that that six to 12-mile limit becomes UK-only. That is what was expected before the deal; in fact it was a great surprise to many that it did not happen. Many fishermen in Dartmouth, Salcombe and Brixham made the point that their counterparts in France could not believe that we had given away that part of the deal.
As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), supertrawlers, fly-shooters, are seen off the coast of the United Kingdom. We said that we wanted to deal with supertrawlers; we have to ensure that we are doing so. There is no greater image of our having let down elements of the fishing community than seeing those vessels. Let us be clear about what we want post June 2026.
The second point is around the money. It is welcome that £100 million has been put forward; it has shown commitment. I know the Minister feels passionately about what the levelling-up fund can do, as well as helping coastal communities. So, it is not just £100 million; it is plus the £4.8 billion in the levelling-up fund. It is great that pillar 1 has been announced, but I am tired of having to ask repeatedly when pillar 2 and 3 will come. I recognise that the Treasury controls the matter; I am not blaming the Treasury or the Minister. I am saying that a great deal of hope is pinned on that money, and the infrastructure and development that could be had to help expand the fleets in the UK, by building more boats, retrofitting and repairing them and training people to come into the industry. Those are important areas in which we can help grow the fleet and the industry. I ask again: when are we going to have pillars 2 and 3, and how quickly might we be able to apply for them and expand?
The third point is around the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. It is particularly welcome that the trade and co-operation agreement has outlined the different committees, including the one related to live bivalve molluscs on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Those committees are still mired in a little bit of secrecy and opaqueness. The last meeting of the SCF was on 27 February. The only information that I can find— I am happy to be proved wrong—is the agenda. Our fishing communities across the whole of the United Kingdom need to understand what is discussed in those meetings and how they can have an input. We must ensure that we not only feed into the agenda, but get the response so that we understand that we are discussing the problems and trying to find the solutions, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly said. It is also said that the group will meet between three and five times a year. I hope that the Minister will be a little more specific as to when. It is important that we have stuck-in-stone dates to ensure that we meet in the right places.
I have taken up far too much time. I just want to say that there is an opportunity. We know that places such as Brixham can make a great deal of money. In fact, it is having one of the most successful years on record. That is clearly not the case across the whole of the United Kingdom, but there are steps that DEFRA can take to reassure the industry, help expand it and help it grow. Given those who are in this room, there is a great deal of opportunity and willingness to work together across party.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms McVey. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate and associate myself with the remarks from the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) about the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)? I have seen quite a few Labour Ministers and Front-Bench spokespeople on fisheries in the last 20 years. Without reopening old wounds, they ran the full range of competence and commitment, but the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was very much at the top end of that range, and we will miss his contributions from the Front Bench. However, I welcome the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) to his place. He has big shoes to fill and I am sure we all wish him well.
It is worth reflecting for a second or two on how different this debate is today from the ones that we had, it seemed, almost every two or three weeks this time last year in the run-up to the negotiations. At that point, the people who are in the Chamber taking part today, who by and large represent coastal and fishing communities, were squeezed down to two or three minutes at most as there was a progression of people standing up to hail a new dawn. Ultimately, it turned out they did not know the difference between a codpiece and a cod end, and they are more remarkable for their absence today. Even those from fishing communities who were most extravagant in their promises are remarkable for their absence today. Although I am not going to name anyone, I would not want anybody to think that it had gone unnoticed.
As others have said, the TCA did not deliver what was promised. The real difficulty for the Minister and her colleagues now is that the terms of that TCA are such that, despite the protestations of the Prime Minister, come 2026 it is very difficult to see how that will change. First, the consequences for other sectors of any change in relation to the fisheries provisions would be so severe that it is difficult to see any Government in five years’ time making that sacrifice if they were not prepared to make it this time last year.
Secondly, the terms of the TCA will be changed only if there is a Government strategy, and I am afraid the one common thread that we have heard from every contribution here today is the total absence of any Government strategy on what they will do with fisheries policy now that we are no longer part of the European Union and the common fisheries policy. I would be delighted to be wrong about that. When the Minister answers, we will be listening carefully. At the moment, I see absolutely no sign of it.
The hon. Member for Totnes spoke about the SFC—the fisheries committee. That illustrates quite well some of the challenges that we now have because that is where the decisions will be made about in-year quota swaps. Those are absolutely critical to producer organisations up and down the country, but the SFC is at best going to meet four times a year. We have to have a mechanism. POs cannot just expect to do their in-year quota swaps four times a year. That business was being done on a weekly and sometimes daily basis under the old arrangements.
The Minister will recall the discussions that we had at the start of the year and the utter chaos that there was. What was described then as teething problems seems to continue today. If my children had taken that long to teethe, I might well have put them up for adoption. [Laughter.] The teething problems have an exceptionally long tail. I have been in correspondence with the Minister over one exporter from Shetland who had £50,000-worth of fish that was due to be exported in that first week; he was not able export a penny piece of it. As a consequence, he sold it on the domestic market for £20,000—a loss to his business of £30,000. Had he left the fish to sit and rot, he would have got £50,000 in compensation from the scheme set up by the Minister, but because he mitigated his loss—in the best interests of his business and the taxpayer—he was told, “No. You have sold your fish, so you will not get a penny piece of compensation.” As a result, he is £30,000 out of pocket. In what universe does that make any sort of sense? It all contributes to the feeling among the catchers and processors and exporters that they are just a wee bit embarrassing and a wee bit too much trouble for this Government to care about. When the Minister replies, will she explain how that compensation scheme has been left to work the way it is?
I will close on the question of the availability of crew, which is something that everyone in this room has campaigned for. It was a major advance when we got the Migration Advisory Committee to accept that deckhands are, in fact, skilled labour. However, the fact is that we are no closer to a workable solution. The insistence that deckhands should have a B2 level of language competence means that the skilled labour concession is virtually meaningless to the industry. The Minister should speak about that to her colleagues in the Home Office—I very much hope that she will.
While there is an awful lot more that I could say about the availability of labour in the processing sector, I see that time is against me. I conclude my remarks, hoping that we may have a more substantial fisheries debate in the main Chamber again in years to come.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Unfortunately, I had to miss a meeting that I had arranged with the Minister and Alan McCulla of the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation a few short weeks ago, but the meeting nevertheless went ahead. I am grateful for a listening ear from the Minister, and that she is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, someone who gets it. I understand that the meeting provided a useful opportunity for the Minister to hear first hand from Mr McCulla about some of the practical—verging on dangerous—issues fishers in Northern Ireland are already coping with as a result of the protocol, as well as their fears if the protocol was implemented in full.
Let us be clear. The protocol has already hit hard many parts of society in Northern Ireland, but our fishing industry risks being hit even harder. Restrictions to the east-west seafood trade and issues around the non-designation of landing ports in Ireland would pale into insignificance if the protocol were implemented in its entirety; my hon. Friend very articulately outlined some of the ludicrous scenarios that would exist if that happened.
Some claim that the protocol has its advantages. “Look,” they say, “at the seamless trade in seafood between Northern Ireland and the EU.” If only it was the best of both worlds, as some have proclaimed. The protocol was signed up to by this Government but it is heavily weighted in favour of the Irish Republic, which seeks to punish Northern Ireland fishers, among others, because Brexit finally ended the discrimination suffered by our fishermen under the EU’s common fisheries policy. That discrimination effectively stole fishing opportunities from UK fishermen in the Irish sea and gave them to fishermen from the Republic of Ireland. There was not much love shown by Dublin towards Northern Ireland on that matter for 30 years.
Imagine the strength and unity of the mighty European Union being threatened by part of an island off an island on the western periphery of Europe that is home to a fishing fleet which equates to 0.4% of the EU’s fleet. Of course, we wish for a good relationship with our nearest neighbour. Our fishermen wish to fish in the same waters. They wish to sustainably manage shared stocks in the Irish sea in an area that is 70% sovereign UK territory. They continue to welcome fishermen from across these islands to the harbours in Northern Ireland, but they should not be subservient to the EU.
The Minister is well aware of the challenges facing the industry—some historical, some new. The annual total allowable catch negotiations are ongoing. DEFRA engagement with industry stakeholders on this and a range of other issues has been somewhat impaired. Technical conservation measures in the UK’s Celtic prawn fishery that is dominated by Northern Ireland fishers, access to pilot fisheries for spurdogs, decisions around the management of sandeels, future management of non-quota stocks—the list goes on of policies where our fisherman have felt somewhat excluded, not by the Minister personally but by the Department.
Challenges can become opportunities and the Minister has heard about progress with plans to develop the fishing harbours in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I hope she can attend an event that I am organising here in Westminster next Wednesday to hear more on the issue. As an island nation and independent coastal state, there is a renewed focus on the marine environment and the real estate there. Competition for space threatens the sustainable exploitation of our sea for valuable seafood. The fishing industry is not expendable for other interests, which is regretfully how the industry feels. Rather, Government should work with fishers from Northern Ireland and elsewhere around the United Kingdom to look for ways of harnessing the unique and specialised skills of fishermen.
Finally, I make no apologies in saying that I want the best for our fishermen and for everyone involved in the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. The protocol, the TCA and the way London has treated Northern Ireland’s fishermen in apportioning new quotas, as well as the way Dublin continues to punish Northern Ireland’s fishermen, falls far short. Actions do speak louder than words, and we ask for actions.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I very much commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing the debate to this place. As always, we hear valuable information when listening to Members’ contributions on the lived experiences of their constituents, and I thank them for that. The hon. Member for Strangford catalogued a number of the failures so far to resolve some of the problems his fishers are facing since Brexit, describing many members of the industry as being in survival mode and as seeking meaningful solutions, including to the red tape that was supposed to be swept away by Brexit, but which snarls businesses and costs them dearly.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke of his disappointment and some of the challenges regarding individual fish species. He called for investment in local processing plants, and asked for science and reality to be rather more closely synchronised, and that is a fair point. I join other Members in lauding the efforts of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). He has been an excellent colleague. I appreciate all he has done on the Front Bench, and I wish him very well as he returns to the Back Benches. He spoke of the betrayal felt by fishers across the industry as a result of the Government’s actions. He spoke of paper fish, which was an interesting way to put it, and asked what is actually catchable. We are all looking forward to the Minister’s response on that. He also outlined the importance of DEFRA’s response to the net zero challenges of the fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) offered the Minister the opportunity to reassure fishers about the big problems they are facing, so we are all very much looking forward to that. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) suggested that some MPs could not tell a cod head from a codpiece.
Deidre Brock
Sorry. That raised a chuckle across the House but, more seriously, he made the point about the difficulty of seeing how the problems of the TCA can actually be resolved, and reminded us that what was once described as teething problems seems actually baked in and are clearly having a dramatic impact on so many in the fishing industry.
It seems right, when we speak in a debate on fishing, and particularly after the stormy seas of the past few days, to remind ourselves of just how dangerous an occupation fishing is—it is the UK’s most dangerous peacetime occupation—and of what our fishers risk to bring us this incredible food. I must commemorate and salute those who have paid the ultimate price, current fishermen and their families, and the fishing communities whose remarkable strength and resilience, despite at times almost overwhelming challenges, can be seen each and every day.
We must also salute and offer our deepest thanks to the many organisations that offer aid and support to those communities. Not all heroes wear capes—some wear bright yellow wellies. I thank the volunteer crews of the RNLI for their truly heroic efforts. Every day around our coasts, they go without hesitation where others fear to, and I offer our deepest thanks to them for helping to bring home fishermen safely to their families. I also thank the Fishermen’s Mission for its work. It is there for seafarers whenever things go wrong, and its support and pastoral care is just remarkable; the comfort that it provides is priceless. I must also mention the wonderful Seafarers’ Charity, formerly Seafarers UK, in particular for its swift response at the start of the pandemic. Within days, it had set up desperately needed grant systems to help fishermen and merchants, quickly getting money out of the door and into fishing businesses that might not be here today had it not been for that rapid response. The pandemic hit all of those charities’ fundraising efforts hard; I urge anyone watching to please, if they can, choose one or more and give, so that their incredible work can continue. The need for their support continues to grow.
We all look forward to a time when we can come to a fisheries debate in this House and not have to honour any loss of life in the previous year. That will not happen by itself or by accident. It will be as a result of innovative fishermen such as John Clark, from Banff, who worked tirelessly on the design of his new vessel, Reliance III, with the shipyard at Parkol, to place crew safety at the heart of the deck design. A continuous safety rail around the boat ensures that crew can have their safety harnesses attached as they work on deck, stopping them washing overboard in poor weather. In the new design of the main winch, bespoke safety guards protect against snagging risk. Clark and Parkol Marine Engineering are really at the vanguard of the latest developments—and hats off to them. I hope that they and others, using their deep knowledge and understanding of the challenges that the sea presents, continue to show us the way to improve safety, and I hope that others follow their lead.
Obviously, negotiations on catch allocations are ongoing, and the Scottish Government are working for successful negotiations that deliver a sustainable stock management process and a solid financial future for the sector. Discussions with Norway, the Faroes and the EU across all negotiation forums have, I believe, been constructive, with all sides very keen to decide bilateral and trilateral agreements where there are shared fishing interests. Those agreements with Scotland’s closest fishing partners are key to successful and sustainable stock management. Of course, no agreements have yet been concluded, and talks are planned to continue over the coming weeks. However, with the negotiations taking place against the background of COP26, I know that we are all very much aware just how important it is to secure a deal that actually strengthens the financial future of the sector and the sustainability of fishing stocks—not just for short-term prospects, but for our children and our grandchildren to enjoy healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans both today and tomorrow.
Although fishing is a devolved matter, whatever the outcome of those negotiations we are unfortunately still left with the Tories’ Brexit deal with the EU, which leaves Scotland and the UK with less trading power than we had as part of the EU and has resulted in generally lower catch stocks for Scotland’s fishermen. Once again, we find our Scottish fishing fleets and businesses impacted by this Westminster Government’s mishandling of the TCA and their seemingly endless appetite to pick fights with the French. Our fishing industry has been greatly damaged. It might be the case that the licences the French say are outstanding belong to vessels that do not have the right to fish UK waters under the TCA that this Government signed us all up to, but who knows? There has been so little transparency on that matter, and without those details, it is impossible for the rest of us to judge for ourselves. When the Minister gets to her feet, can I ask that she lets the rest of us in on what is happening, specifically how many French applications have not been met with the issuance of a full or temporary licence and remain outstanding; how many of those relate to access to fishing waters outside of 12 nautical miles; how many relate to access to Jersey waters; how many relate to access to the English six to 12 nautical miles; and whether any other EU states are waiting for licences to be issued?
Mr Goodwill
I was hoping that the hon. Lady would get around to talking about her own party’s policy which, as far as I understand it, is for an independent Scotland to rejoin the European Union and give those new-found freedoms and independent status that it would have as a fishing nation back to those people in Brussels who Scottish fishermen voted to be free from.
Deidre Brock
It is interesting that someone who is as pro-Brexit as the right hon. Gentleman still continues, in the face of all the criticisms that have been expressed today, to defend the TCA and the negotiations entered into by his Government. As he has heard me say several times before, our intention is to renegotiate when we re-enter Europe as an independent nation.
In respect of the processes that the Government are using to determine whether those French boats are due a licence, what is the benchmark for the evidence they require? Those who use boat diaries, for example, treasure them like gold, so can the Minister say whether those diaries are being accepted? Are any other forms of evidence being accepted? Of course, all of this could have been avoided if the Government had not rushed through the TCA, but had taken just a few minutes to spell out what evidence was going to be acceptable to them. The conflict with the French that this has caused was entirely predictable and preventable, so I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether the Government even tried to have that detail added to the TCA that could have averted all this.
Finally, the next few weeks—the run-up to Christmas—are hugely important for sales and exports, so what assurances can the Minister offer Scottish fishermen and merchants that their goods will continue to pass without disruption caused by what is, I have to say, a very English problem? I put the Minister on notice now that if we continue to see an escalation and goods are delayed or stopped, I will be coming back to this place to demand a proper compensation package for Scottish fishermen and merchants. Scottish businesses should not bear any more losses because of this Government’s incompetence or lethargy in their handling of the TCA. I know that I have asked a lot of questions, so if the Minister would like me to assist, I am happy to write to her with all of them so that we can get the answers that many in the fishing industry seek.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
As ever, Ms McVey, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, and I think we are all grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing today’s debate and to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing it so expertly. I also endorse the comments made by several speakers about the fact that this really ought to be a debate held in Government time in the main Chamber, and should take place on an annual basis.
I thank the many speakers who paid gracious tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). Much as I am pleased to be here this morning, I would rather that it were in other circumstances. Those tributes were most gracious, and the fact that he is here this morning speaks volumes about him as a person. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I will start by echoing some of my hon. Friend’s words, and paying thanks and tribute to all the fishers who go out all the time in all weathers. Agriculture is a dangerous occupation, but fishing is clearly even more dangerous, and all those people deserve our thanks. I have often turned on the radio in the morning around this time of year and heard successive Ministers talking about fishing—it is that time of year, isn’t it? Sometimes those Ministers were my friends, when Labour was in government; other times, they were people I knew, dealing with these complicated questions on the radio, often with interviewers who, I sometimes suspected, were struggling even more to understand the complexities involved. People might have imagined that those questions were a thing of the past now that we are an independent nation. However, we all know that in the real world, whether a nation is inside a bigger trading bloc or outside it, the negotiations go on, exactly as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out. There was red tape, and guess what? There is still red tape. Is that not remarkable?
Perhaps the most obvious observation is that the key thing is for a nation to ask itself how it gets on with its neighbours because, whatever world we live in, that is a key question. It is a question that Labour is now focused on: how to make the new post-Brexit world work for the UK and, in this case, particularly for the fishers and those who process fish. Whenever I come to do a debate, I often turn first to the Library briefing because it is always excellent and full. I often turn to the news items near the end because that gives a flavour of what has been going on. How has it been going? BBC News online asks, “Why is there a row over fishing rights?” The Times reports “French fishermen shut off port” and The Maritime Executive says French fishermen blockade channel ports. The Telegraph says French fishermen threaten to blockade and “Britain and the EU stand on the brink of a trade war”. The Times states “Lord Frost warns EU against ‘massive retaliation’”. I could go on. When we think about it, it has not gone that well over the last year, is it?
If that is what the press thinks, what do the fishers think? I find myself turning to the NFFO report on the “Brexit Balance Sheet”. It is pretty damning. In response to the trade and co-operation agreement deal, the NFFO says:
“The UK fishing industry was shocked at the scale of the UK’s capitulation”.
Those are strong words and ones I have heard around the room this morning. It was
“a decision made at the highest reaches of Government”
that came about
“despite the promises, commitments and assurances made during”
the campaign by some of the Members who clearly are not here this morning.
Anthony Mangnall
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Just as he should not judge a book by its cover, neither should he just look at those headlines and think that it is all doom and gloom. He is welcome to Brixham at any time to see one of the success stories of the fishing industry. Why does he give the NFFO report and its number greater weight than the MMO report that said there was a £143 million uplift from the TCA?
Daniel Zeichner
I am always happy to listen to all voices, but these are people who have a strong interest in the industry. The report carries on to say:
“Access to fish in UK waters—a key bargaining lever in annual fisheries negotiations—was ceded to the EU for 6 years (at least)”,
as we have already heard. We even failed to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, which is something that most coastal states take for granted.
We have heard from other Members why we got to this state, because we all remember what was happening this time last year. I am sure the Minister will remember the desperate telephone call over new year to try and explain what had been going on. We know what had been going on: it was rushed and botched. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, the fishers were betrayed on this issue and became the problem child and so on. I suspect the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) wants me to give way.
Mr Goodwill
Of course, we are all disappointed at the delay in becoming a truly independent coastal state. Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that, as a country that exports most of the fish that we catch, we still have access to the European markets, which is as important for many—particularly for shellfish fishermen off the Yorkshire coast—as the fisheries agreement for quota stocks?
Daniel Zeichner
I absolutely recognise that point. The point I am making, though, is that things have not gone well over the past year and it is entirely reasonable, a year on, for us to challenge the Minister as she goes into negotiations. To complete the point about the NFFO report, in the introduction by Barrie Deas, where the Government’s figures mention £148 million in additional benefit for the UK fishing fleet by 2026, the NFFO’s figures suggest a £300 million loss. I do not dispute that different people can cut the figures different ways. They are not simple issues. I just report what people are telling us.
In this morning’s debate, we have heard about the complexity of the issues and the range of experiences around the British Isles. It is an extraordinarily complicated industry and, frankly, I do not think the Opposition have to make the points because they have been well made. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a powerful contribution, and I am sure the Minister heard loud and clear the problems to which he alluded. Throughout this year, my hon. Friends have raised repeated concerns about the plight of small boats, particularly through the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has been relentless in criticising the hapless catch app, which was quick to be implemented in contrast to the speed at which support for small boats was not supplied. We also heard about the paper fish in the quotas. Sadly, hon. Members have made the point that the quotas are not always as they seem, and the quota swaps issues, complicated as they are, clearly are not working for our people. The shellfish sector was in the headlines at the beginning of this year and the problems continue. If it has had problems, so too has the distant water fleet.
I could not help noticing the Minister’s visit to Norway in the summer to meet the splendidly named Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen, who was Norway’s Minister of Fisheries at the time. I am glad that she went, but what were the consequences of the visit? What progress has been made? That brings me to a series of questions that are not dissimilar from some that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. Will she spell out what the Government’s objectives are for December’s Agriculture and Fisheries Council? Will she tell us where the Norway deal is for our distant water fleet, particularly those based out of Hull? Will she make a statement to the House on the outcome of any deal and any quotas?
In conclusion, it is absolutely clear that the Government were guilty of overpromising and underdelivering. Thankfully, the Opposition want exactly the opposite, and we want to build on developing a new, constructive relationship with our neighbours—not to get headlines, but to get the outcome that our fishers need.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for making a rather lyrical speech on the current situation in Northern Ireland. I think it is fair to say that the Northern Irish industry is extremely well represented at all levels. Alan McCulla and Harry Wick are in frequent contact with us, I spoke to Edwin Poots last night, and I enjoy working closely with the hon. Members for Strangford, for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on all these issues, which are important to the industry.
I also join others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I agree that it is very decent of him to turn up this morning, and I know that nothing would keep him away from a fisheries debate. We in DEFRA—I speak for the whole team—have enjoyed his time on the Front Bench and enjoyed working with him constructively. I know that fishing matters to him and that his work on safety issues will be viewed as some of his most important work on the Front Bench. I noted what he said about Clive Palfrey and Dave Milford, or Milf, whose nickname I look forward to learning about—I fear that I know it. I also note what right hon. and hon. Members of different parties said about the RNLI and other heroes in yellow wellies, which I thought was a very good way to describe them. They do so much to help with the safety of our fishermen, and in very dangerous conditions that exist right now.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who is a great champion of his fishing industry and who is doing exciting new work on aquaculture, which I look forward to being part of. I am glad to hear of the success of Brixham this year. I have visited it, and it is truly impressive. The domestic sales from Brixham market are an achievement that people should be very proud of.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is a regular correspondent and interlocutor on fisheries matters too. I ask him to hold on for the joint fisheries statement, which is coming very early in the new year. I am working on a draft at the moment, and in that will be the plan and a list of potential fisheries management plans. I am also looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who represents the REAF initiative, which is very much the forerunner of some of this work. I look forward to working with both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend on these issues very early in the new year.
Victoria Prentis
I will make progress, if I may, because I have an awful lot of questions to answer and I want to leave time for the hon. Member for Strangford to sum up.
As all the experts in the House know, the annual fishing opportunities negotiations are under way, and I hope that they will come to a happy conclusion in the next few weeks. Our aim, which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) asked about, is to secure a package of fishing opportunities and access arrangements for 2022 for fisheries that are consistent with our fisheries objectives, as set out in the Fisheries Act 2020, and that are informed by the best available scientific evidence. We are currently working very hard to deliver this through negotiations with the EU, with Norway and with the Faroese. We are determined to be a pragmatic negotiating partner.
We are pleased that the high-level negotiations with the coastal states have recently concluded and there has been successful agreement on the setting of global total allowable catches for 2022 mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring, in line with the advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
UK-EU bilateral negotiations began on 11 November. So far, they have covered a range of topics including TAC allocations and special conditions, sea bass and non-quota stocks. Really good progress is being made. We intend to conclude these negotiations by the end of next week, in time for the EU to go through its internal processes, as was envisaged in the TCA.
We are also currently in the midst of trilateral negotiations with the EU and Norway, and bilateral negotiations with Norway and the Faroe Islands. They have been positive and constructive so far, and last Friday I had a useful meeting with new Norwegian Minister of Fisheries, as Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen is no longer in post. We are cautiously optimistic that we will reach agreements that will support the long-term sustainability of North sea stocks, as well as maximising opportunities for UK industry. Arctic stocks are one of a number stocks we are considering in our bilateral negotiations with Norway. I know how important they are.
On the apportionment of the additional quota we received in the TCA between the UK Administrations, there is no consensus in industry or between the fisheries administrations about how to use this additional quota. There is always a high demand for more quota but sharing out quota is a zero-sum game. More for one Administration of course means less for another.
This year, following extensive consultation, we went for a blend of 90% track record and 10% zonal attachment. Our approach was welcomed by many but some, including some members of the industry in Northern Ireland, felt we should have taken a different approach. We have been reviewing how this new method for allocation between the fisheries administrations worked this year and will be launching a public consultation soon to help us develop methods for the future. I look forward to hearing from all right hon. and hon. Members here about how that should be done. We have been working closely with all the devolved Administrations on this; it is not easy.
The first part of the £100 million seafood fund, mentioned by many and announced on 11 September, is to provide a £24 million science and innovation pillar. This will support the industry to work jointly with scientists to gather new data to help us manage our fish stocks more sustainably. It will also help us gather new data on gear selectivity and improve understanding of the ecosystem benefits and impacts of aquaculture. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said about net zero, and it will also help with our path towards that. It will help fund projects which develop innovative ideas and technologies, such as new biodegradable packaging for seafood in order to reduce single-use plastics.
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend and others that further details on the future pillars are expected next week. I expect to hear from many of the Members currently here about their views and ideas for spending that money. The infrastructure pillar will invest in ports, processing and aquaculture facilities for the fishing industry.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that the Whitby Lobster Hatchery will be just the sort of scheme that this might fit?
Victoria Prentis
I am absolutely not going to agree on my feet at this point who should be getting that money, but I fully expect all hon. Members in this Chamber to be putting in their bids with enthusiasm. It is a generous scheme, and I am hopeful that those who put in decent bids will be suitably rewarded.
The third pillar—skills and training—will be aimed at attracting new entrants into the fishing industry and encouraging employment opportunities. That will help in the longer term with the labour shortages that several hon. Members mentioned. I am pleased to hear that the MAC report helped with including deckhands—although I heard what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said—who were added following the last recommendations. The MAC is being reviewed again next year, and it is important that we from the fishing industry look closely at the shortage occupation list.
Mr Carmichael
Before we look forward to the pathway still to come, can we look at the administration of the compensation scheme, particularly in relation to my constituent, who is £30,000 out? Will the Minister meet me to discuss his case?
Victoria Prentis
I would be delighted. We have discussed the case in the past, but I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it again.
Moving on to exports, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport alluded to, while we had a difficult start to the year, the sector is showing real signs of improvement. August seafood export values were similar to pre-pandemic levels. Some EU and indeed non-EU exports are still down, but UK salmon exports are up significantly, by 25% on pre-pandemic levels. As hon. Members understand, there is a complicated combination of difficulties, very much related to the closure of hospitality across Europe, which have made exports really challenging this year.
We continue to support exporters through our seafood industry forum on trade and to engage as closely as we can with industry. One particularly useful taskforce was set up by the new fisheries envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). We will continue to work with the sector, particularly through the Scottish seafood industry action group, to overcome future export challenges.
A number of hon. Members asked about licensing; for specific numbers, I refer them to the written ministerial statement that I laid a couple of weeks ago. Under the terms of the TCA, almost 1,700 EU vessels have now been licensed to fish in our waters. We have granted 98% of EU applications for fishing licences, 123 of them for the six to 12 nautical mile zone.
We are taking a reasonable and evidence-based approach to licensing that is compliant with the TCA. We have been extremely flexible about the evidence we will accept, even accepting survey data, for which we paid, when no other information is available. We have engaged in extensive discussions with the European Commission and French authorities—I last met the commissioner on Friday. Where the evidence provided has been satisfactory, licences have been issued. Where it has not, the door remains open to looking at more evidence.
We continue to work with the Commission and the French authorities on an approach to direct replacement vessels, and we are working very hard on that at the moment. The arrangements for the Crown dependencies under the TCA are slightly different from those for the UK. Both Jersey and Guernsey are taking a reasonable and evidenced-based approach to licensing and we are supporting them wherever necessary.
In conclusion, it is clear that we are making progress since leaving the EU. We are in the middle of annual negotiations, where we think we will be able to secure the fishing opportunities we need. I look forward to sharing the outcomes of those opportunities with the House.
Victoria Prentis
I will not, because the hon. Member for Strangford is about to close the debate.
The additional quota uplift provided for in the TCA has been apportioned among nations using a blend of track record and zonal attachment, and we will look at how we review that work for future years. I admire the industry for its resilience and feel confident that the £100 million will provide the support the sector needs. Under the terms of the TCA, we have granted 98% of EU applications and are working well on the outstanding issues. There is still work to be done and I look forward to working with all Members to ensure that our fisheries are managed in a sustainable way that protects our marine environment.
Jim Shannon
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. The combination of viewpoints in the debate shows that the fisheries sector is important for all parts of the United Kingdom, and our debate has encompassed all parts of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) referred to the stocks of prawns coming across to Northern Ireland, reinforcing the point that we need each other. We had hoped for some comment from the Minister on how her meeting went with Edwin Poots—I am sure she will follow up, as she always does.
I thank each and every person who spoke today, including about infrastructure and safety on the boats. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about promised fish becoming paper fish. We need the promised fish. As I said, we need action, not words. We need the words and the action to follow the words.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the availability of crew. He, I and others in the House have pursued that issue unashamedly over some time. The Minister referred to a review in the new year. I think we will all feed into that review, and I look forward to it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) referred to fishing being the most dangerous job in peacetime. We need safety on the boats.
I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to his place. I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for all that he has done in his contributions in this House.
The Minister referred to the importance of fishing for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We thank her for all her hard work and her endeavours on behalf of the fishing sector and for the special relationship she has—if I can say that to other Members—with our spokespersons in Northern Ireland. We wish her well in the negotiations, because she will be our voice for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need each other. I always say that we are better together. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better together, fighting together and standing together, with our Minister at the forefront.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I too would like to extend praise to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for all his hard work and his contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered allocations to UK-EU fisheries following the UK’s departure from the EU.
Wales’s Contribution to UK Armed Forces
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Wales’s contribution to the UK armed forces.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I should start by declaring an interest, in that my partner is a serving member of the armed forces, based at the Infantry Battle School in Wales.
A little over 18 months ago, I had the privilege of leading my first debate as a Member of Parliament, in which the same subject was considered. That was in February 2020 and of course since then the world has changed, and changed again. I secured this debate as a Member of Parliament with the rare privilege of representing Army, Navy and Royal Air Force facilities in their constituency. I applied for the debate last week when I was sitting in my office thinking of ways I could pile further pressure on the Ministry of Defence regarding its plans to close, in 2027, Brecon barracks, which is an historic site in the heart of my constituency. I have been campaigning on that issue since the moment I was selected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Brecon and Radnorshire. It is fair to say that I have made something of a nuisance of myself with MOD Ministers, given the number of times that I have raised the issue. One Minister even told me that I was close to the point of becoming “embarrassing”. But the significance of Brecon barracks to my constituency simply cannot be overstated.
The barracks is the home of the Army in Wales. It is the epicentre of our military history and home to the regimental museum of the Royal Welsh. The 24 trees on the Watton in front of the barracks represent the 24th Foot Regiment, which fought at the battle of Rorke’s Drift, immortalised in the film “Zulu”. However, the barracks is not just about a good film and some shiny mess silver. Its operational significance was underlined once again earlier this year when the armed forces’ incredible MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—support to people in Wales was stood up from within the Keep in Brecon barracks. At this point, I want to pay tribute to Brigadier Andrew Dawes, who I hope is watching this debate. Head of 160th Brigade and head of the Army in Wales, he oversaw Operation Rescript on behalf of the Army in Wales. I pay tribute to him and all his team for that crucial work.
It was absolutely vital to campaign to keep the barracks, and I pay tribute to all those who joined the fight, but particularly my predecessor in this role, Chris Davies, and my counterpart in the Welsh Parliament, James Evans. I knew that we were on the right track back in January when Defence Ministers announced a partial change of mind in committing to keep Army HQ in Brecon—after coming with me to the barracks to see the site for themselves. But the phone call last Wednesday night from my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement announcing that the barracks would be retained was truly as if Christmas had come early. Culturally, economically and socially, this is vital news for Brecon—a shot in the arm for a town that is often forgotten about by Ministers in Cardiff Bay.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend, like me, is a border MP. We are very proud in Shrewsbury of being a gateway to Wales, and we have many Welsh citizens and many Welsh veterans living in our constituency. I am very grateful that my hon. Friend is having this debate. I would like her to accept our best wishes from Shropshire about the very strong links that bind us, and our Union, through the armed forces.
Fay Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am very happy to send our best wishes back to our friends, neighbours and colleagues just across the border.
I am so grateful to the Ministry of Defence for bearing with me in my campaign to keep the barracks open, for listening and for being perhaps so scared of coming to this Westminster Hall debate today that it decided to keep the barracks open. Last week’s announcement by the Secretary of State did so much more than just committing to keep the barracks in Brecon. Bringing the Welsh cavalry, the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, back to Wales is a strong sign that this Government are committed to Wales and to the Union. Soldiers from the QDG have told me just how much they wanted to come home, so I warmly welcome that move—even if they are going to Monmouthshire and not Powys.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I too am delighted that the Queen’s Dragoon Guards are coming back to Wales. The original place where they were planned to be sited was St Athan in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Welsh Government had not made land available for the armed forces so that the Queen’s Dragoon Guards could come to St Athan, which was the originally preferred site? For our Union’s sake, the Welsh Government need to play their full part in welcoming the armed forces to all parts of Wales.
Fay Jones
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. He expresses an important point in very clear terms, which I will talk about later. As a result of the Secretary of State’s announcement last week, Wales will see an increase in the Army footprint from 6.7% to 7.3%. A new Reserve unit in Wrexham will significantly increase the presence in the north. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has campaigned so diligently on that. Combined with an Army Reserve of more than 30,000, the British Army will be more than 100,000 strong.
As I mentioned at the beginning, the world has turned significantly since we last came here to discuss this issue. In Wales, over the course of the pandemic, we have once again called on the support of our armed forces. The Army has organised and conducted more than 74,000 tests, 11,000 ambulance responses and almost 70,000 covid vaccine inoculations. Those numbers will certainly have increased since those data were recorded. The Army continues to support the Welsh Ambulance Service by crewing ambulances. It is essential to remember the civilian role played by our armed forces. It can be quickly forgotten but we must take every opportunity to show our gratitude, not just on Remembrance Day.
I know how much people in my constituency appreciate that support from the shifts I did as a volunteer at my local vaccination centre on the Royal Welsh showground at Builth Wells. We were fortunate to be joined by members of the RAF band, who were deployed to Builth, Bronllys and Ystradgynlais as part of the vaccine roll-out. Yesterday, I was back at the showground for the winter fair and was delighted to learn from the chief executive that members of the band have been invited back to the Royal Welsh show next July for a celebration event.
We saw earlier this year that the armed forces deliver for Wales, but Wales also delivers for the armed forces. Even during the pandemic this year, I was delighted to visit Exercise Cambrian Patrol organised in my constituency. I pay tribute to everybody who managed to get Exercise Cambrian Patrol off the ground again this year. This fantastic event, known well to all armed forces personnel, is an arduous challenge of more than 40 miles. Teams of eight come from around the globe to compete in the Black mountains and the Brecon Beacons national park. It is the Olympic gold medal of military training and I am delighted it takes place in Wales. I congratulate all who took part this year.
So far this speech has been full of nothing but praise for the Government, which is somewhat unusual for me. When discussing our service personnel, it is imperative to consider our support for former service personnel in Wales, and I do feel that veterans in Wales are being short-changed. They are unable to access the same kind of support that their counterparts in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland can rely on. Wales is currently the only country in the United Kingdom not to have the support of an independent veterans commissioner. For years, Welsh Conservative colleagues in the Senedd in Cardiff have been arguing for that role to be created. Of course, the armed forces are a UK-wide policy area but, with public services in Wales devolved to the Welsh Government, Ministers in Cardiff Bay need to agree to recognise the role, in order for it to make a meaningful difference.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the debate and the points she is making, particularly highlighting the work of our armed forces during the pandemic. I am sure she will agree that we need to highlight the work of the Welsh Government in funding the seven armed forces liaison officers who are currently working across Wales and the work the Welsh Government are doing with the NHS pathway, hoping to have that health and social care support. Does she also agree that the reluctance of the Government to agree the future of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs will hamper that work going forward?
Fay Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I certainly agree and pay tribute to all of the armed forces liaison officers that we have in Wales. I was about to talk about them. I am due to meet the armed forces liaison officer for Powys in the next few days. They do fantastic work—long may they remain in post. However, there is a role for someone to oversee that work so that, as a veteran moves around Wales, they can guarantee the same kind of mental health support and education provision. That consistency is key.
In 2013, the late and much missed former Minister in the Welsh Government, Carl Sargeant, expressed support for creating the role of the veterans commissioner, but argued that funding had not been made available by the UK Government. However, after much persistence from a number of colleagues, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, our right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the funding in the Budget this year specifically for an Office for Veterans’ Affairs in Wales. As it stands, Westminster Ministers have written the cheque and Ministry of Defence Ministers are willing to start interviewing candidates, but the Welsh Government continue to play for time. I cannot understand why the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay are reluctant.
As I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), a veterans commissioner would oversee public services in Wales and make sure that they work for the tens of thousands of former military personnel across Wales, especially those who live in Brecon and Radnorshire. More than that—this is the point I was making—that person would ensure that the mental health support available to veterans is consistent whether they live in Brecon, Beddgelert or Barry Island. It is time for Welsh Labour to stop neglecting this community. Once again, I find myself urging the Welsh Labour Government to confirm that they will give the role their blessing and work with us so that the process can go forward.
I know other colleagues want to contribute, so I will bring my remarks to a close. If I have waffled in my speech, it is because the Ministry of Defence has forced me to rewrite it at the last minute. I came here to give the Government another broadside on the barracks and to press once again for the QDG to come home. The Secretary of State stole my thunder, but I could not be more grateful. Although this could be the opportunity for me to restore my credibility with the Ministry of Defence and go quietly, it is time for me to think of a new campaign that will help the Government demonstrate their support for the armed forces in Wales.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I am mindful that various colleagues want to speak. It is a very crowded room for a 30-minute debate. If people will be mindful of the time, we will get to the Minister for a response no later than 11.20 am.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) on securing this debate.
It might seem strange that I wish to speak today when I represent a constituency without a major military presence, but we have deep and real connections to our armed forces in Aberconwy. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have been privileged to visit military bases across the UK to speak to enlisted men and women and officers. A recurring theme in conversations is the importance of people. The commanding officer of HMS Dragon, for example, spoke more about the team around him than the £1.2 billion vessel we were standing on at the time.
I cannot speak today about Wales’s contribution to the armed forces without speaking again about Welsh veterans. I am proud to say that in Aberconwy we have many, and we are home to several inspirational charities that offer support. It has long been recognised that active military service has the potential to adversely impact mental health and wellbeing, with physical, mental and emotional symptoms commonly reported by veterans. I note and welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire about the importance of support, and I ask: is it the place of the Welsh Government to stand between UK funds being made available for UK citizens in such a way at this time?
Concerns regarding impaired health and wellbeing have achieved a high profile recently. I want to take this opportunity to thank the veterans of Aberconwy for their years of service to the United Kingdom. I also wish to pay tribute to organisations throughout Aberconwy that work in their support, including the Royal British Legion, Blind Veterans UK and Homes for Veterans Cymru-Alabaré. Those are established, but on Saturday I had the extra pleasure of meeting a new initiative—the Military Minds football club. The founders—David Owen, Ryan Davies and Kyle King—and I sat together in Llandudno. They have set up that new charity football club to help veterans, and I have no doubt that this initiative will provide support in the months and years ahead. As someone who is passionate about football and about supporting our armed forces and veterans, I will follow their adventure with interest.
In truth, we do have a military presence in Aberconwy. The training camp in Capel Curig has been the temporary home to many thousands who have trodden our hills in pursuit of physical and technical expertise: Snowdonia/Eryri offers a unique environment for that. However, I do not want to speak about what happens on our hills, but about what happens in the skies above them. Along the coast, at RAF Valley in the constituency of Ynys Môn, is the training centre for our fast jet pilots. The UK and our allies face ever-greater and ever-changing military and security threats, especially from an increasingly belligerent China, Russia and Iran. Among many responses being developed, this year, for the first time in over a decade, a carrier strike group of the Royal Navy—the senior service—sailed on active operations. After 11 years without aircraft carriers, it is a milestone of note that the UK has re-established our ability to project air power from the sea once again.
The pilots of the RAF and Royal Navy F-35 Lightnings are trained at RAF Valley, one of the finest centres of military aviation in the world. There is a whole force team there of over 1,500 people, which is an important contribution—a Welsh contribution—to the UK’s ability to defend our interests and our allies around the world. Crucially, those training flights bring those jets over Aberconwy. There is no doubt that the sound of birdsong and insects on a sunny day in Dyffryn Conwy is a thing of beauty: it nourishes the soul. There is also no doubt that that bucolic idyll is shattered by the noise of the Texan T1s, the basic fast jet training aircraft used at RAF Valley. I know that this can be a real source of annoyance, and even distress, to many of my constituents. I acknowledge those concerns and have been working with colleagues to mitigate this issue, moving more flights over the sea rather than the land and reducing the windows during which those flights take place. I am also encouraging colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make more effort to explain the work that is happening. This is a partnership—a real relationship that needs communication, and can be helped only through greater and better understanding.
For now, while I continue to represent the concerns of constituents who are affected by the sound of those swirling, soaring Texans overhead, whether in their homes, in their businesses or on their farms, I must also recognise that it is the sound of freedom. This is a real price: a local contribution that many pay daily. It is a real part of Wales’s and Aberconwy’s contribution to our nation’s defence, so in conclusion, I offer my thanks to my constituents for the part they play.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) for securing today’s debate. With the Defence Secretary’s recent future soldier Army restructuring announcement last week, this is a fitting time to discuss the benefit of Wales to the UK armed forces. As a Welsh MP with an interest in veterans and our armed forces, and who sits on the Select Committee on Defence, this is comfortable ground for me. I want to touch on two points: first, the Welsh military footprint, and secondly, the contribution made to the defence sector in Wales more widely.
Wales has a proud military history, as indeed does my constituency. Wrexham is home to Hightown barracks, once the home of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, whose roots date back to 1689. Last week’s announcement by the Defence Secretary is hugely welcomed: Hightown barracks will now house a reserve company, the 3rd Battalion The Royal Welsh. The barracks, once destined to become a housing estate, now has a new lease of life and will regenerate the military stamp in Wrexham. Although there will be a scaling down of the Army mass nationally, I am pleased that Wales is the only nation not to see a reduction in its capacity or capability, and the announcement of a £320 million investment in Wales to enforce this is most welcome. If there were to be one example of Wales’s contribution to the armed forces and the UK Government’s commitment to the military in Wales, this is it.
I will not reiterate the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made about the armed forces’ extensive contribution to the Welsh Government’s covid recovery plan, nor will I reiterate the need for the Welsh Government to get on board with a veterans’ commissioner. I know that another Member wants to speak, so I will just make one other point, which is about the significant contribution that the defence sector makes in Wales in jobs, opportunities, equipment, the supply chain and the defence pound. We have a large military footprint in Wales, with over 4,000 jobs in the military chain alone. North-east Wales is a hub for defence businesses, including Qioptiq in St Asaph; Airbus in Broughton; MOD Sealand, which is home to the Defence Electronics and Components Agency and sits on the border with Chester; and Raytheon at Hawarden airport. Earlier this month, Raytheon was awarded a £110 million contract to upgrade the RAF’s Shadow surveillance aircraft, creating hundreds of new jobs in the area, including in my constituency of Wrexham. All those companies have invested in the covenant, making the gap between the serving and civilian sectors smaller, and in the workforce not only of the present but of the future. With this Conservative Government’s vote of confidence in Wales—the cancellation of the closure of Brecon barracks, subjecting future generations of soldiers to the wild delights of the Beacons, and the boost to Hightown barracks in Wrexham—the symbiotic relationship between the military and Wales is clearly defined for the future.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
It is pleasure to respond to the debate under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend, the outstanding Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), on securing not only this debate but so many debates on the future of Brecon barracks. The armed forces in Wales have an extraordinary ally in her, and she has made her mark in speaking up for them and, particularly, for her constituency. She is right to say that she has changed the MOD’s mind. Her predecessor struggled—in fact, did not find the time at all—to ask any questions in Parliament about the future of the barracks. That goes to show what a sound choice the people of Brecon and Radnorshire made in returning her in 2019, so that she can take up the fight on behalf of the community, something that matters enormously to them, and what a fantastic champion they have in their MP, who takes these local issues to Ministers so persistently and brings home victories.
I also thank all those who have joined the debate today. It is great to see such fantastic attendance, which underlines that the armed forces in Wales are supported well by all their MPs. I pay particular tribute, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, but I have found that, in all my dealings with Welsh MPs, there is support for our armed forces that crosses party lines. I know that that matters enormously to our armed forces in Wales. I hope that the First Minister will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, but there was a view in Army headquarters that he might not be the most responsive to a relationship with the military. However, I know from the team in Brecon that he has worked enthusiastically alongside us in the last 18 months, and we are very proud of the way in which that relationship has developed.
Alun Cairns
I am encouraged by the Minister’s comments about the First Minister. However, does he share my concern that the Welsh Government prioritised a business park over a major new military unit that was earmarked for St Athan? With the Special Forces Support Group remaining at West Camp, St Athan’s long history with it will remain, but the significance of East Camp will now be lost to a business park as a result of the Welsh Government’s not making land available for a major military unit.
James Heappey
I accept that observation. It is a shame that the full potential of St Athan could not be realised. I know that the Welsh Government take a view on the value of the development that they are undertaking at that site, but clearly, from an MOD perspective, we felt that there was an opportunity to develop further. That is an opportunity that will now not be available to us.
Some 2,300 recruits came from Wales in the last two years. That means that, as a ratio of population, Wales outperforms England in recruitment to our armed forces. Indeed, 7% of new starters in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines were from Wales over that period. There are 2,100 regular armed forces based in Wales. As we have discussed, the return of an additional unit to Wales means that an increased percentage of the UK armed forces will be based in Wales as a consequence of what was announced earlier in the week.
The Welsh units have been busy. The 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh, the most well-equipped and most highly ready battle group in NATO, was deployed on Operation Cabrit, the enhanced forward presence mission to Estonia. Last Christmas, I had the sad duty of sending them all to the M23 in Kent to swab the throats of truckers as their reward for doing so well in a tour to Estonia. That was particularly hard, given that a friend of mine who I served alongside in 2 Rifles is now the commanding officer of that battalion. They did an amazing job, responding at an hour’s notice to get Dover flowing as quickly as possible. It was a fantastic performance.
The Welsh Guards have been on public duties in London and have also been deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week in Mali, although they were keeping a low profile because they are arriving in theatre, the 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards are shortly to take over command of the MINUSMA mission, bringing stability and security to a part of Mali that is very troubled indeed. I know that they will do that brilliantly. Indeed, the squadron of 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards that has been in Mali for the previous tour under the command of the Royal Anglian Regiment has acquitted itself brilliantly and shown just what a fantastic outfit the Welsh Cavalry is.
It is not just the regulars; the 3rd Battalion The Royal Welsh generated a full company to serve in Operation Rescript—our response to covid. The Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers generated a squadron. There have been reservists serving as liaison officers across Wales, working with our police forces, councils and other local agencies in order to co-ordinate the covid response.
I pay tribute to Brigadier Andrew Dawes, who my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned. He is an outstanding commander for the British Army in Wales, and he really gets what is required as a regional point of command and interface with local authorities. There have been 36 requests for military aid to civilian authorities, requiring 1,500 troops drawn from 80 units, some from within Wales and many from without. The most high profile of those is the ongoing support to the south Wales ambulance service, where 110 drivers have now been serving for seven months, and have been involved in 15,000 call-outs.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I register my own interest. Will he say something about the fantastic foreign and Commonwealth soldiers who support Welsh units in the British Army? A lot of them are concerned that they get forgotten and are not supported, particularly when they leave our armed forces. Many settle in Wales and have close relationships there.
James Heappey
I absolutely will. Foreign and Commonwealth soldiers play an extraordinary role in the British armed forces. I suspect that when someone is recruited from Fiji or Grenada and find themselves in Brecon in January, they have a bit of a sense of humour failure, but it is a testament to the hospitality that Welsh people provide that, despite that coldness, they choose to settle in Wales afterwards. I will briefly mention the veterans commissioner, because I think that is important to that point.
Castlemartin, Caerwent and Sennybridge are key training areas used by the British armed forces to prepare us for our operation output, and the fantastic Welsh landscape makes for adventurous training. I note the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) about the noise of the fast air over north Wales, but it is a world-class training environment for the very best fighter pilots. It is a tribute to RAF Valley that so many from overseas wish to come and train in that environment.
On prosperity, nearly £1 billion is invested in industry in Wales, generating 4,940 military and civilian roles, 770 private sector jobs and thousands more across supply chains across a range of capabilities from fast air all the way through to armoured vehicles.
I agree that is conspicuous that Wales does not yet have a veterans commissioner, but I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, with officials in the Office of Veterans’ Affairs, is engaged in this. Working with the Welsh Government, we hope to find a resolution on that soon.
Across Wales, there is an extraordinary contribution from our armed forces to the United Kingdom. I hope that the people of Wales reflect on how well the UK armed forces serve them in their hours of need and how well they represent Wales when serving overseas.
In the 30 seconds remaining, I would like to mark the departure of General Sir Nick Carter as Chief of the Defence Staff. He is being drummed out from the Ministry of Defence as I speak. His has been a career of over 40 years’ extraordinary service to our Queen and country. He has done immeasurable good in his time as Chief of the General Staff and as CDS, most notably— I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) will champion this more than anyone—in ensuring that all frontline roles are now available to men and women. He will be missed, and we welcome his successor Sir Tony Radakin.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Community Energy Schemes
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Before we begin the debate, I remind Members that, in line with the guidance from the House of Commons Commission and the Government, they should wear face coverings except when they are speaking. I also remind Members to take a lateral flow test twice a week, which can be done in the House or at home, and to give other Members and staff room and space when seated as well as when entering or leaving the room.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of empowering community energy schemes.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I start by thanking Steve Shaw and Power for People, who have worked tirelessly on the campaign to unblock community energy. I also thank the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston), who is promoting the Local Electricity Bill in this Session. I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), with whom I have worked closely on the campaign, in the Chamber. They are enthusiastic champions for community energy in the House, and I look forward to their contributions.
Imagine a future where people can purchase clean electricity directly from a local supply company or co-operative and where every pound spent on powering our homes or cars is recycled back into the local community, supporting jobs, funding new facilities and services and contributing to renewable energy infrastructure. That is what community energy is about: ensuring that people everywhere support and benefit from the clean energy transition.
Solving the climate crisis and meeting our net zero ambitions will require huge changes that will be seen and felt directly by people everywhere. We need a radical shift in industrial systems, technology and business models, which must be underpinned by strong and decisive Government action and the right policies. However, one of the most crucial requirements is bringing people on board for the transition to net zero, because they have to pay for the transition through their energy bills and taxes, they have to host new infrastructure in their neighbourhoods and on their landscapes, and they need to alter their routines and behaviours.
Unless we bring people on board for the transition to net zero, there is a huge risk that the public will not welcome or even accept the necessary changes. The consequences of that will be that our progress to net zero will be much more lengthy, costly and contested, and it will be less inclusive, equitable and environmentally sustainable. The real strength of community energy is its connection to people and places. It is people who make community energy what it is, and it is people who will see the benefits. That is what we are trying to achieve with the Local Electricity Bill.
Community energy is one of the few tried and tested means of engaging people in energy systems. The Bill would lead to energy market reforms that would empower community-owned and run schemes to sell local renewable energy directly to households and businesses. It would make new community energy businesses viable and, by bypassing large utilities, those businesses would keep significant additional value within local economies.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend—she is my hon. Friend on this subject—on securing the debate. As I understand it, the Government argue that the means to enable new suppliers to come into the system are available. However, when I recently inquired about how many Licence Lite applications, which are meant to help new energy suppliers enter the market, had been granted by Ofgem, the answer was that three licences have been granted since 2015 and none has been applied for since 2019. Might that not suggest some changes are needed to make it easier for new suppliers to enter the market?
Wera Hobhouse
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Something does not work, and I will come on to why it does not work. The whole system is outdated and does not allow for the changes that we need to make to get to net zero. We have to test what works on the ground. The number of licences that have been granted speaks for itself. We have made no progress, yet the Government accept that community energy is a good thing and we should all support it.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. On the issue of the Government saying it is a good thing, does she agree that the trouble in this country is that community energy is seen as a thing on the side? It is a cherry on the cake, and not the substantial part of the energy mix that it could be, as it is in places such as Germany, where there is a right to sell to the rest of the community. When we have that, we end up with a proliferation of local energy companies, a real diversity and ecology of energy companies, and a much stronger sector as a result.
Wera Hobhouse
In other countries there are much more diverse markets for this, and we really have to look at why it does not work in this country. I agree with the hon. Lady—absolutely, it has to be at the core of the transition. It is about power and people, so we are here to make a strong case to the Government to listen and really understand the benefits of local community energy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I fear that much of the difficulty that we will encounter in promoting this case will be found along Millbank in Ofgem, which has never been an enthusiast for this sort of diversity in the market. In the northern isles, we have the highest rate of fuel poverty anywhere in the country. We already produce more clean electricity from renewable sources than we can use. We do not have the opportunity of exporting that to the transmission grid, so I am happy to offer us up as an early testbed for community energy.
Wera Hobhouse
If I were the Government, I would happily take up that offer. It is about the surplus energy that can go back into the community. If we look at the crisis in the energy market and the fact that people will probably face higher prices, anyway, the Government’s argument that there might be unintended consequences, particularly around price, has proven not to be the case. It will ultimately become cheaper if we go along the lines of community energy.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for securing this debate. In dealing with the objections to the course of action that she is setting out, she will know that the Government maintain that the right to local energy already exists. Does she agree that the right way to look at that is the way I look at my right to buy a Ferrari, which already exists, but my financial obstacles to doing so are considerable, and that that is true in the case of community energy too?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that analysis. Do we all want Ferraris? Who knows? But we probably all want community energy. The problem is indeed the cost of entry for small local suppliers, and that is what the Government need to look at. As we have already heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), it does not work on the ground. When the right exists, fine, but what is the practice? We need to look at what we can do to change the practice and at what is affordable for the small companies that want to enter the market.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. As I have said in previous debates, I have local constituent groups who are dead keen on community energy and really want to be able to rise to the opportunity. In addition to rising to climate change targets and reducing emissions, there is an issue about resilience to climate change. We now have people in different parts of the country who have been without power for four or five days because of climate change-related weather storms. If we had local generation, there would be additional resilience in the system that would perhaps protect or shelter people a little bit from some of the damaging consequences of changing weather.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Lots of small and diverse players are probably the answer to our future energy demands. The Government in the past have always considered bigger is better, economies of scale and all the rest of it, but we need to look much more favourably at smaller, diverse suppliers.
I need to make some progress, so I will remind everybody where we were. The Bill would lead to energy market reform that would empower community-owned and run schemes to sell local renewable energy directly to households, rather than small companies buying energy from bigger companies, then selling it on. It would make new community energy businesses viable and by bypassing large utilities, they would keep significant additional value within local economies. More of the money that we use to pay our electricity bills would circulate back to our local communities to create more skilled local jobs, more viable local businesses, stronger local economies and greater resilience.
Let us take my constituency of Bath as an example. Bath and West Community Energy has delivered 12.35 MW of community-owned solar photovoltaics, in addition to one hydro scheme. Many of these projects have been installed in schools and community buildings across Bath, including Ralph Allen School, Oldfield School, Walcot rugby club, Newbridge Primary School and Lewis House. Bath and West Community Energy systems generate enough electricity to match the annual equivalent of 4,000 homes. They have distributed nearly £300,000 back into local community grants, which go into supporting community action on carbon reduction and fuel poverty, which has been mentioned.
The group supports a wide range of schemes, ranging from community orchards and reuse and repair schemes to fuel poverty advice and even a cycle-to-work scheme using e-bikes. I am delighted that our local electricity distribution network operator, Western Power Distribution, is a registered supporter of the local electricity campaign. However, there are a number of problems facing local suppliers, including those in my constituency. Bath and West Community Energy has identified and is developing nearly 40 MW in a pipeline of projects that will work with communities, commercial developers and site owners, but its ability to commission the pipeline will depend on a number of different factors.
One key factor is grid capacity. This area is currently heavily constrained. Investment is needed in grid improvement, but Bath and West Community Energy must compete with commercial companies with much more resources to secure a grid connection. Smaller operators do not have the financial resources that big commercial operators have. Another factor is partnership with local authorities. There is huge potential, and I am delighted that Bath and North East Somerset Council supports the Local Electricity Bill. Councillors keep telling me how popular community energy projects in their wards are in the consultation stages, but many projects do not make it to reality. There must be stronger support for local authorities to establish joint ventures and utilise local authority finance to invest in local community projects that generate local social and economic benefits on both public estates and in the wider community.
What is the biggest barrier to community energy? It is the right to local supply. Current energy market and licensing rules mean that community energy schemes to build new renewable generation infrastructure and then sell power to local customers face costs that are too high to make the schemes financially viable. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research states that the financial, technical and operational challenges mean that initial costs exceed £1 million. As the Environmental Audit Committee has said, community energy contributes 278 MW of renewable energy as of 2020. That is less than 0.5% of total UK electricity generation.
Community energy has seen almost no growth in the past six years—a great waste of potential. However, there is a solution. I urge the Minister to add his support to the Local Electricity Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Wantage and is supported by 281 MPs from all parties. The Bill sets out the mechanism that can fix the UK’s local supply problem. Clause 1 states the purpose of the Bill—to enable the local supply of electricity. Clause 2 sets out the aim of smaller-scale renewable generators to supply electricity directly to a local area. Clause 3 gives Ofgem the task of setting up the local supplier licence process. Crucially, it requires that the process ensures that local suppliers face set-up costs and complexity proportionate to the scale of their operations.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady not right that clause 3 is the nub of this Bill, because all too often in regulation we have a one-size-fits-all approach that is not proportionate to the scale of the operation or the ambition? If a specific duty was placed on Ofgem to ensure that both the regulation and the cost were proportionate to the size of the ambition and the operation of the local generator, we would see that 0.5% figure rise quite dramatically.
Wera Hobhouse
Indeed—I completely agree. I urge the Minister to look at clause 3 of the Bill, which would give Ofgem the task of setting up the local supplier licence process, which should be proportionate to the size of the operator.
The Government have said many times that they support community energy; I am grateful for that, as are all of us in the Chamber. In the last debate on community energy, the former science Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), outlined the Government’s agreement with the broad intentions of the Local Electricity Bill, which was very welcome.
Those who support the Local Electricity Bill accept that it can be improved. We want to work constructively with the Minister and his Department to improve it, so today I will address some of the Government’s concerns. I will take each concern as outlined by the Government in turn.
First, the Government have said that there is already a right to local supply through existing rights and flexibilities, but we have heard why that system probably does not work; Ferrari analysis springs to mind. The existing rights and flexibilities simply do not address the problems faced by local suppliers. The huge potential for more community energy generation is not being realised. Community energy has seen no significant growth in the last six years, standing at a mere 278 MW of electricity generation capacity. No existing community energy group in the UK is licensed to sell its electricity directly to local customers.
Licence Lite, the scheme set up in 2009 to award geographically-based energy supply licences, has resulted in only three such licences being granted since the scheme was established. The key flaw in Licence Lite is the need for local renewable generators to partner with a willing licensed energy utility.
Secondly, the Government say that changing the rules risks distortion in the energy system. The energy markets and the energy system are the result of the rules that govern them. These rules are much as they were when they were introduced for the 1990 privatisation. They might have made sense at that time, but now that there is such huge potential for distributed smaller-scale renewable generation they are now outdated.
Thirdly, the Government say that changing the rules risks increased costs for consumers. The evidence shows the opposite. In 2020, community energy organisations spent nearly £900,000 on energy efficiency upgrades, helping over 45,000 people to reduce their energy bills. A twentyfold increase could be achieved from community energy schemes by 2030.
Fourthly, the Government say that changing the rules risks further unintended consequences. However, they have not really outlined what those unintended consequences are, so I hope that the Minister can say what he thinks they might be. Those of us who support the Bill want to work together with the Government, as I have said.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a recent report from the UK Energy Research Centre, to which academics from Imperial College London have made a significant contribution. It is a very important report, and it identified five different business models that could work together to ensure a thriving community energy sector. It is clear not just about the important role that collaboration between communities and the private sector has to play in community energy but about what the Government must do to support community energy solutions.
The report also says that the Government should set clear and sustained targets for growing the community energy sector, and introduce policies and regulations that allow space for small actors, which we have heard about. That must go hand in hand with sufficient investment in energy efficiency retrofitting, an area where the Government do not have a very good record.
I have three questions for the Minister today. I have sent them to him in advance, so I hope that he has had time to prepare his response to them. My first question is simple: will he commit to including the Local Electricity Bill in future energy legislation? Secondly, he said in recent letters to Members of this House that the Local Electricity Bill risks creating distortions in the energy system and having other unintended consequences—apart from the increased cost, which I have addressed. Can he outline what these distortions and consequences are, because knowing them will allow me and other supporters of the Bill to work on improving it?
Finally, I wrote to the Minister earlier this month, together with the hon. Members for Wantage, for Waveney, for Ceredigion, as well as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, asking him to meet us. We are keen to work constructively with the Government. Will he agree to that meeting? There is a great deal of cross-party support for the Bill, as we can all see in this room. We have an opportunity to do something significant on our path to the net zero transition, building the public consensus we need. Otherwise, we might face significant delays to deliver the necessary changes. Community energy is not just nice to have and it is not just a cherry on the top of a sustainable economy cake; it should be at the heart of what we do to get to net zero.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Four hon. Members have submitted a request to speak. We have until 3.30 pm, which is when the Front-Bench spokespersons will start.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Congratulations to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing today’s important debate.
I want hon. Members to imagine a future where they can purchase clean electricity directly from a local supplier that is owned and run by local people. Storm Arwen this weekend certainly demonstrated the power of the elements back home in North Devon. As we transition to net zero, we need to harness more of our renewable energy resources as efficiently and rapidly as possible. Local energy supplies have the additional community benefits that every pound spent powering our homes or cars could support local jobs, help fund new facilities in our communities and contribute to more renewable energy infrastructure. That future is within reach and realising it is vital if we are to ensure that the British public welcome and benefit from our transition to net zero.
We have made great strides in decarbonising our economy. Our greenhouse gas output is 51% lower today than it was in 1990. Currently, renewable electricity accounts for 14% of our total energy use and that is set to rise significantly as we further decarbonise and build up our energy security. I very much hope that floating offshore wind generated in the Celtic sea will be part of that in the not-too-distant future. Achieving net zero presents the serious challenge of growing our electricity generation at least twofold, so that transport and heating can be decarbonised, and building the renewable generation infrastructure to power it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Is that not the key point? We need to increase our renewable generation of electricity, but the reality is that where there are projects, especially in rural areas, there is often a fair bit of opposition, above all when it comes to onshore wind. One way of addressing that concern is that if communities believe they will have ownership of and the benefit from that development, that will bring people with us. To achieve our ambitious targets, we must take people with us, and that is one way of doing so.
Selaine Saxby
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is an opportunity to bring our communities with us on this journey, which is so vital to the whole purpose of the Bill and its objectives. In the face of soaring international gas prices and global energy pressures, surely we should be welcoming that challenge.
There is remarkable potential for community energy and renewables schemes owned and run by local people in helping us reach net zero on time. As the hon. Member for Bath said, currently community energy generates around 0.5% of our electricity. As the Environmental Audit Committee showed in its recent community energy inquiry, by 2030 community energy could grow by at least 20 times, powering 2.2 million homes and saving 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. Other countries such as Germany already have more than 1,000 supply companies, compared with just 50 here in the UK. One does wonder what is stopping us doing that already.
Currently, the energy market rules lead to costs—the Ferrari costs—that make doing that impossible. The financial, technical and operational burdens involved in setting up a licensed energy supply company mean that initial costs exceed £1 million. It is like setting up a micro-brewery, planning to deliver beers to local pubs, restaurants and homes, and then being told to pay £1 million in road tax for a delivery van because it is using the national road network. The business would never be started. To realise community energy’s huge potential, we need to enable current and future schemes to sell their power direct to local consumers. That requires making the cost faced in selling power proportionate to the size of an energy business. New community energy schemes would then be financially viable and their enormous potential would be realised.
The Local Electricity Bill, which I am proud to co-sponsor, and which enjoys the support of 282 MPs—another joined this weekend—would do that. The Bill would improve the market rules to allow community energy schemes to flourish alongside larger suppliers. I look forward to working on the Bill, so that it can be another proud stride in our decarbonisation journey and quite literally deliver local power to the people.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this important debate.
It is just two weeks since the conclusion of COP26 in Glasgow and I welcome the focus that the debate places once again on how we practically deliver on the UK’s climate targets. We know that the Government’s recent pledge to decarbonise the UK power system by 2035 will require not just leaving fossil fuels in the ground where they belong, but a significant increase in renewable energy generation. Although progress has been made, with renewables generating 42.9% of electricity generation in the spring of 2020 and the Government committing to 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, it is clear from everything we have heard this afternoon that community energy generation remains the missing part of the equation.
As we have heard many times, a failure to remove the barriers being faced by local suppliers is what is holding us back. Indeed, while large developers will soon benefit from the contracts for difference scheme, projects smaller than 5 MW continue to be excluded. Yet as the Minister will be aware, the potential for community-scale renewable energy generation is enormous. I am particularly delighted to hear the number of times that a report by the Environmental Audit Committee has been cited in this afternoon’s debate already. As a member of that Committee, I was pleased to sit in the deliberations as we came up with the figures that by 2030 the sector could grow by up to 20 times, powering more than 2 million homes and saving 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 each year. It is a very powerful report and I commend it to those who have not yet had a chance to look at it.
The report made it clear that the UK’s outdated regulations are unfit for the present, let alone for the future. As things stand, as the hon. Member for Bath reminded us, community energy generation makes up less than 0.5% of the UK’s total electricity generation and there has been almost no growth in the sector in the past six years. Compare that with a country such as Germany, where there are 200 local energy companies, and with energy systems in countries such as Denmark, which are entirely decentralised. In comparison, the UK is an incredibly centralised four-nation country with an incredibly centralised energy system, and local energy companies have been little more than collective purchasing vehicles.
In other countries, local energy systems incorporate all aspects of generation, storage and supply. Households, communities, schools and businesses become joint producers and consumers in the local energy system, with vested interests in generating clean energy as well as consuming it, yet here at home, as Community Energy England has so clearly set out, Government policies have made it more difficult for the sector to flourish. The outdated market that we have largely dates back to the 1990s, when the sector was privatised, and prohibitive costs combined with the complexity of licensing laws are stifling community energy schemes.
Wera Hobhouse
Can the hon. Lady outline that the whole idea does not work because the improvements to the grid have not materialised in the way that we had hoped, or rather the way that the Government had hoped, and that we need big grid improvements to deliver net zero?
Caroline Lucas
I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention and she is absolutely right. It feels to me as though this absolute reinforcement of the grid is often the poor cousin in these debates and does not get much of a look-in when we talk about what needs to be done, yet it is absolutely critical. If we do not do that, the rest of what we are discussing will not count for much because it will not be possible for it to be realised if the grid is still in the dilapidated state that it is in now.
Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I am pleased to serve, wrote to the Secretary of State following our inquiry into community energy and specifically recommended that the Government remove the regulatory barriers to allow community energy projects to sell their energy to local communities. The Secretary of State subsequently promised to publish the Government’s future plans for community energy in the net zero strategy, yet disappointingly that strategy contains neither a plan nor the practical support measures needed and that the Committee had recommended. That is why the Local Electricity Bill, of which I am also a proud co-sponsor, is so important, and why it seeks to remedy successive policy failings, by giving people the right to local electricity generation. As others have said, it would create the right to the local supply of electricity, allowing community generators to become local suppliers, and require Ofgem to establish the local supplier licence process, ensuring that the costs and complexity of becoming a local supplier were proportionate. Other measures to support community energy schemes include expanding and extending the rural community energy fund to include urban, heat, energy-efficiency and retrofit projects.
I want to say a last word about how community energy has a role to play in helping to build thriving, resilient communities. I was struck by the fact that in its final report, Climate Assembly UK placed a strong emphasis on fairness and leadership from Government. Community energy is that chance to deliver on both those fronts. Quite simply, enabling community energy projects means supporting thriving communities, where the profits from generation are reinvested locally. It means that, in transitioning to a zero-carbon economy, we are not simply building a new industry on the same old model, with profits concentrated at the top and communities denied a share of the benefits or unable to access the jobs. We are turning that on its head. We are creating something new and better, delivering decent green jobs and energy, investing at a local level in those resilient local economies. That is what a green new deal worthy of the name looks like in practice.
Community energy projects deliver significantly more social value than commercial models. Although the sector currently relies on volunteers, Power for People estimates that almost 60,000 skilled jobs could be created up to 2030, if policies such as those in the Local Electricity Bill are implemented. As I said, community energy is not just a nice-to-have extra to be excited about—the cherry on the sustainable economy cake. It is a fundamental part of the total energy mix.
Finally, I pay tribute to Brighton and Hove Energy Services Co-op—BHESCO—an award-winning social enterprise in my constituency, which since 2015 has completed 58 community energy projects, estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by more than 7,000 tonnes over their operational lifetime. They have told me clearly that they could do so much more if the rules were changed and they were allowed to fulfil their potential. All they are asking for is a fair playing field for community energy projects that now struggle to make a business case, so that they could do the practical local projects that involve people and communities in inventing and adopting climate solutions, which bring huge social and community benefits.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate. It appears that debates on community energy are synchronised in the parliamentary timetable to take place every six months. On the one hand, that illustrates the groundswell of support from communities all around the UK to come forward with their own bespoke schemes. On the other hand, the fact that we are turning up every six months would suggest that we are not getting anywhere.
The rationale for empowering community energy schemes is compelling. To decarbonise our energy supply, our transport system and our heating networks we need a shedload of electricity. We need to be firing on all cylinders. Communities around the UK want to do their bit, to play their role in getting to net zero. Imposing a wind farm, solar farm or hydro scheme on a community might well run into resistance, but a community working up its own plans is more likely to get somewhere. Community energy schemes can also play a key role in revitalising local economies, creating sustainable, long-term jobs and promoting a truly circular economy.
To enable community energy to play that full role, regulatory barriers need to come down. Work on doing that needs to start straightaway. Last year, deployment was at a record low. At a local level, local authorities are developing their own climate action plans, and they want to get on with putting them into practice. The one-size-fits-all supply licensing regime—even if there can be regional demarcation—the complexity of the electricity market and the costs of entry are stifling community development. Local price signals are also heavily dampened, and are thereby out of sync with the Government’s stated desire to encourage flexibility at all levels.
There is a need for regulatory reform. I suggest that the following issues need to be addressed. First, it should be made possible to grant derogations from standard licence conditions and to grant supply licences for specific geographical areas or premises types. Secondly, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should ask Ofgem to provide guidance on the steps needed to support community energy and to establish a right to supply. Thirdly, Ofgem itself should give full consideration to the provision of a local supply licence. Fourthly, the reform of the supplier-hub model should be fully investigated. Finally, careful thought should be given to the effectiveness of the smart export guarantee scheme. That should include looking at the range, nature and uptake of SEG tariffs and considering what steps must be taken to improve the route to market for community energy projects.
Although having such consensual debates provides pleasant respite, we need to get on with making meaningful and significant progress on the road to net zero. Local communities have a significant role to play and, to ensure that they can do so, we need to remove those regulatory barriers. I acknowledge that in many respects that is complicated, and there is perhaps a tendency to put it in the “too difficult to do” column. However, there is very limited, if any, political resistance and, in fact, as we are hearing, a groundswell of grassroots support from all around the four nations. I thus request that the Minister ask his team to work with Ofgem to produce a strategy for removing those hurdles, so that, when we next debate community energy, perhaps in six months’ time, it will be when he is making a statement in the main Chamber setting out the steps that he is taking to unleash a wave of community energy projects.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Betts, for giving me the chance to speak. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for setting the scene for us all, and I praise the hon. Lady for her sterling efforts in bringing the community energy debate to the Hall. The fact that so many have turned up is an indication of the interest in the topic. I spoke in the Westminster Hall debate on enabling community energy that she secured in July, which was chaired by the late Sir David Amess, and I am pleased to be back here to reiterate the benefits of community energy schemes. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, whether interventions or speeches. I am also particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) in his place. He had an Adjournment debate on this very issue, which was well attended as well. If he is going to make a contribution, I look forward to it. I hope to be, as we often are, on the same page.
I want to emphasise the importance of allowing local communities the opportunity to advance their own electricity strategies. Perhaps those come at a cost, but a community approach should be at the forefront of any decarbonisation effort. That is where the initiative and inventiveness comes from, and a community approach has the potential to drastically increase renewable energy provision. It may be of interest that currently there is no strategy to target the enabling of community energy. Brief overviews have been discussed, but if we want to focus our efforts on empowering community energy, surely we must have a sustainable plan to do so. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because he always gives us something to hang on to—we look forward to that contribution.
I mentioned in the previous debate that the United Kingdom has witnessed the emergence of 424 community energy organisations. It saddens me to say that Northern Ireland has only two, which is very disappointing. The opportunity for that simply has not been within our reach. There is a reason for that. Community Energy NI and the Fermanagh Trust do much-needed work raising awareness of the benefits of community energy. Their website states:
“Community energy projects also offer an opportunity to help secure the long term financial sustainability of community organisations.”
That is crucial, given that many community organisations have a high dependency on grant funding.
In my office, and I am sure those of all Members, there is massive interest in clean energy, net-zero carbon targets and the need for a better future for our children and grandchildren. Those are the things that motivate us. My mailbag and email accounts are full of such requests and suggestions. We need to have a sustainable plan in place, so that we can move forward. It is safe to say that cost is a huge factor in putting energy companies off investing in localised schemes. Green Alliance has stated that the number of new community energy projects in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has fallen dramatically since 2015, with only one in 2017. I think the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said that there were none at all in 2019.
We are also falling behind most European countries in terms of community energy. If our colleagues and friends in the rest of Europe are doing it there may be something that we can learn from that, and perhaps we can add that expertise to our process. A recent survey showed that 11 million households could be producing or storing their own energy in the UK by 2030, compared with only 1 million today. That is a big target to meet, but it is achievable. Returning to my earlier point, that cannot be done without support from our Government and the Minister, and the availability of grants, to get the idea brought together—the kernel of thought—and make it physically happen.
On regulation, the Local Electricity Bill establishes a right to local supply, ensuring that local energy is financially viable and creates local economic resilience across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the Bill, as I mentioned in July, does not extend to Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister is always keen to encourage us in Northern Ireland, so perhaps he could give us some idea of what we can do to make that happen. I encourage him to engage with his counterparts in Northern Ireland—the Economy Minister, Gordon Lyons, and in more rural instances the Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, both of whom represented Northern Ireland in the recent COP26 talks, where they made a significant contribution. It is important that we are part of that.
I am encouraged that more elected representatives are being lobbied by their constituents to get involved in the energy debate. That is exactly what has happened in my mailbag and the contacts that I have had. I welcome the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bath. We must ensure that the correct funding for community energy schemes is allocated accordingly, and that all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit. Such strategies ultimately pave our way to future economic success. Not only do they inspire organisations and individuals to engage with smaller localised companies as opposed to larger and more populated financial and energy firms, but they have a role to play, which we need to encourage, and I look to the Minister to do just that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
In view of the fact that there is a bit of time left, I thought I would say one or two things. I have come to learn about the Local Electricity Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) once again on securing the debate, and thank all the Members who have supported it. To be honest, I find it a bit frustrating that people who want to do things that will contribute to helping to address the great challenge that we face, which is to change the way in which we produce and consume energy, find difficulties in their way.
I, too, look forward to listening with great interest to what the Minister has to say, because I thought the example that the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) gave of the £1 million and the microbrewery really made the case that it is disproportionate. I would have thought that any Government in such circumstances would be reaching out their arms to embrace those who wish to contribute to generating energy rather than allowing there to be obstacles in the way. We know that connecting to the grid is a problem even for quite large producers. There are a number of new offshore renewable projects, and when we ask how they are getting on, the answer is, “Well, there’s a problem about plugging the wire in when it comes ashore.” Of course, there are a lot of very important technical issues to do with the capacity of the grid and so on, but if we look at this historically, we will see that our energy generation system has relied for a very long time on big places making the energy—it used to be via coal, gas and nuclear—and sending that electricity down wires to all the homes in the country.
The community energy Bill is saying that there is a different model that could help us to reach our goals. I am struck when I hear colleagues talk about the success of community energy in countries such as Germany. I know nothing about the generating and distribution system in Germany, but it gives rise to the question: if they can do it there, can someone please explain to me one more time why we find it so difficult to do it here? The reason I quoted earlier the Licence Lite application figures I had sought was that they suggest to me that this is complex and difficult when we ought to be making it a lot easier.
We can envisage a future in which there are two other benefits. First, we know that getting infrastructure constructed in this country can lead to a lot of objections and difficulties. If the idea of localised nuclear generating facilities, which Rolls-Royce has been talking about, comes to pass at some time in the future, I have no doubt that there will be a lively debate, because it is a much more devolved system of manufacture and distribution of electricity. However, experience surely teaches us that if we give people a stake, they are more likely to agree to the infrastructure being constructed.
I remember from my time as the Environment Secretary hearing from a community that had put up a wind turbine. We know that onshore wind turbines are very unpopular indeed in some parts of the country. That is part of the reason why we have so much offshore wind. However, that community had no trouble getting approval from the village, because people understood the benefits that would flow from electricity generation, and they knew that the money from the feed-in tariff would go towards supporting the local community hall.
When he replies, I hope that the Minister will not only give encouragement but set out the practical steps that the Government are willing to take to make it easier for that to happen. The hon. Member for Bath says that she has requested a meeting, and I join her in that request. It would help all of us who are campaigning—I freely acknowledge that I have come late to this—to understand what the problems are. In the fight against dangerous climate change, the fight to change the way we produce, distribute and use our energy, nobody is afraid of trying to get to grips with the practical changes that are required. We want to support the Government to make the necessary changes.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
The problem in Northern Ireland is that if everybody were to convert to electric vehicles, as we are trying to do in relation to net zero, our grid would collapse. With everyone coming home at 6 o’clock at night and plugging in, the grid would collapse. The only way to deal with that is local generation for charging networks, as has happened in some communities in Israel and America. That approach has worked and is working.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman raises a really interesting example, because the future will require a huge increase in renewable electricity generation, whether for heat pumps for homes, for cars or for other things. Electric vehicles are an interesting example of thinking about energy in a different way. For example, if the car arrives home and is parked up at 7 o’clock in the evening, and that is when people go indoors to put on the kettle and the TV, we could say, given that there will be loads of car batteries being used, “Between 7 and 11, part of our generating capacity will be the batteries in all those cars. We will draw them into the system, and then when we have gone to bed, hopefully at a reasonable hour, the battery can be charged up to take us to wherever we want to go the following morning.” That is such a good example of how we can think differently about energy generation and distribution, and it is a powerful argument for the Bill, which so many hon. Members are here to support.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We move on to the Front Benchers, who have at least 10 minutes. They can have a bit longer if they want, as long as they leave a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to respond.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Like other hon. Members, I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for bringing forward the debate. She set out clearly the benefits of community energy and how it would help on the path to net zero and to empower local communities. She also, importantly, set out the current barriers to setting up community energy companies. That was further illustrated by examples in the contributions of the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
One barrier seems to be that it could cost upwards of £1 million to get set up for a generation licence. We have heard that the Licence Lite option under Ofgem simply is not working, so we need alternatives, and the Government must update rules that date back to the electricity network privatisation back at the end of the ’80s and the early ’90s. The hon. Member for Bath made important comments about bringing people on board. We need everybody to buy into the actions that we need to take to tackle climate change. If people get additional community benefits along the way, that is clearly a bonus.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
On that point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has alluded to, not only do we need that community buy-in to allow for measures but, for too long, the energy system’s centralised nature has led to a disconnect between the consumer and the generation. By bringing them closer together, we may find that the typical consumer gains an appreciation of what is entailed in energy generation, which may bring beneficial behavioural changes on top of everything else.
Alan Brown
I completely agree. Actually, that touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds Central that we have a grid system and a grid charging system still fundamentally based on where coal-fired power stations or nuclear power stations are sited. That needs a complete overhaul. I may touch on that a wee bit later.
Jim Shannon
Strangford Lough Wildfowlers and Conservation Association in Newtownards came up with a small tidal scheme, which, with a small grant, generated some electricity for its use. The scheme has allowed the club to reduce its costs and keep running. That same process could be used in many cases across the whole of the United Kingdom. Has the hon. Gentleman got any similar examples?
Alan Brown
The hon. Member gives a good example. I do not have any specific ones to hand, although I will touch later on how some community energy projects have been held back because of the removal of the feed-in tariff.
It is clear that hon. Members are agreed on the importance of community energy generation, and I am sure that the Minister will stand up and say that he agrees with it as well. The key thing is not just agreeing with the principle but taking action to facilitate the growth of community energy projects.
I, too, am a signatory to the Local Electricity Bill, and I pay tribute to Steve Shaw for his campaigning, dedication and ability to get so many local authorities on board behind the Bill, as well as 282 MPs and 77 national organisations, including the Energy Saving Trust, Good Energy, Forum for the Future, the New Economics Foundation, ResPublica, Solar Energy UK, the British Hydropower Association, Triodos bank, the Transition Network, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth, the Wildlife Fund for Nature, Greenpeace and ClientEarth. That in itself suggests that the Bill is a good thing and should be implemented.
If we look at the energy retail market, we see how badly it is struggling. We just saw Bulb—the seventh largest company, with 1.7 million customers—go bust, so it is clear that we need alternative solutions for the provision of electricity. Clearly, local powering will not replace an organisation such as Bulb overnight, but, as I say, it is logical to try to facilitate local community-based renewable energy where possible.
Changing the regulations to make new community renewable energy businesses viable allows communities to bypass the large utility companies. It means significant additional value for local economies and, as we have heard already from other hon. Members, more money will then circulate in the local economy, leading to more skilled jobs, more viable local businesses and stronger local economies. As I touched on earlier, it empowers local people and companies to be part of the green revolution and part of the pathway to net zero. That can only help to focus minds and create the general buy-in for the need for collective action to tackle climate change.
Evidence suggests that community energy generation currently accounts for less than 0.5% of the UK total. It has been suggested that it has the potential to increase tenfold over a six-year period. As we have heard, figures from the Environmental Audit Committee suggest it could be a twentyfold increase by 2030. That would more than offset the need for new nuclear power generation, and it is something that the Government need to consider.
The Scottish Government have made strong progress towards community energy, but their efforts have been undermined by UK Government cuts. The Scottish Government had a target for 500 MW of community and locally-owned energy by 2020, which was exceeded and then increased to 1 GW by 2020. They have now doubled the target to 2 GW for 2030. Progress towards the bigger target has been positive, but, as I touched on in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford, the removal of feed-in tariffs has hindered the growth of those projects. There is a project in my constituency that never got off the ground because of the removal of the feed-in tariffs. By taking away those tariffs, the Government are blocking community energy projects, and they are not doing enough to help facilitate them in a different way so as to allow the sale of energy. That is why urgent action is needed.
The Scottish Government published an updated local energy policy statement in January. Of course, community energy projects in Scotland are further hampered at the moment by Scotland having the highest grid charges in Europe. Lucy Whitford, managing director of Renewable Energy Systems UK and Ireland, has said that
“it doesn’t feel as if charging is fit for purpose anymore for us to deliver net zero. We have worked up some examples of network costs. The additional cost per annum of a 22 MW wind farm in Argyll versus one in Essex could be £500,000. Continuing in the current direction of travel on charging reforms could add another £120,000 per year to a project, so it is very significant.”
That is why I have been calling for reform of the grid charging system.
At the moment we have the cost of living crisis, and the energy cap will increase by between £400 and £600 in April. We have the retail energy market in crisis, with 23 companies going bust since August. In 2018 there were more than 70 companies in the market, but now there are fewer than 30, so Government action is needed to reform the sector.
Meanwhile, the Tories have managed to find £1.7 billion to further develop proposals at Sizewell C, and they want to commit bill payers to a regulated asset base payment contract that will last for 60 years on top of the 10 to 15-year construction period. That is madness. The money would be much better spent on community energy growth, as we have discussed. The Local Electricity Bill is an alternative that will not cost the taxpayer or the consumer any money. In fact, it is intended to help create lower local energy costs. Like other hon. Members, I urge the Government to consider supporting the Local Electricity Bill and, if need be, work on a cross-party basis to improve the Bill and get it to a place where everybody is happy with it.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on obtaining the debate this afternoon and on putting forward the case for local energy, particularly for a community energy Bill, in such a succinct and complete way. That means I do not have to say all the things that I was going to say about a local community energy Bill, other than to say that we on the Opposition Benches thoroughly support such a Bill. We think it would make a tremendous difference to the way that local energy can move forward.
At its heart, it has a simple proposition, which is that people should be able to sell the energy they produce to their neighbours, their friends, the people down the road, their local industry and shops. As we can envisage, that sort of environment would not only make a tremendous change in how people relate to their own energy, but would potentially be a great step forward in the appreciation of what we need to do, as far as energy is concerned, in the low carbon environment we will have in the future. Energy is something that people do, rather than something they simply receive. That seems to be the essence behind the idea that people can sell the energy they produce to their local community.
It is a simple proposition and we know what a difference it would make, so why not just do it tomorrow? What are the barriers in the face of the proposal? To go to the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), we seem to have been here on a number of occasions. He has a similarly long pedigree in talking about the same issues that I have raised, both on the Environmental Audit Committee and elsewhere. He is right that we seem to turn up in the House talking about this issue on a fairly regular basis, and nothing whatsoever changes.
My particular involvement in the issue goes back to a 2013 Energy and Climate Change Committee inquiry on local energy, which I chaired, that looked at the barriers to how local energy can go forward, remarked that there was not a great deal of local energy going on and talked about the potential for local energy. We have heard this afternoon about the potential from now on, but at the time we were saying we could have perhaps 3 GW of local energy overall in this country by 2020. What have we got today? About 270 MW, something like that.
If we look at the various projects have contributed to that 278 MW, we have heard mention of a number of the co-operatives and organisations that have actually produced local energy, but pretty much to a project—I have seen a lot of projects in my time—they have been carried out with heroic dedication, overcoming tremendous obstacles and, in some instances, have failed at great cost to themselves and other people. It would be so easy just to make it possible for those schemes to happen. I congratulate and commend all those people who have generated the 278 MW of local energy that we have so far. The fact that we have any at all is a remarkable tribute to them, not to the system we have.
That is where we need to be very clear. The obstacles in the way of local energy are very much about the question of local supply, but there are a lot of other obstacles as well, which hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon. The idea is that people are trying to set up a local scheme to produce a pretty modest amount of energy for local consumption, important though all those local schemes are in terms of aggregation across the country. However, people have many obstacles to overcome and are required by the planning system to get permission in place. They need to spend perhaps a million pounds per project just to get a modest scheme going. If the rules were different, people would be able to put that million pounds into the development of the project and not throw it away on a possibly unsuccessful scheme in the first instance.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) gave the example of the local brewery getting its cars on the road. People might think that is a fanciful example, but it is absolutely how the grid system works at the moment. There is an assumption that every single electron that is produced goes literally from Land’s End to John O’Groats and back again before going into a lightbulb and that it is charged as such, even if it had come from two doors down the road. That is the assumption. The introduction of local energy into the system is often regarded as a tremendous nuisance and loss of load. We cannot actually see where it is, and it is not easy to balance in the grid. That means that the last to get connections into the distributing grid are the local energy schemes. The charging regime for those schemes, once in operation, assumes that they are national schemes, just locally based.
Wera Hobhouse
I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s explanations about the complexities of the grid. Does he agree that, when thinking about licensing for a new devolved scheme, we need to look at things such as liabilities when there are outages, for example? It is not impossible to overcome these difficulties.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is absolutely right. It is not particularly difficult to overcome these problems. I am emphasising this deep mindset of how the grid works that has been with us for a long time. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned the fact that the grid was designed for a bunch of providers to produce x amount of energy, which would go through the grid until it got to a lightbulb. The world is completely different these days, but the grid still operates as if that were the case. That is inimical to the success of local energy projects.
As the hon. Member for Bath says, it would not be difficult to fix that, but there is a problem. Ofgem and, to some extent, the Department are particularly concerned that if we start dismantling the grid in its old system and localise it to enable the development of local energy in the way we have discussed, there could be distortions in that original system. I suspect the Minister will talk about some of those distortions, but let us be clear: they are distortions to an old system that does not work. We actually need those distortions to come into place to make the new, low-carbon overall renewable system work in the first instance. Making local energy work in that context is a very important change we need to make.
We need to make these changes to the system as a whole. We need to get the grid on to a much more friendly basis for local energy. We need to make the possibility of local energy much more real in terms of the hurdles it needs to overcome before it can get going. We need to have positive Government support for the development of expertise and the assistance and support that local energy schemes need to go ahead. That particular area, with the preponderance of volunteers in the local energy system, would be really good to have as a draw-down arrangement for local energy for the future.
Yet again we are meeting with the idea that the future for local energy could be really bright, but I fear that we will be here in a few months’ time talking about the bright future that has not quite emerged, but may in the future. We have not got time any more to keep going round the houses before we get to a decent settlement that will allow local energy to proceed. Local energy is so important, as we have heard this afternoon, for the future of low-carbon renewable energy.
I was delighted that the Local Electricity Bill has been amended to ensure that local energy is low carbon and renewable, so that we do not have diesel reciprocators coming in and providing local energy as a result of the ability to get a local licence. That is a very good amendment, and adds further to the Bill’s force.
I have questions for the Minister that are similar to the three questions asked by the hon. Member for Bath. I hope that he can give us some reassurances about the Government’s earnestness to bring about changes to the grid arrangements that can underpin local energy, and that they will be treated as a move forward as opposed to a distortion of the system. The answer to one of the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about the German system is that cities in Germany, in many instances, own their own grids—and are doing so in increasing numbers. Germany does not have the grid system, a system that is regarded as just common sense in the UK. We have to turn that common sense around and start from the bottom up, with grid and district-grid management, rather than assuming that we should work from the top down. If we do that, then there will be a fundamental turning of the tide in favour of local energy for the future. I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I hope he will be fully supportive of the local community energy Bill, but I hope he will also be understanding of what differences need to be made to the system to allow local energy to come into its own.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this important debate, and for pre-submitting the three questions that I will answer during the course of my speech. I will, however, return to them at the end to make doubly sure that I have answered them to her satisfaction. I realise that this is the first debate on the topic since I took on my new role in September; I think the previous one was on 1 July. I welcome the debate, and it is fantastic to see so much enthusiasm for community energy from all parties, nations and regions of the UK—it is very heartening to see.
I will start by reassuring the House that the Government recognise the role community and locally owned renewable energy schemes can and do play in supporting the UK’s national net zero targets. Since the last debate we published, on 19 October the net zero strategy, which has already been referred to and sets out our road map of how we will get to net zero by 2050 and the staging posts in between. We understand that the value of community energy is not just in delivering energy projects that stimulate clean growth. Projects such as the community energy cafés run in south-east London support the most vulnerable in society by providing impartial domestic energy advice. Community groups can also act as the catalyst for raising awareness of both the energy system and wider environmental issues. They can be a catalyst in the promotion of behaviour change, which we all know is vital to reaching net zero.
I know Members will agree with me that there is already some excellent work under way in the community energy sector. We have heard many examples today, but I will add one: Swaffham Prior is an off-grid gas village of around 300 homes in east Cambridgeshire that is being supported by its community land trust to bring renewable energy to the village through installing a heat network. This will make it one of the first villages in the UK to do so.
I mentioned the net zero strategy, but we have also heard about a lot of different fantastic schemes from across the United Kingdom. As a Government, we fund the rural community energy fund. Delivered through local net zero hubs, this £10 million scheme supports rural communities in England to develop renewable energy projects that provide economic and social benefits to the community. Since its launch in 2019, the fund has received 1,668 enquiries, 203 applications and awarded millions of pounds worth of grants to projects focusing on a variety of technologies, including solar, wind, low-carbon heating and electric vehicle charging. It includes funding for the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath. She referred earlier to Bath and West Community Energy, which has received more than £92,000 from the rural community energy fund for feasibility grants to develop three community solar projects.
Ofgem also supports community energy projects and, following a consultation process, has announced that from February 2022 it plans to welcome applications from community-interest groups, co-operative societies and community-benefit societies to the industry voluntary redress scheme. That will allow groups to apply for funds to deliver energy-related projects that support energy consumers in vulnerable situations, support decarbonisation and will benefit people in England, Scotland and Wales.
More widely, through the introduction of UK-wide growth funding schemes, such as the community renewal fund, levelling-up fund and the towns fund—all very important new funds—the Government are enabling local areas to tackle net zero goals in ways that best suit their needs. I am aware that those schemes may be used to support the development of community energy schemes, which I highlight for all right hon. and hon. Members. For example, the towns fund has awarded more than £23.6 million to Glastonbury town, including to the Glastonbury clean energy project, which aims to generate renewable energy for use by many of the other projects in the plan, as well as other local businesses and residents.
To take forward the vital work on community energy, we committed in the net zero strategy to reintroduce the community energy contact group. That group will provide a single, dedicated forum for community energy groups to engage and co-operate with Government on key policy issues. That could obviously include discussion of the recommendations already referred to, made by the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into community energy. I hope that group will strengthen outcomes for both the sector and the Government.
Turning to the Local Electricity Bill, which has been mentioned frequently in the debate, a right to local supply would allow electricity generators to sell their power directly to local consumers. As we know, the Local Electricity Bill seeks to establish that right by enabling electricity generators to become local suppliers, and to ensure that the costs and complexity of becoming a local energy supplier are proportionate.
Although the Government agree with the broad intentions of the Bill, we do not support the Bill as the means to enable local energy supply. However, I make a commitment today. I am about to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) to set up a meeting with him. I will leave it up to him which other Members he wishes to pull into that meeting to discuss the Bill and how we can work together, particularly on some of the obstacles to it.
I will take interventions shortly, but I want to lay out some of those obstacles. There is existing flexibility in how Ofgem regulates energy supply to allow for local suppliers. Ofgem has powers to award supply licences—a point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—that are restricted to specified geographies and/or specified types of premises. However, many hon. Members have observed that, although the right to local supply exists, the costs of becoming a supplier act as a barrier to entering the market.
Making more substantial changes to the licensing framework to suit specific business models may create wider distortions elsewhere in the energy system. Artificially reducing network costs for local energy suppliers, as the Bill appears to imply, is likely to be distortive. It would mean higher costs falling on other consumers, which would increase as more local suppliers enter the market. It is important, therefore, that we take a broad view. I notice there is a Division in the main Chamber, Mr Betts.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I was letting you finish your sentence—we can now suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
The Minister will now resume his speech. We have 11 minutes to go; we will finish at 4.28 pm. I should just say that Alan Brown has courteously given me his apologies, because he is in the main Chamber for the next debate.
Greg Hands
Thank you, Mr Betts; let me carry on. It is important that we take a broad view of all consumers when making changes to the energy markets. That includes consumer protection measures, which form an important part of the supply licence. Suppliers play a key role in providing support to customers, particularly the vulnerable. For example, the energy company obligation requires suppliers to install energy efficiency measures in the homes of vulnerable people. The warm home discount applies a reduction to the bills of vulnerable households, and the price cap protects households from poor-value tariffs. The priority services register is used by suppliers to identify consumers who may need additional support with their energy supply. Of course, suppliers sometimes fail, but we have vital safety nets to ensure supply—as we have seen since the last debate—through the supplier of last resort, or SoLR, process. I would be concerned about the deliverability of such protections under a local electricity supply regime.
Let me turn to the three questions that the hon. Member for Bath asked specifically. I think that I have answered the question on future energy legislation. I have outlined, I think, some of the difficulties with the current Bill as proposed. Also, I think that I have gone into the distortions to the energy system just now and before in some detail. And will I meet her? As I have mentioned, I have an existing commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, but I am happy for people to come together. That was the commitment that I made to him—to meet Members with an interest in this area.
Wera Hobhouse
I was originally a little disappointed that the Minister’s invitation went only to his colleague the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston), but if he has already fixed a meeting and he is opening it out, may I ask whether there is already a fixed date for it that he can share with us?
Greg Hands
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s line of questioning. I replied specifically to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage seeking a meeting. I think the best thing to do would be for me to speak to my hon. Friend or for her to approach him—it would effectively be his meeting—to find the best way forward. I am keen to be as accommodating as possible to Members across the Chamber, but I responded to the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage sent me, which I think was on behalf of a group of Members. [Interruption.] In that case, I think the best thing to do would be for the hon. Member for Bath to approach, first, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage.
On the question of the cost to consumers, though costs are reduced for the few in the scheme, that avoids market costs, which fall on those not in the local scheme. That often includes the fuel-poor, who cannot buy into such schemes.
Germany was mentioned many times. Without going off and setting up my own separate Adjournment debate, there are reasons why Germany works well, and less well, in this space. Germany’s grid, for example, makes it very difficult to get renewable energy from the North sea down to Bavaria. Its grid is not set up in the same way that ours is, on a national basis. That can have advantages and disadvantages. I also point out Germany’s reliance on imported gas from abroad. That again stresses some of the difficulties in scaling up; even in Germany, which has been praised for community energy, it does not necessarily offer a scalable solution in that same way.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) asked about the continuing expansion of the rural community energy fund. I will look at the options for funding as part of Department-wide planning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) asked five questions; I will try to deal with them as quickly as possible. First, derogation is possible; Ofgem consulted previously on widening the use and geographic premises licences are possible. Secondly, the right to supply is possible; BEIS will work with Ofgem on retail market reform. Thirdly, this is really a matter for Ofgem, which can do a local supply licence, but we can set out why we do not agree with a local supply licence. Fourthly, we are looking at the supply hub model as part of the retail market reform. It is a complex issue, which, of course, has implications for things such as the smart meter roll-out, and so on. Fifthly, I think we have already covered the smart export guarantee scheme.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland. As he and I well know, it is a unique energy market. I am having a meeting with Gordon Lyons, the Northern Ireland Economy Minister, on wider issues tomorrow, and I will try to feed this into a conversation with him. The meeting is with the three devolved Administrations, but I will find an appropriate time to ask him about how we can work together on community energy schemes.
Mr Betts, I think you said we were finishing at four—
Greg Hands
Fantastic. I will leave some time for the hon. Member for Bath to reply.
Finally, earlier this year, we jointly published with Ofgem our new smart systems and flexibility plan and the UK’s first energy digitisation strategy, which was also developed with Innovate UK. Many of the actions set out in those documents aim to improve locational signals and help to enable smart local energy solutions, such as facilitating further growth of local flexibility markets.
In addition, Ofgem’s access and forward-looking charging review seeks to deliver more efficient choices about where users locate on the networks, and how they use the networks on an ongoing basis. The introduction of better price signals is important in ensuring that local generation is rewarded for the benefits it can bring to the system. It is recognised that, in some parts of the country, the costs of connecting to the grid can itself act as a barrier. Ofgem has therefore proposed to reduce connection costs for generation connections, such as community energy, by socialising more of the network reinforcement element of connection charges. Any changes are expected to come into effect from April 2023.
Many Members have argued in favour of local energy suppliers as an option to mitigate global gas price impacts, which I have already referred to, but risks would continue to exist. For example, local energy suppliers are likely still to need to be connected to the grid during periods of low generation. The failure of a local energy supplier without a grid connection would also leave customers without energy supply in the absence of an effective safety net.
The Government continue to support the development of new business models to supply energy consumers and help achieve our net-zero ambitions. In response to the unprecedented rise in energy prices this year, we are working closely with Ofgem to consider broader reforms to the overall energy retail market regulatory framework. We want a market that will support the longer-term transition to net zero, recognising the need for continued competition and innovation while also ensuring that suppliers have sustainable and resilient business models. That includes Ofgem exploring a move towards a more prudential regulatory regime, recognising that energy suppliers are managing complex financial risks and ensuring that the energy sector is resilient against a wide range of future scenarios, including prices rising further or falling sharply.
This debate is testament to the fact that there is clearly extensive cross-party support for the community energy sector, which we very much welcome. Just as importantly, there is a wealth of innovative schemes—
Peter Aldous
I am most grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly the obstacles that need to be overcome to mobilise community energy schemes. Can he confirm that he and the Government are committed to overcoming those obstacles and removing those barriers so that, when we come back in a few months’ time, we can say that we have achieved tangible progress?
Greg Hands
I am certainly committed to examining the obstacles and speaking to my hon. Friend; I know his long-standing interest in this, as indeed in all energy questions—he is the Mr Energy of East Anglia. I am very happy to continue to engage with hon. Members, to look at the obstacles and to see what can be overcome, ameliorated or worked around. I am very keen to meet and continue the engagement with hon. Members. It is a little difficult for me to agree to remove the obstacles until we have scoped them out. The Department is well aware of the obstacles, but if my hon. Friend has suggestions for how to overcome some of them, I am interested in working with him and like-minded hon. Members.
Just as importantly, there is a wealth of innovative schemes across the country, run by passionate people who are committed to creating a cleaner and greener future for us all. I close by thanking the hon. Member for Bath once again for securing the debate.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to the debate. It shows the Government that there is cross-party, cross-region and cross-nation support for the Local Electricity Bill and for overcoming the obstacles in the electricity market and the barriers to local electricity supply.
I thank the Minister for offering to meet us and have that engagement. I am a little disappointed that he has still not quite understood what we all think: that the current system does not work because it is too centralised, and that the Government must face the brave new world of decentralisation to set free the power of local electricity. As we have heard, community energy schemes currently account for 0.5% of the UK’s electricity supply; 20 times that would bring 10% of the energy market to the table —clean, renewable energy. We have heard today that the most important thing is that we fire on all cylinders, and it is surprising that the Government do not take up that opportunity for that extra 10% of local electricity supply—setting free people and power. I hope that we will receive a more positive reply when we come back to debate this topic, yet again, in this Chamber or the main Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of empowering community energy schemes.
Offshore Renewables Wind Sector
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered securing employment and community benefit in the offshore renewables wind sector.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Today is St Andrew’s day, Scotland’s national day, when Scots at home and abroad celebrate their native land. There should be much to celebrate, as our nation has been blessed with natural bounty. Sadly, that bounty has not always been used for the benefit of the Scottish people. Decades ago, oil and gas were discovered off Scotland’s shores, as they were, across the North sea, off Norway’s. However, although Norway now possesses, from the proceeds, a fund for future generations that the world rightly envies, Scotland has seen its assets stripped and child poverty soar. Areas that should have been revitalised were instead deindustrialised. Nature’s bounty, which should have provided for all, was taken by the few, and what should have transformed our nation was squandered by Thatcher on smashing the unions and by Blair on waging illegal wars.
However, nature’s good fortune has seen another bounty come Scotland’s way, and once again the country has been blessed. For long, our geography was an impediment, seeing us distant from markets and facing additional costs, and our climate was a bind or even a danger, as last weekend’s winds displayed. However, our geography and climate are now also a natural bounty and blessing, offering opportunities and advantages held by few others. Onshore wind is well-established, wave and tidal energy are being developed, and offshore wind offers huge potential.
The Prime Minister has stated that he wants the UK to become the “Saudi Arabia of wind”. Indeed, the wind blows around the shores of the British Isles, as elsewhere, but Scotland has 25% of Europe’s—not just the UK’s—offshore wind potential, and it is off Scotland’s shores that the real boon is located. Where is the benefit for our country and communities? Where are the onshore jobs that should follow in its wake? Where are the industries that should be lured to locate and invest here? Moreover, where are the benefits for communities where the turbines can be seen from, are serviced by or where the energy comes ashore? What will accrue to them?
In many ways, East Lothian is a microcosm of Scotland in regard to this energy bounty. The Seagreen field is coming ashore at Cockenzie, as well as Neart na Gaoithe at Thorntonloch and Berwick Bank at Branxton, near Torness. These are not one or two turbines, or dozens, but hundreds. It is not only the numbers, but their size that is hugely impressive. These offshore turbines are almost 50% bigger than those sited onshore that people currently recognise. The power generated by them is massive too. It is claimed that Berwick Bank alone will boost Scotland’s renewable energy capacity by almost 30%. Such is its scale that Berwick Bank alone will be capable of powering 5 million homes. That is just under the population of Scotland, but more than double the number of Scottish households.
For Scotland is blessed with a surfeit of energy, as it had and indeed still has with oil and gas. It is capable of providing for all our own needs, but also providing for others beyond our borders. That is not just south of the border, but beyond the shores of these islands as it is a global energy market now. Having lost out on its oil and gas bounty, Scotland must not lose out on its offshore wind. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. It is why there must be action.
Scotland and its communities must benefit. Jobs must be created in providing for offshore wind generation. Work and industries must spring from being the point where the energy lands and where energy costs should be cheaper, and where it should be logical and economical to base a business. Communities that will face some disruption from the siting of the turbines offshore or the construction of transmission stations onshore must see tangible benefits from the wealth that will flow through them.
Sadly, that has not been happening, which is why the debate is required and the issues must be urgently addressed. I accept that not all responsibility or culpability rests with the Minister or his Government—although much does; I accept that the devolution landscape sees energy reserved, but planning devolved. Similar divides apply to industrial and fiscal policy. Accordingly, I do not exculpate the Scottish Government, who have failed to use their powers or demand the powers that are necessary. Their failure to deliver manufacturing jobs at BiFab or Arnish is shameful, but many more levers rest with the UK Government, which is why they too must act.
East Lothian may not have the yards, but Fife and almost every major Scottish estuary most certainly has. Scottish yards should be booming, building the turbines that are required. Some were shipyards, others came along through oil and gas installations, but all of them exist and others could be established. The skilled workforce is there, and it is crying out for this work and these jobs. The orders should be going to these yards, although I accept that such is the number of turbines required that not all of them could be constructed in Scotland. But as it is, only a few are being built in Scotland and most will be built south of the border in England, or abroad. That is simply not acceptable.
The UK Government are funding offshore wind manufacturing in Teesside and on the Humber. Around 1,000 people are employed at Siemens in Hull, and 750 people are employed at GE Renewable Energy on Teesside, with even more people indirectly employed in other jobs. They are providing for the Dogger Bank wind farm and other developments off the coast of north-east England. Good on them, I say, but where is the money for our yards and where are the jobs for the wind farms off our coasts? Levelling up seems to stop at the border.
Moreover, as the energy comes ashore, how will Scotland benefit? At the moment, there is cabling work going on at Branxton and in East Lothian. A cable is being constructed to take the energy directly from East Lothian to Redcar, in the north-east of England. A similar cable south is planned for energy coming ashore further north in Scotland from offshore wind farms located further north in the North sea. It is one thing sharing a bounty with others; it is quite another to be exploited and to see our natural resource being taken, with little benefit accruing to our land or our communities.
As well as the turbine manufacturing jobs, where is the onshore industry that should be springing up from being near to where clean and cheap energy is landing? Such industry will not locate in Scotland if the energy is just being cabled south, yet that seems to be what is planned.
Also, where is the benefit for the communities? One place in Scotland that did benefit from oil was Shetland. There, the council negotiated a small payment from the companies landing the oil at Sullom Voe. That impeded neither exploration nor extraction, having been set at a modest rate, which was a boon for communities without being a burden for developers. As a result, Shetland has facilities—such as schools and sports centres in small communities, and bus and ferry services—that larger and urban communities in Scotland can only look at and envy.
At present, onshore wind turbines attract community benefit from developments. Even a single turbine or just a few turbines onshore can see individuals and communities benefiting. But as it was no doubt never imagined that turbines would be sited offshore, no such system exists for offshore turbines. Why not? Surely communities are as entitled to benefit from those turbines that are off their shores as they are from those located on their land.
I know that communities on both sides of the border have entered into arrangements with developers, but two aspects remain outstanding and they must be addressed. First, community benefits should apply whether turbines are onshore or offshore; requiring such payments to be made to communities should be statutory and not made through guidance, or simply being voluntary or discretionary for the operator.
Secondly, the rate to be paid should also be set nationally and the money should be paid to the local council or community. It should be for them to decide where and on what they wish to spend their money; they should not be handouts from a developer, subject to the developer’s whim or fancy. Shetland shows that it can be done, and the benefit for Shetland’s communities shows why it must be done.
In summary, I seek to ensure that Scotland benefits from the renewables revolution off its shores, as it failed to do with the discovery of oil and gas. The North sea bounty must come to Scotland this time. First, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that funds are available to develop turbine manufacturing in Scotland, and to ensure that contracts for fields off Scotland’s shores go to local yards, as is happening in north-east England?
Secondly, what will the Minister do to ensure that Scotland benefits from job creation where the energy comes ashore, and not simply see the energy cabled south and the benefit enjoyed elsewhere?
Thirdly, what will be done to end the discrimination against Scottish sites caused by the absurd contracts for difference pricing regime that prejudices Scotland and will be referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) in his comments?
Finally, will the Minister meet me to discuss how communities, whether in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK, can benefit from offshore wind as they do onshore wind through a regulated regime, and a set fiscal regime that will benefit those communities? This is a huge opportunity for Scotland. Our nation lost out on the benefits from its oil and gas; it must not lose out on this renewable windfall.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I had not been informed that the hon. Member wished to speak. Has the hon. Member informed the mover and the Minister?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
I think, Mr Betts, that as they have given us quite a bit of time, I am happy to let the Member speak.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
The rules of the House are that if a Member wishes to speak in a 30-minute debate, they should inform both the mover and the Minister in advance and then I should be notified. Nevertheless, it is all sorted out now.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I would like to thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) on securing this important debate. On St Andrew’s day, it serves as a poignant opportunity to consider how right can prevail over might. Might and power can be used to silence and incarcerate, such as in the case of Craig Murray in Scotland, who tastes freedom once again this St Andrew’s day.
However, power and control can also be utilised to either stymie or enable the potential of a people and of a nation. My Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency has a proud history of industry and endeavour, from the world-renowned Adam Smith to the linoleum factories of Nairn, and the Francis, Seafield, Kelty, Benarty and Cowdenbeath pits, to name just a few. Our folk do not fear work; indeed, they relish it.
In my youth, our folk worked doon the pits, on the ships, in the shipyards and on the docks of Methil, Burntisland and Rosyth, building rigs, servicing the naval fleet and working offshore. It was great industry, but this was crumbs from the table. From the Thatcher and Major Governments who put profit and privatisation before people at every turn, who put tax cuts for the wealthy before the financial security of a people, to the Blairite disaster capitalist adventure of illegal war-making in the middle east, and moving the Scottish maritime boundary, making 6,000 square miles of Scotland’s waters English.
I often hear Members from the Government Benches, and indeed Government Ministers, crow about our how our campaign for Scottish independence is a grievance. Well, they are right, and it is a fully justified grievance. All the evidence needed exists in the UK Government’s own archive, in the shape of the McCrone report that Scottish economist Gavin McCrone presented to the Heath Government in 1975, which revealed how North sea oil would make an independent Scotland as prosperous as Switzerland.
The facts show that Scotland has been robbed of the embarrassment of riches that North sea oil and gas could have provided to her people. We just have to look to Norway to see that reality. Why should the Scottish people believe a single word that any Westminster Government utter when history provides every bit of evidence necessary to demonstrate how easily false promises and vows can be discarded and broken?
Instead, we have escalating child poverty; a pernicious and vicious welfare state; and threats to the little control we do possess through Trojan horse policies such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. None of this is helped by a supine devolved Government who seem to have given up on even talking a good game. The people of Scotland deserve so much better than this.
Just off the Fife shore, a green industrial revolution is taking place, but all that my constituents can do is observe. It has delivered no meaningful employment to our communities, and the only announcement to date from this Government was more crumbs from the table in the shape of offshore jobs for service engineers. That lack of ambition is sadly reflected back from organisations such as Renewables Scotland, which claims that Scotland has missed the chance to lead the charge on renewables and can only hope for domestic service engineer jobs. This is scandalous. Scotland is being plundered yet again, while our people suffer real harm as a consequence of the acts and omissions of their supposed Governments.
Scotland is replete with natural resources that, with focus and investment, could lay the foundations for national prosperity, as the transition towards a greener, more sustainable future gathers pace. Fife’s skilled workforce, proximity to offshore development sites and established fabrication facilities mean that the kingdom is perfectly placed on the Forth estuary to be at the forefront of the marine and green energy revolution. Harnessing the established and potential assets on all shores of the firth of Forth is key to enabling Scotland to end its dependency on fossil fuels and establishing a thriving, green energy-based economy.
In the context of the climate emergency, there is growing evidence that political, public and corporate priorities are beginning to align. Thus, a compelling case now exists for Scotland to further its ambitions towards a prosperous, zero-carbon economy. For this to be truly realised, any such prosperity must seek to build tangible local results, such as high-quality employment, world-leading research and development, and a national prosperity fund. We must not allow the Scottish people to be denied the benefits of an energy boom by remote or disengaged Governments again.
My constituency has the potential and is bursting with ambition. Brexit has neutralised the excuse of state aid, but there has been no change to contracts for difference and no conditionality on local employment or supply chains. Transmission costs are driving investment away, so there is a need to rapidly consider viable alternatives, such as microgrids, which generate and deliver energy locally, creating jobs and driving community prosperity.
In the green energy revolution, Scotland is again well positioned to benefit and lead the charge. With less than 1% of Europe’s population, Scotland possesses 33% of Europe’s carbon storage potential, 25% of Europe’s offshore wind resources, 25% of Europe’s tidal energy resources and 10% of Europe’s wave energy potential, but yet again it is Westminster that stands in our way.
Scotland’s oil and gas sector has been unbelievably badly managed by successive UK Governments and we cannot allow this opportunity to be squandered by yet more Westminster Governments that see Scotland’s wealth as something to be exploited, rather than stewarded and safeguarded for future generations. Only by taking full control of our future will the renewable sector reach its full potential, so our people can lift their gaze and realise their full potential.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister needs a reasonable amount of time to finish and he was unaware that you were going to speak in this debate, Mr Hanvey. Can you conclude now please?
Neale Hanvey
I am concluding now and I have fewer than 50 words to say.
I do not expect a particularly constructive or useful response from the Government, but that is okay because any indifference, dismissal or vague commitment serves only to strengthen the argument in favour of independence as a route to prosperity. Scotland’s natural wealth will be one of the key foundations of our future prosperity as an independent nation. There is much work to do but opportunities galore for Scotland, for Fife, and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) on securing this important debate.
We know that renewable electricity generation is essential to the decarbonisation of the power sector and the UK’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach net zero, which was recently discussed in Scotland at COP26 in Glasgow, which I was delighted to attend on behalf of the UK Government. Offshore wind will be a vitally important tool in creating the low-cost, net zero energy system of the future.
We can be enormously proud that the UK offshore wind industry has already made great strides, in terms of both the production of major turbine components and their deployment, moving from installing about one turbine every week to about one every single day. Turbine sizes have grown by 700%, from 2 MW to 15 MW. Alongside this, the costs of offshore wind have fallen dramatically since 2015. The first contract for difference allocation round cleared at around £114 per megawatt-hour. In the last round, in 2019, that fell to less than £40 per megawatt-hour. That is a reduction of around two thirds to 70% in the cost of offshore wind. It has been a resounding success, and we expect both the increasing scale of turbines and cost reduction to continue.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Lothian that it is absolutely right that local communities should benefit economically from major new manufacturing infrastructure projects. We want to see thousands of people all over the country working in new green, high-quality jobs in our renewables sector. Therefore, the Government are investing heavily to support the offshore wind sector, from innovation to the manufacture of major wind turbine components, all the way through to the deployment and connection to the grid.
Let me deal with a few of the points raised. I will first stress that these decisions taken by the UK Government have brought huge benefits. When I was at the Treasury in 2015, a lot of the decision making behind contracts for difference was controversial. Working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as it then was, we thought that the CfD regime would lead to a big boost in the UK’s renewable energy and, by scaling up, would reduce costs, both of the energy produced and that of building the infrastructure. We turned out to be right on that.
There was also investment brought in by the UK Government. When I was at the Department for International Trade, for four or five years, I was going around getting investment into the UK offshore wind sector, particularly from European countries, such as Spain and Denmark, and companies looking to invest in this country. A key part of that has been to ensure that the supply chain also benefits the United Kingdom overall, including Scotland. About 60% or more of the supply chain is based in the UK. A lot of the key decisions have been the right ones taken by the UK Government.
The hon. Member for East Lothian raised a point about Wick harbour. We have seen that harbour revitalised by the development of the Beatrice offshore wind project. As more projects are developed north of the border, we expect similar benefits to be realised for other harbours. We heard from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), who provided a long history—a tour de force—that started with Ted Heath, moved through Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and ended with him describing the Scottish Government as a “supine devolved Government”. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the word “grievance” and said it was not one, but I think he is lumping grievance on to grievance. His latest grievance is with the Scottish Government, not just that of the UK.
Offshore wind has a central role in the Government’s decarbonisation and levelling-up ambitions. Developing the economic benefits that the UK derives from offshore wind took prime position in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, published this time last year. The 10-point plan also includes a target to deploy 1 GW of floating wind in the UK by 2030, as a stepping-stone to further growth through the 2030s and beyond.
The hon. Gentleman for East Lothian mentioned the potential of the sector, but it is not just the potential; it is the reality. The UK has the world’s largest installed offshore wind capacity—we are No. 1. As the Prime Minister says, we are the Saudi Arabia of wind. It is not just potential but a realised thing that is happening every day. We are not content with just 10 GW; we have a commitment to quadruple that over the next decade, to 40 GW. Scotland will play a massive role in that commitment.
Last month the Prime Minister announced up to £160 million in new funding to support the development of large-scale floating offshore wind ports and factories all over the UK. That follows on from the success of the offshore wind manufacturing investment support scheme, which has so far this year enabled the announcement of two major port hubs, and six offshore wind manufacturing investments, representing £1.5 billion in public and private sector investment, and set to support up to 3,600 jobs in deprived areas of the UK by 2030.
Scotland, as we know, has a very rich industrial heritage, and I am confident that the skills already present in Scotland, proven over the decades in the oil and gas sector, will be transferred into a world-leading capability in manufacturing for the offshore wind sector— a key part of our North sea transition deal. Yesterday I chaired the North Sea Transition Forum with the industry, Oil & Gas UK, the Oil and Gas Authority and the Scottish Government.
The point is that to make that transition means recognising the fantastic skillset. One of my first visits in this role was to Aberdeen, where I saw that skillset at first hand, working with a lot of the incredible universities—I visited Robert Gordon University, for example, whose transition unit is working on how we transfer the skills that have been vital for the UK as a whole and Scotland in particular for the past 50 years over to sectors such as offshore wind. The answer is that there is a lot of overlap between offshore hydrocarbons and offshore wind, but making that transition is a key part, and there are many people helping to deliver that.
That is why the North sea transition deal announced in March contains key commitments on skills, including a commitment from the oil and gas sector to develop an integrated people and skills plan by March 2022, to support the sector’s transition and diversification. Both Government and the sector have also committed to supporting the work of the Energy Skills Alliance. Its work will address, among other things, future skills demands of new energy sectors, all-energy training and standards and all-energy apprenticeships.
In particular, Scotland could benefit greatly from nascent technologies on the horizon. I mention floating offshore wind again, but just last week we announced a £20 million ring-fenced contract for difference fund for tidal. There is huge potential for Scotland to take advantage of its excellent geography. The same extends to parts of Wales and the Isle of Wight and other particular parts of the UK that have excellent tidal resources. We announced a ring-fenced pot within the next CfD auction for tidal energy.
Greg Hands
I do not think I have time—I am afraid I only have one minute, and the hon. Gentleman got a pretty fair crack of the whip earlier, to be frank.
Floating offshore wind is an area that has already inspired huge interest from developers in Scotland—hardly surprising, given the rich deep-water resource and manufacturing capability in Scotland. It is no coincidence that the world’s two largest floating offshore wind arrays, Hywind and Kincardine, have been developed in Scottish waters. The Celtic sea is also a major development opportunity.
Decisions on how specific projects can deliver local benefits are generally a matter for developers—a point raised by the hon. Member for East Lothian. However, we want developers and operators to provide community benefits consistent with relevant guidance and good practice principles, building on experience in other renewables sectors.
This debate is testament to the strong cross-party agreement that we want to leverage the UK’s world-leading offshore wind sector, to maximise the economic benefits enjoyed by our coastal communities across the UK, including in Scotland. I close by thanking the hon. Gentleman again for securing this enlightening and important debate.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Climate Goals: Wellbeing Economy
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members of the guidance from the Commission and the Government about wearing face masks when they are not speaking, giving space to other Members and staff, and testing twice weekly with lateral flow tests, either on the estate or at home.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a wellbeing economy approach to meeting climate goals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate why the Government should embrace a wellbeing economy if they are serious about meeting their climate goals. Beyond the climate emergency, there are many other reasons to move beyond our current extractive, exploitative and growth-addicted economic system: tackling inequality, stopping the destruction of the natural world and preventing future pandemics, to name just three.
Crucially, the discussions in and around the COP26 summit remind us that those issues cannot be separated and siloed. If we keep decimating the natural world, we will not meet climate goals. If we do not put equality and justice at the heart of climate action, we will not make the shift to a greener and fairer economy. Pandemics, meanwhile, in the words of some of the world’s leading scientists, are
“a direct consequence of human activity—particularly our global financial and economic systems, based on a limited paradigm that prizes economic growth at any cost.”
Many colleagues will be well versed in why GDP growth has always been a terrible measure of a nation’s economic progress—I will not go into the detail now. However, it cannot be overestimated how critical shifting from growth to wellbeing is from a social and equity perspective. As a report by leading economists for the OECD finds, patterns of economic growth have generated significant harm over recent decades. That includes rising inequality, not just catastrophic environmental degradation—which itself hits the most vulnerable the hardest.
I want to focus on the climate imperative of transforming our economic system, and on the wellbeing economy as a specific, practical and positive alternative to economics as usual. I will start by mentioning a recent parliamentary petition that called on the Government to shift to a wellbeing economy and put the health of people and planet first. It has been linked to this debate on today’s Order Paper; I want to thank the many thousands of people who supported that petition. It was started by a young Brighton constituent, Skylar Sharples, and it begins like this:
“We urgently need the Government to prioritise the health and wellbeing of people and planet, by pursuing a Wellbeing Economy approach. To deliver a sustainable and equitable recovery, the Treasury should target social and environmental goals, rather than fixating on short-term profit and growth…Two thirds of the public want the Treasury to put wellbeing above growth. Scotland and Wales are already part of the Wellbeing Economy Governments alliance. As host of the COP26 climate summit, the UK Government should build and champion a Wellbeing Economy—at home and globally.”
That petition did tremendously well to get almost 70,000 signatures. Even though it was not enough to secure a debate via the Petitions Committee, I am very grateful that through the ballot process we were able to hold today’s debate.
In turning to the climate imperative for switching from growth to wellbeing as the purpose of our economy, I will start with the science. If we take the global climate goal of reaching net zero by 2050—leaving aside the injustice and inadequacy of that as the UK’s goal—economic growth is still the elephant in the room. During that same 30-year period, between now and 2050, the global economy is set to nearly triple in size. That means three times more production and consumption than we already have each year. It is enough of a challenge to decarbonise an economy the size of the current one in such a short time span; it will be virtually impossible to do it three times over. If we carry on with growth as usual, then halving emissions by 2030 would require that rich countries like the UK decarbonise their economies at a rate of more than 12% per year. That is more than five times faster than the historic rate of decarbonisation, and about three times faster than what scientists project is possible, even under highly optimistic conditions. The most “successful” rich countries are decarbonising at only around 3.4% a year; the performance of average rich countries is much worse. The gap is huge, and however heroic one’s assumptions are about the potential for decoupling growth from carbon emissions—an argument that I am sure we will hear from the Minister—there is no evidence that there can be absolute decoupling in anything like a fast enough timeframe.
The bottom line is that the GDP figures that we are using to measure economic success are also measuring the rate at which we are barrelling towards climate catastrophe. It is little wonder that the voices around us are saying that we need to end our addiction to GDP growth to tackle the climate emergency. Those voices—from climate scientists and environmentalists to economists, health professionals and business leaders—are becoming louder. I want to give two examples.
There was a recent joint report from the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—an intergovernmental body that assesses biodiversity. The report calls for
“a profound collective shift of individual and shared values concerning nature—such as moving away from the conception of economic progress based solely on GDP growth, to one that balances human development with multiple values of nature for a good quality of life, while not overshooting biophysical and social limits.”
That is pretty clear, and it is coming from the world’s most respected scientists.
To take one example from the business world, former Unilever CEO, Paul Polman, recently wrote about the World Economic Forum’s 2021 global risks report, in which four of the top five risks to our economies are coming from the environment—including climate change and biodiversity loss. He said that
“the estimated $300 billion annual cost of natural disasters caused by ecosystem disruption and climate change”
highlights
“the risks of unbridled economic growth. Thinking beyond GDP and short-term profit is therefore essential in order to restore our relationship with the planet and transform our system into a viable one.”
So, wellbeing within planetary limits, not infinite GDP growth, is the new economic goal we urgently need. If the boss of a massive multinational can get that, I have to ask why can’t Treasury, especially when its own Dasgupta review of “The Economics of Biodiversity” made the case so well, too. It reads,
“GDP does not account for the depreciation of assets, including the natural environment. As our primary measure of economic success, it therefore encourages us to pursue unsustainable economic growth and development.”
The Dasgupta review also calls for an
“urgent and transformative change in how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world”.
Yet the Treasury response to that key recommendation does little more than refer to a review of GDP that was done six years ago. That is not “urgent and transformative change”.
I hope the Minister can convince us today that the Treasury is not as cavalier and complacent as it would appear. Will she confirm that the Government accept the need to adopt new measures of economic success beyond GDP to give climate, nature and collective wellbeing the priority they deserve? What work is taking place on that? It will not be good enough to say that the Office for National Statistics has developed natural capital and wellbeing indicators, because those indicators are not just out of date; they are clearly not being used in policy making, least of all inside the Treasury where GDP growth reigns supreme. It is a bit like claiming that you have adopted a healthy diet because you have some flaccid carrots in the fridge but meanwhile you are chomping down on a box of Mars bars. It does not wash.
Similarly, the inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, into biodiversity and ecosystems concluded:
“Alternatives to GDP urgently need to be adopted as more appropriate ways to measure economic success, appraise investment projects and identify sustainable development.”
So will the Minister today accept that cross-party recommendation and set out a timeline for progress?
The wellbeing economy is not just a brilliant idea; it is already being implemented in the UK and around the world. At local, national and international level—beyond Westminster—the green shoots of a new economic paradigm fit for the age of climate emergency are already emerging. In the short time that I have, it is impossible to mention more than a fraction of the researchers, campaigners, practitioners and others who make up the movement for a new economy, designed to serve people and planet—from community wealth building to the Doughnut Economics Action Lab.
The wellbeing economy is one example. It is being taken forward by the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, a collaboration of, so far, five national and regional Governments. In Finland, the world’s youngest Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, heads up a Government who are outspoken on the principle that,
“Economic growth is never an end in itself and well-being is not just an item of expenditure for public finances”.
In Iceland, indicators for wellbeing guide Government decision making. Scotland has a national performance framework centred around wellbeing, and with Greens now in government we can expect even more leadership on the post-growth wellbeing economy. Wales has the first ever Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, a version of which many of us have been championing in this House as well, and New Zealand is home to the world’s first ever wellbeing budget and a Finance Ministry that uses a living standards framework to shape all economic policy making.
Those nations are working together to share expertise and advance a shared ambition to build wellbeing economies. Will the UK join them? If the Minister cannot quite commit to that, will she at least commit to carrying out a major review of what the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership is doing, and the benefits of the Treasury taking a similar approach, ideally in time for the next Budget to be the UK’s first wellbeing Budget? As a first step, the UK’s first wellbeing Budget could swap the focus on GDP and change it for GDWe, or gross domestic wellbeing, as developed by Carnegie UK. No one is saying that untangling our growth addiction is simple, but we can no longer delay. As the economist Kate Raworth puts it, we need to create
“economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow”
rather than having economies that grow whether or not they make us thrive.
Drawing to a conclusion, I want to quickly share some views from members of the public on the topic of today’s debate. They were gathered via a survey over the weekend, thanks to the parliamentary digital engagement service. It has had more than 1,000 submissions and shows how severely our current economy is failing on the basics. Hazel, for example, wrote about what a wellbeing economy could prioritise. She suggests:
“Ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met, including any additional needs resulting from disability. Such needs include access to healthy food, safe, warm homes, and access to health care (both physical and mental). Nobody in the developed world should need to rely on food banks.”
Natalie wrote:
“Aiming for constant financial growth cannot be sustained on a planet of finite resources…The health and well-being of our shared planet and all beings who reside here should be our priority. The way and extent to which we care for it and for each other should be key. Wastefulness should be seen as the loss that it truly is. Ecology and economics should not be at odds; the words both derive from the concept of looking after our home.”
The responses are another sign that, far from delivering on the famous “people’s priorities,” as the Government like to say, the Treasury is completely ignoring them by sticking to an outdated and dangerous fixation on economic growth. It is time for global Britain to become a global leader, fit for the age of climate emergency, rather than a laggard in a shift to a wellbeing economy. For the sake of climate justice today and for the lives of future generations, I look forward to the Minister’s response and to working with Members across the House to prove that another economy is not just possible; it is on its way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
There are six Members still to speak, so Members have around three minutes.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am delighted to be called to speak first after the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who I thank for securing this debate on the most important issue. I genuinely cannot imagine two more important priorities for an independent Scotland than ensuring that we have action on climate change and that we put wellbeing at the front of everything we do.
We are lucky in Scotland that we are already on this road. We have begun to make the changes that are required to move away from focusing entirely on economic growth and toward looking at the wellbeing of our population. When we are looking at budgets, such as the national performance framework, as was mentioned, our decisions are looked at through a lens. Do they improve wellbeing? Do they reduce our negative impact on the planet? I think it is wonderful that we do that.
There are also good things happening in schools. Bairns throughout Scotland are aware of their rights under the UN convention on the rights of a child. It is taught throughout Scottish schools. I can speak to kids as young as five and ask them about their rights. It is important for people’s wellbeing that they are aware of their rights and are able to fight for the rights that they deserve. It is important that they are able to make their voices heard. The only way we are going to get to wellbeing is to ensure that everybody is empowered to get those rights.
There is absolutely no point in focusing on economic growth for economic growth’s sake. The UK economy has been growing, but inequality is still stretching. We have still seen an increase in inequality. People who are on the bottom of the pile continue to be on the bottom of the pile. We are not improving societal wellbeing if we are not ensuring that decisions benefit everybody, rather than those currently at the top of the pile. For all our constituents, we need to ensure not just growth, but fair growth. We must focus on reducing inequality—and focus on everything that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said—and on making sure that decisions, particularly budgetary decisions, are taken with the wellbeing of people in mind, not simply growing the money of this country’s richest people.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
The guideline is that Members have around four minutes.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this important debate. I very much agreed with her eloquent and detailed speech.
Members may remember that the renowned author Naomi Klein stated in 2011 in her paper “Capitalism vs the climate” that:
“Climate change is a message, one that is telling us that many of our culture’s most cherished ideas are no longer viable.”
Sadly, 10 years on from Naomi’s groundbreaking paper, not much has changed. We are now faced with more stark messages in the form of covid-19, the social care crisis, an energy crisis and a cost-of-living crisis. We simply do not have an economic system geared up to ensure that everyone flourishes. We see growth prioritised, but rarely do we ever question the real nature of such growth or what its adverse consequences could be. The OECD has stated:
“If ever there was a controversial icon from the statistics world, GDP is it. It measures income, but not equality, it measures growth, but not destruction, and it ignore values like social cohesion and the environment. Yet Governments, businesses and probably most people swear by it.”
Growth means nothing to many families struggling, living in cold, mould-infested homes, wondering if they are ever going to get a lucky break. It means nothing to the pensioners struggling to get the care they need, and it will mean nothing to our children if they have no future because the flawed and relentless pursuit of growth above everything else finally destroys our planet.
The good news is that with real economic and political will, we can develop a system of economic metrics that centres our economy around what should be the most important measure of success for any Government: wellbeing. As Katherine Trebeck from the Wellbeing Economy Alliance explains, that means recognising that
“The economy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is an economy which regenerates nature, an economy where collaboration trumps competition, an economy where activities and what organisations do is purposeful, not simply just to make money. In which individuals’ desire to be acknowledged for meaningful contributions with a decent living is not dominated by a motivation of acquiring wealth. And which is financed by a stable, fair and socially useful financial system that serves the real economy for the long term.”
I hope that today’s debate is just the start of a long overdue conversation about what that really means in practice: from finding a new way of measuring the economy’s performance away from the distribution-blind GDP and towards indices of wellbeing, through to ensuring the economy distributes wealth more fairly, provides stable and sufficient incomes, supports socially and environmentally useful enterprise and, importantly, ensures the ownership of economic assets is shared more widely and democratically with workers and communities.
Ultimately, the Government are not a mere economic spectator here. They have the power to implement that change. As such, the debate goes to the very heart of what we think the sole purpose of Government is. Are they the caretaker of a broken economic theory that preserves wealth for the few, at the expense of the many, or are they the engine that drives the economy to deliver health and wellbeing for all? In Salford, we know the answer to that. We say the welfare of the people is the highest law.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a great pleasure to support the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We were great colleagues in the European Parliament and, dare I say, the precursors to the co-operation that we are seeing in Scotland, where Green leadership is taking us to new vistas of co-operation.
The wellbeing economy is an idea whose time has come. We are measuring the wrong stuff. So much of what we see within the public debate about public services and public investment posits economic growth versus wellbeing or versus environmental standards or other measures of public good. It should not be either/or; we need to consider both. We are measuring the wrong stuff. That means that the criteria against which we measure outputs is leading us to perverse incentives.
The pandemic we are all, sadly, very much still living through—we cannot relax yet—is a disruptive event for a lot of people: not just everyone in this room, but all our constituents as well. People are considering how they live their lives, where they get their food, how they travel to work, where they work, what they do and how they spend their time. Questions of work and productivity are being examined in households up and down the length of these islands in ways they never have been before. GDP is a rubbish measure of any human happiness.
If we want to increase GDP, I will give two examples. A car crash is a fantastic way to increase GDP, because it involves garages, lawyers, insurance companies. It involves all sorts of things that are not economically productive, but do count from an GDP perspective as positive to the balance sheet. Divorce is also great for GDP: one house becomes two; lawyers make lots of money; and assets are split up. There are various economic things that count in the GDP ledger, but are surely not positive for us as a society.
It strikes me as self-evident that adding a wider set of criteria to the public sector consideration of expenditure can lead only to better outcomes. Likewise, I am very drawn to the Carnegie UK Trust’s idea of a gross domestic wellbeing index as a way to benchmark actual progress. About 300 years ago I proposed to the SNP conference that Scotland should adopt a Nordic-style wellbeing index to benchmark the progress of society against other comparable countries—and here we are 15 or so years later.
I close with one very concrete example, which shows that this is not an esoteric, niche subject but aimed at bringing about real change in the real world. Bus services in Stirling and the Forth valley are not fit for purpose. They are not up to scratch. They are not as reliable as they need to be. Bus services are not in my remit, as a Member of this Westminster Parliament, but I see that systemic change is necessary, because we are looking at the wrong outputs and outcomes. There is too little public funding available to support the bus network that we need. However, how many people have to have a car but would not have one if they could rely on buses? How much unproductive capital is tied up in those vehicles? Think about how many carbon emissions we could get rid of if the bus services were reliable. Think about the lost economic productivity of the people who cannot afford cars but cannot get to work either. If we change the metrics, we change the outcome.
As we have heard, the Scottish Government have started that work. The Scottish national performance framework brings in a wider set of criteria. There is the Wellbeing Economy Alliance with Iceland and other small countries. We are already doing this work, and we can do much more. That is not to say that the UK cannot do more too. I look forward to hearing from the Minister; she could have positive engagement and support if she actually took serious steps in this direction. Fair work must also be properly considered in this equation, and we must ensure that the new jobs are good jobs, fair jobs and well-paid jobs. If we grab this at the flow, there is a big prize that we can all share.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this really important debate. The subject is close to my heart and to how I try to work as a political representative, both in Parliament and in my constituency. My firm belief is that we need to work for a society that is not driven by the quest for growth, profit and the enrichment of a few. Rather, we should work for a society where meeting human needs is paramount.
To turn theory into action, it is important that we, as public representatives, engage with and involve people we represent and take a bottom-up approach to change. Part of the process should involve holding open discussions with constituents, involving them and giving them a sense of ownership of the changes that can meet their needs and those of the community.
I will share some examples of action that I, alongside local people in my constituency, are taking to put these theories into practice. Earlier this year, I held a series of climate assemblies in Cynon Valley, resulting in a public document that we submitted to COP26. More recently, we received a report that I commissioned from the Bevan Foundation called “Cynon Valley after covid: action for recovery and renewal”. Over 120 people attended our climate assemblies, which covered green jobs, green transport and green energy. It was clear from those discussions that local people understand the need for change and have the appetite and many of the solutions to enable it to happen.
The green jobs debate, for instance, emphasised the need for training for future skills and the need to nurture local talent. People were also clear that any new green jobs should be secure and well-paid, and have good terms and conditions. A headline statement from the group was that
“cooperation and not competition must be the way forward”.
That leads me to a very brief overview of the “Cynon Valley after covid” document, which looks at the kind of society and economy that we feel we need in Cynon Valley. It is underpinned by a community wealth-building approach, which will help to stimulate local economic activity by reducing not only the leakage of money out of the area but, more importantly, the size of the profit extracted. That can help to build and spread wealth in the local population, which will assist in the process of prioritising and addressing the health and wellbeing needs of our local community. The report ends by recommending a green Cynon programme, with fair work, skills, action to stimulate new local businesses, including community-based enterprises, the retrofitting of energy-saving measures in all housing, and the development of wind and solar energy projects.
It is important that I share some of the socioeconomic background of my constituency of Cynon Valley. It is an old mining community with high levels of unemployment and some of the highest levels of poverty and ill health in Wales. The pandemic exemplified this in the high number of deaths from covid—the third highest in the whole UK—which is what drove me to do the research that I have just mentioned.
We have many dangerous coal tips, with the risks exacerbated by recent frequent heavy rain and flooding, which are a direct consequence of climate change. Increasingly, people are realising that we cannot improve the wellbeing of people without tackling climate change. Creating a society that meets the needs in my constituency will be challenging, but it is the very reason why I am so passionate about working alongside others to promote and develop a socioeconomic system that puts people and the future of our planet before profit.
My experience—from discussions with local people and agencies through to all my local activities—has shown me that, given the right approach and investment, it is possible to do things differently to meet the needs to ensure the future of the planet and the human needs of the people and communities we have been elected to represent. That is my vision for Cynon Valley, and it is shared by so many and is achievable. It is an urgent vision. If we are serious about ending poverty and inequality in our society and about ending the destruction of our planet and our natural environment, we must act now to turn theories into practice and campaign together for a different kind of society. Yes, we can do things differently.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for bringing forward this debate and for many years of leadership, giving vision in this area and a lot of practical direction. The necessity for change, and the failures of the economic model that we currently operate, are all around us: in climate and nature breakdown, in inequality within and between nations of the world and between generations, in the depletion of resources and the hoarding of wealth, and in the mental ill health and lack of fulfilment that are beginning to engulf our populations.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) outlined some of the absurdities of GDP as our sole measurement, with all of the negative effects simply written off as “externalities”. It is very clear that a system that accounts for tobacco sales and bets placed by gambling addicts, but does not find any way to capture time spent raising children or the value of clean air, is no longer fit for purpose. We have known that for decades.
The impacts of consumption and growth-driven production on our planet do not need to be articulated in this room. I know that because this country and others like it consume, drill, burn and dump at a rate that would require numerous planets to sustain it. That, of course, causes negative impacts for the planet and its inhabitants.
It would be one thing to keep pursuing this model if it resulted in a healthy and happy population, but it does not. We know that income inequality in the UK is higher than it has been for decades, and probably the highest in Europe. It affects people at every single point on the economic distribution scale, as well as overall societal cohesion. In the absence of any serious mitigation policies, that will unfortunately only get worse.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in her fantastic speech. She may agree that part of the growth delusion—this constant demand for GDP and growth—is that it will actually begin to trickle down to poorer members of society, both domestically and internationally, yet that does not happen. Rather than keeping on growing the pie, destroying the economy and the planet, would it not be better to better share out the pie we already have within the current limits of the ecology and the environment?
Claire Hanna
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We have proven that the theories he outlines, which are supposed to be in place, have not worked, and that our economy has not worked. The kind of model that he suggests, which allows people to flourish, is desirable and achievable.
As with addressing climate breakdown, we know what has to be done; we just have to decide to do it. While it is tempting and valid to protest and rage against the machine on this, it is very encouraging to see some of the practical initiatives that people are taking across their constituencies and in other regions. I pay tribute to groups such as the Carryduff Regeneration Forum, the Conservation Volunteers, Open Ormeau, Repair Café Belfast and many others in my own corner of the world who are showing what is possible when people try to slow down, clean up and build cohesion, and what is possible through care, education and creativity.
Northern Ireland is among the most nature-depleted regions in the world. Currently, we have no binding environmental targets, no environmental protection agency and no coherent plan to address that. We do not even have any certainty that the Assembly will stay up long enough to pass the Climate Bill that the Green party, my own party and others are bringing through at the moment.
Members have outlined some of the many solutions that are in place and some of the Bills that are currently working through that can help us achieve environmental and generational justice, because the impacts on future generations are very real. We need to be real about the possibilities and limitations of green growth and rescue technologies. As the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) outlined, some of these have been demonstrated to not necessarily have the solution to all our problems.
We need to embrace lower labour productivity at times, and accept that long hours and low-reward jobs, where people are working just to stand still economically and consume, are not good for them or for the planet. We also need to encourage reporting of non-GDP measurements. The ONS records these, but we do not use them and they do not get reported in the media, and we know that, unfortunately, what gets reported, gets done.
Members have rightly referenced initiatives in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the UK Government as a whole intends to step up in this regard.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We are going to start the winding-up speeches at 5.36 pm.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for this hour to reflect on a different economic model—an hour that should pivot the wanton greed of state to one of restoring the scars of its heritage.
Leaving Glasgow with our planet heating at a dangerous rate and the failure to slam the brakes on climate destruction, the Government were given a year to reset. COP27 will be their reckoning. Right now, the global south is paying for the exploits of the global north, and this generation is paying for centuries of colonialisation, industrialisation and exploitation, as people and planet were exploited, minerals, crops and humanity were exploited, and carbon and hope were burnt. In this generation, it is our duty to restore. We have no choice.
Kate Raworth’s work on doughnut economics shows us a path out. York Central development, at the heart of my constituency, could be the first doughnut development, where we see the planned luxury apartments becoming sustainable housing that meets need. We could see that site being car free, wellbeing communities being built and a carbon negative future with our green new deal.
As I set out in my Adjournment debate last week, York is seeking to lead. Our green new deal, BioYorkshire, will create 4,000 green-collar jobs and upskill 25,000 people as it takes 2.8 million tonnes of carbon out of our atmosphere and repurposes 1.2 million tonnes of landfill. With research and development of new precision-farming agricultural practices, it is the point where international development will meet international trade. While partners from the University of York, Askham Bryan College and Fera Science have reached out into the region, it is my hope that this green new deal will reach out across the globe, such is the power of its science.
It is this project that will put pride back into my community—one that to this very day celebrates the Rowntree legacy of integrating good business with good employment and social practices. In parallel, York has developed the good business charter. I hope that the Minister is aware of the charter, supported by the CBI and TUC, as it sets out 10 principles, including a real living wage, employee wellbeing, environmental responsibility and ethical sourcing, resetting the terms for business, the economy and workers. Different parts of the economy should not be able to choose whether or not they opt into those initiatives. We need a comprehensive refocus. Labour in Wales was the first in the world to introduce a wellbeing Act—the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—and the rest of the UK must now follow. Instead, this Government’s mantra seems to be, “Always need to take, not restore”, and that must be reversed.
Just imagine if those principles had been embedded in our approach to the covid-19 vaccine. We would not be debating omicron today. Given that the west has hoarded and destroyed global vaccine supplies—and taken at least three vaccines for each of us—the vaccine rate in developing countries is just 3%. For the sake of profit for big pharma, this Government are prepared to sacrifice the global south. However, in this interconnected world, we too will fall prey to a virus that does not play by the rules. That is why we need to change the rules that govern us. It may not be omicron that calls us short—it may be the pyro or sigma variants.
This is about moving from a mindset of economic nationalism to one of responsible internationalism. The Government were sent to Glasgow to keep the idea of 1.5° alive, but it is now in critical care. Everything must be injected into rehabilitating our economy. The cost of not doing so will be fatal.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for keeping to time in this debate. We can now move on to the Front Benchers. First, I call Patrick Grady for the Scottish National party, who has five minutes.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak, and I apologise to the Chamber that I was a couple of minutes late for this debate and so missed the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I warmly congratulate her on securing this debate and on setting out the substance so clearly, which has been echoed by all the Members who have been able to speak in the time available.
It is disappointing that there were no speeches from Government Back-Benchers, because—and I will say a bit more about this at the end of my remarks—this is not an ideological debate. This is about how we frame, or reframe, the debate. Very few people, and I believe that includes most Government Members, come into politics wanting to impoverish people or increase inequalities. The debate is really about how we get there and achieve a better society, which I hope is an aim that we all share.
One of the key points about the wellbeing economy and reframing the debate is how we measure what matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said that and it was also echoed by the First Minister of Scotland when she gave a TED talk on this very subject back in 2019. Measuring what matters will help us to reframe the debate and reset the things that we are trying to achieve by the policies that we all want to put forward.
That is particularly important in the context of the conference of the parties and meeting climate goals, as the title of the debate suggests, because at the end of the day the costs of climate change will have to be paid for. It is a bit like covid-19: we are going to have to pay for climate change. We can either pay for it now by taking action to mitigate the damage that has already been done and adapting to the damage that is coming down the line, or we can pay for it later, once our cities are under water and there is even greater human displacement because parts of the world become unliveable.
We have been speaking in this debate today about future generations. I cannot recommend highly enough “The Ministry for the Future”, a book by Kim Stanley Robinson, which deals with an awful lot of those challenges. We also face not an ageing population per se but a longer-lived population and the risk that brings of increasing inequalities. That has to be tackled, and reframing the debate through a wellbeing approach is one of the most effective ways in which we can do that.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about my constituent, Dr Katherine Trebeck, who really is a leading thinker on this matter. She talks about cornerstone indicators of how we can measure progress in society. The number of girls who ride a bike to school should be, and can be, a measure of achievement in society. It sums up the many things that have to go right—all those different things that lead to young girls being able to cycle to school, whether in this country or in sub-Saharan African—and it brings many benefits. That would be a demonstration—a real indicator —that we were using our wealth, knowledge and resources effectively, and that we were meeting the goals that will bring about a better society.
Scotland is buying into this. We can go further. We have heard about the relationship that has been established with the Greens, which I warmly welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about what Scotland could achieve if we were an independent country and had all the powers at our hands. Nevertheless, the national performance framework has been in place since 2007. There are 81 different national indicators that reflect the values and aspirations of the people of Scotland. They are aligned with the sustainable development goals of the United Nations and are there to help to track progress in reducing inequality. Scotland was a founding member of the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, which was founded in 2018 and continues to grow. It met during COP26 precisely to progress those goals.
That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is not ideological per se: it is a challenge to both the traditional left and the traditional right. If we agree that the aim is to reduce inequality, to improve wellbeing and to meet climate goals, we can have a debate about how best to do that. Perhaps there is an argument for the free market, for the leveraging of capital, for innovation and entrepreneurship; perhaps there is a greater role for the state and the investment of public money, goods and resources. That is the clash of ideas, but this is changing the goal that we are heading for, because infinite growth on a finite planet simply is not possible.
I encourage the Government to take this on and to look at what other ambitious countries around the world and their own devolved institutions are doing. If they are not prepared to do that or to follow along with the devolved institutions, we will see continued divergence, and that will only help the cause of Members such as myself in the Scottish National party, and those who want to see further devolution and ultimately independence. The Government must get into a 21st-century mindset, and that means leaving 19th and 20th-century ideas of unlimited growth as the only measure of success far behind.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
For the Opposition, I call Pat McFadden, and again he has five minutes.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate and thank all the hon. Members who have taken part over the past hour or so.
The debate on the relationship between wellbeing and the traditional economic growth measure of GDP has been going on for a long time. We welcome an emphasis on wellbeing and on not measuring everything purely by traditional economic statistics. As we have heard, there are deficiencies in GDP. For example, it tells us nothing about equality or the level of social inclusion in a society. That is what it does not include, but it does include things we might not want to include, such as measures of waste or of throwaway goods that are bad for our environment.
As a material measure of output, GDP is certainly not the same as general happiness. That is why in my party, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has argued that the Office for National Statistics should measure health and happiness through a healthy living index. We have heard about what the Welsh Labour Government are doing, putting wellbeing at the heart of their thinking.
As we transition to a cleaner and greener economy, we will want to take into account other things, most obviously the sources of our energy and how renewable they are. We will want to ask different questions—not just, “What did you produce?” but, “How did you produce that?” All that will have to be a greater part of our economic thinking. We do, after all, have only one planet, and we have a duty to cherish and preserve it for future generations.
This debate also forces a discussion on not only the costs of acting, but the costs of not acting. The Office for Budget Responsibility report earlier this year was very clear on that point. If we delay taking the necessary action on the transition to net zero, it will not make the costs disappear. Instead, it will increase them in the longer run, adding to our debt and our deficit, and loading further costs on the taxpayer. That is why Labour announced at our recent conference a commitment to investing in this transition year on year for a decade.
That commitment will help to ensure that the homes we live in are heated in a sustainable way. In so doing, it will create many jobs, reduce people’s heating bills and make a material contribution to the wellbeing we have heard about today. We will also want to invest in the charging infrastructure for low-carbon transport, and many of the other changes we need. That is what we want to do.
Let us not be entirely dismissive of GDP and the importance of economic growth. For the past decade, we have had, as it were, a real-world experiment in what it is like to live through low growth. We have high taxes now because economic growth has been low. That anaemic growth over the past decade means that we are a less prosperous country than we would have been had we had higher growth rates—for example, the kind of growth rates that we had in the first decade of this century. That has borne down on real incomes and on public services and their capacity to improve wellbeing.
Low economic growth over the past decade has adversely impacted on the quality of life in places such as Wolverhampton, which I represent, the Black Country and many other parts of the country. It has left the public square impoverished and degraded. In arguing for a broader view, we should not make the mistake of thinking that low growth or no growth is a good thing. The experience of low growth over the past decade suggests that that is very much not the case. I am all for a broader definition, I am all for greener growth, but I also want to see prosperity in every part of the country.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Minister, you have 10 minutes, which will leave a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up at the end.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to answer the debate on behalf of the Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing a debate on an issue about which she cares deeply and speaks eloquently. I thank other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to what has been a good conversation in this Chamber.
I hope that it will not come as a surprise to hon. Members that this is a subject that the Government take seriously and that, as a Treasury Minister, I care about deeply. Much of what we are doing in fact aligns with a wellbeing economy approach. More than that, as a Government, we are clear that the wellbeing of our citizens and the natural environment is a priority as we work to deliver our world-leading climate goals.
Given the topic, this has been a wide-ranging debate. In answering it, I will talk first about how we are already thinking differently about wellbeing and the economy, and then about how we are acting differently, based on that new way of thinking. To be clear, the Government are already taking steps towards a broader understanding of progress and GDP growth. Rather than simply measuring our success in conventional economic terms, we are increasingly focusing on a range of measures, including reductions in carbon emissions, improvements in air quality and increases in skills, among other things.
As a Treasury Minister, however, it would be strange for me not to argue that a traditional economic metric such as GDP remains important and useful. I think that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and I are probably in agreement on that. Nevertheless, GDP has its limitations. It should not be seen as an all-encompassing measure of welfare, which it was never designed to be, and nor is it an end in itself, as several hon. Members have said.
The Government fully supported the recommendations of Sir Charles Bean’s 2016 independent review of economic statistics, which acknowledged some of GDP’s limitations. We are committed to broadening the range of metrics that we use to measure welfare, including better accounting of human capital.
We provided the Office for National Statistics, for example, with an additional £25 million to improve UK economic statistics, including through the Beyond GDP initiative, which aims to develop new and broader measures of welfare and activity, such as a suite of personal wellbeing measures that better account for unpaid work, and estimates for human capital. I heard the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion say, “Don’t talk about the ONS”, but I assure her that ONS work on measuring natural capital is ongoing.
We have updated the rules that we use in the Treasury, as set out in the Green Book, to guide individual spending decisions. Those rules already take into account much more than the direct effects of GDP, including estimates of wider economic, social and environmental benefits. This year we introduced to the Green Book new guidance for considering wellbeing in detail as part of policy appraisal.
Several hon. Members have spoken about valuing nature and natural capital. The Government agree unambiguously with the central conclusion of the Dasgupta review that nature and the biodiversity that underpins it ultimately sustains economies, livelihoods and wellbeing. We also agree that only by accounting for the natural environment can we have a more complete view when balancing social, economic and environmental considerations in decision making. In other words, we know that natural capital matters and we are factoring it more and more into our thinking.
In response to the Dasgupta review, the Government are working to deliver a nature-positive economy so that we can be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it. Let us not underplay the significance of that. It is a genuine paradigm shift, and it is being put into action through the Environment Act 2021, including mandating biodiversity net gain for development to make sure that much needed development does not come at the expense of nature. That is why we have been working with the ONS to improve the way in which nature is incorporated in our national accounts, providing funding to explore improvement in its natural capital estimates to improve their relevance to policy making and through the consideration of a broader measure of economic activity than is currently captured by GDP. The recent spending review made investments to improve our understanding of the country’s natural capital with £140 million of funding to map the extent and condition of the country’s natural habitats.
Clearly a big part of our work in this area relates to efforts to tackle climate change by achieving net zero, which is part of my brief at the Treasury. The UK’s comprehensive legislative framework for tackling climate change, which revolves around setting carbon budgets, shows clearly how factors other than GDP sit centrally within our economic policy. That approach has been a success. Between 1990 and 2019, under Governments of different colours, the UK has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 44%, faster than any other country in the G20. Since March 2021, the Government have committed to invest £30 billion in our green industrial revolution. That spending, along with action on regulation and green finance initiatives, is about keeping the UK on track for our carbon budgets, establishing our long-term pathway towards net zero by 2050.
There has been widespread agreement in the Chamber about acting sooner rather than later on climate change, and specifically acting to prevent future climate change and investing to that end. I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) that it is not a choice of either growth or the environment—it is not either/or but both. Our transition to net zero is a growth opportunity in itself. We expect to see hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the green economy. Not all growth includes consuming finite resources; doing things better can also boost GDP.
We also want new jobs to be well paid. That is absolutely part of our vision. We are aiming for a higher paid, higher skilled economy. I disagree with the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) who said that growth means nothing to a struggling family. I disagree. Growth does matter. If we have a shrinking economy, a struggling family is less likely to have jobs, less likely to see their income go up, less likely to see improvements in their standard of living and less likely to have the opportunity to come out of poverty. Growth means more jobs. It means higher incomes. It means the opportunity for people’s wellbeing to improve.
As I said at the beginning of this debate, this is a wide-ranging issue, but I hope hon. Members will recognise that the Government are taking a comprehensive approach. I recognise that sometimes Ministers can fall into a trap in such debates by delivering a long list of policy actions, but I would say that our actions really do speak as loudly as any words. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and other Members who have spoken today care deeply about the issues, but so do the Government.
On the specifics of the debate, our objective pure and simple is an approach that gives us the very best chance of meeting our climate goals in a way that maximises wellbeing for all—in fact, overall improving the wellbeing of the population of this country. We are thinking differently. We are acting differently. We are investing differently. We do indeed want to do that collaboratively, including by working closely with hon. Members across the House.
Caroline Lucas
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate; I really appreciate it. I have been struck by how well Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been represented in it. I regret that there have not been more speeches from Government Members, because debating the purpose of our economy is surely the most important thing we could be doing. We will have big debates about how we get to the outcome that we all agree we want, but it is rather strange that there are not more people here from the Government side to have that debate.
I appreciate the Minister’s warm words, but there is a vast gap between what she is saying and what the Government are doing. Let us take one simple way of looking at this. A report comes out from the Treasury called “HM Treasury Outcome Delivery Plan”. It is the key departmental document setting out priority outcomes and activities. It has just one paltry mention of climate and just one reference to decarbonisation. It makes no mention at all of biodiversity, but it has 17 mentions of growth. The Government are still subsidising fossil fuels annually to the tune of around £12 billion, and there is still on the statute book a duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas.
There is so much to be said in such a short amount of time, but I urge the Minister to look again at what all of us have been saying in the debate. We should not simply revert to the old idea that growth is somehow the best way to address the kind of poverty that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about. Redistribution is a far more effective way of getting resources to those who need them. It is a convenient myth that if we keep growing the cake, those at the bottom of the pile will eventually get some. Well, they will have to wait a hell of a long time; and by the time they get it, the planet will be pretty much stuffed.
We need to shift to a greener economy right now. This does not have to be a party political issue; it was David Cameron who started talking about gross domestic happiness, and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has spoken eloquently —and surprisingly—about moving away from the myth of the ever-increasing economy. I ask the Minister to please look at bringing forward new measures of economic wellbeing along the lines of those that many of us have suggested. She could have them alongside GDP, if she does not want to replace GDP.
I say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) on the Labour Front Bench that there is a big difference between having low or no growth in a recession and a planned transition to a more stable, steady-state economy. I urge him to read such books as “Prosperity Without Growth” by Professor Tim Jackson, which absolutely sets out the way forward on this.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered a wellbeing economy approach to meeting climate goals.
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tax Administration and Maintenance
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
Autumn Budget and spending review 2021 announced that the Government would bring forward a further set of plans for tax administration and maintenance later in the autumn, which follows a similar set of announcements published in “Tax policies and consultations: Spring 2021” [CP 404] after the spring Budget. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have set these out in “Tax administration and maintenance: Autumn 2021” [CP 577], laid today. This outlines further steps the Government are taking to progress tax simplification, tackle non-compliance and ensure our tax system is fit for the modern world.
Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office and at https:/www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-administration-and-maintenance-autumn-2021
[HCWS432]
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
The UK’s covid-19 vaccine programme continues to protect the nation against the virus. We continue to make the vaccine accessible to all those eligible and urge everyone to take up the vaccine and booster offer without delay. Over 17 million people have now received their covid-19 booster vaccine or third dose, ensuring the protection they have secured from their first two doses is maintained over the winter months.
On 29 November, in response to a request from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for urgent advice in the light of the omicron variant, the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) published advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme. Additional data regarding the omicron variant will take some time to accrue and the JCVI has advised that waiting for such data before acting risks a suboptimal delayed response. Therefore, the JCVI has advised the following:
Booster vaccination eligibility should be expanded to include all adults aged 18 years to 39 years.
Booster vaccination should now be offered in order of descending age groups, with priority given to the vaccination of older adults and those in a covid-19 at-risk group. Booster vaccination should not be given within three months of completion of the primary course. This interval replaces the previous advice which was for a six-month interval.
Severely immunosuppressed individuals who have completed their primary course (three doses) should be offered a booster dose with a minimum of three months between the third primary and booster dose.
All children and young people aged 12 to 15 years should be offered a second dose (30- micrograms) of the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine.
Her Majesty’s Government have accepted this advice and all four parts of the UK intend to follow the JCVI’s advice—the JCVI advice on the UK vaccine response to the omicron variant is on www.gov.uk.
The overall intention of the measures advised is to accelerate the deployment of covid-19 vaccines to provide additional protection in the event it is needed as we come to better understand the risks posed by the omicron variant. There are currently no data to indicate that omicron infection is associated with a change in the pattern of susceptibility to serious covid-19 (hospitalisation and death). Persons of older age, or who are in covid-19 at-risk groups are likely to remain at higher risk from serious covid-19; therefore, vaccination should be prioritised accordingly. The JCVI will continue to review the programme and options for maximising health benefits alongside the rapidly evolving data on the omicron variant of concern.
With deployment of the extended booster vaccination offer and additional doses to children and young people imminent, I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG have taken on in relation to further vaccine supply via this statement and the departmental minute containing a description of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further booster doses to the population increases the statutory contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
Given the urgency with which we required JCVI advice and now deployment, we regret that it has not been possible to provide 14 sitting days’ notice to consider these issues in advance of announcing the planned extension to the booster programme in the UK.
Deployment of effective vaccines to eligible groups has been and remains a key part of the Government's strategy to manage covid-19. Willingness to accept the need for appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines, with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike, much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers have been willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we along with other nations have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.
Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. The MHRA approval for use of the currently deployed vaccines clearly demonstrates that these vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines or additional doses of vaccines already in use in the UK are deployed.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal.
[HCWS433]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride)
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 for 10 minutes.
Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021 among other things support the implementation of the remaining Basel III standards and the investment firms prudential regime, the IFPR.
As I am sure noble Lords will recall, the Government legislated, through the Financial Services Act 2021, to enable the Prudential Regulation Authority to update the UK’s capital requirements regime to implement the remaining Basel accords. These standards were developed following the 2008 financial crisis, which highlighted major deficiencies in international financial regulation.
Now that the UK has left the EU, we must implement many of these standards domestically for the first time. Parliament has approved the implementation of these standards by expert independent regulators, alongside an overarching accountability framework. In September, this House approved the Capital Requirements Regulation (Amendment) Regulations 2021, made under the Financial Services Act, which revoked the provisions in the UK capital requirements regulation, or UK CRR, necessary for the PRA to make these updates. The Financial Services Act 2021 also enabled the Financial Conduct Authority to introduce the investment firms prudential regime, or IFPR, which is the UK’s new tailored prudential regime for FCA investment firms. This regime carves FCA investment firms out of the UK CRR. The combination of these two prudential packages requires consequential changes to the statute book. This instrument ensures that these changes mesh appropriately and provide a complete, functioning legal regime for firms.
I now turn to the instrument in detail, first in respect to changes that implement the Basel standards. Many of the measures contained in this instrument update references in existing legislation to the UK CRR, so that they now relate to the new rules made by the PRA, known as the CRR rules. In addition, this instrument revokes the reporting and disclosure requirements for the leverage ratio. I remind noble Lords that the leverage ratio is a capital backstop that prevents banks from becoming excessively leveraged. I reassure noble Lords that the PRA was already able to set leverage-based capital requirements through PRA rules. The UK leverage ratio framework has been, and continues to be, set by the Financial Policy Committee, which has indeed reviewed it in its entirety recently.
This instrument also removes a legacy equivalence determination on Article 132 that was tied to an equivalence regime that was revoked as part of the Capital Requirements Regulation (Amendment) Regulations 2021 earlier this year. This is therefore a tidying up. This instrument ensures that firms do not have to reapply for permissions where the relevant article of the UK CRR is revoked and replaced with PRA rules.
I turn to the changes in relation to the implementation of IFPR. Some of these changes are straightforward—for example, removing now defunct terminology due to changes stemming from IFPR. Two others are more substantive. First, this instrument extends the Securitisation Regulation’s due diligence requirements to all FCA investment firms. This ensures that all FCA investment firms buying securitisations must conduct due diligence, thereby helping to safeguard the integrity of the UK securitisation market. The second removes FCA investment firms from the UK resolution regime. This reflects the Government’s view that the FCA’s existing toolkit, along with the measures the FCA will implement in future through IFPR and the investment bank special administration regime, are more appropriate ways of managing such firms’ failure. FCA investment firms currently use existing rules and go into insolvency proceedings anyway, rather than going into resolution. Therefore, keeping them within the resolution regime only serves to create administrative cost for these firms for no benefit.
This instrument contains a savings provision and a transitional provision for the IFPR. It enables the FCA to continue to modify, revoke or amend IFPR-relevant technical standards. It provides for transitional provisions that support the functioning of the UK securitisation market by extending the existing risk retention requirements for one year to allow time for firms to transition their approach. The risk retention requirement ensures that firms retain an economic interest in a portion of the risk that is being sold on to investors.
Finally, this instrument addresses a small number of deficiencies arising from the withdrawal of the UK from the EU which have been identified during the process of making these Basel and IFPR amendments.
In conclusion, the Treasury has worked closely with the Bank of England, the PRA, FCA, industry and, in relation to the resolution change, the Banking Liaison Panel in the drafting of this instrument.
I hope that noble Lords have found my explanation helpful. In short, this instrument plays an important functional part in preparing UK legislation for the important Basel III implementation and IFPR packages. I would like to inform noble Lords that a correction slip has been issued in relation to a typographical error in this draft instrument. There is an incorrect cross-reference in the title of Regulation 38. The operative provisions in that regulation are correct. As a result, the error has no legal effect, and noble Lords can be assured that this change is minor. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare a possible interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I want to put this on the record, as we are getting wide briefings at the moment. I also have some experience of the friendly society movement as a former chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society and two Invesco investment trusts.
I particularly draw attention to paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is key. It says that
“the framework in its current form does not appropriately cater for the differences between credit institutions and investment firms and can be disproportionate”
and “burdensome”, et cetera. That seems crucial. It then goes on to mention the consultation that has been carried out. When my noble friend winds up, could he make it clear whether all parts of Part 9C rules have been produced and circulated to the interested parties, or not? Certainly, implementation on 1 January 2022 does not fill me with enthusiasm. It is after Christmas and less than a month away, so I hope he will say that they have been produced, and when.
I am sure that my noble friend and all noble Lords would feel that there are some deficiencies in UK-retained law. I seek reassurance that we are confident that those deficiencies have been removed.
The other dimension I raise relates to paragraph 12.3. It will not surprise my noble friends that, once again, I feel very strongly about impact assessments and statements from Her Majesty’s Treasury that it considers that the net impact will be less than £5 million and very limited. Paragraph 14.1 says that
“the number of small businesses in scope is low.”
They may be small businesses, but they are important businesses to whoever is running them—and we are talking about financial firms.
It is always helpful to have a review of any legislation, particularly legislation relating to our coming out of the EU. That may not be proportionate in the judgment of the Treasury, but I do not know how many firms we are talking about. If my noble friend has that information, that will be helpful. I suppose that if we are talking of only three or four, that may be right, but I do not believe that that is the number—from my experience in the City, from some of the presentations we have recently had and, indeed, from some of the publicity about what is happening in the financial sector at the moment.
Is my noble friend absolutely confident that those firms do not want the SI reviewed after a period? If they all say no—that they do not want a review and are comfortable—fine, but my judgment is that, in life, it is helpful to have a review at some point.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, obviously I will not oppose this statutory instrument, but it raises a number of issues which need to be explored, and I shall look forward to the Minister’s response to our concerns. We raised these concerns during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, but they have not been alleviated.
The Act and this SI transfer significant power to set the UK rules on Basel III standards to the financial regulators accompanied by minimal parliamentary oversight. It is a crucial process and has a fundamental impact on financial stability, as it sets the capital and risk management requirements for banks and other financial institutions. The PRA and the FCA are expected to consult on their decisions, and parliamentarians can contribute to those consultations, but as no more than ordinary consultees, despite their responsibilities to the public, and can at best hope for a few comments on their points as part of the general response.
Committees of Parliament can question the PRA and FCA and undertake reports but, in practice, on only a handful of issues each year, so they are likely to be visited exceedingly rarely and probably only at a time of crisis, which is rather too late. Even the SIs offer no meaningful accountability, because they cannot be amended. This SI, with the powers it gives the regulators, will mean that the issues of Basel III, so crucial to our financial structure, will probably never again come before either this House or the other place, except through that committee arrangement, which is, as I said, pretty minimal. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
When we were members of the EU—I know mentioning that is not popular with the Government—basic Basel standards were implemented through EU law, where the process was open and accountable and as different as day from night from our current circumstance. Before the EU Commission proposed draft legislation, it held many conferences and public meetings involving parliamentarians; parliamentarians were engaged in briefings, expert evidence sessions and discussions with a wide range of relevant regulators and supervisory authorities; and the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee would be involved in scrutinising the main directive and regulations by way of co-decision. With Brexit, the power has transferred from the EU, but the Government have chosen to do it in a way that essentially removes any meaningful democratic accountability. I should like to hear for the record why the Minister has chosen such a route.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for introducing this latest set of Treasury regulations. These are not the first changes to arise from the Financial Services Act 2021, but this SI represents the biggest amendments to and revocation of the capital requirements regulation—the CRR—since that parent legislation passed. Many of the changes are to facilitate the implementation of certain Basel III standards from 1 January 2022. As the Minister and the Explanatory Memorandum noted, the UK played an active role in negotiating this reform package.
As we discussed at length during the passage of the parent Act, the Prudential Regulation Authority—the PRA—has taken responsibility for updating parts of the CRR through its regulatory rules. That such changes are being made at arm’s length might still rankle with some—the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reinforced that point—but that was the Treasury’s determination and it is the framework that we must operate under.
Other changes made by the instrument are designed to facilitate the implementation of the investment firms prudential regime—the IFPR—by the Financial Conduct Authority. That new system will ensure tailored regulation of non-systemic investment firms outside the scope of the CRR. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that although the FCA has introduced most of its IFPR rules, some more are required before the regime goes live on 1 January 2022. Can the Minister confirm whether these additional rules have been finalised and published since the SI and EM were laid? If not, does the FCA have an estimate of when they will emerge?
Could the Minister also outline what parliamentary engagement has been undertaken on the CRR and the IFPR reforms? Given the highly technical nature of these regulations and the various regulatory rules that must be read alongside them, is the Minister confident that everything is present and correct? This might at first glance feel like a trivial question but, as a veteran of dozens of EU exit SIs, it is vital that we have confidence in this process.
Moving on, the Treasury has, in its Explanatory Memorandum, pointed to the existence of accountability frameworks for the PRA and the FCA. However, in doing so, it neglected to mention the unease that has been expressed about this by several colleagues across your Lordships’ House. At the time, it was suggested that concerned colleagues may find comfort in the ongoing future regulatory framework review process. Some has indeed been found in the proposals outlined in measures 6 and 7 of Command Paper 548 to introduce statutory requirements for the PRA and FCA to notify relevant parliamentary committees of their consultations and provide written responses to any representations made. If adopted, these steps would mirror several of the key asks in our previous amendments. Nevertheless, as always, the devil will be in the detail. While it may not be strictly relevant to this SI, can the Minister outline the anticipated timescale for the review? When is the Treasury likely to come forward with the resulting legislation?
Another concern around CRR and IFPR rule-making was the extent to which the regulators would have regard to the steps needed to tackle the climate crisis. The Government eventually conceded that the PRA and the FCA should have regard to the 2050 net-zero target, but this requirement takes effect only on 1 January —that is, after most of the rules have been published and at the same time as they enter into force. Can the Minister outline what steps, if any, have been taken by the regulators to ensure that green issues have been considered as part of the current exercise, in so far as it is possible within the Basel III framework? Can he also explain how he envisages the new duty operating in practice? What kinds of regulatory changes would he expect to see as a result of that concession having been made?
There is a perception—I have outlined my concerns before—that while the Chancellor likes to talk green, he is somewhat less keen on acting accordingly. Many firms in the financial sector are cognisant of the need to make their business practices more sustainable. Some have acted as outriders, setting ambitious targets and creating interesting schemes for change. However, more needs to be done. A voluntary approach to things such as investment in fossil fuels will get us only so far. Some will do the right thing but others may see opportunities to gain competitive advantage. If, by the time we get to the next financial services Bill, these kinds of issues have not been adequately addressed by the PRA and FCA, can the Minister commit the Treasury to taking action?
Implementing Basel III and IFPR is one thing, and we do not oppose these regulations’ small part in delivering those reforms. However, meeting the challenges of the future is another matter and it is not yet clear that we are on the right course.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions today. Some important points have been raised during the debate. I will attempt to answer them but there may be one or two where I will have to write.
To start, my noble friend Lord Naseby asked about impact assessments. A de minimis impact assessment has been published alongside the instrument. As the equivalent annual net direct cost is less than £5 million, the only direct costs to businesses in scope of the instrument will be approximately £900,000. This is for provisions relating to the securitisation regulation.
Regarding the amendment to Article 2(12)(g) of the securitisation regulation, including all the FCA investment firms in scope of due diligence requirements, the net impact to firms is expected to be £900,000 per annum, based on the relevant firms investing in 20 securitisation positions per year. This figure represents the aggregate compliant costs for firms that are being brought within the scope of the due diligence requirements. This figure has been calculated from information provided by the FCA and industry; the calculation is based on the type of investment firms on which the amendment has an impact, the estimated number of such firms and the estimated cost of complying with the due diligence requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about future regulatory reform and parliamentary oversight. The Government and the regulators are committed to ensuring that Parliament has the opportunities it needs to scrutinise the PRA’s rules and respond to anything raised. The Government consider that Parliament has a wide range of powers to request information and conduct effective scrutiny of the regulators, including through the Select Committee system. To support this work, the Government have proposed formalising through statute the mechanisms through which the regulators provide information to Parliament to ensure that it has the information it needs to undertake this scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me to outline what parliamentary engagement has been undertaken on both the CRR and IFPR reforms. Ultimately, it is Parliament that sets the regulators’ objectives. It is of course right that Parliament has an appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the work of the regulators and their effectiveness in delivering the objectives that Parliament has set them. The regulators committed to sending their consultations and draft rules on Basel and the IFPR to Parliament during the passage of the Financial Services Act earlier this year.
Consultation on these changes started in December 2020, so there has been plenty of time for Parliament to review and report on it, including through the Select Committee process. The PRA and the FCA also published their near-final rules over the summer to provide ample time for familiarisation well in advance of this debate. As part of the ongoing future regulatory reform, as I have mentioned, we have proposed formalising through statute the mechanism through which regulators provide information.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and my noble friend Lord Naseby asked whether the detail of this instrument and the accompanying rules set by the regulators are present and correct. The answer is yes. Treasury officials have worked extensively with their counterparts at the regulators to ensure that the changes mesh and make a cohesive whole. Where appropriate, both the Treasury and the regulators have consulted on the measures implemented through this statutory instrument. The noble Lord and my noble friend also asked whether the IFPR rules have been finalised and published since the SI and EM were laid. I can confirm that the FCA has now published all the IFPR rules, including the final outstanding set of rules, which were published on 26 November.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his assertion that two of the measures in the recent financial future regulatory framework review consultation provided him with some comfort on the question of the regulators’ accountability to Parliament. He also asked about the timescales of the review. The Government published their consultation on 9 November, with a closing date for responses of 9 February next year. We will bring forward further detail on our approach to implementing the proposals in the review in due course.
The noble Lord asked me to outline what steps, if any, have been taken by regulators to ensure that green issues have been considered as part of their rule-making processes. He is of course correct to say that the Financial Services Bill 2021—now an Act—was amended to include
“have regard to the net-zero carbon target”,
which will apply after 1 January next year. This means that the PRA does not need to have regard to climate change considerations in making the Basel III rules, nor the FCA in making the IFPR rules, for 1 January. This was done to ensure that there is no delay in implementing the Basel III and IFPR reforms. It will be for regulators to determine how the new duty will operate in practice. The Government anticipate that it will function in much the same way as other similar obligations did during the PRA’s implementation of the Basel III standards, such as the need to have regard to the ability of firms
“to continue to provide finance to businesses and consumers in the UK”.
The PRA and the FCA are aware of the need to respond to the potential risks posed by climate change. For example, on 28 October, the PRA published its second climate change adaptation report, finding that under the existing regulatory capital framework there is scope to use capital requirements to address certain aspects of climate-related financial risks. This and future work will no doubt feed into how the PRA sets its rule from 1 January 2022.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2021.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the order, which provides for the continuation of the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers, or terrorism prevention and investigation measures, for a period of five years, be approved.
The Government take all necessary steps to protect the public. The threat we face from individuals and groups who wish us harm is significant and enduring. It is vital that we have the tools necessary to keep this country safe. It is right that our first response to terrorism-related activity should be to prosecute or deport those involved, but it is not always possible. That is why we continue to require the powers conferred on the office of the Home Secretary within the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. Section 21(1) of the Act states that the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers will expire at the end of five years from the date the Act was passed. Due to the continuing threat to the UK from terrorism, and following consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director-general of the Security Service, there can be no doubt that TPIMs remain an essential component of our toolkit to manage the threat from terrorism.
The Act provides the Secretary of State with powers to impose a TPIM notice on an individual if the conditions set out in Section 3 of the Act are assessed by the Secretary of State to have been met: namely, that she reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to impose the measures on the individual.
In addition to the power to impose a TPIM notice, the Secretary of State has powers to extend and vary a TPIM notice that is in force, and to revive a TPIM notice that has been revoked. Since the introduction of the Act in 2011, 24 TPIMs have been imposed. As of the last published set of figures on 21 October, five TPIMs were in force. If the TPIM powers are not extended, these five dangerous individuals will be at large without any measures in place to reduce the risk they pose to the public. TPIMs are imposed as a tool of last resort, when the Security Service judges that there are no other means, or that a TPIM notice is the only satisfactory means, to manage that risk.
I shall now outline some of the background to TPIM powers for the Committee. TPIMs are civil preventive measures designed to manage the threat posed by individuals who cannot be prosecuted for a terrorism-related offence, or deported in the case of foreign nationals. There is no question that TPIMs are extraordinary measures. That is why the 2011 Act provides for broad judicial oversight, including a requirement for High Court permission to impose the measures, except in urgent cases where the notice must be immediately referred to the court for confirmation; an automatic review hearing in each case, unless the individual requests that the hearing be discontinued; and rights of appeal for the individual against the refusal of a request to revoke or vary a measure.
The TPIM legislation also places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the prospects of prosecuting an individual before measures may be imposed, and a duty to keep the necessity of measures under review while they are in force. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, which amended existing measures and introduced new TPIM measures, also reintroduced a requirement on the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to publicly report on the operation of the TPIM Act.
The TPIM Act has been extended once, in 2016, by this House. Unless a new order is made under Section 21(2)(c), the powers in the Act will expire at midnight on 13 December this year. Just as was the case five years ago, it is absolutely essential that we have all the necessary powers to protect the public from terrorism-related activity. Having consulted as required by the Act, the Home Secretary has decided, due to the significant terrorist threat facing this country, to make this statutory instrument to provide for the continuation of TPIM powers for a further five-year period, which is the maximum allowable in the legislation.
It is essential that our counterterrorism strategy enables us to tackle the full spectrum of activity. TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts and successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, while the police and the Security Service believe that they have been effective in reducing the national security risk posed by those subject to the measures.
Our message is clear: we remain steadfast in our determination to defeat terrorism and we will take every necessary action to counter the threat from those who hate the values that we cherish. The safety and security of the public is our number one priority, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, here we are again: the five-yearly renewal of the TPIM scheme, which has been in place since 2006. I oppose these restrictive measures, which are an extrajudicial way of interfering with the rights and liberties of people who cannot be convicted of any crime.
I am curious to know whether the Home Office has explained to the Prime Minister that it is doing this. I ask because, while MP for Henley in 2005, Boris Johnson wrote of the Act in his Telegraph article of 10 March:
“It is a cynical attempt to pander to the many who”—
forgive my language here—
“think the world would be a better place if dangerous folk with dusky skins were just slammed away, and never mind a judicial proceeding; and, given the strength of this belief among good Tory folk, it is heroic of the Tories to oppose the Bill. We do so because the removal of this ancient freedom is not only unnecessary, but it is also a victory for terror.”
I hope that the Minister will at least pass this back to the Home Office to make sure that the Prime Minister is happy with this renewal. It must be so difficult for Ministers to do anything without Boris Johnson having opposed it somewhere at some point in the past; there is always an article somewhere that one can track down. Our Prime Minister is so very often so wrong, but on this rare occasion he was so right: it is heroic to oppose these measures, and the Greens in your Lordships’ House will register their opposition every five years when this continuation order comes round. I actually hope this will be the last time.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
As Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in 2016, I had no hesitation in recommending the second renewal of TPIMs in that year. I share the Government’s view that TPIMs, although they involve a particularly severe deprivation of liberty and intrusion into private life, may be an appropriate tool for dealing with a small number of individuals who are believed to endanger the public but whom it is feasible neither to prosecute nor to deport.
However, close scrutiny of TPIMs is important, all the more so since the maximum duration of a TPIM was significantly increased by the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. I am here to raise with the Minister one concerning development that has arisen since my time as independent reviewer: the refusal of legal aid to TPIM suspects who cannot afford to progress the automatic review of each TPIM that is provided for in Section 9 of the TPIM Act 2011.
Jonathan Hall QC, the current independent reviewer, reported to the Government in November 2020 that, in the previous year, three subjects of so-called light-touch TPIMs, known as JD, HB and HC, requested the court to discontinue the reviews in their cases and that
“the absence of funding was a factor”.
In each case, they had been refused legal aid. The independent reviewer’s report, published in March 2021, recommended that, subject of course to means, legal funding should swiftly be made available to TPIM subjects for the purpose of participating in Section 9 review hearings. Mr Hall informed me this afternoon that, more than eight months after publication, there has still been no response from the Home Office to this recommendation. Can the Minister say when a response will be provided?
In the hope that it may influence the substance of any response, which, I might add, I do not expect today, I shall make four points. First, on 12 October 2020, the Government wrote to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, defending the TPIM regime on the basis that, among other things,
“all TPIM subjects have an automatic right to have a court review the imposition of their TPIM and each of the measures imposed. This hearing also provides an opportunity for the subject to hear the national security case against them.”
I assume that in the last sentence the reference is to the gist of the national security case, which is now provided to the TPIM subject. It is plain from what I have said, and from what the independent reviewer has said, that there is, in reality, no automatic right to review and that there will be no such right for as long as legal aid is refused to TPIM subjects on grounds other than means.
Secondly, it would be unacceptable if funding were to be denied because of a misapprehension that a Section 9 review is a form of challenge that requires a TPIM subject to establish reasonable prospects of success. As the independent reviewer explains in his report, Section 9 review was designed not as an add-on but as an integral part of every TPIM. Furthermore, it is not feasible to apply a merits criterion to the grant of legal aid, because the requirements of national security mean that TPIM subjects do not know, and will never be told, the full reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision to impose a TPIM.
Thirdly, if the aim is to save money or a desire to avoid giving money to lawyers for suspected terrorists, that aim is not only misguided but likely to be counterproductive. The legal aid issue affects very few cases—just three in 2019, as I indicated—but is bound eventually to lead to prolonged litigation about the fairness of proceedings.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. As she explained, the sunset clause means that every five years the TPIM powers need to be reviewed. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we support the measures because they are necessary. I think she said that they are extrajudicial. Yes, there is no criminal trial in the way somebody who is deprived of their liberty would normally be subject to a criminal trial, but these proceedings are not extrajudicial in that they still have to be approved by the court; there is some sort of judicial involvement.
We support the measures, but it is essential that there are safeguards. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said, the Government are, when challenged, citing defences of TPIMs that do not appear to be completely the case. If three subjects have abandoned their review, citing lack of funding for legal aid, clearly some of the safeguards are not being upheld.
The other issue is that, if the Government are citing to the UN body the fact that TPIM subjects will hear what the national security case is against them in those court proceedings, clearly that is not true either. TPIMs are usually for cases where the security services have intelligence on an individual but do not have evidence that they can present in open court, so it is very unlikely that a TPIM subject will hear what the national security case is against them. On the face of it, it sounds as if the Government are misrepresenting the safeguards that should be part and parcel of the TPIM process.
What worried me about the noble Baroness’s comments, which were very similar to those made by the Minister in the other place this morning, was that TPIMs are cited as being for cases where people cannot be prosecuted or deported. My understanding is that these terrorism prevention and investigation measures were intended as a stopgap while evidence was collected in order to prosecute the individual, not as a permanent replacement for prosecution.
There is a continual refrain: “Well, if we can’t deport or prosecute somebody then we’ll deprive them of their liberty on an almost permanent basis through TPIMs.” That strikes me as going against the sort of rights and freedoms that the noble Baroness said we need to protect through combating terrorism. We are almost taking away people’s rights and freedoms by the use of TPIMs in that way.
We have heard about some worrying developments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about reviews, a crucial safeguard as part of TPIM measures, and we have heard about the apparent misrepresentation by the Government of what the safeguards are and how what the Government appear now to be using TPIMs for goes beyond what they were intended for when they were initially envisaged. We are clearly concerned about the safeguards, but not to the extent that we feel that TPIMs are not necessary in exceptional cases as a temporary measure. Bearing in mind that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the security services and the independent reviewer have been consulted and are content with the renewal of the use of this power for another five years, and despite those reservations, we support the continuation of TPIMs.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for introducing this statutory instrument, which has vital implications for our national security. It keeps our citizens, their families and our communities safe. We will not oppose the instrument, which renews the Secretary of State’s powers to impose, extend, vary and, where elapsed, revive a TPIM notice. This is a technical measure and is required every five years by the 2011 Act. It would be incomprehensible to let these powers elapse on 13 December.
TPIMs are a tool in an arsenal to combat terrorism. The TPIM system needs to be agile and robust to respond to the ever-changing terrorist threat. Individuals with no criminal conviction can have these exceptional measures applied against them. It follows that there need to be strong safeguards to balance the protection of our citizens with the rights of an individual to be treated within the law and in a human rights compliant manner.
Does the Minister believe that TPIMs are effective? As she said, there are five TPIMs in force as of this October. Does she believe that the resources necessary to properly administer them are in place? What impact have the recent changes had operationally? We have seen the impact of so-called lone-wolf terrorism tragically recently. The Labour Party has called on the Government to look at this specifically and to publish a review. How does a TPIM combat this type of lone-wolf terrorist threat?
I also ask the Minister about funding for community counterextremism projects and the recommendations of the Government’s own commission of experts, in particular the ISC proposals on precursor chemicals for explosives. My honourable friend Conor McGinn in the other place referred to the Government not following the recommendations of their own experts. I will widen the question: can the Minister say something about their use of experts? How do the Government believe outside experts can be best used to develop and implement a strategy to combat terrorism?
Today’s SI deals with the renewal of TPIM powers, but can the Minister say something about the Prevent scheme? It is concerning that referrals to the scheme have dropped to just below 5,000, which I understand is a 22% drop and a record low. What is the status of the independent review of Prevent and when does she expect it to be published?
I will pick up some of the points that noble Lords have made in this short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, quoted from an article by the Prime Minister in the Telegraph. She went on to express her hope that this is the last such debate. I agree with that sentiment. We all know that the Prime Minister sometimes uses colourful language to make strong points, but she agreed—I see that she is nodding her head—as I do, with what the Prime Minister said in that article. But I am not driven to the same conclusion as the noble Baroness. We need these measures and we need them now, which is why we support a renewal of this SI.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is undoubtedly the most expert among us today. He raised four questions and I would be interested to hear the response to them, because I thought that they were very pertinent.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, put his questions succinctly and I will reiterate a couple of his points. My understanding of TPIMs agrees with his: they were not seen as a permanent replacement but as an intermediary step before prosecution, yet we see people being kept on this type of regime for long periods. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, essentially also made the same point as that of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the safeguards not being properly funded, so that, for example, it is not possible for people to take advantage of legal aid to review the TPIMs on them. I thought that the questions from the two noble Lords were important and the Government need to answer them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken in today’s debate. First, I will correct the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb: the TPIMs have been in place not since 2006 but since 2011, I understand, so this is their 10-year anniversary. But I will certainly pass the noble Baroness’s point to the Home Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked me a few questions, but his main thrust was on legal aid. He outlined the opinion of Jonathan Hall QC on this. I can confirm that he has raised those concerns and that the Government will respond to both the 2019 and the 2020 reports shortly. It is for the Legal Aid Agency to assess any application for legal aid for a TPIM review and its decisions are made independently of government, in accordance with the legislative framework, but I do not think that that was the noble Lord’s point—I will get on to that. It is right that both means and merits tests are applied to all applicants for TPIM reviews to ensure that the legal aid scheme meets its dual objective of targeting funding at those who need it most and providing value for money for the taxpayer.
To that end, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked a specific question on people who do not know what the case against them is—therefore, how can they respond? The merits test is a key part of the legal aid scheme. The Legal Aid Agency applies the merits criteria on the open evidence alone and there are provisions to help applicants where it is difficult to establish prospects, so closed evidence should not disadvantage applicants from satisfying the merits test.
The Home Office keeps the prospects of prosecution under review and each case is regularly reviewed. TPIMs can be imposed for a set time period only and people are not kept on them indefinitely.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
On that specific point, when the Minister says that TPIMs are regularly reviewed with a view to prosecution, how often is that? Is it once a year or once every six months? How often are they reviewed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is quarterly. I turn to the review of Prevent. Sorry, I did not quite finish the previous point. As to the effectiveness of resources, clearly, I cannot comment on individual cases. I can, however, assure the Committee that they have the support of the police and of the Security Service. Successive courts have ruled that TPIMs are lawful and effective tools for managing individuals engaged in terrorism. The Home Office is confident that the TPIM regime is fully resourced to manage any number of TPIMs, although they are few in number. The review of Prevent will be laid in the Houses of Parliament by 31 December.
I thought the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about lone wolf terrorism was very pertinent. We are seeing increasing numbers of lone actors. How can TPIMs help? If a lone actor is not on the radar, it is very difficult to pre-empt what that person will do. The intelligence that our various agencies have is there to help identify people who may be vulnerable to such acts. The TPIM is threat-agnostic, and goes across a range of threats.
How can we best use external experts? I have spoken to a number in the field not just of counterterrorism but of counterextremism. The noble Lord was pointing towards this. Our current independent reviewer of Prevent is clearly an expert in his field. We are lucky to have the experts we do, giving advice to the Home Office and the Government. I think I have answered all questions.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raised a couple of issues. He suggested that the Government had justified the TPIM regime on two bases. The first is that reviews take place. Whether this is an independent decision by the Legal Aid Agency or not, we have heard that people are abandoning their reviews because they are not being funded for legal representation. Presumably they feel it is a waste of time unless they have representation. Secondly, they say that these hearings give the subject the opportunity to hear the national security case against them. Clearly, the TPIM subject does not hear the national security case in court. Perhaps there is a hint of what might lie behind it, but they do not hear the case. The Minister did not answer those particular questions. Perhaps she could write to noble Lords.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I partly answered them, but I am happy to clarify in writing. I beg to move.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Before I call the Minister, I must inform the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will take part remotely so I will call the Lib Dem response at the appropriate time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, the Coronavirus Act has been a central part of the Government’s response to Covid-19. It includes powers to bolster the health and social care workforce through the temporary registration of practitioners. More than 13,000 social workers and 28,000 nurses, midwives, paramedics, operating department practitioners, radiographers and other professionals have joined the temporary registers. This continues to provide extra resilience for our health and social care sector during these uncertain times. It also demonstrates the commitment and determination of our fantastic health and social care professionals.
The Act includes powers to ensure that critical functions in society are able to continue throughout the pandemic. For example, it has allowed virtual court hearings to take place in a wider range of circumstances. The Government plan to secure some of these powers in alternative primary legislation. The Act also includes powers that have enabled the Government to provide vital support to people and businesses, including provisions for statutory sick pay for Covid-19-related absences; the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which has supported 11.7 million jobs; and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, which supported almost 3 million self-employed individuals.
The Coronavirus Act has been a critical part of the Government’s response to the pandemic, but I acknowledge that some noble Lords are concerned about some of the powers in it. I assure them that the Government have sought to use the powers in an appropriate and proportionate way. There are arrangements in place to ensure accountability, including regular opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny; this accountability is vital. I am grateful to noble Lords, my honourable friends in the other place and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose welcome review of our draft instruments continues to ensure their accuracy.
We will continue to review the powers in the Act and are committed to ensuring that emergency powers remain in place for only as long as they are necessary. The most recent six-month review of the Act in September identified seven provisions, and parts of an eighth, that could be expired. Once approved, Parliament will have expired half of the original 40 temporary, non-devolved powers in the Act ahead of schedule.
The regulations that we are debating today expire some of the most controversial provisions in the Act, including the powers under Schedule 21, relating to potentially infectious persons, and Schedule 22, giving powers “to issue directions relating to events, gatherings and premises”. The regulations also expire other powers that are no longer needed, such as those under Section 23 enabling the variation of “Time limits in relation to urgent warrants” under the Investigatory Powers Act and Section 56 powers related to “Live links in magistrates’ court appeals” in certain situations, as well as powers under Section 37 and parts of Section 38 relating to the education and childcare sectors. We are also expiring Sections 77 and 78, which were time-limited powers in the Act, and a further provision on behalf of Northern Ireland.
Expiring these provisions is an important milestone. It is possible only because of the significant progress that we have made so far in our fight against the virus, but we have continued to be clear that the pandemic is not yet over. The Government believe that the remaining provisions in the Act are important to continue to support the response to Covid- 19 over the coming months. Everyone should continue to do their bit to keep themselves and others safe as we tackle the winter months ahead, so let us encourage everyone to get their first, second and booster doses, when eligible. It is not too late for those who have not yet received their first or second doses to get them and we urge them to come forward. We also urge everyone to continue to wash their hands, to ventilate indoor spaces, to wear masks where mandated—but even where not mandated, if appropriate—and to stay home when they feel unwell.
We are conscious of how hard the pandemic has been for so many people and we are grateful to everyone who has made sacrifices. We are grateful for the dedication and determination of individuals and communities across our great nation and to all those who have worked so hard in the fight against Covid-19.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the provisions in the regulations before us and I congratulate my noble friend on bringing them forward. I thank him for the meeting that I had in the last 10 days with him and his team, which was most useful. I endorse enthusiastically his invitation for those who have not yet been vaccinated to come forward. This would be an opportunity to ask where we are, particularly with those under 18. Have they had their second vaccinations and at what age will the vaccine programme be rolled out?
I remind the Committee of my interest as an adviser to the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, which may or may not pertain to the comments that I make this afternoon. I seek my noble friend’s guidance on whether one area that I am particularly interested in, as I know are all general practitioners, is covered in the provisions before us. If it is not, can he write to me? I understand that one of the reasons why GPs are unable to have as many face-to-face appointments as they would wish is that they have been constrained by the regulations passed by both Houses of Parliament. I cannot remember whether the provision was in the original Act or in supplementary regulations in the form of statutory instruments that we have adopted. However, I understand that specific regulations regarding the square footage or meterage of a waiting room were set out at the beginning of the pandemic, limiting the number of patients who could be accommodated in person in a waiting room during the pandemic. I think that it was the same for dental practices.
Are these provisions still in place? If they are not part of these regulations, I would be grateful if my noble friend could write to me. It could be extremely important to advise the public that that is why doctors are not able to see as many patients physically as they would wish to do. I am sure that the regulations were brought in for good reasons—that we should not be mixing and should be masking and that we should respect the ventilation to which my noble friend referred, while self-distancing—but it is important that patients understand the constraints under which general practitioners have to operate.
To turn to the specific remit of the regulations before us, my noble friend just stated, and I think that it is on page 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, that the Government are minded to expire and lift the regulations relating to the power in Schedule 22
“to provide powers to issue directions relating to events, gatherings and premises in England and Northern Ireland respectively.”
With the greatest respect, mindful of the fact that we might have difficulties once we know more about the omicron variant, is this the right time to be lifting those restrictions? Can my noble friend put my mind at rest that powers exist elsewhere, either in subsequent regulations or still in the original Act? It seems a little premature to be expiring those provisions at this time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. Can we beam her in?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is beginning to have the feeling of “Star Trek”, which is certainly not my intention. Thank you, Deputy Chairman. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
From these Benches, we will not oppose the expiry of these 12 provisions, although we have some comments on them. It was really good to hear the Minister outline the “hands, face, space” guidance, readopted in the past couple of days. Will there be a public communications campaign to reinforce it because, sadly, I suspect that not many people will have heard it in Grand Committee today in Parliament, let alone in the outside world?
Yesterday, in the Statement repeat, we debated masks and self-isolation; we will do so again tomorrow when we look at the SIs. On vaccination, it was good to hear the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State refer to the clinically extremely vulnerable in this afternoon’s press conference. I promise the Minister that I will not repeat all the questions I asked him yesterday, but not one of them has yet been answered. Delivering either the fourth, or a booster, jab for 3.7 million clinically extremely vulnerable people will not work effectively without clearer information systems on exactly who the CEV are and which jab they should get; there is still a lot of uncertainty there. I thank the Minister for his offer of a meeting during yesterday’s Statement. With today’s announcement, vaccination is becoming urgent; I look forward to hearing from him shortly about when it can happen.
From these Benches, we want to make a brief comment on the assessments for local authority care and support. I note that the Explanatory Memorandum says that only
“eight local authorities used these powers between April 2020 and June 2020. No local authorities in England have used them after 29 June 2020.”
That is good to hear, but it is evident that assessments are still happening very slowly. It is one of the problems that hospital trusts across the country are facing, with people in beds awaiting an assessment. Some of that is much more about workforce availability, both in the NHS and in the local authority system, than about the arrangements to reduce these assessments.
Reference has already been made to local authorities having virtual meetings. Members from these Benches and others objected when the Secretary of State decided that all local authority meetings had to cease being virtual in January this year. It has meant that a number of councillors have been unable to attend their council meetings through no fault of their own. If the Lords can have a handful of people contributing virtually, and with cases going up and certain areas having problems, is it possible to return to virtual meetings and leave the matter as a choice for the local authority concerned?
I note that the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union/trigger the statement requirements under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”
However, it is only fair to point out that Section 25 gives early expiration to the power to require information relating to food supply chains to avoid serious disruption. In principle, we do not have a problem with that as a provision during the pandemic, but I say to the Minister: that statement may be true in treaty and UK legislation terms but, as we face this Christmas, there are increasing concerns about disruption to food supply chains, for three reasons.
One is a direct consequence of Brexit. European providers of food and many other products have significantly reduced or stopped exporting to the UK because of the complex, slow and, for both exporter and importer, expensive costs now that we are outside the European Union. Since Brexit, the reduction in the number of EU abattoir workers—as they leave the UK—has meant, this week and for the past month, thousands of pigs and other livestock being culled but not brought into the food chain. Worse, the increase in avian flu cases and the restrictions placed on all poultry farms mean that there are concerns about the supply of birds for the Christmas dinner table. Thirdly, there is a delay in foods and other goods coming in from around the world as a result of the pandemic. This is what one might describe as a perfect storm. Is the Minister confident that, given all these factors as well as trying to manage omicron in its early stages, it is appropriate to expire this particular provision?
We accept the expiry of emergency volunteering leave and compensation for emergency volunteers, although I do want to comment on the problems with the Bring Back Staff scheme, especially for doctors and some nurses. It was absolutely fine in principle, until it hit human resources in trusts. I know of two doctors who had recently retired and were kept hanging around for five months. One was a doctor teaching trainee doctors; however, she was unable to be used because the system just made it impossible for her. If there is any cause to reintroduce this particular provision, will the Minister ensure that we do not gold-plate the complex HR arrangements, making it impossible for staff, former staff or those who might come back on a temporary basis to do so?
We do not believe that the extension of time limits for retention of fingerprints and DNA should remain. We objected to that a year ago, when it was brought in.
Finally, I wrote to the Minister earlier today with real concerns about the problems that some returning international travellers are facing, following the new regulations that came into force at 4 am today, arising from concern over omicron. This is a logistical problem with the change from lateral flow to PCR tests and the passenger locator form. As of this morning, it was still possible to put only the details of your lateral flow test on to the passenger locator form, not the arrangements for the PCR test. One cruise company has 700 people coming into a UK port tomorrow and, despite talking to officials, it cannot get a sense of how the passengers will be able to get off if their details are not on the passenger locator form. I hope another method has been found, otherwise this may be a bit of a problem.
It is right that the Government made the provisions we face today, even if we do not agree with all of them. But I say to the Minister that, as with other statutory instruments, holding on to some of these provisions for a little longer, even if unused, might be useful in case the pandemic takes us down a course that not one of us wants, as the Government and other public services might need to call on them at short notice.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his most helpful introduction to these regulations, which we will not be opposing. As he acknowledged, when the original Act came into force, we were in extraordinary times and they required unprecedented legislation. However, as time moves on and experience and circumstances change, it is right that we seek to remove powers that are no longer needed. The move to do so today is welcome because, in those circumstances, such provisions should not remain in statute.
Examples of those include Section 56 and Schedule 26 powers relating to magistrates’ courts; Part 1 of Schedule 16, which provides for the temporary closure of education and childcare settings, and was not used; and Section 78 powers around local authority meetings, which need to go because the provisions are simply out of date. On this, I add my voice to a point I made previously in Grand Committee: as the Minister has heard from noble Lords today, surely how a local authority meeting is conducted must be the responsibility of the local authority itself. In the case of these regulations, I accept that the provision is out of date, but perhaps the Minister will apply his consideration to that more general point. The provision of powers to detain infectious people was particularly controversial and it is right that it is removed, having been used only 10 times, the last being October last year.
I will raise a few points with the Minister and I first emphasise the need for clarity of communication from the Government. With that in mind, I refer to the comments of Dr Jenny Harries, the head of the UK Health Security Agency, which she made on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme. She said:
“If we all decrease our social contacts a little bit, actually that helps to keep the variant at bay”.
However, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that he does not share her view. I understand that the Government have sought to reassure the public that they have no plans to tell people to limit their social contacts with others, which is in direct contrast to the view of this leading medical expert. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could clear this up for us today.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I start by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate and for continuing to ask questions to hold us to account. The Coronavirus Act has been fundamental to facilitating the Government’s response to the pandemic, supporting individuals, our healthcare, our public services and our businesses. We see expiring a further seven provisions of the Act as a significant milestone towards winding down the emergency powers. To be clear, the Government retain only those powers seen as critical to the ongoing response and recovery, and I thank noble Lords for their general support for that principle, but we will continue to review every aspect of coronavirus legislation.
I now turn to some of the points made by noble Lords this afternoon. First, why are we making some of these changes now, given what happened over the weekend? In reality, a thorough, in-depth review of all the provisions was conducted in September. The provisions we expire today are seen as no longer needed, as we have explained. The provisions that give the Secretary of State the power to prohibit or restrict events and gatherings have been dropped, but most legal restrictions to date have been achieved under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Some of these additional powers are not required because the Government assess them as appropriate to expire, but they can also respond under that Act to increase our vigilance and restrictions in response to coronavirus and any possible variants.
A number of noble Lords raised concerns about the expiry of Section 77 on the uprating of working tax credits. Throughout the crisis, the Government have sought to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods, and to support businesses and public services. The Government have always been clear that the £20 increase was a temporary measure to support the households most affected, that it was time-limited and that it can no longer be used because it related to the 2020-21 tax year.
During the recent Budget, the Chancellor announced that, since the restrictions have been lifted, economic growth has exceeded expectations and the labour market is recovering strongly. The Government are now focusing on supporting people to move into and progress back to work, including the Plan for Jobs to help people move into employment so that they can get a regular wage. Also, workers leaving the furlough scheme and unemployed people over the age of 50 will be helped back into work as part of the more than £500 million expansion of the Government’s Plan for Jobs. Those on the lowest wages will also be helped to progress their careers, and existing schemes targeting young people will be extended into next year. On balance, it was considered appropriate to try to help those who genuinely want to get back to work.
Also, one of the struggles for any temporary government measure is, as I think Ronald Reagan once said, that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government measure. We have to be aware that, whatever you do temporarily, there will be concerns when a temporary measure comes to an end. Frankly, I expect we will see that in a couple of years’ time when we reassign the uplift back to social care, given that we have given it to the NHS temporarily to help tackle the backlog. I imagine that in a few years’ time the Government will be accused of making cuts, even though we made it clear that it was temporary to help the backlog. We want to focus it mostly on social care.
A number of noble Lords raised points about Covid-19 vaccines. As many noble Lords will recognise, we stepped up yesterday in response to the variant. So far, the NHS has administered more than 17.5 million booster or third doses in the UK. Almost 51 million over-12s in the UK have now received at least one vaccine dose and 46 million have had at least two doses. The line that we continue to say is that it is important that people get jabbed.
Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation updated its guidance, which the Government accepted, that booster vaccination eligibility should be extended to all adults aged 18 to 39 years, as well as to severely immunosuppressed individuals who have received three primary doses. We will continue to ask and to campaign. The general campaign reaches lots of the people who have already had their vaccines, but we are looking at more targeted ways to make sure that people recognise that it is never too late. If you have not had your first or second jab, do not think that it is too late. You can still do so. There is plenty of opportunity to do so. Do not feel that you have been ignored. We are also working with a number of civil society organisations at a local community level. I thank noble Lords across the Committee who have given advice on how we can reach some of those hard- to-reach demographics. In some ways, it is a more targeted approach to spend that effort making sure that people are vaccinated, rather than on a message that reaches lots of people, many of whom say, “Why is that aimed at me? I’ve already been vaccinated and I’ve told my family”.
Local authority meetings were raised by a number of noble Lords. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities launched a call for evidence on 25 March to gather views and inform a longer-term decision about whether to make express provision for councils to meet remotely on a permanent basis. That consultation has closed and the department is considering responses to it. I hear and understand the point very strongly that these decisions really should be left to local authorities. I will definitely take that back, because it is important when we are talking about devolving power to the most local level. I hear that message strongly and understand the concerns.
There are many other meetings which are not main meetings where councillors have been able to participate virtually as well as in person. Not all decisions are taken in full council or in local authority committees. A lot are delegated. The problem is that any permanent change would require primary legislation. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is looking at this.
I was asked why the changes are expiring now, given what happened over the weekend. We think that the powers that have been retained are sufficient to ensure that we can respond, for example, to omicron and other variants. Some civil libertarians would say that these powers are still too much. The other powers which are expiring are not necessary for us to be able to continue to respond.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for giving me notice of her question about people who are waiting for lateral flow tests to come back. I immediately raised that in my department. I have been trying to get an answer as quickly as possible. I had hoped to have it in time for this afternoon’s debate. I apologise that I do not have it yet. I will write to the noble Baroness on that specific issue. As she said, it is urgent to get this information as quickly as possible. I have impressed that on my department.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of doctors who are kept hanging around for months. I note what she said and will raise it within my department. It is always helpful when noble Lords raise issues with me. They enable me to take them back to the department. If noble Lords raise an issue that has previously been raised, it emphasises its importance.
There were a number of questions about face coverings. Many noble Lords clearly feel that they make a difference. I wear one, partly because I think we should be sending this message anyway, but also because it is not too much of an imposition. It is not too much to ask. I do not see that my individual liberties are being impinged or affected by wearing a face mask in public. The advice we receive from a range of scientists balances political, social and economic needs with health care. With some of the restrictions we introduced previously, there have been concerns about their impact on mental health. We always try to keep a balance. We listen to a range of experts. I have listed a number of them in the past, including the UKHSA and others. Some have chosen to express their own view, but we have always been clear that we listen to a range of views.
There are issues about masks in indoor spaces. It is quite right that they should be worn on public transport and in shops. I asked a few experts today about why they should not be worn in restaurants. The answer was that, in a restaurant, you are continually taking off and putting on your mask. There was a concern that, touching it and having breathed on it, it could lead to a greater chance of transmission. In a shop, the situation is fairly constant. You go in with the mask on, keep it on and come out. In a restaurant, you are taking it off and putting it on. One of the other concerns was about balancing social mixing and economic impact. It is still up to individual establishments. Noble Lords will be aware that some establishments have decided that they will continue to insist that their customers wear masks. Frankly, in some ways, that is an appropriate level. It is about property rights. It is up to them whom they let in. It is a difficult balance. Given that some people think that continually taking a mask on and off and walking around may make things worse, on balance, it has been decided not to extend mask-wearing to restaurants. We continue to review all the advice.
I know noble Lords were asking for more restrictions and for face masks to be used more earlier on. We never ruled that out; what we said was that there was sufficient evidence to suggest it, or there was sufficient consensus among all our advisers, we would move that way. There is clearly quite a lot of consensus on face masks in shops and on public transport, but not yet in other places. This is why we have been clear.
I am trying to think if I have missed any of the questions. If I have, I apologise to noble Lords. I will make sure that we go through the transcript—
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That was an invitation I could not refuse to assist the Minister.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Before we go off the issue of face masks, I appreciate the explanation about restaurants, but my question was about large gatherings—for example, cinemas, theatres and conferences, to name but a few. The explanation about restaurants does not apply there. I hope the Minister will take this back as it is simply a question of where is the logic regarding the venue. It seems to make no difference; it is about the fact of there being a number of people.
The real point I would re-put to the Minister, which links with that, is my question about the comments of Dr Jenny Harries on Radio 4. She said that we should decrease our social contacts, whereas the spokesperson for the Prime Minister says that we will not be doing that. I am very concerned about mixed messaging, as I am sure the Minister is—I know he is from what he has said. It would be extremely helpful to put on the record where we are on whether decreasing social contact makes a difference.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise if I was not clearer before. I thank the noble Baroness for taking advantage of the opportunity to ask that question and finding the urge to do so irresistible. On theatres and cinemas, one of the things that was put to us was that in a restaurant, you are constantly taking a mask on and off, whereas in a cinema or theatre you are not really eating that much. Okay, you might well go to buy your ice cream—I do not know whether they still sell ice cream and jelly babies in theatres, or whatever it used to be; this will look very odd in Hansard when someone reads it—but you are not constantly doing and you are more or less constantly wearing your mask. However, I will take that back. It is a fair point, and one thing that I do when I am being briefed is to challenge because I know that noble Lords will rightly challenge me on this issue.
In response to the comments by Jenny Harries, I hope I have been clear that we take advice from a range of advisers and there is not yet consensus, but we have been relying not just on making mask mandatory when necessary as a precaution, but at the same time on people’s individual behaviour and them acting responsibly. It is about getting that balance right. We listen to Dr Jenny Harries, but she is one of a number of experts whom we listen to. We weigh up the different views; it is as simple as that. As we have been clear, there is no one trigger for any of these measures. We always consider a range of measures, including capacity in the NHS, the trends et cetera. I have listed them in previous debates. It is not one person whom we listen to. We listen to a range of experts.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend undertake to write to me about waiting facilities in GP waiting rooms? That would be helpful. I am also prompted by a question that I do not think he responded to from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the welfare aspects of staff shortages in meat-processing plants and the massive cull of pigs. While I appreciate it might not be the direct responsibility of his department, this is an animal welfare disaster about to happen.
One thing that I did not like to raise—I am sure it will go no further than the Grand Committee, which is why I feel confident to raise it now—is that my noble friend will be aware that there is PPE equipment which was deemed not fit for use, but it is in the system and is, to a certain extent, clogging up the supply chain by taking space which should be used for other goods. Will he undertake to use his good offices to look into this? Perhaps we could have a word about it afterwards because it is contributing to shortages and delays in the supply chain, particularly in storage terms.
Lord Kamall (Con)
First, I apologise for missing that point earlier. Regarding the supply chain provision, an SI was laid under the draft affirmative procedure on 21 April 2021. It was debated and approved by both Houses, came into force on 16 July and expired the provision. As the noble Baroness rightly acknowledged, some of her questioning was not within the scope of these regulations. However, given that she has asked a question, I will endeavour to find out the answer. Clearly, that will include going across departments, so I hope that she will be patient as I try to get that answer as quickly as possible.
On GP access, we recognise the pressure that general practitioners are under, especially in the upcoming and challenging winter period. We are investing £250 million in the winter access fund to improve GPs’ practice capacity. I will take the noble Baroness’s specific question about square metres and areas back to be answered; I hope she understands that I do not have those facts to mind.
The issue of measures was also raised. We must remember that one of the counterpoints put is that the country is in a very different position to the one it was in last year, due to the vaccination programme. Some of the restrictions that might have seemed appropriate last year are not as appropriate this year because we have reduced the link between cases and hospitalisations, as well as between hospitalisations and deaths. Clearly, we have the vaccine. I am sorry if I sound like a broken record but we continue to push the vaccine because it helps to break that link; it is part of the reason why we will not have to go back to some of the restrictions—those similar to last year’s—that many noble Lords are pushing for.
All I will say is that the Government’s autumn and winter plan set out how we will sustain and strengthen some of the progress made so far. We all know that winter will be a challenging period, but more so over the next few months. We all have a role to play in fighting the virus. There is much that government can do but sometimes, even when we mandate things, we know that there will be people who do not obey, so we must get the balance right and decide how to get the appropriate enforcement. Together, we believe that we can protect the progress that we have made, protect the NHS in the months ahead and help friends, loved ones and ourselves by being vaccinated against Covid-19, getting a flu jab if eligible and sticking to the advice on how to keep safe.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and previous ones on the Coronavirus Act; I also thank them in advance for future contributions. I welcome noble Lords’ expertise and contributions, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 October 2021, be approved. These regulations will amend the Companies Act 2006 to require certain publicly quoted and large private companies to include disclosures in their annual reports of climate change-related risks and opportunities material to them, aligned with the international framework of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures; I shall refer to it as the TCFD in future.
This TCFD SI will help to deliver on the Government’s commitment to make climate-related financial disclosures mandatory across the economy by 2025, with a significant portion of those mandatory requirements in place by 2023. This commitment was set out in the Government’s paper, A Roadmap towards Mandatory Climate-Related Disclosures, published in November last year. The Government have made it clear that we view action to address climate change as a priority. Internationally, we are taking a leading role to promote action through our presidency of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change— or COP.
Domestically, we are working to ensure that the UK achieves net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Government have published our net-zero strategy, setting out the measures to transition to a green and sustainable future. Transparency from businesses about climate risks and opportunities is key to delivering our net-zero ambition. Without an accurate assessment of climate risk by companies, it will be impossible for them to assess what action is needed to address this. That is why this instrument will require the UK’s largest companies to assess, disclose and take actions to manage climate-related risks and opportunities. This information should be a key part of all investment decisions and be taken into account in the strategy of every business.
Some large UK companies are, of course, already reporting on climate risks. However, to date, these disclosures have been variable in quality and quantity. This inconsistency makes it incredibly difficult for investors to compare investment opportunities and risks across companies, let alone across different markets. Many organisations are also not making the fuller disclosures needed to inform business risk and investment decisions.
The Government have already introduced regulations to require climate disclosures from occupational pension schemes through the Occupational Pension Schemes (Climate Change Governance and Reporting) Regulations 2021, which were approved by both Houses and entered into force on 1 October this year. The Financial Conduct Authority has introduced TCFD-aligned disclosures for premium listed companies and recently conducted a consultation on extending this to standard listed companies.
Let me take a moment to talk through what these regulations actually do. The instrument will require companies in scope to assess and make specific climate-related disclosures in respect of governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. These headings broadly reflect the TCFD’s four-pillar approach to reporting. These requirements will apply to all PIEs—public interest entities—and companies traded on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange with over 500 employees. They will also apply to private companies with over 500 employees and over £500 million of turnover. The disclosure requirements will commence for accounting periods starting on or after 6 April 2022. My department will prepare non-binding guidance to help companies that fall into scope. This will provide additional information to help companies understand the requirements and improve disclosures.
The Government consulted on the policy in these regulations between March and May this year. The consultation generated 137 responses from a range of companies, financial institutions, civil society organisations, trade associations and accountancy firms. Officials also participated in three online events to try to engage wider audiences. Overall, the policy proposals received wide support.
The consultation led to two policy changes in response to the feedback that was received. First, to simplify reporting for those companies that are also subject to FCA rules, the regulations’ wording is now more closely aligned to that of the climate-related financial disclosures within the TCFD’s framework. Secondly, respondents to the consultation called for companies to be required to analyse their risks against specific climate-change scenarios. As such, these regulations include the requirement for companies to assess their climate risks against different scenarios and report this on a qualitative basis.
The draft regulations will require climate disclosures in the annual reports from just over 1,300 of the largest companies in the United Kingdom. Companies are of course at different stages of their journey towards net zero and producing robust climate-related disclosures. Our guidance will help companies in that journey and signpost some further sources of information, which can be drawn on according to their particular needs. In parallel, we also encourage the market-led evolution of good practices on disclosures.
The Government want to ensure that companies and investors can make the most of the opportunities created as we transition the economy to net zero and sustainability. To do this, we need companies to understand the risks and opportunities and to report transparently on them. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I understand and welcome the principle of the regulations—to ensure that large companies state what they are doing about climate risks and opportunities—but I have one concern. Companies’ financial statements are becoming ever fuller of environmental, social and governance information. There is a danger that, in doing this, we render the accounts more difficult to follow. It becomes hard to see the wood from the trees.
We have only to look at US listed company financial statements to see how that can go. You have to wade through hundreds of pages of risk and other ESG analysis. Most of it consists of standard-form, boilerplate statements that do not change year to year and, in reality, add little or nothing to the understanding of the reader. Indeed, it can make the accounts almost unreadable and very hard to make an informed decision about the position of the company.
I fear there is a danger that we may be starting to follow that trend, so I am very pleased that Part 3 of the regulations requires a review to be carried out, but that is not until 6 April 2027. I suspect that it will become clear much more quickly than that whether they are having the desired effect or are just adding more meaningless boilerplate to the accounts. I urge the Minister to keep that under constant review, rather than waiting until 2027, and to take action much more quickly if it becomes clear that the regulations are really not doing what is intended.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
We shall see, my Lords. We debate these regulations on the back of the most important summit the UK has ever held—a summit which future generations will look back on as when we either met the moment or missed the opportunity. It is increasingly clear that progress at COP 26 was modest and, too often, action will come too late. The Climate Action Tracker has stated that Glasgow commitments mean that, rather than limiting warming to the target 1.5 degrees, we are on track for a devastating 2.4-degree rise.
This is the backdrop to which we debate these regulations, which I hope have not come too late, as they will play an essential part in reaching net zero by 2050, as well as ensuring businesses both mitigate the risks of climate change and seize opportunities.
Today’s instrument introduces new reporting obligations for certain UK registered companies, as the Minister explained, including certain listed companies and companies with more than 500 employees and a turnover of more than £500 million, which require them to report climate-related financial information as part of their strategic report. This is in line with the recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures—a framework which includes 11 recommendations forming, as we have heard, four pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.
Support has been coalescing around these recommendations. The TCFD’s latest annual status report states that the number of organisations endorsing the task force’s recommendations has increased to more than 2,600—an annual increase of 70%.
We should remember that, regardless of the serious impact on migration, security and hunger, climate chaos is also costly. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates $69 trillion in global financial losses by 2100 from a 2-degree warming scenario.
Getting to this point has taken a while, and climate delay has been a repeated issue with this Government. The task force on climate-related financial disclosures published its recommendations back in 2017. Then the UK Government’s green finance strategy set out an expectation that all listed companies and large asset owners should disclose in line with the TCFD’s recommendations back in 2019, but did not hold a consultation on the proposals until earlier this year. As we have heard, these new requirements are to come into force next April, 2022—five years after the task force on climate-related financial disclosures published its recommendations.
According to BEIS, regulatory action is necessary because the current voluntary approach
“is unlikely to be effective … current levels of disclosure across the economy are low and reporting quality varies significantly.”
If we look in detail at the impact assessment, this is clear. Looking at the central scenario for additional groups having to comply with reporting requirements, it reveals that only 34% of the 1,350 companies in scope have already aligned with governance, 24% with risk management and only 14% with scenario analysis. The impact assessment estimates that 1,350 companies are in scope of the regulations. Can the Minister tell us what percentage of the UK economy this covers?
The impact assessment states that
“When a UK group is in scope, all the subsidiaries (UK and overseas) belonging to the same UK group, would be expected to hold some degree of reporting burden.”
What does “some degree” mean? These regulations also focus on companies producing mandatory qualitative scenario analysis. The impact assessment states that the Government
“understand that while some companies might decide to go beyond these requirements … there will be some companies that lack the expertise, resources and capabilities to undertake quantitative scenario analysis by the time these regulations come into force.”
How many companies are predicted to produce quantitative analysis as well? What will be done to encourage both qualitative and quantitative analysis to be produced? When does the Minister expect quantification to be phased in?
It is regrettable that, first, we are unable to study the non-binding guidance alongside these regulations and, secondly, that the LLPs regulations have not been laid at the same time as this SI, due to their interlinking nature. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee flagged this SI as an instrument of interest:
“We note that the Department will produce guidance on the new reporting requirements which, according to the Impact Assessment, will be around 125 pages long. This suggests a considerable degree of complexity. In the absence of the actual guidance, it is difficult to form a view of the nature and extent of the new reporting requirements, and how robust the Department’s assessment of the impact on businesses is.”
Does the Minister agree that there will be a “considerable degree of complexity”? Why is the guidance not ready for today’s debate? In the consultation stage impact assessment, the Government had assumed that guidance would be about 75 pages long. Why has this increased by 50 pages according to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report?
The Government state that the combined impact on business of these regulations and those which apply to LLPs is £145.3 million. The impact assessment states that costs result from companies needing
“to get familiar with BEIS Guidance, TCFD Guidance and other companies’ disclosures before producing their own report”,
as well as ongoing costs which include collecting and processing information, strategy and risk management. How are the Government communicating to and supporting businesses with this additional cost?
I would like some clarification from the Minister on enforcement. The impact assessment states that:
“We also expect there to be an additional ongoing cost of monitoring, supervision and enforcement to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) as the appropriate regulating body for disclosures”,
but is the FRC properly resourced to take on this additional burden? Can the Minister explain how the Government will work closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Reporting Council to ensure monitoring and enforcement frameworks operate in a coherent and complementary way? What happens if these companies fail to follow these obligations or publish substandard information? Will there be fines? The impact assessment states that “reporting quality varies significantly”, as the Minister said, so can these regulations ensure that this does not continue to be the case? A review before 6 April 2027 is welcome, but the impact assessment states that there will be “a light touch review” in 2023. What will this consist of?
I end by speaking about small and medium-sized enterprises. As the impact assessment states,
“Climate change poses significant risks to businesses,”
and we have to include SMEs within that statement. The cost implication of these risks means that SMEs can be even more exposed to the risks and to being squeezed out of the opportunities of climate change. Does the Minister see these obligations being extended to SMEs soon? The impact assessment states,
“disclosure can have cascade effects through the supply chain”.
Can the Minister confirm they are not just relying on trickle-down climate economics to see a change in reporting behaviour for SMEs? The cost implications for SMEs make it essential that the Government have a strategy to support them.
To conclude, these regulations are welcome, but they represent only a small part of the picture of how the Government need to help businesses respond to the risks and opportunities of climate change.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank both noble Lords. I know that they had some questions, which I will come on to shortly, but both their contributions emphasised how much support there is for these regulations. Although people have concerns about the detail, I think that we are at one in terms of general principles. That reflects the fairly broad support we have for introducing them.
The Government appreciate that these regulations will entail some additional costs to the UK’s largest companies, but we think that the legal targets we have make it essential for us to act if we are to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The process of preparing the disclosures required by these regulations will help businesses to understand their climate-related risks and opportunities, and will bring a greater focus on how to manage them. The increased transparency will enable investors to make better-informed decisions about where to allocate capital in a consistent and climate-positive manner.
The proposals take account of business capabilities and business readiness. For instance, the introduction of qualitative scenario analysis allows companies to use this important tool to manage climate risks in a way that encourages capabilities to grow over time.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised the concern that annual reports and accounts are becoming more and more full of ESG information, such that it is sometimes hard to see the wood from the trees. He asked whether my department could commit to keeping the regulations under review in the interim. I can tell him that the Government will indeed review the effectiveness of these provisions. If we see that they are not working, we will certainly look at taking further measures. We will conduct a statutory review of the regulations after five years, as is normal.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I can tell him that we are publishing non-binding Q&A style guidance targeted to help companies making the disclosures. It provides clarification on the disclosures against each of these specific requirements. There is, in fact, already significant background material on how to disclose according to TCFD, which itself has recommendations and guidance available online. There is also, by way of background material, the existing guidance from the Financial Conduct Authority on the climate-disclosure provisions in the UK listing rules, and indeed from the Department for Work and Pensions on the disclosure requirements that exist for pension funds.
The department assumed to model costs that companies might read 125 pages for familiarisation before making the appropriate climate disclosures. We hope and anticipate that BEIS’s Q&A guidance on the regulations, which explains their legal requirements and desirable outcomes, will be well short of that page total. However, companies might want to consult wider background material and information to familiarise themselves with the disclosures. Accordingly, we made that assumption in our cost modelling to ensure that our impact assessment did not underestimate the true cost of these regulations to business. As I said, we appreciate that there will be a cost to implementing them.
On the point the noble Lord raised about monitoring and enforcement, the FRC will take on the monitoring of the climate-related disclosures alongside the other contents of the strategic report. The Government consulted earlier this year on reforms to the FRC. We will publish a response to that White Paper and our plans to create ARGA very shortly.
The responses to the consultation showed that many respondents considered that scenario analysis is important for meaningful climate disclosures. However, they also recognised that it is one of the most challenging and costly aspects of the TCFD to implement. We believe that requiring qualitative disclosures strikes an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, requiring companies to consider this important element in business planning, and, on the other, recognising that this is an emerging area of competence and one that will be new to many businesses and companies. So, although some companies are already doing quantitative scenario analysis to produce excellent disclosures, we did not believe that all companies within scope would be able to produce such analysis at this time; therefore, the regulations take a proportionate approach to enable businesses to grow their capabilities.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021, which was laid before the House on 1 November 2021, be approved.
This instrument will add Part 2A of the of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, as it applies to England, to Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. The reason for adding Part 2A to Schedule 3 to RESA is that it brings Part 2A and regulations made under it within the scope of the primary authority scheme as it applies in England. From now on, I will refer to Part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 simply as “Part 2A”. I will also refer to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 as “RESA”, and to the primary authority scheme as “the scheme”.
As I am sure noble Lords will recognise, businesses operating in the UK need to comply with a wide range of legislation, much of which is enforced by local authorities. The scheme has been developed to assist businesses and allow them to receive tailored support in relation to one or more specific areas of law. With a dedicated team, a primary authority partnership makes it easier for businesses to comply with the law, reducing the costs of compliance without reducing regulatory protections. Businesses can invest in products, practices and procedures, knowing that the resources they devote to compliance are recognisable throughout the country across local authority boundaries, resulting in a consistent approach.
Advice provided by the primary authority carries legal weight and provides assurance for the business when dealing with other local authorities that regulate it. The area of law that we are concerned with today is public health regulation. Bringing Part 2A within the scheme will ensure that businesses in England can received assured advice, referred to as “primary authority advice”, on complying with public health regulations made under Part 2A, including in the context of a future pandemic.
Let me now address each of these areas in more detail. I will start with an explanation of Part 2A and its addition to Schedule 3 of RESA, before providing more detail about the scheme. I will also briefly outline the support that the order has already received.
First, Part 2A enables action to be taken to deal with cases of infection or contamination presenting significant harm to human health, if and when they arise. Under Part 2A, a local authority can, where necessary, apply to a magistrate for a range of orders to reduce or remove risks arising from persons, things or premises that are or may be infectious or contaminated and which could present significant harm to health and a risk that others might be infected or contaminated. This is known as a Part 2A order. It is intended to be used as a last resort when other interventions by the local authority have either failed or are not suitable. A magistrate may grant a Part 2A order to a local authority if they are satisfied that the criteria set out in the Health Protection Regulations 2010 are met. Part 2A also provides powers for regulations to be made in an emergency to address a serious and imminent threat to public health.
Secondly, I will explain why Part 2A, as it applies in England, needs to be added to Schedule 3 to RESA. As noble Lords have heard, the order effects the inclusion of Part 2A in the primary authority scheme. To be within scope of the scheme, legislation must be listed in Schedule 3 to RESA, or be made under legislation listed in Schedule 3, or under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It must relate to certain specified matters and be enforced by local authorities. RESA requires any amendments to Schedule 3 to be made using the draft affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.
If Part 2A is not added to Schedule 3 of RESA, it would be necessary to amend Schedule 3 on an individual basis to bring each regulation made under Part 2A within scope of the scheme. This would delay the provision of primary authority advice at the time of a public health emergency. In contrast, by bringing Part 2A and regulations made under it within the scope of the scheme, businesses in England will be able to obtain primary authority advice on compliance with public health regulations from the outset of a public health emergency.
Thirdly, I will briefly describe the primary authority scheme. This was established under RESA and has been in operation since 2009. It was created in response to the Hampton report of 2005, which noted widespread inconsistencies of regulatory interpretation between different local authorities. RESA establishes a statutory framework for a business to form a partnership with a local authority—which becomes the primary authority—for it to receive support from that primary authority in respect of complying with regulations introduced under a relevant enactment. Once a partnership has been nominated by the Secretary of State, the primary authority can issue tailored advice to the business on compliance with legislation in scope of the scheme. The receipt of primary authority advice enables businesses to avoid the cost and regulatory burden associated with inconsistent interpretation and application of the law by different local authorities in respect of the same regulatory requirements.
Where a local authority is proposing to take enforcement action against a business, the primary authority will review the proposed action and consider whether it is consistent with previous primary authority advice. In the event of any disagreement between the primary authority and a local authority over whether the proposed enforcement action is consistent with the original primary authority advice, the Secretary of State is empowered to make a determination.
There are many benefits to the scheme. Primary authority partnerships facilitate a more productive and proactive regulatory relationship between businesses and local authorities. The public also benefit when businesses properly comply with regulations. There are benefits for local authorities as well. If one local authority—the primary authority—provides a business with robust, reliable and consistent advice, it will allow other local authorities to target their resources more effectively, thereby avoiding duplication. Transparency is maintained via a central register through which local authorities can search for primary authority advice. Finally, the scheme gives regulators greater clarity as to where responsibility lies. It improves the consistency of local regulation and supports local economic growth through stronger business relationships.
Finally, let me highlight that there has been strong support among business stakeholders, local authorities and trade associations for the addition of Part 2A to Schedule 3 to RESA. The challenges that local authorities recently experienced in interpreting, at pace, regulations made under Part 2A to reduce the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the associated burdens experienced by businesses in trying to comply with these differing interpretations, led to calls for Part 2A to be brought within scope of the scheme. For example, in November 2020 the British Retail Consortium, which represents over 170 major retailers, wrote to the then Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, requesting that Part 2A be brought within scope. This was in the context that in 2020 approximately 46,000 businesses with an existing primary authority partnership received informal advice on coronavirus regulations made under Part 2A.
In conclusion, we are introducing this order to bring Part 2A, as it applies in England, within scope of the scheme. As I have said, the aim is to ensure that businesses in England will be able to obtain primary authority advice on compliance with regulations made under Part 2A from the outset of any future public health emergency. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which is unfortunately unlikely to be the last public health emergency this country will face, there is strong recognition among business stakeholders, local authorities and trade associations of the benefit of bringing Part 2A within scope of the scheme. I therefore commend this order to the Committee.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations extend the scope of the primary authority scheme, as provided under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, to include regulations made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 that deal with public health protection. The Government have said that this will have the effect of enabling businesses to form primary authority partnerships with local authorities in England in relation to public health protection, including in the context of a future pandemic.
The Explanatory Memorandum reveals quite a startling statistic: there is a 5% likelihood, in any given year, of a pandemic. It also states that it is estimated that a severe pandemic, of high mortality, will occur at a 2% rate per year and a less severe pandemic, of low mortality, will occur at a 3% rate per year. Can the Minister explain whether this likelihood has increased due to the Covid pandemic we are experiencing? With the knowledge of the 5% figure, can he also explain why the Government are dragging their feet over launching the public inquiry into Covid-19?
We must surely learn the lessons of this pandemic as soon as possible, given the scenario predicting a 5% likelihood of pandemics in any future year. This change is clearly taking place in response to the role that business and the private sector have played during the Covid pandemic. What the Government have asked from business and the wider private sector during it is unprecedented in peacetime. We must thank businesses for stepping up when we needed them to do so most.
The Explanatory Memorandum reveals that in 2020, approximately 46,000 businesses with an existing partnership under the primary authority scheme were receiving informal advice on regulations made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. The Government have stated that this change will enable these businesses to access consistent and reliable advice on compliance and that business stakeholders, local authorities and trade associations in England have requested this change. Can the Minister repeat how many there were—I am not sure that he told us—and did they include organisations representing small and medium-sized enterprises? Can he also confirm that businesses have struggled to get any reliable advice during the pandemic, and whether there have been any serious consequences from not being able to do so?
The Welsh Government have apparently decided not to apply this statutory instrument to Wales. The First Minister of Wales declined to consent to the amendment in July 2021. Can the Minister explain why, and what type of engagement took place with the Welsh Minister?
The Explanatory Memorandum revealed this:
“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is an expected net benefit to business in England of approximately £20.9 m over 2021 to 2030.”
Can the Minister provide some clarity on how that benefit is expected to be shared between large businesses, SMEs and charities? I look forward to his reply.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for his contribution. As I said initially, the order will ensure that businesses can receive consistent and reliable advice in respect of regulations brought in to deal with the public health emergency, thereby reducing the burdens on businesses and providing benefits more widely to local authorities and the public. It does that by adding Part 2A to Schedule 3 to RESA, thereby bringing Part 2A and any regulations made under it within the scope of the scheme as it applies in England.
Our experience of the coronavirus pandemic has shown how important it is for businesses to receive clear regulatory guidance. With another pandemic likely to happen—possibly—in our lifetime, it is important to be well prepared. So, in response to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the 5% that he mentioned includes the current pandemic and is based on the outbreak of pandemics over the past 100 years. However, as I am sure he appreciates, the provision of the new Covid regulations and any inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic are outside the scope of this statutory instrument debate. As soon as I have more information on those points, I will be sure to share it with the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked how many businesses are in the scheme. The de minimis self-certification assessment noted that, in December 2020, there were around 106,000 businesses in the primary authority scheme. Based on an estimated annual flat and natural growth rate of 2,500, this means that, between 2021 and 2030, approximately 109,000 to 131,000 businesses will be in the primary authority scheme.
The noble Lord made an important point about why Welsh Ministers did not consent to the order applying in Wales. The UK Government believe that there are benefits to businesses in England from receiving consistent public authority advice on legislation brought in during a public health emergency, and that the order should be brought in so that those benefits are realised. My understanding is that the position of the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, is that the context is different in Wales. His view is that local authorities already can and do capitalise on close working relationships to reach a common approach to guidance and enforcement of health protection regulations, and therefore do not need to provide for this formally. It is of course within his lawful discretion to decline consent to this order as this is a devolved matter; as always, we will continue to engage with Welsh Ministers on devolved matters within the scope of the primary authority regime.
The noble Lord asked for clarity on the benefit between large and small businesses. All businesses receive consistent, assured advice, and SMEs do not have to pay for costly legal interpretations. Small businesses may also join a co-ordinated partnership and receive the benefits of primary authority advice in that way. The primary authority scheme is voluntary; obviously, businesses will participate only if they consider that doing so will benefit them.
In supporting this order, we support businesses being in a better position to understand and comply with regulations enacted during a public health emergency. With thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for the sole contribution, I commend this order to the Committee.
Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers provided by the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018. They will mandate that most new private electric vehicle charge points sold in Great Britain be capable of smart charging and meet minimum device-level requirements. They will play an important role in helping us meet our transport decarbonisation targets.
As announced by the Prime Minister as part of the world-leading 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, the Government are going further and faster to decarbonise transport by phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, and, from 2035, all new cars and vans must be 100% zero emission at the tailpipe. Cars and vans represent one-fifth of UK domestic carbon dioxide emissions and accounted for 71% of domestic UK transport emissions in 2019. Ending the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans is a key part of the answer to our long- term transport air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Electric vehicles present not only a huge opportunity to decarbonise transport but an important opportunity for consumers to contribute to the efficient management of electricity and to share the benefits of doing so. Smart charging will enable this. It enables consumers to shift their electric vehicle charging to times when electricity is cheaper and demand is low. It is a win-win, both reducing the need for costly network reinforcement and saving consumers money on their energy bills.
These regulations are essential to drive the uptake of this important technology and to enable the transition to electric vehicles while minimising cost to consumers. This instrument could deliver up to £1.1 billion of savings to the power system by 2050. Through it, the Government will deliver four key objectives for smart charging policy by driving consumer uptake, delivering consumer protections, helping ensure the stability of the electricity grid and supporting innovation.
The key provisions in the instrument are as follows. First, these regulations mandate that most domestic and workplace charge points sold in Great Britain will have the capability to smart charge, so that consumers can benefit from the savings this offers. Many home charge points already have smart functionality, so this instrument will work with the grain of the market and consumer behaviour to drive significant uptake of this technology and reduce the cost of the electric vehicle transition.
It is important to note that the instrument maintains consumer choice. It mandates that charge points must have the functionality to support smart charging, but consumers will still be in control of when they charge. They will continue to be able to choose the energy tariff that suits their needs and decide whether to subscribe to smart charging services. Some consumers may not engage with smart charging so, to encourage them to charge at times of low electricity demand, the instrument ensures that charge points are preset not to charge at peak times. However, and importantly, the instrument mandates that consumers must be informed and asked to confirm this setting during first use, and they must be able to edit it at any point in the future.
Secondly, these regulations establish new cybersecurity and grid protection requirements. The instrument embeds new and more robust cyber hygiene standards into smart charge points to help mitigate the risk that charge points are hacked and controlled to the detriment of individual consumers and the electricity system. It also requires a randomised delay function to prevent the synchronised switching on or off of large numbers of charge points—for example, in response to a drop in electricity prices. This will help ensure that smart charge points support the integration of electric vehicles into the electricity system and do not destabilise it.
Thirdly, the regulations set new requirements on how charge points monitor and record electricity consumption. This will help consumers to engage with their energy bills and usage, and ensure that a charge point is capable of supporting smart services. Many requirements, such as cybersecurity, electricity monitoring and the randomised delay function, align with standards developed with industry, mainly the British Standard for energy smart appliances, PAS 1878.
Finally, we are mandating that, in the event that a consumer switches their electricity supplier, their charge point must retain its smart functionality. This will ensure that consumers are not locked into a specific electricity supplier by their choice of charge point.
Noble Lords will note that the Government take an outcome-focused approach throughout the instrument and do not prescribe specific technical implementations. This approach will support ongoing innovation within the charge point market and help to maintain our position as world leaders in smart technology.
These regulations are essential to ensuring the successful uptake of smart charging technology to support the electricity grid and consumers in the transition to electric vehicles. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I support these regulations. As my noble friend the Minister explained, they apply to charge points intended for use by vans and cars in a domestic or workplace setting. When will we get charge points at our workplace setting, the Palace of Westminster? It would be good for us to lead by example. I looked at electric cars a few months ago but, when fully charged, it might have got me here—just—but not home again, so I had to buy a hybrid car, which was a pity.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for her explanation. This SI certainly concentrates on one part of the EV charging market—the issue of smart charging and its interface with grid capacity—but there are considerable questions about the picture as a whole. I shall raise the issues of vans and of long journeys.
First, why does the SI exclude rapid charging points? They would be a reasonable investment for companies with small fleets of vans, for example, and those that come in at various times of the day needing to recharge. As the noble Earl pointed out, there is not a very long range on all the vehicles concerned. Recharging during the day in a half-hour window is therefore essential for many companies. I have sat in a queue at a motorway services where a van has used a rapid charging point. That was obviously essential to that person’s working day; he was using a van because that was his business—it was clearly a small company.
There is a lot of detail in this instrument on how exactly the provisions will operate. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness talk about being able to change the settings and so on. I would like her assurance that it will be simple to change the settings, because it does not take too much thought to imagine a household where, for example, a district nurse works a day shift one weekend and a nightshift the next, so obviously in one week she will charge at night and the next she will charge during the day—and, on some of those shifts, she cannot pay attention to the cheapest rate for electricity.
I also want reassurance about the circumstances in which people find themselves. I have an electric vehicle, as the noble Baroness knows. I have solar panels. I have virtually no mobile phone signal in my house and very poor wi-fi on occasions—although they were digging up the road this week, so I have hope for an improvement there. My point is that we charge during the day, when the sun is out—or is at least up in the sky behind the clouds. It is easy for people to adjust in the light of their personal circumstances.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As background, the impact assessment states in paragraph 1 that:
“In 2019, road transport accounted for 24% of all UK”
greenhouse gas
“emissions with cars and light commercial vehicles … accounting for 79% of this total,”
and that greenhouse gas
“emissions from transport have remained largely unchanged since 1990.”
The impact assessment then says in paragraph 1, as it does on a number of occasions elsewhere, “Error! Bookmark not defined” in bold letters. I would just like to ask what that means in paragraph 1 of the impact assessment I have and, indeed, in other parts of it. I take it that is an error but I would like to check what it means. Does it mean anything I need to be aware of or is it just a mistake?
With the ending of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the UK scheduled for 2030, the Department for Transport regards the transition to electric vehicles as crucial to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with the electricity system having to be able to meet the increased demand that that will generate. Can the Minister say what the Government estimate the additional greenhouse emissions will be that will be generated by the increased demand for electricity arising from the transition to electric vehicles? This will have to be set against the reduction in such emissions arising from the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles?
As has already been said—and indeed is in the Explanatory Memorandum—most electric vehicles are expected to be charged at home, but the Department for Transport expects that without smart charging, this is most likely to happen during electricity system peak times when people arrive home from work. This would require, the EM says, “significant … additional investment” in the electricity networks and electricity generation capacity. Smart charging is intended to address this issue. Can the Government say in their response what the saving will be in these additional investment costs if there is a successful move to smart charging and what percentage of investment each year in electricity networks and electricity generation capacity that savings figure in additional investment represents?
With smart motorways and now smart charging, it is clear the Department for Transport has taken a fancy to the use of the word “smart”, but I would have to say that it did not figure greatly in the recent announcement on the backtracking on the northern powerhouse rail and eastern leg of HS2 commitments. As well as introducing a requirement for all domestic and workplace charging points to include smart functionality or charging, the regulations set out certain standards and requirements that smart charging points must meet. They also require a statement of compliance to go with every smart charging point sold, with penalties for selling a non-compliant charging point.
The Government estimate that 87% of private charging points sold or installed in this country currently have smart functionality. There is, however, the issue of accessibility of charging points for those who are unable to install a private charging point, not least those who do not have their own dedicated parking space at their place of residence. Could the Minister say how the Government intend to address this aspect of the issue of accessibility, and within what timescale?
Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says on interoperability that:
“The ability of consumers to freely switch energy supplier is a fundamental principle in the energy market. This instrument makes clear that a charge point should not introduce a new barrier to switching by being designed to lose its smart functionality when its owner changes supplier.”
What does not appear in the Explanatory Memorandum, as far as I can see, is an unambiguous statement that the instrument includes a requirement for all charging points to be interoperable. Could the Minister say in her response whether the wording in the Explanatory Memorandum to which I referred constitutes in reality a requirement for all charging points to be interoperable? I think the answer is that it does not, but I should be grateful for clarification on that point.
Paragraph 10.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the Government have
“chosen not to mandate device-level requirements”
relating to demand side response interoperability
“at this time … because the smart charging market remains nascent, and because delivering interoperability would require broader powers than those set out in the AEVA”—
the Automated and Electric Vehicle Act 2018. That is despite the fact the Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“The ability of consumers to freely switch energy supplier is a fundamental principle in the energy market.”
The Government also say in paragraph 10.6 that:
“The Department intend instead to consider how best to deliver interoperability as part of a second phase of legislation, by looking at placing wider requirements on the entities … which could deliver DSR through charge points. Government aims to consult on this second phase of policy measures in 2022.”
That is a somewhat vague timescale, which contains no target date for actually legislating. Could the Government be more specific in their response today?
I also have a comment on the benefits and costs. Paragraph 12.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says on impact that:
“The overall monetised benefits are estimated at £300m - £1.1bn up to 2050, primarily derived from reduced electricity system costs. The cost to industry of this instrument is estimated at £10 - £260m up to 2050”—
is that figure of £10 right, or is there an “m” missing after the 10? It continues that the cost is
“primarily related to product development costs to meet the requirements. The costs to industry are significantly outweighed by the benefits to the energy system and consumers, and this instrument has a Net Present Value of £0 - £1.1bn up to 2050, with a central estimate of £500m.”
As I understand it from these figures, there is in reality a very little gap between the highest cost figure to industry and the lowest monetised benefit figure. Perhaps the Minister could say whether she agrees or disagrees with that statement, but it seems to me to be the difference between £260 million and £300 million, looking at those two figures.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her consideration and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his thoughts on the statutory instrument before the Committee. First, I apologise wholeheartedly for what was clearly an error in the IA, where it says, “Error! Bookmark not defined”. This should not happen; it will not happen again. It is deeply disappointing and I regret it enormously.
It is always good to be on the receiving end of some excellent questions from both noble Lords. I know now that I cannot possibly answer some of them, but I will write to answer all questions asked today.
We know that there could be a potentially significant impact on the grid. Current estimates are that, by 2030, EVs could account for approximately 10% of total electricity consumption, up from less than 1% today—so, well over 10 times where we are at the moment. This could increase the total energy demand by 2030 by 30 terawatt hours and by between 65 and 100 terawatt hours in 2050. So we know that there is a significant electricity requirement coming down the track. What this SI does, by introducing the smart charging concept and legislating for it, is enable the demand to be managed in a much better way.
Obviously, we need to ensure that electricity networks have sufficient capacity. This is the responsibility of the electricity network operators; they are incentivised to do so through the regulatory framework set out by Ofgem. However, let us be frank: if they need more capacity, it will end up being the citizen who somehow pays for it. Therefore, the extent to which we can manage demand is hugely beneficial. The noble Lord noted some of the savings that could be coming down the track.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about the impact of energy generation from non-renewable sources. I do not have those figures to hand but I will write to him. The Government have been quite successful in shifting our energy generation to renewable sources, which is a bonus and, indeed, a prerequisite of what we are trying to do to decarbonise our transport system.
We should be able to get some very significant benefits from smart charging by shifting demand. We estimate that we would need 60 gigawatts of flexible capacity to enable the net-zero electricity system. This could include more than 30 gigawatts of either short-term storage or appliances such as electric vehicles using energy in a smart way. So smart-charging EVs will likely play a very integral role in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned consultation. I do not have the details about why people were unhappy, but it is the case that we have been working very closely with the industry and consumer groups as we have brought forward these regulations, so it does not surprise me at all that they have changed. We will continue to work with them as we continue to introduce regulations, particularly around interoperability.
Looking at the costs and benefits of these regulations, the noble Lord has pointed out that the range is wide, but I believe that we can safely say that this is a very beneficial piece of legislation. The impact on industry is a £130-million cost up to 2050; that is primarily related to product development costs to meet the requirements.
We are very much working with the grain with industry at the moment, so we expect that the cost of complying will vary depending on whether a manufacturer already offers smart devices or needs to upgrade non-smart models. However, given the rate of change, significant developments are expected to come down the track, allowing charge points to be produced on a far more economic basis.
Turning to the actual amenity and the people who will install these charge points in either their homes or their workplaces, I take the noble Baroness’s point about district nurses and different people with different shift patterns; they would need to understand this fully. Let me be absolutely clear: we are committed to educating consumers to make sure that they remain in control. As with anything, when you get a sophisticated piece of technology, you must read the instructions—unless you are a man—so she and I would clearly read the instructions and would know what to do. Of course we want to make it as easy as possible; there should be no barriers between setting up charge points exactly as they need to be set up, depending on your work or lifestyle. This is really important, and it is top of mind for us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about cybersecurity. Right now, charge points are subject to general product safety requirements, but government does not regulate the cybersecurity requirements. We are aware that some charge points have cybersecurity vulnerabilities, so these regulations will improve the standard of the security of private charge points to give confidence to consumers that their charge points follow current cybersecurity best practice. These requirements align with the best-practice requirements set out in a globally applicable cybersecurity standard and DCMS’s code of practice for “internet of things” devices. However, we also know that cybersecurity risks will continue to evolve; we will of course monitor them and think about how we can intervene in the longer term.
I turn briefly to the intervention from my noble friend Lord Cathcart. My department is in dialogue with the Palace of Westminster about access to charge points. I have written letters to the powers that be in the Palace about them. I am reassured that, apparently, they are coming, but of course this is not a government decision. I agree with my noble friend that we should set an example, and I will continue to press for charge points in the Palace of Westminster.
Moving on, assurance is essential for enforcement and consumer confidence. These regulations require that a statement of compliance and a technical file be available to explain how charge points meet these requirements. They must be provided to the enforcement authority and the consumer upon request. These requirements are intended to deliver appropriate assurance without imposing unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on businesses. The Government have appointed the Office for Product Safety & Standards as the enforcement authority, and will ensure that it has the funding to promote and ensure compliance with the regulations. The OPSS is an established regulator with significant expertise as a national product regulator. The legislation includes a range of proportionate enforcement tools to support effective compliance, including civil penalties.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made an important point about public charging points and accessibility. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have an accessible electric vehicle charging network and that inclusively designed charge points are available for all consumers. Obviously, work continues: we are working closely with the national disability charity Motability to commission the British Standards Institution to develop accessibility standards for public EV charge points.
I turn briefly to what is included and excluded. The regulations exclude public charge points. Domestic and workplace charge points account for the highest proportion of EV charging by far, and smart charging works best in those settings due to their long plug-in times. You therefore get flexibility in making use of the smartness of the charging point. However, we are separately exploring the potential for smart charging at public charge points—particularly, for example, where vehicles might be parked on the street overnight.
We have excluded rapid charge points because this is about shifting demand and making sure that electricity can be drawn down at cheaper times and when there is less demand on the grid. Of course, as the noble Baroness pointed out regarding her friend in a van, if you use a rapid charge point then you need to be charged right there, right now. You cannot be messing around. Having smartness attached to rapid charge points has potentially limited benefits because what you really need to do at them is turn up, plug in and, after 15 minutes, go. Any smart additions probably would not add anything to that.
There are many next steps because there is lots to do in this area and the Government are very ambitious. Phase 1 refers to the regulations that we have discussed today to establish baseline device-level requirements for smart charge points; phase 2 will look beyond charge points themselves and be concerned primarily with placing security and interoperability requirements on the systems and entities that control charge points, as well as on other smart systems and devices. At that point, we will look much more broadly: beyond the devices in people’s homes and into the system itself. We will consult on some more proposals in due course in 2022.
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument makes several important changes to the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007, which established a certificate trading scheme known as the renewable transport fuel obligation, or RTFO. This draft instrument would improve the RTFO scheme, ensuring that renewable fuels continue to play a key role in reducing emissions from road transport and, in the longer term, from transport modes with more limited decarbonisation options, such as aviation and maritime.
While the instrument relies on powers contained within the Energy Act 2004, parts of the 2007 order were previously amended by instruments made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Accordingly, Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 applies. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report of 25 November acknowledges that the committee has no specific comments on the instrument and notes that during the enhanced scrutiny process, and in response to industry comments, the instrument has been somewhat amended and improved. The instrument was also considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 17 November, and that committee identified no matters requiring report.
The RTFO scheme, changed by this instrument, promotes a market for renewable fuels used in transport. The scheme places obligations on larger suppliers of fossil fuel to ensure the supply of renewable fuels which reduce carbon emissions. These obligations are calculated as a percentage of the volume of fossil fuel supplied over a calendar year. They are met by acquiring certificates which are issued for the supply of sustainable renewable fuels. The trade of these certificates provides a revenue stream for suppliers of renewable fuels.
This instrument delivers several commitments made in our transport decarbonisation plan to upgrade the RTFO. It increases the main RTFO obligation level from 9.6% to 14.6% by 2032, continuing at that level in subsequent years, with 1.5% of this RTFO target increase being made in 2022, to maximise the carbon savings from the introduction of greener E10 petrol this September. The instrument also improves RTFO support for suppliers of renewable hydrogen by extending certificate eligibility to renewable hydrogen used in maritime vessels, and in fuel cell-powered rail and non-road vehicles. As targets for the supply of renewable vehicles increase and new end uses are included in the RTFO, the instrument strengthens the sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions savings criteria that renewable fuels must meet.
In addition, the instrument replaces references to various EU enactments with equivalent criteria. It replaces these references through changes made to the 2007 order itself, and by using technical guidance issued by the administrator. Technical guidance on sustainability reporting covers the values, formulas, and methodologies used to calculate carbon savings. To reflect changing international standards and evolving fuel production processes, and to ensure no obstacles to trade, the RTFO administrator proactively updates its technical guidance, a draft of which was published alongside this instrument.
Renewable fuels supplied under the RTFO scheme currently deliver about a third of all domestic transport carbon savings under current carbon budgets. They will also make an important contribution to future UK carbon budgets. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for her introduction. This is a complex but very important order. The sixth carbon budget requires reductions in emissions of 78% by 2035, and low-carbon fuels supported via the RTFO have been an important part of that process for the last decade. This SI extends the renewable transport fuel incentive to suppliers of renewable hydrogen used in fuel cell rail and non-road transport, and to renewable non-biological fuels for the maritime industries. It also increases the RTFO obligation by 5% until 2032, and updates emissions criteria.
This is an affirmative instrument which comes into force on 1 January 2022 which, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out, is less than 21 days. Clearly, that is less than the traditional amount of time. Some error has occurred somewhere down the line because while this is important, it is not a piece of emergency legislation. Therefore, it is regrettable that there is not the usual time limit.
Something to welcome strongly is that Articles 13 and 14 of this order strengthen the sustainability criteria. That thread runs through all of this. Are biofuels really sustainable? Are they really being produced in a fully sustainable manner? When you get down to the fundamentals, any land that you are using to produce biofuels is land that you could use to grow crops for food and so on. I therefore strongly welcome, for example, the criteria that would prevent biodiverse woodland being degraded for biofuel production.
As I said, it is a very complex area, because renewable fuels and feedstock originate from across the world. It is possible—indeed probable—that producers would be eligible for multiple incentives, which the UK provides, but are incentives where the fuel and crops originate from. What steps are being taken and what steps will the Government take to ensure that this is not exploited such that there are multiple payouts on one batch of fuel, if I can put it that way?
These detailed plans and arrangements were clearly devised prior to COP 26. How have they been affected, if at all, by the results of those discussions? Where do we go next, Minister?
Paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the increase in 2020 in the buy-out price from 30p to 50p. Can the Minister tell us whether this has been effective in stimulating the market?
The part of this we will all have noticed was the increase from E5 to E10 in September for bioethanol in petrol. I recall that, when we discussed the regulations on that, there were some areas where there were exceptions, such as the coast of Scotland, I believe. Were those exceptions envisaged to be temporary, perhaps to let the more distant parts of the UK improve their access to the most modern fuels, or is it envisaged that they will be permanent for those areas?
It is important to note that, despite government targets to phase out the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles, raise the main RTFO target and so on, there remains a fatal flaw in government policy. Emissions from transport are not declining. Cars and vehicles are becoming more efficient, but the emissions are not declining because of the increase in road traffic. That has been made worse because many people have rejected public transport as a result of their fear of Covid. The Government have a major task to get us back on to public transport. I notice that the bus strategy, which has excellent aims, has a huge funding gap; four local authorities have made bids which are equal to the total amount of money available, and there are over 70 local authorities which could bid for it. Clearly there is a funding gap there.
I do not want to dwell on private grief for the Government, but last week was not an easy week for them in the north of England because of the rail announcement. Even with electric vehicles, the Government have a mountain to climb to gain public confidence. I am pleased to see these improvements, but there is still a vast amount of work for the Government to do, and unfortunately some of it involves additional funding.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the order, as has been said, amends the Renewable Transport (Fuel Obligations) Order 2007 to increase targets for fuel suppliers, thus driving the supply of renewable fuel in transport and delivering further greenhouse gas reductions. It amends Article 4 of the RTFO order so that the main obligation on renewable fuel targets increases by five percentage points, from 9.6% to 14.6%, between 2022 and 2032.
Those suppliers that meet or exceed the obligations already acquire renewable transport fuel certificates, the training of which provides a financial incentive. The order extends that financial incentive to suppliers of renewable hydrogen, used in fuel cell rail and non-road transport, and of renewable fuels of nonbiological origin used in maritime transport.
The Government have said that the RTFO delivers about a third of the savings required for the UK’s current transport budget, and that last year the RTFO scheme saved carbon emissions equivalent to taking 2.5 million combustion engine-powered cars off the road. They have also said that the changes made by this order are estimated to deliver the equivalent of an additional 1.5 million cars by 2032. As we know, in 2019, road transport accounted for 24% of all greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from transport have remained largely unchanged since 1990, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, just reminded us.
How did the Government finally come to the conclusion that a five percentage point increase in the renewable fuel target between 2022 and 2032 would be sufficient in the transport sector to meet our greenhouse gas emission and climate change goals? What, if anything, happens after 2032?
The Government consulted on only three options: increasing the main obligation by 1.5, 2.5 or 5 percentage points, with the Department for Transport backing a 2.5 percentage point increase in the renewable fuel target. Paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Of the 77 respondents that expressed a preference on the amount by which this target should increase, 61 supported an increase to the RTFO main obligation of 5 percentage points or more. These respondents included suppliers of renewable fuel who benefit from support under the certificate trading scheme, and suppliers of fossil fuel who must meet the targets. Those in support of an increase of 5 percentage points or more suggested this could provide long term certainty to industry and would provide a further contribution to the government’s commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Accordingly, the government has decided to increase the RTFO main obligation by a further 5 percentage points between 2022 and 2032.”
There appears to have been a greater commitment to the Government’s net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050 from the respondents to the consultation than there was from the Government themselves, which begs the question: does the order go far enough? Why did the order reject going beyond 5 percentage points, as some respondents clearly proposed, despite that not even being one of the three options the Government had offered?
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
I just want to raise a question with my noble friend, and it has been outlined. While I generally support the push for bio and alternative fuels, I cannot do so at any price given the whole food for fuel argument, particularly when food is needed to sustain populations. While it is quite easy for us in the United Kingdom, and probably those in some other countries, to look at how the programme is working and what we are doing, the same cannot be said for some third countries. For example, in Brazil and some other countries in the great continents of the world, we see great destruction of wildlife, fauna and flora. Can my noble friend explain the measures that our Government are taking to police this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their interventions and contributions to this debate.
I start by addressing the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the 21-day rule. There is an explanation in the Explanatory Memorandum —which I probably will not read out now, because it is written there—for why we felt it was right to not abide by this rule, but I will say that I am less than happy about it. I think I will make a new year’s resolution to have an SI debate in your Lordships’ House or Grand Committee without somebody pointing to a mistake in a document or the fact that we have not been able to comply with a rule when, quite frankly, we really should have been able to do so.
Noble Lords have gone a little beyond the SI into the Government’s broader policy on transport decarbonisation. I will write with a fuller answer on that, because there is a lot happening at the moment and it goes far beyond what is in front of your Lordships today.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as ever, raised a very important point about the consultation and the responses from various people. As is always the case with a consultation, certain people will respond. We had 120 responses and the majority of those agreed with our proposals, including trade associations and fuel suppliers, which was great. But the Government have another responsibility: to make sure that it is fair on the general public—the people who have to buy the fuels. There was always going to be a balance between the cost that will potentially be added to the fuel at the pump versus how ambitious we would like to be. If the public had the deepest of pockets, we could be far more ambitious, but we always have to think about the cost.
I note the noble Lord’s suggestions, such as banning the sale of a second-hand internal combustion engine vehicle, but I think that would be really harsh on somebody for whom it may be the biggest asset they own in the world. I would find it very difficult to do that without an enormous amount of fair warning. We do accept that there is never a good time to add cost to fuel consumers’ bills, and this policy is expected to marginally increase fuel costs—but we believe that those costs are, on balance, manageable. We are looking at something like 0.5p per litre in 2022, rising to 1.6p per litre in 2032, which is a little over 1% of current petrol and diesel prices. But it is not nothing—it is not insignificant—so we do always have to think about the balance with these things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the exceptions in the rollout of E10. Those were the days—those heady days when we were upstairs in the committee room talking about E10 implementation. I cannot remember whether those exceptions are permanent or temporary; I will certainly write on that, as I will on whether the increase of the buyout price to 50p has been successful. We will be able to look at that.
If I may, I will talk very briefly about sustainability, because it is absolutely critical that we do not ride a coach and horses through very good-quality agricultural land to produce these fuels. All biofuels supported under the RTFO need to comply with strict sustainability criteria. My noble friend has pointed out some of the challenges with certain countries in the world. There are protections for biodiversity and against land use changes such as deforestation. These regulations have improved the sustainability criteria, and I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness, and, indeed, to other noble Lords who contributed, to set out exactly where the changes have been made and the benefits that we expect to get from them.
I appreciate that there are a few unanswered questions, but I will be writing. I think we have reached the right balance by increasing by 5%; it will make a difference to our carbon emissions. We accept that there is more to be done in transport, but we are on that case and are doing as much as we can as quickly as we can.
Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the Grand Committee do consider the Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 26 October. They will make important rectifications to the UK’s network and information systems legislation, which helps maintain the security of key digital services on which British people and businesses rely. Their purpose is to ensure that the Information Commissioner’s Office, in its role as competent authority for digital service providers, is kept informed of serious cyber events that affect digital service providers, comprising online marketplaces, online search engines and cloud computing services.
Before I turn to the provisions set out in this instrument, I will set the scene for the proposals it contains. The Network and Information Systems Regulations implemented the European Union’s security of network and information systems directive of 2016. As a result of our departure from the European Union, certain deficiencies have arisen in the relevant legislation retained under the provision of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which this instrument seeks to rectify.
The purpose of the Network and Information Systems Regulations, or NIS regulations for short, is to improve and maintain the security and resilience of essential services, such as transport or energy, within the UK, as well as certain digital service providers. The NIS regulations work by compelling operators of essential services and digital service providers to undertake measures to protect the network and information systems on which their essential or digital services rely from failure through either cyberattack or physical faults.
The NIS regulations are overseen by 12 competent authorities, which act as regulators for essential and digital services across six sectors. Organisations in scope of the NIS regulations must fulfil certain duties, such as having appropriate measures to protect their services and, critically, reporting cybersecurity incidents that have a substantial impact on their services to their competent authority.
Digital service providers, which form one of these six sectors, are regulated by the Information Commissioner, who acts as the competent authority. In other sectors, the factors and incident reporting thresholds, which determine what constitutes a “substantial impact” for the purposes of reporting, are set out in guidance published by the relevant competent authority.
Under the original EU directive and the UK’s subsequent implementation, digital services are treated differently from essential services. They were regulated at an EU level, with one country taking responsibility for the activities of an individual digital service provider across the whole of the European Union. For this reason, the factors to be taken into account when determining whether an incident had a substantial impact for the purpose of reporting were not left to member states but set out in the Commission’s implementing regulation, which applied across the EU market. When an incident reaches this threshold, it must be reported to the relevant competent authority, which regulates that provider on behalf of the European Union.
When the UK left the EU, the Commission implementing regulation remained embedded in UK law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, the parameters and thresholds for reporting incidents set by that Commission regulation are no longer appropriate for the UK as an independent state. The most significant issue relating to reporting thresholds is that they were set by reference to the number of users affected or user hours lost. As these had been set with the EU market in mind, they were set at a level that is too high for the smaller UK market. As a result, the Information Commissioner has received only one report of a cyber incident affecting digital service providers since our departure from the European Union.
Under the current scenario, an incident needs to have a noticeable impact on an economy the size of the EU to be reportable in the UK. If the Information Commissioner is not receiving reports of incidents within the UK because the thresholds are too high, they will not have an accurate picture of what is happening in their sector. They will be unable to identify the threat, provide guidance or take necessary enforcement action if the provider is found to have breached its duties to protect its services. It is important, if the legislation is to remain effective, that the Information Commissioner is afforded the ability to set the reporting thresholds at a level appropriate for the UK.
I will now set out in a little more detail how the instrument before us seeks to resolve this deficiency. The key proposed amendment will remove the defective reporting thresholds from the UK version of the Commission implementing regulation. The NIS regulations already allow the Information Commissioner to issue guidance and the Information Commissioner has already carried out a consultation on these thresholds in parallel to the instrument being developed.
The instrument before the Committee strengthens the role of that guidance by adding a provision to the NIS regulations ensuring that digital service providers have regard to that guidance when considering whether an incident has substantial impact and is therefore reportable. The practice of setting these reporting thresholds in guidance is common among all other NIS competent authorities in the country; it is only by virtue of how digital services were supervised across the EU that their reporting requirements were set by an EU regulation.
The approach of using guidance to set the thresholds affords far greater agility to the regulator, allowing the Information Commissioner to respond to new developments and to set levels that are proportionate and not burdensome on the providers or, indeed, her own office. This amendment would bring digital service providers in line with operators of essential services in all other sectors across the NIS framework, ensuring that regulators are able to identify significant incidents affecting key services across the economy and act accordingly.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords—well, my Lord—the Minister will be pleased to know that I do not have a lot that I want to say. As I understand it, this SI makes a couple of small changes, as the Minister has said, to retained EU law regulating the security of network and information systems of core UK service providers to reflect that fact that we are no longer part of the pan-EU regulatory regime.
I have just one or two questions. Why, given that the transition period ended almost a year ago, are we debating these changes only at the end of November 2021? While this may not have been day-one critical, one would have hoped that these kinds of cybersecurity issues would have been a priority for the DCMS.
The Government are lowering the reporting thresholds when relevant cyber incidents occur in an attempt to ensure that the Information Commissioner is sighted on them. Can the Minister confirm whether DCMS knows of any incidents occurring earlier in the year that did not meet the current threshold that would have met the revised one had it been in place?
When we discussed amendments to EU-derived regulations for video-on-demand providers in the past, the department conceded that our departure from the EU meant that we had no formal jurisdiction over most of the main players, which were generally registered on the continent. Is there a similar situation with some of the digital service providers or is this not a concern currently?
The Explanatory Memorandum, which I found very clear and helpful, shows that most of the costs associated with the change will fall on the Information Commissioner’s Office. Our understanding is that the Information Commissioner is working well as a regulator, but of course with expanded responsibilities comes the need for greater resourcing. Is DCMS comfortable that the commissioner has enough staff and wider resource to complete these duties?
I turn to my final point. Is alignment with EU practices an issue at all, and do we have a continuing relationship with the EU regulator and regulation? Do we have to work within a commonly accepted framework, even though we are now outside the EU and obviously have to have our own system for regulation, appropriate to the size of our market?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions and helpful comments on the impact assessment. He asked why we are doing this now and not sooner. The issue that I outlined at the beginning was not identified as a deficiency until last year, when the Information Commissioner raised concerns over incident thresholds with DCMS—that is why we have brought forward the statutory instrument at her recommendation and in consultation with the ICO.
The noble Lord asked about the ICO’s resources. We are confident that it has the resources, but we will maintain close dialogue with her to keep that under review. We have a continuing relationship with the EU. The matters here obviously cross international boundaries and, despite leaving the European Union, we continue to work with our European neighbours and other international partners on issues such as this. But obviously we have no obligation to implement the new directive that the EU is bringing forward. We are monitoring developments in the EU to assess any impacts that those changes might have.
I am afraid I missed the noble Lord’s second question, but the note I have been handed reminds me that it was on digital service providers. There is now a requirement for non-UK digital service providers to register with the Information Commissioner. As I say, there will be a divergence from EU regulations, but we will continue to follow a similar approach. I hope that answers the questions that he outlined and, on that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Outsourcing: DWP Telephone Services
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Blower
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the efficacy and efficiency of outsourcing the telephone services provided by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The DWP utilises suppliers to deliver some telephony services for an efficient and effective customer service. Decisions to outsource are subject to value for money assessments and ministerial approval processes for new contracts, alongside Cabinet Office approvals and HMT business case governance. Efficacy and efficiency are further assured through the DWP’s effective contract management on an ongoing basis. The DWP’s contracted suppliers for contact centre services have largely met their key performance indicators during the term of the contracts.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. However, the staff union PCS reports that outsourcing has led to excessive call times and to vulnerable claimants often getting questionable advice due to poorly trained private sector staff being unable to navigate the complex system, and that Serco-run services have routinely had to call on support from in-house staff due to Serco’s inability to cope with call volumes. Can the Minister say what performance standards are in the Serco contract, particularly regarding call length, quality of advice and ability to cope with demand?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The time taken to answer calls is checked, and the target is 90%. As I said, those key performance indicators have all more or less been adhered to. There is also a performance indicator to ensure the investment in infrastructure is there, which is very important. DWP has gone in to help contractors where there are issues—in particular, recently, with staffing.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The department is addicted to outsourcing. The Government have allocated nigh on £3 billion to the Restart collection scheme for universal credit claimants, to be delivered by private companies under payment by results. Will the Minister tell us how she will ensure that previous mistakes will not be repeated—with financial incentives leading to so called “parking” and cherry picking, and hard-to-help claimants, many of whom were most in need of help, receiving little or no support?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I do not see that picture within the DWP telephony services that are outsourced. The Government recognise that some public services are better delivered through private companies than directly through the public sector. It is a matter of looking at all services individually and deciding which are the best to outsource.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, what steps have been taken to end the use of 200 premium-rate phonelines, admitted to by the DWP, when these cause those on the lowest incomes to pay up to 55p per minute for help and advice on claims?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, not all DWP telephony lines are outsourced, as we know, but all DWP telephony lines are freephone 0800 numbers.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, given the importance of these services to the clients, can my noble friend tell us how often performance is reviewed, and with what result?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Several reviews take place in the course of a contract to assess performance against key performance indicators. Performance is reported and monitored daily and reviewed monthly during formal business unit reviews. These are led by DWP contract management teams. Wider delivery considerations to inform efficiency and effectiveness are reviewed on an annual basis through financial management reviews and quarterly formal reviews.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, on 4 November, in a Written Answer, the Minister for Pensions gave figures for call-answering rates on DWP helplines from January to September. These suggest that helplines managed to answer 90% of calls to do with debt payments, but, every month, a quarter of calls on child maintenance and 40% of calls on state pension changes went unanswered. Does the Minister think that is acceptable?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No—nothing below the performance indicators is acceptable. That is why we continually challenge the delivery of all our systems.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, clearly the lack of training seems to have led to many claimants receiving incorrect answers when, for example, querying their state pension. Could my noble friend explain to the House whether the department has done any mystery shopping of its externally sourced claim lines, and what happens if suppliers do not meet their key performance indicators?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend brings up the very important issue of training. All staff working for outsourced companies get the same training as DWP, and they will continue to get that. If they are looking after particularly vulnerable clients at any time then they will get specialist training. As for mystery shopping, yes we do: the DWP continues all the time to check out those call lines and make sure that they are being regularly performance managed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in challenging the delivery of systems in order to get the proper performance indicators, how many times have penalty clauses been invoked and for what reasons? We all remember the debacle around Concentrix and HMRC several years ago.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of any penalties as such, but if a supplier consistently fails to achieve performance levels then service credits will apply to our most important Civil Service levels. These are designed to be an incentive to deliver services rather than a financial penalty. That is the way that we perform those services.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. Telephones aside, does my noble friend agree that there are real opportunities for DWP to deploy new technologies across all its activities? Is she aware of the proof of concept that the department ran of putting benefits in a tokenised form on a distributed ledger technology platform delivered through a smartphone device—cost out, empowerment in—for benefit recipients? Does she agree that it is time to run a pilot for that scheme and to run proofs of concept for new technologies right across all DWP’s activities?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is right that we need to look at new technologies. The DWP is always exploring new solutions to support citizens who use our services. The department will be using advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, which published a White Paper in April 2021 on the use of DLT suggesting that further developments are needed. For now, there are alternative technologies that usually provide comparable or better solutions.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have handed public services to corporations such as Serco, which has a history of abuses, failures, overcharging and even a fine by the Serious Fraud Office. Will the Minister publish the DWP’s cost-benefit analysis, and related correspondence, for outsourcing its telephone services so that we can all make an assessment of its diligence in dealing with failed providers?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that some public services are delivered better through private companies than directly through the public sector. A delivery model assessment methodology, as defined in the Cabinet Office Sourcing Playbook, helps to determine whether the public or private sector is the best placed to deliver a public service. Most of those issues will be on GOV.UK.
Lord Flight (Con)
How much is paid to suppliers for delivering these telephony services?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend asks a difficult question because telephony suppliers flex staffing resources up and down in line with volume expectations and are paid accordingly. The contracts are volume based and demand driven, and we pay on a basis of calls answered. The total contract price for the last contract, which is three years plus one, was £174 million over those four years.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Domestic Abuse: Older People
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that older people (1) are aware that domestic abuse can include physical abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, financial abuse, neglect, and coercive control, and (2) are informed about the sources of information and support available to those suffering such abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory definition of domestic abuse encompasses sexual, violent, coercive, controlling, psychological, emotional and economic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act’s wider provisions, accompanying guidance and our long-term action plan, alongside a dedicated strategy and funding to specialist services, including Hourglass, will further support legislative implementation. These transformative measures will bolster our response to domestic abuse, increasing awareness, information and support for victims, and providing greater protection for vulnerable groups, including older people.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
I was a bit disappointed with the Minister’s response. As she will know, domestic abuse as far as older people are concerned quite often takes a different form; it is quite often hidden away and not recognised. How much support can be given to victims that, in many cases, differ so much from the image of a young woman, for example, who suffers from domestic abuse? Would the Minister further agree with me that there is no government body in England, like we have in Wales with the Older People’s Commissioner? Would she commit to at least look at the possibility of having a commissioner in England for older people, as this would go some way to helping the problem?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In the past I have spoken to the Welsh commissioner, and I commend the work she is doing. But I also commend the work our commissioner is doing. I know that she is dedicated to all aspects of domestic abuse across all ages and will be keeping a very close eye on the implementation of the Act.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, with increasing numbers of bank branches being closed on high streets and the impact of Covid, the elderly vulnerable are having to negotiate the choppy waters of online banking like everybody else, in an environment where there are large numbers of online scams and frauds. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to offer training and resources to try to protect the elderly vulnerable as they engage with online financial services?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The right reverend Prelate points to a real problem which particularly targets the vulnerable, never mind the elderly—who are obviously in that bracket. We have Action Fraud, which is trying to tackle the problem. Some information is also being put out to help to guard against people being scammed. I think every one of us has at some point had messages appearing on their email which appear to be genuinely from their bank but, in fact, are not.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
Can the Minister update the House on the statutory guidance on detecting and preventing the abuse of older people which the Home Office was working on after the Domestic Abuse Act received Royal Assent? This statutory guidance was a commitment by the Government in response to the two amendments I put forward on Report of the Bill and is a much-needed tool to combat the abuse of vulnerable adults.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the engagement that I had with her throughout the course of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is now an Act. She is right that, to accompany it, draft statutory guidance has been developed to help provide an understanding of what might constitute domestic abuse and the impact on victims, including children, who will be recognised as victims in their own right. As required under Section 84 of the Act, the guidance has been subject to consultation, which began on 3 August and closed on 14 September. The responses are being analysed, and updates to the guidance are being made, taking into account the representations received, the content and the clarity.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
Elderly victims may face barriers to getting help if they are dependent on their abuser, have a disability, lack access to digital services or are simply frightened or ashamed of going to the police—so healthcare practitioners very much need to look out for abuse. So can the Minister assure the House that plans are in place to, first, increase mandatory and ongoing training for practitioners in how to recognise an old person suffering abuse and, secondly, improve links between the NHS and the police so that they can distinguish between the impact of a condition such as dementia and the results of a pattern of abusive behaviour?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What the noble Baroness points to there is the sheer complexity of abuse, dependency and what the various different agencies need to look out for in identifying and dealing with this—and, yes, it is absolutely dependent on multi- agency working, co-operation and information sharing.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, we tend to think mainly of women being abused by their male partners. Could the Minister tell the House what research has been done on the abuse of older men by their female partners? Is she confident that support will be available as readily for those living in rural areas as it is for those in urban or city settings?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In the Crime Survey for England and Wales 2020, it is estimated that 4.4% of women aged 60 to 74 were victims of domestic abuse, as were an estimated 1.9% of men—so there is definitely evidence of men aged 60 to 74 being victims of domestic abuse. In a rural setting, it must be very isolating and frightening, and it is important that, through the Act that we have brought through Parliament, all victims are reached, whether they are rural or urban.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the pandemic and lockdown have exacerbated the likelihood of domestic violence generally. We know that people over 61 are more likely to experience abuse than those under 61, and that 48% of those who do are disabled—and it may take them twice as long to seek help. So how much research have the Government done to highlight this prevalence? How much resource is being put into providing support and safe places that are dedicated to older victims of domestic abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
A significant amount of funding has been put in place, but the noble Baroness is right to point to research. We have had significant engagement with all parts of the support sector. As I said at the beginning, we are most grateful to Hourglass for the support that it provides.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, given that the abuse faced by older people is different, are the Government satisfied that they are providing targeted support, guidance and resources to local authorities to ensure that there is greater awareness, and do they have plans to actually monitor and assess the impact of the Domestic Abuse Act on the elderly?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness will know that all legislation that is put through and agreed in Parliament is monitored, reviewed and checked to see whether it is fit for purpose and whether gaps emerge in the fullness of time. She is absolutely right about monitoring the effects of the legislation, particularly on older people. These may be the same as or different from those experienced by younger people, as she said—but, certainly, it is a relatively recent phenomenon that this has come out.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Research from SafeLives indicates that up to half of all abuse against people in older life is perpetrated by members of their family, particularly acting together. We have seen increases in financial abuse in particular. What more can be done to educate older people to detect the signs of this kind of abuse, often very subtle in its application, and to seek outside support and help?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord points to some terrible frailties that can emerge from a family member being relied on to be the carer of the person being abused, and the abused person being too frightened to complain about the carer. I have heard about many such cases, particularly where financial abuse is concerned. In bringing forward the Domestic Abuse Act we have not only gone some way in terms of the prosecution of offences but have significantly raised awareness, particularly among health- care professionals.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
Will the Minister consider providing some special short-term funding to organisations that can tailor both the advice that they give and the support that they provide to elderly victims of domestic abuse, so that we can have a better understanding of exactly how services co-ordinating can support these vulnerable people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think that we probably need both long-term and short-term funding to provide support. I have talked about Hourglass, which received £50,000 of funding to support activity in 2020-21, and an additional £106,000 to further bolster its services as part of the response to the Covid crisis, which must have placed some vulnerable people at even greater risk.
Shipbuilding: Use of British Steel for Royal Navy
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to require shipbuilders in the United Kingdom to use British steel in ships and submarines built for the Royal Navy; and what percentage of steel in the Dreadnought class submarines and Type 31 class frigates is expected to be provided by UK plants.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, sourcing steel is a matter for our prime contractors. The special steel required in the manufacture of submarine pressure hulls and the thin plate required for shipbuilding cannot be sourced in the UK. Nevertheless, we encourage the sourcing of UK steel wherever it is technically and commercially feasible and publish our future pipeline of steel requirements, enabling steel manufacturers better to plan and bid for government opportunities.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I have to say I am a little disappointed by that. There is a need for a sovereign capability to build ships, and part of that is the steel that is used to build them. It is disappointing that the refreshed shipbuilding strategy that we have been promised for a long time now is still not out, even though there has been the spending review, and we were told that it would come out shortly after that. I hope that, when it comes out, it will point out very clearly that ships such as the fleet solid support ship will have to be built in the UK, and that we have a whole rolling programme of shipbuilding, as that is essential for our ship programme.
The Minister mentioned that we are not able now to provide all the types of steel required for nuclear submarines, but only a few years ago we were ahead of everyone in the world in our ability to produce these types of steel. Is this an area that we are actually going to resolve so that we can provide the steel required for the nuclear submarine programme from steel within this country? Are we considering bringing forward the clean steel fund by some two years so we can actually produce clean steel in this country to meet all the green targets that we have been set?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
There is quite a lot in the noble Lord’s question, but I will start by saying that shipbuilding in this country is a good story. Investment will double over the life of this Parliament, rising to £1.7 billion a year, and this will allow us to increase the number of frigates and destroyers beyond the 19 that we currently have by the end of the decade. The noble Lord mentioned the FSS, or fleet solid support, and he will know that all three ships must be delivered by 2032. The date for the initial operating capability and in-service dates will not be determined until the full business case is submitted. That ties in with another question, which is on the refreshed strategy, which will be rolled out and published very soon.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that British steel producers are at a disadvantage because they pay a local carbon tax that is not paid by Chinese or Russian producers? We have been aware of this loophole for some time. To address this, will the Government introduce a carbon border tax? This is important not only for British jobs and British security but also to help address climate change.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point, and the Government recognise the vital role that the steel sector plays in our economy and across all areas of the UK. We continue to work through the steel council to support its decarbonisation, and it is a core part of our ambitious plan for the green industrial revolution. The net-zero strategy, which the noble Lord will be familiar with, published in October this year, reaffirms our commitment to work and to setting targets for ore-based steelmaking to reach near-zero emissions by 2035.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I applaud the idea of supporting British steel, but British Steel as a company is owned by the Chinese Jingye Group, is it not? In which case, what on earth difference does it make whether we import our steel from China or it is produced here by a Chinese-owned company?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As I said earlier, this Government are committed to creating the right conditions in the UK for a competitive and sustainable steel industry. We publish our future pipeline for steel requirements, enabling UK steel manufacturers to better plan and bid for government contracts.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, a patriotic Government should want our armed services to have the best and aptest steel in the most economical way, so as to free up the rest of their budget for more kit and more materiel. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that whether it is sourced from the UK, Germany, Turkey or the Netherlands, we will always endeavour to ensure that our service men and women get the best possible equipment?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. In October 2020 the ONS published a report on UK steel procurement across government. It showed that the reported proportion of steel procured within the UK for public projects was 77%, up from 40% in the previous year.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say how many countries have committed to acquiring the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates? How many ships are involved? Has this led to a drop in the unit price cost of those ships and will the foreign orders affect the in-service dates of the ships that are for the Royal Navy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Type 26 construction programme is sufficiently flexible. The noble Lord will know that there are some delays owing to the late delivery of the propulsion gearboxes. The cost of the contract awarded in 2017 to manufacture the first batch of three Type 26 frigates is £3.7 billion. On current plans, HMS “Glasgow” will be in the water by the end of 2022.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, is it not an appalling state of affairs that, with the Government spending billions of pounds on boosting our naval power, we have to go abroad for much of our steel, as the Minister has just told this Chamber? What people want to hear is what the Government are going to do about it. Rather than describing the problem, can he say how we are going to boost the British shipbuilding industry so that British naval ships are built with British steel?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Of course, the noble Lord makes a good point: it would be great if ships could be made from British steel. However, as I said earlier, the steel required for the ships being built—both the surface ships and submarines—is highly specialised. He will know that, for example, the fixed steel required for submarine hulls is made in France with Industeel. The steel for the surface ships is there for the UK steel industry, but at the moment it is sourced from abroad.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Is the Minister aware of the issue of the procurement of steel for HS2, which was the subject of a Written Question I submitted recently? It appears that UK steelmakers were unable to supply the appropriate high-quality steel to the necessary timescale, so the order went to a French company. Are the Government confident that UK steelmakers have the capacity to fulfil orders for the steel needed for these vessels? What are they doing to promote joined-up thinking in government-sponsored projects such as these new ships and HS2?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This goes some way off the maritime sector, but I can say that we have established a joint industry and BEIS steel procurement task force, which launched on 12 March 2021. Its aim is to work with the sector to promote the unique selling points of UK steel and explore how best to support the industry and position it for success in forthcoming major public contracts. This surely plays into the noble Lord’s question on HS2.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
What are the consequences of any further delay in the delivery of the Dreadnought-class submarines?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hope I can reassure my noble friend that the Dreadnought submarine programme remains on track for the first of class, the eponymous HMS “Dreadnought”, to enter service in the early 2030s. As this programme progresses, we continue to review life-extension options to ensure that the Vanguard-class submarines continue to operate safely during the phased transition from Vanguard to Dreadnought.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
I welcome the Minister’s aspiration for us to have sufficient steel available to satisfy the needs of our shipbuilding industry, particularly for the Royal Navy. Is the Minister persuaded that we have the appropriate skills base to then build those ships? In particular, I urge him to take a good look at maritime shipyard welding apprenticeships, as there will be some real skills shortages affecting ability to deliver.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point about skills. This will certainly be a major part of our refresh strategy, which, as I said, will be published soon. Having our own skills in this country, particularly in digital and engineering, is extremely important so that we have the right skills to build the right ships faster, using the skills we have.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
If the Government are not prepared to develop a border tax for all the carbon emissions coming into this country, which we do not account for—that is why we have all this false accounting about how we have reduced our carbon emissions—the very least they could do is to make sure they know the quantity of the carbon emissions coming in and start putting some sort of monetary amount on this, so that we know the cost of importing.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. The Government recognise the importance of research and development into the UK steel sector’s transition to low-carbon steel production. She will know that we have provided over £600 million in relief to make electricity costs more competitive, and created the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund to support high energy use businesses. There is more I could go into, but the noble Baroness will know that we are on this.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Qatar: Football World Cup 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of preparations for the 2022 Qatar World Cup and their compatibility with (1) human rights, and (2) journalistic freedoms.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we continue to work with Qatar to support its delivery of a safe and secure World Cup. As with all tournaments, we will work closely with host authorities on the safety of British nationals attending, including fans, journalists and players. Our close ties with Qatar allow us to engage on a range of topics and we raise human rights issues whenever required, which includes in the context of the World Cup.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, eight years ago, the International Trade Union Confederation warned of Qatar’s failure to collect statistics relating to deaths and injuries of migrant workers. It is a scandal that Qatar continues to hide the true picture. In its report published 10 days ago, the ILO identified gaps in the collection of data on work-related deaths and injuries and called for improvement, stressing that we must move with urgency as behind each statistic there is a worker and their family. What representations have the Government made to Qatar on the ILO report? Will the noble Lord come back to the House on progress made on its implementation, so that further injuries or deaths are prevented and the families of those killed or injured receive proper compensation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Everyone deserves the right to work safely and securely, whether that be in Qatar, the UK or elsewhere. Having engaged with the Qatari authorities, the International Labour Organization, as the noble Lord has just noted, published this month a comprehensive report containing recommendations for improving data collection and analysis on occupational injuries and fatalities. This is an important step, and we welcome that. It is also one of the key elements of Qatar’s national policy on occupational safety and health. We therefore expect close collaboration between the Government of Qatar and the ILO during the second phase of their technical co-operation programme, which will run until the end of 2023. We also encourage continued co-operation with entities such as international trade unions. As the noble Lord has noted, the ILO report notes that it is not currently possible to safely present a categorical figure on the number of occupational injuries and fatalities in Qatar.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I hear what the Minister has to say about the relationship between this Government and the Qatari Government. Recently, however, two western journalists covering the run-up to the World Cup in Qatar were arrested for filming a migrant camp. What assurances does the Minister have from the Qatari Government that the same fate will not befall other foreign journalists covering the World Cup who decide to report on controversial and sensitive issues in the emirate?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
We are aware of these cases and are closely monitoring developments. We understand that Qatari and Norwegian authorities, to whom the noble Lord refers, are in communication. The UK remains committed to media freedom and to the global media freedom campaign, launched in 2018. Obviously, a large cohort from the British press is expected to attend next year’s tournament. As part of the FCDO’s preparations, we will be working closely with the press community, providing advice on local laws and seeking assurances from FIFA and the Qatari authorities as required.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I cannot be the only person who received an assurance from the embassy of Qatar, saying that things have improved dramatically, including the introduction of a minimum wage and the banning of exit visas. Can the Government use their authority, along with that of their allies, to make sure that FIFA agrees that such policies have to be in place before a country can bid for a major competition, not after it has been awarded, so that we will not have to go through this again?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very important point, and I will certainly take it back to my FCDO colleagues.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench for his first Question. What advice is the FCDO giving to football fans from the LGBTQ community who are contemplating visiting Qatar for the World Cup in view of Article 296 of the Qatari legal code, which stipulates imprisonment of between one and three years for
“leading, instigating or seducing a male in any way to commit sodomy”?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The UK is committed to the principle of non-discrimination on any grounds, including on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. We are committed to promoting and protecting the rights of LGBT people. They are not asking for special rights, merely to be accorded the same dignity, respect and rights as all other citizens. Qatari authorities have committed that everybody is welcome to the tournament, including LGBT visitors. We will continue to engage on this between now and next year’s tournament, so that anyone of any background can go and enjoy themselves. We will continue to encourage the equal treatment and respect of individual rights and identify what action Qatar is taking to match those words.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, from this side of the House, I also welcome my noble friend to his new responsibilities; I wish him well. Do not all the very valid points that have been made during the course of this Question surely emphasise the need for ongoing and constructive engagement in conversations with countries such as Qatar? Can we also be brutally realistic and realise that nobody is going to rush to listen to our sermons on democratic values and human rights in the Middle East when our policies for the last 20 years in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan have pointed in entirely the wrong direction?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend is right to raise the importance of constructive engagement. The UK has a strong history of promoting our values globally. We believe that the best approach is to engage with Governments and work with international partners and civil society organisations to promote and defend those universal freedoms. The relationship between the UK and countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the wider MENA region is historic and enduring. But we should also recognise that this is a region with distinct cultures and differing political systems.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have received the letter from the chargé d’affaires of the embassy of Qatar yesterday, claiming that Qatar
“leads the region on advancing labour rights protection”
and has made it clear that
“labour law and human rights violations will not be tolerated”.
Does the Minister recognise that assessment as accurate, given the continued high level of construction-related injuries, with over 300 last year, and fatalities, with over 50 last year? Does he agree with the statement from the chargé d'affaires that Qatar’s
“track record on media freedoms speaks for itself”?
What further action do the Government believe is necessary to improve human rights and end construction-related fatalities and injuries in Qatar state?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that question was answered earlier, but I take the noble Lord’s point. On media freedom, we continue to engage, as I also said earlier, regarding the number of fatalities. There is some disagreement and difficulty with data collection and precise numbers, but on all those matters, we continue to engage.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, while it was encouraging to see Qatar introduce labour reforms last year, described at the time as ground-breaking by FIFA—perhaps not the most objective of observers—these reforms appear to have had limited impact, as Amnesty and other groups have highlighted. Human rights groups estimate that more than 6,000 migrant workers have died in the course of building the World Cup infrastructure, whereas the tournament’s chief executive claimed only last week that the real number was just three. What are our Government doing to encourage greater transparency?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have said already, I am afraid that the ILO report notes that it is currently not possible to safely present a categorical figure on the number of occupational injuries and fatalities, but the Government continue to engage regularly with the International Labour Organization office in Doha and explore areas of its work where the UK can add value. We stand ready to assist further and support Qatari continued efforts to implement change.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register. I am strongly in favour of engagement, but engagement guided by some kind of principles. If the Minister looks at the study done by the Sunday Times insight team—I am very willing to lend him the books—he will read a detailed account of industrial-scale corruption on the part of Qatar in achieving the status of a World Cup- hosting body. This is confirmed in other books, including the one which I have here—and am prepared to lend him: David Conn’s book, which goes through it, detail by detail. Are the Government able to say that, in order to establish the principles alongside the engagement, there will be no associated royal, governmental or diplomatic visits which are likely to assist the sports-washing of regimes which are culpable for serious human rights abuses, wide-scale corruption and unsafe employment by any global standards? Are the Government prepared to guide sports bodies—we could have certainly done with that in 2009 and 2010—when competing with other international bids for these tournaments, to show that there is a proper way of dealing with competitor bidders who do not observe these principles at all?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord asks a long question, and unfortunately I am unable to give a long answer. I will take what he has said back to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I appreciate the points he has made and would welcome the loan of his book.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clause 11, Schedule 2, Clauses 12 to 43, Schedule 3, Clauses 63 to 68, Schedule 7, Clauses 69 to 75, Schedule 8, Clause 76, Schedule 9, Clauses 77 to 99, Schedule 10, Clauses 100 to 102, Schedule 11, Clauses 103 to 129, Schedule 12, Clause 130, Schedule 13, Clause 131, Schedule 14, Clauses 132 to 136, Schedule 15, Clause 137, Schedule 16, Clauses 138 to 158, Schedule 17, Clauses 159 to 163, Schedule 18, Clauses 164 to 170, Schedule 19, Clauses 171 and 172, Clause 44, Schedule 4, Clauses 45 to 48, Schedule 5, Clauses 49 to 52, Schedule 6, Clauses 53 to 62, Clauses 173 and 174, Schedule 20, Clauses 175 to 179, Title.
Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 November.
Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 November.
Eggs (England) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 October be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 November.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Tuesday 30th November 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 View all Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 September 2021 - large print - (13 Sep 2021)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, if any noble Lords are concerned by the state of my voice, I should say that I have recently had a negative Covid test, but I have just had that cold which your Lordships will know all about. I would like to say how much I am looking forward to the contributions from everybody who is to speak, and congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester, who was recently elected to this House, on making his maiden speech later; we all look forward to that.
It is a great privilege to open Second Reading on the Bill, which I trust will be welcomed by your Lordships’ House. Repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a manifesto commitment both of the Government and of the Official Opposition. As the Labour Party manifesto put it, the Act
“has stifled democracy and propped up weak governments”.
I agree, and look forward to unequivocal support from the Benches opposite today and in Committee—you always travel in hope in your Lordships’ House.
The 2011 Act fostered uncertainty and stasis in our democratic arrangements. It led to paralysis when the country needed decisive action. It undermined the effectiveness and responsiveness of our democratic system overall. The flaws of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act are understood and have been analysed by many noble Lords, including your Lordships’ Constitution Committee—I am pleased to see the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, on the speakers’ list today. I am grateful for the depth of expertise and knowledge that your Lordships’ House has brought to bear on the scrutiny of the 2011 Act and that it will bring to bear on the scrutiny of this legislation.
The Bill seeks to return to the tried and tested position of the past over many centuries, replacing the 2011 Act with arrangements more in keeping with our best constitutional practices: delivering stable and effective government; upholding proper parliamentary accountability and public confidence in our democratic arrangements; and, above all, placing the British people at the heart of the resolution of any great national crisis.
The Bill will provide increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament. I emphasise at the outset that the Bill focuses on the Dissolution and the calling of Parliament only, not any other part of the constitutional process. Ensuring that these arrangements are clear, stable and widely understood underpins the integrity of our constitution.
Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, in its report of December 2020, warned correctly that the “origins and content of” the 2011 Act
“owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand”.
Indeed, the Act led to paralysis and uncertainty at a critical time for our country. An untenable situation arose in the last Parliament, when the Government were neither able to pass vital legislation through Parliament on their central policy nor call a new election and put the question to the people, who had already voted in a referendum for the very proposition Parliament was seeking to block. The result was deadlock and paralysis. The fact that Parliament had to introduce bespoke primary legislation in 2019 to bypass the Act in order to hold the necessary election was surely the final, damning indictment. In summary, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is a political experiment that failed. It is neither credible nor effective and does not serve future Parliaments or Governments, whether they are majority or minority formations or coalitions.
I now turn to the details of the Bill. Before I begin, I reiterate my sincere thanks for the valuable work of Parliament, particularly your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, and the Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, who I am also pleased to see here in his place today. I also add my thanks for the Constitution Committee’s most recent report on the Bill, which was published on 19 November. The Government welcome its consideration of the Bill and I can give an assurance that they will respond to the report before this House goes into Committee. Its consideration of the 2011 Act and the Government’s Bill has been valuable and has informed our approach, as will become evident.
The Bill is short; its purpose is clear and its objectives are known, because the British people lived with the previous system for centuries. It is a focused Bill of six clauses and one schedule. It restores the status quo ante, except in a few cases, particularly where practical changes to election arrangements made since 2011 have proven beneficial to the smooth running of elections—although I am certain that we will discuss that aspect of the Bill. It returns us to the tried and tested constitutional arrangements that have served successive Parliaments and Governments and that are a feature of our constitutional system.
Clause 1 repeals the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Clause 2 makes express provision to revive the prerogative powers relating to the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament that existed before the 2011 Act. This means that, once more, Parliament will be dissolved by the sovereign at the request of the Prime Minister. Within the life of a Parliament, Prime Ministers will once more be able to call a general election. That is a tried and tested approach that throughout our history has served successive Governments of different configurations.
By returning us to the status quo ante, the Bill will enable the link between confidence and Dissolution to be restored so that critical votes in the other place can once more be designated as matters of confidence, which, if lost, would trigger an early election—circumstances which many of us well remember from 1979. The other place will therefore continue to play its expected and key role in holding Governments to account and demonstrating whether they have the confidence of the elected House.
This is the status quo ante that we are all familiar with and understand. Under that system, our nation weathered many a constitutional crisis and accomplished enormous social change and social improvement without conflict, revolution or civil strife. That is the position the general public understand and under which our liberties have long been guaranteed.
Clause 3 restates the long-standing position that the prerogative powers to dissolve and call Parliament are non-justiciable. I understand that some noble Lords question why this clause is necessary at all and say that, after all, these prerogative powers are recognised as outside the purview of the courts. Let me explain: Clause 3 is drafted with careful regard to developments in case law. As noble Lords will be aware, since the GCHQ case, some prerogative powers that were previously considered to be non-justiciable have been reviewed by the courts.
The recent independent review of administrative law, which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks, noted that
“the direction of travel in favour of regarding more and more prerogative powers as reviewable in principle is undeniable and has existed for many years”.
This culminated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller/Cherry 2 in relation to Prorogation. So, with respect to those noble Lords who say that there is no risk of the courts reviewing a decision to dissolve Parliament, I cannot simply say that the case law would suggest that this risk can be discounted, and recent events, in particular, have underlined this.
Clause 3 has been drafted with great care, taking on board the position of the courts that the most clear and explicit words are needed. It provides that any decisions relating to the revived powers to dissolve one Parliament and call another are non-justiciable, as well as the exercise of the powers themselves. This is to ensure that any preliminary steps leading to the exercise of these powers, including any request to the sovereign to dissolve Parliament and any related advice, cannot be reviewed by a court or tribunal.
Clause 3 further provides that a court or tribunal cannot consider the exercise of those revived prerogative powers or any related decisions, even if the court considers they are invalid or, in the language used by the Bill, “purported”. Nor may a court consider the limits or extent of those powers. Again, taking into account the case law, this is to make as clear as possible the position that all elements of the process relating to the Dissolution and calling of Parliament are covered by Clause 3 and are not a matter for the courts.
Let me be clear: there would be no change to the involvement of the courts, as the Dissolution and calling of Parliament is not an issue that has, so far, ever been considered reviewable. This clause simply confirms that position, preserves it for the future and protects the judiciary from being drawn into political matters.
Ultimately, judgment on the Government’s actions in calling an election is a matter for the electorate at the polling booth. I remember well the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this subject at Second Reading of the original Bill, that it is not axiomatic that the timing of an election serves the incumbent Prime Minister. As the Joint Committee affirmed,
“it is appropriate for Parliament to make clear where it thinks the constitutional boundaries lie”.
This clause was unamended in the other place, and while I recognise that your Lordships will have questions, we do, I think, mostly agree that the prerogative power for Dissolution is, and should, remain non-justiciable.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Before the Minister leaves Clause 3 —I am not a lawyer—will he explain the use of the word “purported” in two of the items? He has spent a lot of time on Clause 3, so I presume he is briefed on this to explain why “purported exercise” is also covered.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I always seek to be brief, but one always aspires to be better briefed in your Lordships’ House. I anticipate that this will be the subject of some discussion in Committee, and I wanted to make some progress in this speech, but to answer the noble Lord, which is my duty, purported exercises of power or decisions refer to things that would be considered by a court to be invalid or a nullity and therefore not a real exercise of power or decision because they have been done on the basis of an error of law. The courts have noted that this could arise where, for example, a decision is made outside the limits of relevant power or without taking into account a relevant consideration.
The reference has been included to make it clear that all elements of the Dissolution and calling of Parliament process fall to the political and not the judicial sphere. The drafting takes account of previous judicial decisions, which I have no doubt we will discuss at some length in Committee. In particular in the case of Privacy International, the Supreme Court said that those drafting legislation should make clear whether such purported decisions are intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, and I look forward to discussing this matter at some length—I hope not at some length—and I have no doubt that we will have a lively discussion in Committee, so I would like to make some progress, if I may.
Clause 4 provides a maximum parliamentary term of five years, calculated from the date of the first meeting of Parliament. This will ensure that elections are held at regular intervals by providing a longstop of five years, a maximum term which is of course still guaranteed by your Lordships through an explicit exception in the Parliament Acts. By reviving the prerogative powers, the Government could call an election either to resolve political deadlock, to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate or after a defeat on a major policy issue.
As I have set out, a Prime Minister will take a number of factors into account when choosing to call a general election. But of course, this would include— I can offer reassurance here—scheduled elections to the devolved legislatures. We recognise the practical administrative challenges of holding elections which are conducted under different arrangements simultaneously or in close proximity. A Prime Minister choosing to call an election would undoubtedly wish to take these matters into account.
Clause 5 introduces the Schedule, which sets out minor and consequential amendments. Clause 6 confirms that the territorial extent of the Bill is the UK, except for a very small number of amendments in the Schedule where the extent is more limited. The Schedule contains a number of minor and consequential changes, including to the parliamentary elections rules in the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985, concerned also with the demise of the Crown and the Recall of MPs Act 2015. I would be happy to explain any of these in detail if your Lordships wished between now and Committee.
The Bill has undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government are indebted to the work of the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We have carefully considered the committee’s findings and amended the Bill in two respects, the first being the Title of the Bill. This small but significant change ensures the purpose and effect of the Bill is clear, reflecting its precise remit and its constitutional significance. Secondly, having reflected on the Joint Committee’s report, the Government agree that the trigger for the election process should be the Dissolution of Parliament. This amendment will give legal certainty that the election period will automatically follow on from Dissolution, providing a clear timetable leading to a defined polling date.
Let me conclude with the conventions which provide the flesh on the bones of the Bill. In restoring the status quo ante, conventions will once more govern the operation of the revived prerogative powers. Conventions can operate effectively only where there is shared understanding of them. That is why the Government published in draft their understanding of those conventions alongside the Bill for scrutiny—not only by the Joint Committee but by Parliament as a whole. We set out in that document:
“The circumstances in which a Prime Minister might seek a dissolution are underpinned by two core constitutional principles.”
First:
“The Prime Minister holds that position by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons and will normally be the accepted leader of the political party that commands the majority of the House of Commons.”
Secondly:
“The Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process to ensure that remains the case. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls particularly on the incumbent Prime Minister.”
We recognise that the conventions on Dissolution are part of an interlocking picture. Therefore, in our response to the Joint Committee, we have provided fuller explanations of the conventions on confidence Motions, Dissolution and Government formation. It is intended to provide the basis for discussion and debate among parliamentarians, building our shared understanding in and across both Houses and all those represented in them.
The value of conventions is not that they should cover every single hypothetical scenario but that they provide guiding principles and are an effective deterrent —in particular, the imperative not to involve the sovereign in politics. We welcome further discussion in your Lordships’ House on the conventions. That is the best way to develop our shared understanding.
This Bill will deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the processes for the dissolution and calling of Parliament. It will restore tried-and-tested constitutional arrangements which have been understood by the electorate for generations and are underpinned by the core constitutional principle that the Government of the day draw their authority by commanding the confidence of the elected House.
I hope these constitutional arrangements that have served us well in the past will continue to serve future Parliaments and Governments of all parties, whatever they may be. The ability of a Prime Minister to call a general election for reasons of political or public necessity, to turn to the people to give their judgment, is an essential feature of our democracy. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act disrupted that relationship. This Bill, we submit, will restore the proper balance to our constitutional arrangements.
I look forward to a constructive debate on not only the Bill but the conventions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his contribution and his endurance in getting through it—I have some cough sweets if they would be any use to him. I know how he feels; I once took a Bill through Committee while recovering from flu, with a lot of Lucozade under my desk. Given that he is not very well, I thank him for his contribution today. This is a relatively short Bill—six clauses and one schedule of what the Government describe as minor and consequential amendments. It is significant none the less, despite its brevity.
I was talking to a colleague the other day who described your Lordships’ House as the “custodians of the constitution”. That may sound a little pompous, but I think we take the constitutional responsibilities of Parliament very seriously. With that, I entirely concur with the Minister’s comments about the committees of both Houses, which have provided ample information and a very helpful backdrop to today’s debate.
Looking at the list of speakers in today’s debate, we have those who have served in government and at the highest levels of the Civil Service, colleagues from the law and constitutional experts. Some of our newer colleagues will contribute as well; I welcome and look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. When he came to your Lordships’ House, he described it as
“the most effective reforming chamber in the … world.”
I hope we can live up to his expectations. I look forward to his contribution.
The Minister outlined this already, but I really think this Bill reinforces the traditional saying, “Legislate in haste, repent at leisure”. I am not staking any claim for the moral high ground for myself or my party, but it is essential when considering constitutional changes that there is a proper process of investigation, analysis and consideration. Otherwise, it is impossible to predict and fully understand all the implications of the changes proposed. There is an onus on parliamentarians from both Houses, from all parties and none, to ensure that any constitutional change stands the test of time. The answer to addressing such issues is pretty straightforward. Probably quite boringly, it is about having a process to ensure that all the relevant issues and consequences, intended and unintended, are fully understood.
As the noble Lord said, there is now little doubt that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is badly drafted legislation. It is also rather ineffective, possibly because of its starting point. Despite the principle being discussed often—as he said, even in party manifestos—there had been very little detailed consideration. When the Bill was introduced, it was clearly designed for a specific purpose at a specific time: to protect the coalition Government from instability. That was understandable, given that we have little experience of coalition governments in our system, but it is an unavoidable irony that the coalition for which it was designed was clearly more robust than the Conservative Governments that followed, as ways then had to be found to circumvent the legislation. There is little disagreement that it is flawed and needs to be replaced. The question that remains is how to go about it.
When reading through the debates in the other place, I found it interesting how often ministerial comments and opinions were asserted as facts. If I were being generous, I would probably describe them as optimistic assertions. At Third Reading in the other place the Minister, Chloe Smith, stated:
“The Bill therefore repeals the 2011 Act and returns us to the tried and tested system whereby Parliament will automatically dissolve after five years, if it has not been dissolved earlier by the sovereign exercising that prerogative power at the request of the Prime Minister.”
She then asserted that the Bill will
“reset the clock back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible”,
but does it really do that? First, the Joint Committee that the Minister here referred to identified ways in which the then draft Bill did not do that, including through the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill before us today. This is the ouster clause that puts in statute that the decision to hold an election is outside any legal jurisdiction. If the “factory settings” were being restored to 2011, then surely such a clause would not be required. I heard what the Minister said but it did not really bring the clarity that we are looking for.
In the debate in the other place, the Minister then also declared that the Lascelles principles—through which a monarch has a constitutional power under the prerogative to refuse an election in three very limited circumstances—were ones that the Government “acknowledged” as a historical fact and that
“now is the time for the underpinning conventions of the prerogative power to be debated and, indeed, restated.”—[Official Report, Commons, Dissolution and Calling Of Parliament Bill Committee, 13/9/21; cols. 721-22.]
However, I am unconvinced that any of this provides the clarity we need for the legislation before us.
The key question is whether the prerogative can be restored by statute and, therefore, whether the Bill restores the prerogative powers as they previously existed, including the principles by which a monarch can refuse an election. If it is the Government’s view that that is the effect of the Bill, why is Clause 3—the ouster clause that would prevent any decision being judicially challenged—so essential? That is a very specific question, and it is important because Clause 3 implies that the Government consider that by seeking to revert to what they describe as the previous position by statute, the decision to call an election could be legally challenged.
When our own Select Committee on the Constitution, chaired by my noble friend Lady Taylor, examined this issue last year—albeit without the benefit of seeing the legislation now before us—it said:
“The possibility of legal challenge to the prime minister’s advice to the Monarch, or the Monarch’s decision to dissolve Parliament, must be avoided.”
I accept that, and I understand why the Government remain scarred by the attempt at an unlawful Prorogation that was successfully legally challenged in 2019. The Minister will recall that so great was my concern and that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we refused to take part in the Prorogation ceremony, which was later in effect declared void.
As the Minister and I have discussed, there is a clear difference between Prorogation and Dissolution, but the wider and perhaps more relevant question is whether the way the legislation is drafted is the correct way to address the issue. There was a difference of opinion in the Joint Committee, yet even those who supported the Government’s approach in principle were concerned at how Clause 3 had been drafted—that is, its extent and future use as defined in Clause 3. My noble friend Lord Rooker picked up that issue and the Minister is right that it will have to be debated—perhaps for longer than he would like, although hopefully not too long. Still, it will have to be ironed out in Committee.
The use of the word “purported” has caused considerable concern because it appears that, in effect, Parliament is giving the Executive the power to do something that is not within their power, and there would be no legal redress whatsoever. I am not a lawyer—it probably shows—but from reading through the various reports and evidence to the Joint Committee and the Constitution Committee, it was obvious that if you ask two lawyers the same question, you get at least three opinions. Some said that they thought the ouster clause was clear, while some thought there was the potential for abuse. Others, including constitutional experts, considered that the courts would then seek to interpret the clause. I suspect that the potential for the latter two outcomes is undesirable and certainly not what the Government intended—so Clause 3, the ouster clause, may not even do what the Government intend.
So, what are the alternatives? I suggest that there are two options that we could consider and draw out in Committee. First, as invited by the Joint Committee, the Government could consider whether a more limited but clearer and more precise approach could be more effective. However, in the initial response to that invitation, the Government appeared to both agree and disagree. They accepted that clarity was necessary but disagreed that they needed to change anything.
An alternative approach would be for the House of Commons to continue to have a vote on the issue. Given that the power has been with Parliament since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, it would not be a huge leap to consider that that position should continue. Otherwise, the effect of the changes proposed by the Government will not be just to set the clock back to 2011 but to increase the power of the Prime Minister not just beyond the current position but beyond what existed prior to 2011.
Let us face it: this Prime Minister has not exactly established himself as someone who could be constrained, or even guided, by the normal conventions of Parliament. Whether because of the unlawful Prorogation, for example, or his lack of support for the Ministerial Code, there are many who consider that the Prime Minister wants to find ways around the usual and normal ways of working rather than follow the rules. But, as we have already seen, he is not alone in the Government in appearing to consider the normal processes of checks and balances in our system as something of an inconvenience. Legislation has to be considered for all situations, not just one particular Prime Minister.
I am sure that most noble Lords in this House would agree that Parliament and the governance of our country work best when there is a balance between the Executive and Parliament, not when the Prime Minister thinks that they are one and the same. If the Government consider that the Lascelles principles still apply—and I am not convinced that they do—the monarch could, in future, again be placed in a difficult position: having to make a decision to either accept an inappropriate request for Dissolution or refuse the advice of a Prime Minister for an election. However, the ouster clause is a heavy-handed, inappropriate way of dealing with the issue.
A point made by Professor Andrew Blick of King’s College, London, is one that we would do well to heed, and perhaps look at in more detail in Committee. In his evidence, Professor Blick considered that maintaining a vote in the House of Commons would help to insulate the monarch from being put at the centre of a political and constitutional controversy. Many of us remain very concerned at the way the Leaders of both Houses went to Balmoral to ask the Queen to call for the Prorogation. So I favour this approach, but we will get into that in more detail in Committee.
There are other issues in the Bill, such as the number of days needed for a general election, that we may also want to probe further. I look forward to today’s debate, with the expertise and information we have in this House, and to our deliberations in Committee.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too offer my sympathies to the Minister for having to take forward this Bill under the duress of a heavy cold. I hope that my comments will not add too much to his coughing and spluttering.
This is an exceptionally short Bill but still a very significant one. The Act that it replaces was said by David Cameron to be
“the biggest transfer of powers from the Executive in centuries.”
If we accept his judgment, it follows that the repeal of the Act to return to the position that preceded its passage marks a major transfer of powers back to the Executive. So the key question before us is whether such a transfer is justified. On these Benches, we believe that it is not.
The purpose of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was to provide a stable framework within which the coalition Government formed in 2010 could operate. In his Second Reading speech in another place, even Michael Gove accepted that it had been successful in achieving this and had prevented the Tories “collapsing the Government” early to gain a political advantage.
The reason we have this Bill before us today is that the previous minority Conservative Government were frustrated in calling an election because they did not have a parliamentary majority. Yet, even with the Act in place, Theresa May was able to call an election, having had a revelation while up a mountain, and Boris Johnson was able to call an election three years early in the wholly exceptional circumstances of 2019.
The advantages of having a fixed term are clear. It brings some certainty and reduces the advantage the Prime Minister has in choosing an election date that maximises his or her chance of victory. Research in the UK by Schleicher and Belu shows that, where elections have been called opportunistically before the statutory end point of a Parliament, it has given the incumbents an average increase in vote share of 3.5% over what might otherwise have been expected, which has translated into an 11% seat advantage. In circumstances where no party has a majority in the Commons—a highly likely scenario for the UK in the future—it gives the largest party a massive advantage.
Fixed terms also provide the parties with a more level playing field on electoral expenditure.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am most grateful. What was the massive advantage in 2017?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the massive advantage was perceived in the mind of the Prime Minister. The massive disadvantage was her judgment, not that she did not have the opportunity to exercise that judgment. We think the exercise of that judgment, on what was by any accounts if not a whim then a very short period of decision-making, is a bad idea for democracy.
As I was saying, fixed terms provide parties with a more level playing field on electoral expenditure. If the Government can plan for an early election, they can ratchet up spending in the year before the planned, but unannounced, date. Opposition parties will typically be unable to take the risk of planning and spending on the basis of an early election date. For these reasons, a fixed-term Parliament is the international norm. Some three-quarters of the world’s major democracies have a fixed term. So do the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland legislatures. No doubt that is why Labour was so enthusiastically in favour of introducing a fixed-term Parliament in Gordon Brown’s manifesto in 2010. I am not arguing that every single aspect of the current Act is incapable of improvement, but I am seeking to defend the principle which lies behind it.
So if we are to reverse the biggest transfer of executive power from the Executive in centuries and hand it back to the Prime Minister, you would hope that there would be a compelling reason for doing so. In moving Second Reading in another place, Michael Gove said that this compelling reason was that
“it gives power to the people.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/21; col. 788.]
This is pure doublespeak. It does not give power to the people; it gives it to the Prime Minster, pure and simple.
I suspect that this Prime Minster will not follow the precedent of his predecessor by having a revelation during a long mountain walk, but he might have it on the roundabout at Peppa Pig World and come back the next day and simply call an election. How do the people have any say in that decision? They clearly do not. They do have the power to vote the Prime Minister back or not at the subsequent election, but, if you really wanted to give power to the people, surely a Prime Minister would follow the public mood and, when it was supportive of an early election, call one. But that is exactly the time when a Prime Minister is least likely to call an election, because the people want elections when they want to change the Government, not retain them. So the democratic argument for prime ministerial discretion on calling an early election is entirely bogus.
This Bill seeks to put the clock back and reinstate prime ministerial powers over Parliament. But it goes further than that. With Clause 3, it seeks to increase prime ministerial power further by removing the power of the court to adjudicate on the way in which that power is exercised. As we saw in 2019, judicial oversight is not just a theoretical possibility but, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, an actual possibility, and the Prime Minister simply wants to cut out this possibility in future.
If that is his aim, there is a much more satisfactory and democratic way of doing this, which is to make the calling of an election before the end of the full allotted span of a Parliament subject to a vote in the Commons. This reins in the executive power that the Bill seeks to give the Prime Minister, without unduly hobbling his or her ability to call an election—because, at the very least, the Prime Minister would have to consult Cabinet colleagues and persuade their party to vote for such an election.
In practice, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister will be denied an election by Parliament—by the Commons. Oppositions nearly always want elections and, if the Prime Minister is able to persuade neither their colleagues nor the Opposition to vote for one, the likelihood is that it would not be in the national interest. We will therefore support an amendment in Committee to make the premature calling of an election subject to a vote by the Commons. By doing so, we would remove the problem of the ouster clause and restrain prime ministerial power but allow MPs to decide whether it is in the national interest to have an election when the Prime Minister wants to call one. My colleagues will raise other aspects of the Bill both today and in subsequent stages, but, if the Lords can persuade the Commons to take back some control of the electoral process, I believe that it will have fulfilled its constitutional role.
To return to first principles, the British public do not elect a Government; they elect a Parliament, and an Executive are then drawn from that Parliament. Parliament is the servant of the people, and Parliament, not the Executive, should have the decisive vote on when the people should have their say.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill. While it appears that no one really wants to keep the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, there are obviously differing views about what should replace it. There seem to me to be three basic suggestions: first, that the Commons should have a vote; secondly, that the Prime Minister should decide, subject to the courts’ supervisory jurisdiction; and, thirdly, that the Prime Minister should decide but do so under a non-reviewable prerogative, which is what the Bill proposes. As I said, I favour the latter.
To clear the ground—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has just done this—obviously, the three alternatives, if you can have three, are mutually exclusive. If the Commons has a vote, that decision is plainly unreviewable: Article 9 of the Bill of Rights plainly puts that out of court. It should further be noted that there is disagreement among lawyers as to whether, given that the FTPA earlier replaced the prerogative, the prerogative—certainly in an unreviewable form—can now be restored. My own clear view is that it can, and that is certainly the view of Lord Sumption and Mark Elliott, the leading Cambridge professor of public law, who advises the Constitution Committee and who supported the decision in Miller II.
With Clause 3 in the Bill, I simply cannot see any court, and certainly not the Supreme Court—now under new management, with a new president—contemplating reviewing the prerogative of the Prime Minister. Indeed, even without Clause 3, I do not think that it would have done so, but it is there for the avoidance of doubt. Indeed, one reason for having it there is to relieve the court of the embarrassment of being drawn reluctantly—believe me—into this rather sensitive area.
Let me explain now why I see no basic objection to an unreviewable prerogative here—it is, or would be, exercisable by Her Majesty not on the advice but at the request of the Prime Minister—and then I must explain why I do not think that the House of Commons should have a vote. As to an unreviewable prerogative power, I gather that there are those who worry that that could place Her Majesty in an invidious position if, for example, the Prime Minister did not like the result of a general election and thought he could get a better majority with an immediate further election. That sort of thing, besides being flatly contrary to the conventions set out and agreed on all sides, is really a purely theoretical risk. Any Prime Minister has to have regard to the obvious general good sense of the electorate, and we all know that electorates can see through that sort of thing extremely readily. Certainly, it does not to my mind suggest for a moment that the Prime Minister could be mad enough to reach a decision that would actually embarrass Her Majesty.
As to the Commons having a vote, I object to that because it would leave wide open the possibility that we could return to the selfsame intolerable position that arose under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act back in the late summer of 2019. Paragraph 86 of the report of March this year from the Joint Committee on that Act said:
“It would be possible to replace the Fixed-term Parliaments Act with a provision requiring a vote in the Commons before Parliament was dissolved. A minority of the Committee argues this would be the simplest and most obvious way of protecting the Monarch from being dragged into party political debate. The majority considers it a change which would only have a practical effect in a gridlocked Parliament, which could mean denying an election to a Government which was unable to function effectively, and which might therefore be counter to the public interest.”
In a letter dated 12 August, the Minister gave a well-judged response to the suggestion from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for a convention that there should be a Commons vote. The letter said:
“To establish a convention that a resolution of the House must proceed an early dissolution would not be compatible with a return to the tried and tested arrangements for calling an election. Indeed, to create such an expectation would potentially only lead to a repeat of the circumstances of 2019 which this Bill seeks to avoid in repealing the 2011 Act and reviving the dissolution prerogative.”
The imperative, in my respectful suggestion, is to avoid any risk of returning to the position that arose then. In speaking in a debate on 5 September of that year, 2019, I deplored the situation brought about by the Kinnock Bill, an Opposition Bill to ensure that Boris Johnson could not pursue his essential policy of securing Brexit, even if necessary on a no-deal basis. Although I was certainly no supporter of the Prime Minister or of Brexit, and still less of a no-deal Brexit, I suggested that the Bill compelled the Prime Minister to go to Brussels cap in hand, not merely to seek but to obtain a further extension to that process. A little later, I said that
“those promoting this Bill are at one and the same time intent on compelling the deep abasement of our sitting Prime Minister and yet refusing the Government the opportunity by general election to reinforce its right to govern, which we generally take for granted.”—[Official Report, 5/9/19; col. 1177.]
The imperative of this Bill is that we do not allow that to recur. Let us return to the safe and sound position we used to have—let us pass this Bill.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the House might allow me to mention that, in June 2014, a Labour Back-Bencher introduced the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill. I happen to have a copy of it with me here. Modesty prevents me mentioning the name of the person who introduced the Bill, but it got nowhere; the Government ignored it. Had they not, we would have saved ourselves an awful lot of time and trouble. At least this allows me to deploy my favourite parliamentary phrase: “I told you so”. The intentions of the Bill before us are clear: first, to scrap the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and, secondly, to return to the system of dissolving Parliament which existed prior to the Act. I very much agree with the first objective, but some significant improvement is needed to the second.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a bad piece of legislation. It was a major constitutional Bill presented in haste, with no attempt at reaching consensus and no pre-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps most damning of all, the Bill was drafted in cynicism between two political parties, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, that did not trust each other and wanted a mechanism that would keep them in office for a full five-year term. David Laws, in his book 22 Days in May, says it all:
“William Hague and George Osborne indicated that we needed a mechanism to build confidence in each other … That pointed to fixed-term parliaments”.
So much for David Cameron’s quote that it was a major transfer of power from the Government to the legislature. I was amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, quoted that approvingly when, quite clearly and unarguably, the whole purpose of the Bill was to guarantee the Executive a five-year term. That is no way to make constitutional change. I would like to hear from the Minister on this; perhaps he could apologise on behalf of the Conservative Government at the time that this Bill was ever introduced, and say that no major constitutional change will be introduced without full cross-party debate and pre-legislative scrutiny as long as this Government are in office.
The 2011 Act led to serious damage to the way in which our democracy works. This was particularly evident during what I can describe only as the poisonous Parliament between 2017 and 2019. There were at least two deeply damaging episodes for which the Act was directly responsible. The first was in January 2019 when we had the first of the so-called meaningful votes on Brexit. The Government lost that vote by 432 votes to 203, with a majority against them of over 220. Prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the conventions that existed at the time, there is no conceivable way that a Government could have survived a defeat like that without either an immediate vote of confidence or by calling a general election.
An even more damaging consequence of the Act was in autumn 2019. This was when the Government had unarguably lost the confidence of the Commons, again on their European policy. Three times they tried to call an election to settle the matter and three times failed to achieve the two-thirds majority required by the Act. This meant that in our cherished parliamentary democracy, whose foundational building block is that Governments govern on the basis of the confidence of Parliament, we faced a situation in which a Government remained in office despite clearly having lost Parliament’s confidence. They could not pass their legislation nor enable the British people to vote in a general election. No wonder it is such a discredited Parliament.
What should we put in the Act’s place? I was privileged to be a member of the Joint Committee that examined the current Bill. There were two related issues that we must have spent half our time discussing. The first concerned the role of the monarch and the need to keep the Queen out of politics. The second was about the so-called Dissolution principles. These issues are fundamental to our democracy. They are, after all, questions about the circumstances in which the British people can exercise their most fundamental democratic right—the right to vote.
The Government’s answer to these questions is, on the surface, a very simple one. It is to return to the system exactly as it was before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. This meant that, apart from in a very restricted number of conventions, a general election could take place whenever a Prime Minister requested that the monarch dissolve Parliament. But herein lies the rub: as we know, a request, as opposed to advice, from a Prime Minister means that the monarch still has discretion about whether to accept the request. Then inevitably you hit a serious problem. If you consider it essential to keep the monarch out of politics—I do—how on earth can you allow even the possibility of her deciding whether she can refuse a request from a Prime Minister for a general election? Such a decision would be a major constitutional crisis. There could hardly be a more politically charged subject.
There is a solution, which has been touched on by previous speakers. In my view it is a very simple one, and it is that a general election should be held not just when a Prime Minister goes to the monarch and requests one, but when a Prime Minister goes to the monarch armed with a House of Commons resolution and advises her to hold one. Remember that, in our constitution, advice from the Prime Minister is something that the monarch would accept. This simple requirement of a majority in the Commons solves every problem at a stroke. The Government get what they want because a Prime Minister—who of course would not be Prime Minister unless he or she enjoyed the confidence of the Commons—would get the necessary majority on such a fundamental issue. There would be no need for endless debates about Dissolution principles as the authority of Parliament is the only principle that you need. The Queen is kept completely out of politics; she is simply abiding by the supreme authority of a parliamentary majority.
There are other advantages. First, a resolution of Parliament would not be challenged by the courts, so the judiciary would be kept out of politics. Secondly, we would avoid the bizarre embarrassment of the Bill as drafted, which hands back power from Parliament to the monarch. The whole history of our democracy involves the steady transfer of prerogative powers from the monarch to Parliament. This Bill effectively says, “No, we don’t want these powers so please can the hereditary monarch take them back?” By the way, if the Minister when replying says that the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the power of Dissolution back to the Prime Minister to avoid the chaos of the last Parliament, the answer is simply this: on the three occasions when Boris Johnson wanted a general election, he would have got one under my proposal because a majority of MPs said yes. It was simply the requirement of a two-thirds majority that caused the chaos.
I also say to those who object to the idea of a simple majority of government-supporting MPs being able to call an election when it suits them, they can do that already. The Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019 did just that with a simple majority. I am suggesting a solution that keeps both the monarch and the courts out of politics. It enables a Prime Minister with a majority in the Commons to secure a general election, just as Prime Ministers have been able to do in the past. It solves at a stroke all the problems of having to define Dissolution principles. All that is needed is to include in the Bill a provision that a Dissolution will take place when the Prime Minister arrives at the palace armed with a House of Commons resolution, which would then be granted automatically. I very much hope that the Minister can see that case when he winds up, and I look forward to his reply.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, that must have been a very satisfying speech for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to make—I can see that he enjoyed it. It might have been shorter if he had simply stood up and said, “I told you so.”
I support the support the Bill as well. Our lives would of course be considerably easier if all Bills were introduced like this, largely supported by the Opposition and unamended in the House of Commons. It puts a wrong right and takes us back to where we were before. It is admirably clear in its intention and impact. While I accept that there are some aspects of detail that are controversial, I hope that the Government will not be swayed from their course of action.
As part of the good will that existed at that heady time of excitement at the creation of the coalition, post the general election of 2010, I was persuaded that the Liberal Democrats had some ideas that needed to be tested by experience, and so the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was created. It was something that I supported, despite my earlier scepticism. However, the events of 2017 and 2019 showed that the Act was insufficiently flexible to meet our constitutional arrangements. It gave power to the courts and to the House of Commons, it created a muddle and it was also unnecessary. This Bill returns us to the clarity that we previously enjoyed. In this House, I believe that one of our overriding objectives should be to provide that kind of clarity and simplicity.
Of course, there will be those who urge conditions on the workings of the Bill through the House of Commons—in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has—and indeed the courts. I urge the Minister to ignore their blandishments, however elegantly they are made.
The Bill deals with the whole question of when elections are called. I believe that we should do nothing to put hurdles in the way of people using their vote. “Trust the people” might sound like a cheap political slogan, but it is the cornerstone on which our constitution is built. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, put it very well when he said that there was a fundamental right to vote, but I part company with him after that.
We should do everything to make sure that our system of dissolving Parliament and calling an election is very clear and well understood by the people of this country. This Bill does just that and should be supported.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it is no surprise that the noble Lord supports the Bill even though he had to offer an explanation for having supported the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in the first place. I am a supporter of the principle of fixed-term parliaments, but I served on the Joint Committee on the Bill and on this House’s Constitution Committee when it considered the Bill as then proposed. I pay tribute to my colleagues on both committees for their very careful consideration of the issues.
I was in the Commons at the time of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, but, more significantly, I was in the Commons in 1974, when the old system was tested. We had elections in February and October of that year, and I had fought a by-election in November of the previous year, making it three elections in 11 months, with a majority still in two figures at the end of that process. The question that this raises is this: was Harold Wilson advised that to seek an immediate election after the outcome of the February 1974 election would be unreasonable? There was a decent interval of eight months before the next election took place—something that emerged from the process. We still do not know, and I look forward to someday finding the answer to that question.
Fixed-term parliaments are normal in most democracies. We are the exception. Fixed-term parliaments preclude, or limit, the ability of the Prime Minister to time elections to gain advantage or, worse, to create short-term policy inducements in order to secure a majority. That is essentially what Harold Wilson did in 1974. Fixed-term parliaments avoid the further problem that frequent elections and short Parliaments disrupt parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. It is not always realised that a general election closes down the Select Committee system not only for the duration of the election but for what can be several months after the election. Back-Bench Members who succeed in the ballot for Bills lose their chance of getting their legislation through, and the threat of an early election is one of the devices that Government Whips use as they seek the votes of unwilling Back-Benchers in marginal seats. We might see more of that in this Parliament.
For Liberal Democrats—and, indeed, for Labour, until it changed its position—fixed-term Parliaments were a manifesto policy. A key factor in the coming into effect of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was the need to maintain the coalition. As the Joint Committee points out, a future coalition may well make similar provision. It is misguided to assume that the so-called gridlock of 2019 was primarily caused by the Act or would be likely to occur again if the Act remained in force. It was a unique set of circumstances in which the majority in Parliament were opposed to the policy outcome of a no-deal Brexit that the Government favoured and could bring into effect by the mere calling of an election—not by the outcome of an election but by the mere calling of an election—during the timetable, before the clock reached midnight. By closing down Parliament for that period of the election the policy outcome of a no-deal Brexit could be secured. It is hard to imagine that set of circumstances happening again.
I recognise that both the Conservative and Labour parties went into the most recent general election committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and I was therefore willing to be involved in detailed committee scrutiny of the Bill to ensure that it did not damage essential constitutional principles. I welcome the Government’s engagement with both committees and their willingness to make some modest, but not insignificant, changes, including the title, but also, more significantly, the language Ministers use to refer to the Prime Minister’s ability to request a Dissolution, rather than advise. The advice would be binding upon the sovereign; the request is not.
In order to return to the status quo ante, the ability of the monarch to refuse a Dissolution needs to be retained. There are very rare circumstances in which it might be used—for example, when a Prime Minister seeks a quick rerun of an election in the hope of getting a larger majority. But the essence of the matter is that the Prime Minister would be advised that he should not put forward such a request because it would be drawing the sovereign into political controversy. A power can be significant even when it is never directly used. That is the significance that I sought to draw from the 1974 experience.
The Joint Committee was very concerned, as noble Lords have been today, about Clause 3—the ouster clause—and particularly its wide drafting. There is general agreement, not just in politics but in the courts as well, that the calling of elections is not a matter in which it would be desirable for the courts to intervene, but inclusion of a “purported exercise” of those powers in the ouster is a worrying precedent, asserting that the Minister’s powers are what the Minister says they are, not what the law says.
Some Ministers, including the current Justice Secretary, appear to have declared war on judicial review, which is a very important restraint on a powerful Executive. This clause looks a bit like a trial run for ouster clauses on other matters. In this case, it is not necessary, as several have said this afternoon. A House of Commons vote in support of a Dissolution request would be proof against judicial review under the Bill of Rights. A minority of us on the Joint Committee favoured that provision being included in the Bill.
I will make one final point, which is drawn from the summary of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report. It says:
“A mix of statute and convention remains the best way for this area to be governed, but requires the actors involved to act in ways which engender trust.”
Recent events underline the importance of those words. It is difficult to sustain trust when it appears that the Prime Minister and some of those around him easily forget that rules and long-established conventions apply to them and not just to the rest of us.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I am going to share the self-satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I believed from the outset that the 2011 Bill was misconceived. Partly through the not inconsiderable intervention of my noble friend Lord Pannick, who regrets that he cannot be here today, your Lordships’ House was twice persuaded to send the Bill back to the House of Commons for reconsideration. The concession eventually obtained was that the operation of the Act should be reviewed in 2020 by a Joint Committee. That was conducted under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, who I think I am right in saying should be congratulated on his birthday today.
The stated intention of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, to ensure that the 2010 coalition lasted a full five years. But, with respect to the noble Lord, the Bill was not even sufficiently effective to do that. If either of the coalition parties had wanted to end the Parliament early, it is highly likely that, with the support of the Official Opposition, the necessary two-thirds majority in the Commons to bring the Parliament to an end would have been available.
A second aim of the Act was to remove from the Prime Minister the alleged advantage of being able to choose the timing of a general election. In my experience, the flexibility that Prime Ministers have is very limited in practice. No Prime Minister is likely to choose to put their Commons majority at risk before the last year of a Parliament unless they judge it essential in order to get their Government’s programme through. Experience also shows that, if the electorate sense that the Government are putting them to the trouble of a general election for opportunist reasons, they punish the party severely through the ballot box, as the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made clear. That is what Mrs May found in 2017.
I believe that the traditional arrangement by which the Prime Minister can ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament so that the Executive can seek a new mandate, in circumstances where they cannot rely on getting their programme through Parliament, is in the national interest. I therefore support this Bill. However, I greatly regret the inclusion of Clause 3. The noble Lord has argued that the Dissolution of Parliament is a matter properly dealt with by the electorate rather than the judiciary, but in my submission, this is a false argument. By the time the electorate have any say, Parliament will have been dissolved, the power will have been used and the Queen will have had to assent to it.
If the Bill gave a role to Parliament in the Prime Minister’s request for Dissolution, it would, as others have said, be a different matter. But the Bill does not allow any involvement by Parliament. Under the Bill, Dissolution is not something done by Parliament; like Prorogation, it is something done by the Executive to Parliament. Parliament does not authorise it or have any role in it. If the Executive misuse their power, in my view the exercise of that power should be subject to review by the courts.
But in this case, as has already been pointed out, there is an even more fundamental objection. Let us suppose that the Government do misuse the prerogative power in some way. All commentators agree that, at least in theory, such a situation could happen. What protection would exist if the courts cannot intervene? There is only one source of protection in that circumstance: the sovereign. The sovereign would have to refuse the Prime Minister’s request for Dissolution. That would require the sovereign to do what everyone agrees she should be protected from doing: intervening in party politics, and in the most contentious of circumstances. If it is necessary to have protection against the Prime Minister’s abuse of the power in this Bill, in my view it should be provided either by Parliament or the courts, not by the sovereign.
I end with a more general point. A recent article in the New Statesman, under the heading “Democracy’s Last Stand”, discussed how ex-President Trump’s attempt to subvert the result of a democratic election was thwarted by the courts. The article also pointed out how rapidly Hungary, Turkey and Brazil have seen their democracies strong-armed by repressive Governments. The article asked whether the United Kingdom’s constitutional safeguards are sufficient to prevent a slide in a similar direction. It reminded readers of the politically motivated Prorogation, the demonising of the courts and the BBC, and the attempts to override the findings of independent standards and appointments bodies. One could add the use of the Henry VIII powers to bypass Parliament’s scrutiny, highlighted by two Committees in your Lordships’ House last week, and now, the ouster clause in this Bill.
I suggest that those of us who value our democratic traditions must stand up against the Government’s attempts to remove oversight of their actions by Parliament and the courts. If Clause 3 is not amended, I shall vote against its inclusion in the Bill.
Earl Leicester (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. I will not dwell on the six generations of the Coke family who, in 162 years of taking their seat—or not—in this House, only mustered three speeches, two of them by my father, concerning the railways, in 1998 and 1999. As you can see, my family, who have the obstinate habit of spelling our name “Coke” and not, as it is pronounced, “Cook”, have not been over- talkative in this House.
An earlier antecedent, Sir Edward Coke, was a Member of Parliament and ultimately rose to become Lord Chief Justice to King James I. He is immortalised in one of the 12 bronze relief panels on the doors of the Supreme Court in Washington DC, where he is seen barring the King from entering Parliament. He defended common law against the divine right of the monarchy. This and other ideas of Coke’s were important to a fledgling republic; indeed, a number of them were written into the US constitution. In the English Civil War our family were, not unnaturally, Parliamentarians.
Perhaps my family was distracted from your Lordships’ House by the business of managing a large estate in Norfolk and seeing that proper use was made of its resources. We are still the custodians of that estate at Holkham, managing it sustainably and to sustain the myriad families that work there and rely on it. I have been up there for nearly three decades and have been wholly responsible for it for the last 15 years. Its prime activities are my main interests: the environment, agriculture, heritage and tourism.
In 2012 we resumed management of the Holkham National Nature Reserve from Natural England. It is arguably the most important NNR in the country. Through positive conservation and effective predator control, it yields large numbers of fledglings that survive to adulthood, and it outperforms many other sites. The greatest success has been the natural colonisation and fledging of more than 435 spoonbills, a species which became extinct in this country 400 years ago. The breeding population has doubled in the last two years. Our population of lapwings, a species that has seen a 57% decline across the UK, is back to what it was 20 years ago. This is all because of subtle management changes, trying different things and not sticking to rigid prescriptions.
While the Government have an ambition to halt declines, Holkham is reversing them. On the farm, the principles of regenerative agriculture have been put into practice this last decade. We are not organic, and probably will not ever be, though I have challenged the farm team to farm without artificial inputs by 2030. This year was the first that no insecticides were used. Nitrogen input on the potatoes was reduced by 22%, having been reduced by 10% in each of the previous two years, but they still, importantly, yielded good yields. With cattle extensively grazing the nature reserve and sheep grazing the cover crops in a six-course rotation, we are relearning the lessons that Coke of Norfolk espoused during the agricultural revolution.
I fervently believe that regenerative agriculture provides one of the main solutions for combating climate change. It is a shame that COP 26 appeared to miss the opportunity to focus on it. The woodland is actively managed for profit, amenity and increased biodiversity, using the principles of continuous cover forestry. One of my passions these last 25 years has been renewable energy. We have invested in ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps, biomass boilers, solar and a large, 2.5-megawatt anaerobic digester that pumps gas directly into the national grid. We have not invested in wind power, principally for aesthetic reasons; anyway, there are plenty more effective wind turbines 15 miles off the Norfolk coast.
Living in Holkham Hall, one of the 10 treasure houses of England, still replete with a full and much-cherished collection from the Grand Tour, I hope to speak authoritatively on heritage matters. My degree at the University of Manchester was in history of art. After university, I spent six years in the Army. We still retain a great number of cottages, and for these we operate an ethical housing policy, letting to local people and key workers only as we attempt to retain social cohesion and village life in a popular holiday destination. The estate has embraced tourism and leisure in the last 25 years and operates a holiday park—the recipient of the David Bellamy gold award for over 20 years—and a small hotel, the Victoria Inn. We run events and cafes. I have worked in nearly all of them.
I am president of Visit East of England and a board member of ALVA, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. None of this would be possible without the wonderful team we employ. They are our greatest asset—well trained, welcoming, espousing great values, employed for their attitude and empowered to make decisions. We have been a real living wage employer since 2017, with 290 employees on the payroll at the end of October. Personally, I tend towards a contrarian view and generally support the underdog, hence my dogged support of Norwich City Football Club. I like to challenge, and I often ask, “Why?”—perhaps too many times.
I apologise for the digression from the Bill we are discussing. I welcome the revival of the prerogative power to dissolve and call a new Parliament. This returns us to the best constitutional practices. Prerogative powers and constitutional conventions are a particular feature of our constitution. They provide the necessary flexibility and agility for our parliamentary democracy. The events of the 2017-19 Parliament demonstrated the negative impact the 2011 Act had on our parliamentary democracy and it led to paralysis. In these circumstances, the Government were unable to secure their business or return the issue to the electorate to break the deadlock because Parliament was unwilling to withdraw confidence or support an election. This meant bespoke legislation was needed in 2019 to have another election. The Bill seeks to put in place arrangements that deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament.
I am hugely grateful for the warm and kind welcome I have received from all quarters of this House, regardless of political hue. I thank the staff of the House, who have been without fail all hugely helpful to me, from the discretion of the doorkeepers to the forbearance of the dining room staff when I had forgotten to pay for my dinner. I thank all those who enabled me to be here today—my family and wife in particular, and the team I leave managing Holkham—as we strive to enact our vision to make it the most pioneering and sustainable rural estate in the UK. I hope your Lordships will approve that a Coke, after 174 years of near-total silence, should once again try to stir the broth of public debate in this House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, some speeches come more easily than others and following my noble friend Lord Leicester’s maiden speech, I feel I have only one principal task and that is to congratulate him on his excellent first speech to this House and tell him how welcome he is here. Not even the arguments of the coming Friday debate can take away the sense that this House, and our Benches in particular, have gained by the active membership of the noble Earl. Those of us who live nearby know the impact that he has made on Holkham Hall and its estate. For 30 years, as he said, he has been a director of Coke Estates and for the past 15 years he has been very much in control of what is a real community asset for those in Norfolk and beyond. His hands-on approach to the great house and the estate means that we have a real expert who is able to speak with experience and authority about the responsibility that we have to the past of maintaining buildings in the best condition and at the same time making them relevant to the present and the future. Perhaps I can illustrate that by referring to the work he has done on one of the finest houses in England and on the Victoria, which he referred to in his speech, maintaining its function but creating one of the best restaurants with rooms in the country. We would expect the president of the Caravan and Motorhome Club to provide facilities for them together with the cottages and holiday facilities he talked of. Holkham is the model of how to restore and engineer amenity and of how to combine modern farming with nature conservation, and we have a chance to learn from a man who has done it and knows how to do it. Not for nothing is he president of Visit East of England. As chairman of the Midlands Engine APPG Visitor Economy subgroup, I share that interest in a key economic sector.
Perhaps I should now turn to the Bill. My first reaction was to go to the Library of the House, a source of great strength to all of us who find ourselves faced with legislation we know too little about. I was particularly interested to explore further the Second Reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which I thought might be useful, for at the time I was the Whip in this House responsible for Cabinet Office matters and I thought I might find that I had words for eating—it can happen in politics, can it not, particularly if you have ministerial responsibilities? As it turned out, that role was left not to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who is in his place, but to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who took the Bill through the House.
The principle of this Bill is to repeal that Fixed-term Parliaments Act and restore the prerogative procedure. I think that we are all agreed about that. However, I sense that Clause 3 is going to lead to considerable debate on how that procedure should be resolved. I am not entirely sure that I can agree with noble Lords who feel that just leaving it to the Commons to vote on the matter is to restore the constitutional convention to the status quo ante, but I believe that we have an opportunity in the Bill at least to discuss these matters, and it is good that we have noble Lords here who have experience of them from all different aspects.
Prerogative powers and constitutional conventions are a particular part of our constitution. They provide the necessary flexibility and agility for its delivery. We in this House have a welcome role in discussing the Bill, and I hope that the debates on it in Committee and further on will provide an opportunity for the interesting notions that have been presented to the House today to be further discussed and resolved. This House has a particular role to play on the shared understanding of the convention and I hope it continues to do so.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on his excellent speech and welcome him to the House. I look forward to his insights on many worldly matters.
I am not a constitutional expert or a lawyer; nor am I a seasoned parliamentarian, as many others on the speakers’ list are. In many ways, I am an outsider and I offer an outsider’s perspective on the Bill. I believe that many of the concerns I will express may be shared by many lay people outside.
There is a broad public perception that Governments pass laws for their own convenience. The Bill ferments those concerns and reinforces them in many people’s minds. It does not enhance the power of the elected Chamber or the people. Possibly, it is all about enabling the Government to make a dash for an election before the glow of the coronavirus vaccine wears off and the consequences of their disastrous management of the economy and Brexit catch up with them.
The Minister referred to a desire to return to some glorious past. Perhaps that past was never really that glorious at all; if we look at the history, we see Governments cutting loose and seeking electoral advantage regardless of whether it was good for the country or not. We all know that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was part of the coalition Government’s strategy to remain in office; there was nothing else to it really. The Minister kindly referred to the Labour Party manifesto, so I remind him of the Conservative Party’s 2015 manifesto, which referred to the FTPA as
“an unprecedented transfer of Executive power.”
Presumably now we have an executive grab for power, because all other centres of power are being weakened.
The key factor in the FTPA was that the House of Commons determined the timing of the Dissolution of Parliament. The Bill takes that away and gives the Prime Minister unconstrained power over when to call an election. If a Prime Minister can unlawfully prorogue Parliament, he can also abuse the Dissolution powers. Are there any safeguards in the Bill? It is hard to see any, especially when the courts are excluded and people cannot go to them for any help.
Under the Bill, Parliament can be dissolved by a Prime Minister who is shoehorned into office—in other words, not the leader at the general election and therefore not subject to an earlier verdict of the people. Parliament can also be dissolved by a Prime Minister whose party does not have a working majority in the Commons.
What if the Prime Minister chooses not to dissolve Parliament and to go over five years? Are there sufficient safeguards? I could not really see anything in there to assure me. At least a vote in the House of Commons offered some safeguards against abusive Dissolutions, but all that is swept away. There is nothing to prevent Prime Ministers from behaving as they did in the past: pass a very favourable Budget, bribe the people, and call a general election. We are really talking about returning to the days of electoral bribery without any consideration of the consequences for the economy or the country as a whole, which in itself is an abuse of the Prime Minister’s office.
The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill say that
“the Sovereign dissolved Parliament only when requested to do so by the Prime Minister, and in certain exceptional circumstances, the Sovereign could refuse to grant a dissolution.”
I hope that the Minister will tell the public at large what the “exceptional circumstances” are in which a Dissolution may be refused. When did the sovereign last override the Prime Minister’s advice? The Prime Minister basically seems to be in control. We have an adversarial political system, but which representative of the people will be called on to advise the sovereign on whether the circumstances are “exceptional” and therefore the Prime Minister’s request ought to be denied? Without suggesting democratic arrangements, the Bill leaves the sovereign open to a potential charge of political bias and subject to public opprobrium.
Clause 3, as many have referred to, is highly troublesome. It seeks to deny people access to the courts to rule on abusive Dissolutions. The inclusion of the clause suggests that the Government are concerned that people may challenge the Prime Minister’s decision, and that the Government are out to disempower the people. We live in a country where people have access to law and adjudication by the courts on most things, but on the vital issue of the Dissolution of Parliament and Prorogation the people will have no such right. Why are they being denied that right? The Minister referred earlier to elections being verdicts, but it has already been pointed out that the election comes some time after the event of Dissolution; the abuse has already taken place.
If the courts are precluded from adjudicating on the prerogative power of Dissolution, the only check on a rogue Prime Minister is the monarch. However, the Bill does not legislate on the monarch’s powers or offer any transparency or clarity on how those powers might be exercised. The only way to protect the sovereign from party politics and a charge of bias is really to empower the people to go to the courts and to empower the courts to intervene.
Overall, the Bill is part of a worrying trend of centralising power in the hands of the Executive and weakening the powers of Parliament, the courts and the people.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the Bill gives more power to Boris Johnson and less to Parliament. It is therefore in my view a Bill that Parliament should oppose, and I remain surprised that it has so much support from the Labour Benches. When Labour left government in 2010, the Labour Party manifesto of that year was committed to the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. Labour’s opposition to the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was clearly tactical, and the argument that it then made against it was that the proposed term should have been four years, not five.
No athlete in a race would be expected to fire the starting gun. The power to fire such a gun in the race to win seats in a general election is, I believe, a strong one. While criticising aspects of the 2011 Act, the Institute for Government said that
“for all its faults, the FTPA does stop an incumbent government from timing an election for maximum partisan advantage, resulting in a fairer contest.”
Those of us on either side of the debates on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in 2011 were proved to be wrong in certain respects. Some of us thought that it would mean that Parliaments would generally last for five years in future. Others thought that Parliament would not be able to provide for early elections. But the general elections of 2017 and 2019 proved that we were both wrong. But I believe that the principle should remain that Parliament should decide whether there is to be an election outside an agreed regular timescale, and that a significant majority should be required for it to happen.
In our debates this afternoon, we have considered at some length issues of electoral advantage. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and his experience as Cabinet Secretary, but, as I understand the political system, it was never the role of the Cabinet Secretary to run a party’s election campaign. Those of us who have run them would say that control over the timing of the election confers a very significant advantage to that party, and those of us who have run election campaigns with very limited war chests would say that you are at a very considerable disadvantage if you do not have control or knowledge of when the election will take place.
The principles introduced in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act have actually proved practical for the Parliaments and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. I should point out that they were legislated for by the Labour Government after 1997. These principles also proved to be effective for every single local authority in the United Kingdom. The Parliament that agreed them for the governance of these places should agree them for itself.
The 2011 Act was not without faults, of course. As it was initially proposed, the 55% threshold for immediate Dissolution was a short-term fix to suit the coalition at the time—and I said so. It would have been better to have followed, straightaway, the rules that Parliament had previously set in Scotland and Wales, which require a two-thirds majority for an immediate Dissolution. Those rules have proved effective there, and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was changed before it become an Act.
Another problem with it was the lack of clarity over what would happen in the fortnight after a Government lost confidence when there was not a two-thirds majority for an immediate Dissolution. Again, the principle of elected Members electing the Prime Minister should have been adopted, as it was agreed by this Parliament under a Labour Government for the Parliaments of Scotland and Wales. This power might allow our Parliament to remove an incumbent Prime Minister. It might allow another Prime Minister from the same or another party to serve in their place.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, is not in his place; were he here, I would have pointed out to him that, had we had such a rule in 2019, perhaps he might have achieved his childhood ambition and become Prime Minister. He might have been chosen by the Members of the House of Commons at that time. Perhaps it might have been possible for people in Britain to be offered the choice in a referendum of the reality of Brexit, as opposed to the glossy packaging that suggested that there were no downsides to it. As in Scotland and Wales, where the elected Members choose the First Minister, such an arrangement would, in my view, avoid the potential of dragging the monarchy into politics in an unfortunate way. Instead, we had a general election in 2019 on an entirely false prospectus—namely, that there was an “oven-ready” deal.
Another problem that we later identified with the 2011 Act was that it left in place the very short timetable of 17 working days for the conduct of an election campaign. This was no longer practical in the era of widespread postal voting, including from abroad, and with many people still needing to register to vote once a general election was called. This problem with the election timetable was eventually addressed in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which introduced a timetable of 25 working days, and I am pleased that the Government recently accepted that this timetable must stay in place.
There were attempts in the other place to revert to the previous 17 working day timetable for general elections. Huge concerns were expressed by the bodies representing electoral registration officers and the suppliers of electoral materials such as ballot papers about a potential change to allow fewer than 25 working days to conduct general election campaigns. The Electoral Commission in its briefing on the Bill chose to highlight why a minimum of 25 working days is needed for general election campaigns. Postal voting has become much more widespread since it became an option for everyone in 2000. Many people need time to apply to vote by post, and virtually no local authorities accept electronic applications to do so. Time is needed for applications to vote by post, for postal vote packages to be sent out, and for them to be returned by polling day. This is especially true for UK voters living overseas, including members of our Armed Forces serving abroad.
A final reason why the longer timetable is needed is that, as the Electoral Commission has pointed out, 9 million people in the UK are not registered to vote and should be, or are incorrectly registered. Some 60% of people think that voter registration is automatic. They are wrong, but electoral registration should be automatic, as the right to vote is not something that you should have to apply for. Were we to introduce such a system, the calling of such elections and the fairness of them would be greatly improved.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will concentrate my remarks on Clause 3, the so-called ouster provisions. The clause is deceptively short and simple. There are three provisions here, as the Minister explained, and they had the support of the majority of the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, to which reference has already been made. But the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place described them as
“legally unnecessary and constitutionally unwise.”
The Joint Committee’s commentary tells us that first two provisions are there to confirm that the exercise or purported exercise of the powers relating to the Dissolution and calling of Parliament set out in Clause 2 are not to be questioned by any court. These two provisions may well be seen to be unnecessary, because that is the provision already. In the Council of Civil Service Unions case to which the commentary refers, Lord Roskill said that the prerogative power relating to the Dissolution of Parliament was not amenable to the judicial review process. As he put it, the courts are not the place to determine whether Parliament should be dissolved on one date rather than another. But in view of doubts as to whether prerogative powers can be revived, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, referred, the protection that the prerogative afforded may possibly not be available, because we would be dealing here with powers conferred by statute. So I can see that there is a case for providing the protection as to their exercise that a statutory power might not otherwise have. It is right that there should be no room for doubt on this matter, for the reason given by Lord Roskill.
The third provision in the clause is an entirely different matter. It seeks to extend the protection of non-justiciability to the “limits or extent” of those powers. As the commentary explains, it is designed to address the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Miller v the Prime Minister as regards the court’s role in reviewing the scope or extent of a prerogative power as opposed to its exercise. It seeks, as the commentary put it, “to clarify” that neither is justiciable in the context of decisions relating to Dissolution. This is the provision that was described by the chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, in what I would regard as a carefully worded understatement, as “constitutionally unwise.”
In its report, the Select Committee of this House on the constitution, of which I am a member, said that
“judicial review should provide a backstop against exceptional use of an executive power which significantly erodes a fundamental principle of the UK constitution.”
It went on to say:
“There is a risk that a Prime Minister might abuse the power of dissolution if the courts are unable to exercise control over the limits and extent of this power, particularly in exceptional circumstances.”
I think that is what the chair of that committee was referring to.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister felt aggrieved by what the Supreme Court did in Miller. So too, in a way, did I. As it happens, I was a member of the Commission that took part in the Prorogation ceremony. I felt that it was my duty, as convenor, to support the Lord Speaker’s decision to take part in the ceremony in response to Her Majesty’s command, while respecting absolutely the decision of the leaders of the opposition parties—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby—not to do so. So it was a bit of a shock to the system to be told by the court of which I was previously the deputy president that the proceeding in which I took part was unlawful, null and of no effect. I did not see that coming.
The decision in that case was, of course, controversial. I will refrain from any comment one way or the other as to how the court applied the law to the facts that were before it and especially the remedy it chose. However, I have no doubts at all about its analysis of the law. Two fundamental principles of our constitutional law were at play in that case. The first was the principle of parliamentary sovereignty; the second was the role that the courts play in protecting parliamentary sovereignty from threats posed to it by the use of prerogative powers by the Executive. The court was entirely right to point out that the sovereignty of Parliament would be undermined, as the fundamental principle of our constitution, if the Executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased. If parliamentary sovereignty is to play its role, particularly in extreme circumstances, it needs that protection.
That is what the case of Miller was all about. The crux of that decision was whether “the limits or extent”—those are the words of the third provision in the clause—of the prerogative power had been exceeded. It was not about whether, if it was within those limits, the prerogative power had been properly exercised. The commentary on this provision says that it “seeks to clarify” this point. Not at all—all the clarification one needs is to be found in Miller. What this provision seeks to do is remove that protection altogether. That is why it is not only unwise but dangerous.
I hope that I may be forgiven for quoting, as so many people do, the words of Dick the Butcher in “Henry VI, Part 2”. He said:
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
He did not like the idea that a few words scribbled by a lawyer on a parchment could undo a man’s reputation. That was just a throwaway line, perhaps in jest, but it serves as a warning about the risks to which democracies may expose themselves if they react in this way against decisions by the judges that they do not like.
I too read the article in the New Statesman to which my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell referred; it is well worth reading. There is a spectrum, as it put it, along which countries can move, gradually or suddenly, as the protections on which democracy itself depends are eroded, one by one. I agree with the noble Lord that gradual erosion is what seems to be going on here. Removing the protection that the courts provide in this context may seem relatively unimportant to those in this Government who would say that it is not needed anyway: “So let’s keep the judges out of it”, they are telling us. But the sovereignty of Parliament is fundamental to our democracy. Just as fundamental is the need for it to be protected against the Executive’s misuse of the prerogative, whatever it may be and whomsoever it may come from. Maintaining that protection is what the courts have been doing for centuries. We deprive them of that role at our peril. That is why I believe that the third provision in this clause should be removed from the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, the Bill is designed to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and put the constitutional position back to what it was before September 2011. The Fixed- term Parliaments Act was, as we have heard, designed as a short-term political fix but with significant constitutional consequences. As the Constitution Committee observed, the policy behind the Bill shows little sign of being developed with constitutional principles in mind. Instead of a “fixed-term parliament Act”, we ended up with a semi-Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
The Act has provisions which are constitutionally problematic and not well understood. Section 2(1)(b) of the 2011 Act confers, in effect, a veto power on the Opposition over the calling of an early election, as demonstrated in 2019, whereas Section 2(3)(b) potentially gives the Government a let-out provision in the event of losing a vote of confidence—something not possible under the convention on confidence that existed before 2011. Confusion as to its provisions has itself been part of the problem.
I turn to the provisions of the Bill before us. Let me begin by addressing what I shall term the silence of the Bill—that is, what it omits—before turning to the need for the omission to be extended. It is a short Bill, but it should be even shorter.
A Government rests for their continuance in office on the confidence of the House of Commons. That is not peculiar to the United Kingdom; it is a feature of parliamentary systems of government. The silence of this Bill on confidence motions enables the convention that prevailed before 2011 to be restored fully. The convention was not displaced by the 2011 Act, but parts of it disappeared.
Prior to 2011, the convention was that, if the Government lost the confidence of the House, they either resigned or requested the Dissolution of Parliament. A lack of confidence could be expressed by the House passing a vote of no confidence, by defeating a vote of confidence sought by the Government, or by defeating a Motion to which the Government had attached confidence. The 2011 Act cut off the capacity for the Prime Minister to request Dissolution in the event of defeat on the last two. The Prime Minister can still designate a Motion as one of confidence and, if defeated, tender the Government’s resignation, but cannot unilaterally trigger Dissolution.
The Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act recommended that the principles and conventions it set out should be adopted as the basis
“for creating a new shared understanding of conventions and practices.”
The understanding would certainly be new, as the report stated that a lack of confidence could be expressed by
“Defeating the Government on the Second or Third reading of the annual Finance Bill, or in the course of the Supply and Estimates process”.
The problem with this is that defeats in the course of the supply and estimates process occurred in the 20th century without the Government treating them as confidence issues. The Joint Committee’s interpretation would thus not only enshrine the concept of implicit votes of confidence but expand what fell within it.
It is a relief that the Bill does not seek to follow the Scotland Act 2016 in seeking to put a convention in statute. The 2016 Act included what purported to be a convention, the Sewel convention, thus creating a contradiction in terms—a nonsense recognised by the Supreme Court. The confidence convention is a convention. It has some fuzzy contours, but its defining principle is clear. The House of Commons can remove the Government by withdrawing its confidence. If the Government fail to recognise a vote as entailing confidence, it is open to the leader of the Opposition to move an explicitly worded vote of no confidence.
Should the silence of the Bill be extended? Given that the intention is to put the situation back to what it was prior to September 2011, do we need to include provisions governing the prerogative and the exclusion of the courts from any decision to seek Dissolution? I can see the argument for the first, but not the second. As Professor Mark Elliott has noted, nothing in the 2011 Act demonstrates that it sought to abolish the prerogative of Dissolution. The prerogative may be deemed to be in abeyance and, with the provisions of the Act removed, it comes back into play. Clause 2 seeks to remove doubt as to its existence but, by the very act of doing so, creates the question of whether it is now not a prerogative power but a statutory one.
In practice, the result either way is that the power of Dissolution rests with the Crown and is a personal prerogative. The sovereign retains the power to refuse a request for Dissolution. The Joint Committee felt that the Government should consider how best to articulate the role of the monarch in the process of granting or refusing a request for Dissolution. That, I contend, is more appropriately undertaken by bodies other than the Government. The Lascelles principles came from the source most appropriate for articulating them.
The Joint Committee also heard evidence that the Lascelles principles or related constitutional conventions should be referenced in statute. In my view, that would fall foul of my earlier observations. They would cease to be conventions and would be subject to judicial interpretation unless, as with the Sewel convention in the Scotland Act, the courts deemed them non-justiciable. The relevant convention here is that Ministers act in such a way as to not bring the sovereign within the realms of partisan controversy.
As we have already heard, Clause 3 is the most contentious provision and conflicts with the Government’s goal of restoring the position before 2011. The ouster clause is designed to ensure that Clause 2 does not fall within the scope of judicial review. This is constitutionally objectionable, especially in Clause 3(c) in respect of limits and extent, for the reason just given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
I recall the late Lord Simon of Glaisdale arguing against a provision designed for the removal of doubt on the grounds that there was no doubt to be removed. There are shades of that in this provision. In what circumstances does my noble friend Lord True envisage that the court could conceivably intervene in the granting of a request for the electorate to exercise their power to choose a new House of Commons?
These are all matters for Committee. The Bill is a manifesto commitment and the principle has been approved by the other place. Our task is one of detailed and critical scrutiny.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I very much subscribe to the last observation of my noble friend Lord Norton. The detail of what should happen in the event of the previous Act being repealed is an extremely complicated matter. Clause 2 seeks to set out what should happen, but the question about whether a prerogative can be set up again once it has been destroyed is interesting and possibly important. If there are attempts to set this up as a statutory power from then on, it may have different effects from being merely a prerogative power. For one thing, it may contain more restrictions on its exercise than would be the case in a straightforward prerogative. There is a question to answer here about that, if one wants to go back to the situation which existed before the Act we are now seeking to repeal was passed. There is no doubt at all in my mind that, once that Act was passed, the prerogative power was certainly restricted, if not completely destroyed.
The option of going to a fixed Parliament apart from this situation is sealed, in a way, by the provision in Clause 4 that terminates a Parliament after five years. There is a fixed-term Parliament in that sense as it cannot be extended beyond five years. On the other hand, it can be reduced in length by the exercise of what was prerogative power. This is best discussed in detail in Committee because it seems to me essential that something fairly detailed is understood to be the purpose of Clause 2.
Of course, that brings me immediately to Clause 3. If anything requires discussion in Committee, this certainly merits it because it has profound effects. For one thing, it is a new phraseology which, so far, I think has not been the subject of a judicial decision. There is a certain amount of talk in a case suggesting that something of the kind may be necessary if you are going to get a real ouster clause. I think the great effect of the Anisminic judgment is that it really makes it impossible to set up a protection for a decision that is not in accordance with a statutory provision in statutory cases and, of course, something of the kind may be necessary in prerogative cases as well. That sort of principle is an extremely difficult one to get round. When I was Lord Chancellor, I was of the view that it was not possible to devise a completely sacrosanct ouster clause because it was always possible to get round it by the Anisminic principle. People have sought to devise more of them since then and they may or may not be successful, but that matter really requires to be discussed fairly fully in Committee.
Therefore, it seems to me that at present the precise result of what we—certainly the Official Opposition and the Government—are agreed on is that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act should be repealed, without any desire to keep it partly in place. What replaces it and how it should be replaced is really the question. The detail that requires to be considered is such that we should prefer to do that in Committee, rather than trying to do it at Second Reading when it is the principle of the Bill that is in issue. The principle of the Bill is mainly concerned with the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I thoroughly agree with that. I have never understood fully how it was supposed to work. Maybe it is unnecessary to consider that further, so long as one agrees that it should no longer have effect. Precisely how to replace it is a difficult matter and would be best left, in accordance with our procedures, to Committee.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, my theme will essentially follow the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I want to start with a quote:
“the government has moved to cement its grip on power. It’s taking action against the courts, shrinking their ability to hold the ruling party to account, curbing citizens’ right to protest and imposing new rules that would gag whistleblowers and … restrict freedom of the press. It’s also moving against election monitors while changing voting rules, which observers say will hurt … opposition groups”.
That is how Jonathan Freedland, in early October, thought the BBC World Service might describe—if it was not us—the antics of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary: but it was us. Now, with this Bill restoring the unfettered right of the Prime Minister to fix the election date, it is part of a pattern, open and in front of our eyes. The reform of judicial review to stop the courts overturning unlawful decisions; the new powers for Ministers to suppress almost any protest; the widening of the scope of the Official Secrets Act; the removal of the public interest defence for journalists and sources; taking powers over the elections referee; giving Ministers powers to order the Electoral Commission to impose penalties on campaigning groups; and the open attempts to control the media via Ofcom—all are out of the Trump playbook.
In his Shirley Williams Memorial Lecture, Lord Puttnam added to the list
“an Education Bill that seeks to reduce … academic freedoms in the area of Teacher Training”.
Interestingly, in the early 1970s he recorded his conversations with Albert Speer, who had been Hitler’s architect and Armaments Minister and served 20 years in Spandau. Lord Puttnam came to understand
“‘the fascist play book’—the way democracy can be corrupted and overturned by a few malevolent but persuasive politicians, those who are prepared to exploit divisions in society with simple populist messages.”
There are many criticisms of the failure of our Prime Minister, but Johnson is clearly not out of his depth when it comes to taking a harder line on making it difficult for his Government to lose power. Now comes the personal power to fix the election date, dressed up as prerogative powers, and ruling out powers of scrutiny by the courts, under Clause 3. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that this is a super ouster—beyond an ouster clause. It even covers Ministers acting in bad faith; they cannot be challenged when acting in bad faith. So, continual vigilance is required, and this House has a major role to play. Indeed, Speer told Lord Puttnam that there is a need to develop a form of
“‘moral vigilance’ required to recognise … evil for what it is.”
Are we willing to see the pattern created by the Johnson Government to frustrate the bodies designed to keep a check on government, ignoring and overturning long-operated conventions, all to tighten his grip on power? Because that is what is happening. This pattern is formed of tiny bits, each of which, on its own, can be made to look quite reasonable, dressed up in simple slogans. Of course, nobody will admit there is a plan. All we get is a smile, deliberately tousled hair and soft tones. But there is a plan and others have seen and discussed the framework. Well, I am not buying it.
I was always in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, even when we had Mrs Thatcher in government. It seemed sensible; other countries do it with checks and balances. I freely admit, and I share some of the views of my noble friend Lord Grocott on this, that it did not work in practice. That does not mean you scrub the system; it means you change what you think has gone wrong, in the light of experience. Other nations with a decently run constitution with checks and balances can cope with fixed dates for elections. The real problem is that we are losing our checks and balances, and the unwritten nature of our constitution is being abused in front of our eyes.
This Bill is an abuse of the electoral system, designed to help rig membership of the elected House. I cannot think of a nobler cause than for this House to say that it is a step too far and we are not having it: we will change the Bill and send it back. I hope that if they send it back to us, we will send it back again, because this is a step too far and part of a pattern. It is no good saying, “Oh well, it’s only this Bill; the other things don’t matter”. The other things are coming this way, and we have to see them as part of a pattern.
Before I sit down, I want briefly to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on his maiden speech. I have to say, he sounded too good to be true. I freely accept what he said, but as I say, it sounded too good to be true. I welcomed his speech, and I think the House did too. He was followed by the noble Lord, who congratulated him on his practical knowledge of what happens in Cambridgeshire and the Norfolk area.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with all his passion, and to hear from him that he will, like us, push this Bill back over and over again until it is gone.
I had always understood that once a prerogative power of the Crown is lost, it is lost for ever. This Bill asserts a highly controversial and novel proposition that, by Act of Parliament, it can be declared that a previous Act of Parliament never existed; that we return to the status quo ante. Rather than enact new legislation that could not avoid the scrutiny of the courts, government policy is to obliterate the Fixed-term Parliaments Act: it never was; it never existed; Carthago delenda est. I occasionally like to speak a language that the Prime Minister might understand.
We have heard today from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Mackay, about the considerable conflict among lawyers and academics over whether you can revive a prerogative power. That will lead to inevitable litigation unless, by Act of Parliament, you can exclude the courts from considering it at all. The Government exercise the prerogative powers of the Crown, but not in an absolute way. All prerogative power is subject to the law; that is part of the common law of this country. The constitutional settlement of this country is that the Executive are subject to the law, that the power to make and unmake the law is exercised through Parliament, not the Executive, and that it is the exclusive right of the judiciary to determine what is the law. That is what is called a liberal democracy. Since the civil war, this country has not been an absolutist country where the Executive pass whatever laws they wish.
In a liberal democracy, there are two overriding principles: the separation of powers and the rule of law. They have proved to be an effective protection of the safety, dignity and human rights of the people of this country. A view was expressed by a majority in the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which considered these proposals in 2021, that Parliament should be able to designate certain matters as ones which are to be resolved in the political sphere, rather than the judicial sphere, so that Parliament should be able to restrict, and, in rare cases, entirely to exclude, the jurisdiction of the courts. This challenges fundamentally those two principles—the separation of powers and the rule of law. Noble Lords will note the committee’s view that
“Parliament should be able to designate”
which side of the line it falls. Parliament should be able to set the boundaries of what is and is not within the political sphere.
If a Prime Minister abuses the power of Dissolution, as this Prime Minister abused the power of Prorogation, the Bill seeks to ensure that the courts would be unable to exercise any control over his or her action. Clause 3(c) prevents a court examining even the “limits or extent” of the powers of Dissolution. As the Explanatory Notes say in terms:
“This is to address the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Miller … as regards the court’s role in reviewing the scope of a prerogative power, as opposed to its exercise.”
In other words, it would prevent a court finding that the Prime Minister had exceeded his powers in requesting a Dissolution, or in any related advice that he had acted ultra vires. This tries to get rid of any control at all over the Prime Minister.
Why do the Government want to revive the status quo? In his evidence to the Joint Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, said:
“The long-standing position is that the exercise of the prerogative power to dissolve is not reviewable by the courts and that had been the understood position since the Bill of Rights. And obviously judgments on any Government’s action should then lie with the people rather than with anybody else”.
That is an impressive statement, but what is the “understood position” based on? I am not aware of any precedent, ever, where the point at which the Dissolution cannot be reviewed by the courts ever came up. There was no precedent for the actions of the Prime Minister when he prorogued Parliament, yet the courts did intervene and held his action to be unlawful. If the purpose of this Bill is to return to the status quo ante, that status did not anywhere justify the Minister’s assertions to the Joint Committee that it has been
“the understood position since the Bill of Rights”—
it has never been discussed.
The Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill:
“The use of ouster clauses to restrict or exclude judicial review of executive decisions touches the bedrock of the constitution, particularly the precise balance between the rule of law, the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament.”
There is a school of legal jurisprudence called legal positivism, which claims that law is a human construct with no connection to morality or even justice. If the legislature, however it is elected, has passed a law, it must be obeyed. That is so if it is unjust, unwise or immoral. That is the positivist approach. It may be a bad law by some standard, but if it was added to the system by a legitimate authority, it is still a law. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is in his place, because his lecture at Gray’s Inn—the Birkenhead Lecture—pointed out that it was the defence of German judges in the Nuremberg trials that they were only applying the laws passed by their leader as the embodiment of the executive; he had of course abolished the president, the legislature and judicial review.
The common law, under which we enjoy our freedoms, derives from the traditions of natural law, as exemplified in the Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, the UN convention and many other laws and human rights conventions. I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, refer to his ancestor, Sir Edward—whom we must always call “Coke” hereafter, as I understand it—because he was one of the founders of our view of the common law.
We said we would never look back. Statutory power is what we want, clearly defined, and the consent of Parliament to its Dissolution—and that can be put before the Queen, without ever involving her in political controversy.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, on his chairing of the Joint Committee and the magisterial report that it produced. It was a pleasure to give oral evidence to that committee, and also, with my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell, to the Constitution Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons.
The Bill now before us lays the FTPA to an unregretted rest. It also seeks to restore the status quo ante by what might be called a willing suspension of disbelief—whether that will be successful is another issue. But I suggest that, in its short life, the FTPA may have damaged constitutional expectations in a way that may not be easy to repair. This was explored in some detail in the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
The expectation of what might be a matter of confidence used to be fairly wide: a Government that lost the Queen’s Speech in the Commons, or lost on an amendment central to the Speech or a Second Reading of a Finance Bill, would either have to secure a demonstrative vote of confidence or ask Her Majesty for a Dissolution—and of course the official Opposition could of course take the initiative. But under the FTPA, the agreement by two-thirds that there should be an early general election immediately relegated the big confidence issues to the second division. A Government could suffer a severe defeat, but unless the FTPA was engaged, or they lost the formal Motion of confidence envisaged in the Act, they could shake the defeat off.
My concern is that the FTPA has reset expectations on what is a matter of confidence in a way that cannot now be fully restored. The Minister said in opening the debate that of course a Prime Minister can designate an issue as being a matter of confidence, and Mr Gove said something similar in the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons, but it is not quite the same thing.
I have no doubt that the applicability of the Lascelles principles will figure in Committee, and indeed we have heard something of those this afternoon. Those who are uneasy about replacing the Commons’ statutory power under the FTPA with a purported revival of prerogative power will no doubt argue for a Dissolution to be triggered only by a vote in the House of Commons —with, no doubt, a simple majority, rather than the baneful two-thirds majority. Without, at this stage, expressing a view, might I offer a word of caution? If your Lordships decide that the decision should rest with the House of Commons rather than with the monarch upon an unconstrained request from the Prime Minister, it will be essential to specify the words to which the Commons must agree.
When in my former life I saw an early draft of the Bill for the FTPA, I was horrified. It said that only defeat on a Motion of confidence should be the electoral trigger. But how was a Motion of confidence to be defined? If it carried conditions, would it still be a Motion of confidence? I could see no more certain way of inviting judicial interpretation of whether a statutory requirement had been fulfilled, Article 9 or no Article 9. For that to happen in the charged circumstances of a looming general election would be disastrous.
I am glad to say that that problem was cured during the passage of the Bill, but it follows that, should your Lordships see fit to put the finger of the House of Commons on the trigger, there must be an explicit form of words in the Bill, with nothing left to interpretation. If your Lordships do wish to empower the House of Commons in that way, I suggest that the provision must be capable of doing two things: first, a check on a Prime Minister who is inappropriately seeking a Dissolution; and, secondly, a means of getting Parliament out of a situation where the Government of the day are simply treading water.
There is widespread unease about Clause 3 of the Bill, in respect not only of its intent but whether, as a matter of law, it can achieve exactly what it says. I do not see how a resilient argument can be made that a prerogative power, removed by statute and then restored by statute, can be a prerogative power of exactly the same character as the abolished power. I will study my noble and learned friend’s views on that very closely indeed.
It seems from proceedings in the House of Commons that the parliamentary authorities have taken the view that the matter of Prorogation is outside the scope of the Bill. That view was expressed by the Deputy Speaker in the chair on 13 September last year, and it meant that Mr Chris Bryant had to move for an instruction to the Committee of the whole House in order to discuss a new clause on that subject—on which proposal he was unsuccessful.
Having spent a while as one of those authorities, I was a little surprised at that view. Scope, or relevance, as noble Lords will know, does not depend on the Long Title of a Bill; it depends on what is in the Bill and what is very closely associated with what is in the Bill. I make no criticism whatever of the learned minds who came to that view—it is always tiresome to have the old and bold trying to second-guess you—but it seems to me that there are two factors that bring Prorogation very close to this Bill. The first is that in the FTPA, which of course was an Act about Dissolution, it was nevertheless thought necessary to include in Section 6(1) a saving for Prorogation. If the Bill now before us is resetting the clock, for Prorogation to be out of scope may thus be thought curious. I should say to noble Lords that I have no cunning plan for Committee or Report on how Prorogation might be covered by the Bill, but it seems to me that this is something which needs exploring a little further.
The second factor is that in normal times—if any of us now has a clear recollection of what normal times were like—it was not unusual to prorogue Parliament and then dissolve during the period of Prorogation, so the two processes were intimately related. This may indeed be something to explore further, and I much look forward to Committee on the Bill.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it was a real pleasure for me to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, reversing the pattern of some 40 years in the other place when he had to sit and listen in silence to me. While I support this legislation, I confess I do so with mixed feelings. As Leader of the House in the other place in the 2010 Parliament, I had hoped to leave behind an important legacy of constitutional reform with three pieces of legislation. The first was reform of your Lordships’ House, which secured a large majority on Second Reading but bit the dust when the Labour Party refused to agree to a programme Motion. The second was reducing the number of MPs and equalising the constituency boundaries, which was scuppered by the Liberal Democrats when they broke the coalition agreement. The third and final piece of my legacy was the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, now being repealed by my own party. So when my grandchildren ask what I did in that Parliament, the answer will now be “Very little”.
In agreeing with repeal, I think it important to put the Act in a slightly different context from that which we have heard so far in this debate—at times a rather cynical context. I think there is common ground that, over recent years, the Executive have claimed for themselves more and more power at the expense of Parliament with the extensive use of Henry VIII clauses, the introduction of guillotines, programme Motions and deferred Divisions in the other place and the extensive use of patronage—a theme developed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his excellent speech, although I got off his train before it arrived at the destination.
In 2010, we tried to redress the balance and shift the terms of trade away from the Executive and back to Parliament. We introduced elections for the chairmen of Select Committees, breaking the grip of the Whips, we introduced a Back-Bench Business Committee, breaking the monopoly of the Government on the business of the House, and, as part of that package of restoring power to Parliament, we took away the right of the Prime Minister to dissolve and gave it to Members of Parliament. I prefer to put the Act in that context, assigning slightly better motives than the more cynical ones perhaps ascribed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act had other advantages. It enabled me, speaking purely selfishly as Leader of the House, to plan a package of Bills over a five-year Parliament, rather than, as previously happened, finding that in year three of four, half way through, the Prime Minister would dissolve and a whole series of Bills would be lost. In 1983, I had to introduce the same Bill twice because Parliament was dissolved half way through. The fixed-term Parliament was popular in financial circles—they do not like uncertainty—and, as has been said, it brought us into line with other democracies. However, as noble Lords have explained, it clearly has not worked. At the foot of the bed of the 2107 Parliament was a notice saying “Please Do Not Resuscitate” —but the Fixed-term Parliaments Act officiously kept it alive. So I accept that we should repeal the Act, but I put that plea of mitigation in context.
However, I paused when I reached the ouster clause in the Bill which, to use an economist’s phrase, hit me right on my indifference curve. On the one hand, I understand why the Government are concerned about judicial activism. The Minister mentioned the direction of travel of legislation and the Supreme Court decision in Miller, and I see why my noble friend and the Government want to insure themselves against such intrusion when it comes to this Bill. I see from the helpful report from the Joint Committee ably chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin that the Government’s view has support from, for example, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, Sir Stephen Laws.
But there are a number of arguments to the contrary, which we have heard, and I shall mention just two. First, as the report says, non-justiciability is determined by the courts themselves and is not imposed by statute. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and Sir Malcolm Jack pointed out in their evidence,
“the courts will themselves interpret clause 3 of the draft Bill.”
So to that extent it seems to be self-defeating.
Secondly, on judicial activism and the Miller case, Prorogation could not be more different from Dissolution. The Executive’s decision to prorogue a sitting Parliament against its will so that the Executive could not be held to account during a critical time in the nation’s history was outrageous—so outrageous that it obliged me for the first time in 23 years as a Minister to leave the Government, and I had swallowed quite a lot of indigestible stuff before. The Supreme Court rightly held the action to be illegal, and it was an affront to democracy—but that is totally different from a decision to dissolve Parliament so that Parliament can be refreshed by the electorate. Indeed, what could be more democratic than such a decision? I am not a lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, is and he said it would be inconceivable for the courts to intervene. Far from being an affront to democracy, as in Prorogation, it would be the very assertion of democracy.
So, while I am supportive of the Bill, the Minister will have some work to do to persuade me of the necessity of Clause 3.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I am late in the speaking order today, and I have therefore decided that I shall fillet the comments that I was going to make, because many of them have already been made—but I will identify those whose comments I particularly agree with.
First, I observe that it would appear that it is a good idea to distribute a magazine free of charge to all Members of the House, because I have rarely heard the New Statesman quoted so often by so many speakers.
Briefly before I come to the crux of my observations, I will return to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in relation to shortening or not shortening an election period. In paragraph 2.15 the Joint Committee said:
“We would like to see a significant reduction in the election timetable, insofar as this is compatible with ensuring the register is up to date and proxy and postal votes are possible”.
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, about any form of shortening of the timetable unless there are substantial changes to election law as it currently stands—and I do not see that happening, as he did not either.
I return to the other part of the main thread of the debate: Clause 3, the ouster clause. I should of course favour this legislation. Removal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act will allow a certain Lord Hayward to appear on radio and television any number of times, guessing what the election will result in in terms of a majority for whom and in whatever form—so it is great to abolish this legislation. What I do not understand in relation to Clause 3 is that, in the autumn of 2019 and in December 2019, had there been an election without the Supreme Court decision, the Government would not have secured a majority of the size they did, because they were able to achieve a deal and therefore were in a very different position. Therefore, why Clause 3 should be there saying “Well actually, we want to penalise the judiciary for having taken action which produced—in my mind—a larger Conservative majority” makes no sense whatever.
More importantly, as other Members of this House have said this afternoon, it seems to be bad law to set about saying, “We are going to say that these things cannot be considered by the judiciary.” As has been pointed out, it is downright difficult to achieve that phraseology anyway, but I am afraid that I agree with the vast majority of noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, my noble friend Lord Norton, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and, albeit using different phraseology, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it is unacceptable for us to try to go down that route. One of the pillars of the British democracy is the strength of our judiciary working along- side Parliament. Long may it continue to be so.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on his excellent maiden speech and what he has done at Holkham. I have spent many happy times there. Well, they were sort of happy. I was with my 13 year-old son trying to spot lapwings. I am not a bird-watcher and it was very cold, but it was very enjoyable—apart from us not seeing anything at that point.
If anyone wants to know why constitutional reform matters, one has only to listen to this debate and consider the rather miserable history of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I am sorry to tread on the toes of my noble friend Lord Young but I share a belief in what he may see as a slightly cynical rationale behind this, which others have spoken of. For proof of that, one need only consider how and where this Act was born. It was conceived in the heat of the rose garden romance, and it was born in the political back room of the deal that was done around the coalition. Sir Oliver Letwin, the midwife of that coalition, has testified that the Act
“was to enable the coalition to be formed. One of the principal demands of the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition, when we came to discuss the whole proposition, was that there should be no ability for the larger of the two parties—the Conservative Party—within a coalition Government to spot the moment when it would be convenient to ditch the coalition by seeking a dissolution.”
With due respect to my noble friend, I see that deal as a dark day for our Conservative Party, which I thought would not treat the constitution as a bargaining chip in political horse-trading.
Of course, some tried to give the Act more credibility, as others have today, by dressing it up in the clothes of constitutional theory. The best example of this was Mr Nick Clegg, former representative of the hard-working people of Sheffield Hallam, now representing the billionaires of Silicon Valley. It is worth reminding ourselves of what he said when he presented the then Fixed-term Parliaments Bill at Second Reading:
“There will be no more feverish speculation over the date of the next election, distracting politicians from getting on with running the country. Instead everyone will know how long a Parliament can be expected to last, bringing much greater stability to our political system. Crucially, if, for some reason, there is a need for Parliament to dissolve early, that will be up to the House of Commons to decide. Everyone knows the damage that is done when a Prime Minister dithers and hesitates over the election date, keeping the country guessing. We were subjected to that pantomime in 2007. All that happens is that the political parties end up in perpetual campaign mode, making it very difficult for Parliament to function effectively. The only way to stop that ever happening again is by the reforms contained in the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/10; col. 621.]
I only hope that Mr Clegg gives Mr Mark Zuckerberg better predictions, for we all know what happened two years later: feverish speculation over the date of the election, distracted politicians unable to get on with running the country, and no one sure how long the Parliament would last. What was the reason for that parliamentary gridlock? As others have said, before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act reared its head we had a simple system, which my noble friend Lord Norton set out. In essence, when a Prime Minister lost the confidence of the other place, there would be a general election and, if the Prime Minister chose to call a general election, we would have one. Those two simple thoughts fuse into one big point, which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made: trust the people. If the people’s representatives lose confidence in the Government, or if the Prime Minister wishes to renew the Government’s mandate, it is the people who are put back in control. No faction in Parliament or judge in a court could prevent that from happening.
That was the system which we had before. Therefore, it is entirely right that we should go back to it. I agree that trying to turn the clock back—or, perhaps more aptly in this case, trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube—obviously raises all manner of legal questions which I know set racing the pulses of noble Lords, and especially noble and learned Lords. On a matter as important as this, of course it is right that we kick the tyres of what is proposed. At first, I was quite queasy, as others are, when I read of the ouster clause. However, the more I read—not as a lawyer—the more I sensed that this is an exceptional issue on which an ouster makes sense.
I hear the points about Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but in this case, we should leave it beyond all doubt that the courts cannot thwart an election. To achieve that aim, I have yet to hear any credible alternatives to the ouster clause as written in the Bill, so I would keep it as it is. Sir Stephen Laws told the Joint Committee:
“It would be nice to have neatly focused ouster clauses that you could justify in relation to what they actually apply to. But that is not a thing that is possible anymore, because if you try and draw some distinction as to where the ouster clause will or will not apply, you will end up with the courts using that distinction in order to circumvent the ouster you are intending to create.”
The Dissolution Principles document strikes me as also obviously necessary, and I was pleased that the Government have accepted that the Prime Minister requests a Dissolution. The document’s simplicity is critical. Trying to enshrine the Lascelles principles, or codify what is to happen in a multitude of scenarios, would create complexity and uncertainty, and could do what we all wish to avoid: drag the monarch into politics.
Let me end where I began. A previous Government ran headlong into constitutional reform, riding roughshod over processes and conventions that may have had flaws but maintained that clear link between Parliament and people. The sooner we get back to the previous system and restore that link, the better.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend and like him, of necessity, I come to bury the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, not revive it. It has been a privilege to listen to so many excellent speeches this afternoon, not least the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Leicester. As a fellow East Anglian, I too have much enjoyed visiting the Holkham estate in years past. We look forward to his contributions here as well.
As we get towards the latter stages of this debate, I have reached three hesitant conclusions for Second Reading, which should take us towards thinking about the Bill further in Committee. If the Government believed that the prerogative was in abeyance, they should simply have repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Lo and behold, the personal prerogative of the sovereign would be revived in the way that it existed previously. Clearly, they did not believe that, which is why we have the legislation in the form that it is rather than a simple repeal. Therefore, we must conclude that we are seeking to set statutory provisions around a defined personal prerogative of the sovereign. We all want the personal prerogative of the sovereign to be responsible for the Dissolution of Parliament and to be untrammelled and not interfered with, but equally we want it to be so precisely delineated that the sovereign is not drawn into political controversy as a consequence.
My reason for participating in this debate is that we looked at the question of the prerogative at length during debates on the Trade Act. The position I come to it from is this: every time Parliament comes into contact with the prerogative in statute, we should not necessarily abolish it because, as with the Trade Act, we may think it quite right for there to be an executive responsibility, but we then have to make it accountable. So my second conclusion is that, here we are, putting a statute in place to govern the exercise of a prerogative—particularly the exercise of it by the Prime Minister, of course, rather than the monarch—and we should hold the Prime Minister accountable to Parliament, because that is where the authority comes from. We have to defend the sovereignty of Parliament.
Therefore, what does that accountability look like? It ought to be a simple majority of the House of Commons. We can dispense with some of the more unhelpful arguments about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the supermajority. We will not go back to gridlock as a consequence of that because there is no supermajority. A simple majority gets us to precisely the position that we want—namely, where a Prime Minister who has a majority in the House of Commons will get his or her way, and that should be the case. However, we also have to say that if a Prime Minister has not got a simple majority in the House of Commons, they should not necessarily get their own way. Therefore, my third conclusion is that we should put such a simple majority into the Bill.
I encourage noble Lords not to think about the last coalition, which I think history will treat more kindly than it has so far, but to think forward to the next one. Let us imagine a day when there is a coalition where the Prime Minister comes from a party that has significantly less than a majority in the House of Commons but has created a coalition. Should that Prime Minister be able to go to the palace and ask for a Dissolution without any scrutiny whatever? Would this not be an abuse? Is it not essential that any such coalition in the future—we have to anticipate that there may be such a thing—would have to re-enter exactly this territory? Would we not future-proof the Bill if we put a simple majority in the House of Commons into it? Would we not create the constitutional environment in which a coalition could be formed if needed? Coalitions ought to be about exactly that kind of situation; otherwise, I do not think that we have properly done our job in anticipating the circumstances that this legislation may pertain to and preparing it for that possibility.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in my time in your Lordships’ House, two periods stand out as painful memories, and both are addressed by the Bill. The first is of the period of coalition government between 2010 and 2015. While these Benches rejoiced at the end of the period of Labour rule, many of us found it hard to support the coalition wholeheartedly. In particular, the coalition agenda had a disproportionate focus on constitutional reform, which inevitably sapped energy away from more important things. I was very sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who is leaving his place at the moment, claiming some credit for that. Of course, there was Nick Clegg’s futile attempt to reform the House of Lords, which fortunately ran into the sand and never got past a Second Reading in the other place. The time of both Parliament and the country as a whole was wasted on a referendum on the alternative vote system. The wheels came off that when the British public had their say.
At the time, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act did not seem to be the worst of the constitutional measures that sailed under the convenience flag of the coalition, but its weaknesses emerged over time. As we have heard, it has produced only one five-year fixed-term Parliament, and that was in order to hard-wire the coalition in. Whether or not that was, on balance, a good thing for the country is a moot point at best. After 2015, we had two elections in less than five years—so the Act failed in its initial purpose.
The 2017 election was an act of self-harm by my own party—I freely admit that—but the second, in 2019, is the source of my second painful memory. Its final result, when it was finally called, was a triumph for democracy and the good sense of the British people, whose message was clear, and that included getting Brexit done. But the journey to that election was truly painful and laid bare the flaws of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
The requirement for a supermajority and the narrow path laid out for a no confidence Motion in the other place before an election could be called led to chaos in Parliament in 2019. The Government could not get their business through, could not call a general election and were harried at every turn by both Houses of Parliament, set on defying the outcome of the 2016 referendum. I still bear the scars of what happened in your Lordships’ House, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister does, and I certainly hope never to experience its like again in my remaining time here. For these reasons, the Bill has my wholehearted support. We must never again risk the mayhem of late 2019. That is why I fully support Clause 1, which removes the Fixed-term Parliaments Act from the statute book—it can be written out of our history.
The logical next step is to reinstate the status quo ante. As we have heard, Clause 2 does this through the revival of the royal prerogative. I believe that anything that diverts from that straightforward aim, including fettering the royal prerogative with parliamentary processes, runs the risk of unintended consequences. It is conceivable that a Government might not have a majority, could not get a vote through the other place and could be held to ransom, as they were in 2019, by a Parliament set on thwarting their will. That year showed us that the unthinkable can indeed happen. The previous system worked well for Governments of all parties, and I am confident that it will work well again. We should simply revive the royal prerogative and not invent something else around it.
I also support Clause 3 of the Bill, which expressly provides for non-justiciability. I do not believe that it should be seen as an ouster clause, because it is generally accepted that the likelihood of the courts challenging the monarch’s personal prerogative is very small. There should be nothing to oust. But a small likelihood is not a zero possibility, and recent judgments should make us wary of where the courts might want to go in future—we clearly cannot rule out future judicial activism. I believe that we should put that question beyond any doubt by enacting Clause 3.
The other place has already expressed its clear view on this short and simple Bill. When it debated it, it did so in the light of all the relevant issues that were surfaced by the excellent Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, its report and the Government’s response. It also did so in the light of the points raised by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, and I do not believe that any new issues have been raised by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee in its recent report, although I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, in due course.
Your Lordships’ House is always entitled to ask the other place to think again, but I suggest very gently to noble Lords that doing so when the result is not likely to change is not a good use of your Lordships’ time. I hope that this House will not impede the Bill’s journey to Royal Assent.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I always enjoy following my noble friend Lady Noakes. I frequently disagree with her, and I am afraid I will disagree on certain issues this afternoon, but she is a meticulous parliamentarian and we are very fortunate to have her with us.
I speak with a certain sense of nostalgia. I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. I damned it with faint praise, but of course, as a new Conservative Back-Bencher, always anxious to be compliant, I gave it my support.
No Parliament can ever bind its successor. What we are doing is not in any sense without precedent and it is entirely acceptable that we should seek to take this unhelpful legislation off the statute book. I would have preferred a straightforward repeal. That I could have supported without any real reservations. After all, in the 2010 general election, all parties but the Conservative Party pledged themselves to fixed-term Parliaments and even the Conservative Party was not outright hostile to them. In 2019, both the major parties —Conservative and Labour—pledged themselves to repeal. That would have been good.
Of course, in the old system which we are seeking to return to, there was no magic wand for any Prime Minister. I intervened on the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to remind him that 2017 was not exactly a resounding success for our party. I have vivid memories of 28 February 1974, which was the first election at which I had to defend the seat I had won in 1970. If noble Lords remember, there was great controversy as to whether that election should take place. I remember attending and speaking at two heated meetings of the 1922 Committee in another place. In the first meeting, everybody seemed to want a general election on 14 February, apart from Sir Stephen McAdden and me. At the next meeting, we had withdrawn our opposition, knowing we had lost, and the election was called for the 28th. The Prime Minister of the day was roundly criticised for his slogan, “Who governs the country?”. “You do”, he was told, “That is what you were elected to do on 18 June 1970.” We all know what happened: an inconclusive election but a real defeat for Edward Heath, who never came back as Prime Minister.
While in this context I can accept this Bill and give it my support as far as the abolition of fixed-term Parliaments is concerned, unlike my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley, whose speech I listened to with fascination and much approval, I cannot support Clause 3. William Wragg, the chairman in another place of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, had it right that this is unnecessary. To me, it smacks of the naughty schoolboy who has been rapped on the knuckles by his teacher then pulling the teacher’s chair away so that he falls to the ground. It is an act of spitefulness at worst, humorous revenge at best, but constitutionally, it is unacceptable and wrong. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Lisvane—I deliberately call him that—in his excellent speech make some very powerful points in this context.
If this clause remains in the Bill unamended, like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I will not support it, because it has dangerous precedence. The reason why I think that is in effect summed up by three reports published by your Lordships’ committees in the last 10 days. I here associate myself very much with some of the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. There is the report from the Constitution Committee, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will speak later, on the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill. However, the title of the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says it all: Government by Diktat: A Call to Return Power to Parliament, as does the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee: Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive. We are at a dangerous crossroads. There is a real danger of Parliament becoming the creature of government. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talked in his very interesting speech about the separation of powers. We do not have separation of powers such as they have in the United States; here the Executive are drawn from the legislature. Therefore, there is in every parliamentarian’s thinking, “Do I go against my Government? Do I break ranks with the Official Opposition?” The most troubling development of my 51 years in Parliament has been that what was a vocation to public service has become a job. Far too many entering Parliament do so feeling that they will fail if they do not get on to the Government Front Bench. There is that dichotomy and tension. In that tension, it is easy for a Government to try to use Parliament rather than be accountable to it. There is an enormous difference between those two states.
We should never forget, in the immortal words of Edmund Burke, that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We in Parliament have a duty to be eternally vigilant, to hold the Government to account. We in this House, quite rightly, have very limited powers; we can seek only to ask people to think again. However, while I accept the basic premise of this Bill without opposition, Clause 3 is fraught with danger. When we come to Committee, we must ask the other place to reflect on it and what it implies, and to think again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I have noted the mood of the House that we have genuinely come together today to bury the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, not to praise it. Many noble Lords tell your Lordships’ House that they support this Bill and the burial of the Act in the interests of democracy. I am sure that they are honourable men and women, who support the status quo in our society and say they want to restore things to just the way they were.
That is not my position. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I know that the good is being buried with the bad with the abolition of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. As the noble Lord said, the majority of the world’s democracies have fixed-term Parliaments—countries with modern, functional, democratic constitutions. None of those adjectives can be applied to the UK constitution, with or without the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. A Prime Minister who can call an election, with or without the support of a parliamentary majority that put him or her in place, has the advantage. As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, shortening the election period would only magnify that advantage.
Of course that advantage can be lost, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. But it is usually significant and often decisive and gives great benefits, particularly in fundraising, which is so important to the outcome of our elections—the country gets the politics that the few people pay for—and in planning, given the costs to opposition parties, which must plan just in case without the clarity of a known timetable. My political memory goes back to Gordon Brown’s election that wasn’t, and a living room filled to the ceiling with paper that was bought in case of the need for freepost leaflets that were never used for that purpose. That is the practical politics of a growing challenger party.
None the less, I am not going to go further down the route of arguing against the sense of set election times; that is not an argument I am going to win today. I will turn instead, as many noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships’ House have, to focus on Clause 3. Many expert legal minds have chewed over the detail and will continue to do so. I want to focus more on the principle. Why are the Government so concerned about their behaviour being judged against the standard of law? Surely that is what the rule of law is all about. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said that Clause 3 would ensure that the courts were relieved of the embarrassment of being drawn into a sensitive area. Surely protecting the people, the constitution and the country from unlawful decisions is the role of the courts; we do not need them for the easy stuff. That they have become, as some see it, more active is, I suggest, because of the law-breaking at the centre of government becoming more extreme, the Executive chafing against the limits of control from the rights won by the people over centuries of campaigning—human rights that the Government are keen to destroy. This is not judicial activism but judicial defence of the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, noted that it was the poisonous distrust among the coalition partners that created the Act that we are working today to abolish. I do not need to quote the opinion polls. It is a well-known fact that poisonous distrust is also the people’s attitude towards our politics and politicians—a distrust that led to the desperate desire to “take back control” in 2016, a desire very clearly continually being frustrated by the lack of a democratic constitution and the concentration of power and money in Westminster. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I do not regard “novelty” as a negative term. I desperately want the novelty of democracy in the UK.
Why are our politics so poisonous? I draw your Lordships’ attention to the recent coalition negotiations in Germany, where three parties from very different ideological starting points negotiated the formation of a Government and a platform for it. Yes, it took a little while. Talks proceeded and talks were concluded. I note the important comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about how British politics might look different—a little more like Germany’s in future—without even a change of electoral system. Around the country, there are 13 local councils where Greens are part of what are known as rainbow coalitions, the very kinds of structures that he was imagining. That is functional, grown-up, democratic politics—not something we have much experience of here in Westminster. Here we have a see-saw from one side to the other, and parties seeking power without principles or policies attached to them.
It is tempting to blame individuals—I promise you that I do—but this culture has persisted over many years. My thesis is that the problem is the system. The checks and balances in the UK are deliberately weak, because we have a feudal monarchy with occasional bits of democracy bolted on, scraps that were thrown to the people when the pressure became too great over centuries. The whole Bill is an attempt to knock off a bit of that bolted-on democracy and to test how far the Government can get away with taking back power from Parliament, the courts and the rule of law. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rather gave the game away when she spoke about the events of the past—about Parliament defying the will of the Government.
The Minister acknowledged that it was only after pre-legislative scrutiny that it was ensured that the law provided that Dissolution was an automatic trigger for a defined polling date. But what happens if there is an emergency, real or created, such as a pandemic or a war? What if it is said that an election cannot be held in these emergency conditions—which are all too likely to be real, or easily created, in this age of shocks? Maybe this would be an act of obvious bad faith. But then redress against actions in bad faith is explicitly excluded by Clause 3. I can sense the scoffing, although my comments very much take the direction of those of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. But would it be so surprising from a Prime Minister who advised the monarch to unlawfully suspend Parliament; from a Prime Minister who planned to break international law, and was stopped from doing that only by this unelected Chamber; and from a Prime Minister looking in the policing Bill to end the right to protest, in the Elections Bill to take over the Electoral Commission and suppress the votes of his opponents, and in a promised judicial review Bill to further reduce the rule of law?
The Turkish thinker Ece Temelkuran, speaking about the West, said that,
“some … choose to believe that their mature democracy and strong state institutions will protect them”
from dictatorship. She warns of “dark dawns”, such as Turkey has experienced, being experienced possibly anywhere. We do not have a mature democracy, we do not have strong state institutions and we are not protected, and, if Clause 3 remains in the Bill, we will be even more vulnerable.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, the government Bill before us today restores the democratic nature of how our parliamentary system works and how elections can be called. We are the custodians of democracy, and elections are pivotal to this. The Bill makes provision for the Dissolution prerogative to be revived and, in doing so, ensures legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for dissolving Parliament in future. It is a return to the tried and tested traditions that worked so well in the past, before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
The process of dissolving Parliament and calling a new Parliament was changed in 2011 to help make the coalition Government more resilient. It was brought in under specific circumstances, providing us with relative political stability at a time when the country was facing economic uncertainty. However, over the past decade, the political and economic landscape has changed significantly and has rendered the Act unfit for purpose and redundant. We must not risk the future return of a zombie Parliament such as we saw between 2017 and 2019, which caused exasperation in the general public. If there is gridlock in the other place, it is only right that the question is taken back to the people, ensuring that the country is not once again held in a state of paralysis by a few hundred individuals.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act served its purpose. However, politics and time have moved on. As there was no sunset clause included in that Act, it is only right that we take steps to repeal it. It is for this reason that I welcome the return to a robust system.
I understand that some are concerned about the powers that the Bill returns to the Prime Minister, theoretically allowing the Prime Minister of the day to call elections when it is most politically convenient to them. On this I have two points. First, the Bill limits Parliament to five-year terms, so places a time restraint on the Government. Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the outcome of the 2017 general election, which some on this side of the House will remember with a shudder, while I suspect others may have fonder memories. Elections are risky endeavours and should not be taken lightly, and the Bill does not change that. The Bill strengthens our democracy, making both Parliament and the Government more—not less—accountable to the British public.
There is another consideration that I wish to raise. The Bill was part of the Government’s manifesto. The 2019 general election gave the Prime Minister the mandate to deliver on his promise to the British people that their express instruction would never again be perversely frustrated by factionalism within Parliament. The mandate given to the Government to deliver on their pledge of repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is unassailable. Given the swift passage of the Bill through the other place by those who will be directly affected by it once it is given Royal Assent, I hope that others here will share my view that it is not for us to frustrate it.
We enjoy a privileged position that we should endeavour to use in the pursuit of strengthening and safeguarding our democracy. The Government’s Bill gives us an opportunity to do so and I will therefore be supporting it.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill. I was never a fan of the Fixed- term Parliaments Act and, indeed, never a fan of fixed terms, whatever the manifesto said at any particular time.
We should start by reminding ourselves of how we got that legislation in the first place. It was a simple, blatant political fix between the Conservatives and the Liberals, between Cameron and Clegg—I do not know how many other people were consulted. As a former Chief Whip I have no problems with a political fix, but please do not dress it up as some constitutional principle because it was never that in the first place.
The Constitution Committee, which I currently chair, was very temperate in its language at the time. It said, as the Minister reminded us, that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
“owed more to short-term political considerations than an assessment of constitutional principles.”
I think that is the polite way of saying “a political fix”. Clearly, the committee was quite right in assessing the longevity of that legislation. As we have seen, it was proven that it was possible for a Government—for a Prime Minister—to get around the provision, so the Minister was quite correct when he said it was a political experiment that failed.
So, here we have the withdrawal of that legislation and, as I say, I welcome that. However, the repeal is the easy part—we can all agree that that is simple; we are now entering new territory. In the Constitution Committee’s report we say that it
“touches the bedrock of the constitution, particularly the precise balance between the rule of law, the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament.”
Before I go into the conflict and the details, particularly Clause 3, I say at the outset that we should all welcome the clarity of a five-year term for any Parliament; I think most of us will be happier with that. In respect of other parts of the Bill, it is not a case of being happy with them so much as hoping that they are workable.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether it is possible to return to the pre-Fixed-term Parliaments Act provision. Can a prerogative that has been abolished be reinstated? In some respects the Government have adopted a belt-and-braces attitude: they have a statutory provision and the ouster clause. That aspect of Clause 3 is clearly causing not just academic concern but concern on all sides of this House, and it will have to be addressed in Committee.
I think we all agree that we need to keep the Monarch out of all the potential political considerations. I remind the House what the Constitution Committee said about Clause 3, because it is extremely relevant to the discussions we will have later:
“The use of ouster clauses to restrict or exclude judicial review of executive decisions touches the bedrock of the constitution, particularly the precise balance between the rule of law, the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament. On the one hand ouster clauses should provide legal clarity about the ability of the executive to make decisions which may be considered more appropriate to political rather than judicial deliberations. On the other hand, judicial review”—
this is important—
“should provide a backstop against exceptional use of an executive power which significantly erodes a fundamental principle of the UK constitution.”
We go on to say:
“There is a risk that a Prime Minister might abuse the power of dissolution if the courts are unable to exercise control over the limits and extent of this power, particularly in exceptional circumstances.”
To build on what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was saying, the experience of the last few years tells us that exceptional circumstances and events are not as exceptional as we might have expected. We need to consider how to make sure that the balance that is required is maintained and workable. There are dangers there. They have been highlighted in the debate today, and they will be looked at in great detail in Committee.
There are just three other points that I want to make. The most important concerns the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Grocott. I was very surprised that the House of Commons gave up any say whatever in the calling of an election. As I say, I did not like the Fixed-term Parliaments Act but it did give MPs that power and that say—although not to the extent that many people suggested—so I was surprised that the House of Commons did not reinstate at least some kind of confirmatory vote in the House, should the Prime Minister decide to call an election. I am not sure how much difference it would have made, but in the exceptional circumstances that we can all perhaps envisage, it could have been possible.
Secondly, I welcome what the Minister said about taking on board the concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments about possible clashes of election dates. That needs restating and underpinning in some way because it could create some significant problems.
Thirdly, in early September the Constitution Committee published a report on the need to review and update the Cabinet Manual. The Minister indicated when he will respond to our report on the Bill, but he has not yet responded to that report. The Government’s response is significantly overdue, and I hope we can get some indication of when that review will take place. But it is also important that we get an acknowledgment that Parliament and parliamentary committees should have some say on the content of the Cabinet Manual. It is important that the Dissolution principles we have been discussing on the fringes of this debate are part of that, that they can be discussed by Parliament and that Parliament can have some influence there.
Finally, I remind the House that the Constitution Committee has long emphasised that constitutional change should be able to stand the test of time. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act did not do that. I hope this House can make sure that this Bill is in a fit state to pass that test.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, as the final Back-Bench speaker, I cannot help wondering whether I have been so placed because I supported the Fixed-term Parliaments Act when the Bill came through your Lordships’ House. While it may have been a political convenience for the coalition Government, as some have argued in this debate today, I believed in it, and I spoke up for it at every stage, as a Back-Bencher and a new Member of your Lordships’ House. I did that not because I particularly favoured fixed-term Parliaments—I do not. I supported the Bill because I saw that it was one of the few structural changes that we could make to our political system to show the public that we were serious about putting their interests before our own. This was, in my view, essential following the financial crash of 2008, the expenses scandals of 2009 and the crises in public confidence across all aspects of politics and institutions that are meant to serve the public interest. Indeed, I was not alone: fixed- term Parliaments featured in the Labour and Lib Dem 2010 general election manifestos, broadly for the same reasons—although it seemed to me that, once the Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House, the Labour Party seemed less convinced about them by then.
To me, alongside behavioural changes, we politicians needed to identify some meaningful structural changes that would favour the public interest, even though, from the perspective of parliamentarians, they were not broken—and I say that again. I made it clear during the passage of the fixed-term Parliaments legislation that the system for calling elections that we had before was not broken; the reason to change it was to give up some power for the benefit of the electorate.
All that said, I am not going to argue against the Government’s decision to repeal the Act. It has not worked, and I think that it needs to go. However, if we are not to perpetuate the problem which fixed-term Parliaments were meant to help solve—at least according to my view and that in the Labour and Lib Dem 2010 manifestos—we must make sure we understand why it did not work and learn the correct lessons.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McLoughlin and the Joint Committee, which considered this matter in detail, as well as the other committees of your Lordships’ House, particularly the Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. But even with the benefit of those committees’ work and all the constitutional experts and lawyers in your Lordships’ House who have spoken today, our biggest risk is failing to see the bigger picture. We must not lose sight of that as we scrutinise this Bill in detail.
As the final Back-Bench speaker, allow me to paint with some broad brushes. The value to the voters of fixed-term Parliaments was some certainty that the Government and political parties would not be distracted by a general election, at least for a while, and certainty that the Government of the day and all political parties would have to face the electorate on a predetermined date, whatever the political conditions at that time—something that has already been said by other noble Lords today. Although fixed-term Parliaments meant certainty for the electorate in principle, in practice, as we have heard, the legislation meant the Prime Minister relinquishing power to Parliament—or, more specifically, to Members of the Commons—to decide when it would be in the public interest to undo that certainty to achieve greater clarity from the voters. Once enacted, MPs were given the power to override what the electorate had determined at the general election by way of a vote of no confidence or a two- thirds majority in favour of an early election.
The basic safeguard was our assumption, I guess, that in order not to scupper voters’ impending support via the ballot box, MPs would not seek to force a general election unless it made sense to the electorate that they did so—in other words, if there was a problem which was preventing effective governance of the country which could not be resolved without clarity from the electorate. That principle seemed to work okay in 2017, when Theresa May, as Prime Minister, could see that getting the necessary legislation through Parliament to enable Brexit would be near-on impossible. The opposition parties might not have agreed with her intentions about Brexit but, in line with all expectations and like all opposition parties throughout the ages, they did not give up the opportunity of an election when it was offered to them by the Prime Minister.
As we all know, things did not work out quite as Theresa May planned. I believe that that was not because, as some have argued already, she was opportunistic but because during the campaign the voters were left uncertain and unsure about the various party leaders and what they offered, and delivered a result that was even less clear than before. That lack of clarity from the voters was a message to the political class to sort ourselves out, but instead, we all turned inwards: Parliament and the Executive engaged in battle, and parliamentary gridlock ensued. Whatever anyone thought of Mrs May’s Government or her attempts to secure Parliament’s agreement to her Brexit deal, I think she was vindicated in her belief that, without a clear majority, Parliament would not deliver the will of the people.
By the time Boris Johnson succeeded her in 2019, normal parliamentary rules and political conventions had collapsed. It was clear that a general election was needed, but Parliament refused. Whatever noble Lords think about Boris Johnson’s tactics when he succeeded Mrs May, his efforts to force a general election were rewarded with clarity from the electorate.
Unlike most other noble Lords who have spoken, the reason why I think the Fixed-term Parliaments Act needs to be repealed is not that there is anything wrong with the legislation in principle, although I am sure that some points of detail could have been improved, but, sadly, that Parliament sought to use the legislation to its own advantage when it was out of step with the majority of the electorate—not just those who had voted to leave the European Union but the many other voters who just wanted Brexit to be dealt with, so they could move on. That is a dreadful indictment on us all, and it is the lesson that I think we need to show that we have learned.
As much as I regret the demise of a structural change to our system which I believed was in part a response to voters’ lack of confidence in Parliament, I think the only way forward now is to go back to what we had before and concentrate on behavioural changes which show how we are motivated by serving the public interest. That is why I hope very much that noble Lords, however well intentioned, do not bring forward amendments during the passage of this Bill to give the House of Commons the power to decide whether a Prime Minister can dissolve Parliament and call a general election. In my mind, that would not improve matters of public confidence in Parliament; it would make matters worse, because it would appear that this House is driven by its opinion of the current Prime Minister, not by what best serves the long-term interests of the public at large.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I take issue with the repetition of the phrase “tried and tested” by the Minister and others to defend prerogative power. The British people, the Minister declared, lived with the previous system for centuries. For several of those centuries, this country was at best semi-democratic. In the 17th century, as the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, reminded us, Chief Justice Coke stoutly defended the rule of law against the royal prerogative. Parliament’s resistance to the royal prerogative led to civil war and the execution of the king, followed 40 years later by the expulsion of his second successor and the invitation to his Dutch son-in-law to become king instead. Our 18th century political system was highly corrupt, with bribery and patronage underpinning government. I hope that that is not a tried and tested system to which anyone would like to return us.
Reform in the 19th century made for higher standards and greater democracy, almost always against the entrenched resistance of the Tory party. Throughout the past 400 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, remarked, the whole history of Parliament has been the transfer of powers from the monarch to Parliament. I challenge the Minister to list for the House the occasions on which Parliament has legislated to restore prerogative powers.
Two new reports from committees of this House have expressed deep concerns relevant to this debate. The Delegated Powers Committee last Thursday published a report called Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power Between Parliament and the Executive. It said that parliamentary democracy is
“founded on the principles of … parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the accountability of the executive to Parliament … The shift of power from Parliament to the executive must stop.”
The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in parallel, is entitled Government by Diktat: a Call to Return Power to Parliament. It declares:
“A critical moment has now been reached when that balance”—
between Parliament and the Executive—
“must be re-set: not restored to how things were immediately before these exceptional recent events”—
by which it means Brexit and Covid—
“but re-set afresh”.
Both of these committees remind us that limited government—or liberal democracy—depends on checks and balances among three constitutional actors: Parliament, elected and representing the people; the judiciary, safeguarding the rule of law; and government, wielding executive power.
In the exceptional circumstances of 2017 to 2019, both Theresa May and Boris Johnson claimed to represent the will of the people against Parliament: direct democracy, with the leader speaking for the masses against the elites. The noble Lord, Lord True, has faithfully repeated their claim, adding on several occasions that the December 2019 election showed decisively that the Government do speak for the people—if necessary, against Parliament—having won 43.5% of the popular vote.
Lord Hailsham many years ago warned that the UK’s constitutional arrangements allowed for an effective “electoral dictatorship” between elections, with executive power escaping parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight. What we have glimpsed in the past four years is the shadow of authoritarian populism breaking through the conventions of our unwritten constitution. Michael Gove argued in the Commons Second Reading debate on this Bill that Parliament in 2019 was
“frustrating the will of the people”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/2021; col. 789.]
which he believed a new Prime Minister—who had scarcely appeared before Parliament since taking office—nevertheless authentically represented. The will of the people is the cry of populist demagogues, not of constitutional democrats.
I re-read last week the 2019 report by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for the Constitution Society: Good Chaps No More? It denounces the willingness of our current Prime Minister to break the rules and misrepresent evidence in his first months in office. He says:
“A key characteristic of the British constitution is the degree to which the good governance of the United Kingdom has relied on the self-restraint of those who carry it out … If general standards of good behaviour among senior UK politicians can no longer be taken for granted, then neither can the sustenance of key constitutional principles.”
Sadly, good behaviour by senior politicians cannot be taken for granted, so I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that codification is therefore needed. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has just put it, we now need a reset, not a restoration of the previous status quo.
The noble Lord, Lord True, has defended the Government’s abandonment of their manifesto promise of a broader approach to reform through a constitutional commission. He told the House the other week that he also opposed piecemeal reform. So now he is supporting a piecemeal reactionary Bill—a Bill that restores prerogative power and weakens the judiciary. I look forward to hearing how he manages to defend that.
The Select Committee on the Constitution reminded us that
“prerogative powers are an exception to the sovereignty of Parliament.”
Successive reports from committees of both Houses over the last 20 years have noted that the direction of travel has been to reduce the extent of prerogative powers, and to extend parliamentary oversight. This Bill would reverse that direction.
We will therefore attempt to amend this Bill. We will support the replacement of Clause 3 by a requirement for an affirmative vote in the Commons before the Prime Minister requests a Dissolution. We will also seek to include a parallel requirement for this before Prorogation. Moving the Second Reading in the Commons, Michael Gove made it entirely clear that Clause 3 had been included because of the Supreme Court’s decision on Prorogation in 2019. Lord Sumption indicated in his evidence to the Joint Committee that the Prime Minister
“was effectively attempting to rule without Parliament”
for as long as possible. That surely brings the issue of Prorogation within the scope of this Bill.
We will wish to gain assurances from the Government —and here I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton—that a draft revised version of the Cabinet Manual will be published before this Bill becomes an Act, and will be presented to the appropriate committees of both Houses for review, as has been strongly recommended by her Select Committee. The Cabinet Manual provides a directory of our constitutional conventions—if you like, a shadow constitutional document.
We will also wish for assurances on a revised version of the Dissolution Principles, which should also appropriately cover the process of government formation. The draft principles and conventions on confidence, Dissolution and Government formation on pages 61 to 65 of the Joint Committee report are far better and fuller than the one-page sketch that the Government provided.
The Joint Committee draft also wisely deals with the issue of Government formation in the event that an election does not produce a single-party majority. Opinion polls over the past six to nine months have consistently shown between 25% and 30% of voters supporting parties other than the Conservatives or Labour. This suggests that the result of the next election might well be again a Parliament without a single-party majority. Any form of future proofing, as others have said, would therefore need to take this into account. I recognise that the Conservatives will attempt in the Elections Bill to bias our electoral system further to their advantage, but it is still possible, despite their huge advantages in funding and office, that they will not retain power.
We have just witnessed a well-managed change of government in Germany, during which the outgoing Government stayed in office for eight weeks after the election, while three parties carefully negotiated a detailed agreement as the basis for a stable coalition. We may need to develop a similar approach here and should anticipate the likelihood of its occurrence.
Since we are discussing some fundamental issues of democracy, I will add a further question for the Minister. In 10 days’ time, the President of our most important democratic ally, the United States, is convening a virtual summit of democracies to discuss the challenges and dangers that they now face, to which several noble Lords have referred. The UK sees itself as one of the world’s oldest democracies, yet the Government have so far said nothing about this summit: whether they plan to take part, which Minister will lead, and what we might contribute. Will the Minister provide this House, before 9 December, with a Statement on what part, if any, the Government plan to play in President Biden’s summit of democracies? We should never take democracy for granted: it needs to be defended.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, indeed we should never take democracy for granted—although I have noticed over the years, with advancing age, that whenever the party on those Benches is resoundingly defeated at any election, whether by the Labour Party or the party on these Benches, it cries “Populism!”, “Foul!”, “Unfair!”. We have just heard an extraordinary suggestion that an ideal constitution would involve months and months of negotiation, presumably involving the Liberal Democrats, probably on a statutory basis. I have to say that I do not think that that is a way forward that would commend itself to many in this House.
It has been an outstanding debate, and, of course, I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on his outstanding maiden speech. All of the House found it entrancing: it was deeply rooted in history, traditions and a sense of place, cherishing the best of our past and showing a love and knowledge of the environment. It was also so forward-looking in embracing new technologies and ideas for the future. My noble friend said he liked a challenge. Well, I think we will all relish the challenge that he set out, based on the charm and wisdom that he displayed. By the way, at the age of four I wanted to see a spoonbill and I still never have seen one. That is not a request for an invitation, but I congratulate him on bringing those birds back to these shores.
Also in preamble, I was asked by somebody, possibly the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to apologise for the 2011 Act. Actually, like my noble friend Lady Noakes with whose speech I much agreed, I was no enthusiast for the 2011 Act. Indeed, I remember coming out of a victorious local election campaign in Richmond in 2010—I will not say who the defeated party were—to be telephoned by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who said that he had been summoned to a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet to approve negotiations for coalition, which included some of the ideas that we have heard today. I was not entirely enamoured of that. In fact, if you look in the Division lists on the ping-pong on that Bill, you will not find my name. I was a very new Member of the House, but that was my first mini revolt; I rather fear that one or two others followed. I do not commend that behaviour to my noble friend Lord Leicester, but I will not apologise for the 2011 Act, because, I repeat, it was a political experiment. Some, like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, have said that it was a political expediency. That is correct; hopefully your Lordships will accept that it should be gone and gone swiftly.
We have had a very informed debate on an important constitutional Bill. As I had expected, we have had a large number of insightful speeches based on your Lordships’ varied expertise and experience. I will try to answer as many points as I can. I was sorry that one or two of the speeches suggested that there was an authoritarian approach behind this Bill—I think I even heard the word “fascist” at one point, which is not a helpful word to play at political opponents. That was certainly not the Government’s intention or an approach that I would ever commend from this Dispatch Box. On the other hand, I have been very grateful for the support of many of my noble friends; for example, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Lady Pidding and others.
I was slightly discouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, casting a fly over the House on the matter of Prorogation. In my humble submission—I used to look at Bills to see how I could amend them to cause trouble for the party opposite over many years—it does not look to me from the Long Title that Prorogation should come into this Bill. I emphasise that the Bill is not, and was never intended to be, about Prorogation. The Government made it clear at the time that they were disappointed with the judgment on Prorogation but, in the event, the Supreme Court noted that its decision rested on the case’s exceptional facts. What we have in this Bill is not in relation to that Prorogation issue, and the Government will not support attempts to bring that procedure into scope. We should concentrate on the matters before us.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Hayward about the 25-day election period. It has not been the main subject of debate, but I know that it is a matter of concern to many. I can say that the Government wish to retain the 25-day working period. This was acknowledged; we have made that clear. We believe that any reduction would have adverse effects on all those involved in elections: political parties, electoral administrators and, most importantly, the electors. As both noble Lords said, modern elections are complex operations, including postal and overseas voting. The Government’s position is that we should retain the current system. I hope that we will not detain ourselves too long on that question in this Bill as, obviously, we will have a larger Bill on elections coming forward.
Many referred to the constitutional conventions and principles that lie alongside the Bill. My noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Bridges of Headley were wise to advise against too much codification; in that, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about the Cabinet Manual, which I will take away. I can offer her no specific response in advance beyond what I have said to your Lordships before.
Conventions are important. If the Bill revives the prerogative powers to dissolve one Parliament and call another, as we believe, then prerogative powers will once more be governed by convention. As I said in my opening speech, it is critical that there is a common understanding of how they will operate. I have no doubt that we will have valuable discussions on those matters.
I was asked to address a question about whether the prerogative can be revived—a point raised, from different perspectives, by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked for an example. I do not particularly want to go back to the 17th century. The centuries that I was referring to were rather more recent, but I would think that 1660 was a fairly significant example of the royal prerogative being revived.
The Government are confident that the prerogative powers can be revived but, as was said by a number of noble Lords, to make express provision to do so is the intent and effect of Clause 2. The Government believe there is a sound legal basis for this position. The courts have said that a revival of prerogative powers is possible. For example, the Supreme Court said in the first Miller case:
“If prerogative powers are curtailed by legislation, they may sometimes be reinstated by the repeal of that legislation, depending on the construction of the statutes in question.”
That was put more strongly in the case of Burmah Oil when Lord Pearce in 1965 observed that, if a statute that restricts the prerogative is repealed, then
“the prerogative power would apparently re-emerge as it existed before the statute”.
This would be subject to words in the repealing statute, as was referred to in the GCHQ case.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, reminded us, the Joint Committee reserved its position on this question but concluded that the Bill is sufficiently clear to give effect to the Government’s intention of returning to the prior constitutional position. As the former First Parliamentary Counsel Sir Stephen Laws said in evidence to the Joint Committee, this academic debate is a “red herring”. He said that it
“is perfectly plain that the intention of the Act is to restore the situation to what it was before the 2011 Act, and therefore the law will then be indistinguishable from what it was before”.
Of course, many noble Lords on all sides, as I readily anticipated, raised important points about Clause 3. I will address them briefly, although my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was quite right to say that these matters will need to be probed and discussed in depth in Committee. I think there is general consensus in the House on that, to which I accede, and I look forward to those discussions.
We believe that the clause is necessary and proportionate, for the avoidance of doubt, and will preserve what I still contend, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is the long-standing position that the prerogative powers to dissolve one Parliament and call another are non-justiciable. Prerogative powers to dissolve are inherently political in nature and, as such, we maintain, are not suitable for review by the courts. Certainly, that was the view as expressed by Lord Roskill in the GCHQ case in 1985, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, reminded us. The courts are not the place to determine whether Parliament should be dissolved on one date or other.
This clause seeks to underline that position. The Independent Review of Administrative Law in March noted that Clause 3 can be regarded as a “codifying clause”, which
“simply restates the position that everyone understood obtained before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed”.
Several noble Lords questioned why the clause is necessary at all, if the recognised position is that prerogative powers are non-justiciable. I hope that what happened to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham does not happen to me in my ministerial career: finding that everything I do is reversed, although that has happened to me in other contexts. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that, in our judgment, the clause is necessary to take account of the direction of travel in case law, and has been drafted carefully in recognition of, and to address, that fact.
Over the years since the GCHQ case, some other prerogative powers previously considered non-justiciable have been held by the courts to be justiciable. So, the purpose of this clause in this case is to be as clear as possible about the no-go sign around the Dissolution and calling of Parliament. It is carefully drafted, respecting the message from the courts in Cart that only
“the most clear and explicit words”
can exclude their jurisdiction. Therefore, while the Government agree that the revived powers of Dissolution are non-justiciable, we are making provision to confirm and preserve this position for the future.
Noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the review of the scope of prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. The Government have drafted Clause 3 with regard to case law, including Miller II. It is a proportionate response that seeks to put beyond doubt that Dissolution is not a matter for the courts. The independent review on administrative law noted this judgment, and the distinction it draws creates the potential for the courts to circumvent no-go signs currently mounted around the exercise of prerogative powers. The Clause seeks to make it clear that, in the context of the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, the no-go signs should not be subverted in this way. The democratically elected House of Commons is constituted as a clear expression of the will and judgment of the public, and the ability of the electorate to judge the record of the Government and their decision to call an election as well. That is the continued safeguard which protects Parliament.
Some noble Lords spoke of a concept of an improper Dissolution or an abuse of Dissolution. That concern is misplaced. There are a number of sufficient and appropriate restraints in our constitutional arrangements. First is the convention that the sovereign should be kept out of politics; this in itself is a powerful deterrent to making any improper request. Nevertheless, the sovereign may in exceptional circumstances refuse a request to dissolve Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, had some important and interesting reflections on this point. I too would like to know the answer to his question about 1974.
That is not all. In response to the report by the FTPA Joint Committee, we have amended the Bill so that the statutory election period will be triggered automatically by the Dissolution of Parliament. This will ensure that the theoretical possibility of a Dissolution without an ensuing election period is eliminated. The Government of the day must be able to command the confidence of the elected House. Unduly and unnecessarily delaying the calling of a new Parliament would negatively impact on the authority of the Government. Control by the Commons of tax and expenditure is a further compelling necessity for any new Government to call a new Parliament as soon as possible. One final test is the common sense of the electorate. Any attempt by a Government to manipulate the system would be clear to the electorate, and that Government would be punished in an election.
Many noble Lords—the noble Baroness opposite, the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Grocott, and Lord Thomas of Gresford, my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and many others—suggested that there should be a role for the House of Commons in approving a Dissolution. I anticipate that we will discuss this issue at some length in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, with his great experience, offered important cautionary notes here. I found the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, as clear as it was compelling, and I agreed with his analysis. The Government disagree with that approach: reviving the flexibility of the previous system undermines the entire purpose of the Bill. The creation of prescriptive statutory arrangements represented a significant departure from our previous constitutional arrangements, eroding the flexibility that is an essential part of our democracy.
The evidence is before us. My noble friend Lady Stowell set this out very clearly: we have to see the broad picture. The experience of the 2011 Act demonstrates that statutory systems can perpetuate political instability. The reality was skated over by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his speech. He said that under the model he proposes, the Prime Minister in 2019 could have had an election three times and had a majority. He forgets the reality of those times. I hope he is never the man with the three cards on Westminster Bridge. The reality is that the Labour Party did not want an election at the time. They could avoid it by simply sitting on their hands, which would not have been possible. The Labour Party could still have avoided an election, even under his proposal.
When the 2011 Act is repealed, it will be vital that the link between confidence and Dissolution is restored in order that critical votes can again be designated as matters of confidence which, if lost, would trigger an early election. Therefore, the House of Commons will continue to play a key role. The claim by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this debate was a battle to prevent the rigging of the membership of the Commons was a very odd characterisation of the Bill’s central intent, which is to prevent interference with the remittance of great political questions to the people—to allow them to choose their elected representatives. I remind noble Lords that the Joint Committee gave this matter detailed consideration and a majority—I respect the alternative opinions—concluded that the House of Commons should not retain a say over Dissolution. Finally, as my noble friend Lady Pidding reminded us, the other place considered and dismissed amendments to enable it to retain a statutory role. I very much hope that your Lordships will not “go there”, as they say, but I suspect I may be disappointed.
Noble Lords have suggested that the Bill limits the accountability of the Prime Minister. I must agree to disagree with that too. There have been and will remain two vital checks, which again have been widely forgotten by many who have spoken in this debate: the House of Commons and the electorate. It was not the case that under the prerogative system, the Commons was unable to hold the Executive to account. The Bill restores the position whereby a Government hold office by the virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. In that respect, the House of Commons will continue to play a key role. Yes, a Prime Minister will once again be able to call an election at a time of his or her choosing, but elections are an expression of democracy. I believe in democracy. As the Joint Committee put it,
“ultimately elections ensure the electorate—the ultimate authority in a democratic system—has the opportunity to exercise its judgment.”
Again, any attempt by a Government to manipulate the system, as we have seen in recent history, would be likely to be punished.
I thank all those who have spoken for their valuable contributions. I will read Hansard extremely carefully and reflect on the many important and challenging things that have been said. I am pleased we have had such a stimulating debate, which has attracted so many of your Lordships. I look forward to being at the service of your Lordships in the period between now and Committee, and indeed, through the whole passage of the Bill. When we are here, my door will always be open. I met a large number of Members prior to today’s debate, and I look forward to further opportunities to engage and, I hope, persuade. I am sure we will continue to have lively and robust discussions as we take this important Bill through its remaining stages. I believe there is broad consensus for repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and I commend this Bill and the way it is accomplished to the House. I beg to move.