House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
There are no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The principle remains that drugs are dangerous and need to be controlled appropriately.
Chris Law
I am not surprised by the reply we have just heard from the Minister. However, in Germany, the incoming Government have agreed to join Canada and many US states in legalising cannabis, while across Europe drug consumption rooms are operating with positive results. As countries around us move forward, what message does the Minister think it sends to the rest of the world to see the UK stuck in the last century on drugs policy?
Kit Malthouse
I refute the claim that we are stuck in the last century. In fact, we launched a world-beating strategy just last week, if the hon. Gentleman was paying attention, that proposes a three-pronged approach on drugs, which we believe will have some success over the next decade. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues often push for the legalisation of cannabis, but I point him to the mixed experience of various parts of the world that have done so, not least California, where it is widely agreed to have been a disaster.
Alison Thewliss
I visited a drug consumption room in Geneva, right next to the central station in that city. Has the Minister visited a drug consumption room? It is important to make Government policy on the basis of evidence and what actually works in other countries.
Kit Malthouse
I have not visited a drug consumption room, although I did have a very illuminating meeting with Ruth Dreifuss, the former President of Switzerland who has been promoting the policy, to discuss the issues they have faced in Switzerland and elsewhere. While I understand that repetition is not uncommon in this place, the hon. Lady will not elicit from me an answer that expands on the ones I have given to her previously.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Foreign-born criminals have long used human rights legislation to avoid deportation to their country of origin. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether recent announcements to reform human rights will include the introduction of a British Bill of Rights?
Mr Speaker
Sorry, that question is unrelated to Question 1; it relates to Question 2. I call Peter Grant.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister, as every Minister does these days, describes the strategy announced last week as world-beating. I suggest we maybe wait to see how it works before we make those claims. I also suggest that he also looks at what is actually working in the rest of the world. Can he explain why this world-beating strategy still insists on putting the medical and health needs of drug users in second place at best to treating them as criminals to be ostracised and punished, rather than sick people who desperately need to be helped?
Kit Malthouse
As usual, SNP Members mischaracterise what we are trying to do. The key feature of the strategy is twofold. First, we are ramping up restrictions on supply, building on our success thus far, particularly on dismantling county lines, which will have a direct impact on drug supply in Scotland. The reason we are doing that is that by restricting supply we believe we can create more space for the £780 million we will be spending on therapeutic interventions, particularly with heroin and crack users, to have an impact. Critically, the two have to go together. If we are dealing with a heroin or crack addict, very often they will leave a therapeutic intervention—I am sure hon. Members see this in their own constituencies—and walk straight back out into the hands of a drug dealer. We need to make that less likely if we are going to ensure those therapies stick and have an impact. As far as criminalising addicts is concerned, large numbers of them do commit crime. They commit crime from which there are victims. Those victims deserve to see justice done, too.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the Minister be supporting my new clause to the Local Government (Disqualification) Bill, which is coming up for debate on 14 January? My new clause would make offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 a ground for disqualification from being able to serve as a local councillor.
Kit Malthouse
It is unusual that the doings of my hon. Friend pass me by in this House, but sadly that amendment has. It is an interesting proposal, but I hope he will give me a moment to consider it before I give him a response.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
This Government are tackling the drivers of reoffending to keep our communities safer. That includes the investment of £70 million this year to keep prison leavers off the streets and £80 million for substance misuse treatment services.
Stephen Hammond
I thank the Lord Chancellor for that answer. Will he confirm that some of that £70 million will go to schemes that rehabilitate, offering long-term opportunities in both employment and housing, because that is a successful way to keep reoffending rates down?
Dominic Raab
We are investing £183 million in the expansion of electronic monitoring, which includes £90 million to fund and promote innovation, including in respect of drugs and tags. We are also working carefully on prisoner passports, which are all about resettlement, to make sure that we reduce prisoner and offender homelessness, and there is a big push to encourage them to work with local businesses to get them into work.
Paul Holmes
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that education and employment are key drivers in getting reoffending down and allowing communities that are blighted by crime to heal? Will he therefore outline to the House the progress that has been made in the prisons strategy White Paper in this area specifically?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for that, as he is absolutely right: those are two core drivers of reoffending. So in the White Paper we set out plans to deliver a prisoner education service that will focus not only on the big challenges we see with inmates on numeracy and literacy, but on encouraging vocational qualifications—a step up during their course in prison. We will be driving better outcomes on work by implementing dedicated employment advisers in prisons and a digital tool to match prisoners to jobs on release.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
One way of preventing reoffending would be to make sure that appropriate sentences are imposed in the first place, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that pre-sentence reports are available before prisoners are jailed or given alternative community sentences?
Dominic Raab
I do not see these things as binary opposites; we need to see robust punishment and robust deterrence. I am disappointed that Opposition Members voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which would end automatic release at the halfway point. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) wants to vote against stronger sentences for dangerous criminals, he can stand on that record. But in answer to the hon. Lady’s question, let me say that we are looking at all the other drivers: drugs rehabilitation and, in particular, drugs recovery wings in prisons; vocational educational training; and, crucially, providing hope and the chance to get inmates into work, be it during their time in prison or while they are on licence.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like others, I have concerns about what help the Prisons Minister or the Lord Chancellor can give those who have served in the armed forces and fallen to post-traumatic stress disorder or other difficulties. What will be done to help veterans in particular?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on this. A proportion of people are, in effect, mentally unwell and then trip up into prison, and we know that veterans are among them. That is why I have been liaising with the Health Secretary to look at mental health care and provision, in the community and for those who go into prison, to make sure that we can tailor what happens to them during their sentence to try to give them a better chance to get the support to go straight.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor is absolutely right to say that the protection of the public and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Does he agree that one key factor here, as outlined in the White Paper, is early assessment of prisoners when they come into prison to make sure that we pick up issues of mental health, lack of literacy and drug addiction and that we have a proper plan throughout their time in incarceration for release into the community in a much better place than they were before? Is that not the key issue that we need to be looking at?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is absolutely right; it is important that on early admission into prison we evaluate all the different factors—the level of numeracy and literacy, the level of addiction, whether the offender has a qualification and the mental health issues—to make sure that the offender’s time in prison takes them forward in each of those regards and that we then, with the prisoner passports, link up the support they will get on release. That is the way we will drive down reoffending, give offenders a second chance, if they want to take it, to turn their lives around, and ultimately protect the public.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council says that most domestic abuse perpetrators will receive a sentence unlikely to reduce reoffending. Coercive and domestic abuse is a hidden pandemic, getting worse every day, and it is the hardest thing in the world to come forward and report it. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) for her courage in pursuing and exposing the horrific case of coercive and domestic abuse by her husband, former MP Andrew Griffiths. It can happen to any one of us. But the justice system is indifferent to the victims it was set up to protect. I spoke to a young woman last week who told me that her experience of the system was worse than the abuse itself. Labour has a plan ready to go to protect and support victims. When will this Government act?
Dominic Raab
First, I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) and her experience. She showed incredible courage.
The hon. Lady asked when we started to act. We did that when we came into government—[Interruption.] Can the hon. Lady listen? We have tripled the amount of support for victims during our tenure. We will invest £150 million this year. On top of that critical support for the independent sexual violence advisers and the independent domestic violence advisers, we have also published a victims law consultation, which, for the first time, will make victims’ experience central to the functioning of the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Lady again: triple the amount of funding for victims during our tenure.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)
Getting the right support at the right time is crucial for all victims, particularly children and young people. The Department has provided £150 million to victim support services this financial year, which includes support for children and young people. We are also consulting on a victims Bill so that we can make tangible improvements for all victims. That will include reviewing what more can be done to strengthen victim advocate roles, including those supporting children and young people; looking at joining up services better across agencies; and reviewing standards, guidance and frameworks.
Robbie Moore
We can provide full justice and protection to victims of child sexual exploitation in Keighley and across the wider Bradford district only if we fully understand the extent of those horrific crimes and, indeed, the complexities of how child grooming actually happens at a local level. The Minister will be well aware that I am calling on Bradford Council to instigate a full, Rotherham-style inquiry. I ask him to join me in my calls for that and to outline how we can support victims better locally.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents in raising these most distressing matters. The Government believe that it is right for the authorities in individual towns and cities to commission local inquiries. It is crucial that answers are provided where failings have occurred, and that we work nationally and locally to improve services’ response to this horrendous crime. The Government welcome Bradford’s work to do that through commissioning and disseminating its recent review. The local authority and police must now do everything possible to understand the current threat and ensure that children at risk are safeguarded and offenders prosecuted.
I also just add that, at a national level, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse continues to investigate public bodies to ensure that they are doing everything that they should to protect children.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Since October 2016, band 3 to 5 prison officer numbers have increased by more than 4,000 from 17,955 to 22,325 full-time equivalents. In the year to March 2021, we recruited more than 1,000 trainee probation officers and we will recruit a further 1,500 by the end of March next year.
Mary Glindon
The prisons White Paper concedes that attrition rates among prison officers are too high,
“causing an unsustainable level of turnover in the system… contributing to a vicious cycle of staff dissatisfaction and lack of retention.”
With even the Prison Service’s new retention framework conceding that low wages are key driver of attrition, when will the Minister stand up for both prison officers and probation officers and give them the proper pay rise the Government’s own experts recommend?
Kit Malthouse
We do recognise that attrition among prison officers is an issue, which is why we have put in place retention toolkits in prisons, providing governors with the support and tools that they need for employee retention. As far as pay is concerned, the hon. Lady knows that the economic ravages of the pandemic meant that there did need to be a pause in pay, but now that the Department has received a three-year spending settlement, it means that we can commence more coherent conversations with unions and others about what pay might look like in the years to come.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s plans to recruit 5,000 new prison officers, but recruitment of prison officers and their retention would be made easier if the number of assaults in prison were to come down. In the 12 months to June, there were 7,612 assaults on prison officers, one third of which were categorised as serious. What is being done to prosecute and extend the sentences of each and every convict who assaults a prison officer?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously the issue of assaults against our staff in all its forms is one that we take extremely seriously. My hon. Friend is quite right that we hope and expect that prison governors work closely with their local police forces to ensure that any crimes that are committed against prison staff are appropriately pursued and prosecuted, and that sentences are handed out where appropriate. He will know though that much of the violence in prisons is driven by drugs, and I hope he will recognise and welcome the work that we are doing as part of the prevention approach to reduce drug consumption and therefore abuse within the secure estate.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The number of children and young people in custody is at a historically low level, falling from around 2,600 in 2008-09 to 515 at the end of October 2021. Although welcome, this has resulted in a concentrated cohort of children with particularly complex needs. Fifty-five per cent. of children in custody last year had been sentenced for violent offences. We are clear that levels of violence within the youth estate are too high, which is why we are taking a number of measures to reduce it.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the reality is that youth offenders institutions and secure training centres are not safe places for children. Two have closed after children there suffered significant harm. At the two remaining institutions, violent assault on children has reached 70%, resulting in admissions to accident and emergency. Children are locked in their dilapidated cells for up to 22 hours per day. Ofsted described one institution as barely meeting
“minimum standards of human decency”.
This is state-supported and state-sanctioned child abuse. Why has he not put a stop to it yet?
Kit Malthouse
We do acknowledge the problems within the secure estate, although I hope the hon. Lady will also acknowledge the difficulties faced in handling the remaining cohort of young people. We have put in place steps to try to improve the situation—for example, allocating a member of staff to every child to support them with weekly therapeutic interventions. I know that, as one of her first acts on getting the job as Prisons Minister, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), engaged with a number of providers in the secure institutions to outline to them that their performance was not acceptable.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
We want fewer women serving short sentences in custody and more managed in the community. We welcome the fact that, in the decade between 2010 and 2020, the female prison population has decreased by 21%. We have also seen a 32% fall in sentences of less than 12 months in the five years since 2016.
Chris Evans
I raised this issue four years ago in Westminster Hall with one of the Minister’s predecessors. Short prison sentences for women have a huge impact on society. Children of women offenders are more likely to be in care. Women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. When they leave the prison gate, they are locked in the same cycle that brought them there. Will the Minister now launch an urgent review of the way that women are treated in the justice system?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion on this matter and I do understand where he is coming from, but that is precisely why we have put in place £46 million of wraparound support over three years for women leaving prison or serving community sentences, to address some of the root causes, such as accommodation, substance misuse, education, training and employment, financial management and family relationships.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
An estimated 17,000 children are affected by maternal imprisonment every year, yet the sentencing guidelines are designed to ensure that judges and magistrates consider sole or primary carer status as a mitigating factor, and research by Crest Advisory suggests that awareness and application of these guidelines is low. We recognise that the number of women in prison has fallen in recent times, but with the majority of women serving short sentences for non-violent offences, what will the Minister do to cut these numbers even more by ensuring that the rights of the child are explicitly considered in every case where a primary carer is sentenced to custody?
James Cartlidge
First, may I put on record that I am sad that the hon. Gentleman is standing down at the next general election? He has been very constructive in our engagements to date on these important matters.
The care of children and other dependants and the impact of the loss of a parent or carer are well-established mitigating factors in sentencing. Sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council include as a specific mitigating factor being the
“sole or primary carer for dependent relatives”
and are clear that the court can consider the effect of the sentence on the health of the offender and the unborn child. The case law in this area, particularly R v. Petherick, makes clear that the court must perform a balancing exercise between the legitimate aims to be served by sentencing and the effect the sentence has on the family life of others, especially children.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
Everyone has the right to feel safe at work and the Government share the concern that reports of abuse and assaults against retail workers continue to increase. The Government have therefore tabled an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which will place in statute an aggravating factor based on that currently used by the courts and set out in sentencing guidelines. This will apply where an assault offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. It will reinforce in statute the seriousness with which the court should treat these offences and will send a strong message to the public that assaults of this kind on retail workers are totally unacceptable.
Robert Halfon
I recently visited hard-working shop workers in the Co-op in the ward of Bush Fair in my constituency of Harlow. They have faced abuse, intimidation and often assault, and other shop workers I have met in other supermarkets face the same experiences; that is unacceptable. They have asked me if they can get the same protection as NHS workers are now rightly given. Given that shop workers provided an important public service during covid, does the Minister agree it is important to do that?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is a brilliant champion of his constituency. My message to those shop workers is that they may have received abuse from a tiny minority, but the overwhelming majority in the country think they are heroes. I am sure that every single MP thinks our retail workers are heroes; we know the important job they do, and to underline that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the Home Secretary and the Attorney General will be meeting senior representatives of the retail sector today to talk about this very subject. We are backing them in spirit and we are backing them in law.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
No one deserves to work in fear of violence and abuse, but this is the daily reality of many shop workers. These same workers will now face an increased risk of violence and abuse as they enforce new Government rules on mask-wearing and social distancing. Scottish Labour has led the charge in legislating to protect retail workers in Scotland by instituting a new specific offence for attacks on shop workers. Will the Minister now commit to doing the same in England and Wales so there is equity across the country and ensure that it is backed by the necessary resources to charge and convict offenders?
James Cartlidge
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, as I did in the Committee considering the statutory instrument earlier, which went through very quickly with his co-operation, for which I am grateful.
On the reforms, it is not just about the change to statute that we will put in place by amending the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, important though that is. I emphasise that such reform has been strongly supported by the sector—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the British Retail Consortium and others—but it is not just about the law: we are also putting in place the necessary mechanisms to encourage such crimes to be reported, regaining confidence in the police and criminal justice system by bringing the perpetrators to justice, and looking at the root causes of abuse and violence such as drug and alcohol addiction.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
In June we published the interim rape review report and action plan, which sets out plans to significantly improve the way the criminal justice system responds to rape. We are expanding pre-recorded cross-examination under section 28 for victims of rape and sexual violence, rolling out a new investigatory model known as Operation Soteria and introducing a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence.
Wera Hobhouse
According to a recent report from the Victims Commissioner, just 1% of rape cases made it to trial. The Minister is telling me that these new measures are trying to improve that record. However, many rape victims recorded that their sexual history and mental health records were “pulled apart”, so will he commit to a radical reform of Crown Prosecution Service governance as called for by the End Violence Against Women Coalition to make sure that victims of rape are not treated as suspects?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Given the location of her constituency she will be aware that the main pilot we will be holding for Operation Soteria is with Avon and Somerset police. Let me explain to the House the importance of this pilot. Instead of the usual single officer investigating allegations of rape, we will instead have two officers, one of whom will have primary responsibility for liaising with the victim. A key part of that is to avoid the attrition whereby those who have been victims drop out and lose confidence in the system. We want to restore confidence in the system and show the whole country that we have a joined-up approach to tackle the root causes and improve investigation of all rape cases.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think it is right that victims of rape and domestic abuse should have to pay child contact costs to maintain their abuser’s contact with their child?
James Cartlidge
Let me first add my comments to those of the Secretary of State in terms of the experience of my hon. Friend. She has been incredibly courageous. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who I will ask to write to my hon. Friend on that specific point. I do not have an immediate answer to hand but it does sound an important issue and she is right to raise it.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I, too, place on record the courage that the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) has shown.
The first rape review scorecard published last week made for pitiful reading. Just 0.6% of adult rape cases reported to police resulted in a charge. It takes three times as long for rape cases to get through the justice system compared with other crimes. Victims are being told that they are lucky if they get justice within three years. While we welcome the roll-out of section 28, Labour was calling for this back in March. It is not good enough. The Government have apologised and admitted that they have failed, but it has been almost three years since the rape review was commissioned. How much longer will survivors have to wait for justice?
James Cartlidge
I am glad the hon. Lady raises the issue of the rape scorecards. While it is obviously disappointing that key 2020-21 data show that performance is consistently lower than the baseline in the priority areas, it is important to note that these metrics reflect the period before the rape review was published and the action plan was implemented. But we have a choice, and it is a really important one. We can spend our time using the scorecards to pick out individual statistics for political point-scoring or we can take a joined-up collaborative approach to recognise that the whole reason for bringing forward the scorecards is to shine light on what exactly is happening out there in the system, focus on where the problems are, and work with the CPS, the police, victims and victims’ groups and all the key stakeholders to improve the whole system. That is the important thing to do. The whole point is that by bringing these figures into daylight we will improve the system.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We are working to deliver a transformed prison education service that will improve numeracy and literacy of all prisoners. Prisoners will be assessed on entry and a personal learning plan will be created to monitor and track progress against starting points and resettlement goals. This will include learning in workshops, kitchens and sports activities.
Mr Baker
I am glad to hear it. Should core skills not always be part of the prison regime for everybody who needs them? Will the Minister continue to take steps to make sure that people’s employability is enhanced by their stay in prison?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Education is very often the solution to so many of society’s problems. It is a stepping stone towards employment, which, in itself, reduces reoffending very significantly. He will be pleased to know that as part of our plans we will establish a literacy innovation scheme to incentivise new providers to work with us to deliver these kinds of improvement programmes. We will also introduce specific measures of progress to track how successful each prison is at improving prisoners’ English and maths, with governors held to account for poor performance. We agree with my hon. Friend that these basic building blocks of education are key to future success.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The reduction in reoffending rates is marked where the furtherance of numeracy and literacy skills is ongoing in prison, such as in my constituency in Magilligan prison. Will the Minister, in any discussions that he has with the relevant devolved Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, re-emphasise the need for support for prisons that offer such facilities?
Kit Malthouse
This is obviously an issue that affects all the home nations, and I will be more than happy to work collaboratively with counterparts across the whole of the United Kingdom, as we do on so many issues with great success.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Child cruelty requires the strongest response possible from our justice system, and we will ensure that our sentencing powers are the most robust to protect the most vulnerable.
Simon Jupp
The harrowing case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes makes it clear that child protection must be at the heart of our sentencing policy. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that child killers are never released from prison?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and totally agree with him about the appalling case of little Arthur. He is right, and in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, child murder will be where there is premeditation, and will carry a whole-life order as its starting point. I hope that all hon. Members across the House will join us in supporting that measure. May I also mention Tony’s law, which we are introducing to increase the penalties for causing death and causing serious injury from child cruelty.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Our landmark cross-Government drugs strategy sets out an ambitious long-term vision and includes £780 million of additional investment in treatment and recovery—the largest ever single increase. This will increase and improve treatment services, including providing 950 additional drug and alcohol criminal justice workers. The specialist drug and alcohol workers will give the police, courts and probation the facilities that they need to assess offenders and give sentencers confidence that they can make greater use of community sentences, because they will know that the treatment will be available.
Simon Baynes
The police in Clwyd South and Wrexham deserve great credit for their work in breaking up county lines in north Wales. Will the Minister please provide more information about the other main aspect of the Prime Minister’s 10-year drug strategy, the £780 million devoted to new approaches to treatments, and how that will be put into effect in Clwyd South and elsewhere in the UK?
Kit Malthouse
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is seeing the impact in his constituency of the remarkable work that his police force have been doing, mainly with Merseyside police, who are the chief exporter to his part of the world of that appalling practice of county lines. We have indeed been remarkably successful in driving the numbers down, but if we are to make that a permanent reduction we need to reduce the demand for those drugs, particularly from heroin and crack addicts. So we will be spending significant amounts of money, as he outlined, on treating their addiction, as well as making sure that they face the consequences of their crimes. That money will be channelled through local authorities. It will take time for them to rebuild and retrain the people required to deliver those services, but I am confident that over the next 10 years we will make a significant difference.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
The Government take road safety very seriously and I commend the hon. Lady for her campaign to tackle bad driving and improve road safety through, I believe, a parliamentary petition. I want to reassure her that this Government want to see safer roads for all users. That is why, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are increasing from 14 years to life imprisonment the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. As for sentencing guidelines, these are produced by the Sentencing Council, which is independent of Parliament and Government.
Kim Leadbeater
I welcome that response. Road safety is a huge issue for people in Batley and Spen, so I have launched a petition to the House calling for additional support, resources and funding. I also recently attended a local memorial service for victims of road traffic incidents. Does the Minister agree that as part of the review into road traffic offences, we must put victims and their support at the heart of any strategy?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I congratulate her on championing those issues. Many hon. Members raise their harrowing cases of serious road traffic incidents at Justice questions. In addition to the increase from 14 years to life for the offences I referred to, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are also creating a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. In Government amendments, we will increase from two years to five years the minimum period of disqualification from driving for offenders convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. That sends a strong signal that we want to put victims first, which is why we are bringing forward those changes.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
We are already seeing the results of our efforts to tackle the impact of the pandemic on our justice system. Outstanding cases in magistrates courts are falling and are close to recovering to pre-pandemic levels. In the Crown court, the backlog is stabilising. The spending review provides an extra £477 million for the criminal justice system, which will allow us to reduce Crown court backlogs caused by the pandemic from about 60,000 today to an estimated 53,000 by March 2025.
Mrs Murray
What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that evidence is not compromised by the passage of time if there is a delay?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Since 2000, outstanding cases in the Crown court have never been below 30,000, so it is inherent in the criminal justice system that some cases take time. It is important that we consider how to preserve evidence and section 28 is a key part of that. Since November 2020, vulnerable witnesses have had the option to pre-record cross-examination evidence in advance of a trial. In September, we extended the pilot to allow intimidated witnesses to pre-record their cross-examination evidence to a further four Crown courts. We recently set out that we want to go much further and roll it out to all Crown courts.
Andrew Gwynne
Reducing the Crown court backlog to 53,000 still does not take it back to pre-pandemic levels. We cannot just blame covid for the backlog, because in the year before the pandemic, it grew by 23%. Does the Minister regret the Ministry of Justice’s decision to slash sitting days in 2019?
James Cartlidge
The key point is that we have lifted and removed the limit on sitting days in the Crown court for the moment. In February 2010, the last comparable full month when the Labour party was in power, the backlog in the Crown court was about 48,000. It was 40,000 in the month before we went into the first full lockdown. As anyone in the court system knows—our professionals and our judiciary—the pandemic has had a huge impact.
We are confident that we have a wide package of positive steps that we are bringing forward, including the funding that I just announced plus the steps in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill that will see more cases moved from Crown court to magistrates court. Perhaps with a new shadow spokesman—I welcome him to his position—the Opposition will finally accept the importance of those measures and join us in supporting the Bill on Third Reading.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
We have introduced legislation to tackle crimes including stalking, forced marriage and female genital mutilation in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will also introduce measures to crack down on serious violent and sexual offenders, including by ensuring that the most serious sexual and violent offenders spend longer in prison; to reform pre-charge bail to better protect vulnerable victims and witnesses; and to enable positive obligations to be imposed on those who pose a risk of sexual harm through sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. The victims Bill consultation has also launched, which will ensure that victims feel properly supported.
Gill Furniss
Since Sarah Everard was murdered, at least 104 more women have been killed by men. That endemic violence against women must be met with the national urgency that it deserves. Will the Minister take the opportunity to show that he is serious about the issue by committing today to classing misogyny as a hate crime?
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who raises this very important issue for all Members of this House. As she would expect, this Government take incredibly seriously the issue of violence against women and girls, and all our thoughts are with the families of those affected. Of course, I welcome the measures that we are taking on sentencing that I set out in my earlier answer. On misogyny specifically, we are grateful to the Law Commission for the detailed consideration it has given to its review of hate crime laws. We are of course giving that proper consideration, and we will respond as soon as we can.
Laura Trott
Can the Minister assure me and the women and girls of Sevenoaks and Swanley that funding for Kent’s Nightingale court will continue past March next year? Kent’s Crown court case load stands at 93% above pre-pandemic levels, and we know that sexual violence crimes are most likely to be dropped due to delays. We urgently need this court to continue.
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a very passionate advocate for her constituents on these matters. It is worth pointing out that more than £1 billion has been allocated to boost capacity and accelerate recovery from the pandemic in courts and tribunals, and we have been able to reopen more of our existing court estate. The Nightingale courts provide additional capacity for the Crown court either directly or by hosting other work, which makes space for jury trials on the existing estate. These temporary courts supported our recovery, and that is why we extended their use until the end of March 2022. Decisions on future spending will be subject to ongoing spending review allocation discussions, but her point is very much heard.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Over the last month, I have visited HMP Isis with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre. We have launched a White Paper on our prisons strategy and a consultation on a new victims law. I have also met Lissie Harper, and I have announced Harper’s law to bring in mandatory life sentences for those who unlawfully kill emergency workers in the course of their duty.
Debbie Abrahams
The Justice Secretary’s book “The Assault on Liberty” attacks the Human Rights Act 1998 for having “opened the door” to challenges against the Government, so in his drive to amend the Human Rights Act, which rights does he want to stop—rights against torture, rights against medical experimentation on British military personnel or rights preventing discrimination against disabled people in our social security system?
Dominic Raab
I shall be making a statement to the House on our plans for reform of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a Bill of Rights shortly. I am sure the hon. Member will listen to that and contribute.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I do understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and obviously of the victim’s family. It was a dreadful crime, and I am obviously pleased, although it took some time, that the right person was put behind bars for it. As he will know, release at the halfway point is automatic. However, I am happy to write to him to outline what steps will be put in place to manage this individual in the community.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have closed nearly 300 courts since 2010. One of them was Runcorn magistrates court, and two weeks ago the police found criminals using it as a cannabis farm. While 60,000 cases are still waiting to be heard because of a lack of court capacity, can the Secretary of State tell us how many other former courts are now in the hands of criminals, and does he regret that, under the Conservatives, courts that used to hand out justice now hand out spliffs?
Dominic Raab
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I look forward to working with him, where we can, constructively and usefully. However, if the Labour party wants to start suggesting that it is tough on crime, it needs to deal with its voting on police numbers and the mess that it has made of voting on tougher sentences. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have trebled funding for victim support.
In relation to the courts backlog, as part of the spending review we are investing £477 million in the criminal justice system over the next three years. We have extended the Nightingale courts and removed the limit on the number of days for which the Crown court can sit this year. We are also using the cloud video platform, which enables 13,000 cases to be heard each year; this is an important lesson from the pandemic.
Steve Reed
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s kind words, but I regret that he did not seem to quite answer the question, so let us see if we can do better with this one. BBC Radio 4’s “You and Yours” programme has exposed serious fraud relating to lasting power of attorney. A criminal was granted full control over a member of the public’s home and finances, and tried to sell her home without her knowledge. The fraudster was granted lasting power of attorney by the Office of the Public Guardian, after filling in an official form using fake names and signatures. Astoundingly, the Government do not require the Office of the Public Guardian to carry out basic identity checks on people applying for lasting power of attorney—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to get this right. Topicals questions, by nature, mean short answers and questions. Both of you are taking the time of Back Benchers. If you really want to ask a question, do it early when there is more time. Please do not use up Back Benchers’ time.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman actually raises an important point. We are reforming the system. If he writes to me about the specific facts of that case, I would be happy to respond.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend talks a lot of common sense, as ever. I will be saying something shortly about our plans to reform human rights. One thing that we can do is to avoid that kind of abuse of the system, on top of the efforts that the Home Secretary is making; since January 2019, we have removed close to 10,000 foreign national offenders, and the early removal scheme in the Nationality and Borders Bill will allow foreign national offenders to be removed earlier.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) steadfastly refused to confirm that the UK would remain in the European convention on human rights. This morning, we read that the UK will do so. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will remain a signatory and will continue to respect the provisions of the ECHR in full?
Dominic Raab
I have already made it clear before this House that we plan to stay, and will stay, a state party to the European convention.
Brendan O’Hara
The former Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), warned that any attempt to alter the Human Rights Act would make the UK less secure. Yesterday, GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 warned that changing the Human Rights Act would make it more difficult to fight terrorism. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of what they have said? As he launches his consultation today, will he commit himself to taking very seriously what senior figures in our security services have said?
Dominic Raab
I am not going to respond to claims or anonymous reports in the papers about what the security services may or may not say, but I am absolutely clear that the reforms that we will take will strengthen our protection in a whole range of areas that have been undermined by the Human Rights Act.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have seen in our prison strategy White Paper plans to roll out more employment boards, which link prisons to local businesses and industries in their communities. I hosted an employers summit to encourage employers to come forward and ensure that the prisons are better linked up. We are also expanding the new futures network, which is a dedicated part of the prison service that will support businesses to partner local prisons.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I just say to the hon. Gentleman that, as has already been pointed out, the backlog was lower before we went into the pandemic than that left behind by the last Labour Government. However, we are not for a moment complacent. That is why we have invested the money and we secured the money at the spending review, and it is why we have the Crown Nightingale courts and we have removed the limit on the number of days they can sit each year. I regularly consult the senior judiciary about what more we can do. Of course, technology—in particular the cloud video platform—can enable more than 13,000 cases to be heard virtually every week.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend’s regard for his constituents who work in the secure estate is very welcome. As he will know from the prisons strategy White Paper, we are taking a zero-tolerance approach to drugs, we will be spending about £100 million, and I hope he will have seen that we recently rolled out 74 X-ray body scanners, which have resulted in more than 10,000 positive scans. All of that will reduce the amount of drugs, and therefore violence, in prisons.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Dominic Raab
If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about that and make the case—I do not know whether his question relates to a particular constituency case or a more general concern—I will be very happy to look at it and make sure that we engage with him further on it.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The brilliant news on unemployment rates means that businesses in Broadland are crying out for staff. Bernard Matthews has been working with HMP Norwich to provide jobs for ex-offenders immediately on their release, and it tells me that there have been great results from that. Other local businesses have told me that they want to do the same, so what can the Government do to encourage such practices?
Kit Malthouse
At last, a Christmas story to warm the heart. I am sure that all those tucking into their Bernard Matthews turkey this Christmas will not only find it delicious and a celebration of their family, but recognise that they are playing their part in a better future for all those individuals who are working with Bernard Matthews, which is to be congratulated on its work. My hon. Friend is quite right that there is an enormous amount that can be done with the private sector to help get ex-offenders back on to the straight and narrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently held a summit with employers to do exactly that, and we will be building a network of business partnerships across the country where businesses and prison governors can sit down together and talk about how to get ex-offenders into employment in exactly the way that Bernard Matthews has done with remarkable success.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
If we are to get prosecutions of child abusers, we need the support of victims and survivors, so I am really angry that this Government have cut £500,000 from children at risk of child sexual exploitation. What is the Minister doing to make sure, through the forthcoming victims Bill, that the resources are in place to help those at risk?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, with whom I have worked closely on other matters that the House is considering at the moment. The Government continue to be a global leader in tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse. The tackling child sexual abuse strategy that we launched is the first of its kind and very much cutting edge. I would be happy to have a conversation with her, and I encourage her to make her views known as part of the victims Bill consultation.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Foreign-born criminals have long used human rights legislation to avoid deportation to their country of origin. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether plans to reform human rights laws will include the introduction of a British Bill of Rights?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right about the problem that he has diagnosed, and in the not-too-distant future I shall make a statement about our plans for reform.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister confirmed earlier that he had not visited a drug consumption room in any of the European countries where they have been operating for years. Will he come instead to my constituency to see where people are injecting—on waste ground, in bin sheds and in lanes away from Christmas shoppers—so that he can see what the alternative is under his plans?
Kit Malthouse
I am always more than happy to visit Members’ constituencies, as the hon. Lady knows. In fact, just 18 months ago, I held a home nations drugs summit in Glasgow to deal with exactly these issues. The hon. Lady consistently and persistently badgers me on these issues; I just wish she would apply the same persistence and badgering to her colleagues in the Scottish National party, who have been in government in Scotland for many years now and have presided over the worst drugs misuse and deaths numbers in the western world. I have committed to working closely with the Minister in Scotland on trying to improve those numbers; I wish the hon. Lady would do the same.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
When we think about the family courts, we must be mindful of the experiences of not only families who desperately need court intervention to work smoothly but the families who should be nowhere near a judge and would not be if they had other support to resolve their differences. I know that the Justice team cares deeply about this complex issue and that welcome changes are coming next year, so what progress has been made on the implementation of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 ahead of April 2022?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a certain category of case, particularly in respect of the private family law courts, needs to go before a court because of safeguarding issues or domestic abuse. Such cases account for 60%, more or less, while the others ought to avoid going to court through the use of mediation or alternative dispute settlement. Not only is that the right thing to do for all those involved, and particularly for children, but it saves the precious resource of the family courts for when they are really needed.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Will the coming review of human rights legislation explicitly acknowledge the concept of universal human rights—rights that are ours for no reason other than that we are human beings, that do not need to be conferred by any Parliament and that cannot be revoked by any Parliament on earth?
Dominic Raab
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was making the case for the wholesale repeal of the Human Rights Act, but we are not going that far. We need to put in place a legal framework and that will, of course, respect this country’s proud tradition of freedom under the rule of law.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The courts complex in Blackpool is due to be relocated to allow a £400 million regeneration scheme to go ahead. The business case has already been submitted to the MOJ, so will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet me to discuss it, get it approved and allow the ambitious regeneration scheme to proceed?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that scheme. I would be delighted to meet him; it sounds like an exciting project.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing on prison education, will he support an amendment to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill that I plan to table to allow prisoners to do apprenticeships, to change their employment status and ensure that they get the minimum wage? The amendment is backed by members of the Education Committee, and I have discussed it with the Secretary of State for Education.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. I have been talking to other Members about this important issue. If he would like to write to me or, indeed, meet me, I would be very interested in considering his idea further with the Secretary of State for Education.
Petition
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Residents, teachers, parents and governors of Aston Fence Junior and Infant School in Rother Valley are concerned about road safety outside the school on a busy road that has a speed limit of 40 mph during the day. They and I have written to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to call on it to take adequate steps to improve road safety. As yet, however, no action has been taken, and signs and patrols clearly do not work. What is needed, according to the school, is a permanent 20 mph speed limit with appropriate traffic calming measures installed to enforce it.
The petition, which was started by the pupils of Aston Fence School, has been signed by more than 325 people—almost double the number of students. The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to extend the existing 20mph speeding restrictions around the school so that they are in force at all times, rather than just during peak school hours.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that road safety measures must be strengthened and improved around Aston Fence School; and further that the existing 20mph speed limit, which is currently applicable during peak drop-off and pick-up hours in morning and afternoon, be in force at all times to protect pedestrians and drivers alike.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to extend the existing 20mph speeding restrictions around the school so that they are in force at all times, rather than just during peak school hours.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002704]
Human Rights Legislation
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Today, I am launching our consultation on proposals to overhaul the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights. I thank Sir Peter Gross and the panel he chaired for conducting the independent Human Rights Act review—the report of which is published today—which has influenced and informed our thinking in this regard.
The Government’s proposals for a Bill of Rights will strengthen this country’s proud tradition of freedom, curtail abuses of the human rights system and reinforce the democratic prerogatives of elected Members in this House over the legislative process in respect of the expansion of human rights. Above all, we will restore some common sense to the system.
At the outset, let me reassure the House—this issue was raised earlier in oral questions—that the UK will remain a party to the European convention on human rights. As we have shown with the introduction of our Magnitsky regime for human rights abuses, we will continue to lead internationally in the championing of freedom around the world.
Our objective in overhauling our human rights legislation will be to change, reform and revise the domestic interpretation and application of the convention by the UK courts. Following the reforms to the convention system reflected in the 2012 Brighton declaration, we will assert the margin of appreciation, as appropriate, in the UK’s dialogue with the Strasbourg Court.
As I said, we have a long, proud and diverse history of freedoms in this country that stretches back to Magna Carta through the 1689 Claim of Right Act and Bill of Rights, the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Representation of the People Act 1918. It is a tradition steeped in great thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin, and in the advocacy of great champions of freedom and human rights from Emmeline Pankhurst through to Violet Van der Elst.
As we take the next step in our country’s reforms, and as we look to the future, we can and, I believe, should confidently build on those traditions and values.
Our proposals will recognise the right to trial by jury, as it applies variably across the different nations of the United Kingdom in important ways, as part of the common law tradition of human rights. We also have the opportunity to reinforce the weight we attach to freedom of speech, a quintessentially British right—the freedom that grants all the others—that we have seen eroded of late by a combination of case law that has introduced continental-style privacy rules and the incremental narrowing of the scope for respectful but rambunctious debate in politically sensitive areas, which is something we in this House should resist both on principle and in the interest of effective decision making that comes only from a full airing of contrary views. Freedom of speech sometimes means the freedom to say things that others may not wish to hear.
While retaining the European convention on human rights, we will prevent the misuse and distortion of those rights that we have seen from time to time through elastic and innovative expansions that go well beyond anything the architects of the convention had in mind during the post-war settlement. Some of this has arisen from Strasbourg case law, and some has arisen from UK case law, and I make it very clear at the outset that my critique is levelled at the Human Rights Act and how it operates; it is not levelled at the UK judiciary, who have quite properly sought to implement legislation passed by this House.
I will give three examples of the problems we have encountered and a sense of how we can address them. Under our proposals, we will be able to prevent serious criminals from relying on article 8, the right to family life, to frustrate their deportation from this country. One example—the case law is littered with them—is the case of the convicted drug dealer who was also convicted of battery against his partner. He paid no child maintenance but, none the less, he claimed the right to family life to trump the public interest in his removal.
To give a sense of scale, because it is easy to cite one case or another and people will say it is not representative of the problem, article 8 claims now make up around 70% of all successful human rights challenges by foreign national offenders against deportation orders. Our proposals will enable us to legislate to curtail that abuse of the system, and hon. Members will have to decide whether they are for or against that proposition.
Secondly, under our proposed reforms we will be better able to protect the public in other ways by addressing our well-intentioned but, frankly, distorting jurisprudence. I cite the example of the Osman case, which has skewed the operational priorities of some of our major police forces. The ruling has required police forces to divert officers, resources and focus to protect criminal gangs from the threats they make to each other, which are of course time, effort and resources that could otherwise be prioritised towards protecting law-abiding members of our society.
Thirdly, these changes will help to deliver root-and-branch reform of parole proceedings, which hon. Members on both sides of the House raised with me in the aftermath of recent cases, including the case of Colin Pitchfork.
In these areas and others, our reforms will enable Parliament to act and, where necessary, assert the margin of appreciation with respect to Strasbourg while remaining party to the convention. We will achieve these objectives through carefully targeted reform under our Bill of Rights, which will revise and replace the framework provided under the Human Rights Act.
Our independent judiciary and parliamentary sovereignty are the cornerstones and the foundations of our democracy and, indeed, our success as a country. With that in mind, we will sharpen the separation of powers and reform the duty in section 2 of the Human Rights Act that requires UK courts to take account of Strasbourg case law, but has at various times been interpreted as a duty to match the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which is neither necessary nor desirable—[Interruption.] I see hon. Members shaking their heads, and I point them to the Ullah case in particular, but of course the case law has ebbed and flowed. That ebb and flow has created uncertainty, so it is right that we provide greater legal certainty by making clear the primacy of the UK’s own case law and primary legislation and the role of the UK Supreme Court, not Strasbourg, as the ultimate judicial arbiter when it comes to interpreting the European convention on human rights in this country. We will make it crystal clear that the UK courts are under no duty to follow Strasbourg case law, which itself does not operate a doctrine of precedent.
Next, we will replace section 3 of the Human Rights Act so that our courts are confined to judicial interpretation and are no longer—effectively, in practice—licensed by the Act to amend or dilute the will of Parliament expressed through statute. One of the consequences of the elastic extension of rights has been the incremental expansion of so-called positive obligations on public authorities by the courts, which are something that has no basis in the convention, as even a cursory reading of the travaux préparatoires to the convention—the negotiating history—will demonstrate. That was the case in the Osman ruling, which I referred to; it has had the much broader effect of skewing public service priorities and allocation of precious public resources. Our approach will provide a check on what is quite properly a legislative function that ought to be left to elected lawmakers in Parliament.
Finally in this regard, as we reinforce a clearer demarcation of the separation of powers, we will consult on plans for a democratic shield. This will help to promote meaningful dialogue with Strasbourg—which we achieved in cases such as prisoner voting, which hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember—by asserting the margin of appreciation where it is appropriate. It will recognise the proper role of Parliament in responding to adverse rulings from Strasbourg, but let me be crystal clear: hon. Members in this House must have the last word on the laws of this land.
Next, one of the consistent complaints that we hear from the public is that human rights can be subject to abuse. Our proposals will address this in a number of ways. We will introduce a permission stage, similar to that which exists in continental jurisdictions, including in the German Constitutional Court and indeed the European Court of Human Rights itself. This will bring an appropriate check by requiring claimants to demonstrate that they have suffered a significant disadvantage, which will help to prevent spurious or unmeritorious claims.
We can also do more to recognise that rights come with responsibilities, so we will reform the approach to remedies so that our courts give greater consideration to the behaviour of the claimant and the wider public interest when considering the compensation that may be paid out. That will give judges greater discretion to strike the right balance between claimants’ rights, their responsibilities and indeed the rights of others in our society when considering human rights cases. It is not right that those who have broken the law can then reach out and claim human rights, to claim large chunks of compensation at the taxpayer’s and the wider public’s expense.
Our proposals also recognise the diverse legal traditions across the United Kingdom, as well as the common heritage that binds us together. That is the linchpin of our success as a Union. We will consult with each of the devolved Administrations and across the UK to get that balance right. We want to guarantee protections across the Union in accordance with a common framework reflecting our common traditions, while respecting devolved competences.
In this country, we have a long and proud tradition of liberty, but we must actively cherish and nurture it. As we write the next chapter in that proud history, our proposals for a UK-wide Bill of Rights will strengthen our freedoms, reflect our legal traditions, curtail those abuses of the system, reinforce the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches and respect the democratic authority of this House, which—as so often in our history—has been a bulwark and the protector of our freedoms. I commend this statement to the House.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but the truth is that this country’s criminal justice system is in crisis. There are record backlogs and delays in the Crown courts, drug use by prisoners is out of control, and just 0.6% of rape cases reported by women and girls ever result in a charge. If the Secretary of State really wanted to restore confidence in the system, his priority would be sorting that out, but he is choosing to fiddle with the Human Rights Act instead of stretching every muscle and sinew to make sure that rapists and violent offenders are banged up behind bars where they belong.
Every time the Government are in trouble politically, they wheel out reforming the Human Rights Act. It is a dead cat distraction tactic by a Government who do not know how to fix the criminal justice system that they have broken and are desperate to divert attention from the corruption scandals that they started. This is little more than an attempt to wage culture wars because they have surrendered in the war on crime and corruption.
The Secretary of State says that he will restore the role of Parliament and the UK courts in interpreting rulings from Strasbourg, but they already have those powers under the margin of appreciation that gives national courts freedom to implement convention rights on the basis of local laws and custom, so he is offering nothing new. He is telling us today that it is not necessary to leave the ECHR to deport foreign criminals, so why have his Government done nothing about that in their past 11 years in office? A quarter fewer foreign criminals have been deported in the last year than in the previous year, so it is clearly not the Human Rights Act that is preventing foreign criminals from being deported; it is this incompetent Conservative Government.
The Secretary of State has become so overexcited by his empty rhetoric that he has missed warnings from senior figures in the intelligence services telling him that his reforms could actually make it harder to deport foreign criminals, including terrorists. They warn that, if the Government go too far in raising the evidence threshold a person must prove to claim that deportation would disrupt their family life, that could affect the ability of MI5 and MI6 to provide evidence in secret to the relevant courts and lead to more cases going directly to the European Court, where evidence cannot be submitted in secret. Perhaps this is the level of detail that we should expect from a Secretary of State who does not know that the police can investigate crimes a year after they are committed—even in Downing Street—but is he really prepared to stand by as cases collapse and terrorists walk free?
These proposals are all mouth and no trousers. They do nothing to deal with the severe failings in the criminal justice system, they repatriate no powers that are not already based here, and, astoundingly, they actually threaten to make it harder to deport the most dangerous foreign criminals, including terrorists. Labour will always defend the human rights of the British people to live in freedom, safety and security, but we face a Conservative Government who are high on tax, soft on crime and desperate to distract from their political failings. If the Secretary of State really wants to restore trust in the criminal justice system, his priority should be to fix it and bring wrongdoers more swiftly to justice. If he is prepared to ditch the empty rhetoric and political posturing, I will offer him my party’s full support in doing that.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I read his remarks, which were quoted in the early hours of this morning, before we had published our consultation and hence before he had read the proposals in it. He accused me of merely tinkering with human rights and, in the next sentence, of ripping human rights to shreds. That is an impressive feat of flip-floppng in a single press statement, but I think it highlights the fact that the Labour party, or at least its current Front Bench, has absolutely nothing to say about this issue.
The hon. Gentleman talked about rape. We have published scorecards and in the new year we will publish local scorecards, which will highlight various points where the challenge is so we can tackle it. We have published a consultation on a victims’ law. We are rolling out section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to allow pre-recorded evidence from rape victims, and Operation Soteria is being piloted to bring about a better approach on the part of police and prosecutors. In fact, we are doing all the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If he wants to be tough on criminals, as he claims, he should have supported our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. If he wants to come down hard on drug dealers and serious offenders whom we should remove from this country, he should back our proposals to allow them to be deported.
The hon. Gentleman asked about security, and seemed to warp even the ludicrous reports about it that have appeared in the papers. Let me be absolutely clear: the reforms that we propose would strengthen our ability to deport foreign national offenders, and the reason we have faced a challenge is Labour’s Human Rights Act. If he looks at the data—if he is remotely interested in the facts—he will see that. We are not talking about deporting someone back into the arms of a torturing tyrant. I would not support that, and my party and this Government would not support it. We are not talking about article 3, but we are talking about article 8 and the right to family life, which makes up 70% of all successful human rights challenges. Let me quote to him what the architect of the Human Rights Act, Jack Straw, said:
“There is a sense that”
the Human Rights Act has become
“a villains charter”.
I have not used language like that. There is a sense and a genuine concern that terrorists are not being deported and that criminals are benefiting—that was from Labour’s own architect of the Human Rights Act.
The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the approach we take to the Strasbourg Court. Let me read to him from one of the premium textbooks on the subject. The author said that the Strasbourg Court is primarily concerned with supervision and its role is subsidiary to that of the domestic authority. That author stated that it
“has no role unless the domestic system for protecting human rights breaks down”.
I agree with that, but it is not what we have in the Human Rights Act. That quote actually comes from the leader of the Labour party, in his seminal textbook on the subject back in 1999. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that Captain Hindsight rarely makes predictions for the future, but on this occasion he did and he was proved right, and that is exactly what our proposals for reform will deliver.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor has made an important and considered statement and I am particularly grateful that he paid tribute to Sir Peter Gross and the work of his committee. Their report, such that I have been able to read it, because it is a detailed one, is very thoughtful and stands head and shoulders above the rather trite comments we get in politics and in the media. I commend the report to anyone who is seriously interested in the topic.
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it is important that he has confirmed, as Sir Peter’s report confirms, the reality that the Strasbourg jurisdiction has never been binding on UK courts in the way that the European Court of Justice’s decisions once were, that the margin of appreciation is well established in the jurisprudence and that, therefore, as we make sensible reforms, which is always proper and appropriate, this is precisely the sort of area ripe for pre-legislative scrutiny through a Bill? Does he agree that, when we make changes, we should take on board, in particular, that we should not inadvertently permit legislation to go directly to Strasbourg, which would undermine the protections that our own domestic procedures have in relation to issues of security and other sensitivity? Surely that is capable of being dealt with in our reforms.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He refers to the Independent Human Rights Act Review report by Sir Peter Gross, and I again thank Sir Peter and his panel for the extensive work they have done. They have not only shown us the challenges that the Human Rights Act has presented, but given us a range of options and influenced the approach that we have taken—they have certainly informed it. My hon. Friend is also right to highlight the confusion there has been with the case law of the Strasbourg Court, which does not operate, as many civil law courts do not, by adopting precedent; and the way in which, in the UK courts, particularly as a result of section 2, it has virtually been turned into a system of precedent. That is clearly an area where we can reform, and I think we can do it in a sensible way that respects the primacy of the UK courts and gives greater legal certainty for everyone involved.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement, which says that these reforms are necessary to
“curtail abuses of the human rights system”.
This Government regularly tell us that abuses of the system are the reason for all manner of reforms of legislation that simply does not suit them. I know from my experience of the Elections Bill recently that they rarely manage to produce anything other than anecdotal evidence—ironically, evidence that would not stand up in a court of law. So, this time, where is the empirical evidence for this enormous change and where can we see it? The Secretary of State says that the UK will remain a party to the ECHR, but, again, different Ministers give different answers, so will he confirm, once and for all, that every provision in the ECHR will be adhered to in full, without tinkering or equivocation? It takes some brass neck for this Government to invoke a history of upholding human rights, given that this statement comes hot on the heels of multiple dreadful pieces of legislation designed to absolutely trash those rights, be it the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Elections Bill, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill or, most appallingly, the Nationality and Borders Bill.
On Scotland, does the Secretary of State have any appreciation of how the Human Rights Act is fundamental to how the devolution settlement works and that any change to that would be a recasting of the UK’s constitution? I have no doubt that he will come back to me saying, “We will consult the devolved Administrations” but that is not enough. We expect—no, we demand—a guarantee that nothing will be done without the Scottish Government’s permission. The Scottish Government have made it absolutely clear that any attempt to erode the Human Rights Act will be robustly opposed. The Secretary of State may have scant regard for the democratically elected Government of Scotland, but he needs to understand just how much the people of Scotland value their human rights and how outraged they will be about this.
The SNP and the Scottish Government will fight to protect human rights across these islands and indeed across the globe. The best way we can do that is simply by voting yes in our next independence referendum, and I thank the Justice Secretary for the part he has played in ensuring that that happens.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman asked about the evidence basis for what we are doing. That has been set out at some length in the independent Human Rights Act review, if he takes the trouble to read it, which was published today and chaired admirably by Sir Peter Gross. It is also set out in the pretty extensive consultation document that we have published. I have said it once today but I am happy to reaffirm that we will stay within the European convention on human rights. We will qualify areas such as article 8—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”, but he will know that paragraph 2 of article 8 invites qualification—it admits of it—in the interests of a whole range of reasons, including security. That will allow us to deport more foreign national offenders, in which we have been hamstrung by article 8 as it has been interpreted under the Human Rights Act. I am pretty sure that the people of Scotland, and the people across the UK, want us to be able to deport more serious, dangerous offenders from these shores.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the devolved Administrations. We are very sensitive to the devolved settlement. As he knows, the Human Rights Act is UK-wide legislation and a protected enactment under the devolution settlement, and ending it is therefore a matter for the UK Government, but we also recognise that the devolved legislatures can legislate on human rights in areas that are devolved to them, and that will remain the case. I look forward to consulting with the relevant devolved Administrations and with civil society in all the nations of the UK.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend accept that this article 8 issue has been at the root of a great number of extremely unsatisfactory appeal decisions? Does he agree that, in the light of our sovereignty and our right to govern ourselves and have our own legal system in this context, the combination of that change and the Nationality and Borders Bill that we put through this House only last week will be of great benefit to the people of this country and immensely popular up and down the land in dealing with illegal immigration?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of forensic legal work and analysis he has put into this, as well as for his political and parliamentary contribution to the debate. He is right to say that the reforms will enable us to take measures to deal with the very real problems that his constituents and mine, and those in all four corners of the UK, are concerned about.
Article 8 is an interesting illustration. A lot of people say, “Well, we will still have to comply with Strasbourg”, and it is true that ultimately we will still have to accept the obligations under the convention, but the democratic shield will provide us with a proper means of stretching the margin of appreciation within the boundaries of the convention. Also, the case for article 8 expanded far more aggressively and energetically in this country, and it was later that the Strasbourg Court followed the case law in this country. So what we do is important, and the relationship is two-way. That is why the margin of appreciation, the dialogue and the provisions in the consultation document are so important.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for his statement. It sounds as if he has come to the House with many of the complaints that all his predecessors since the Conservatives have been in government have made when they pledged to change the Human Rights Act, but those proposals have ended up amounting to nothing. We shall see whether he is able to turn his concerns into anything of substance. In the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we will obviously look carefully at his consultation and respond to the Gross review. Can I just say how pleased and relieved I am that he has made such a strong commitment to the European convention on human rights and all the rights protected therein, including article 8—the right to private and family life? I hope he will be able to confirm that he will do nothing to make it take longer or cost more for people to enforce their rights. He pledged to stand by the European convention. We cannot have a situation where those rights are available only for those who can afford to enforce them.
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her perfectly reasonable and thoughtful response. She is right that we will stay within the European convention. If she looks me up on the record, she will see that I have consistently said that the problem is not the convention, which is totally unobjectionable as a list of rights. She asked about Conservative politicians bringing these concerns to the House of Commons. That is right. There have been long-standing issues with the Human Rights Act, but it is not just Conservative politicians. I cited Jack Straw—there have been others—as one of the architects of the Act who has been seriously concerned and has made the case for reform. So there are, across the political divide, strong arguments for making a change. We have put proposals forward—that is the difference—including draft illustrative clauses precisely to stimulate the kind of debate we should have. I think that that answers not only the right hon. and learned Lady’s point, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, about pre-legislative scrutiny. By putting text out there for consideration, we can get right to the crux of these issues.
The right hon. and learned Lady rightly asked about remedies. We will, of course, retain effective domestic remedies, but what we will do with the permissions stage is have a check, which the Strasbourg Court itself has, on unmeritorious claims. It is also right that it has been a long-standing principle in this country that he who comes to equity must come to the court with clean hands. [Interruption.] She is nodding. I hope she agrees. So I think it is right for us to look at strengthening the provisions for the courts, within their discretion, to be able to take into account the wrongdoing of those who claim human rights.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
As the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, which looks after the ECHR, I am pleased to hear that we will remain in the convention. I think that that is very important to us. The ECHR is itself badly in need of reform. Will my right hon. Friend join me in the work I am already doing to try to achieve a reform of that court, so that it better deals with the human rights problems across the whole of Europe?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of the ECHR and makes, in a powerful and eloquent way, the case for trying to deliver better outcomes at international level. We want that as well, so I will work with him and support his efforts. We, of course, want to ensure that the Council and ECHR system, post the 2012 Brighton declaration, is properly implemented. We were told—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Justice Committee, is nodding—that the Court was entering an age of subsidiarity, which also picks up on the point made by the leader of the Labour party back in 1999. What we are doing goes with the grain of that, but we will also hold Strasbourg and the Council system to its word to see through those reforms.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is the Justice Secretary who is contradictory, is it not? All the convention did was to be enacted in the Human Rights Act, so he cannot say he is keeping the convention and taking away the Human Rights Act. We are talking about evidence, not opinion. Will he publish a list of cases where British judges have not applied British law and have been hamstrung by European law?
Dominic Raab
I always enjoy engaging with the right hon. Lady on these subjects. She will see a list of the cases set out, the diagnosis, in both the IHRAR report by Sir Peter Gross and the consultation document. She will not have had a chance to read it cover to cover yet, but I encourage her to do so. She talks about it as if there is only one way to incorporate or implement the ECHR in UK law, but there is no one on either side of this debate who thinks that that is the case. We had proposals. I remember that when I sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights there was consideration of a next stage of a Bill of Rights which took a different approach. We have seen in every Council of Europe member state different ways of enacting the ECHR, so I gently say to her that the convention and how it is interpreted and applied, in particular the operation of the separation of powers between the judicial, the Executive and the legislative branch, can be done in different ways and we want to sharpen that demarcation.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent court judgments appear to have extended privacy law in this country against the provision of section 12 of the existing Human Rights Act and without the debate or approval of Parliament? Can he say whether his reforms will strengthen section 12 to right the balance, and will he stress once again the importance of freedom of expression?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend, as ever, hits the nail on the head. We will be looking precisely at that provision. We think it was introduced with a legitimate aim. It is one of those things that we actually support, but that has not delivered the kind of emphasis and protection around freedom of speech. I agree with the point that he made about avoiding the incremental extension of continental-style privacy law into the UK; we have a common law tradition, and tend to have a greater emphasis on free speech and transparency. That is coupled with the EU influence—I do not want to get wholesale into that debate, but he will remember proposals for a right to be forgotten—and the sensitivities that we increasingly see around debate, which, in this Chamber, in our country and in our society, we have to protect, and our proposals will allow us to do just that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
After 96 people were crushed to death in the Hillsborough disaster and the victims themselves were blamed, it was the Human Rights Act that helped their families finally to have their voices heard. The Human Rights Act is also a cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement. Why do the Government see the need to create greater uncertainty and jeopardy in Northern Ireland just for the sake of political posturing? By the way, I have seen a very interesting poll by Lord Ashcroft, which is about what people in Northern Ireland think about the future. More than 60% now believe that there will probably be a united Ireland within the next 20 years.
Dominic Raab
I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she looks at the Good Friday agreement, she will see that it talks about incorporation of the ECHR, not incorporation of the Human Rights Act. We have made it clear that we will maintain our position as a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is complemented by our stalwart support of the Good Friday agreement.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today on overhauling our human rights framework. Does he agree that his reforms, after discussion and deliberation with colleagues and a wide variety of people, must strengthen the role of Parliament and the UK courts, rather than relying on judgment from Strasbourg?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend. He has been a long-standing champion of this issue, and has had a long-standing interest in it. I think the separation of powers between the legislative, the Executive and the judicial branches is really important. We want a robust judiciary, which is why we are proposing to strengthen the primacy of the Supreme Court—it is called a Supreme Court for a reason, and there is not a doctrine of precedent in Strasbourg. We also need to make sure that if there are expansions of human rights, the shifting of the goalposts that frustrates many of our constituents, they are subject to the democratic scrutiny of this House.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Government will make it crystal clear that the UK courts are under no duty to follow Strasbourg’s case law, so will it be a matter of pick and mix from the articles contained in the convention? If that is the case, using the Secretary of State’s logic, what is the point of being signatories to the ECHR when he has made it clear that the Government will choose only those articles they feel are appropriate?
Dominic Raab
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has not followed the point that I was making. We will stay within the European convention. There are some articles, such as article 8(2), which admit a qualification to protect security. We will avail ourselves of that. The issue is about the interpretation of the application. There is no doctrine of precedent in Strasbourg, which is one of the areas of confusion that has arisen because we do have a doctrine of precedent in the UK courts. We will make it clear that it is for UK courts to apply in relation to UK case law and UK circumstances and, above all, to follow the will of the elected lawmakers. When there is a declaration of incompatibility and the courts will be free to still use that tool, that should come back to this House to decide what to do.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
When speaking with politicians from former Soviet countries, it is invariably the European convention on human rights that they value as the protector of their, and indeed our, western democratic values. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is not intending to pull out of the ECHR or to change it, but I can foresee that this will cause upset with our allies, so will he today say that he will go to our allies and make it quite clear that he actually wants to back the ECHR and will be backing their democratic values?
Dominic Raab
I think the message we send—that we will remain a state party to the European convention—is important. We know how important it is in relation to our allies and partners and the Good Friday agreement. It is also incumbent on us to lead by example, as we have done for many years, and ensure that we have a system that is well regarded the world over. That means getting our own house in order. Reforming the Human Rights Act and making sure we have clear separation of powers, and ensuring that, when the goalposts shift, this House—elected Members, accountable to our constituents—makes those decisions, are absolutely crucial.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
If we were playing authoritarian bingo, after today’s statement, we would have a full house. Not only have the Government come for our trade union rights, our rights to vote and our rights to protest, now our human rights are up for grabs. Today’s statement does nothing to strengthen human rights and everything to weaken them. The Conservative party is not a party of freedom, but one of growing authoritarianism and many of them over there know it.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman has done one thing with his words: highlight the importance of protecting free speech and rambunctious debate, even though he is wrong in everything he said.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Secretary of State is to be commended on the statement, but will he be clear that we need to challenge the very principle of natural rights, which gave rise to the Human Rights Act? It has had the effect of emphasising individual interest above social solidarity, weakening communal will and undermining the sovereignty of this Parliament, which is and always has been the primary guarantor of Britain’s rights. Will my right hon. Friend conduct a root and branch reform of that assumption about rights, put aside consideration of the Human Rights Act, which is part of the Blairite legacy, and challenge those parts of the convention that frustrate this Parliament and the wishes of the British people?
Dominic Raab
I always enjoy hearing my right hon. Friend’s side of the argument. As John Stuart Mill said:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
I do not take quite the same view as my right hon. Friend, but I welcome his iconoclasm and his challenge to ensure that we get a better balance between individual rights— which, as he has often said to me, Bentham described as “nonsense upon stilts”—and communal and societal needs, and particularly public protection in the areas that I outlined, whether parole reform, police forces or deportation of foreign national offenders.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Llefarydd. During the course of devolution, Wales has developed a distinct body of law, which safeguards specific rights arising from international law, including the rights of children and older people. Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 makes it clear that
“observing and implementing international obligations and obligations under the Human Rights Convention”
are the responsibility of our Senedd.
In Wales, we learn fast. We learn that, for this Government, the word “consult” means a tick-box exercise. I therefore ask the Secretary of State how the proposed consultation on the UK’s international human rights obligations will not undermine the Senedd’s ability to protect and promote human rights in Wales.
Dominic Raab
We will consult not only the devolved Administrations, but practitioners, academics and civil society in all the devolved nations. As I mentioned earlier, the Human Rights Act is UK-wide legislation and its enactment is protected under the devolution settlement. Amending it is for the UK Government. However, we also recognise that devolved Administrations can legislate on human rights in areas that remain devolved competences. That is the position. We respect it and I look forward to consulting the right hon. Lady and proving her cynicism wrong.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The welcome reforms are long overdue and now urgent, so will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the primary legislation to implement them after the consultation will be introduced before the summer recess of 2022?
Dominic Raab
It is important to have the consultation, to listen carefully and look at how we can refine, hone and chisel the proposals, given all the sensitivities we are very mindful of, but we want to introduce the Bill of Rights and get it enacted in this Parliament.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not a lawyer, but this piece of legislation really worries me, because with legislation I always look at where the drive for it comes from. I cannot find it supported in the academic community, the legal community or the business community, and it is increasingly clear that it comes from the increasingly strident right wing of the Conservative party and the Back Benchers so positively in favour of it. Will the Secretary of State, even today, look at all the serious leaders in the newspapers—The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent? He has very few friends on this.
Dominic Raab
I think the hon. Gentleman must have read the papers a little bit quicker than I did. It is not just Conservative politicians. Indeed, former members of the judiciary make the case for reform very powerfully, and there is of course the Labour architect of the Human Rights Act in Jack Straw, who has made the case for reform. But the real truth is that the calls for reform and a bit more common sense in the system have come from our voters—the public—and he would do well to remember that.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am a member of the Council of Europe, which I think has lost its way. It lets Russia literally get away with murder but interferes in the minutiae of so-called human rights in western democracies. I support what the Secretary of State has said today, but I want to be convinced that if we stay in the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe, what he is doing will actually make much difference. He can convince me in one way. At the moment, our deportation policy is a complete joke. We never deport anybody. Illegal migrants know that they can vanish in the community. Will he now convince me that after we pass this we will be able to deport these people and stop this illegal migration?
Dominic Raab
Human rights reform will no more be a silver bullet for all the ills of the world than any other reform, but it will deal with a whole range of serious and significant issues that the people of this country, my right hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, want dealing with. The reason I give in the consultation paper—I wrote about it in The Times today—is that article 8 is an example of a qualified right that allows us to stretch, or to press, the margin of appreciation. Some 70% of the successful human rights challenges to deportation orders by foreign national offenders come from people claiming under article 8 on the right to a family life. That is a very good example of what we can address.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Leading human rights lawyer and expert, and former adviser to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Adam Wagner, said of these proposals this morning that this Government may be the first in the history of liberal democracies to enact a Bill of Rights that has the effect of reducing rather than increasing rights and protections. Are a Government who have traditionally provided themselves on the defence of the individual against the state proud of that description?
Dominic Raab
I do not accept it, but I know that a number of people, including the shadow Justice Secretary, have commented on the proposals before having read them. Freedom of speech, and trial by jury and the recognition that we can give to it, are just two examples of the way we can strengthen human rights, but also strengthen the credibility of human rights so that they are not dirty words in the minds of many of the public.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Significant planning harm is being caused in the Kettering constituency and across the country by Gypsies and Travellers deliberately building permanent, unauthorised structures in the open countryside, against all the planning regulations. When the local planning authority seeks to enforce against this in the planning courts, more often than not the authority is overruled by the Human Rights Act. Will the reforms that the Secretary of State has proposed today help to rebalance the planning system so that planning laws apply equally to everyone, everywhere?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises an issue that I have heard raised quite widely across the House. He will know that the Home Secretary has already announced proposals to strengthen our powers in relation to illegal encampments. The critical thing that our proposal for a Bill of Rights will do is protect legislation enacted in this House by elected Members accountable to our constituents and stop it being whittled away, revised or amended as a result of the Human Rights Act and what it requires the courts to do.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Lord Chancellor’s statement made a cursory reference to the devolved regions. I am not sure if he ever got round to reading all of the Good Friday agreement after he revealed at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that he had not read it, but the prospect of the Human Rights Act was critical in those negotiations and has proved crucial in the years since, both for victims and survivors and for all those seeking good governance in all areas of life, because it puts those safeguards in the hands of citizens. Has he received specific legal advice on the interaction of his proposals with Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Act 1998?
Dominic Raab
Of course we are very conscious of any impact on the Good Friday agreement settlement, which is why it is important to stay in the European convention. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the reassurance she needs.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The residents of Blackpool are sick and tired of the way in which the Human Rights Act has been abused by foreign criminals so they can remain in the UK. My constituents will be delighted by my right hon. Friend’s statement, but can he reassure them that the measures he outlined will help to make it easier to deport dangerous foreign criminals and will work alongside our new Nationality and Borders Bill to make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers?
Dominic Raab
Let me be clear that, as we have set out at some length, there are some things that we cannot do. We cannot send people back to the arms of a torturing tyrant in violation of article 3. Even if we came out of the European convention, there would be other international treaties and frankly, morally, I do not think that is the right thing to do. The reality is, however, that the majority of the challenges that we have had—70% of those in relation to foreign national offenders—have come under not article 3 but article 8. That is a good example of why this reform will be meaningful and far-reaching, and will have the support of our constituents.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My fear is that the consultation on our Human Rights Act is more about giving more power to the Executive and there being fewer challenges to it than about meaningful reform. Will the Justice Secretary answer my earlier question on which of the following breaches of human rights, on which the courts ruled that the Government could be challenged, will no longer apply: rights against torture, rights against medical experimentation on British military personnel, or rights preventing discrimination against disabled people?
Dominic Raab
Of course it is right to say that in none of those areas will our reforms prevent accountability through constituents being able to bring cases to the courts. I will correct the hon. Lady on a broader point. If she looks at the consultation, she will see that it is not about accumulating authority or power to the Executive; it is about the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branch. As the goalposts shift on human rights, which is fundamentally a legislative function, hon. Members on both sides of the House should be responsible for that, and ultimately should be responsible to our constituents for that.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I first send best wishes for a speedy recovery to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who, had she not tested positive for covid, would certainly have been here with some difficult questions for the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that those questions will be coming as soon as she is restored to full health.
The Secretary of State said that hon. Members in this House must have the last word on the law of the land, by which I presume he means this land. He will not forget that there are three other lands—three other nations—that are only partially under the jurisdiction of this place and partly under the jurisdiction of their respective national Parliaments. Will he give an absolute guarantee that if any of those national Parliaments seeks to use its devolved powers to grant its citizens a higher level of human rights protection than is covered in UK legislation, the rights of those devolved Parliaments will be respected?
Dominic Raab
I pass on our best wishes to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I hope that she is back up and running and well soon.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we think that it is elected lawmakers who should have the last word on the laws of the land—that includes the devolved competencies. What he is saying, logic would suggest, is that he wants Strasbourg to be able to overrule not just Westminster but the Scottish Parliament. We are supporting democracy in all the nations of the UK and in this House.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This is the third or fourth attempt by successive Tory Governments to fillet the Human Rights Act, and it is no more coherent than the ones that were abandoned. We know that it is intended to pick on what are perceived as the easier or unpopular targets, but it will mainly disadvantage ordinary citizens of this country who are victims of unlawful decisions by the state. It purports to repatriate powers from Europe, but we are rightly staying in the European convention on human rights, so more decisions will go to Strasbourg. Judges will no longer be bound by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, but they are not now. Will he take the opportunity of the consultation to look at that again and see whether the measures are coherent in any way?
Dominic Raab
I think this is the first time that a consultation document has been put forward to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman is right that it has been much debated; we are now taking action. I am afraid that I disagree with him: we are very much focused on protecting and strengthening our tradition of freedom, of which I have given freedom of speech as an example.
Frankly, the hon. Gentleman has a choice to make. He can sit back and bask in the generalities of what he has said, or he can recognise, as the former Home Secretary and architect of the Human Rights Act does, that there has been abuse of the system and that if we reform and take our responsibilities in this House seriously, we can make a change for the better and introduce some much-needed common sense.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary has made much of his concerns about article 8, the right to family life. To the extent that it affects the best interests of children, it is of course a particularly important article. Can he assure me that the changes that he intends to bring in will in no way water down our obligations to serve children’s best interests, as prescribed in the Children Act 1989, or our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which we are of course a signatory?
Dominic Raab
Of course we live up to our international obligations, and it is precisely partly the aim of these reforms to protect the bespoke, tailored approach to primary legislation when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable in our society, including through the Children Act.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
How will the Secretary of State convince me that his biggest supporters in this will not be President Erdoğan of Turkey and President Putin in Russia? Can he also tell me this: if the Government move ahead with his proposal to give an amnesty to those who committed murder during the troubles in Northern Ireland—and they do have that intention—and given that he says he supports the article 13 of the European convention, on the right to an effective remedy, how will the families of those murdered get justice if there is not proper access to the Strasbourg Court?
Dominic Raab
We are very confident that the proposals that we have put forward, given the passage of time, are ECHR-compliant. The hon. Gentleman talks about being friends with dictatorial countries. Frankly, this reform will be about restoring some common sense and some credibility to human rights in this country. He asks whose side we are on. We are on the side of the British public, and he should get on board.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The prospect of a Bill of Rights is an overwhelming project, as we all recognise. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that all minority groups receive protection, and that religious freedom and the expression and sharing of faith are explicitly protected as a foundation of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Of course there are provisions for non-discrimination in the ECHR, but also in UK law. This reform will allow us to strengthen the protections that we in this House provide, including the hon. Gentleman, and make sure that they are not whittled away, not undermined, and not revised through a combination of section 2, section 3 and the other provisions of the Human Rights Act.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Human Rights Act is entrenched in the Welsh constitution, so what amendments would need to be made, if any, to the Government of Wales Act if these proposals were to be implemented? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking not to proceed to legislate unless he receives prior consent from the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I said, it is a protective enactment. We will respect the devolved competences. Until we have got to the stage of full legislative proposals—which we will, and I look forward to having the discussion then—I think it is a bit too early to touch on the points that he made.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
New licensing rules for arms trade announced last week are already causing concern that they could make it easier for international human rights abuses to be ignored when the Government make decisions on sales. Has the Secretary of State considered how changes to domestic human rights legislation could have a knock-on effect on our international strategies?
Dominic Raab
I would say we have one of the most robust and rigorous approaches to export licensing, and we will continue to do so.
Points of Order
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice in the last couple of days I have been confounded in my attempts to represent my constituents by public authorities—[Hon. Members: “Who?”] NHS England and National Savings & Investments. They have refused to deal with me because they tell me that I do not have the permission of the constituents to share their details. Now, I do not know about your office, Mr Speaker, and I do not know about the offices of other hon. Members, but we are far too busy dealing with plenty of genuine cases to get a phone book, pick a name at random and make up a bogus case to write to these public authorities.
So can you confirm, please, Mr Speaker, that if a constituent comes to see us and asks us to make representations on their behalf, that should be considered by any public authority—not just NHS England or National Savings & Investments—to be permission granted by the constituent, and they should stop hiding behind such rules that do not exist?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. Although I cannot comment on individual cases, I am aware that the data protection regime recognises the importance of constituency casework and that schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 allows that data to be shared with elected representatives in certain circumstances. I am surprised that public authorities such as NHS England—which should know better given how many cases it deals with—and other public authorities do not appear to be aware of this. I am very disappointed that NHS England in particular should prevent hon. Members such as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) from getting on with their duties. I hope that it will get the message quickly and reflect on what we are saying in this House.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Defence questions on 15 November, I raised the plight of nearly 200 Afghans who had worked with the British Council but are still hiding in Afghanistan in fear of their lives, moving from safe house to safe house, often with no money, as they flee the Taliban. These individuals are eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme, but are facing long delays in their applications being processed. At Defence questions, the Secretary of State committed to arranging a meeting with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, but despite regular chasing through the normal channels, this still has not taken place.
Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance as to how we can ensure that this meeting takes place, because a number of us across this place want to ask why there is such a delay in the processing of applications. I opposed and voted against the Afghanistan intervention once al-Qaeda were evicted, but I believe that we are now compounding our error by not honouring our debt of honour to these individuals—and it needs to be put right now.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am sorry to hear that the meeting with the Secretary of State that was offered almost a month ago has not yet happened. I am sure that this matter will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State, and I expect the meeting to take place as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman has certainly put it on the record, and I would like to hear from him if the meeting does not happen.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 6 December, I tabled two named day questions to the Cabinet Office, asking about a simple matter: have air filtration systems been installed in rooms in No. 10 and No. 11; which rooms have they been installed in; and how much did that cost? Of course, the motivation was to see whether No. 10 has better protections than, say, schools. There are two days left before the recess and I am keen to get an answer before the House rises to those simple questions, which should have been answered by now. What more can I do to get the answers that we need before we all go on our Christmas break?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. I am disappointed that the answers to named day questions were not given on the day specified, as they should have been. The hon. Member may well want to raise the issue with the Procedure Committee, which monitors the performance of the Government in this area. In the meantime, I am sure that the exchange will be brought to the attention of the Department, and hope that the answers will be provided quickly. The rules should be taken seriously by the Government. I am sure that everybody will be listening, and I am sure that the disappointment will be reflected on and responded to with an early answer.
Cold Climate Allowance
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Cold Climate Allowance Bill 2021-22 View all Cold Climate Allowance 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
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on providing additional allowances to people in receipt of the state pension and other social security benefits in places with colder climates to reflect the increased cost of domestic heating; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks, on a cross-party basis, to introduce a cold climate allowance throughout the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the colleagues from eight parties, along with an independent Member, who have lent it their support. I am pleased that, as well as having cross-party support, the Bill has attracted support from MPs in each of the constituent nations of the UK. Indeed, as someone who was born in the north of Ireland, I am pleased that every party from Northern Ireland represented in this Chamber supports the Bill. That is no small achievement.
In essence, the Bill is the same as Bills introduced in the 1980s by the former SNP leader Gordon Wilson MP and in the 1990s by the former SNP parliamentary group leader Margaret Ewing MP. I consider it a great honour to follow in their footsteps.
The Bill is UK-wide in its scope and seeks to tackle income, as one of the recognised causes of fuel poverty, by paying a cold climate allowance: an additional monetary payment during the winter months that would be paid directly to eligible people in receipt of the state pension and other social security benefits. The amount of the proposed cold climate allowance is based on paying 10%, 20% or 30%—depending on location—of the annual equivalent service charge for fuel and associated costs that is calculated in respect of housing benefit. It would be an automatic and continuing payment, over 17 weeks from December to March.
The Bill would divide the United Kingdom into four climatic zones: zone 4 would cover the highlands and northern Scotland and would result in an automatic weekly payment of £45.05; zone 3 would cover central and southern Scotland, Northern Ireland and northern England and would provide a weekly payment of £27.56; zone 3 would cover central England and Wales and would entail a weekly payment of £13.78; and zone 1 would cover the remainder of the United Kingdom but would not produce an automatic payment. Existing cold weather payments would continue to apply in zone 1, as they would throughout the UK during cold weather snaps.
The Bill has been welcomed by those organisations in the UK that are committed to ending fuel poverty—namely, Energy Action Scotland and its sister body National Energy Action, which operates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Why should we introduce a cold climate allowance now? People right across the UK face a perfect storm this winter, with rising energy bills combined with an increase in the energy price cap and falling incomes for families, particularly in the wake of the removal of the universal credit uplift. The Bill would go some way towards shielding our most vulnerable from that perfect storm. In addition, there is a crisis in the energy market as large energy suppliers go out of business. With the rise in wholesale gas prices, 28 suppliers have gone out of business in the UK, including Bulb Energy, Britain’s seventh-largest supplier with 1.7 million customers.
Energy Action Scotland predicts that, as a result of high energy prices, poor levels of energy efficiency in homes and falling incomes, this winter
“many lives will be lost and unnecessary pressure placed on the NHS”.
Already, 2,000 more lives in Scotland are lost across the winter months than in the summer because people are living in cold, damp and difficult-to-heat homes.
All Members will be aware of rising household energy prices. The surge in the market price of gas is unprecedented and has more than quadrupled in the last year. National Energy Action estimates that the expected increase in gas bills in April could mean that the cost of heating the average home will have doubled over the past 18 months. Energy prices are already high and are set to rise substantially in April 2022, with high prices expected for some time to come.
New research published only last week by the Global Change foundation predicts that household energy bills are set to rise by up to £900 per annum in the coming year. Customers on standard tariffs will see a rise of between £450 and £650, and those who switch from cheaper fixed-price deals as they expire will go on to the price cap, which could see a rise of between £700 and £900.
According to National Energy Action, the cost of living is at its highest level in a decade, with household energy bills being the principal driver. NEA estimates that average domestic energy bills have soared by more than £230 per customer compared with last winter. This leaves 4.5 million households across the UK now struggling to heat and power their homes. Many are sinking further into debt; others are forced to ration their energy use or turn off the heating altogether, leaving them at acute risk of serious ill health or even premature death.
Unfortunately, many energy experts predict that bills will soar again this coming April, possibly by as much as £550 for the average dual fuel bill. Those calculations are based on average energy use; larger families and people who live in poorly insulated homes are likely to pay even more.
Last week, E.ON Energy chief executive Michael Lewis told ITV:
“Many people are in for a shock”.
He said that rising energy bills
“will certainly cause hardship to customers.”
The Bill would go some way towards addressing that hardship for some of our most vulnerable constituents this winter. According to a new study published earlier this month by Citizens Advice Scotland, 36% of people in Scotland—one in three—are now struggling to pay their energy bills. Of those, 80% cited rising energy bills as a reason.
Why pay a different cold climate allowance in different parts of the UK? The stark reality is that it is colder in different parts of the UK and that weather conditions are predictably more severe in some areas than others. The different rates of cold climate allowance that the Bill proposes would reflect those climatic variations. It is thanks to the campaigning efforts of Margaret Ewing and others in decades past that the UK Government finally conceded the difference in heating costs across the UK. According to the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model, taking Bristol as a baseline, heating a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating requires 23% more fuel in Glasgow, 28% more in Edinburgh, 32% more in Dundee, 41% more in Aberdeen, 53% more in Braemar and a staggering 66% more in Lerwick.
We know that there are extreme pressures in remote, rural and island communities. Households, particularly in off-gas areas, face some of the highest energy costs anywhere in the UK. Households in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles of Scotland endure the highest rates of fuel poverty. The Bill would provide those households with welcome additional support. It is beyond doubt that significant climatic variation exists across the UK; the Bill would allow us to balance it and do something meaningful about it.
Why use incomes to tackle fuel poverty, not home insulation or other energy efficiency measures? It is not a case of either/or. Someone may have the most energy-efficient home in the world, but if they have insufficient income, they may be too afraid to turn on their heating system or use it to the level required to provide adequate warmth. Indeed, the home energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector in Scotland is an exemplar in these islands, but many of the people occupying those homes are on low incomes or in receipt of the retirement pension or other social security benefits. Further help for households struggling to afford the rising cost of energy is therefore necessary in Scotland and across the UK. The Bill seeks to provide that support.
Frazer Scott, chief executive of Energy Action Scotland, put it well:
“Far too many people are facing a cold, cold winter, unable to afford to heat their homes to the levels that support their health and wellbeing.”
Age Scotland and Age UK have both highlighted the financial challenges that older people face this winter. These people are our constituents and we have a duty to act. Energy Action Scotland and National Energy Action believe that more must be done to amplify support when extreme weather has an impact on already financially stressed households. People should never feel compelled to self-disconnect or otherwise ration their energy supply. National Energy Action says:
“We hope the Bill is successful or, at the very least, it prompts the UK Government to come forward with their own proposals to help more vulnerable households afford a warm home”.
As we move into winter recess, hon. Members may view winter scenes on Christmas cards with warm fondness. However, it is likely that too many of our constituents will be filled with fear and dread if such wintry conditions descend upon their reality. My Bill would provide practical help in the winter months when it is needed most, help to keep people warm, reduce pressure on the NHS and, ultimately, save lives. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Neale Hanvey, Kenny MacAskill, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Grahame Morris, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Jim Shannon, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry, Margaret Ferrier and Alison Thewliss present the Bill.
Neale Hanvey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 218).
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (1) (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), proceedings on the Motions in the name of Maggie Throup relating to Public Health (SI, 2021, Nos. 1400, 1415 and 1416) and the Motion in the name of Secretary Sajid Javid relating to the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 6.30 pm; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those Motions forthwith; such Questions, though opposed, may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Public Health
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 441 / Noes: 41 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 369 / Noes: 126 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 385 / Noes: 100 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The Business of the House (Today) motion just agreed to by the House provides for the motions on the four statutory instruments on today’s Order Paper, each relating to public health, to be debated together until 6.30 pm. At the end of the debate, the Deputy Speaker will call the Minister to move each motion formally and will put the Question on each motion separately. I hope that that clarifies the situation for the House.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1400), dated 9 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we will take the following motions:
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1415), dated 13 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1416), dated 13 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.
That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 9 November, be approved.
Sajid Javid
The covid-19 pandemic has caused upheaval across the world, forcing Governments everywhere to wrestle with how to keep their citizens safe while protecting the liberties that we all hold dear. We have learned a lot from our experience and the experience of others, and of course we are still learning. But we can take huge pride that thanks to the defences that we have built, so much of this year has been a year of recovery. We have enjoyed greater freedom than at any time during the pandemic so far. Thanks to the rapid progress of our vaccination programme, our investment in treatments and our decision to open up during the warmer summer months, we are in a far stronger position than we were last winter.
But even as I stood at this Dispatch Box back in July to announce the major milestone of taking step 4 in our road map, I said that
“we know that the greatest risk to the progress we have made is the possibility of another new variant, especially one that can escape immunity and puncture the protective wall of our vaccination programme”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 22.]
We have always known that variants have the potential to knock us off our course, and we have built the capacity to identify and respond to those that pose a threat.
The vast majority of new variants present no risk whatsoever. Since the summer, there have been hundreds of new variants, but only one of them—omicron—has been designated a variant of concern. For example, just last month, I updated the House from this Dispatch Box on AY.4.2, a new form of the delta variant, which preliminary analysis showed at that time might be more infectious. I said then that we would keep it under review, and that is what we did—and we took no action.
But omicron is a grave threat. We acted early to slow its spread, strengthening our testing regime and placing 11 countries on the travel red list, but despite those swift steps, the data over the past few days has shown more cause for concern. I would like to reinforce to the House today—to all hon. Members—why omicron represents such a risk to the progress that we have all made so far together.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State’s comments and am grateful that he has brought these measures before the House. I asked him yesterday whether he would give a commitment at the Dispatch Box to recall the House if the Government had to bring further measures in other than those being proposed today, so that we could be involved on behalf of our constituents in making that decision. He kindly agreed to take that matter away and discuss it with the Prime Minister. Is he able now, at the Dispatch Box, to commit that if the Government were to take further measures to deal with omicron during the recess, they would recall the House of Commons so that we are able to have all the evidence and participate in taking those decisions on behalf of the constituents we represent?
Sajid Javid
I of course understand the importance of my right hon. Friend’s question; as he said, he asked it yesterday and, understandably, has asked it again today. I hope he will understand that I am not able to give that commitment alone; it would not be a decision for me and my Department alone, but I know the Government would consider it together seriously.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Might the Secretary of State consider going a little further? Since the data is changing all the time—almost by the minute—it is inconceivable that in a week’s time and a week after that we will be in the same place that we are in today. This House needs to consider the information available to it in near real time, so will he go away and consider whether it would be appropriate now to ensure that the House is able to consider these matters for sure next week and the week after that?
Sajid Javid
I will consider that. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that this is a fast-moving situation and it is right that the Government continue to monitor it and respond when necessary, but I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that right here and now the matter being debated and the regulation before the House is the best possible response that can be given by this Parliament today.
Sajid Javid
I will, but then I will need to make some progress.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. If he is going to consider those matters will he also consider the following issue? The virus spreads if people are not able to isolate, so will he think about addressing the issue of statutory sick pay, and in particular spreading the scope of SSP and raising it to a proper rate so that people can isolate and therefore not spread the virus and not end up in our hospitals?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that some measures are already in place such as the ability to get sick pay from day one and that there are hardship funds, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question: he asked us to look at that further and we will do so. All these matters are under review.
Sajid Javid
No, I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman later.
I want to turn now to some of the things we have learned about the new variant. This is a fast-moving situation and in the last week we have been able to determine the following things with a high degree of confidence. First, omicron is more transmissible than the delta variant. We can see that the growth in omicron cases here in the UK is now mirroring the rapid increase in South Africa, and the current observed doubling time is around every two days. Although yesterday we reported that there were 4,713 confirmed cases of omicron in the UK, the UK Health Security Agency estimate for the number of daily infections was 42 times higher at 200,000. Scientists have never seen a covid-19 variant capable of spreading so rapidly, so we have to look at what we can do to slow omicron’s advance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State is making a strong point about exactly why we need to do far more to address the threat of omicron, but does he accept that the Government’s mixed messaging has been incredibly unhelpful? Telling people that a tsunami of omicron is on the way but at the same time saying we can go on partying absolutely undermines that message. Will he have the moral courage to say that we actually do need to reduce our social contacts, and will he make it possible for people to do that both with the sick pay we have already talked about and by ensuring businesses get the financial support they need if fewer people are going into their premises?
Sajid Javid
What I think we need to do are the measures that are in front of the House today, and I hope the House will support them. I think those are the most important measures we can take right now.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
But has the Secretary of State seen the statement from Dr Angelique Coetzee, the head of the South African Medical Association, today? She says that the Government’s measures on lockdown may be counterproductive, that omicron is a mild form of covid-19 that will have huge benefits for herd immunity and protection, and that delaying its spread may give time for more virulent and pathogenic variants to take hold and cause more deaths in the UK.
Sajid Javid
First, I think my hon. Friend, if I heard him correctly, talked about the “Government’s measures on lockdown”. I am not sure where he has seen these measures on lockdown, because they are certainly not being presented by this Government here today. On whether the omicron variant is milder, I will come to that issue very shortly.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Building on the point from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), which my right hon. Friend says he is about to expand on, the question is: when will we know whether omicron gives severe or mild disease? If it is mild, how quickly could the decision be made that this would be an advantage to get rid of delta and to get herd immunity while it does not create strong disease?
Sajid Javid
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I am about to come to precisely the point he raises.
The second thing about omicron that I want to share is that, although we do not yet have a complete picture of its severity, even if its severity is significantly lower, the much higher transmissibility of omicron means that it still has the potential to overwhelm the NHS. Let us take the current observed doubling time of two years—[Interruption.] Sorry. Let us take the current doubling time of two days. If, for argument’s sake, omicron is only half as severe as delta, after the lag between cases and hospitalisations has taken effect, that would buy us only two days before omicron hospitalisations reach the same level as for delta.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sajid Javid
I will do so later.
In England, 10 people are confirmed to have been hospitalised with the omicron variant. I know that some hon. Members have said that, because confirmed hospitalisations from omicron are low, we do not need to act, but it is the fact that omicron hospitalisations are low that means now is the best time to act. We have seen during previous waves—we have already seen this—that the lag between infections and hospitalisations is about two weeks. When infections are rising so quickly, we are likely to see a substantial rise in hospitalisations before any measure starts to have an impact, so there really is no time to lose.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I understand the nuanced point that my right hon. Friend is making, but on the forecasts, does he accept that many academics have doubted the previous forecasts, describing them as “hysterical”, “substantially inflated”, “consistently overconfident”, “lurid” and “severely flawed”? We have had a problem with inaccurate forecasts. Does he accept that point?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I absolutely accept that point. With previous variants of covid, we have seen forecasts and estimates—whether from academics, think-tanks or others—that have been completely off the mark, but all I would say, gently, to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members is that, just because several forecasts in the past have been wrong, it does not mean that every estimate or forecast is always wrong. I hope my hon. Friend will note that.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks about hospitalisations and the danger they may cause to the NHS, but will he reflect on the fact that it is not just hospitalisations but the length of stay in hospitals that determines how many beds are occupied? Evidence from South Africa suggests not only that there are fewer hospitalisations, but that people are in hospital for a much shorter time. Is that reflected in his calculations?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. First, he is absolutely right to make that point. Of course it is not just about individuals entering hospital but about how many days they are likely to stay in hospital. I believe that for the delta variant an individual stays, on average, about nine days in hospital. If that was cut to five or six days, of course it would help with capacity. First, we cannot assume that, because what we are seeing in terms of the impact in South Africa is that hospitalisations there are rising rapidly; there are hundreds of people in intensive care units and on ventilators. It is hard to completely read that across, given that the average age of the South African population is about 27. I hope he would agree that, as with the point I just made on severity, even if the hospital stay is half of what it is at the moment, the rate at which this thing is growing—and if it continues to grow at that rate—means that that benefit could be cancelled out in two days.
Mr Perkins
The Secretary of State is facing a lot of criticism from behind him, but he should be assured that on these Benches we absolutely recognise the dangers of the variant before him. Does he accept, however, that having come in to his post saying that the end of restrictions was “irreversible”, he has created an expectation that he is going to constantly ignore the scientific advice, which is why he is facing so much disappointment from those behind him now?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman may have heard earlier, when I started my remarks, that I talked about what I said at this Dispatch Box in July and, specifically, about the risk of a vaccine-escape variant. I do want to talk about the vaccines and this variant—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I will give way one more time for now and then I will come back to other colleagues.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am grateful, and I think my views on this are pretty well understood. Given the case the Secretary of State is setting out, one thing I am puzzled by is why he is only going as far as he is. Will he explain to us why, in his estimation, the measures he is taking are equal to the situation that he is describing?
Sajid Javid
That is a very fair question, as always from my hon. Friend. In the measures we are setting out, we are taking into account the very best advice we are being given—this includes making sure that we are not just listening to every piece of advice or every forecast we are seeing. He will recall that back in the summer had we listened to some of the advice we were receiving we would not have opened up in the way we did. So we are taking account of the advice, deciding whether it should influence our decision making and then coming to a balanced and proportionate response: the measures I have talked of and, for example, increasing the booster programme, which I will turn to in a moment too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I must make some progress, but I will take further interventions in a moment. I wish to talk about the importance of what we have learned about omicron and the vaccines. Vaccines have proven to be highly effective against previous variants, such as the alpha and delta variants. That has weakened the link between cases, and hospitalisations and deaths, and it has allowed us to reopen our country once more. But recent analysis from the UK Health Security Agency has shown that two doses of a vaccine provide much lower levels of protection against symptomatic infection from omicron when compared with the delta variant. More encouragingly, effectiveness rose considerably in the early period after a booster dose, providing about 70% to 75% protection against symptomatic infection. This data starkly shows the importance of booster doses and why we are working so hard to get many more boosters into arms. I will say more about that in just a moment. Our strategy is to take proportionate action now, to come down hard on this virus and strengthen our defences, rather than waiting until it is too late.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Surely the whole point is that we cannot be complacent and assume that this likely huge increase in infections is all going to result in very mild symptoms. What the Government are doing, therefore, is taking modest steps to ensure that if that does not happen, we will be prepared. Will he promise that if this situation does not materialise, he will be able to relax again?
Sajid Javid
We all want to relax. I wish I was more relaxed now than I already am. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that, and I agree with him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate that this is an escalating situation which needs urgent attention, but the fact is that if we are enabling social mixing, that is the very context in which we will see transmission, as we did with delta last December. Will the Secretary of State review these measures, as it seems that the statutory instruments before us today are already out of date?
Sajid Javid
It is of course important that we keep measures under review, but, for the reasons I gave earlier, I will continue to present this set of measures to the House. They strike the right balance and are a proportionate response.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may be interested to learn that Dr Angelique Coetzee gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee this morning, and, rather contrary to her piece in the Daily Mail, she actually endorsed what the Government are doing. She said that the boosters were definitely the absolute priority, but she also referred to masks and avoiding mixing. When asked specifically about the covid pass proposals, she said that they sounded like a proportionate response to the requirements of the situation.
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that with the House. I think it is important to hear that support from South African experts too.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
We are all, of course, concerned to hear that plan C measures are already being discussed, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could lay that to rest. However, I want to raise the question of hospitalisations. There is a difference between people who have been hospitalised with omicron and those who have hospitalised from omicron. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what he knows about those cases? How many people have been admitted to hospital for other reasons, and how many have arrived in hospital because they are seriously ill with omicron?
Sajid Javid
What I can tell my right hon. Friend is that there are approximately 6,000 people in English hospitals who have tested positive for covid, and of those—I have shared information like this with the House before, because I was determined to obtain it when I first became Health Secretary—approximately 80% are there because of covid symptoms, while about a fifth are there for other reasons, but were tested for covid and happened to have it. I hope that that is helpful to my right hon. Friend.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I really must press the Secretary of State on this issue, on behalf of workers in my constituency and across the country, particularly low-paid workers. Why are the Government not offering us a vote today on whether to increase sick pay to real living wage levels? We cannot have a situation in which the Government are making the case that this matter is so serious—which it is—while forcing low-paid workers to choose between food on the table and self-isolating to protect the rest of the community.
Sajid Javid
Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is on the importance of using measures to support people. Support is already there, but I recognise from the way in which he phrased his question that he thinks there should be more support. I understand that we have a difference of view on that, but it is something we keep under review.
When I announced our autumn and winter plan to the House in September, I explained that we would hold measures in reserve in case the NHS was likely to come under unsustainable pressure and stop being able to provide the treatment that we want all our constituents to receive. Yesterday NHS England announced that it would return to its highest level of emergency preparedness, incident level 4, and unfortunately there is now a real risk that the exponential rise in omicron cases will translate into a spike in hospital admissions and threaten to overwhelm the NHS.
We have done so much to boost the capacity of the NHS. Over the past year we have increased the number of doctors by 5,000 and the number of nurses by almost 10,000, and we have expanded the number of beds available, but we have also had to put in place measures for infection control which have limited that capacity, and there are already more than 6,000 covid-19 patients in hospital beds in England.
Despite the progress that we have made, the NHS will never have an unlimited number of beds, or an unlimited number of people to look after people in those beds. If we think that capacity risks being breached, we simply have to step in, because we know what that would mean in practice for both covid and non-covid care. It would mean one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, maybe a child, is in a car crash and is in need of emergency care, and the NHS has to make difficult decisions about who deserves treatment and who does not. Now, I know that some hon. Members think that this is merely hypothetical, but it is not. We have seen health services around the world become overwhelmed by covid-19 and we cannot allow that to happen here.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the Health Secretary for mentioning frontline NHS staff. The all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus had a hearing this morning where we heard that staff are suffering moral injury because they are having to make exactly the decisions he outlined. The other thing we heard is that there is a worrying suggestion that omicron may be worse for children than delta. What assessment has he made of that risk? What is his plan for children to protect them against this deadly new wave?
Sajid Javid
First, I very much agree with the hon. Lady about the phenomenal work everyone in the NHS has been doing at all times, but especially over the past two years during this pandemic. They could not have delivered more. On her question about children and omicron, I am afraid we do not have any evidence on that yet that I have seen. We take the impact of omicron very seriously—I hope she can see that—and we will keep that under review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I will take some interventions in a moment, but I want to just finish this section.
We are also giving the NHS more time to put boosters in arms. I can assure the House that we will not waste a single second in doing that. We have already given more booster doses than anywhere else in Europe and 44% of the people in this country over the age of 18 have already been boosted. However, the recent data showing the importance of booster doses for our fight against omicron has highlighted the need to go even faster. Yesterday, I set out to the House how we are bringing forward the target we set ourselves, so that everyone who is eligible and aged 18 and over in England will be offered the chance to get their booster dose before the new year. This is a new national mission: a race between the virus and the vaccine to get as many people protected as soon as possible.
Just as we embark on this huge logistical endeavour in the short term, we are also looking at the long term. We have already signed contracts to buy a total of 114 million extra doses of future-proof vaccines that will help our country’s vaccination programme over the next two years. The deals we have struck will give us the earliest access to modified vaccines to combat omicron and future variants of concern should we need them.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right. I am overjoyed that boosters are the key to getting the country out of this issue. I have raised, over the past couple of weeks and last week in PMQs, the issue of the 15-minute wait post-Pfizer. I wonder if the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency or the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have come to a conclusion on that, because that would free up a huge amount of capacity when it comes to delivering the boosters?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend did raise that point yesterday. It is being looked at very urgently. I am sure he will agree that if it is done, it should be done in a safe way that our regulators are happy with. I can confidently say that I expect an urgent update later today as soon as I leave this Chamber.
Alec Shelbrooke
I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the pressure on the NHS and the difficult problems that will occur if we have unvaccinated people blocking ICU beds. As he said, however, variants come along. He is making the case that, even if symptoms are only mild there will be exponential growth of cases in hospitals. What is the plan going forward? There is a set of measures today to deal with the situation now—fair enough—but if this is going to keep happening, how do we avoid being sat here in three months’ time, five months’ time or six months’ time debating the same thing? What is the plan?
Sajid Javid
That is a very fair question. I will say more about that in a moment, but I point my right hon. Friend to one of the things I have just mentioned, which is better and better vaccines. In the future, we will have poly-variant vaccines. Because of the orders we have already placed, we are at the front of the queue for such vaccines.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State noticed, as I have, the view that omicron may have originated in Africa in an immunosuppressed sufferer of HIV, where these viruses can mutate much faster than they would under other circumstances? Does he agree that the best way of dealing with this is to get vaccines into as many people in Africa as possible and to ensure that HIV/AIDS sufferers are given access to the proper treatment?
Sajid Javid
There is lots of speculation on how omicron may have originated. I will not add to that speculation now, but I agree with the hon. Lady’s general point, which is a powerful point, about the need to get more vaccines to people in developing countries, whether in Africa, Asia or elsewhere. We can be proud of what the UK has already done—more than 20 million vaccines delivered through COVAX or directly, and almost another 10 million on the way. We are completely committed to meet our target of 100 million vaccine donations by June 2022.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just before the Secretary of State makes further progress, it is absolutely right that he should be taking a lot of interventions—there are a lot of questions to be asked—but people who have already made one intervention should not be making a second or a third intervention and certainly not if they also wish to be called to speak later in the day. I have too many people who wish to speak and there is not going to be enough time for everybody. Be sure—if you keep intervening, you do not get to speak. Let us have a little consideration for others.
Sajid Javid
I shall indulge my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) because he is going to be really short.
Andrew Bridgen
The Secretary of State knows that I have been short all my life. He said earlier that the average age in South Africa was 27.5 years. I fear that he may have mis-spoken or been badly advised. In fact, the median age in South Africa is 27.5 and the comparative median age in the UK is 40.5—not radically different.
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that I took that intervention because I do not want people to think in the way my hon. Friend has suggested. I have to disagree with him. There is a big difference between those two ages, and the last time I looked the median can be described as an average. But I am pleased that he shared that because it highlights my point.
Sajid Javid
I do need to plough on, but I will take some interventions a bit later.
For the reasons that I have set out, I believe that the responsible decision is to move to plan B in England, drawing on the measures that we have held in contingency to give more time to get those boosters into arms. These are not steps that we would take lightly. I firmly believe in individual liberty and that curbs should be placed on our freedoms only in the gravest of circumstances. Not only that, but I am, of course, mindful of the costs that restrictions can bring to the nation’s health, to our education and to the economy. So it is vital that we act early and we act in a proportionate way, doing whatever we can to build our defences and to preserve greater freedom for the long term. I am confident that these measures are balanced and proportionate, and that they still leave us with far fewer restrictions than are in place in most countries in Europe. I can assure the House that we will keep reviewing the measures that we have put in place and we will not keep them in place for a day longer than we have to.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Specifically on the regulations, given the regulation on refusal of entry, the small number of venues and the large number of exemptions and the lack of protection for double-vaccinated people, why not make it a necessity for everybody to show a lateral flow test, rather than showing double vaccination?
Sajid Javid
If my hon. Friend allows me, I will come to that point shortly.
I said a moment ago that we will not keep measures in place for a moment longer than we need to. For example, now that there is community transmission of omicron in the UK and that omicron has spread so widely across the world, the travel red list is less effective in slowing the incursion of omicron from abroad, so I can announce today that, while we will maintain our temporary testing measures for international travel, we will be removing all 11 countries from the travel red list, effective from 4 tomorrow morning.
I wish to turn to the details of some of the regulations before the House. Regulation No. 1400 proposes extending the use of face coverings. In October, UKHSA published an updated review of the evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings and concluded that there is good evidence that they can help to reduce the spread of covid-19 when worn in the community. The regulation proposes extending the legal requirement to most indoor settings, including theatres and cinemas. They are not required in places where it would not be practical—for example, in hospitality settings such as cafés, restaurants, pubs, nightclubs or other dance venues, or in exercise facilities such as gyms.
Regulation No. 1416 would mean that anyone over 18 would need to show a negative lateral flow test to get into a limited number of higher-risk settings, unless they were double vaccinated. As I announced to the House yesterday, however, in the light of new data on how vaccines respond to omicron, our intention is that boosters will be required instead of two doses as soon as all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that, if we are to get on the front foot in tackling the pandemic, we have to acknowledge that it is like our house being on fire and dealing with just one room rather than the rest of the house? Surely the TRIPS waiver, which gives other countries across the developing world and beyond the ability to produce the vaccine themselves, to increase the supply at a cost-effective rate and to stop big pharma from excessively profiteering, is the way to get on to the front foot in vaccinating the rest of the world and ensure that new variants do not continue to flourish.
Sajid Javid
As I said in response to an earlier question, in terms of getting vaccines to the developing world, donations through COVAX and bilateral donations are important. I must strongly but respectfully disagree, however, with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that waiving intellectual property and patent rights will help. That will not help. That will undermine the world’s ability to deal with the pandemic, because it will remove the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop these valuable drugs in the first place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I need to make some progress.
As I announced to the House yesterday, in the light of new data on how vaccines respond to omicron, our intention is that boosters will be required instead of two doses as soon as all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab. I reinforce to hon. Members that the proposal on getting a negative result from a lateral flow test, or not having to do so if you are double vaccinated, is not a vaccine passport.
It is really important to me, as a point of principle, that people have a range of different routes to show how they are eligible, and that is what is before the House today. Those options include showing proof of a negative test for the last 48 hours, proof of vaccination, proof of a medical examination, or evidence of participation in a clinical trial. The regulations cover a small number of settings that present particular risk.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that I am completely against vaccine passports and mandatory vaccinations. Can he confirm that lateral flow tests will always be used? That would allay my fears and those of my constituents that we are creating a two-tier system with mandatory passports. If lateral flow tests are always used, everyone can have access to all parts of our society.
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that confirmation and I am happy to make that really clear. It is vital that there is always an option for a lateral flow test. I would not support a vaccine-only option.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
In terms of providing proof of a negative lateral flow test, is that possible for someone who does not have access to the internet or a phone? What is the evidentiary requirement?
Sajid Javid
Lateral flow tests are available for everyone. The vast majority of people will have access to phones or through other ways. Once people have taken the lateral flow test and registered the result, perhaps with the help of someone in their family or a friend, they can get printed proof of that by using the 119 service. If there are other ways to improve that, of course we will, but we have found that that is available to the vast majority of people, including those who might not be as familiar with technology.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
A vaccine passport with a lateral flow test alternative is still a vaccine passport. We have seen the use of vaccine passports in other parts of the country, in Scotland and in Wales. What difference have they made to the transmission of omicron in those parts of the country?
Sajid Javid
I will come to that specifically in a moment, but again I have to stress that this is not a vaccine passport. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to see a vaccine passport, he can do that in Scotland or he can go to France or some other countries. The measure is an attempt to reduce risk from covid in a high-risk venue. It is sensible and proportionate and provides several options and flexibilities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I must make some progress. I will take some interventions later.
The regulations—statutory instrument No. 1416—cover a small number of settings that present a particular risk: venues such as nightclubs, indoor events with 500 or more attendees likely to stand and move around, outdoor events with 4,000 or more attendees likely to stand and move around, and all events with 10,000 or more attendees. Those measures come into force tomorrow. We have given a week’s notice of those changes so that venues have time to put arrangements in place. I am pleased that many venues are already using the measures.
We cannot eliminate the risk of covid-19—that is simply not possible, nor should it be tried—but we can reduce it. The proposals offer a pragmatic way of doing that. Under them, people can either show a negative lateral flow test result, meaning that they are less likely to be infectious, or they can be double jabbed, which means that they are less likely to become severely unwell if they are exposed to covid-19.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Many of my constituents have contacted me concerned that the measures today are the first step in further restrictions on social gatherings and businesses. Will my right hon. Friend assure them that that is not the case and that, if we can rescind the measures before 26 January, we will?
Sajid Javid
I think that what I am about to say will give my hon. Friend that assurance. The plans will make high-risk environments safer than they would otherwise be, but all the regulations will be reviewed by 5 January and sunset on 26 January. I emphasise in response to her question that they sunset on 26 January and that even if the Government wanted to do something different and change matters in some way, we would have to come back to the House and seek its approval.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that the regulations do not provide for vaccine passports. Conservative Back Benchers and the Liberal Democrats are completely wrong about that. I warmly welcome what he said about abolishing the red list. Will he now release all those people who are currently incarcerated in so-called quarantine hotels in inhumane conditions in this country? Will he also get rid of the other extra restrictions he introduced only two weeks ago to try to keep the omicron variant out when it is already here?
Sajid Javid
The point about managed quarantine and those people who are already in it is important. I am told that the practice in the past was to require them to complete their quarantine period, but I understand the importance of the point. I have asked for urgent advice about what that means. I hope to add to that very soon.
Neale Hanvey
One of the things we know about omicron is the significant genetic mutations and changes that have happened to the spike protein. This morning, at the Science and Technology Committee, Kate Bingham, the Government’s vaccine tsar, said that the Government’s decision to pull the plug on the Valneva contract was mistaken. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment today to revisit that, given the specific technologies that exist with a whole-virus vaccine, which Ms Bingham described as “having the edge” over other vaccines, and which would help the distribution of vaccines to the rest of the world?
Sajid Javid
I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that when the Government make decisions on vaccines they take expert advice, most of which comes from the JCVI. We always listen carefully to that advice to make a final decision, but it is coming on a number of occasions and is constantly kept under review.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Referring back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), it is crazy that people who have been in self-isolation are going to have to remain there due to the 11 countries that have not been removed from the red list. Surely they should not only be released from their incarceration but reimbursed for the astronomical amount of fees they have had to pay.
Sajid Javid
I am very persuaded by what my hon. Friend says. I would love to stand here right now and just say that that is the case, but there are some issues that need to be resolved, and they are urgently being looked at. I hope that we can say something more on this as a Government, even as early as today. I do understand what he said, for exactly the reasons that he said it, including on reimbursement.
As well as the new measures we are proposing, we are restoring freedoms too, drawing on the defences that we have already built. At the end of last month, this House passed regulations requiring all close contacts of a suspected or confirmed omicron case to self-isolate for 10 days, but given the increasing dominance of omicron, this approach no longer makes sense for public health purposes and nor is it sustainable for the economy. So we are drawing on the testing capacity that we have built to create a new system of daily testing for covid contacts that has started today. Instead of close contacts of confirmed cases or suspected cases having to self-isolate, all vaccinated contacts, irrespective of whether the contact was with an omicron case, will be asked to take lateral flow tests every day for seven days. Regulation No. 1415 allows us to put this plan into action by revoking the omicron-specific provisions for self-isolation.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that I welcome that. The isolation regs that we passed two weeks ago that I did not support were sinister, and well done to him for getting rid of that. On test and release, though, he will know that many of our constituents—many of mine have contacted me to say this—cannot, for love nor money, get hold of lateral flow tests right now. Could he update the House on whether this problem has been resolved?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend will understand that there has been a huge surge in demand for lateral flow tests, perfectly understandably of course. The situation at present is that the warehouses of the UKHSA have plenty of stock, but the distribution channel has been limited, although it has added to that significantly in recent days, including building on the channels it has with Royal Mail, Amazon and other suppliers, and also opening up more access points other than direct ordering online so that people can pick up tests from far more pharmacies, for example, than they currently can. It is being worked on, and whatever the current situation is, it will be improved very, very quickly. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is making some vital points about testing and self-isolation, but yesterday I raised a point with him about PCR testing that I would like to come back to. Although the supply of lateral flow tests is important, so is the PCR testing, which is a more reliable gold standard. Today there was a point when it was reported on social media that there were no PCR testing slots available in any region of England. Yesterday I asked him if he would authorise each director of public health across the country to have a float stock of 500 PCR tests they can use to disrupt covid outbreaks and to slow the transmission of omicron. This is a really important point. Only nine directors of public health have that float stock at the moment. Will he take this vital step and authorise it for all the other directors of public health?
Sajid Javid
We are, as the hon. Lady would imagine, working very closely with directors of public health throughout England, whether on testing or other areas. On PCR testing capacity specifically, capacity is usually roughly 600,000 a day, but it is already being expanded to about 800,000 a day, and it will be further expanded. It is important for hon. Members to know that testing is released at different times of day, so if someone checks the system and a test is not available, it might be available in their local area in the next couple of hours—it is not just a day-by-day process. As the process is surged, tests will become much more easily available. It is also important to remind people whenever one can that a PCR test should be used only if someone has symptoms; otherwise, lateral flow tests should be deployed.
Finally, I turn to measures to help keep the health and care system safe for the long term by making vaccination a condition of deployment for more health and social care settings. Across the UK, the overwhelming majority of us have made the positive choice to accept the offer of a vaccination against covid-19, and 91% of NHS staff have already had two doses, but we need that figure to go even higher. Uptake rates vary among health and care organisations and across the country; despite the incredible effort to boost uptake across the country, approximately 94,000 NHS staff are still unvaccinated. It is critical to patient safety that health and care staff get the jab to protect some of the most vulnerable people who are in their care and keep the NHS workforce strong in the wake of omicron.
We made vaccination against covid-19 a condition of deployment in care homes from 11 November this year. Contrary to what some people feared, we are not aware of any care home closures in which vaccination as a condition of deployment has been the primary cause. The regulations that we are putting before the House today will extend that requirement to health and other social care settings.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State pointed out that the capacity of the health service is important and should not be breached. If 9% of staff to date have decided not to be vaccinated and will presumably stick with that decision, how does he expect that that will not reduce the capacity of the health service in future? Is it not a fact that there are already many people staying in hospital because a care home cannot be facilitated owing to lack of staff?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. I will answer precisely that question in just a moment.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
We know that the vaccines are only 33% effective at reducing omicron infection. We know that the reduction of infectiousness falls dramatically—to zero after 12 weeks, in the case of AstraZeneca. What does the Secretary of State view as better for protecting people from infection: daily lateral flow tests or vaccination?
Sajid Javid
I think both have a role to play. In the NHS and in social care, there is very frequent testing—lateral flow testing, in the case of the NHS, and often PCR testing—but I think vaccination has a role to play. At this point in time, many people still have two doses; that is rapidly changing. When they have a third dose or their booster dose, that gives them an even higher degree of protection.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State is making a very clear argument for the need to do something; he talks about how a very small proportion of a much larger number of cases could overwhelm the NHS in the way that a larger proportion of a much smaller number of cases might not. However, we know that the NHS has a huge backlog of people awaiting diagnostic and operative procedures. What evidence does he have that mandating vaccines for NHS staff will help? Given that we know that vaccination does not particularly reduce transmission, and given what he has said about the importance of choice, why does he not think that it would be reasonable to offer medical staff and nursing staff the option of daily testing instead of vaccination, should they make that choice?
Sajid Javid
In coming to this decision, we held an extensive consultation with thousands of responses. Importantly, we also consulted with the NHS itself; as I shall touch on in a moment, it has weighed up the decision. My hon. Friend is right if she is suggesting that there may be some people who choose to leave the NHS rather than stay and be vaccinated—that is a choice for them to make, but there is also an issue of patient safety. That is also the view of the NHS. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), testing can be used alongside, but vaccinations help as well.
I want to talk about settings.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let us allow the Secretary of State to finish his speech. He has some important information to put before the House, and I now want to hear that information.
Sajid Javid
The settings to which this measure would apply include, of course, NHS hospitals, and GP and dental practices, regardless of whether a provider is publicly or privately funded. Anyone working in health or social care activities regulated by the Care Quality Commission will need to be vaccinated against covid-19 if their role will involve direct contact with patients, apart from a few limited exemptions—for example, for medical reasons. The definition of “fully vaccinated” is currently two doses, but we are keeping this under review, and of course I urge everyone who works in the NHS and social care to get their boosters too.
As we have just heard, concerns have been raised about the impact of the measures on the workforce, especially during these winter months, although even before the pandemic workplace policies were in place requiring the hepatitis B vaccine for those who have to perform certain clinical procedures. We are already allowing a 12-week grace period to give people the chance to make the positive choice to get protected, and we are aiming to start enforcing these requirements from 1 April next year—subject, of course, to the will of the House.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
If a member of the NHS decides that they do not want to be vaccinated, will they be given a redundancy payment; and if not, why not? But if they are and that is the policy, how much would it cost the NHS, and would that be a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Sajid Javid
I believe that it would not be classed as redundancy because it would not be redundancy; that job would not have become redundant. If an individual chooses not to get vaccinated, that is of course a decision for them to make. The way in which this should be, and no doubt will be, implemented by the NHS is that getting vaccinated should always be a positive choice. The NHS has put in place a number of methods to try to provide the information that people want to share, including through one-to-one consultations and providing more information especially for those who may have received misinformation. The outcome when a similar measure was implemented for care homes was that many staff—when provided with the right, positive information —chose to be vaccinated, rather than to leave their jobs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Secretary of State is right; he must make progress, as other people need to speak now. Please let us allow the Secretary of State to conclude his speech.
Sajid Javid
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Today, the chief executive of NHS England has written to me, reinforcing the importance of getting the jab in the interests of patient and staff safety. I will be placing a copy of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses today. Despite the concerns that some people have raised, I am pleased to say that we have already seen a net increase of more than 55,000 NHS staff vaccinated with a first dose since we consulted on the policy in September.
Although I firmly believe that these measures are a proportionate way of protecting those at greatest risk, I know that hon. Members have questions about whether we would extend them further. Let me say clearly to the House today—once and for all—that although we have seen plans for universal mandatory vaccination in some countries in Europe, I will never support them in this country. I firmly believe that getting vaccinated should be a positive decision. I assure the House that the Government have no intention of extending the condition of deployment to any other workforces or of introducing mandatory vaccination more widely.
The regulations that we are debating today are not measures that any of us would like to be putting in place, but they are measures that the situation demands, because when the facts change, our response must change too. As we look ahead to a winter with omicron in our midst, the measures before the House today will fortify our national defences and guard the gains that we have all made against this deadly virus. I commend these regulations to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it might be helpful for the House to know there will be an immediate time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches, which will reduce later in the afternoon.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I begin by acknowledging that there are sincere and deeply held views on both sides of this debate and, indeed, on both sides of the House. I respect those who take a different view from the one I will be outlining on behalf of the Opposition, but we owe it to our country to have a debate worthy of the finest traditions of this House.
In the light of comments made in recent days by at least one Conservative MP comparing these measures to the situation in Germany during the 1930s, it should not be for me, as shadow Secretary of State, to point out that we are not living in the 1930s and that the Secretary of State and his team are not Nazis. On their shoulders rest the health of our nation and the responsibility to protect our NHS. Indeed, it is a responsibility we all share. They need our support, and they are owed better treatment than they have received from some on their own side in recent days and even this afternoon.
No matter how dysfunctional the Conservative party has become, the country can rely on Labour. We will act in the national interest, as we have throughout the pandemic, by putting public health before party politics and supporting the motions under consideration this afternoon. We do not do so lightly. Throughout the pandemic we have asked the British people to make big sacrifices to support the national effort against coronavirus—sacrifices that have impacted on lives, livelihoods and liberties. Whenever this House considers such measures, we owe it to the British people to explain why they are necessary. We believe these measure are a necessary response to the omicron threat, necessary to protect ourselves, necessary to protect the ones we love and necessary to protect our NHS.
We cannot yet be sure about the severity of the omicron variant, but we can be certain it is spreading, and spreading fast—faster than any other variant. Even if a smaller proportion of omicron victims are hospitalised, the rapid advance of the virus through the population could see large numbers of people admitted to hospital during the months in which the NHS is under greatest pressure. There should be no complacency about this. The winter months present the greatest pressures on the NHS in any normal year and, as we know, this is far from a normal year. The NHS is contending with winter pressures, a serious backlog, the delta variant and now the omicron variant. When people invoke the story of the boy who cried wolf, of the warnings that came before but never materialised, they should remember that, in the end, there was a wolf.
Many of the challenges facing the NHS are understandable, given the unprecedented challenges of the covid-19 pandemic, but we have to be honest and acknowledge that confronting these challenges has been made much harder because we went into the pandemic with NHS waiting lists at a record 4.5 million, 100,000 staff vacancies and 112,000 vacancies in social care. It is not just that the Government did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; they dismantled the roof and removed the floorboards.
Now the NHS is locked in a race against time: a race against the fastest variant of covid-19 we have seen to date and a race to get as many people boosted as possible before the end of this month. The Opposition support the Government in that task, and let me say on behalf of all of us in the Labour party to every NHS worker, every GP, every pharmacist, every public health official in local government, every member of our armed forces and every volunteer stepping up to meet this enormous task that we are with them 100%. If anyone can do it, they can.
John Stevenson
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour party did not support mandatory vaccinations for care workers but has changed its mind for NHS workers?
Wes Streeting
I will outline our position on that, but the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient because I will come on to that later in my speech.
We need to buy the NHS and its helpers some time. The measures put forward for consideration today are an attempt to do just that by slowing the spread of the virus whilst trying to protect Christmas so that people can enjoy the festive season safely, by limiting our interactions in the workplace, by wearing face coverings in settings where the virus finds it easier to spread, by testing before we attend large indoor gatherings, and by getting behind the booster roll-out to ensure that everyone is protected.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are all very conscious of how important this time of year is to the hospitality sector, but does he agree that the greatest threat to the hospitality sector is not restrictions of the type that are before us today, but the sense that the virus is out of control, and widespread cancellations across the sector? So these restrictions enable the hospitality sector to survive in this really difficult time, but also enable us to take proportionate steps to ensure that the spike does not get out of control.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, one of our primary reasons for supporting the measures for consideration today is that we on the Labour Benches support business, and we want to support it through a particularly difficult time, when normally trading would be at its busiest.
The goal in the end must of course be to learn to live with the virus. That means effective vaccination, antiviral treatments, and public health measures that have minimal impacts on our lives, our jobs and our businesses. So let me take each of the measures in turn and explain why Labour supports them, and no doubt take interventions.
First, on mask wearing, no one enjoys wearing a mask—I certainly do not, but it is nothing compared with the costs that more draconian restrictions have on our lives, livelihoods and liberties. Masks are simply a price worth paying for our freedom to go out and live our lives during this pandemic. They are proven to be effective, and not only that, but in times of rising infections, when people are feeling increasingly cautious, it is vital to our economy that people feel safe boarding a busy bus or entering a crowded theatre. In our view, the Government should never have got rid of the requirement to wear masks in those settings, but we know why they did. We have counted, in recent weeks, hon. Members on the Government Benches not wearing masks. I am glad to see that compliance has risen somewhat considerably. We know that the Prime Minister no longer has the authority to lead his own party, but I am grateful that Members on the Government Benches have at least listened to their Health Secretary.
Turning to the vaccine pass, and testing to enter nightclubs and large events, I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to representations from Labour and responded. The Labour party has argued consistently against vaccine passports and insisted on people having the option of showing a negative test. Further, we argued that such passes should not be required for access to essential services. On both counts the Government have listened and amended the proposals, and we can support the measure before us today. It is not a vaccine passport. It is, in effect, a default requirement to show a negative test to enter venues where the virus is most likely to spread, with an opt-out available to those with an NHS covid pass.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes a very good point on that. Is not the reality that if we did not introduce these measures there would be a danger that our night-time economy—pubs, venues and other events—would have to shut completely? So this pass is actually a pass for freedom to allow us to continue to enjoy activities that otherwise would be shut down, and the libertarians opposite should be welcoming it, not bemoaning it.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Let me be clear: we in the Labour party support this approach because we support British business. This is about giving people the confidence to go out and about despite the presence of omicron.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I wonder whether he shares my concern about reports over the past couple of days that there has been an absence, or a lack, of lateral flow devices to be sent out for testing. What is also alarming is the lack of support for the domestic diagnostics market and the manufacturers in this country of lateral flow devices that are much more accurate and reliable and superior to the current Government lateral flow devices. If these devices are to make a difference, we must have the best quality devices in place.
Wes Streeting
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, in order for this measure to work as effectively as we would wish, there has to be an adequate supply of lateral flow tests. I heard what the Secretary of State said yesterday about the availability of testing, but it is no good if the tests are in the warehouse; they need to be available to people where they need them, when they need them. We have had supply issues and those really do need to be resolved, not least in the light of other measures, which I will come to shortly.
Sammy Wilson
Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that rather than giving confidence to people, these measures, and the background against which they have been introduced, have actually reduced confidence? We have predictions of 75,000 deaths and we are telling people that they cannot go to venues unless they have certain tests; the experience in Northern Ireland is that the hospitality industry has already lost millions of pounds in orders coming up to the Christmas period because people are afraid to go out.
Wes Streeting
I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is my understanding from dispatches from the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle)—of course, Northern Ireland is ahead of England on this—that he had a perfectly nice time out last night enjoying the best hospitality that the people of Northern Ireland have to offer. I think people are drawing confidence from this. Let me also say that we should draw on the experience of other countries. Look at countries with strict covid passport rules, such as Italy, France and Denmark; all have seen their retail and recreation sectors fare far better than those here in the UK because there has been consistency and confidence.
With passes and lateral flow tests, venues can operate at 100% capacity, punters can be confident that they are safe to attend and enjoy themselves, at this time of year the show goes on, and everyone stays in a job. Without these measures, with rising infections and more hospitalisations, we would risk seeing the Government forced to impose more draconian measures on these sectors, shutting down our cultural sector and collapsing the economy once again. I think we should be confident about this.
Let me address the tension—it is a reasonable question —in the message that people should work from home if they can but that they can go out. I make no apology for trying to safeguard social interactions between people, their families and their friends at Christmas time. I also make no apology whatsoever for supporting our hospitality industry, which has been battered by the pandemic and which enjoys our support—our confident support, our full-throated support, and our support at the table and the bar in the coming days.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Can we take it from that that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of extending the certification, or vaccine passport, to all venues?
Wes Streeting
For now, we think the Government have struck the right balance. The measure is limited to nightclubs and larger venues. However, as the Secretary of State knows, we listen to the chief medical officer, we listen to the chief scientific adviser, we listen to the scientific advisory group for emergencies, we listen to the NHS and we make decisions based on evidence. If ever the Government want to come forward with further proposals, we will consider them in a genuinely bipartisan way and we will act in what we believe to be the national interest. I do not think anyone would expect less of us.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
With the covid passes, there is the option of using a lateral flow test or double vaccination. Does the hon. Member recognise that double vaccination, which many people will use, gives a very false sense of security? We know that someone can be vaccinated and still transmit. Most of the people we know getting covid at the moment have already been vaccinated. Double vaccination is not very effective, and it will give a real false sense of security.
Wes Streeting
I think the hon. Member should look at the evidence from our friends on the continent, which is that this approach not only works in giving people confidence to go out and enjoy themselves, but encourages people to take up vaccination. On that basis, I think the Liberal Democrats ought to reconsider their position.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State has obviously spoken to lots of people and he is really concerned about transmission. Could he tell the House the Labour party’s view on how much transmission is reduced by two vaccinations?
Wes Streeting
I direct the hon. Member to the SAGE advice, which is that there is some evidence—I would not put it any stronger than that—on the reduction of transmission. As I say, our primary reason for supporting the measure is to give people the confidence to continue to access hospitality and an added incentive to take up vaccination. On both those tests, our friends on the continent have shown us a better, effective way forward. I dare Government Members to suggest that France, for example, given its history and culture, is not a country that values liberty strongly.
Let me move on, because I must make progress. For the passes to work, people must be able to access tests easily and readily. We cannot continue with the situation in which tests are out of stock and unavailable to the public who are required to take them—not if covid passes are required to work and not if close contacts of covid cases are to be able to take the daily tests required. This morning, the Government’s website showed PCR tests unavailable throughout England, and the only region where lateral flow tests are available today is the south-east. We need immediately to resolve such technical issues and the practical issues of test delivery. The measure on daily testing is the one measure that seems to have united the House in agreement, so the Secretary of State really needs to get a grip and ensure we have access to the tests we need.
On the flexibility to work from home, we have called for workers to be given that flexibility for months and we support the guidance for them to do so where possible. I have addressed the contradiction in respect of people working from home and going out to Christmas parties. We want to protect people’s ability to enjoy Christmas safely this year, which is one of the key arguments for the measure. By limiting people’s interactions at work without disrupting their ability to do their work, we thereby lower contacts and infections and hope to preserve people’s ability to go ahead with the social interactions that they cherish most at this time of year.
As the Prime Minister rather clumsily and unhelpfully tried last week to open a “national conversation” on mandatory vaccinations for the country at large, I wish to make it crystal clear that we do not support mandatory vaccinations in general. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon—not the first time he has had to clean up the Prime Minister’s mess. We believe the vaccine is safe and effective and that everyone should choose to have it. I cannot give any stronger endorsement than to say that I have had my first two jabs and will be having my booster on Thursday. I would not take the vaccine or recommend it to others unless I believed it was safe.
I recognise that mandatory vaccination for NHS staff is a difficult issue for colleagues from all parties and in our NHS, but the NHS has asked us for it, patients want it and we are persuaded that the threat of omicron makes it even more important for staff to be vaccinated to protect themselves and to protect the public they serve.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration, as a practising NHS doctor, in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the consensual way he is approaching today’s debate and for the many points he has made with which I agree. On mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff, before I could train in medicine I had to have a Bacillus Calmette-Guérin injection for tuberculosis and a hepatitis injection; otherwise, I could not have practised medicine. It was about protecting my patients. It is the duty of all healthcare professionals to put their patients first, which is why it is absolutely right that they should have mandatory covid vaccinations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Wes Streeting
I strongly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. Infection control is going to be a real challenge this winter because of the nature of the omicron variant. By ensuring that the NHS workforce is fully vaccinated, we will protect not only patients but staff, who already put themselves in harm’s way enough. As the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with real knowledge and expertise, said, this is not a new precedent: NHS staff are already required to inoculate themselves against other diseases. It is a professional duty. The NHS clearly believes that the April deadline gives sufficient time to persuade the workforce to protect themselves, their patients and their loved ones without there being an exodus of staff.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I supported the requirement for people working with vulnerable people in care homes to be vaccinated or, if they would not be vaccinated, to be removed from direct contact with vulnerable people. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me—I did not get a chance to ask the Secretary of State—whether this proposal for members of the NHS who have not been vaccinated will affect only frontline staff who interact with the vulnerable, or whether it will apply to people throughout the NHS who might have no contact with the vulnerable? That will affect the way I cast my vote today.
Wes Streeting
I hope I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not be a case of saying to people, “If you don’t take up the jab, that’s it—you’re out.” There will also be the opportunity for redeployment to other roles where vaccination would not be mandatory. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he needs.
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend is handling his speech in just the right way. There is a balance of rights here, and patients have a right to be treated by staff who are fully vaccinated to protect them. I have a constituent who is clinically extremely vulnerable. She contacted me to say that she was not willing to go to her necessary hospital appointments once she realised that the hospital staff were not fully vaccinated. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to think of that pretty large number of clinically extremely vulnerable people in this country?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We have heard the arguments in outline: this is about protecting staff and patients; it is not a new precedent; and there is a professional obligation, which makes it slightly different from the experience in the social care workforce. I will come on to talk about what the Government need to do. Those are broadly the arguments—
Wes Streeting
If the hon. Gentleman just lets me make this point, I will certainly give way.
Those are broadly the arguments, but I would ask Members on both sides of the House to think about those NHS staff who go to work every day feeling unsafe because their colleagues are not vaccinated. If that is not persuasive enough, I ask them to think about how they would feel if a loved one were treated in a clinical setting or care home by an unvaccinated member of staff through whom they contracted covid and, with it, serious illness or worse. If I lost a loved one through serious illness in those circumstances, I am not sure that I would be very forgiving about the decisions made by Members of this House.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but that is not what the results of the survey of NHS staff in the healthcare and social care workforce found, which was that 55% of people in the NHS were against this proposal. How does he respond to that?
Wes Streeting
I have no doubt whatsoever that opinion in the workforce is divided. I do not dispute that, and it is divided partly because people resent the mandate. Ultimately, however, it comes down to this. It is not just about the broad arguments I have outlined or the specific cases we might be confronted with without this protection; we have to ask whether we as a House think it is acceptable for people working in health and social care, who have a duty of care to their patients, to say, “I am making a choice to put them at greater risk. I am working against the very principles that encouraged me to sign up to my vocation in the first place.” That is why, on balance, I think it is the right measure, but I will come on to talk about the way in which we need to take the workforce with us and what we need to do ahead of April.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend is setting out his response to these proposals with great care. On the vexed issue of mandatory vaccinations, does he acknowledge that 97% of those in my trust have been properly vaccinated and that a significant proportion of the remaining 3% are new starters making their journey towards proper vaccination? It is therefore not that clear. We have heard the responses from the British Medical Association, Unison, the Royal College of Nursing, Unite, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the GMB and the Royal College of General Practitioners, who are opposed to making vaccination mandatory and prefer persuasion to coercion. Does he not think that we should be adopting that approach?
Wes Streeting
That is a helpful intervention from my hon. Friend. Let me be clear: I absolutely acknowledge the views that have been put forward by the royal colleges and by staff trade unions. Government ought to take them seriously and work heavily with them in this next phase, where there is still a window for persuasion. I also point the Government to the success that the Welsh Labour Government have had in persuading the workforce; there is much to learn and time available, and we have to work in a spirit of partnership.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wes Streeting
I will say more about that in a just a moment, because the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), at the back, has been very patient.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. May I endorse and welcome what he said at the start of his speech with regard to comments about the Nazis? I called that out yesterday and he was right to do so at the Dispatch Box. I was looking through my inbox from the start of the pandemic and lockdown, and almost every person working in the care sector or the NHS in my constituency was saying, perfectly legitimately, “When the vaccine is available, we must be at the front of the queue, because we are dealing with the vulnerable and it is our duty to get vaccinated.” I do not think that has changed, and I think he is absolutely right, as is the Secretary of State, to say that those caring for the most vulnerable in society should, to try to reduce the risk that they face, be vaccinated.
Wes Streeting
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have a big effort to boost the booster this month and we have to boost the workforce as well, and make sure that people are supported.
Wes Streeting
This is a difficult decision—two Members from the same region—but my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), right in the corner, has been very patient, so I will give way to her. I will then come to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle).
Kim Johnson
I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way. He is making an excellent speech; however, the British Medical Association has identified some serious concerns about mandatory vaccines—the fact that we have a chronically under-staffed NHS. Does he believe that this policy is likely to have a significant impact and cause more harm than good?
Wes Streeting
That is such an important point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it. There is a reassurance I would like to offer her and a call to action that I would like to issue to the Government. The reassurance is that there were concerns about what would happen to the social care workforce, which very much influenced Labour’s position on that statutory instrument at the time, but we did not see the collapse in the social care workforce that was warned of and there was lots of evidence that there was a positive impact on take-up.
I say to the Secretary of State and his team that if they are asking the health and social care workforce to do their duty as professionals, the Government must show greater respect to their professional voice and experience—on pay, conditions and workload. It is often said that the NHS runs on goodwill, so I would like to see the Government showing greater goodwill in return and engaging with the royal colleges and staff trade unions, not just on the plan for vaccine roll-out to their members, but on the debate about the future of our health and social care systems and the big workforce challenge.
On vaccinations, there is still precious time to do the work on persuasion. I have met the trade unions in recent days, including a great meeting with Unison yesterday—I should declare that I am a member of Unison. Unison had some really helpful advice and practical feedback about the kind of conversations with occupational health that are making a big impact in giving staff the confidence to choose to take the vaccine well ahead of the deadline. Of course we would much rather persuasion than compulsion.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
In St Helens, 99% of care home staff are vaccinated, and at Whiston Hospital, the best one in the country, 91% have had the first vaccine, 89% the second vaccine and 64% the booster. That has all been done with persuasion, not with the threat of the sack. These people are in a vocation. It is not just a job to them; they believe in the patients. We must not get to the stage where we are threatening people. The GPs have even been involved in persuading the care home staff. Everyone has been involved for some considerable time and that is the way to do it—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let me just make this clear: more than 40 people wish to speak this afternoon and if people make interventions, it is simply not fair on those at the end of the list who will be trying to speak later on. The hon. Lady is only one of many. The shadow Secretary of State is being very fair, as was the Secretary of State, in answering all the questions, but I must ask people to be reasonable.
Wes Streeting
It may have been a speech rather than an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought it was a very good one, and I welcome what my hon. Friend has said.
Dame Angela Eagle
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that anti-vaxxers are using vicious and very effective psychological propaganda to upset and worry people who may be vaccine hesitant, particularly about issues with fertility, whether the vaccine is halal and all those things? Does he agree with me that the Government should do much more to counter this very vicious and damaging propaganda?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. This comes back to the point I made about the Government engaging with the staff trade unions and the royal colleges. Whatever their policy position on having mandatory vaccination, the Secretary of State will find in them willing allies who want to help the Government to persuade colleagues to engage with them and to deal with some of these dangerous conspiracy theories that are knocking public confidence, and creating real fear and anxiety entirely without basis. When the Minister for the Cabinet Office concludes later, I hope that he will set out how the Government plan to engage and that he will give an undertaking to work with the staff trade unions and the royal colleges, because that would do so much to achieve the objectives that we all share, but also to raise morale in the workforce, who often feel that they are slogging their guts out for the Government, but do not get the hearing they deserve.
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, and I apologise for interrupting him, but on a point of science, will he just accept that he has got it a little bit wrong? Someone having the vaccine does not stop them spreading it; it just makes it much less likely that it will harm them badly. Someone can have the vaccine and still spread it, and to imply otherwise is just wrong.
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman has called repeatedly from a sedentary position that I do not know the science, but I have said nothing of any sort to contradict the points he has just made.
With respect to Conservative Members, particularly those who oppose these measures, what they are missing is that it is indisputable that the booster does provide greater protection than the first and second jabs, that vaccination—full stop—provides better protection, and that if we are talking about NHS pressures and workforce pressures, the biggest danger is that the virus sweeps through the health and social care workforce, knocks a load of people out in the middle of the busiest period for the NHS, and then the system topples over. I do not know why it has to be explained again and again to Conservative Members that the objective is to protect the NHS and to stop it toppling over at a critical time. The points about the severity of the virus and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing transmission or serious illness are largely secondary. We know that the virus is spreading, and doing so rapidly, and we know that if it rips through the health and social care workforce, that is the biggest risk to the NHS—that is what will topple it over. Conservative Members’ constituents will not thank them one bit if they allow that to happen.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and putting his case very forcefully. On the issue of coercion versus persuasion and involving trade unions and the royal colleges in NHS managers taking the staff with them, what was not respected by the Secretary of State when he was asked about redundancies is that this is a retrospective change in people’s terms and conditions, and even people who are vaccinated will be resistant to the change being imposed upon them. We have to go forward carefully and take the staff with us. Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to work with the royal colleges and trade unions to take this forward?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. Going back to the staff surveys, particularly given that the overwhelming majority of staff are vaccinated, it is not that they do not want their colleagues to be vaccinated, but that they have concerns about the way in which the Government are going about this. We accepted from the Government and from NHS England a very clear view that omicron has raised the stakes in this regard, which has had a big bearing on our position. It is very difficult for me and my colleagues on the Labour Benches to put ourselves in a position that is on the other side of the argument from the NHS and from the public, but the point about engagement is really important. The Government must work with and take the workforce with them. It is not good enough for us to just clap for the NHS, or clap for carers; we must work in partnership with them and respect that these are people who have given their lives to public service and caring for others. They do care. They will instinctively be on the right side, but they just need some persuasion, some patience and genuine engagement and that is where the Government have gone slightly wrong.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend started off his speech in an excellent way and has got better as he has gone through it. I say that, but I will almost certainly not be in the same Lobby as him on some of the votes this evening. There is a general point to the specific point that he is making on vaccines, which is that the Government should be clear, explicit and transparent on every issue that they raise if they want to take with them people who are not just worried about vaccines but worried about this whole affair. Repeatedly, the Government have refused to do a cost-benefit analysis on the impact of their policies. We have before us now a number of statutory instruments without impact assessments. Does he agree that that information should be available?
Wes Streeting
Let me say to my hon. Friend that, in his intervention, he started off well, dipped in the middle and then got better at the end. He made some absolutely fair points about impact assessments and transparency. In fact, I can see the Vaccines Minister waving impact assessments at me, so I am sure that she will make them available to my hon. Friend.
It comes back, as we have discussed at various points today and previously in relation to these sorts of restrictions and measures—it is how I began, and will begin to close, my contribution—to how we really cannot be complacent when it comes to public support, public compliance and public consent for the measures that we are considering. We know that we have asked so much of the British people and they have played their part. We also know that recent events have dented their trust and confidence and their willingness to comply, because they have seen No.10 saying one thing and doing another. That makes it even more important that, when we discuss measures that impact on people’s lives, livelihoods and liberties, we have these sorts of exchanges, look over the evidence rigorously, test each other’s assumptions and come to a conclusion.
With some of the exchanges that we have heard today, people across the country on both sides of these arguments can at least take some reassurance from the fact that, when these matters are under consideration, we do take them seriously. The Government could do a little better sometimes on bringing measures forward in advance of their implementation and on setting out the rationale and argument, and not just assuming that, because measures have been supported by the public previously, they will be supported today. I think we have public support for the measures under consideration this afternoon, but we should not be complacent about it. That is why it is right that we spend so much time exploring these issues.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wes Streeting
I shall take one or two more interventions and then I shall conclude.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point: we need to make decisions on the evidence that is available. Does he agree that having the debate today and passing these measures tonight is urgent? We have heard that the doubling rate of omicron is shortening. If we are to protect the public, our families, our communities, and the NHS in the run-up to Christmas and beyond, these measures need to pass today.
Wes Streeting
I agree with my hon. Friend, and particularly in this city. The reproduction rate of this virus is shortening every day and the numbers that the Secretary of State set out in his opening remarks should concentrate minds before people walk through the Division Lobby this afternoon. Fun though it might be to see the Government in hot water and struggling in votes, it is not in the national interest and that should be the thing at the forefront of our minds.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that will reassure Members across the House is a commitment from the Government at the Dispatch Box that, if further restrictions were to come into play, a vote will be had in this House?
Wes Streeting
I agree with the hon. Lady. I appreciate that she is a newer Member of the House but I dare say she watched our proceedings before being elected, and we cannot have spent so much time talking about parliamentary sovereignty only to then throw it out of the window in the next Parliament, so her point is well made. The shadow public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and I have already agreed: he will bring the dinner, I will bring the pudding, and we will see if the Commons shop is doing crackers on discount if we meet over Christmas.
Finally, and seriously, we think there are areas where the Government can go further without impacting on people’s lives, livelihoods and liberties and should do so. On ventilation in schools, young people have borne the brunt of this pandemic and we owe it to them, to their education and to the staff who support them to make sure that their schools are properly ventilated. They cannot wait until October next year for a review to be published; we need action now. In winding up, can the Minister for the Cabinet Office say something about that? On jabs for young people, the Christmas holidays seem to us to be an ideal time to get young people vaccinated, so when do the Government think we can see action on that front?
Finally, on statutory sick pay, as we have heard very powerfully from my hon. Friends, there are people out there who are forced to choose between doing the right thing by their families and doing the right thing by public health because they simply cannot afford to isolate at home. So we again implore the Government to act by making sure that higher statutory sick pay is available to people immediately so that they can afford to do the right thing.
We have not played games with these votes: we are not exploiting the divisions in the Conservative party to inflict defeat on the Government for the sake of scoring political points. The threat facing the country is too serious and Labour takes our duty to the country seriously. The Tories may be in disarray but the public can rely on Labour to keep the country safe, to do the right thing and to support these measures today, and we trust the British people to do the same.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I think the House will want to acknowledge the power of the speech that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has just given. We wish his predecessor well. One thing we can say about the hon. Gentleman is that his voice carries very well around this Chamber.
The Government are right to ask for support for these regulations. I am glad the Opposition will in general be supporting them, and I will do so as well. If the public health risk increases, we must ask what changes to regulations are proportionate and appropriate.
It may have been missed by some who have written to me, but some of the regulations are relaxations; others are not. The regulations are intended to make sure that some places can stay open if people abide by sensible precautions.
One constituent who has written to me today says he and his family and many of his friends will not go to places of public congregation because too many people are not vaccinated or showing they are not infected by the virus. That may be a minority view expressed, but I think it is one that is held in the hearts and minds of many of our constituents.
To those who have said an impact assessment has not been made, I say that it has and it has been published; those who invigilate assessments do not think it is adequate, but that is a side point. Annex B on pages 54 and 55 shows the proportion of people by age in the national health service who have been vaccinated.
We must recognise that one reason why half of those who are unvaccinated are aged under 40 is that the opportunity for vaccination came later for them than for those who are older. But if they do not think it matters to them, I would say to them that it does, for the reasons that our hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), the practising doctor, gave. When caring for people who are vulnerable—obviously, people in medical care are, in the same way as those in social care—the most we can do to protect ourselves also has the impact of protecting them. If in doubt, get the protection that the vaccine and the booster give.
I was going to make a rather longer speech, but I will stop now because many hon. Members want to contribute, many of whom will disagree with me. I will respect what they have to say, but I will say very clearly that I back the Government in these regulations.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to help you with the intervention by withdrawing from the list, but I am grateful to be on top of the list for the Labour Benches.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) the Leader of the Opposition when he says that the Prime Minister is a threat to public health. I think that that is absolutely right. I draw a different conclusion from my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench on how we should respond: not by being irresponsible but by taking a look at the way the Government have dealt with the whole of the covid crisis from the very beginning to what they continue to do.
I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee. Together with the Health and Social Care Committee we produced a 150-page report. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have had the time to read it. They may not agree with its conclusions, but it contains very valuable information. The key point, which a lot of the press missed, was not that the Government followed the science on the issue but that they got into a groupthink with the scientific advisers and did not challenge them. They assumed that science was something handed down on tablets of stone, whereas it is not. It is a process and it needs challenging by those of us who have responsibility in this House for making laws and policies, and by other scientists. We seem to be repeating that process.
My Committee had as a witness this morning Susan Hopkins. Let me say that at best—if I can use a word somebody else used—the advice we were getting from her as an adviser was opaque. The information we were getting was opaque when it should be transparent. This time last week, the Deputy Prime Minister stood up and said there was no plan to go to plan B. Some 36 hours later, we were starting plan B. Why was that? What was the scientific advice given?
We were told fairly definitively that no such advice was given to change the view. What changed the view was that the Prime Minister was in a state of crisis and under pressure from his own Back Benchers and everybody else. That is not a sensible way to make decisions. It is not a sensible way to make decisions to put forward statutory instruments that say—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) was waving a sheet about, which may or may not have been the impact assessment—that no impact assessment has been done.
Mr Steve Baker
I have in my hand the impact assessment for vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and care providers—I was not able to get in earlier. I feel confident that the Front Benchers will know that the estimate is that 88,000 people will leave the health sector, 73,000 will leave the NHS, 15,000 will leave the independent health sector, and 35,000 workers will leave domiciliary care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is reason enough to vote against imposing this on the nation?
Graham Stringer
That is very interesting. It is also interesting that papers circulated by the Vote Office said there was no impact assessment. That does not impress me.
The point I was just about to make—I do not know if other hon. and right hon. Members have noticed this—is that the 355-page Act passed at the start of the epidemic, the Coronavirus Act 2020, is barely being used. The Government could have used the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to bring in some of the restrictions that they have placed—maybe necessarily, maybe unnecessarily—on people’s freedoms. The difference between the 2004 Act and the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is quite simply that much less scrutiny is available under the latter. Once regulations are passed, if there is not a sunset clause, they last. The Government should not be rewarded for unnecessarily using tough authoritarian legislation when other legislation was available that would have allowed more scrutiny.
The Government have refused to give information. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) began his speech by saying that different people have different views and weigh the factors of civil liberties and health in different ways. That is absolutely right, but the Government will not tell us the costs and benefits of their policies. We now know that three quarters of a million people have failed to be tested for cancer. This is not a win-win situation. Cancer patients who are yet to be tested will eventually die because of the decisions being taken, because services are not available; some people will die of covid.
To come to the right decisions, this House needs all the information available, but it is not coming from the NHS and it is not coming from Government Ministers. That is why I will not give the Prime Minister the benefit of my support for the way he has arranged to respond to this covid crisis.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On a typical winter’s day, between 200 and 350 people will die of flu. Do we hide behind our masks? Do we lurk at home, working from home? Do we demand that people provide their bona fides before going to a venue? Do we require people to be vaccinated as a condition of keeping their jobs?
The question whether the measures before the House today are proportionate comes down to a matter of opinion. Do we take seriously some of the extraordinary extrapolations that we have been given, particularly given the previous record? The fact is that those are things that might take place, and we have to balance them against the known costs and damage to enterprise, economy and society.
In the end, it comes down to a matter of opinion—a matter of our prejudice. Typically, we are capable of organising our lives and making those decisions for ourselves. We decide what our risk appetite is and what we are or are not prepared to encounter. Notwithstanding the carnage on our roads, which is certainly killing more people than covid at the moment, some of us still decide to drive. It is a matter of opinion.
It comes down to letting loose the dogs of war—getting the fear factor into it and getting the officials, the members of SAGE, Independent SAGE and SPI-M and all those who speak in their private capacity out there twisting the fear lever. What about the Health Protection Agency? What Stalinist minds thought up that nomenclature? Get them out there, twisting the fear button, and by and large you will get the reaction that you want: people will crave more enforcement and fiercer measures to protect them from the great danger that is out there. Let hospitality be just collateral damage—let the industry endure the deluge of cancellations at what should be its most productive time. That is the situation that we have delivered.
The Government, having administered this Ministry of fear, are absolutely complicit with their officials and organisations who have designed and delivered it. In doing so, they have abandoned any principle of social democracy or liberal democracy, absolutely beyond anything that we have endured in recent living memory, in the history of this pandemic. As a consequence, having abandoned what might have been their ideology, they are rudderless and so much more at risk of the opinions and predictions of the advisers to whom they are in hock.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I have just come from a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus. We were given a shocking set of presentations, about which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) will say more shortly.
I want to bring three key messages from that meeting of scientists and NHS professionals. The NHS is already beyond full stretch, and some said that it was at breaking point. They pointed out that we are not South Africa, which started its omicron wave from a low level of cases. We are starting it on top of a rising number of delta cases, so we have to get transmission rates down now. The focus on vaccinations alone, although they are vital, will not be enough. We have to focus on a range of other measures such as ventilation in schools, as other hon. Members have mentioned, and the big issue of limiting social contact.
We need to be honest and to have consistent and clear messaging about the need to reduce social contact. There is a direct relationship between the number of contacts that we have and the spread of infection. Giving guidance to work from home while still giving the green light to Christmas parties is, as the professor of primary care in Oxford suggests, akin to giving people advice to wash their hands after a meal but not after going to the toilet. We are all dreading the prospect of not seeing loved ones again at Christmas, but that is exactly the direction in which we are heading unless the Government show some leadership and tell us the unwelcome truth that we might not like to hear.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Lady and I share a hospital trust. She will know that that hospital is being overwhelmed at the moment not by covid cases or covid pressure but by cases of non-covid illness that have been neglected during lockdown and by the inability to release people who are medically fit for discharge. Is it not correct that, as it stands, those are the real pressures on the health service, not a torrent of covid cases coming in?
Caroline Lucas
That may well be the case now, but I do not see why that is an argument against needing to get coronavirus cases down. If transmission rates go up on the trajectory that we are being told they will, we can be sure that there will be massive pressure on our hospitals and NHS trusts. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is not a criticism of my argument. It is precisely because of the multiple pressures on our hospital system that we need to get transmission rates of omicron and delta down. That is why I want the Government to get rid of the disincentives that are built into the system and that stop people being able to self-isolate when they need to. Why do we still not have better sick pay for self-isolation? Why do we not have better support for our businesses? If there is going to be reduced social contact, as there needs to be, we know that has an impact, particularly on the hospitality sector.
We need VAT reductions to be extended beyond April, when they are due to end. We need businesses to be offered grants to help them through the next difficult weeks and to be given flexibility on paying back covid loans. My constituency is already feeling the impact of omicron, and the hospitality sector is extremely worried. Why can we not tell it, for example, that there will be extended and expanded business relief, with the Government ensuring that local councils do not lose even more funding? There should also be a proper support scheme for the self-employed who, as we know, play such a key part in our economy but were utterly left out of previous support mechanisms.
I regret that the Government have given MPs less than 24 hours to analyse the statutory instruments before us. Frankly, they have not advanced the scientific case for them. A Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry earlier this year concluded that the Government had not made a robust case for vaccine passports, and I have not heard anything today that has persuaded me otherwise.
Although I recognise the civil liberty arguments on the measures, with which I have sympathy, my bigger concern comes from the strong body of evidence on the impact of vaccine passports on vaccination rates. That evidence makes it clear that, although they can accelerate take-up rates among those inclined towards vaccination, they also entrench opposition among those who are hesitant.
As Professor Stephen Reicher has said, people not getting vaccinated is not a cognitive problem—it is not that they do not understand the issues—but a social problem. People are not getting vaccinated because of a lack of trust, and trying to force them into it, either through vaccine passports or through mandatory vaccinations in some settings, compounds that mistrust, as does berating them or “othering” them. If we want more people to be vaccinated—and believe me, I absolutely do—that is the bottom line, but we have to build the sense that vaccination is being done for the community, not to it. It is for the common good. Behavioural science clearly indicates that coercion undermines the relationships we need to build and the respect we must show one another in order to increase vaccination rates, and we do everyone a massive disservice by ignoring that science.
I want to end by saying a few words about the wider global situation that we face. It is supremely reckless to have so catastrophically neglected vaccination in poorer countries, and it is extremely reckless of our Government to refuse to support the waiver on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights at the World Trade Organisation. As Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, has said,
“Omicron is with us because we have failed to vaccinate the world.”
The Government should absolutely be changing their position on that TRIPS waiver: they should not be blocking it. The virus will be with us for years and years to come, and it will mutate into other viruses and variants unless we treat this as a global crisis, not just a crisis here at home. I beg the Government to look at the evidence, to look at what works, and to move forward on that basis.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Let me begin by saying a word about the vaccine programme and issuing a plea to Ministers.
It is important that, with the emergence of omicron, we do not accidentally underplay the success of the vaccine programme to date. We know that vaccines will generate a number of immune responses—the production of neutralising antibodies, the production of marker antibodies, and a T-cell response—and, although with omicron a booster dose is required to bring about the level of neutralising antibodies that we saw following our response of two doses to the delta variant, the whole programme gives both individual and community protection; and we are starting from a very different place from the place where we were with the delta variant.
It is very important for us to encourage people, especially young people, to get their second dose. May I make a plea that we stop hearing from Ministers the phrase “two doses don’t work, three doses do”? I think that it is undermining the Government’s own programme. May I also make a plea that we drop this constant reference to the doubling time of the current variant? The fact that the measured doubling has been two days in the very early stages is no measure whatsoever that that is something that we will see in the future. If it doubled every day, the whole population would be affected in nine days. This is not modelling; it is simple extrapolation, which does not contribute to a sensible debate on the subject.
When it comes to the proposals before us today, lawmakers need to look at several elements. Are these measures necessary, are they proportionate, are they enforceable and will they be effective? Let me begin with the 10-day quarantine, which was a bad measure to begin with. It was disproportionate and it was likely to bring about a recurrence of the “pingdemic”, so I am glad that it is being dropped. However, the point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is a key one which must be answered by the Government. If having the red list is pointless and if enforced 10-day quarantine is pointless, why are some people still in enforced 10-day quarantine? It is incumbent on the Government, having abandoned the policy, to let those people go free, otherwise I fear that the Government may face legal action.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Some Welsh rugby players who had covid in South Africa did 10 days’ quarantine there and are halfway through quarantine in England, and they are now being told that they must complete the whole of the quarantine period. When the position is as illogical as that, it brings the whole thing into dispute.
Dr Fox
I absolutely agree, and what we do not require is more advice from Ministers on this subject; we require decisions from Ministers on this subject.
I also want to raise the issue of masks. I receive letters, as I imagine all Members do, from people who say, “There is no point in wearing masks because they do not stop transmission.” I assume that those people would not like their surgeons to wear masks during a surgical procedure. This is nonsense: mask wearing is a common-sense thing for us to do if it reduces transmission to some degree. It is a minor inconvenience to the vast majority of people and it is a sensible measure for the Government to introduce, and I therefore support it.
I cannot say the same for the Government’s covid passport. I do not believe it passes the necessity test, and I think the good working of the insurance industry and the availability of civil remedy in the courts are enough to drive the behaviour of venues towards sensible public health policy. We, as a Government, should not be creating criminal offences unnecessarily. I worry about enforcement and penalties in a system that is already overloaded. There is no evidence from Scotland or elsewhere that covid passports actually work. France was mentioned earlier, and there are more than twice as many people in hospital with covid in France than in the United Kingdom.
Dr Fox
I have given way once. I am conscious that colleagues want to speak, so I will not give way again.
I assume the lateral flow tests will have to be externally validated, which will add a cost to anyone who wants to go to one of these venues. That will not be the help to the hospitality industry that has been suggested by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State.
When compulsory vaccination was introduced for care workers, many hon. Members took the view that it was the thin end of the wedge, but we were assured that it would be care workers and no one else. Now it is all NHS workers, with a few exemptions. The ground for compulsory vaccination is that these staff will be working with vulnerable members of the public. Well, so will the police and some retail and post office workers. Where does it stop?
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made the valid point that this is a retrospective change to the terms and conditions of people who already work in the NHS, and it is likely that we will lose staff as a consequence. This is completely unnecessary when more than 91% of NHS staff have already volunteered to be vaccinated. It is disproportionate and illogical, and I do not believe it will be effective. If the logic of the Government’s position on covid passports is that people must be given a choice between being vaccinated and getting a daily lateral flow test, why does that not operate in the health service, too? The lack of logic in many of these measures diminishes support for the Government’s case.
I end on a positive note. Many of these measures are relatively small beer compared with what we can achieve through the booster campaign, so it is essential that the one message we leave the House with tonight is that every one of us has a duty to say to every one of our constituents, “Go out, get immunised and get a booster. That is the best way you can help yourself, your family, your community and wider public health.” If there is to be unanimity in the House at this time of year, that is surely the message that must resonate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Having had the dubious pleasure of spending an inordinate amount of time in various Committee Rooms over the past 18 months to scrutinise regulations introduced by the Government as part of their response to the pandemic, I must confess that I have had withdrawal symptoms following the reshuffle, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on these regulations today.
I am sorry to say that, on too many occasions, regulations were debated well after they came into force, so it is positive that at last we seem to be getting into the habit of having debates and votes before regulations become law. I would not want that to be seen as a ringing endorsement of the Government’s approach to parliamentary scrutiny, as two of these sets of regulations were published only at 3 pm yesterday, less than 24 hours before this debate began. I know things move quickly, but some of these regulations have been the subject of consultation for many months. There is no excuse for their being dropped in at the last minute.
The decision to reveal the precise detail of these regulations at the last minute has probably generated more opposition than is warranted. I have had many representations from constituents about the entry to venues regulations on the basis that they represent a compulsory vaccine passport. Let us be clear that they do not. A negative test taken in the 48 hours before entry can be used as an alternative, which addresses many of the legitimate concerns that have been raised with me about civil liberties and discrimination. I am pleased that my party’s persistence in pushing for a negative test as an alternative has been accepted, because it gives me enough confidence to support these regulations.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Across the House, many of us have been calling for greater transparency from the Government. The more we hear from the chief medical officer, the more concerning it is. If the Government had been more transparent up front, I am sure there would be greater support across the House.
Justin Madders
Indeed. If we look at what has happened in Wales, there has been a similar system for some time, which seems to be working reasonably well. People have been required to produce tests when travelling abroad and several venues in England have been doing that on a voluntary basis. It is not the slide into dystopia that some people fear, but the situation has not been aided by the Government not being as up front as they should about what the regulations mean. Many people already routinely take lateral flow tests before they go out.
However, there are some outstanding questions and concerns. There is no doubt that some constituents feel that the regulations are the start of a slippery slope and that we will soon have to show vaccination papers to get in anywhere. I will be clear: I do not support such a move. Given that the Government cannot even bring themselves to mandate wearing face coverings in pubs, I would be surprised if they moved in that direction, but I want confirmation when the Minister winds up that the Government are not planning any extensions to where the regulations will operate. We also need a clearer explanation of where the line is drawn and to which venues the regulations apply. Do places such as this, which fall into the definition of a public hall indoors with 500 or more people who stand up and move around, come within the ambit of the regulations? My reading suggests that they do. If we want to gain the public’s confidence, we should show that the rules apply to us equally.
Another concern that has rightly been raised is whether a charge will be introduced at some point to obtain lateral flow tests. That would obviously undermine tests as an alternative to showing vaccine status. Charging people to obtain tests would be an absolute disaster from a public health perspective. That goes way beyond the remit of the regulations, but I hope we can get confirmation from the Minister that there are no plans to charge for tests.
The Government need to do rather better at setting out what they consider the cost of the regulations to be to businesses. Again, I note there has been no impact assessment for the entry regulations. Who will pick up the cost of enforcing them? There is nothing I can see about supporting businesses to check people, let alone providing resources to local authorities, which are meant to enforce the regulations.
What will be the position if there is a national shortage of tests? We are told that there are tens of millions of them but, as we know, there are challenges in getting them out to the people who need them. In those circumstances, will the regulations be suspended, or will people be pushed down the vaccination route?
That said, the evidential burden for a negative test seems particularly broad. I think that will assist in reducing the burden on businesses, but it also increases the risk of fraudulent tests doing the rounds. That would undermine the whole point of the regulations. We do not want the worst of all worlds: an expensive bureaucratic system that does not actually help reduce transmission because it is not properly enforced.
Regarding the vaccination of NHS staff, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a small but significant proportion of covid admissions is the result of people acquiring the infection in hospital. I have seen figures to suggest that it has been as high as 15% to 20% of all covid admissions, although once staff started to receive the vaccination, the figure dropped dramatically. There is therefore evidence to show that the regulations will have an impact on covid admissions and the wider pressure on the NHS. I know it is difficult, but on balance, the regulations should be supported.
However, that should not be the end of the story. We have had a workforce crisis for years. Covid has accelerated cases of burnout and only a few weeks ago, the Government passed up the opportunity to grasp the nettle by refusing to implement a long-term workforce strategy. That is why we need an awful lot more work on the regulations.
The Government have an uphill struggle to earn people’s trust and explain why they consider the proposals necessary, to convince the public that what is before us will be the limit of restrictions and that we will not be talking about extensions or changes at some point in the future. Judging by the comments of many Conservative Members, the Government have failed to persuade a number of their Back Benchers, so it is little wonder that we are all being bombarded by emails from our constituents expressing concern. That exposes the wider truth that the Government have vacated the space where leadership should be. They are compromised by their own failure to follow the rules, riddled with internal disagreements about the route ahead and unable to provide the authority to persuade a sceptical public that the measures are needed.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Here we are again, and this time, two weeks on, the concept of “learn to live with covid” is as dead as anything I know. In July, we were told many, many times from the Dispatch Box, and from the podium in No. 10, that we were on an irreversible road map to freedom. Do we all remember that? I thought it was an unwise hostage to fortune when it was said, and so it has proved.
When I vote tonight, I will consider the legislation before us. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) that it should have been published long before this, less than 24 hours before the debate. That is why I did not tell anybody in the media how I was going to vote today—because I am rather old-fashioned and like to actually read the legislation before I decide how I am going to vote. I wish those on the official Opposition Front Bench had done the same. I look at the legislation and I also look at the intention behind it, so what is the intention here? Is it to stop omicron? Is it to slow the spread? That is clearly not happening now, so I guess the question we then have to ask is whether these four SIs are going to do that. Working from home is not in an SI; it is guidance. We are told that people need to work from home where they can, but they can meet the very same people in the pub that evening and every evening. Is that going to slow the spread? I do not think so.
I abstained on the SI on mask-wearing two weeks ago and I will do so again this evening. I have no issue with wearing a mask. It does not impact on my life or on my freedoms. Many of my constituents have been wearing masks in plenty of situations, indoors and out, for a long time throughout the pandemic. I think it is a bit of a crutch, but if people believe that it makes them safer, that is fine. In many ways, it is an instrument of people feeling they are safe. Today’s SI says that we have to wear a mask in certain shops but not in pubs or in restaurants, and some of the exemptions make a mockery of it, but I will not stand in its way.
On the covid passport, if we were to put aside the practicalities and the moral arguments, which I do not, and many of my constituents writing to me certainly do not, then a vaccine still does not stop people getting this and passing it on. Professor Whitty said to MPs on a call this lunchtime that there is a minimal impact on transmission with regard to all our vaccines.
Last Wednesday, when the Secretary of State made his late-night statement, I expected him to bring forward a devastating piece of science that basically said, “The drugs don’t work.” That is not what he said; he said that we are moving to plan B on the basis of some modelling. We have SAGE’s gloomy predictions and yet a confirmation that vaccines do work with two jabs, even better with a booster. I completely agree. Today we have a study that says that the Pfizer vaccine has 70% efficacy against the omicron variant. Last Wednesday’s statement should have been about the national booster effort that was announced in the live TV broadcast on Sunday night. I cannot say how many of my constituents have contacted me furious at the frightening nature of that broadcast that sent their children off to bed terrified.
If we truly mean the “learn to live with covid” mantra that we continue to hear, the booster campaign is 100% where our focus should be. We should be focusing on an ongoing plan to keep immunity high. We probably need a new primary care infrastructure, because “panic stations and cancel all else” is not a plan. Yesterday I spoke to three of the four primary care networks that cover my constituency. They are going to do their absolute everything to offer the booster to all eligible over-18s by the end of this month, but it will be really difficult. They are scrabbling around for venues in the week of Christmas. This is not the long-term thinking that we need.
I am ambivalent about regulation No. 1400 on face coverings and I will not stand in its way. On isolation moving to tests, I will support that if there is a Division, although I suspect there will not be. However, if people cannot get the lateral flow tests, as they have not been able to today and yesterday, as I raised in an intervention on the Secretary of State, then we get the pingdemic anyway, so we need to sort that supply out. I will not support the vaccine passport because it crosses a Rubicon. Italy began in exactly this way saying that it was all about providing lateral flow tests, and I think it will move, and move quite quickly. On the mandating of health staff, I will support that to be consistent with the mandating of vaccines in the care sector. If you work in the health service, working with vulnerable people, surely you have to believe in science above all else, and there is a precedent because of hepatitis B. So it is a mixed bag for me: I will support some of the measures before us today but not others.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
We all know that the NHS is facing one of the toughest winters in living memory; not only is covid a very real threat, but we are also facing a potentially tough flu season. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the statutory instruments on face coverings and self-isolation, but let us be clear: the Government should never have scrapped the use of masks on 19 July. Their obsession with removing all precautions in one go had far more to do with party management than it did with public health. We have all made tough sacrifices throughout the pandemic, and asking people to wear masks on public transport would have been a very small ask with a very large pay-off. We also support the working from home guidance, for which we have been calling for some time.
Today we are discussing the plan B protections to reduce the spread of this disease, but there have been rumours overnight that the Government are also working on a possible plan C. It has been reported that the UK Health Security Agency has privately advised the Government that “stringent national measures” will need to be imposed by 18 December—in just four days’ time. This drip, drip of information is causing huge uncertainty and anxiety. We need clarity and we need it now. The British public are haunted by Christmas past. We know that that last-minute U-turn meant that many people ended up spending Christmas on their own last year. With just days to go, we need the Government to come clean and tell us what omicron means for Christmas this year.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the ambition of 1 million jabs a day, and we sincerely hope that it makes up for the complacency around the booster scheme over the last few months, but the way in which the target was announced, with no scrutiny and no details, was a real insult to all those who were left to scramble to pull a plan together on Monday morning. The idea that NHS staff, GPs and their staff, local authorities, the military—none of them—had been given any prior warning of the announcement is extraordinary, and highlights the Government’s complete lack of planning. The idea that those people, whom we are now asking to vaccinate millions, were an afterthought is shocking. But here we are. As always, our NHS, the GPs and their staff, local authorities, the military and volunteers are stepping up, and as a country we are grateful.
The Government still have not made a commitment this afternoon that if they bring in more protections of any kind, this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise them, so I want to get a few points on the record right now. If the Government are considering any further protections, they must support small businesses and our high streets. Hospitality businesses are experiencing unprecedented cancellation rates for this festive period, and they were experiencing them even before the latest protections were announced. Hospitality is technically allowed to stay open, but all of the mood music is telling people not to go, which is causing a huge problem. We have therefore called on the Government several times to call and convene an urgent hospitality summit in order to see what support businesses need right now.
If there are further restrictions, we must also look after people’s mental health. We need supported isolation, not lone self-isolation. There must be financial and practical support for those with caring duties and for those who live alone—and for our schools. Our children have suffered so much. It was months ago that the Liberal Democrats called on the Government to ensure that there was an air purifier in every single classroom in England, but we are still nowhere near that.
Finally, for all these measures to work, there must be trust in the Government. With that in mind, what we need now from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is the truth. Will the Government come clean about Christmas, or will we see another last-minute U-turn that ruins the Christmas holiday and is too late to alleviate pressure on the NHS? I sincerely hope that it is the first.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Over the past year I have supported some covid measures and voted against others. With that in mind, my constituents may be struggling with the logic of my voting record, but I believe it is straightforward and I hope to exemplify why that is the case.
Where the measures have felt disproportionate to the wider harm, I have voted against their introduction. An example was putting the constituency in differing tiers when hospital admissions were low. Where the hospitals could not cope, I did support lockdowns as proportionate in those dramatic circumstances.
Where the wording of measures felt contrary to the aims they sought to deliver, I voted against their introduction. The 10 pm curfew was a good example of that; everyone piled out of the pub and on to public transport, and the Government eventually conceded, and reversed. That was the same concept that led me to vote against last week’s self-isolation regulations. I could not understand why, when omicron was going to become the dominant variant, we were requiring people to self-isolate; it would have led to a pingdemic. I am glad that the Government are reversing that today and I will gladly support that regulation.
As for the other three, my thoughts are as follows. For face coverings, I voted for the same outcome for retail and public transport last week. I do not want to see face coverings become a permanent feature and I do not want to see them reintroduced in the classroom, but for a limited period of time, in a settings reference, it feels right to me to extend the scope. On NHS workers being vaccinated, I voted for the same outcome for the social care workforce, and will do so again. We know that getting vaccinated reduced the delta transmission rate by 60%. We also know that patients who get vaccinated are not completely protected from serious illness or death. Surely, if care is in the DNA, it is not unreasonable to expect vaccination to be an entry point. If NHS workers believe that their own choices come before the safety of their patients, or if they do not believe that the NHS is about working for covid and working for vaccines, or that the evidence on those is true, I question if they are in the right profession.
For vaccine certification at larger venues, I am genuinely perplexed about the outrage at, at worst, showing paperwork. Last month, I got asked for my passport when I came back into the country. I have to show evidence of purchase when I watch a football match. I was also delighted to be asked for ID showing my age when I wanted to buy a beer, only a month back. What is the issue in temporarily asking someone to evidence vaccination, or a negative lateral flow test, for certain venues? If it keeps people safe, and in jobs because we do not have to put more draconian restrictions on events and hospitality, I am happy to oblige.
The impact of the omicron variant is not known. What we do know is that the doubling rate is two to three days; for delta it was seven days. In South Africa, where the variant emerged, the hospitalisation rate is now rising. Yes, the vaccination rate is lower in South Africa. However, it is also their summer, they have a higher level of antibodies from natural infection, and the average age is 13 years lower than in the UK. These restrictions are limited in time and scope. I ask myself, “What is it that I will not be able to do tomorrow that I could do last week?” The answer is, absolutely nothing. A little more face-mask-wearing. A little more admin to go to the football. If you are an NHS worker and are not going to vaccinate, there are a record number of jobs available for you to work somewhere else.
There is a larger issue at play, which I find infuriating. Over 80% of my constituents have got themselves vaccinated. They are keeping themselves and their communities safe. They are minimising their own impact on the NHS. There are a small minority who are not playing by the same rules, and have the temerity to lecture me on freedom. Let me tell them this: their freedom to remain unvaccinated and then do as they choose is reducing the freedoms of those who have done the right thing for themselves and the wider community.
As a Conservative, I believe that rights are not absolute: they have to come with responsibilities. Being a cavalier for freedoms is what we were sent to this place to be. Being cavalier about the health of the public is contrary to that principle. With that in mind, I will be supporting these proportionate and limited measures this evening.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Given time, I will concentrate my comments on mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff. I find myself really torn on this emotive subject, and I also find myself trying to apply logic to what is quickly becoming an illogical argument from the Government Benches. If it is really about patient safety, the Government should already have identified workers in the NHS who are still unvaccinated and have been working with them to alleviate fears and concerns and remove barriers. The Secretary of State should explain to the House why it is acceptable for those in the NHS who remain unvaccinated to work on the frontline to assist with the omicron crisis but, come 1 April, to be dismissed. Quite frankly, it makes no sense.
Comparisons have been drawn with the requirement for NHS staff to be vaccinated against hepatitis B. The reality is that chapter 12 of the Public Health England Green Book, which provides the latest information on vaccines and vaccinations, states:
“Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for healthcare workers who may have direct contact with patients’ blood or blood-stained body fluids.”
It is not the law. The Government proposal will see these workers work around the clock during the next few weeks and months, only to be dismissed on 1 April if they do not succumb to mandatory vaccination.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree that if these measures will come into force at the beginning of April and the parties concerned are to participate in a framework agreement for their roll-out, there is an ideal opportunity for those parties to work through how they may be implemented? By rushing the measures today, we are being robbed of that opportunity, despite the noises from the British Medical Association, the unions and the royal colleges.
Paula Barker
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
The workers I am talking about are the workers who worked around the clock at the start of the pandemic, despite having inadequate personal protective equipment, because they were putting the nation first. They are the workers who will continue to work around the clock over Christmas and the new year. In an institution that is built on consent between patient and clinician, the Government are ripping up the rulebook to suit their own ends, while at the same time we are seeing the 17th reorganisation of the NHS since 1993.
We clapped for our care workers and NHS staff on a Thursday, and they will get us through the latest crisis over Christmas and the new year. But now the Government, who ripped up the rulebook last Christmas while the rest of us obeyed the rules, sacrificing seeing our loved ones—some in their final moments—are going to dismiss workers in April. And all this while No. 10 and the Department for Education not only had Christmas parties but told this House and the nation that they did not. The message is inconsistent and makes no sense.
We are told to trust the Government, but it is increasingly concerning that they are reviewing the Human Rights Act and want to replace it. We should be very afraid, because this could be a sign of things to come from a Government and a Prime Minister who believe they are above the law. Even worse, if they do not like the law and it does not serve their purpose any more, they will rip it up and start again until they get the policy or the outcome they want, irrespective of civil liberties or economic damage.
The right to choose, particularly when it comes to our own bodies, is something we should all take very seriously. I implore everyone to get vaccinated and boosted to protect themselves and others, but the Government have set a precedent that should worry every citizen. For the first time ever, we have seen the profession of care workers singled out; they have had conditions attached to their employment status that were never there to begin with.
There is so much that the Government could do in the weeks and months ahead, from constructive negotiations with the trade unions, which remain opposed to mandatory vaccinations, to ensuring that local authorities and health services have the resources and capacity required to deliver the ambitious daily targets for boosters, and that statutory sick pay is set at the Living Wage Foundation rate. Most importantly, they could follow the rules themselves, to give the public confidence that any measures introduced are proportionate and necessary.
Before entering this place, I represented care workers, NHS staff and public servants, many of whom are now my constituents. I take very seriously my responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard, while trying to balance that with the unprecedented situation before us and the importance of public health. I think we can do just that by consensus rather than compulsion.
I implore the Government to pause on the issue of mandatory vaccinations, withdraw the relevant statutory instrument and work on the issue with the trade unions, the Labour party and all those in the House who offer cross-party support. The Secretary of State himself has said that we have seen an increase in vaccination rates since the start of the consultation. Please, remove the SI and let us work together to get the country vaccinated.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a doctor and vaccinator.
Statutory instruments Nos. 1400, 1415 and 1416 are without question relatively modest, certainly by comparison with the restrictions that currently apply in similar jurisdictions, and it is a very good thing that they will fall on 26 January. Nevertheless, I urge Ministers to think about the rapidity with which the evidence is changing. Currently, the evidence from South Africa is relatively positive: I am particularly impressed by the fact that mean hospitalisation in this particular wave is 2.8 days—it was previously eight days with the beta variant predominant in South Africa, whereas we have had delta, which is worse. From that, we can deduce, because it is the same population with the same demographic issues, that this variant is relatively mild. That has to be our working hypothesis, but we really do not know. We are struggling for evidence and the evidence appears to be evolving by the day. It seems to me unreasonable for the public to see their representatives leave this place for two weeks when they would expect us to be here to hold the Government to account on a real-time basis, which would require the House to sit next week and the following week, inconvenient though that may be for a lot of colleagues. I urge Ministers to give that some thought so that we could consider, for example, the advice on working from home that is currently having a significant impact on sectors of the economy.
SI No. 1415 is permissive, for which I congratulate the Government. I welcome it, and it should avoid another pingdemic. The advice about taking a lateral flow test for seven days is sensible, but only if, of course, lateral flow tests are available. I have heard that they are not available today in my constituency and hope that Ministers will attend to the issue as best they can.
I cannot get too excited about statutory instrument No. 1400, on face coverings. The best evidence published last month in The BMJ’s meta-analysis suggested that the wearing of masks had some effect on transmission, so it is the least we can do to wear the wretched things. The measure extends the list of venues that require people to wear a mask, but as we have all seen—those of us who use public transport and shops—the prevalence of mask wearing has increased in any event, thanks to the good sense and good will of the British people. We should encourage that at all times.
Statutory instrument No. 1416, on access to venues, starts to get a bit more sticky. The Secretary of State’s workmanlike recasting of vaccine certificates as an alternative to a negative lateral flow test yesterday was very helpful, but it was not helped terribly much by the remarks attributed to the chief medical officer earlier today that seemed to suggest that protection against transmission for vaccinated people is rather less than many of us had previously hoped. That did nothing to advance the case that the Government are trying to make, but I am more relaxed about that particular SI now.
I am slightly concerned about the SI on regulated activities. If a recent negative lateral flow test is okay under SI No. 1416 and, to an extent, SI No. 1415, why is it not okay for healthcare workers? With respect to my colleagues, the difference between the BCG and hepatitis B vaccines for those in the national health service who perform exposure-prone procedures and the situation we are discussing here is that there is an alternative to demonstrate that a healthcare worker poses no threat to their patients: a lateral flow test conducted very recently. It seems to me that, given the Regulatory Policy Committee’s damning assessment of the measure and the likelihood that as a result we will lose quite a few people in a health and care system that can scarcely afford to lose people, we need to look at alternatives to keep people in, not least because even the vaccinated will feel the pressure of some of their unvaccinated colleagues leaving. This could be something of a perfect storm in the winter months, and I hope Ministers will look again at whether we can have lateral flow testing—on a daily basis if we like, as I have had when I have been jabbing—as an alternative to insisting on vaccination.
I ask Ministers please to examine the issue of quarantine hotels and the requirement to bang people up. That is completely untenable, given the change in advice. I am surprised that Treasury lawyers have not already been advising Ministers that it is not appropriate, and I suspect there will be a wall of cases if those people are kept locked up when they should be released, in accordance with Ministers’ very welcome announcement today on the red list.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to focus, in the short time available, on statutory instrument No. 1416, on entry to venues and the issue of compulsory vaccines. It feels as though I have been around this block before, because just over a decade ago I was the Minister responsible for identity cards and passports in the last Labour Government, yet I share concerns about health data being routinely required in order to access services.
When we dealt with identity cards, we were clear that they were about verifying identity, with no health information included, despite some groups lobbying to have health information on those cards. No immigration status information was to be on them, although many of my constituents and people up and down the country, do have cards with their immigration status on, which they are happy to have to prove their rights. There was other lobbying to include things such as veteran status on cards, but the Labour Government pushed back hard on those points and there was absolutely no requirement in law to have an ID card to access any public service.
That is very important, because tonight’s proposal does not require people to show their vaccine status in order to access a public service. It is about accessing optional large events, where they could be a spreader. In addition, ID cards were on a statutory basis, with a raft of underpinning law to make sure that we had a clear basis for them, and they were long-term. They were debated at length, including twice in this House, because the general election of 2005 interrupted the process.
Let us be clear that a covid vaccine status document or app is a temporary measure—it expires. I have just had my booster, but had I not done so it would have been a moot point as to how long my second vaccine would still give me the status that I require. The Secretary of State has said that that booster will be required, once it is rolled out, on that pass in order for it to be valid. It is not required in order to access any public service. That is an important step, because if we were to go down that route, we would need to get this on to a statutory footing. I hope we never get to that point, but we do not know what is going to happen with coronavirus. As it stands, we have not had a version that will kill our children, and thank God for that, but we know that this is not yet over. At this stage, there is no proposal for a permanent covid pass and therefore there is no need for this to have a statutory footing, because we hope this is something that will run into the stand.
We are also talking about a health treatment here. When I present my pass, it tells the person nothing other than my name and my date of birth; sadly, people will have probably worked out that I am no longer 21, and I do not really mind about that. If that information is needed in order to get into a venue, I am prepared to make that choice. It is a compromise, because of what happens if we do not do this. The data will show that although even vaccinated people can catch covid and spread it, this reduces it, and the booster reduces it further.
For sceptics, let me say that 100% safety would mean a lockdown or closing down hospitality venues, events, workplaces and schools—no one wants that. So this is not a perfect solution to stop spreading omicron or any variant of the virus, but it protects our hospitality industries and events. Even though they are still hit, it protects them from complete closure. This approach of temporary and near universal coverage, limited information required to be presented and no requirement for venues to hold copies of our data is a proportionate response. It is a responsible thing to support each other. Individual freedom, as outlined by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), cannot be at the expense of wider freedoms; we do have that responsibility with that freedom.
I wish to touch on compulsory vaccines for health workers, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on his tour de force on that. I am concerned about pushing people forcibly to have a vaccine, but we should never have got to this point. We should rely on reliable information and education to ensure that we do not get to the point where people have to be forced. Of course, we cannot force someone to have a vaccine, so the consequences for a health worker are immense. Ultimately, for those health workers on the frontline supporting their patients, vaccination will have to be a requirement for the job, because the risk of spreading the virus or of sickness across the health service because staff are not protected would cripple our health service. Reluctantly, therefore, I have moved to the point where, having voted against it in the past, I will support the measure tonight. Spreading a virus that makes us ill, kills us and puts pressure on the NHS is not something that NHS workers can be a part of, but NHS England must work hard to convince and support people and to get rid of the disinformation about the danger of vaccines.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Let me start with a few words about the big picture. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put this very well. We know that covid is going to be with us forever, and we know that we are going to have variants forever. The chief scientific adviser has told us that, and I agree with him. There are many people who think that we will just have to wait a bit and it will all be over, but that is not happening. We have to be realistic about what we are facing, and according to Jeremy Farrar, we are facing this challenge as probably the best protected country in the world through vaccination.
This was effectively the first big test for the Government: how do we deal with a variant of concern in a very well vaccinated population? I am disappointed that we have quickly gone into panic and emergency mode, with late Sunday night broadcasts—not in the House of Commons where questions can be asked—scaring people witless. For example, they have been told that two doses give them no protection, which is not true. Two doses provide weakened protection from omicron against infection, but they still provide good protection against serious disease. I am concerned that many people out there who have had two doses and who are perhaps vulnerable now feel that they have no protection. That is simply not correct. If this is the first test, I do not think we are doing very well.
Aaron Bell
The data from South Africa that we heard this morning in the Science and Technology Committee showed that we still have good protection against severe disease from two doses of Pfizer, but it has gone down from 93% to 70% for hospitalisation. That is four times the risk of hospitalisation.
Mr Harper
I have seen that, and I look forward to the information from the UK. The point I have been making in my constant repetition about the House sitting next week or the week after or being recalled—my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) also mentioned this—is that we are learning new information every day, and when we get that information, we might need to make different decisions. The House needs to be involved in those decisions; they should not simply be made by Ministers by decree. I repeat that point, and I do not understand why Ministers will not give us that assurance. It would build a lot of trust and good will among colleagues, and I do not understand why they will not give that commitment.
These decisions have significant economic and social impacts, as well as impacts on the NHS’s ability to deliver non-covid treatments. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has already pointed out that the NHS is going to scrap a whole load of elective surgeries and consultations with GPs in order to get boosters delivered. That might be the right decision, but I do not think that a proper balancing is taking place. Goodness knows how long it is going to take us to recover from the creation of this new backlog over the coming months. If the Government’s fears, as set out by the Secretary of State, are confirmed in any way, what is the exit strategy? What approach are they going to take to ensure that we do not face on-and-off seasonal restrictions forever? That is a serious question, and it has been raised by other colleagues. We need an economy that functions, people need to build lives that can function and the NHS needs to be able to function and deliver all the other healthcare we require.
Let me turn briefly to plan B. I am happy to support the measures on self-isolation. I simply note that, two weeks ago when we were asked to vote to restrict them, I voted against that. Two weeks later, the Government have agreed that I was right to do so, because they are effectively revoking those earlier measures. I will leave that thought with colleagues for when they decide whether they wish to listen to the advice of Ministers or others.
On vaccine passports, the Government’s plan B makes it very clear that Ministers’ preference is for vaccine-only passports. The only reason why tests have been incorporated is to buy or secure the support of the Opposition. That is the only reason. Ministers’ preference in writing is for vaccine-only certificates, so we know what they would like to do if they could get away with it.
The Secretary of State also made some commitments about not supporting mandatory vaccination for the entire population. The only reason that needed to be said is that, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister put on the table the whole concept of mandatory vaccination and talked about having a “national conversation” about it. All I say is that, if Ministers wish to build trust and good will, they need to be careful about what they say. They should not fling these very troubling concepts around without thinking about them. Words have consequences, both in terms of what happens in the real world and of the trust that needs to be built with Members of Parliament and the public.
What is proposed for vaccine passports is very limited, but that was the case everywhere they were introduced around the world. Everywhere they have been introduced, they have been extended. In Wales, for example, where Labour is in power, they have been extended in terms of the venues to which they apply, so anyone who thinks that Ministers will stick to what is currently on the Order Paper are, I am afraid, kidding themselves.
The final thing I say to colleagues is this: the vote on vaccine passports is not just about the regulations on the Order Paper; it signals how we wish to treat this House, how we wish to be treated on behalf of our constituents, and the direction of travel and the approach. If my colleagues wish to send the Government a clear signal that they need to rethink their approach, then, certainly on vaccine passports, they should vote against them. Send the Government a clear message that we can do better. There is a better way, and we should send that message today.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The past week has been tumultuous. We are about to go off on our Christmas break. The only positive thing that has emerged from party-gate is that it took Boris Johnson—[Interruption.] I do apologise. It took the Prime Minister potentially being on the front pages of all the newspapers on Monday morning to come out in favour of a different approach to plan B. I can only say thank goodness for party-gate. Had that not happened, I wonder how much longer we would have waited for the Government to act. The reason why that matters is that, every single step of the way through this pandemic, the longer we have waited, the worse things have got. The sooner we act, the less we have to act and the better the benefits.
This morning, the all-party group on coronavirus heard from the experts, many of whom advise the Government, and from people who represent frontline NHS workers. We wanted them to answer simple questions: “What is going on?” “Tell us about omicron.” Also, “Is it enough?” On omicron itself, the news is startling. Two-day doubling is quite scary. Even if all the population had boosters today, because it takes 12 days, more or less, for a person to develop immunity and become protected, the numbers would increase by 60 times. That is why the two-day doubling matters. It is true that when we get that booster immunity in place, the time of doubling will increase, which is a good thing, because we want to reduce that peak. My concern is that we have not gone fast enough soon enough.
Let us look at evidence from places such as Denmark and South Africa. Much has been made of South Africa, but it is true to say that our populations are not directly comparable. There are some things of which we need to take heed. For example, just this morning, there has been new evidence to suggest that omicron affects young children more than delta. It takes tiny percentages of children getting sick for us to start seeing them following through into hospital admissions. We should remember that children are, as yet, unvaccinated; they have no protection at all. So the first plea I make to Ministers is where is the plan for children? It needs to go beyond hoping that they are going to be okay, because it would seem that this variant is potentially a threat. I will send Ministers the evidence I have seen, which is sincerely alarming, and I hope they take it seriously.
The other thing we see from Denmark is the shape of these curves. I know that this is hard to show when talking, but for the benefit of Hansard, the blue line is delta and the red line is omicron. This is data coming from Denmark, and I will post it on Twitter if people want to look at it. However, for the benefit of Hansard, the blue line looks like a gentle slope and the red line looks like a hockey stick, and that is deeply alarming. So what do the Government need to do? They have gone from plan A to plan B, and they are considering, once they get plan B through, moving from B to C. I was a teacher before, and if that was happening to a student of mine, I would get the parents in and get them to have a chat, because we need to go from B to B-plus.
What does B-plus mean? It is the booster—absolutely, it is the booster—but we have to recognise that between now and then it is not enough. We need to ventilate our public spaces. We need to provide support for social care, because unblocking those beds in the NHS requires extra support in social care. We need to ensure that test, trace and isolate works, which means allowing people to get tested—we have seen issues with that already—but we also need to help them to isolate. We need to limit mixing, and if people will not do it themselves, the Government need to act. We also need to bear in mind the effect of long covid in all of this. If there are huge numbers of people who already have it, many more are going to have that. So I urge the Government: do not hesitate, act quickly, please do not curb Christmas, and go from B to B-plus now so that we can enjoy the holiday ahead.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Whenever this House passes legislation, it is essential that it is effective, evidence-based and logical, and it needs to have broad public support. What I see in front of us today with regard to plan B delivers on virtually none of these items. Indeed, if I look on social media and in my constituency email inbox or just have general conversation with others, it is clear that the measures before us are being treated with strong suspicion of a wider agenda, partly because they simply will not deliver on their supposed intentions.
Sadly, the Labour party will be supporting the Government today as legislation passes to introduce vaccine passports for the first time in this country, so it will fall to Conservative Back Benchers to be the only people who are subjecting these proposals to any sort of scrutiny. No doubt Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition would also like to take part in the discussions on proposals for mandatory vaccination, given the fact that they have supported every one of the Government’s lockdown proposals. Indeed, they have demanded longer and stronger lockdowns than we have had.
It would be remiss of me not to highlight the risk to the NHS that both vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination would bring. Vaccine passports tell those unconvinced of the science or those who for health reasons cannot take the vaccine that they are second-class citizens: they must show their papers or be banished. Mandatory vaccination would take these things a step further, effectively imprisoning anyone who does not agree with the status quo. All these measures are being considered or may be taken to protect our NHS.
There is all this fixation on the vaccine status of health and care workers, yet we know from the science that vaccination does not prevent transmission of the virus, so why are we going to put tens of thousands of people out of a job at a point when the NHS itself is going to be stretched to the limit and, may I add, when their vaccination status makes them little more or less dangerous to the people they work with or work for if they are tested daily?
Indeed, the best protection of all is actually to have had the virus and then to have recovered. The scientific evidence shows that someone is probably 10 to 20 times less likely to be reinfected if they have already had and have recovered from the virus than if they are double vaccinated, yet the many thousands of individuals in key worker roles who have had and have recovered from the virus but refuse to have the vaccine will actually lose their jobs at a key time. It is an inconsistency.
Turning to the question of the necessity of these restrictions, there have undoubtedly been far fewer deaths due to the omicron variant in South Africa despite its having been prevalent for four months and having replaced other variants that were more deadly in various ways. All the evidence we are hearing is that omicron is a milder form of covid with fewer cases of serious disease, fewer hospitalisations and, thankfully, far fewer deaths.
In my view, the most dangerous epidemic sweeping the world and our country is an epidemic of fear. It has seriously damaged mental health and particularly damaged the mental health of our young people. It must end.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to express my serious concerns about the principle of mandatory vaccination, not for any ideological reasons but because it will have the contrary effect to that intended and therefore is wrong.
My concerns are first and foremost for public safety and also patient safety. That is the analysis I bring; having worked in the NHS for 20 years as a clinician, that is drilled into us from day one. The Government’s lack of strategy in managing this pandemic is astounding and they must understand that we need to get ahead of the virus in order to lock it down, as opposed to locking people, and their futures, down. A lack of consistency also continually comes through their policies. They cannot have it both ways; there must be one approach that carries that thread of containing the virus. They cannot say to one venue that they are are going to lock it down but tell another venue it has all the freedoms it needs, because that simply does not work; in fact, it is dangerous, and therefore the Government need to get a grip.
The very people we revered—who just a year ago we were clapping and calling our heroes—are the very people who are now exhausted, traumatised and frightened, and the legislation before us will sack them. For two decades I was their colleague and I know the dedication, compassion and care they give to their patients; I was their trade union leader and I know their professionalism and the sacrifice they give for the people they care for. I will not undermine that trusted relationship, which is absolutely essential in delivering healthcare in our country, and I will not ride roughshod over Labour’s NHS constitution, which pledges to assist people to participate fully in their own healthcare decisions and to support them in decision making. I will not turn my back on working people, and I will never forget my roots and those I served alongside. While the Prime Minister partied, NHS workers put on layers of personal protective equipment and fought for lives. That is what those in the NHS do: you make sacrifices and while traumatised you just keep going.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
My Friend’s excellent work as a trade union leader in the NHS is well understood. She is speaking on behalf of NHS workers; has she any idea how many will be affected by this totally wrong attempt to force vaccinations and passports on people?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention and he makes a point I wanted to make myself. The Government’s estimate on that in their impact assessment is 123,000, and even in the best-case scenario 62,000 will lose their jobs, which the NHS simply cannot afford.
Ms Rimmer
My hon. Friend knows about health and care workers—
Ms Rimmer
I apologise. I know my hon. Friend knows about care and health workers so she knows how dedicated they are; they have a vocation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government can and should stop going too far? Let us not break the trust between patient and worker and between Government. Let us go down the route, which has been proven to work, of persuasion and education, and ask them and work with them to distil the fear.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend, who represents her constituents so well. There is an alternative path and we can take it today. We know that the Prime Minister is allowing people to go to pubs and clubs unmasked, while he is sacking NHS staff who are wearing full PPE and testing. Some 93% of NHS staff are vaccinated; figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 4% of people are vaccine-hesitant, which rises to 21% among minoritised communities. As 22.1% of NHS staff are from minoritised communities, the regulations will target black workers. In fact, 26.8% of workers of mixed race are not vaccinated; that is in the Government’s impact assessment, which also gives the figures for black workers. The regulations therefore indirectly discriminate against black workers.
Unvaccinated staff are frightened. On Friday, I spoke to someone in my constituency who has worked for the NHS for 16 years. Her father had a vaccine. His heart stopped. Miraculously, NHS workers brought him back to life; he is now in a critical condition. She is frightened. She tests; she wears PPE; she has sacrificed everything. She will be sacked.
I want all NHS and care staff to have vaccine counselling and education with a qualified practitioner who holds the right competencies so that concerns can be explored, not with line managers, who just do not have the competencies. I want everyone to be vaccinated—I cannot stress that enough—but I want to win the trust of staff, not push them further away, as the Government’s approach will. In York, where we have focused on those trusted conversations, we have seen 99% of our social care staff vaccinated. It just shows what works and what makes the difference.
We do not want to push people further away. We want to bring them in, win their trust and win their confidence, because we will have to ask more from our health and care staff as things get harder—we certainly will if there are fewer people to deliver the service. Let us do what works—enforcement never does. The regulations are vaccine-illiterate.
If 123,000 people lose their job in the midst of a health and care crisis, it will be catastrophic, not least as people are starting to hand in their notice now. Why go through another tough winter of trauma when we do not have to? The regulations will make it worse. We know that two vaccines, or even three, will reduce transmission of the virus, so get your jabs! But they will not stop transmission, so let us move to better PPE, FFP3 masks, daily testing and better biosecurity. Rather than pushing the regulations today, I urge the Government to go away and come back to the House with a plan for us to vote on in January. That is good governance and the way forward.
As a trade unionist, I am not prepared to be complicit in the sacking of our NHS and care staff. Trade unionists fight for working people; we are never complicit in writing their P45. As a trade unionist, I came to this place to fight for working people. I therefore urge that we change course and put staff and the care that they have for their patients first.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), but where I have to disagree is that we need to balance the economy with these measures. The damage that bringing in mandatory masks in the hospitality sector would cause to the small pubs in Hyndburn would be huge, so we have to try to mitigate it.
I am against mandatory vaccine passports. The Government would have had to present significant evidence to change my mind, so the fact that the Secretary of State has said very clearly at the Dispatch Box that he is also against them has eased my mind. I want to be clear that this vote was never about mandatory vaccine passports. If someone does not want to show that they have had the jab, they can just show proof of a negative test, which is a key caveat. Hon. Members should be careful about how they word that message, because it is irresponsible to push it to the public and make it out to be something that it is not.
I would like reassurance from the Government that if anything further was proposed, there would be a vote so that the House can decide. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are looking at plan C and saying, “Where does it end?” If we know that we have a vote on any further restrictions, we can all look at the measures proposed today and vote on what is in front of us. That is really important.
My position is that we cannot keep locking down—it is financially unviable—so there has to be an exit strategy. The limitations for hospitality and such things are key. The measures are also temporary, so that we can see what is going on with omicron. Twelve months ago, we could see our family for one day over Christmas and we were allowed out of the house for only an hour a day to exercise. In comparison, these restrictions—we know omicron is really transmissible and we need to see what will happen—are not as draconian. We need to make that clear to the public.
If there are further restrictions and a plan C, they should be brought to the House so that we all have an opportunity to have our say and to vote on them. The measures are being put in place to make sure that we keep our freedoms and that we can keep going to the pubs and clubs with our friends. It is a little measure to make sure that we can spend Christmas with our family. It is better to be safe than sorry.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank everyone across the country who has had their booster—everyone who has been lining up at centres across the country and taking the time to ensure that they have done the right thing by getting their booster. I thank all those NHS staff who are enabling that and who are putting in a mighty push to change all their ways of working to get the booster into as many people as possible.
I thank all those who have written to me about the issues being debated today. There are those who say that we should have more measures and that they will feel safe to go out into public spaces or to take up NHS appointments only if more measures are put in place. There are also those who have written to me about their concerns about more measures being put in place and more restrictions on our lives.
It is clear that omicron is a threat. It is highly contagious with cases doubling every two days. Most cases in London are now omicron cases and the numbers are increasing all the time. Two vaccines do not reduce the rate of transmission as much as they did for delta, so it is clear that action must be taken. We know that it is more contagious, but although we do not yet know its severity, we cannot wait. Last year, at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, the Government waited too long. They delayed, sometimes for weeks, and we saw the effects. We have to act now.
This is a measured and proportionate set of actions. On masks, I do not think we should have dropped that measure in the first place. We should never have stopped wearing masks on public transport and in shops to keep shop workers safe, so I welcome that.
On vaccine passes, which are not vaccine passports, I am glad that the Government have listened to the Opposition saying that there need to be options. It is absolutely proportionate for people to show proof of double vaccination or a negative lateral flow test to enable big venues and our hospitality venues to stay open, which is so important after last year and the loss of so much income.
Those venues need to stay open, so this is a freedom to go out and to enjoy events and be out with people while staying as safe as possible. We know that there will be a peak in the number of cases in a couple of weeks, and that a couple of weeks after that, in the new year when we return to this place, there will be a peak—or not—in hospitalisations. It is right that we take these measures now to stop hospitalisations later. I welcome the change on the red list of countries, which the Minister announced earlier. If it is not having any effect, there is absolutely no reason for so many of my constituents to be unable to visit their families in South Africa, but also to pay huge amounts of money to be quarantined. I also welcome the Minister saying that he will look into the quarantine costs of those who were unfairly stuck in the middle of a couple of weeks when they needed to pay. Some of my constituents who have written to me are NHS workers who have had to pay thousands of pounds they cannot afford.
I will welcome the engagement with the Elections Bill of all those on the Conservative Benches who are now so worried about civil liberties. It certainly will be a “Papers, please” society when we are asked to show our ID to vote. That is far more of an infringement of our civil liberties. Voting is such a fundamental thing compared to going to clubs or large events.
We absolutely need the schools programme to ramp up. School transmission rates are very high in primary schools in my constituency, but all those facing exams this year must be able to do them. This is not a slippery slope to covid passports, and I am grateful for the assurance on that. We need to ramp up communication and engagement with health staff who face measures later on in the year if they do not get the vaccine. We must see an increase in statutory sick pay. That is only fair.
In conclusion, the Chief Medical Officer gave a chilling briefing to MPs earlier today, saying that when it comes to the omicron variant the brakes are off. We have to put the brakes on. Too many people have died, and we mourn every single one. Now is the time to take action, and I encourage everyone to get their booster jab.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I will speak briefly to ensure colleagues can get in on this important debate.
I will go through the four measures and come up with some big questions that I think we need to ask about what we are doing and how things go forward. First, the self-isolation statutory instrument makes quite a lot of sense. I welcome the Government’s bringing in this change and bringing in daily testing.
On the vaccination of health staff, I declare an interest. I used to work as a doctor and my wife currently works as a doctor. I really have no issue with this measure. When I went through medical school, I had to be vaccinated. I would flip the argument on its head. I would be very concerned about a relative of mine going into hospital and being treated by someone who was unvaccinated. I would be very concerned about them getting covid and becoming very poorly. Fundamentally, this is a basic duty of care issue, but I recognise there are different views on that.
I struggle a bit with the mandatory face mask provisions. This, along with the working from home guidance, will cause harms. Given the Secretary of State’s update today on the omicron wave that is coming forward, I wonder what actual impacts it will have and what the harm-benefit ratio looks like, but there we are.
My real issue is with the covid status certificates. There are many reasons to be concerned about covid status certificates, but I will focus on one. As a doctor, I have spent my career looking after people who are marginalised: people with severe mental illness, people with a learning disability and the digitally excluded. Looking at the measures and the explanatory notes, I cannot see how one can show evidence of a negative test without having access to the internet or having a phone—how any validation process can go through. It is clear to me that it will exclude people. I cannot support excluding anyone, but especially those people who are the most marginalised in our society.
My big three questions relate to what comes next. I had a chat with the leaders of the Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency about what is happening and what their plans are for the next few weeks. They tell me that already, because of the pivot towards vaccination by primary care, they will have to look at shoring up A&E, because there will not be enough GP capacity and people will be going to A&E. That may have a knock-on effect. The hospital will have to cancel elective care so that A&E can be shored up. They do not want to cancel elective care. It is a great hospital trust and its leaders think they can get through and still do some elective measures. One thing they asked me to ask Ministers today is whether they can have flexibility on what they do around elective care to try to keep it going as much as possible.
There will be a cost in terms of missed GP appointments and missed screening. We have already seen what the cost was in the past year in terms of waiting lists and so on. I would like to hear from the Minister what the plan is to recover NHS as usual after we have got through this wave. Trust me, a protected NHS is not an NHS in which GPs abandon routine care to focus on vaccination. A protected NHS is one in which people can get their blood pressure screening or have a conversation about their mood. It is one in which health visitors see young families and have important conversations about whether a woman feels safe with her husband at home.
My second question is: what happens when the next vaccine escape variant comes? We all feel it is inevitable that another one will come after this wave, so what is the plan to prevent our having to repivot like this again? What is the long-term strategy for living with covid?
My third question is more of a plea. The costs of this pandemic have largely fallen on the shoulders of our children. Please, please, please, will the Minister confirm that there are no plans for mandatory restrictions on schools and that we will never again close our schools?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The last speaker at five minutes is Wera Hobhouse, and then it goes to four minutes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might even stick to the four-minute limit.
No doubt we are at a pivotal point in the fight against covid, and my constituents in Bath, like many across the country, are doing their best to keep covid levels low in their community. I thank everyone for their efforts.
I am glad for the consensus in this place that getting vaccinated is the most important thing. What we are debating is the most effective way of getting the most people vaccinated, and I hope this debate does not distract from the fact that we all believe vaccines are the best way to beat covid. We will beat all the conspiracy theories about vaccines and about covid being an invention. I am glad there is consensus on the importance of us all getting vaccinated.
The Liberal Democrats have always supported mask wearing, which reduces but does not entirely eliminate the risk. It is important to wear a mask, and we deplored the fact that the requirement, which is not difficult, had been dropped, including in this House. Mask wearing is not just about keeping ourselves safe or even about keeping our loved ones safe; it is about keeping everyone safe. Yes, we enjoy our civil liberties and we should protect them, but they do not include the liberty to harm others. That is an important principle, and it is why we support these public safety measures.
Many of my constituents have been in touch with me to share their concern about the logistical difficulties of following Government advice. They want to do the right thing, but they often find it difficult. I met one of my constituents last week, and he has recently returned from Zambia, where his work is based. As Zambia is a red-list country, he was required to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days. He continually tried to book a quarantine hotel, but he was unable to do so because the hotels were fully booked. When he was finally able to book one, he received an email from Corporate Travel Management saying his booking had been cancelled due to an error on its part. Upon speaking to the call centre, a member of staff told him there was no problem.
The red-list system has now been dropped, but the stress and cost to people who tried to do the right thing has been considerable and needs to be addressed urgently. Will there be compensation for those who faced considerable cost and, as has already been asked, will those who are still in quarantine be released immediately?
Another constituent is housebound. Her son lives in Southampton and her multiple health conditions make it impossible for her to get to a vaccination centre on her own, which means she has not yet had a booster. Her story is all too common. The local clinical commissioning group says it is in the process of contacting people who are housebound, but many are still waiting to be contacted. Obviously they are very worried, so I hope the Minister is able to outline the steps being taken to ensure the housebound are able to receive their booster as a priority.
Lastly, another constituent was vaccinated abroad, yet is still unable to receive confirmation of his double-vaccinated status, because his vaccines are not recognised on the NHS app—a problem that has been noted since the summer. To make matters worse, my constituent and many others like him are not able to get their booster, because the system will not recognise them as having been doubly vaccinated.
The Government must address these issues as a matter of urgency. It should not be this difficult for those who are trying to do the right thing to follow the Government’s own guidelines. My constituents and many across the country want to do the right thing, but the Government must do their bit or people will lose further confidence at this already highly volatile time, when we need as many people as possible to have confidence in the system and the Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There is now a four-minute limit. I call Jane Stevenson.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Let me start by saying that I absolutely support the Government’s aim of buying us a bit more time to increase the booster take-up and give us all more protection, and nothing that I am about to say makes light of covid in any way at all, but my issue with the regulations is the language and how we bring people together to get the most compliance.
Omicron certainly will not be the last variant that we have to deal with. A significant number of people in my constituency have grave concerns about civil liberties, data harvesting and all those things. Although I think their fears are unfounded, I have to listen to them, because we in this place have to take their concerns seriously. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, we do not allay the fears of over-regulation by passing more regulations. We need these people to come on board in a national effort to keep people safe, so I believe that we need a change of language—from telling people and mandating measures, to asking people to comply.
We already trust our constituents to take the tests correctly and to give us a correct reading of their test; there is nothing preventing them from declaring a negative test when they have tested positive, or not taking the test at all and just scanning the code. Compliance could be increased if they could trust that they were not facing these restrictions for no reason and their data was not being harvested. I respect that this is a major concern in my constituency. The vast majority of my constituents and the British people will do everything asked of them by the Government, without it needing to be mandated. They have been incredible throughout this pandemic; they have acted in the interests of themselves, their families, their communities, their cities and their towns.
I humbly ask the Government to get back to our Conservative principles of trusting the British people. They are the people who sent us to this place; they have common sense, know the risks and can act with supreme intelligence, and we must never underestimate their community-mindedness. That is my only comment on this evening’s votes. I will not support all of the motions, but I will support some of them. I make a last plea to the Government; in order to go forward together as a nation, we have to stop passing never-ending regulations and move forward in a voluntary, community, public-spirited way.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson).
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, our hospitals and intensive care unit beds are being filled up with unvaccinated people. It is a real problem in the hospitals in Leeds, and is having a huge impact on people who want to get vaccinated—people who want their lives to move forward and to be able to continue to do the things that we all want to do. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said at the time, the reality is that there could come a point when people are not able to have the operation that they may need, because a bed might not be available. I have spoken to trained, highly-skilled surgeons, who have been in situations where the theatre is available and the theatre nurses are available, but the operation is cancelled because there is no bed to put the patient in, so they cannot do the operation.
What we have before us today is a set of really unfortunate measures. They do not sit comfortably with me: I do not like the things we are doing. However, they are balanced for this moment in time. I do not believe that they are measures for vaccine passports, as they have been described in the countless round robin emails I have received, and it has been made clear from the Dispatch Box that they are not. They are measures for a specific moment, in a very specific area.
I think we need to consider requiring everyone to have a lateral flow test before going into an area where there may be a chance of spreading the virus, because that is a way of protecting society. It is people’s right not to be vaccinated—I am totally opposed to mandatory vaccines—but it is my right, and the right of a great many of my constituents, to expect to be able to continue to receive services that we have paid for and used, when and where we may need them. That is what is overwhelming services at present, and it is going to lead to a simple choice, and a debate is going to be had.
At some point, we are going to have to work out how we are going to free up intensive care unit beds. Are we going to say that people must take lateral flow tests to ensure that they mix in an environment in which everyone has had one, if we do not want to introduce vaccine passports? In fact, I do not believe that vaccine passports would work anyway. Someone might have a partner who did not want to be vaccinated and could not attend an event, but the other person could. Because that person had a vaccine certificate, a test would not be required, and he or she might get covid and go home and give it to the partner, who might then end up in intensive care. So that is not really going to work. Lateral flow tests do work.
As I have said, I do not believe that what is on the table today is a vaccine passport, which is why, although I do not like this package of measures, I will be supporting it. However, there is a fundamental question, which is going to stir up a really hard debate in this country. Do we demand that everyone has a lateral flow test before they go anywhere? Do we find strains which may not cause a lot of disease and let them spread to try to defeat the virus? Or must we take the Singapore model, and say, “On your head be it if you need hospital treatment, and there will be financial consequences”? One of those three things will have to happen in the long run.
As we stand here today, we are faced with a very unfortunate set of measures, but I am backing them today because I think that what is sacrosanct at the moment, especially after last year, is the need to protect this Christmas season. People must be able to have that, and if it means a few sacrifices now, I think that that is a price worth paying.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I applaud the Government for their massive scale-up and huge ambition in respect of the booster programme. It truly is the way out for our nation, and I commend them for their approach. Critics will argue about whether the target of the end of this month will be reached, but we must not listen to them. Their myopic political point scoring will be forgotten in the light of the fact that the Government are doing everything they can to get jabs into arms, because that is the way out. However, I accept that further measures are necessary.
The Government will have my support on both the mandating of face coverings and the change in isolation procedures. While masks are of course inconvenient, they are a relatively easy way of reducing the risk of not only covid, but other viruses such as flu. Let us not forget that the number of flu admissions places a huge amount of pressure on the NHS, so a reduction in both conditions—as evidenced—makes sense to me.
Those who argue about the nuance of settings for masks often miss the point. I have heard on numerous occasions, both in the Chamber and among the public, the question, “How does the virus know whether it is in a restaurant or a shop?” Of course the virus does not know, but that is not the point. The point is this: what are the easiest measures which, when applied to the population as a whole, will reduce the risk as far as possible? The Government have to balance that at mass levels. What measures can be implemented to reduce the risk of covid, while mitigating the instant economic and non- covid damage that could occur in vulnerable sectors such as hospitality? A change in the self-isolation procedure suggests itself. This is a difficult but fair balance.
Let me now say something about mandatory vaccinations for NHS workers. I spoke about the issue during a debate in the House on 13 July, and I am not going to rehash the entire argument; I urge anyone who wishes to look up my speech to do so. However, for me the argument still stands as it did then. It was based on the duty of care for those in positions of responsibility to the most vulnerable. That stands even more starkly today. One only undertakes that commitment in their decision to pursue this career and the precedent already exists. However, that argument must not be used as a slippery slope argument for mandatory covid vaccination for the general population. I was glad to hear the Health Secretary confirm that that would not be the case, because I do not believe that the House, or indeed most of the UK population, would accept that.
On the topic of slippery slopes, that leads me on to the final regulation—that of the lateral flow test and the covid pass exemptions for certain venues. I am against vaccine passports. I do not believe they are practical, moral, ethical or indeed evidence-based in a scientific rationale. The closest comparison we have is Scotland, and the Scottish Government’s 70-page report does not provide the evidence for passes. To introduce such a huge change in the health management of our nation requires a full and thorough debate and I do not believe it will be done justice tonight. I am so pleased that the Government have listened and added lateral flow tests as an alternative because at least that provides a choice, but I cannot support covid passes. I worry about the slippery slope. What businesses, what society interactions, what infections might come in scope in future months or years?
In closing, looking to the future, I said in the House on 16 June 2021 that what was most needed was a full debate on the risk that we as society are prepared to tolerate when it comes to covid for those vaccinated and for those unvaccinated who will never get vaccinated, and the trade-off between covid and non-covid health implications, health protection measures and our economy, society and liberty. I hope that the House will bring such a debate next year.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Our covid measures have, and continue to, hurt our citizens—from a man with late-stage dementia who is terrified of face masks to an 80-year-old constituent who got stuck in South Africa, not because of omicron, but because flights were suspended; and now, the news that non-urgent primary care will be diverted once again, with the huge risk of harm to babies and young children if face-to-face support is unavailable for long periods of time once again. And the creeping regulation is so hard to keep up with, resulting in teachers cancelling school plays, businesses stopping events and families staying away from happy occasions for fear of breaking a rule they did not know about. Surely the campaign against covid should now focus on two key fronts—more boosters and more education.
The action by Government on boosters is fantastic, but instead of criminalising people, why do we not start a hard-hitting public health campaign—“If you’re going out this Christmas, don’t forget to take a test” or, “If you’re seeing your granny, make sure you get a jab”? Let us persuade people, rather than criminalise them. And let us go much further to reassure those who have a fear of vaccines, whether because of a needle phobia, because of cultural sensitivities, or just because of fake news.
My specific concern about testing requirements for big events is the sheer challenge of enforceability in a commercial setting. It would be far better, in my view, to use the approach of a daily test or a vaccine exemption for NHS staff and carers instead. That would be a practical and fair solution for both carers and the cared-for, and it would be enforceable. It would also avoid the risk of losing NHS and care workers who were unwilling to accept compulsory vaccinations.
I have supported the Government throughout the pandemic when I could see the present danger that we faced, but this time around the measures proposed are precautionary—just in case—and I cannot see where this will end. Covid will be with us for many years to come and it is unthinkable that, every autumn from now on, we will be limiting the quality of life for all citizens, just to be on the safe side; and justifying our new illiberal rules on the basis that “They are less authoritarian than those of other countries” is truly appalling. That is not our culture; that is not our history.
This is a slippery slope, down which I do not want to slip, so I am afraid I will not be supporting these measures.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). I think everyone acknowledges that the Government have a difficult task. Although it is important that we debate the regulations before us, in some ways, they are not the most damaging measure. The advice that the Government gave to work from home has much more significant consequences than any of the relatively minor measures we are discussing. Unlike the regulations, that advice does not have an expiry date or an impact assessment, even though we know the impact on businesses across the country, and on young people who work for firms that are perhaps conscious of what their insurers and regulators might require, once again being confined to their homes. That is significant and it is a shame that the House does not have a chance to vote on it.
On the measures that we have a chance to vote on, there is a lack of clarity about the purpose of the access certificates, if I may call them that. Is it to prompt people to get a vaccine? Is it to give people a nudge and those who have not availed themselves of a vaccine a further incentive to do so? If so, what is the evidence for that working? We know that 90% of the population are vaccinated. What motivates that remaining 10%? Is it the case that the desire to attend a football match or a nightclub will cause them to take up the vaccine? If so, the measure might be a good one. However, we are inconveniencing the 90% of people who are vaccinated when we have no evidence. What are the alternatives? If we really want the remaining people to take up the vaccine, rather than requiring a pass at the entrance to a nightclub or a football ground, perhaps we should have a vaccine centre at the turnstile or the door. That might be better for those who have been too disorganised to arrange their vaccine. We do not know; we have reached for compulsion.
As colleagues have said, the measure cannot just be about obtaining a vaccine. The option of a negative lateral flow test would not be available if the purpose were just to nudge people. There is a certain logic to requiring 100% of people entering a venue to have a negative test, but as we know, it is perfectly possible for people with just two jabs to transmit covid. There is an ambiguity about the purpose of the measures. Given that the consequence for business owners and venue operators of failing to get right some very complex regulations is a fine of £10,000—a huge amount for small business operators—we should not take that lightly.
I wonder whether the Minister can answer, possibly in an intervention, a question that came up in the debate about whether the lateral flow tests are to be self-administered or sent, at some cost, to a third party to administer. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his winding-up speech.
Whatever the difficulties, there are flaws in the approach, about which I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance when he winds up.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Although I fully support the Government’s determination to protect our communities, I seek clarity. Like most of us, I support evidence-based policy making and, in the absence of data, precautions, not restrictions. I will vote with the Government today on precautions. Face masks are about personal responsibility and a small step we can take to protect our communities. I support the NHS mandate—we need to keep our health workforce safe and not put those who are most vulnerable and for whom they care at risk. Testing over 10-day isolation—absolutely; testing is the most important thing we can we do and I support it. Boosters—absolutely; we need to get everyone boosted.
However, I find difficulty with vaccine passports for three main reasons. First, there is no evidence that passports reduce transmission. Yes, France and Scotland have seen some increase in the uptake of the vaccine but no reduction in transmission as a result. Secondly, we are currently saying that two jabs are not enough. Well, if we need a booster and that is so important, why is the vaccine passport based on two jabs? There is a contradiction there. I do not believe that covid passports would prevent lockdowns. I question their mechanics, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). Someone who is self-declaring that they have had a negative test is asking someone to give them that declaration with no evidence that they have had a negative test, and then that is somehow meant to be some kind of increase in capacity. The bureaucratic mechanics required for the passports to work are not there, but neither are the bureaucratic mechanisms required for negative tests. That will come at great cost to us. We do not have the capacity to deliver the negative test aspect of the passport regime.
Secondly, on modelling of the severity of omicron, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory has not even reported yet, so how can we be asked to decide on these measures today without the data? South Africa is not seeing the expected spike in deaths. Hospitalisation sits at about 30 per 1,000, compared with 101 per 1,000 for delta. Using the modelling on delta cannot be right because we know that this variant is not the same. There are currently 10 people in hospital with omicron, but are they in hospital because they have omicron or do they just happen to have it? We do not know the answers. Frankly, if omicron is that severe, we need more than the plan B measures proposed today.
My third reason for voting against covid passports is the fundamental unease they give me. We do not discriminate on a medical basis in this country, and we cannot. We are encouraging people to work from home, but pub trips or parties are permitted, when we know from the previous lockdowns that the problem was with home mixing. We have very high vaccination rates. We do not need these passports. I know that 96% of people in Rutland and Melton have had their first jab, 93% have had their second, and 47% have had their boosters. My constituents deserve to be thanked and recognised. They do not deserve to have to have passports imposed on them when they are taking up the vaccine like this. I thank the amazing vaccinators across Rutland and Melton, particularly the Rutland Lions Club.
We are constantly changing the rules. Businesses cannot keep up. These are not the circumstances they asked for. Then there are school closures. Since we announced the measures in plan B, schools across the country are talking about closing. That is not acceptable. Our children must be in school to learn and to be protected. Our children deserve more. We cannot have people going out to parties and pubs and children not in school. The Government must mandate for schools to remain open, not just say that that is the guidance.
My final plea is for help, because in Melton we do not have enough clinics for vaccinations, and this has been an issue for months. I plead with the Minister to make sure that we get more booster clinics in Melton.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). This has been a good debate and a necessary debate. Strong views have been expressed on all sides, and I think those reflect the views that a lot of us have heard from the country and in our inboxes. I believe in a proportionate response to the potential threat of a public health emergency, and that the precautionary principle applies, so I will support the Government today. Given what I have heard about the transmissibility of omicron, I think these measures will be for only a limited period of time, one way or the other, because it is very transmissible and we do not yet know quite how severe it is.
The response that the Government take has to be balanced with the needs of the economy, as many others have said, and we must be particularly mindful of the effect on the hospitality industry, particularly at this time of year. But it is not these measures that are affecting the hospitality industry. In fact, some of these measures will support the hospitality industry by giving people confidence. It is the virus that is affecting the hospitality industry. Sometimes I get the sense that some colleagues, and certainly some people who write to me, are arguing with the virus, not with the Government. I think it is common cause across the House that we all do not like the virus, but unfortunately the virus does not care about that and it will keep on doubling.
That brings us to the data. I am grateful to all the witnesses we heard this morning in the Science and Technology Committee, ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), but clearly we do not have enough data yet, particularly UK data, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said. On case fatality rates, we heard that omicron is perhaps 29% milder than the original strain—that is from the South African data—and that in terms of length of stay in hospital, omicron stays are perhaps half the length of regular stays. Unfortunately, those are both linear variables. The R0 rate, on which omicron is truly outcompeting the other variants, is an exponential variable. That means that until it runs out of targets, it is going to keep doubling. We heard that there were 200,000 infections yesterday; that will be 400,000 in two or three days, and possibly 800,000 in a week’s time. We must not fool ourselves that we know how we can balance that exponential growth with the two linear measures we have found out about. We have to take a precautionary but balanced approach in the meantime.
I have sympathy—I really do—with the slippery slope argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and those who say this is the thin end of the wedge. I share the view of many colleagues that the House must have its say over the next two weeks if we are to take further steps along that slope or to a thicker part of the wedge. I would not vote for the thickest part of the wedge—I would never vote for mandatory vaccination of the general public, and I welcome the assurances we have heard from the Dispatch Box today—but that is not the question before us. We should all vote for or against these measures based on their content and our own personal belief in them.
On the so-called vaccine passports, I do not believe that they are anything of the sort. With lateral flow tests and recent experience of covid as alternatives, I do not think they should be described as vaccine passports; they should be described as covid passes. I welcome the assurance from the Dispatch Box that lateral flow tests will remain part of that in the future, and I will hold the Government to that.
Finally, on the point about rights and responsibilities of citizens that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made so eloquently, there are 4 million people who have chosen not to be vaccinated so far. Some of them may be disorganised, but there are undoubtedly many out there who have chosen not to be vaccinated. I say to all of them: “I will stand up for your freedom and for your right not to be vaccinated, but you cannot imagine that there can be no consequences to that choice once that starts impacting the freedoms and rights of others.” I therefore think that some of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned may have to be considered in the future if we get severe exponential growth of omicron.
In my last 10 seconds, I commend the Government for what they have done on boosters, and I urge everyone to go out and get their booster as soon as possible. That is the way out of this.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). He was absolutely right in the way he concluded his speech: boosters are the answer to this. Boosters, and the vaccine programme at large, give us hope and a path out of covid and back to normal life.
I congratulate the Government on stepping up the booster programme and aiming to get those jabs into people’s arms by the end of the year. Making that happen will require a lot of focus and attention, and planning of the detail and the logistics. On the basis of my experience yesterday of trying to bring forward my own booster, which is booked for 31 December—I jumped from 7,000 in the queue to 3,000, then curiously to 10,000, before eventually being offered a date in mid-January—there is clearly a lot of work to be done to ensure that we can get those boosters into people’s arms.
I also welcome the Government’s move to get rid of the 10-day isolation period for anyone who happens to have come near someone who has tested positive for omicron, and to replace that with daily testing. That is a sensible measure. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I feel vindicated in having voted against the 10-day isolation measure two weeks ago.
However, let me set out why I will not be voting for the extended mask mandate, for covid passes or for mandatory vaccination in the national health service. I very much agree with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), that this is a slippery slope. This is going to change the way we operate as a country, not just in December 2021 but whenever another variant—perhaps not of covid but of another virus—emerges. It is a fundamental change in the relationship between citizen and state, and one to be resisted.
I have argued throughout this pandemic—at times I have then reluctantly voted with the Government, as I did last Christmas, and at other times, such as a couple of weeks ago, I have voted against extending measures—that all restrictions are not without harm in themselves. Even on masks, it may be an easy thing for many of us to do to put one on, but as others have mentioned, to the dementia patient petrified at the masked figure approaching them, to the child with autism, or to the person who is hard of hearing or deaf and cannot read our lips, it has consequences; it does bring harm. Likewise, I have been scared by reports in my constituency of the rise in mental health challenges, particularly among young people—there has been a rise in self-harm in secondary schools. We cannot stand idly by and just ignore that.
Of course, there is also the damage to our economy. We may not have shut hospitality down, or propose to do so, but I am already hearing from pubs right across my constituency that are losing 20%, 30% or 40%—in some cases 50%—of their Christmas bookings. People are now too scared to go out, and I am afraid that correlates directly with what the Government are saying and how they portray this virus. I took a lot of heart from the news coming out of South Africa this morning that people there were finding it to be a more mild variant and that the vaccines do work. I therefore come back to where I started: let us focus on the boosters and, otherwise, give people back their freedom to choose.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I want to believe that the new restrictions are motivated by the care and compassion felt by scientists and senior Government Ministers for the British public and to support the NHS. I heard the Secretary of State say that these measures will keep people safe and protect our liberties, but I am worried because that same care and compassion and support for the NHS does not seem to extend to other severe difficulties that our constituents face largely because of the Government’s having imposed restrictions to fight covid.
I wish to set out how some individuals are not safe and how their lives have been curtailed. For example, on cancer diagnosis and care, we are throwing everything we have at covid and the booster programme; how many more cancer patients will miss their diagnosis and treatment and lose their lives because we told them to protect the NHS? Surely, now is the time to reopen the Nightingale hospitals to deal with omicron and protect the NHS so that it can care for constituents who have had severe, life-changing or life-limiting illnesses.
Who is checking on the impact of measures such as those before us and the wider impact of covid on people with learning disabilities? When will we wake up to realise that these people are, in effect, locked up, safe from covid but living a miserable existence without their usual social network and normal activity? My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that we are “scaring people witless” and he was absolutely right.
What about mental health and anxieties? Why do we feel that our robust response to covid justifies yet again plunging massive numbers of people into anxiety and mental health challenges, or maintaining them in that place?
On school disruption, how is it that for years we have made it an offence to miss school but we have now quite literally deprived children of a structured learning environment? With the renewed enthusiasm of the Government and Opposition, we already see schools closing early and children’s and families’ lives disrupted.
I accept that the measures we have been asked to vote on today do not in themselves trigger the problems that I have outlined, but the briefings and the encouragement of fear to justify these measures do not acknowledge the very real and horrible lived experience of people in each of our constituencies. We seem to have a Health and Social Care Department that is consumed by covid and has abandoned all other responsibilities, such as mental health, cancer, diabetes, social care, loneliness and isolation—a Department that is prepared to sack the NHS staff who care for patients.
I doubt that this new variant is the last. Are we to expect this level of rection indefinitely, with each covid threat? If not, perhaps now is the time to change our approach and have a fresh conversation about how we want to combat pandemics such as covid throughout the British Isles in 2022 and beyond. On that note, I shall vote in support of the booster jabs and testing, but against the other measures proposed today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. To accommodate everybody, I am reducing the time limit to three minutes. I was able to warn the next speaker of that change.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
This has been a good debate but it is a profoundly frustrating and depressing experience to have to have it at all. Just a few short weeks ago, we thought we were almost out of the woods; now, we are threatened with the return of a terrible uncertainty.
Given the time restriction, I have to go through my speech at pace. On the proposals before us, we have been here before in respect of the extension of the need to wear face coverings. I do not like face coverings, but as a precautionary measure while we find out more about this new strain of the virus, I can see the argument for them and so I will not oppose them. Mandatory vaccination for NHS workers has been debated before and it is about a duty of care owed to the vulnerable people in the care of the NHS. It is an extension of an existing principle. Practising doctors have told me that they are already required to be inoculated against chicken pox, rubella, measles and hepatitis B. There are also exemptions in this statutory instrument for people who work in the NHS but have no face-to-face contact with patients. So, again, I will be supporting the measure. On self-isolation, I think it is self-explanatory why the response is proportionate and I will be supporting the measure.
The measure on entry to venues and events is the real elephant in the room; this is the one that gave me the most pause for thought. We already have to show our vaccine status when we travel overseas, but that is our choice. It is marginally inconvenient, but with appropriate prior preparation it is not any more than that. The application of that approach to moving around domestically is an altogether different thing. As originally conceived when plan B was drafted, it would seem that there would have been a requirement to show one’s vaccine status to get into anything, be it a bar, restaurant, café or whatever. That is very much like what exists in mainland Europe at the moment. For me, that would have been a step too far and I would not have supported it, but the Government have made a major concession. Not only have they limited the number of venues where one would have to use the pass in order to gain access, but they have allowed the provision of a lateral flow test result instead. That avoids the deeply divisive nature of having to show one’s vaccine status. On that basis, I am able to support this.
The Government measures will not be allowed to be simply rolled over interminably. If they want to extend them, they will have to bring them back to this House in January for approval. That is something else I approve of. We do not yet know the severity of the omicron variant, but we do know it is spreading rapidly. These measures will not stop omicron from spreading, but they are not designed to; they are designed to slow the spread. The Government need to use this time to obtain solid data and deepen our understanding on the risks posed by omicron. In the meantime, I will support these measures and encourage everybody to get their booster.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
The heart of these regulations is all about slowing transmission and reducing demand on our limited NHS capacity, so there are two ends to this telescope. The first is about prevention and making sure that people do not get covid. The second is about making sure the capacity is there so that if they do get covid we can cure not just them, but other patients who have non-covid-related illnesses. These regulations are very focused on the prevention end of this telescope. Clearly, vaccination uptake is crucial, and the Government are to be commended on that, but this has to be a matter of choice. Given others’ contributions, the point has been well explained already. Mask wearing and covid passports have not been subject to the rigour of proper assessment. A proper analysis has not been undertaken here and I fear that they will do more harm than good to society taken as a whole. They generate fear in those who least need to be fearful, they increase mental health problems, and they reduce non-covid admissions and treatments.
However my real concern is that the Government have not focused sufficiently on the other end of the telescope. We have not looked adequately at what we do about the adequacy of our resources. Despite promises and numbers of new doctors and nurses coming forward, even the Government have admitted that that will not be enough to fill the huge number of vacancies we have. If we can reduce vaccine development from 10 years to 100 days, surely to goodness we must be able to find a way of undertaking a laser-like review of a patient journey to make a better and more efficient use of the limited resources we have—and, indeed, to increase them. I call on the Government before Christmas to put in place an emergency resilience taskforce, which needs to have a laser-like focus on the capacity issue, which has not been fully addressed—frankly, it has hardly been addressed at all. We can work smart; there are very good brains within our health service. We see that when we look at what Sir Ara Darzi has done in the Accelerated Access Collaborative, with new drugs and “faster patients”, in a way never seen before, or at what our own Kate Bingham, the vaccine tsar, has done to do what was supposedly impossible. When this taskforce is created, and it must be before Christmas and it should be asked to report by the end of January, it must look at better use of emergency services. We must use the fire and police services better. It must look at proper triaging of accident and emergency arrivals, and better use of medical professionals. We are using the wrong people to do the wrong jobs. We must expedite training, look at whether some of our training takes too long, and use the Nightingales and other resources to deal with non-covid backlogs and convalescing to deal with the healthcare problem. Finally, if we cannot have covid passports, testing must be the right way forward in social care and health.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We will get everybody in as long as Members do not take interventions—or if they do, they still stick to three minutes.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I want to speak directly to all the points raised, very quickly.
Being able to take a test instead of self-isolation is a positive move. Nobody likes wearing a mask, but most can see the benefits of them so I am okay with that. After careful consideration, in my opinion NHS frontline staff should have the vaccine; they have a duty to do no harm, and while we know the virus can still spread, the chances are reduced. I have spoken with local health professionals and there is understandable concern from NHS employees who are pregnant so I ask that those members of staff are given the assurance they need from the Secretary of State and the chief medical officer that this vaccine is safe at whatever stage of their pregnancy. On the concern that many health professionals will leave the profession, I have been assured that would not be the case, at least in Doncaster, as most frontline workers have seen the devastating effect of covid and have been vaccinated.
Many Conservative colleagues are struggling with the idea of vaccine passports and I understand their concerns, but this not a vaccine passport; it is covid status certification. It allows negative lateral flow tests or proof of vaccination. It is also only for venues that carry higher risk, and I personally think it would be selfish for anyone not to take a test before attending a live event anyway. Many complain about long queues when boarding a plane, but who would want to get on a plane where there is no security? I feel that this is the same.
It is not as though people who have not had the vaccine are putting just themselves at risk. Those who are not vaccinated and who require hospitalisation when ill with covid are blocking beds and causing huge backlogs in elective care. Two thirds of patients in Doncaster Royal Infirmary with covid are unvaccinated; that is just not fair on the person who has been waiting for a hip operation for 18 months or any other elective procedure. Preparing oneself for major surgery only for it to be cancelled because another bed has been taken by someone who is unvaccinated is hugely frustrating.
I will vote with the Government today but I ask that they do not take my vote for granted and that, if we see no real increase in hospitalisations, the legislation will expire on 26 January and they will not seek to extend it. Working from home is not being voted on today and is only guidance, but it will cause much disruption to small retail so I hope that the Government will keep a close eye on that.
Finally, I ask my constituents to understand that I am voting on these measures today not because I have been whipped to do so but because, after careful consideration and speaking to many local professionals, I believe this is the right thing to do.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and I thank him for his reassurance that the Whips have not pushed him in that direction.
The Government have done an extraordinary job over the last two years. Rolling out the vaccine so quickly has been an extraordinary achievement as is producing a booster programme in the way we have. There is a remarkable book by Adam Grant called “Think Again”—the title is perhaps apposite for the Government right now—which talks about how we persuade people to take vaccinations and it gives the two case studies of Canada and Germany, where people are not mandatorily required to get vaccinated or pushed in that direction but ways are found to persuade them. We would do well to follow the guidance to be found in that book.
I will vote against the masks measure in SI No. 1400 and support the self-isolation measure in SI No. 1415. In relation to the masks, the legislation is shoddy; it seems ill thought through if, as I said the other day, we can sing, eat or drink with a colleague but not have to go to work with them, and yet masks are introduced in the certain settings. A Government and their legislation have a responsibility to be good and comprehensive; that is not what this is doing.
When it comes to vaccine passports, I will not support them. As countless colleagues have said, there is little evidence to show that they work. I am sorry that no SNP Members are here, because the 70-page report produced by Nicola Sturgeon adds to that point. A very important point was made earlier about the lack of enforceability now that we have the lateral flow tests, because of this slightly dodgy deal that has been done with the Opposition to get their support. The scope for abuse and obfuscation on that is far too great.
When it comes to mandatory vaccinations, I cannot and will not support them. The problem I have with this is that the Government have yet to release the data on how many people have left care homes since we introduced that policy. We need to have the data to be able to review that, because if 60,000, 20,000 or 30,000 people in the NHS decide to walk out, how on earth will we have the capacity to support those who get infected? We need more information before we make those decisions.
Over the last two weeks, the ghost of Christmas past has appeared, and he brings with him fear and uncertainty. We cannot continue to flip-flop and change tack, nor should we be cherry-picking information from South Africa to support the Government’s agenda. I appreciate that the evidence coming out this morning shows that two Pfizer vaccinations do well and that the virus is milder, but we cannot continue to terrify people. I am staggered by the Government’s approach over the last two weeks, during which we have used fear to persuade people. I believe that no Government should ever use fear as a tool to try to persuade their citizens, and that it is what has happened. We must build up our resilience and reduce our restrictions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We must move quickly on.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), although I will not, alas, agree with every word he has said. Let me start by celebrating some of the things that I think we can all agree on, such as the end of the red list for all 11 countries and the extension of the travel passes for all teenagers. I think many of us can agree that we need to release from quarantine immediately those who are still in quarantine in our country having come from those red list countries.
Today, we vote on four specific measures. First, we have a modest increase in mask wearing, which really can only be opposed by those who strongly oppose it on principle. Secondly, we have an end to the pingdemic of self-isolation in favour of lateral flow tests, which surely everybody can agree is a step forward. Thirdly, we will vote on having mandatory vaccination for NHS workers, which the NHS itself supports. Lastly comes the issue for debate, which I would say is a modest requirement for a lateral flow test to go to venues with more than 500 indoors and 4,000 outdoors. In my constituency, that amounts to Gloucester Rugby, Gloucester cathedral and the ATIK nightclub, and I believe that all of those will be quite capable of administering things effectively.
What is it that the libertarians, led by the eternal cavalier my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), most object to? I believe that they object in principle to new rules being introduced, and struggle slightly with the specifics of what is wrong with the proposals brought forward today. Let us be clear that there is no vaccine passport, nor is this Nazi Germany in any conceivable shape. They are scaremongering, for everybody accepts that the omicron variant rate of infection is moving fast. We cannot be sure how many with omicron will need to be hospitalised, so we cannot wait to do something until the Gloucester Royal and other hospitals are overflowing with people with covid and critical cancer operations have to be cancelled. I do not believe any Member would want to face the family of someone lost because a cancer operation had to be cancelled as a result of the hospital being clogged up with omicron variant covid sufferers.
Is everything perfect? No. I have three suggestions for the Minister and the Departments involved this evening. First, they need to reassure us on the provision of lateral flow tests. We must have them, otherwise people will not be able to get them and fulfil the requirements of these rules. Secondly, we need to look again at the wording on the advisory recommendation that people should:
“Work from home if you can”.
I believe this should be, “Work from home if you wish”. Thirdly and most importantly, the impact assessment makes it clear that the central estimate is that 73,000 NHS workers out of 1.8 million do not want to be vaccinated, and we need to do more about that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Let me start by sympathising with the Prime Minister and those on the Front Bench. These are not easy matters, and I appreciate that decisions on restricting our freedoms are not taken lightly. However, I am an independent-minded Back Bencher and I would not be doing my job if I did not question Government policy and vote against it when I think it is wrong. I shall oppose the measure on the wearing of masks, vote for self-isolation, vote against what will be vaccine passports in all but name, and vote against mandating inoculation for NHS workers when lateral flow testing would retain much-needed staff.
Previous speakers have asked whether these further laws will be effective. Whether they are or not is not as much of an issue for me as how we as a nation want to live our lives. Do we want to fear more restrictions every time a new variant appears, as it will? No is my answer. Do we want to damage our economy and all within it every time a new variant appears? No is my answer. Is working from home when I can enter a packed pub the right approach? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is my answer. Do we want to shut down schools and universities and further ruin young people’s lives? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to restrict people’s movement and tell them what they can and cannot do when there is no evidence to suggest this would work? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to see hundreds of thousands of NHS patients waiting, some in agony, because their operations have been delayed again? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to see the hospitality and retail sectors collapse because we keep instilling the fear of God into their customers? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to go on spending taxpayers’ money on this eye-watering and unaffordable scale? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Finally—my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) in front of me can now relax—do we want the state to give us back our lives and freedom? A monumental yes is the cry from many a heart.
I had hoped to hear the Secretary of State say at the Dispatch Box this afternoon something along the lines of, “Keep calm and carry on.” I had hoped that the Government would stop bringing in all these laws criminalising the people of England for breaking rules that it seems many cannot follow. This is not the way to win trust and confidence. The way forward is to advise, suggest, encourage and take people into the Government’s confidence. It is time to put fear to one side, put our shoulders back and get on with our lives.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is difficult to follow Buttons, but I will try. Yesterday I was asked in an interview whether I was plotting to revolt, and indeed I have seen my name on various lists of rebels today. Let me make it clear that I have not been plotting, I am not rebelling and I am certainly not revolting. What I am doing, in three minutes, is trying to scrutinise a really important piece of legislation affecting all our constituents—a duty that Labour Members seem to have completely abrogated by giving the Government a blank cheque here today. They have been here only in single figures for most of this debate.
What have we learned during this pandemic? We have learned that vaccines work and that they are our best defence. We have also learned that disproportionate measures have consequences. Closing schools has led to a tsunami of mental health implications for many of our children. We have also learned that when we are presented with evidence-lite and a shortage of data, some of the predicted outcomes do not happen. We have learned how brilliant the NHS is, but there have been consequences in the form of non-covid deaths as well. Covid is not the only killer. We have also learned the difference between modelling and forecasts. Modelling predicted more than 100,000 daily infections back in September, but it turned out to be nothing like that figure. Let us not confuse modelling with accurate forecasts and predictions. We have also learned about mission creep. Perhaps we saw that on Sunday. We are learning to manage risk and realising that we cannot eliminate it. Soon we are going to have the pi, rho, sigma and tau variants. We cannot head for the hills with knee-jerk emergency measures every time a new variant comes along.
To scrutinise these measures and to be prepared to vote against some of them is not to be ideological; it is to do our job. I am pragmatic. I am quite relaxed on masks. I have been wearing masks in shops and on public transport because I think that is a respectful thing to do. It gives assurance to people who are scared to come out, so I am not going to oppose that measure. The measures on self-isolation are of course progressive, but I will vote against covid passports, which are a key part of plan B. I appreciate that they are not vaccine passports, but that is the Government’s plan C, and that is what I fear. It is passport creep. We have already heard about passports for pubs and other venues. However much we want to get people vaccinated, we do not want a society where we ask for papers and deprive people of their liberty.
I will certainly vote against mandatory vaccinations for the NHS. It was crazy to do it for care workers, of whom we probably lost 40,000. There are 1.5 million people working in the national health service. It is wrong to mandate medical procedures, but it is pragmatically stupid when we will lose so many people who we need to help to fight the infection at the sharp end. I am afraid we will lose many more with that measure. We need to base our decisions on science, the holistic impact and what is proportionate and fair, and these measures are not.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I think most people understood that vaccination was the route back to normality. Despite the fact that 95% of adults in the UK now have antibodies—I accept that there may be some reduction in the protection from antibodies, but there is certainly no evidence for any reduction in T-cell protection—we are being asked to impose more restrictions on lives and livelihoods.
I have looked in detail at the modelling done by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. We need to be clear that they are models, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, not forecasts or predictions. They are based on some pretty major assumptions, such as that omicron causes the same severity of disease as delta and that the length of hospital stay is the same. Those assumptions are becoming more out of date by the day. There is no known benefit to the measures that we are trying to implement, but there will be inevitable harms.
On working from home, we saw research last week that suggests that those working from home are 11 times more likely to experience domestic abuse. Masks sound innocuous in their own right, but they send a signal across society, including in schools, that people should panic and fear. We have already seen schools close today and say that they may not return in the new year. That 100,000 ghost children have not returned to schools since lockdown should be a warning to us of the unintended consequences of potentially small measures.
I cannot support vaccine passports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, they are discriminatory and segregate people. We have a proud tradition in this country of standing up for minority views, even when we do not agree with them. In the rush to get jabs in arms, we should not throw that tolerance and respect to the wind.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the mandatory vaccination of NHS staff. It is about not the ideology of whether people should be vaccinated but the pragmatic reality that we will lose tens of thousands of staff at a time when we can least afford it.
This is no longer really a debate about whether masks work or who should have a vaccine. It is about who we are and what kind of society we are creating for our children. Do we really care about the freedoms that we all took for granted before 2020? People roll their eyes when Conservatives and libertarians start talking about civil liberties and freedoms, but freedom is not an abstract ideology.
Freedom is what enables my constituents to see their family, comfort the dying, go to school and go to work. That is what freedom looks like. After 20 months in and out of restrictions, we have to accept that there has been a permanent change in the understanding of what liberty is in this country, which is why I cannot support these measures. I urge the Government to return to a society of freedom and responsibility. Our constituents deserve that and they will rise to the challenge.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Me? I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I could not hear you over the appreciation for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
I strongly support getting vaccinated. I had my booster jab two weeks ago. I thank all Islanders who are engaged in the vaccination process in my constituency. I congratulate the Government on an ambitious booster programme. When it comes to the vote tonight, I will accept and trust what they say on face masks and on the daily tests, which seem infinitely more sensible than locking people down in hotels. I will not support them on passports or mandatory jabs. Threatening the jobs of 73,000 NHS staff seems an odd way to support the NHS.
I want to raise a wider issue with those on the Front Bench, which has somewhat coloured my judgment. I have heard nothing to reassure me on the following points. I am fed up with dubious forecasts and ridiculous extrapolations the kind of which many hon. Members have talked about. Academics—I am not quoting myself—have talked about Imperial College London’s forecast being “hysterical”, “inflated”, “consistently over-confident”, “lurid”, “flawed” and “spectacularly wrong”. What do the Government have to say about the incredibly questionable extrapolations that they have used?
I am tired of all the leaks. It was leaked that omicron could kill 75,000. It could, but it may not. All these doomsday forecasts, leaked at critical moments, erode public trust.
Thirdly, we are told we have to follow the science. Of course we have to follow the science, but it is a misleading statement as science is shaped by the inputs and by the desired outcome. For example, we had 70 pages of evidence from Scotland on vaccine passports, but there was no evidence to support their value for uptake, so why are we introducing them? We are doing so because of the precautionary principle. That is not science.
One of the most disturbing things is the lack of context for the statistics that have been used. Was that to increase knowledge or to increase fear? My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said that between 500 and 1,000 people die each day in this country, and people die of flu all the time. It is about putting this information in context, and I fear that the result of too much of this has been to scare people, especially the old and now the young. They are petrified of covid without taking account of more genuine and potentially more damaging threats such as the appalling impact on education.
I will vote against the Government on two of the motions tonight, but my decision to do so has been coloured by the past 18 months of policy, which we need to improve.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The health of the nation has united this House over the past 22 months, but what we know about the impact of covid on the health of the nation has now changed, which has led to this debate. We know that the physical impact of covid is only part of the story, that mental health is a significant consideration and that the impact of covid on our hospitals has to be considered alongside the impact of cancelling non-covid treatments, too. Many hon. Members have referred to the impact on children of being schooled at home, and there is the impact on many people of working at home, which is not without its risks.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care set out very clearly his case for the measures before the House. The new omicron variant is more transmissible than the delta variant and, even if it has the same impact on our health as the delta variant, its high transmissibility means this new variant could have a more significant impact on the number of people who need urgent hospital treatment. Stopping the NHS being overwhelmed has been our objective from the start.
I commend the Government’s focus on ramping up the booster roll-out, which is a vital part of solving the problems we face, but these regulations are designed to take those actions a step further to help keep down transmission levels, which is why I support them. The nature of human activity means we will not have a perfect set of neat decisions. These regulations do what is possible, not what is perfect.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, particularly on the importance of making sure we protect the education of our children. Will he provide an update to hon. Members next week on the number of hospitalisations, even if the House is not sitting? We cannot eliminate the risk of covid-19, but these time-limited measures will help to reduce the risks faced by our communities. If our NHS is overwhelmed, it will put at risk not only covid patients but anyone who needs emergency care through the winter months. We have to act with caution, which is why I will support these measures in totality. I commend the Government for putting the safety of the people we represent first, and I commend them for taking this approach.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
This has been a passionate debate that has reflected the gravity of the situation. I sincerely thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their heartfelt contributions.
Since the start of the pandemic, Labour has been crystal clear: we will not play party politics with people’s lives, especially when it comes to something as grave as covid-19. The precautionary measures before us have been recommended by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific advisers and are based on scientific evidence. They are proportionate, necessary and will give us time to get people boosted and better understand the omicron variant.
We have always said that the Government should not have scrapped guidance on mask wearing, and we have repeatedly stressed the importance of allowing people the flexibility to work at home. These measures will help us to have a safer Christmas, as well as protecting our NHS from being totally overwhelmed by the new variant. We are also pleased that the Government have taken our advice and our suggestion to include an option to present a negative lateral flow test as an alternative to vaccination status; I am grateful to the Government for that, and for providing the necessary assurances that the restrictions will not impede any access to essential services.
We have always supported measures that have been necessary to keep people safe. We will not alter that approach, but nor will we pretend that we are in any way satisfied with the conduct of Government Members—the Prime Minister in particular—over the past few weeks. The Prime Minister has done irreparable damage to public trust and has thereby undermined vital public health messaging. We know that, when the country was most in need and ordinary people were doing the decent thing and sticking to the rules, the Prime Minister and his tinsel-clad advisers were making a mockery of the British public.
Neither I nor other Labour Members will let the Prime Minister’s failure undermine necessary public health measures, however, because we know that the omicron variant is much more transmissible and that getting two doses of the vaccine seems less effective in tackling it. The booster jab provides an increase in protection, so it is essential that the boosters be rolled out and that all those who are yet to have their primary course come forward as soon as possible.
Throughout the pandemic, vaccination has proven to be the effective tool against the virus, and that remains the case. We have repeatedly called on the vaccines Minister —the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup)—to put a rocket under the booster roll-out, but we are concerned about the mixed messaging from the Government over the past few days. In his televised address on Sunday night, the Prime Minister said that people
“will have the chance to get their booster before the New Year.”
However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care indicated in his statement yesterday that the aim instead is to “offer” the booster to every adult by the end of the month, meaning that delivery will wait until January or even February. When is it? Can the Minister clarify once and for all whether the Government are rowing back on the target set just two days ago?
We are concerned about the shambolic lack of tests available for people across the country. How do we expect fully vaccinated contacts of cases to take daily tests if they cannot get hold of any? What is more, the regulations requiring vaccination status or a negative lateral flow test for entry to certain venues come into force tomorrow. If people are unable to get a lateral flow test, we have a big problem—I hope the Minister will address that.
On vaccinations for NHS staff, our position is that we want everyone working in the NHS to take up the vaccine. The vaccine is safe and effective and we should focus on driving up vaccination rates through persuasion, education and support. Vaccination not only protects vulnerable patients, but will protect staff from severe disease. The Government must urgently meet the royal colleges, the NHS providers and the unions to agree a framework for how any changes agreed tonight will be rolled out.
Finally, I want to highlight where the Government are still falling short, in the hope that the Minister will take these points on board before it is too late. First, will the Government confirm that we will not waste the Christmas holidays, and ensure that all children who are eligible to be offered a vaccination before the end of this month will have one? Furthermore, will the Minister advise why, more than 19 months since SAGE first highlighted the crucial role of good ventilation, the Government are still failing to act on its advice? With these measures being laid before the House, the Government should also reconsider their position on sick pay provision; nobody should have to choose between feeding their family and doing the right thing by isolating.
I appreciate that no Government ever want to bring in measures such as these, and I fully appreciate the frustration of Members across the House and people across our country that we are here again, being forced to change our way of life to fight this virus, but I am afraid that the alternative is far more serious. If we do not take steps to protect the NHS, it will face a wave of infections that will likely overwhelm it. Labour opposes this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government, but we will support them on these measures because we support our NHS and we support the science; and when we are faced with a crisis, Labour will always put people and the health of the nation above party politics.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
Throughout today’s debate, we have heard the sincere and heartfelt views of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I recognise the strength of feeling, and will turn to each of the statutory instruments for consideration before the House, but before I do, may I recognise the constructive approach taken by the Opposition Front Bench?
We are learning more about the omicron variant each day, but we already know that no variant of covid-19 has spread this quickly. It will become the dominant variant in London in the next 36 hours, and soon across the UK as a whole. It is right that we take a cautious approach to the arithmetic, alongside a strong communications campaign of the sort called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).
Steve Barclay
In a moment.
There is much that we still do not know about this virus, as there is a wide range of opinions on its severity. Hospitalisations and deaths always lag infections by about two to four weeks. We are not at the topping-out point in South Africa, so we do not know what the peak will be, but even a small percentage of widespread transmission will be significant—a point rightly made by the Opposition Front Bench, and the Secretary of State when he opened the debate. This is not, as some suggest, solely an issue for the NHS. Widespread infection and staff absences would have a wider economic impact on areas from our supply chains to our factories.
Chris Bryant
The Secretary of State said earlier that he might be able to provide the House with an update on the issue of whether people who have come back from South Africa and are stuck in quarantine have to fulfil their whole quarantine. I have constituents from the Rhondda—rugby players—who are still stuck. They had already done 10 days of quarantine in South Africa; surely they can be released tomorrow.
Steve Barclay
I will come to that matter directly—not just because they are rugby players, but because it is an extremely important issue.
Dawn Butler
The Minister is absolutely right that we have to do all that we can to stop the spread of the omicron variant. I am sure that, like me, he is encouraging people to take the vaccine and the boosters. Parliament is a really large venue; about 3,000 people work here. Will the Minister confirm that everybody on his side of the House has been doubly vaccinated, and that a covid pass situation will be relevant to MPs, who will be huddled together—hundreds of us—voting today? What protections will MPs have to ensure that we are safe?
Steve Barclay
I am not sure whether the hon. Member has been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but throughout the day there has been consensus across the House on the importance of being vaccinated and of boosters; that has been a point of agreement. Obviously, the management of the House is a matter for Mr Speaker, not for me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) correctly highlighted, he and our constituents will continue to be able to access all facilities, as before. I point out to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that it is still possible to go to nightclubs, just as it is possible to vote, and these measures will not prevent that.
As well as omicron’s transmissibility, we are also beginning to learn more about the effectiveness of our vaccines against it. Boosters were important before omicron, but they are now critical and, as of this evening, we have delivered 24 million across the United Kingdom. Boosters are, without question, the single most effective thing we can do and plan B buys us more time to get more boosters into more arms. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who, as a GP himself, highlighted the importance of addressing the 15-minute wait period to increase the flow of boosters—a decision that the chief medical officers across the UK have supported. I also concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who rightly highlighted that the second dose is important alongside the booster.
The early evidence suggests that a booster dose is extremely effective; analysis by the UK Health Security Agency shows that a booster dose is 70% to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection. That is particularly important given the speed at which this infection is spreading, which means that the increase will be sharper, and its impact more concentrated, over a shorter period of time.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised an issue. The Health Secretary flagged up in opening the debate that he intended to remove all 11 remaining countries from England’s red list as of 4 am tomorrow. The Health Secretary has urgently considered the issue of releasing people from managed quarantine before they have completed the 10-day isolation—a point also raised by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and a number of Members from across the House. The Government’s decision is that we should permit early release of those who went into managed quarantine before the changes to the red list and require them to follow the relevant rules as if they had arrived from a non-red list country. Anyone who has tested positive will need to continue to stay in managed quarantine. That will require changes to regulations. We will look to implement that as quickly as possible and we will set out further specific guidance for affected individuals imminently.
I turn now to the statutory instruments before the House. The weight of scientific evidence shows that face coverings can make a difference, even if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said—he is a clinician himself—it is the least that we can do to wear these wretched things. Regulation 1400, which extends the use of face coverings, is a simple step to help slow the spread and I welcome the support of Members. Even those with concerns, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), said that they would not oppose such a measure.
It is vital that we draw on our testing capacity to keep Britain moving. Regulation 1415 enables close contacts of confirmed or suspected covid cases who are fully vaccinated to take lateral flow tests every day for seven days. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the lateral flow tests will be self-reported.
Regulation 1416 regarding entry to venues and events is one I know that hon. Members have given considerable attention. But this is very far from what has been described as a vaccine passport—a point that the Health Secretary made in opening the debate. This measure will mean that a negative lateral flow test is required to get into nightclubs and large events, with an exemption for the double vaccinated. Once all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab, we intend to change this exemption to require a booster.
Vaccination has been and remains our best line of defence. We have heard many contributions from across the House on making vaccination a condition of deployment for staff in health and wider social care settings. I recognise how emotive this issue is. Whether it is our care homes, our hospitals or other health settings, everyone working in health and social care is there to avoid preventable harm to the people for whom they care. As the chief medical officer has rightly said, people who are looking after other people who are vulnerable have a professional responsibility to get vaccinated, which was a point that another clinician—my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—made.
In closing, I am grateful for all the contributions today. The measures before us will help us to buy time and deliver boosters, which will provide the best protection against this variant. Vaccination, which was already so important before omicron, is now doubly important, especially in those settings with some of our most vulnerable people. I commend the regulations to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. To address the point raised by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), in the event of Divisions, it is likely that there could be a large number of Members voting in one Lobby this evening, so Mr Speaker has agreed that 12 minutes should be allowed before I call for the doors to be locked. Members should accordingly be aware that they do not need to crowd into the Lobby at the beginning of the vote, as there will be more time to vote than usual.
6.30 pm
The Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Electronic Communications)
That the draft Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 26 October, be approved.
Agriculture
That the draft Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.
Road Traffic
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Committees
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 to 10 together.
Ordered.
International Development
That Brendan Clarke-Smith be discharged from the International Development Committee and Nigel Mills be added.
International Trade
That Craig Williams be discharged from the International Trade Committee and Mike Wood be added.
Treasury
That Felicity Buchan be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Kevin Hollinrake be added.
Women and Equalities
That Lee Anderson be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Caroline Dinenage be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Aston Fence School Speed Limit Extension
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Residents, teachers, parents and governors of Aston Fence Junior and Infant School in Rother Valley are concerned about road safety outside the school on a busy road that has a speed limit of 40 mph during the day. They and I have written to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to call on it to take adequate steps to improve road safety. As yet, however, no action has been taken, and signs and patrols clearly do not work. What is needed, according to the school, is a permanent 20 mph speed limit with appropriate traffic calming measures installed to enforce it.
The petition, which was started by the pupils of Aston Fence School, has been signed by more than 325 people—almost double the number of students. The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to extend the existing 20mph speeding restrictions around the school so that they are in force at all times, rather than just during peak school hours.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that road safety measures must be strengthened and improved around Aston Fence School; and further that the existing 20mph speed limit, which is currently applicable during peak drop-off and pick-up hours in morning and afternoon, be in force at all times to protect pedestrians and drivers alike.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to extend the existing 20mph speeding restrictions around the school so that they are in force at all times, rather than just during peak school hours.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002704]
Human Rights Day
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Last Friday marked the UN’s Human Rights Day and the final day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I am delighted to formally mark the day in the Chamber tonight.
As many hon. Members will know, Human Rights Day is observed annually on 10 December—the day when in 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the universal declaration of human rights. The declaration is a milestone document that proclaims the inalienable rights to which every one of us, as a human being, is entitled regardless of
“race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Its central tenet, set out in article 1—
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”—
is as important today as when it was adopted just over 73 years ago.
I have a copy of the declaration in my office. I believe that its significance to humanity, having been adopted so shortly after world war two, must not be underestimated: it is the hope that we can be better than the horrors that we witnessed. However, although the declaration is recognised as part of customary international law, human rights abuses are still rife, even by countries that are signatories to the declaration.
The principles of equality and non-discrimination are at the heart of human rights, but we know that, across the world, including in the UK, the rights of women are constantly ignored. Our right to life is ignored: in some parts of the world, girl babies are seen as less important than boy babies. Our right to education is ignored: girls are still prevented from being educated, as we are seeing today in Afghanistan. Our right to marry whom we wish is ignored: forced marriage and female genital mutilation are still happening in the 21st century. So are our right to work in whatever job we wish, limited only by our abilities rather than by prejudice and discrimination; to be paid the same as a man doing the same work; and to be treated equally under the law and have domestic violence and rape recognised and responded to as the serious crimes that they are.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the matter forward; I very much support what she is saying. Does she agree that the increase in domestic violence during lockdown has shown that, even in our great nation, there is an endemic of gender-based violence that must be addressed? One way to do that is through education at a young age, which she referred to, and through prosecution of domestic abuses to a much higher degree. In other words, we must be hard on those who are carrying out the violence.
Debbie Abrahams
I agree that the rise in domestic abuse during the pandemic is a real issue. Yes, I believe that we need further strict enforcement, but I also believe that we need to educate not just the victims, but the perpetrators. Two women a week in the UK will die at the hands of a partner or ex-partner; as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that gender-based violence has increased during the covid pandemic.
In conflicts across the world, where violence against women, including sexual violence, is used as a weapon of war, we must reaffirm and re-emphasise that women’s rights are human rights by holding those who commit such atrocities—they are atrocities—to account. As the UN has stated:
“There are deep inter-connections between ending such blatant violations of those rights, providing freedom from fear, and the right to security, dignity, equality and justice.”
To mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women last month and the start of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I hosted a virtual event to look at those issues locally and internationally. I was joined by activists, experts, campaigners and people from across Oldham and Saddleworth to discuss not just the issues, but what we can do to tackle violence against women and girls.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for calling this important debate. I personally have been overwhelmed by the number of supportive messages I have received over the weekend since my story became public. Every one of them has been encouraging, and many have shared their own harrowing stories with me. I know that every campaign, every debate and every story that becomes public gives strength and hope to other women, and perhaps the courage that they need to seek help. Does the hon. Lady agree that belief and support from others have a crucial role in addressing gender-based violence?
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely. I want to place on record my gratitude for the intervention, but also how amazed I am by the hon. Lady’s strength and what she is doing.
I promised I would raise in this place the issues that the people at the virtual event raised with me. I hope that the Minister can respond to some of them tonight. Nationally, there remains a massive challenge. We need to change the culture of our society, which needs strong, determined leadership driving a multifaceted strategy that ultimately not just determines what are acceptable behaviours, but shifts attitudes and beliefs.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this excellent debate. It is such a shame that, yet again, we have made so little progress. Does she agree that the revelations in recent days about even the police having WhatsApp groups with misogynistic content are shocking, that every single institution in our country needs to act hard and quickly to explain to people how dangerous and insidious that is and how attitudes can lead to acts of violence, and that we must stamp out such behaviour?
Debbie Abrahams
I could not agree more. There is an important point about leadership, which has to come from the top, and it has to be visible that such behaviour is totally unacceptable.
Women should be paid the same as men if they do the same or equivalent jobs. They should also be protected under the law from misogynistic hate speech, online and offline, in the same way that other groups with protected characteristics are. I hope that the Government will adopt the Law Commission’s recommendations on online hate—and it is online hate—as well as today’s report from the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, which strengthens the provisions.
Boys and girls should be brought up believing that they are equal to each other. I go every week to primary schools in particular. We talk about girls not being able to access education and the children look at me as though to ask, “Why?” We need to develop that and ensure that it is not lost as those children grow up. Our society and our laws should reflect that. Fundamentally, our children need to understand what healthy relationships look like and that violence of any sort is unacceptable.
We need to build understanding of behaviours and attitudes that are abusive and unacceptable, so that women and girls, who are disproportionately the victims in gender-based violence, are empowered not to accept that.
There is a need for a national, co-ordinated approach to education and behaviour change, but at the moment, measures feel piecemeal and ad hoc. The matter needs a whole-system, public health approach.
I welcome the recent introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, sustainable funding is really important and currently there is no guarantee that the money will run on to next year. It also does not address the societal and cultural issues I mentioned.
There are other issues, too. The duties under the Act are restricted to support for accommodation-based services, rather than thinking about the support offer as a whole, including community-based services. Voluntary sector organisations have consistently said that the scope of the duty is too narrow. Strengthening the accommodation and support offer is really valuable, but there is also a need to better support victims and their children in remaining safe in their own home, including, for example, through practical sanctuary measures. There is also insufficient investment in behaviour change work with individuals who have perpetrated domestic abuse, which is outside the Act’s scope of funding. Better support for children is also important. The pandemic has placed greater pressures on services, and a SafeLives survey of frontline domestic abuse services found that 42% said that they were not able to effectively support child victims at risk of domestic abuse at this time. When we think of that in the context of little Arthur, we see that that really is worrying.
Support for victims with no recourse to public funds remains an issue and can be a barrier for victims in escaping abuse. The domestic violence destitution concession allows victims to access financial support for three months while they make an application for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence rules, but that option is available only to those who have come to the UK on a spousal visa—it is not available to those who have come on student visas, for example. Local authorities also bear the cost in the interim period before the DVDC is agreed by the Home Office. In addition, a recurrent issue for services relates to victims of domestic abuse with complex needs, including mental health issues or substance misuse issues. In some cases, their vulnerabilities and difficulties in leaving an abusive relationship may also leave them at risk of having children removed. These victims have often experienced adverse childhood experiences themselves, which gives them a legacy of trauma. In such cases, victims may often have poor engagement with support services, but because they are often determined as having “capacity” to make their “own decisions”, not accepting help to leave an abusive relationship can be treated as an “informed choice”. Instead, we could have a recognition of the impact of traumatic experiences on their ability to safeguard themselves. Developing the support offer for victims with complex needs is a key gap, and again I would be grateful if the Minister gave us her views on that. The Care Act 2014 does not accommodate this.
In Oldham, Keeping Our Girls Safe, a local charity, works with children and young people, supporting them to learn about unhealthy relationships, child sexual exploitation, grooming and other risks. I have seen its inspirational work and how it empowers these young people, giving them confidence, helping to improve their self-esteem and inspiring them to make positive life choices. It has just celebrated its 10-year anniversary. KOGS was set up to address the gaps in the statutory services available to young people, particularly on prevention and early intervention. KOGS works with young people in familiar environments such as schools and youth centres, which makes it more accessible. Over the pandemic, it has carried on working with young people. Its chief executive attended the virtual event that I held and I just want to pay tribute to her, because one of her friends had died a few weeks before and she came to the event. This friend had died at the hands of her ex-partner, and I just want to repeat Hayley’s powerful words about this. I hope I can manage this. She said:
“How many times will we look the other away
How many times will people ask why she stays
How many times will a word become a hand
How many times will we have to make a stand
How many times will we demand some action
How many times will we be shocked at their reaction
How many times will a child lose their mother
How many times will she be hurt by hands that are supposed to love her
How many times will excuses be made
How many times will the ultimate price be paid”.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
This is an excellent debate and my hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the international Human Rights Day. Given those moving words that she just read out, will she pay tribute to the human rights defenders around the world and in the UK, including the lawyers who defend the rights of women all around the world? I chair the all-party group on human rights, and we are putting a lot of effort into making sure that human rights defenders get the attention they deserve, particularly women human rights defenders around the world.
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her timely intervention, and I could not agree with her more. This is something that I want to raise in a moment, particularly in the context of Afghanistan. I congratulate her on all the work she does in the all-party parliamentary group, and I hope that I will be joining it soon.
It is hard to follow those words, but I would appreciate the Minister’s response on the gaps in support for victims and also on the need for a public health approach with a greater focus on prevention.
Turning to human rights and women’s rights at a global level, we know that in far too many countries they are ignored. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Kashmir, I have repeatedly raised my concerns regarding the human rights issues across Kashmir, which were documented most recently in 2019 by the United Nations Human Rights Office. The UN’s reports raised concerns about women’s rights and the reported use of gender-based violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Just in the last few weeks, a prominent human rights activist, Khurram Parvez, has been arrested by the Indian National Investigation Agency after he criticised Indian security forces for killing civilians and surreptitiously burying their bodies. I would appreciate a response from the Government on this issue. I raised it as soon as I became aware of it, but to date I have received no formal acknowledgement or information on the results of the Foreign Office’s investigations, and no response to my request to the Indian high commissioner.
The human rights abuses occurring in Kashmir may be the longest running, but that is by no means the only region where there are occurring. At my virtual event, we heard harrowing testimony about how sexual and gender-based violence is consistently used as a weapon of war with impunity. We heard from Christina Lamb, who has written widely on this, describing the testimonies of survivors she had interviewed from Syria to Myanmar to Nigeria. She said:
“The first time I realised the scale of rape as a weapon of war was when I was speaking to Yazidi girls who were kept as sex slaves by ISIS. One girl I spoke with was passed on 12 times between people as if she was a goat. One of the hardest stories I had ever heard was a 16-year-old girl who was kept as a sex slave by an ISIS judge and she told me the worst night of her life was when he came back with a 10-year-old girl and he raped the 10-year-old girl and she heard the girl crying for her mother all night. This should not be going on. This is a war crime, and these women need justice.”
Again, I would appreciate it if the Minister described what the Foreign Office is doing to get justice for these women, especially given the Foreign Secretary’s recent announcement of her campaign. The Minister will be aware that we have had years of words but little action, which is why perpetrators think they can rape and torture at will. Given that the Foreign Secretary has described this as a red line, what consequences are there from the UK Government for those countries that are not acting to tackle this?
The Minister will be aware of the plight of millions of Afghan women, many of whom are at serious risk of harm by the Taliban and to whom the UK has an obligation. The plight of Fatima Ahmadi, a former Afghan police officer, is just one such example. The Taliban beat her badly and pulled clumps of hair from her scalp in front of her nine-year-old son, who was also held at knifepoint. She has since fled to Pakistan but knows that her time there is also limited.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Lady has a big heart, and perhaps that is the reason that we always come to support her debates. I commend her for her passion for her stories. Just today I applied to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the Afghan resettlement scheme, which will enable people from Afghanistan who need to move to another country to start a new life to come here. If she has the time, would she like to come to that debate in the new year?
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I would like that. I am just about to come to that subject. Given that it is now four months since the Afghan resettlement scheme was announced and it still has not got off the ground, I would be grateful if the Minister told us what is going to happen. I share the deep concerns expressed by several speakers at my event about the devastating manner in which the Taliban have rolled back the rights of women and girls in virtually every area—education, paid employment, freedom of movement and so on.
In conclusion, ultimately the issues of human rights and freedoms should not be politicised: they are universal and should be seen as such across the globe. However, the wide gap between men’s and women’s rights continues to plague our society. The 16 Days of Activism for the elimination of violence against women or one Human Rights Day is not enough to untangle the challenges we face. It is time for strong leadership advocating concrete action to ensure that it happens.
On a global level, our co-operation with countries should be based on our common interests and our common values. Co-operation with regimes that do not value individual rights and freedoms, that do not have the necessary internal legitimacy, or that are part of extremist terrorist groups is detrimental to our progress. As such, human rights need to be at the heart of UK trade policies and deals. As one contributor to the event, who has recently escaped persecution, said:
“Humanitarian aid, the protection of the rights of women and children, and the handling of the humanitarian crisis, should not be sacrificed in a game of politics and individual interests. Regimes with such discriminatory politics and policies should be held accountable for their actions towards their people internally and externally.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this debate and pay tribute to her outstanding work to tackle violence against women and girls, and to support survivors. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) for her bravery and wise words about the importance of support for survivors of domestic abuse.
I am privileged to lead our international efforts to eradicate gender-based violence, in partnership with Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth raised a specific situation in Kashmir and I will ensure that she gets a written answer.
As we all know, violence against women and girls is a global crisis and I will focus my response in the given time to the work we are doing internationally. One in three women will experience physical or sexual violence in their lives, at least 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation, and child marriage affects one in five girls.
We know that this violence intensifies in conflict and humanitarian crisis. Around one in five refugees will experience sexual violence, and a UK-funded study in South Sudan found that one in three women had experienced conflict-related sexual violence, often many times over. Rates of domestic abuse were even higher, affecting up to 73% of women. Recent events in Tigray and Afghanistan have demonstrated yet again the urgent need to step up and tackle this problem. We also know that marginalised groups are particularly at risk, including those who are LGBT+, living with a disability, or belong to minority ethnic or religious groups. Covid-19 has intensified this “shadow pandemic” of violence.
The UK is recognised for our leadership in tackling violence against women and girls and promoting women’s rights, but we must focus on what more we can do. That is why the Foreign Secretary has announced a major push to shatter the culture of impunity around sexual violence in conflict. We will explore all options to strengthen global action, including the possibility of a new international convention. Next year, we will also host a major global conference to unite the world around preventing this violence and advancing the wider women, peace and security agenda.
We are also serious about stepping up our investments. The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that we will restore our spending on women and girls to what it was before the official development assistance reductions. Last month, we also announced over £22 million of new funding, including £18 million to help end child marriage across 12 countries. Our work has already helped to avert 25 million child marriages over the last decade.
The UK is also recognised internationally for our flagship “what works to prevent violence against women and girls” programme, which demonstrated that projects in homes, schools and communities can halve violence, and that this does not have to take generations. For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo a project with faith leaders and community groups halved the number of women experiencing violence at the hands of their partners. The evidence from “what works”, combined with collaboration at national and international level, has led to real policy shifts, for example influencing South Africa’s national strategic plan on gender-based violence and femicide. During the 16 Days of Activism, I launched a successor programme to scale-up the approach, backed by more than £67 million over the next seven years. That is the largest investment by any donor Government in preventing violence against women globally.
We can also be proud of our leadership on ending FGM by supporting change led from within the affected communities. We know that women and girls who experience sexual violence are at greater risk of unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, miscarriage and stillbirth, so alongside prevention, we are investing in counselling services as part of our support to sexual and reproductive health and rights.
There is so much going on across our country network, too. When I visited Sudan a couple of months ago, I met Mama Iqbal, a brave grandmother and community leader. She eradicated FGM in her community, with help from UK aid, and now she is taking on child marriage. In South Sudan, we are supporting the progression of a Bill through Parliament to reform legislation on gender-based violence and to tackle impunity. In Syria, the UK’s funding this year has helped to provide over 1 million Syrians with services to end child marriage and gender-based violence. In Iraq, the UK is one of the first donors to support the implementation of the Yazidi survivors law, a critical piece of legislation that provides reparations for Yazidi, Shabak, Christian and Turkmen women survivors of Daesh atrocities.
These global challenges need global action too, beyond what we can do nationally, so we are stepping up our international leadership. Throughout the G7 presidency, we set a high bar. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth mentioned online violence against women and girls, and not only are we working on our own Online Safety Bill, but under the UK’s leadership of the G7, leaders agreed to the internet safety principles and to the London interior commitments, which are a specific set of principles for tackling online violence against women and girls. We also negotiated ambitious commitments on gender equality, including girls’ education, sexual and reproductive health and rights, women’s economic empowerment and violence against women.
We co-lead the Generation Equality action coalition on gender-based violence with partners from all over the world, including the Governments of Uruguay, Iceland and Kenya. During the 16 days of activism, I co-hosted an event with Kenya to encourage others to scale up evidence-based approaches, too. On 22 November, Lord Ahmad launched the call to action to ensure the rights and wellbeing of children born of sexual violence in conflict. This was an important first step in galvanising international action for this group of vulnerable children and women. During his visit to Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, Lord Ahmad met Rohingya survivors of sexual violence who have fled the persecution in Myanmar, and he heard directly from them about their needs.
Finally, on 15 November we laid the Command Paper to ratify the International Labour Organisation convention on the elimination of violence and harassment in the world of work. We are calling on and will continue to call on all countries to demonstrate their commitment to these values, and to ratify the new convention. All of this is just a small part of what the UK is doing as a leader in this very complex and deeply troubling area.
The UK continues to drive concerted action towards a world where no woman and no girl has to live in daily fear of violence—a world in which every woman and every girl can grow up safe, educated and free.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind Members that in line with the guidance from the House of Commons Commission they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible? 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 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 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, I think possibly for the first time from either the Front or Back Benches. It is a particular pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, who has been promoted from deputy Leader of the House to the venerable position of shadowing the Ministry of Justice. I welcome all my esteemed colleagues, but particularly my hon. Friend the newly elected Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I suspect that when he comes, many years from now, to write his esteemed autobiography it may not mention this particular statutory instrument as one of the most glamorous or exciting moments, but it is very typical nevertheless of the sort of rudimentary steps that we take to improve legislation.
The SI is fundamentally technical in nature—in fact it is one of the most technical SIs that I have ever seen, and I hope that it is not controversial. It does not alter the UK’s status as party to either the 2005 Hague convention on choice of court agreements or the 2007 Hague convention on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance.
The instrument brings into domestic legislation the text of the UK’s reservations and declarations to those conventions. That is the sole purpose of the SI. The UK has participated in the 2005 and 2007 Hague conventions since 2015 and 2014 respectively. The UK was previously bound by the conventions by virtue of its EU membership; a status which continued to apply throughout the transition period in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. In September 2020 the United Kingdom took the necessary steps to join the two conventions as an independent party as part of its preparation for leaving the EU. That included depositing the necessary instruments of accession and ratification.
The Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020, from here on referred to as the PIL Act, currently gives force of law to those conventions and ensures that they are read together with any reservations and declarations made at the time of approval. The PIL Act also sets out in new schedules to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 the text of the conventions. To ensure the information is complete and readily accessible this instrument will insert the text of the reservations and declarations alongside the convention texts in new schedules to the 1982 Act.
In order to be able to make this instrument the PIL Act requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks necessary. To meet that requirement, my Department consulted key stakeholders in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as legal practitioners, academics, and judges who specialise in private international law, and with whom the Ministry of Justice regularly engages. No objections to the instrument were received.
In addition, as the instrument is to apply to all UK legal jurisdictions, the consent of the Scottish Ministers and a Department of the Northern Ireland Executive have been obtained. When re-joining the conventions as an independent party, the declarations and reservations that the UK had been bound by as a member of the European Union were not amended. This SI will not make any changes to those reservations and declarations. Although the existing reservations and declarations have been retained, that does not prevent the UK from changing the declarations to either or both of the conventions in the future or withdrawing the reservations to the 2007 Hague convention.
Overall, and as I have said, the instrument is technical in its nature and will not alter the application of the conventions, nor their respective declarations and reservations. None the less, it is important to have the text of those declarations and reservations readily available in domestic legislation and alongside the text of the conventions for ease of reference for practitioners. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Davies. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for outlining the extent of what is being undertaken.
It is important that we ensure the definitions laid out under the two Hague conventions are transferred to and retained in domestic law not just for the certainty that that provides to the legal profession, but for those involved in active litigation that may be subject to the conventions.
As the Minister outlined, the 2005 Hague convention set out the exclusive choice of court agreements between parties in international commercial transactions. Those are common clauses, particularly in high-value commercial contracts. The 2007 Hague convention provides for rules for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance. Both conventions are good, and the Opposition support their continuation in UK domestic law. We support the Minister in laying the SI before Parliament.
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He made the important point that the conventions underpin significant commercial relationships. I express the Government’s appreciation for the assistance of those stakeholders who engaged with the instrument during consultations and for the co-operation of our colleagues in the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed.
Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Dame Angela Eagle, Dr Rupa Huq
† Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
† Butler, Rob (Aylesbury) (Con)
Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)
Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
† Frazer, Lucy (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
† Holden, Mr Richard (North West Durham) (Con)
† Howell, Paul (Sedgefield) (Con)
† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
† Mak, Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)
† Murray, James (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
† Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)
† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)
† Whately, Helen (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)
Chris Stanton, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 14 December 2021
(Morning)
[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]
Finance (No. 2) Bill
(Except Clause 4, Clauses 6 to 8 and Schedule 1, Clause 12, Clauses 27 and 28, Clauses 53 to 66, Clauses 68 to 71, Clauses 84 to 92 and Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 93 and Schedule 14)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. I do not think I need to remind people about the advice being given in relation to the wearing of face coverings; I will assume that anybody not wearing one has a reasonable excuse for not so doing, but we do not challenge people. I also remind colleagues that Hansard would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. The consumption of tea or coffee is not permitted during sittings, and we would like electronic devices to be switched to silent.
We do not want to see an abuse of the indulgence of laptops and things like that; the impression given to people watching is that Members might not be concentrating on the debate, and might instead be doing other work. The convention is that people should use their electronic devices to help inform their work on this Committee. I am not going to be able to invigilate that, but I rely on Members to be co-operative and think about the impression given to people watching this Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 14 December 2021) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 December 2021;
(b) at 3.30 pm and 6.00 pm on Wednesday 5 January 2022;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 January 2022;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 January 2022;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Clause 5; Clauses 9 to 11; Clauses 13 and 14; Schedule 2; Clause 15; Schedule 3; Clauses 16 to 24; Schedule 4; Clauses 25 and 26; Clause 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 30 and 31; Schedule 6; Clauses 32 to 41; Schedule 7; Clauses 42 to 45; Schedule 8; Clauses 46 to 49; Schedule 9; Clauses 50 to 52; Clause 67; Clauses 72 to 75; Schedule 10; Clauses 76 to 83; Schedule 11; Clause 94; Schedule 15; Clauses 95 to 99; Schedule 16; Clauses 100 to 102; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 13 January 2022.—(Lucy Frazer.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Lucy Frazer.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to Members by email, and some was circulated yesterday. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate; generally, that is because they cover the same subject matter. The decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. This is designed to help people who are following these proceedings keep up to speed.
Clause 1
Income tax charge for tax year 2022-23
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 2, 3 and 5 stand part.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Clause 1 legislates for the charge of income tax for 2022-23. Clauses 2 and 3 set the main default and savings rate for income tax for 2022-23, and clause 5 maintains the starting rate for savings limit at its current level of £5,000 for 2022-23.
Income tax is one of the Government’s most important revenue streams, expected to raise approximately £230 billion in 2022-23. The starting rate for savings applies to the taxable savings income of individuals with low earned incomes of less than £17,570, allowing them to benefit from up to £5,000 of savings income tax free. The Government made significant changes to the starting rate for savings in 2015. They lowered the rate from 10% to 0%, and increased the band to which it applied from £2,880 to £5,000. These clauses are legislated annually in the Finance Bill.
Clause 1 is essential because it allows for income tax to be collected in order to fund vital public services on which we all rely. Clause 2 ensures that the main rates of income tax for England and Northern Ireland continue at 20% for the basic rate, 40% for the higher rate, and 45% for the additional rate. Clause 3 sets the default and savings rates of income tax for the whole UK—the basic, higher and additional rates of 20%, 40% and 45% respectively. Clause 5 confirms the band of savings income to which it applies, maintaining the starting rate limit at its current level of £5,000 for the 2022-23 tax year. The limit is being held at that level rather than increased by the consumer prices index to ensure simplicity and fairness within the tax system, while maintaining a generous tax relief.
Clauses 1 to 3 ensure that the Government can collect income tax for 2022-23. Clause 5 continues the Government’s commitment to support people of all incomes and at all stages of life to save. Taken with the personal savings allowance and the annual individual savings account allowance of £20,000, those generous measures mean that about 95% of savers will pay no tax on their savings income.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the clauses on behalf of the Opposition. As we have heard, clause 1 imposes a charge for income tax for the year 2022-23. It is for Parliament to impose that tax charge for the duration of the financial year. I understand from my well-informed parliamentary researcher that the first income tax that bears a resemblance to the modern graduated form that the clause refers to was introduced by William Pitt the Younger in 1798; as we will see in later clauses of the Bill, there has been some departure from the tax bands of £60 and £200 annually introduced then. We will of course not oppose clause 1, although we note for the record that under this Government the tax burden will rise to its highest level for 70 years.
Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax for the year 2022-23, which will apply to the non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers in England and Northern Ireland. The clause provides that the main rates of income tax for 2022-23 are the 20% basic rate, the 40% higher rate, and the 45% additional rate. Income tax rates on non-savings, non-dividend income for Welsh taxpayers are set by the Welsh Parliament. The UK main rates of income tax are reduced for Welsh taxpayers by 10p in the pound, and the Welsh Parliament sets the Welsh rates of income tax, which are added to the reduced UK rates. Income tax rates and thresholds on non-savings, non-dividend income for Scottish taxpayers are set by the Scottish Parliament.
We note that, although the rates of income tax are not rising in the Bill, the same cannot be said for national insurance. That tax was increased by the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021, which we debated in September. As I said at the time, that national insurance rise and the new levy being introduced represented a tax rise that falls directly on working people and their jobs, which is why we opposed the progress of that Act.
Clause 3 sets the default rates and savings rates of income tax for the tax year 2022-23. Subsection (1) provides for a basic default rate of 20%, a higher rate of 40% and an additional rate of 45%. Subsection (2) provides for savings rates on income tax at the same rates as the default: 20% for basic, 40% for higher and 45% for additional. Those rates match the rates of earned income, and we will not oppose the clause.
Clause 5 freezes the starting rate limit for savings in the tax year 2022-23 at £5,000. As it is not a devolved matter, the freeze applies across the United Kingdom. The starting rate for savings can apply to an individual’s taxable savings income, such as interest on bank or building society deposits. The extent to which an individual’s savings income is liable to tax at the starting rates for savings rather than the basic rate of income tax depends on the total of their non-savings income, including income from employment, profits from self-employment and pensions income. If an individual’s non-savings income is more than their personal allowance and exceeds the starting rate limit for savings, the starting rate is not available for that tax year. Where an individual’s non-savings income in a tax year is less than the starting rate limit, their savings income is taxable at the starting rate up to that limit.
Income tax is charged at the 0% starting rate for savings rather than the basic rate of income tax on that element of an individual’s income up to the starting rate for savings income. The clause sets the starting rate limit for savings for 2022-23 at £5,000, but it does not override section 21 of the Income Tax Act 2007 in relation to the starting rate limit for savings for 2022-23. We know that the freeze on the limit is taking place in the context of a rising rate of inflation, which will have an impact on savers in real terms. In her reply, I would be grateful if the Minister explained what assessment the Treasury has made of those who will be affected by the freeze.
Lucy Frazer
I will make a couple of points in response. First, the hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned the tax burden rising; he will know that we are still in the midst of a pandemic and that the Government have spent £400 billion to ensure that public services, particularly the NHS, get the money they need. He will know why we are introducing a rise in national insurance contributions for the first time: to fix social care. He asked me about savings and those on the lowest incomes. The Government have raised the personal allowance by nearly 50% in real terms in the last decade. It is the highest basic personal tax allowance of all countries in the G20, and remains one of the most generous internationally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2, 3 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Liability of Scheme Administrator for Annual Allowance Charge
James Murray
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 9, page 5, line 20, leave out “6 years” and insert “5 years and 9 months”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.
James Murray
Clause 9 relates to the liability of insurance scheme administrators for the scheme’s annual allowance charge. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the clause and our amendment to it. The clause amends the period within which an individual can give notice to their pension scheme administrator to pay the annual allowance charge of previous tax years, using a system known as “mandatory scheme pays”.
The clause also amends the period within which a scheme administrator must provide information about and account for an amount of the annual allowance charge. As we know, mandatory scheme pays is the process that helps an individual pay their annual allowance charge liabilities for a current tax year when certain conditions are met. The individual elects for their pension scheme administrator to be jointly liable for their annual allowance tax charge, in return for an actuarial reduction in the value of their pension pot.
The annual allowance is the maximum amount of tax relieved pension savings that an individual can build up during a tax year. Where an individual exceeds the maximum amount of tax relieved pension savings, they will be liable to a tax charge on the excess amount. That tax charge recoups the excess tax relief that the individual has already received on their pension savings. For mandatory scheme pays, the annual allowance charge must exceed £2,000, and the individual’s pension input amount for that pension scheme must exceed the £40,000 annual allowance.
The clause will enable more individuals who meet the conditions to benefit from the mandatory scheme pays facilities because the measure applies to all individuals that receive a retrospective amendment to their pension input amount for the previous tax year. This is a measure we broadly support—the simplification of a relatively complex tax rule is a good thing both for the pension contributors and for those who hitherto had to disentangle its complexity.
However, we would like to raise a point with the Minister; we have tabled amendment 11 as a probing amendment with that in mind. Amendment 11 would affect clause 9, page 5, line 20, by leaving out “6 years” and inserting “5 years and 9 months”. We have tabled the amendment out of concerns drawn to our attention by the Chartered Institute of Taxation about the hard stop deadline being introduced for notices under section 237B of the Finance Act 2004. Clause 9 part 3 introduces a new section
“237BA Time limit for notices under section 237B”.
Subsections (4)(b) and 5(b) provide for a hard stop deadline of
“the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the end of the tax year in question”
for both the scheme administrator providing an individual with information about a change to their pension input and output and the individual member giving notice to the scheme administrator to pay the annual allowance charge through scheme pays.
The result of the two subsections is that it is possible for the scheme administrator to issue a statement with a change to the pension input amount in line with the legislation after, say, five years, 11 months and 30 days, meaning that the member would have just one day to make the scheme pays election and give notice to the scheme administrator that they want to do so. That is clearly an unreasonable timeframe for the member, so our amendment suggests one possible way of making sure the scheme member is given fair warning.
Our amendment proposes a ring-fenced three-month period during which the member would have time to process and make arrangements for a scheme pays election and to give notice to the scheme administrator. I hope we can agree that such an approach would simply allow members some protection against unreasonable circumstances that could arise. We will not push the amendment to a vote, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the points it raises in her reply.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 9 extends the reporting and payment deadlines so that an individual can ask their pension scheme to settle their annual allowance tax charge of £2,000 or more from a previous tax year by reducing their future pension benefits in a process known as scheme pays. The annual allowance limits the amount of UK tax relieved pension savings that an individual can benefit from in the tax year. If an individual’s pension savings exceed the annual allowance, a tax charge is applied. The tax charge recoups the excess tax relief that the individual has already received.
Scheme pays was introduced to help individuals pay an annual allowance charge in their current tax year where certain conditions are met. The unlawful age discrimination found in the 2015 public sector pension reform known as McCloud, which I will come on to in clause 11, highlighted a need for scheme pays to be available also for previous tax years from when an annual allowance tax charge arises. The changes made by clause 9 extend the date by which an individual can ask their pension scheme to pay an amount of their annual allowance tax charge. That means that where the charge arises because of a change of facts and the charge is £2,000 or more, the scheme pays facility is now another option for the individual to pay their tax charge.
The changes made by clause 9 also extend the date by which the pension scheme administrator must report and pay an annual allowance tax charge to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs using the accounting tax return. The extended date applies where the charge has arisen because of a change of facts about an individual’s pension savings. The date for reporting and paying the charge relates to when the scheme administrator is notified of the charge by the individual, following a change of facts rather than a fixed period after the end of the tax year. That means that the scheme pays facility is now available to individuals for their annual allowance tax charge from an earlier tax year.
Amendment 11 seeks to reduce the relevant time for a scheme to notify individuals from six years to five years and nine months. Unfortunately, that would mean that if an individual were notified more than five years and nine months after the tax year, scheme pays would not be available. The individual would, however, still be liable to the tax charge, leaving them to pay it out of their own pocket. I therefore urge the Committee to reject amendment 11.
In summary, clause 9 provides for scheme pays to be an option for individuals to have their pension scheme pay their annual allowance tax charge for a previous tax year where the conditions are met.
James Murray
I recognise that the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, although I would have welcomed a reassurance that she would take the principle behind the amendment away, discuss it with her officials and perhaps report back to the Committee at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Increase of normal minimum pension age
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 10 makes changes to increase the normal minimum pension age to 57. It also establishes a protection regime, which will enable some individuals to continue to access their pension before the age of 57 without any adverse tax impacts. The normal minimum pension age is the age at which most savers can access their pension without incurring an unauthorised payment tax charge. The coalition Government announced in 2014 that the normal minimum pension age would rise to 57 in 2028, reflecting long-term trends in longevity and changing expectations of how long we will remain in work and in retirement.
Clause 10 legislates to increase the normal minimum pension age to 57 on 6 April 2028. That increase will not apply to members of the police, firefighters, or armed forces public service pension schemes, who will receive protected pension ages to reflect the special nature of their work. Those who have an unqualified right in their scheme rules to take their pension before age 57 will also receive protected pension ages. Those who made a substantive request to transfer their pension before 4 November 2021 will still be able to complete their transfer into a pension scheme that already offered unqualified rights to a pension below age 57 and get a protected pension age.
That is a shorter window during which pension scheme members can transfer their pension to keep a protected pension age than was initially published in the summer. The Government listened carefully to stakeholder concerns that a longer window could have adverse impacts on the pensions market. The shorter window still delivers the original policy intent, so that those who were in the process of transferring their pension when the protection regime was first announced do not lose their protected pension age. Closing the window without prior notice avoided unnecessary turbulence in the pensions market and helped to protect consumers.
Those with protected pension ages will be able to access their pension benefits before age 57 without incurring an unauthorised payment tax charge. A protected pension age is specific to an individual as a member of a particular scheme. If an individual has a protected pension age in one scheme, they will not automatically have a protected pension age in another scheme: that would depend on the second scheme’s rules. Increasing the normal minimum pension age to 57 in 2028 reflects the principle that the normal minimum pension age should be set 10 years below the state pension age. The protection regime balances the need for fairness to pension savers with simplicity for pension providers. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 10 relates to the increase of the normal pension age to 57 from 6 April 2028. The stated intention of the clause is to protect members of the registered pension schemes who, before 4 November 2021, had a right to take their entitlement to benefit under those schemes at or before the existing normal minimum pension age. It exempts members of certain uniformed service pension schemes from the increase, and it introduces new block and individual transfer rules specific to the new protection framework in order to reduce the restrictions on retaining a protected pension age following a transfer. The UK has a long tradition of protecting and rewarding those who have served their country. It is therefore right that we support clause 10, as it provides that protection by safeguarding recipients’ right to retain entitlement to benefits when transferring schemes.
We note, however, that the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has concerns about the transitional arrangements relating to the clause. Paragraph 28 of the Government’s explanatory note regarding this clause states:
“There may be some transitional issues. For example, an individual who does not have a protected pension age and at 5 April 2028 will have reached age 55 and has started but not completed the process of taking pension savings before the change in normal minimum pension age. The government will provide further advice on the proposed transitional arrangements and provisions in due course.”
That raises concerns about when further advice on the proposed transitional arrangements will be made available, as well as questions about the extent to which that advice will be effectively communicated to the people concerned.
It is vital that people have full detail of any transitional provisions well before the increase to age 57 comes into effect; otherwise, there is a risk that people reaching age 55 in the run-up to 6 April 2028 will make decisions without knowing all they need to know. For example, an individual could cash in a pension in full and put the money in the bank so as to crystallise access to those funds, which may well leave them worse off in the long term, having likely incurred a large tax liability on the encashment and potentially affected their means-tested benefit entitlement. They might also have triggered the money purchase annual allowance, therefore restricting—perhaps unwittingly—their ability to make further contributions. In light of this, will the Minister clarify precisely when “due course” is, in relation to the Government’s further advice regarding the proposed transitional arrangement for the provisions? Will she also confirm what measures the Government will take to make sure that people are aware of the advice when it is finalised?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This issue speaks to what I and my colleagues have often asked for in Finance Bills—that is, to be able to take evidence. We have received some very good written evidence from different organisations—I thank Scottish Widows, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group and the Chartered Institute of Taxation for sending evidence to the Committee—but some of the detail requires a bit more interrogation. It would be useful if Finance Bill Committees were able to take evidence on the detail.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ealing North said. Saying that something will happen in due course is not a great reassurance to many people. We have seen the terrible mess that the Government left for the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality—who did not receive enough notice of state pension age changes. As a result, many have lost out on what they expected to happen when they reached retirement.
In its evidence, Scottish Widows makes the point well:
“Simplicity is a key driver of engagement with pensions… The average person has 11 jobs in their lifetime—with auto enrolment that could mean them having at least 11 pension pots. Some of these will now be accessible at age 55, others at 57.”
It also notes that
“some customers may have different pension ages within the same pension pot.”
That is not the simplicity that people really need when it comes to planning for their retirement.
There is a range of views. Scottish Widows appears to welcome the changes. The Chartered Institute of Taxation is not convinced that a change to the normal minimum pension age is necessary or desirable. What ought to be at the centre of this discussion is the people who will claim that pension. They need the clearest possible advice and the longest possible amount of notice in order to plan. I ask for clarity from the Government. It is just not acceptable to come before the Committee today without a date and say, “in due course”. People need to be able to plan for one of the most important events in their lives.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Ealing North both mentioned the transitional arrangements and notice. They are right to identify that the Government have acknowledged the importance of establishing a clear position on the transitional arrangements and that we have said that we will provide further advice on the proposed transitional arrangements and provisions in due course. That remains the position, but I am very happy to keep both Members updated as we progress.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a point about evidence. I know she is interested in the taking of oral evidence—she has made that point before. There is, of course, a standard process on the measures in the Finance Bill. That process involves a huge amount of consultation, with particular milestones, including engagement with industry and stakeholders, often a consultation, and sometimes draft legislation that then comes forward into the Finance Bill. That is the way the Finance Bill operates.
The hon. Member mentioned the WASPI women, which I know many hon. Members from all parties feel strongly about. As she will know, it was decided 25 years ago to make the state pension age the same for men and women in what was then a long overdue reform.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Public service pension schemes: rectification of unlawful discrimination
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
The clause allows for regulations to be made to address the tax impacts of the remedy to the unlawful age discrimination that arose from the 2015 public service pension reforms. The Government reformed most public service pensions in 2015, but excluded those closest to retirement from the reforms. The court found that that exclusion amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of age. That is known as the McCloud case.
Following consultation, the Government are introducing a remedy to rectify that discrimination, which affects about 3 million people. The remedy includes options for them to choose at retirement what type of pension rights they will receive for the remedy period. The remedy period covers the years between 2015 and 2022, with an exception for the judiciary, who will instead make their choice in 2022. That was decided following consultation with the sector.
Most of the legislation required to implement the remedy is contained in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill, which is progressing through the Commons. However, where those changes mean that the Government will provide individuals with different historical pension rights, changes to pension tax legislation are also required. The purpose of clause 11 is therefore to allow the Government to make regulations to put the individual, as far as possible, in the tax position in which they would have been had the discrimination never happened. It also ensures that regulations can be put in place to address the tax impacts of the public service pensions remedy on the employers and those responsible for the tax affairs of the pension schemes.
I mentioned that the legislation implementing the remedy is going through Parliament. Once it is finalised, the Government will use the power in clause 11 to draft regulations that will provide for the tax changes needed as part of our move to rectify the discrimination. For example, the Government will use the power to ensure that compensation payments payable as a result of the remedy can be made tax free, as they are calculated on that basis under the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill.
The Government will also use the power in clause 11 to ensure that pensions and lump sums payable as a result of the remedy that would have been authorised payments had they been made at the relevant time are treated as meeting the conditions to be authorised. One further example is that members may choose benefits for the period 2015 to 2022 that lead to a significant increase in their pension accrual in a single tax year. Without a change to legislation, that could result in individuals paying more tax than if the pension that they ultimate chose had accrued annually.
The Government will use the power in clause 11 to make good the tax treatment of those affected by the remedy set out in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill. Regulations made under the power will ensure that, broadly, those affected will be in the tax position that they would have been in had they not suffered discrimination. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
As we have heard from the Minister, clause 11 relates to public service pension schemes and the rectification of unlawful discrimination. It provides the Treasury with the power to make regulations to address the tax impacts that arise in consequence to or in connection with the rectification of unlawful discrimination set out in part 1 of what is expected to become the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. Those changes will have effect on or after 6 April 2022, and are capable of having retrospective effect.
As we are aware, when reformed public service pension schemes were introduced in 2014-15, the Government agreed, following discussions with trade unions, to allow active members of pre-existing public service pension schemes who were close to retirement to remain in those schemes, rather than requiring them to start to accrue pension benefits in a new scheme. That was called transitional protection. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found in what is known as the McCloud judgment that the transitional protection unlawfully discriminated against younger members of the judicial and firefighter pension schemes, and gave rise to indirect sex and race discrimination.
On 15 July 2019, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made a written ministerial statement setting out that the Government considered that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had implications for all public service pension schemes, and planned to introduce proposals to remedy the discrimination across the schemes. On 19 July 2021, the Government introduced the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill. The provisions of part 1 of that Bill will apply retrospectively, to provide a remedy for the discrimination. The rectification affects individuals who were members of a public service pension scheme on or before 31 March 2012 and at any time between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022, and so had pensionable service during that time.
Under chapter 1 of part 1 of Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill, individuals who were moved to a new scheme will be retrospectively returned to their previous scheme for the period of remediable service. Any member with remediable service will be able to choose to receive pension scheme benefits based on the rules of either the legacy scheme or the new scheme, although for most individuals there will be no significant change in the tax position. The legislation will provide the Treasury with the power to make regulations that make the necessary changes to tax legislation so that, as far as possible, individuals can be put in the position in which they would have been, absent the discrimination. We will therefore not oppose the clause.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s indication that he will not oppose the clause, and have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Structures and buildings allowances: allowance statements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 13 makes provisions to improve the operation of the structures and buildings allowances for taxpayers. The clause will require relevant allowance statements to include the date that qualifying expenditure is incurred or treated as incurred in cases where its absence could prevent future owners of an asset from claiming the full amount that they are entitled to.
The SBA allows companies to reduce their taxable profits each year by 3% on the cost of construction, acquisition, renovation or conversion of non-residential buildings and structures. The investment is fully relieved after 33 and a third years. A business must hold a valid allowance statement to claim SBA. That document records information such as the relevant building or structure and the amount of qualifying expenditure incurred. It is passed on to subsequent owners to ensure the right records are kept for an asset.
The allowance period is the period over which SBA can be claimed, and it typically begins on the date when the structure or building is first brought into non-residential use. However, in cases where expenditure is incurred or treated as incurred after non-residential use has commenced, the allowance period will begin from that later date. That may be the case where renovation work is being carried out in a multistorey office building and the first tenants move in to one floor of the office building even though some construction continues on a different floor.
Without the inclusion of that date on the allowance statement, subsequent owners of a structure or building may not claim all the relief they are entitled to. Instead, they may reasonably assume that the allowance period began on the day the asset was first brought into non-residential use, not the date of the subsequent expenditure. Clarity for businesses on the remaining length of the allowance period for each portion of expenditure means they will be able to claim the full relief to which they are entitled.
The changes made by clause 13 are wholly relieving and will only benefit firms towards the end of the allowance period of 33 and a third years. The measure will apply across the UK. The clause will be effective for qualifying expenditure incurred or treated as incurred on or after the date of Royal Assent of the Bill. Therefore, it will not be retrospective and will not impact allowance statements already in existence. Clause 13 ensures that, in future, businesses can claim the full tax relief to which they are entitled.
James Murray
Clause 13 concerns the structures and buildings allowance statements. As we heard, it introduces a new requirement for allowance statements to include the date that qualifying expenditure is incurred or treated as incurred when that is later than the date on which the building or structure was first brought into non-residential use. The clause has effects for qualifying expenditure incurred or treated as incurred on or after the date of Royal Assent.
As we know, SBAs are a capital allowance available for the cost of constructing, renovating, converting or acquiring non-residential structures and buildings. When SBAs were first introduced, from 29 October 2018, the allowances were given at 2% per annum of qualifying expenditure on a straight-line basis. That rate was increased to 3% per annum with effect from April 2020. The period over which SBAs are available to be claimed is known as the allowance period.
A business must hold an allowance statement to claim SBAs, which includes certain details such as the date the asset is first brought into non-residential use. As we heard, that is normally the date that the SBA’s allowance period of 33 and a third years commences. However, where qualifying expenditure is incurred after the asset is brought into non-residential use, the allowance period starts on a later date. The new paragraph inserted by the clause adds an additional requirement to record that later date on the allowance statement, where relevant, to ensure the correct amount of SBAs may be claimed over the allowance period. The minor amendment to section 270IA(4)(b) of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 ensures consistency with the new paragraph.
We do not oppose the clause, as it is important to ensure the correct amount of SBA is claimed over the correct time to avoid unnecessary hardship or disruption.
Lucy Frazer
I am happy that the hon. Gentleman recognises that this is a clause worthy of Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Qualifying Asset Holding Companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 1 to 6.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 14 and schedule 2 introduce a new regime for the taxation of certain asset-holding companies being used by funds and institutional investors to make their investments. Asset management firms manage the savings and pensions of millions of UK citizens. The majority of UK households use an asset manager’s services, either directly or indirectly, for example through their workplace pensions. The reforms have been developed following extensive consultation as part of the wider review of the UK funds regime announced at Budget 2020. A key objective of the review is to consider reforms to enhance the UK’s competitiveness as a location for asset management and investment funds. It is a well-established principle that investors in funds should be taxed broadly as if they had invested directly in the underlying assets.
The new qualifying asset holding companies regime seeks to ensure that, where intermediate holding companies are used to facilitate the flow of capital, income and gains between investments and investors, the tax they pay is proportionate to the limited activities that they perform. With that policy objective in mind, the regime comprises a number of features, including a gains exemption for the disposal of certain shares and overseas property; specific rules where investment returns are passed to investors; withholding tax removed from payments of interest; and exempting repurchases of share and loan capital from stamp tax changes.
The new regime also contains safeguards. For example, the existing taxation of profits from trading activities, UK land and intangibles will not be affected. Furthermore, the new regime will be available only in certain circumstances—to prescribe investment arrangements involving diversified investment funds, charities, long-term insurance business, sovereign immune entities, certain pension schemes and public bodies.
Government amendments 1 to 6 seek to address three technical points better to reflect the original policy intention of the new regime and to ensure consistency with wider tax rules. Those include refinements to the eligibility criteria and ensuring that they are applied consistently. They follow engagement with the industry on the legislation since the introduction of the Finance Bill.
The clause introduces a new regime for qualifying asset holding companies from April 2022 that will build on the UK’s strengths as an asset management hub by enhancing the attractiveness of the UK as a location for the establishment of asset holding companies. I recommend that the clause and schedule 2 form part of the Bill.
James Murray
As we have heard, the clause concerns qualifying asset holding companies, and sits alongside schedule 2. The aim of the clause, we understand, is to recognise certain circumstances where intermediate holding companies are used only to facilitate the flow of capital, income and gains between investors and underlying investments to tax investors, broadly as if they had invested in the underlying assets, and to enable the intermediate holding companies to pay tax that is proportionate to the activities they perform.
At Budget 2020, the Government announced that they would carry out a review of the UK funds regime, covering tax and relevant areas of regulation. The review started with a consultation on the tax treatment of asset holding companies in alternative fund structures, also published at Budget 2020. The Government responded to that consultation in December 2020, launching a second-stage consultation on the detailed design features of a new regime for asset holding companies. The Government’s response to that consultation was published on 20 July 2021.
The clause and schedule 2 introduce the new regime. We understand that the purpose of the measures is to deliver a proportionate and internationally competitive tax regime for qualifying asset holding companies that will remove barriers to the establishment of such companies in the UK. The Government have said that the new regime will include the following key features: eligibility criteria to limit access to the intended users; tax rules to limit the qualifying asset holding company’s tax liability to an amount that is commensurate with its role; and rules for UK investors to ensure that they are taxed so far as possible as if they had invested in the underlying assets directly.
We understand that the eligibility criteria will ensure that the asset holding companies may only be used as part of investment structures where funds are managed for the benefit of a broad pool of investors or beneficiaries. An asset holding company cannot carry out other activities, including trading, to any substantial extent. The tax benefits arising from asset holding company status apply only in relation to qualifying investment activity. The tax treatment of any limited trading activity or any non-qualifying investment activity that is carried on by an asset holding company will not be affected by the company’s status as an asset holding company.
We note that the Government have tabled six amendments to schedule 2, which accompanies the clause. Amendments 1 and 2 seek to pin down the definition of investment management profit-sharing arrangements. According to the explanatory statement, that is to ensure that the legislation is capable of encompassing arrangements in which an entitlement to profits arising in connection with the provision of investment management services by an investment manager arises to another person, such as a company or a trust.
Amendments 3 and 6 provide that a fund that is 70% controlled by category A investors meets the diversity of ownership condition. Amendment 4 seeks to allow existing funds marketed before the commencement of the qualifying asset holding company regime to be treated as meeting regulation 75(2) of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 if certain information has been produced by the fund and has been made available to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Amendment 5 modifies the way in which the interests of creditors are accounted for in determining whether a fund is closed. We will not be opposing clause 14 or the Government’s amendments to it.
Alison Thewliss
I am a wee bit concerned that the Government have brought these amendments so late in the day. I appreciate that they have brought them now, rather than seeking to come back and amend legislation further down the road. That is something, I suppose. Does the Minister intend to review this legislation, and on what timescale? I am a wee bit worried about the letter we received yesterday, which said that, as originally drafted, the legislation includes some inconsistencies with wider tax rules and within the regime’s eligibility criteria. Given those worries and these amendments, I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government are going to keep an eye on this legislation to make sure that it is not exploited or used in the way that it is not intended to be. We need to make sure that people are paying the tax that they ought to be and that the legislation is not used as some kind of dodge.
Lucy Frazer
I welcome the lack of opposition to these clauses, which will support UK growth, by the hon. Member for Ealing North. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a point about the fact that the Government have made amendments late in the day. I reassure her that they are technical changes. Following engagement with the industry since the introduction of the Finance Bill, the errors were pointed out to us mand, therefore, it is important that we include the amendments in the Bill. We keep all legislation under review. We are very concerned, as the hon. Member will have seen from other measures in the Bill, about tackling tax avoidance, so we will keep an eye out for any misuse of the measures. I commend the amendments and clause 14 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 1, in schedule 2, page 97, line 24, leave out “performing investment management services”.
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments designed to secure that the definition of investment management profit-sharing arrangements is capable of encompassing arrangements where an entitlement to profits arising in connection with the provision of investment management services by an investment manager arises to another person (such as a company or a trust).
Amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 97, line 25, leave out from “profits of” to end of line 26 and insert
“investments in connection with the provision of investment management services in relation to those investments.”
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments designed to secure that the definition of investment management profit-sharing arrangements is capable of encompassing arrangements where an entitlement to profits arising in connection with the provision of investment management services by an investment manager arises to another person (such as a company or a trust).
Amendment 3, in schedule 2, page 99, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) the fund is 70% controlled by category A investors.”
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments that provide that a fund that is 70% controlled by category A investors meets the diversity of ownership condition.
Amendment 4, in schedule 2, page 99, line 42, leave out “6 April 2020” and insert “1 April 2022”.
This amendment will allow existing funds marketed before the commencement of the QAHC regime to be treated as meeting regulation 75(2) of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 if certain information has been produced by the fund and has been made available to HMRC.
Amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 100, line 19, at end insert ‘—
(i) as if in subsection (4) of section 450 of that Act, the reference to a loan creditor were to a creditor of the fund in respect of a normal commercial loan (within the meaning it has in paragraph 3),
(ii) as if in that subsection, at the end there were inserted “and for the purposes of subsection (3)(d)”, and
(iii)’
This amendment modifies the way in which the interests of creditors are accounted for in determining whether a fund is “close”.
Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 100, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
“(6) A fund is 70% controlled by category A investors if a category A investor, or more than one category A investor between them, directly or indirectly possesses—
(a) 70% or more of the voting power in the fund or, in the case of a fund that is not a body corporate, an equivalent ability to control the fund,
(b) so much of the fund as would, on the assumption that the whole of the income of the fund were distributed among persons with interests in the fund, entitle that investor or those investors to receive 70% or more of the amount so distributed, and
(c) such rights as would entitle that investor or those investors, in the event of the winding up of the fund or in any other circumstances, to receive 70% or more of the assets of the fund which would then be available for distribution among persons with interests in it.
(6A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)—
(a) a category A investor indirectly possesses something if the investor possesses it through a body corporate or a series of bodies corporate;
(b) the interests of the participants in a category A investor that is a collective investment scheme that is transparent (within the meaning given by paragraph 6(7)) are to be treated as interests of the investor (instead of its participants) if that investor meets the diversity of ownership condition as a result of sub-paragraph (2)(a);
(c) in determining, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(b) or (c), proportions of income or assets persons with an interest in the fund would be entitled to, ignore any interest any person has as a creditor of the fund in respect of a normal commercial loan (within the meaning it has in paragraph 3);
(d) paragraphs 5(5) and 6(5) and (6) apply for the purposes of determining the interests of persons in a fund as they apply for the purposes of determining relevant interests in a QAHC.
(6B) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (5)(a)(i) and (6A)(c), references to a creditor of a fund are to be treated, in the case of a fund that is a partnership, as not including any creditor who is a partner of that fund.” —(Lucy Frazer.)
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments that provide that a fund that is 70% controlled by category A investors meets the diversity of ownership condition.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15
Real Estate Investment Trusts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 15 makes targeted changes to the tax rules for real estate investment trusts. These changes alleviate certain constraints and administrative burdens to enhance the attractiveness of the UK’s real estate investment trust regime for real estate investment.
A real estate investment trust, or REIT, is a collective vehicle that allows investors to obtain broadly similar returns from an investment in property as they would have had had they invested directly through a specific set of tax rules. This regime has proved popular since its introduction in 2006, with around 100 UK REITs currently established. However, recent consultations issued as part of the Government’s review of the UK funds regime have identified a number of areas where the REIT regime could be reformed to remove unnecessary barriers and make it more competitive. The Government are now acting to amend these areas of their regime to make the UK a more attractive location for holding real estate assets.
The changes to the REITs tax rules will reform a number of areas. They will remove some administrative and cost burdens for existing UK REITs and remove some barriers to entry, widening the scope of businesses able to elect to be a UK REIT. In particular, the changes will remove the requirement for REIT shares to be admitted to trading on a recognised stock exchange where institutional investors hold at least 70% of the ordinary share capital. They will amend the definition of an overseas equivalent of a UK REIT to allow it to be met by companies and jurisdictions without an equivalent regime and remove the “holder of excessive rights” charge, where property income distributions are paid to investors entitled to receive them without deduction of withholding tax.
Finally, the changes will introduce a new, simplified balance of business test, which are the rules requiring that at least 75% of the rights, profits and assets relate to the property rental business, and exclude certain activities relating to the planning obligations from the test.
The targeted changes introduced by the clause and schedule will make the existing rights regime more attractive, consistent with the Government’s objective for the review of the UK funds regime. The changes will come into force on 1 April 2022.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 15 and schedule 3 concern real estate investment trusts. The clause and schedule amend the REIT rules and, as the Government have said, seek to remove superfluous restraints and administrative burdens. That includes the removal of the requirement for REIT shares to be admitted to trading in certain circumstances; the amendment of the definition of an overseas equivalent of a UK REIT; the amendment of the “holder of excessive rights” charge to corporation tax; and changes to the rules which ensure that a REIT’s business is primarily focused on its property rental business. The changes take effect from 1 April 2022.
A REIT is a company through which investors can invest in real estate directly. Specific tax rules for UK REITs were introduced in the Finance Act 2006. The regime has proved popular, and the number of UK REITs steadily increased to 92, as of June 2021. Subject to meeting certain relevant conditions, the company may notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that it is to be treated as a UK REIT. Its property rental profits and gains are then, in broad terms, treated as exempt from corporation tax, subject to ongoing conditions such as the requirement to distribute 90% of its exempt profits as property income distributions, which are in turn treated as property rental income in investors’ hands.
At Budget 2020, the Treasury launched a consultation on the tax treatment of asset holding companies, which included questions about investments in real estate. Responses to the consultation led to the inclusion of proposals for changes to the REIT regime in a second consultation on asset holding companies, which was launched in December 2020. The schedule introduces those changes, which are intended to remove restrictions and administrative burdens where they are no longer necessary. For that reason, we do not oppose the clause or schedule.
Alison Thewliss
I have a question about transparency and how the regime will interact with the Government’s draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill. I remember some discussion about people moving ownership to trusts and other things, but I am not quite clear how this interacts with that work on transparency.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing North for indicating that he will not oppose this aspect of the Bill. As he has said, the regime is very popular. I am very happy to get back to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on her particular question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 16
Film tax relief: films produced to be television programmes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Review of effectiveness of film tax relief provisions of Act and of potential for misuse—
“(1) The Government must publish, within six months of this Act coming into force, a report on the effectiveness of the provisions of section 16 of this Act.
(2) This review must include an assessment of the extent of, and potential for, misuse of the relief provided in section 16.
(3) The assessment under subsection (2) must include an evaluation of the relevance of the experience of misuse of existing film tax relief.
(4) The evaluation provided for in subsection (3) must include—
(a) the—
(i) total number of enforcement actions, and
(ii) number of successful enforcement actions taken against companies suspected of misusing film tax relief,
(b) the actions taken against the promoters of schemes designed to enable misuse of film tax relief, and
(c) a statement as to the plans the Government has for further action against misuse of film tax relief.”
This new clause would require a review of the effectiveness of the provisions in section 16. This review would include assessing actual and potential misuse of the relief, drawing on experience of the present film tax relief regime.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 16 makes changes to the film tax relief to give added flexibility to film producers who might decide to change their distribution method. The Government are ensuring that film producers can claim the film tax relief for films that are broadcast or streamed rather than released in cinemas, provided that the film meets the criteria for high-end television tax relief.
There is an imbalance between release for film and TV where some films that are no longer intended for a cinematic release and switch to streaming lose eligibility for tax relief. The distribution landscape has changed significantly since the introduction of these reliefs, and more films are released directly to video on demand services. This trend has accelerated recently due to the covid pandemic.
The changes made by the clause to the film tax relief will provide greater certainty for producers, ensuring that relief is not lost should a company decide to change its distribution method. This will help ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to invest and encourage the production of culturally British films.
New clause 14 would require the Government to review the effectiveness and potential misuse of clause 16 within six months of the Act coming into force, and would include within it an evaluation of misuse of the film tax relief. That evaluation would include the total number of enforcement actions, and the number of successful enforcement actions, taken against the companies suspected of misusing film tax relief.
The Government oppose the new clause on the basis that it is not necessary, as the Government are already monitoring and evaluating the success of their tax reliefs. This follows the structured approach to evaluating tax reliefs that HMRC began in October 2020 as a general good practice policy approach. HRMC has contracted an independent research agency to evaluate the screen tax reliefs, including film tax relief and high-end television tax relief. That evaluation aims to provide a thorough and independent evaluation of the reliefs, including their effect on employment and business growth. The impact of clause 16 will be noted as part of the evaluation, which is expected to be published next year, although that evaluation will not cover misuse of the relief. The requirement in new clause 14 that a review of clause 16 be published in six months is also impractical, because the measure only comes into effect for accounting periods ending on or after 1 April 2022. It is likely to be at least a year before companies make claims in relation to clause 16, and even longer before enforcement action is taken.
It is also worth noting that HMRC is taking actions to clamp down on the abuses that the new clause is concerned about. The current film tax relief was introduced in 2007 to replace film partnership reliefs. It is a corporate relief, and now focuses on film producers, not on investing partnerships. HMRC continues to settle and litigate historic schemes related to the old film partnership reliefs, but the current regime has not been subject to the same abuse, and has had a positive reputation in the industry.
The corporate film tax relief has proved very successful at attracting inward investment. It is highly popular with film-makers, and has contributed to making the UK a top film-making destination. This new relief is well targeted and has not been subject to abuse like the previous scheme. The change made by clause 16 is therefore to support businesses that meet the qualifying criteria for the relief, and while HMRC will remain vigilant regarding any emerging risks, we do not believe that clause 16 poses any significant additional risk. Further, reviews and disclosure of enforcement action statistics as requested by the new clause would not be useful. As such, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
The changes made by clause 16 will help ensure that the film tax relief continues to support the UK’s thriving film-making scene. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 16 allows films to remain eligible for film tax relief even if those films are no longer intended for theatrical release, provided they are intended for broadcast and meet the four conditions required for high-end television tax relief. The clause is effective for accounting periods ending on or after 1 April 2022. We do not oppose measures that support the entertainment and hospitality industry, particularly given the ongoing challenges brought about by the covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, the measures contained in clause 16 are, in themselves, sensible and appropriate.
More widely, though, we are aware that film tax relief was introduced by the Finance Act 2006, and applied only to films intended to receive theatrical release. That intention must be met at the end of every accounting period. Similarly, high-end television tax relief was introduced by the Finance Act 2013, and allows companies to claim relief on television programmes so long as they meet certain conditions.
The intention to broadcast must be met at the outset of production activities, and is then treated as being met for the remainder of production activities, regardless of the intention for the programme. That raises the possibility that a film that was initially intended for theatrical release may miss out on either relief if the intention changes part-way through production, and it is instead planned to have a television release. This is the case even when such a film would have been eligible for television tax relief if the decision had been made at the very start of production activities. Clause 16 ensures that where a film would have been eligible for high-end television tax relief if not for the date that the broadcast intention was decided on, it will not miss out on that relief, but will be eligible to claim it.
I am sure that the measures in this clause will provide welcome relief to those in the film industry. However, we would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the operation of the film tax relief more widely, which is a debate that our new clause 14 seeks to encourage. Looking back briefly to 2014, the Public Accounts Committee reported on the misuse of tax relief, including the film tax relief, to which it made explicit reference. The report found:
“There is a lack of transparency and accountability for tax reliefs and no adequate system of control, following their introduction….Tax expenditures are often alternatives to spending programmes, but are not managed or evaluated as closely…The Departments do not keep Parliament adequately informed of changes in the costs of reliefs…The Departments are unable to cope with the demands of an increasingly complex tax system, including tax reliefs…The Departments do not respond promptly to unexpected increases in the costs of tax reliefs. Data on movements in the cost of reliefs is not available until tax returns are received, and HMRC takes time to react when it notices a cost increase, as it wants to ensure its response is appropriate. However, a longer elapsed time in reacting to an increase in the cost of a tax relief raises the total amount of public money at risk. In the case of film tax relief, it took ten years to resolve the problems and cost over £2 billion.”
I am aware that the operation of the film tax relief has been changed in recent years, but it is important to ensure that the tax relief continues to be effective. We need the Government to reassure us that they are taking adequate action against the possible misuse of tax reliefs. With that in mind, we tabled new clause 14, which would require the Government to include an assessment of the extent of, and potential for, misuse of the relief provided in clause 16. That assessment must also include an evaluation of the misuse of existing film tax relief more widely.
In relation to that wider potential misuse of existing film tax relief, our new clause requires the Government to set out, first, the number of total and successful enforcement actions taken against companies suspected of misusing film tax relief; secondly, a report of what action has been taken against the promoters of schemes designed to enable to misuse of film tax relief; and thirdly, what plans the Government have for further action against the misuse of film tax relief in the future.
The Minister has set out that she will not accept our new clause, but I ask her to commit to a firm timetable for a review of existing film tax relief that would have a similar effect. There are already reports suggesting that the use of film tax relief is increasing. I remind her that the 2014 Public Accounts Committee report said that
“Departments do not respond promptly to unexpected increases in the costs of tax reliefs.”
If the Minister will not commission a review along the lines that we have suggested, I would be grateful if first she could reassure us on the record that she does not believe that there are significant levels of misuse of film tax relief. Following the point that she made earlier, I would be grateful if she could also explain what the timetable is for the publication of the evaluation of film tax relief. If she does not have that to hand, could she write to me before the recess?
Alison Thewliss
I am more than happy to support what the Government are proposing here. Consistency in these tax reliefs is really important to allow businesses to plan. My constituency particularly has a booming TV and film production sector, with the recent announcement of the BBC Studioworks development at Kelvin Hall in my constituency, and an £11.9 million investment, £7.9 million of which is coming from the Scottish Government to invest in the high quality TV and film production in Glasgow.
It is important to acknowledge the wider picture. This is not just about one tax relief; it is about the wider ecosystem. We have lots of independent production companies in Glasgow Central, and more widely in Glasgow, working away and producing high quality stuff. We have post production as well in companies such as Blazing Griffin, which does high-end stuff for the likes of Netflix. However, I would be doing them all a wee bit of a disservice if I did not mention the significance of Channel 4, and the importance of keeping it in its current model and standing away from the plans to privatise it. That model is what supports the wider ecosystem in the city of Glasgow—the model where independent production companies are able to keep their intellectual property and products, and sell them. That allows all the certainty within the sector to continue.
As I said, the issue is not just about this one tax relief; it is about the Government looking at and acknowledging the wider ecosystem that supports independent production within Glasgow. Companies such as Blazing Griffin have pointed out to me that, were it not for Channel 4, we would not have Netflix. One thing in the ecosystem depends on another, and I urge the Government to look at that in the round when it considers such tax reliefs. Where tax reliefs have been withdrawn or changed in the United States, all that happens is that production companies lift and shift, and go elsewhere. We do not want to risk doing that with such changes as those that the Government propose for Channel 4.
Lucy Frazer
I will briefly respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Ealing North. There are four short points: first, I hope the hon. Member has taken some reassurance from the fact that I mentioned that the current regime is not subject to the same abuse as the historic regime. Secondly, I mentioned that we were doing an independent review of reliefs. Thirdly, he asked me for the timing of that project. It started in May 2021, and we expect the project to be finished and to have written a report before the end of March 2022, for publication later in the year.
The hon. Member also mentioned avoidance quite a lot; we are also interested in tackling avoidance, and we will be coming to, later on in this Committee, a whole raft of measures tackling promoters. I am sure that he will welcome those.
On the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central made, I am very pleased to see that there are thriving creative industries across the UK. She makes an important point about how we need to look at the industry as a whole, but it would be stretching things slightly to include a debate about Channel 4 within the confines of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Temporary increase in theatre tax credit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 18 to 22 stand part.
Lucy Frazer
Clauses 17 to 22 make a series of changes to the creative industry tax reliefs, in order to support the cultural sector as it recovers from the effects of the pandemic. These changes include temporary rate increases for theatre tax relief, orchestra tax relief, museums and galleries exhibition relief and an extension of the museum and exhibitions tax relief. The changes ensure that reliefs remain targeted, free from abuse and sustainable.
The effects of covid on the creative industries have varied depending on the nature of the medium. Social distancing and wider restrictions have had a particular impact on theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries, as they rely on live performances and exhibitions to generate revenue. Clauses 17 and 21 temporarily double the headline rate of relief for theatre tax relief and museums and galleries exhibition tax relief, from 20% for non-touring productions and 25% for touring productions to 45% and 50%, respectively. From April 2023, the rates will be reduced to 30% and 35%, and they will return to 20% and 25% on 1 April 2024.
Clause 19 temporarily doubles the headline rate of relief for the orchestra tax relief from 27 October 2021, from 25% to 50%, reducing to 35% from 1 April 2023 and returning to 25% on 1 April 2024. The temporary higher rates of relief will provide a further incentive for theatres, museums, galleries and orchestras to put on new productions, exhibitions and concerts over the next two and a half years. This is a tax relief for culture worth almost a quarter of a billion pounds.
Clauses 18 and 20 make changes to theatre tax relief and orchestra tax relief to help clear up areas of legislative ambiguity and reinforce the original policy intent. The changes will apply to any new productions commencing from 1 April 2022. The clarifications are as follows: first, the commercial purpose condition for theatre tax relief and orchestra tax relief will be clarified so that productions must be separately ticketed to be considered as having been performed before a paying audience.
Secondly, the educational purposes condition will clarify that it is the audience that is being educated, not the performers. Thirdly, the legislation clarifies that productions made for training purposes will be excluded. Fourthly, teaching costs incurred by educational establishments, which are not directly related to performances, will be specifically excluded from relief. Finally, the definition of a “dramatic piece” will be clarified, so that to qualify for the relief, productions must contain a story or a series of stories and must have an expected audience of at least five people.
Clause 22 extends the sunset clause of museums and galleries exhibition tax relief from April 2022 to April 2024 in order to give certainty to museums and galleries through the recovery from the effects of the pandemic. The Government will also take steps to prevent abuse or attempted abuse of museums and galleries exhibition relief by clarifying the existing legislation. The clause makes minor changes to clear up areas of legislative ambiguity and reinforce the original policy intent. The changes will apply to any new exhibitions commencing from 1 April 2022.
The first clarification will be to the definition of an exhibition, which will be clarified so that the
“display of an object or work”
cannot be secondary to another activity. Secondly, to prevent private companies that are not museums or galleries from claiming on temporary outdoor sites, it will be clarified that being responsible for an exhibition is not sufficient for a company to qualify as maintaining a museum or gallery. Finally, the Government are relaxing the criteria for qualifying as a primary production company to allow more flexibility for museums and galleries scheduling touring exhibitions.
The changes will help UK theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries bounce back by incentivising new productions over the next two and a half years; continue Government support for charitable companies to put on high-quality museum and gallery exhibitions; and ensure that the relief is targeted and sustainable.
James Murray
Clause 17 will temporarily increase the rate of theatre tax credit for theatrical productions that commence production on or after 27 October 2021. From 27 October 2021 to 31 March 2023, companies will benefit from relief at a rate of 50% or 45% for touring and non-touring productions. From 1 April 2024, the rates of relief will return to the existing levels of 25% and 20% respectively.
Companies qualifying for theatre tax relief can surrender losses in exchange for a payable tax credit. The amount of loss able to be surrendered in a period is dependent on several factors, but will ultimately depend on the amount of core production expenditure that has been incurred in the UK or European Economic Area. A higher rate of relief is also available to theatrical productions that take place at more than one premise and are considered touring productions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how the definition of touring will be applied.
Section 1217K(6) of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 defines touring thus:
“A theatrical production is a ‘touring production’ only if the company intends at the beginning of the production phase—
(a) that it will present performances of the production in 6 or more separate premises, or
(b) that it will present performances of the production in at least two separate premises and that the number of performances will be at least 14.”
Paragraph (b) indicates that if a theatre company puts on 14 performances that were split between two venues—perhaps in the same town, just round the corner from one another—it would be eligible for 5% more tax credits than if it kept all 14 performances in the same venue. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether that is the case.
As we have heard, clause 18 concerns theatrical production tax relief. It amends part 15C of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to clarify several areas of legislative ambiguity relating to eligibility for theatre tax relief in relation to theatrical productions where the production phase will begin on or after 1 April 2022. We understand that the amendments are made to narrow the focus of the legislation and, according to the background of its explanatory note, to
“reinforce the original policy intent”.
Subsection (2) requires the intended audience to number at least five people for a production to be considered a “dramatic production”. It also stipulates that for a dramatic piece to qualify as a dramatic production, it must tell
“a story or a number of related or unrelated stories.”
Subsection (3) adds productions made for training purposes to the list of productions that are not regarded as theatrical and do not qualify for relief.
Subsection (4) amends the commercial purpose condition in section 1217GA of the 2009 Act so that a performance will not meet the condition unless it is separately ticketed and such ticketing is expected to make up a significant proportion of the performance’s earnings. A ticket may cover things besides admission to the performance, so long as such things are incidental to the performance and it is possible to apportion the ticket price between the performance and anything else included in the price. The subsection additionally clarifies that for a performance to meet the commercial purpose condition by being educational, it must be provided mainly to educate the audience.
As we have heard, clause 19 provides a temporary increase to orchestra tax credit. It temporarily increases the rate of orchestra tax relief for concerts or concert series that commence production on or after 27 October 2021. From 27 October 2021 to 31 March 2023, companies will benefit from relief at a rate of 50%. From 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, the rate of relief will be set at 35%. From 1 April 2024, the rate of relief will return to its existing level of 25%.
Companies qualifying for orchestra tax relief can surrender losses in exchange for a payable tax credit. The amount of loss that can be surrendered in a period is dependent on several factors, but ultimately it depends on the amount of core production expenditure that has been incurred in the UK and the European Economic Area. This temporary rate rise is also being introduced to theatre tax relief, in clause 17, and museums and galleries exhibition tax relief in clause 21. It allows companies to claim a larger tax credit and is designed to support the industries as they recover from the adverse economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic.
Orchestral productions are a tremendously important cultural asset in this country, and we are pleased to support the clause, which provides additional support to a cultural industry that has been hit hard by the pandemic. However, will the Minister outline what measures are in place to support musicians of other genres, or who perform in non-orchestral configurations? This is a welcome relief for orchestras, but other musical groups could be left out.
As we have heard, clause 20 pertains to tax relief for orchestras. This clause amends part 15D of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to clarify several areas of legislative ambiguity within orchestra tax relief. These changes have effect in relation to concerts or concert series where the production process begins on or after 1 April 2022, and they are comparable to the changes concerning theatre productions in clause 18, in so far as the Bill clarifies that relief is not applicable to orchestral productions that take place for training purposes. It amends the Corporation Tax Act so that a concert will not meet the definition unless it is separately ticketed and such ticketing is expected to make up a significant proportion of the performance’s earnings.
Those are uncontroversial provisions that we do not oppose, because they reduce the risk of the tax relief being misused and maintain the spirit in which the legislation was originally developed. However, we note the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s concern that orchestras that made a series election before the Budget—for example, an orchestra that made a series election in September for its whole annual season—would appear to lose out on the higher rate of relief for their entire season. That is perceived to be unfair, and we would welcome clarity over whether that is the Government’s intention.
Clause 21 provides a temporary increase to the rate of relief afforded to museums and gallery exhibitions that commence production on or after 27 October 2021. From 27 October 2021 to 31 March 2023, companies will benefit from relief at a rate of 50% or 45% for touring and non-touring exhibitions respectively. From 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, the rates of relief will be set at 35% and 30%. From 1 April 2024, the rates of relief will return to their existing levels of 25% and 20%.
Companies qualifying for this relief can surrender losses in exchange for a payable tax credit. The amount of loss that can be surrendered in a period is dependent on several factors, but it ultimately depends on the amount of core production expenditure that has been incurred in the UK and European Economic Area. We do not oppose the measure, because it relates to another sector that has been hurt by the pandemic and that we want to see back on its feet, providing the best educational and cultural enrichment that it can to the British people.
However, will the Minister clarify where world heritage sites fit into the legislation, and whether they could be considered museums or gallery exhibitions? According to UNESCO, the UK and Northern Ireland have 33 world heritage sites: 28 cultural, four natural and one mixed.
Finally, clause 22 concerns the aforementioned tax relief to museums and gallery exhibitions, clarifying some legislative ambiguities and amending criteria for primary production companies. Those amendments have effect in relation to exhibitions where the production stage begins on or after 1 April 2022. The relief was introduced with a sunset clause and was due to expire from 1 April next year, but this clause extends the relief for a further two years. Any expenditure incurred after 1 April 2024 will not qualify for relief unless there is a further extension.
As we can see, subsection (1) amends the definition of an exhibition so that a public display of an object is not an exhibition if it is subordinate to the use of that object for another purpose. For example, if a historic passenger train offers rides between two towns, although the train may have historical or cultural significance, its main purpose is to provide passenger transport. This does not preclude the possibility of there being an exhibition on board the train.
Finally, and more broadly, we are aware of concerns from within the industry regarding productions that straddle the commencement dates of these reliefs. For each relief, the increased rate applies only to productions where the production stage for the exhibition began on or after the Budget on 27 October 2021, when the change was announced. So, a production that received the green light on 26 October, or earlier, would not gain the benefit of the increased rate, however long it ran for after the commencement date for the increased rate. We understand there are those in the sector who perceive that as harsh and arbitrary, and we welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.
Alison Thewliss
Of course, I support the proposed tax credits. They will be a useful part of the picture of support for theatres, museums and orchestras, of which there are many in my constituency of Glasgow Central—which is, of course, the best constituency in the country, as I am sure everyone would agree. We have the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra and Scottish Ballet, as well as Tron Theatre company and the Citizens Theatre company. These proposals may be of assistance to them, so I ask the Minister what communication has been put out to the sector to ensure that it is aware of the relief and taking it up as required.
I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Ealing North, and I, too, seek answers from the Minister to the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. It strikes me that many of these proposals provide assistance for productions of some kind, but that misses the other side of the equation. It is good to support companies, but if the venues and theatres in which they wish to perform go bust because they do not have the support that they need, that will not solve the problems that the companies have faced for the past year as a result of the pandemic. I urge the Minister to look at support for the sector more widely.
Many who work in the sector—in orchestras and in theatres, behind the scenes and on the stage—are freelancers, and many have received no support whatsoever from the Government during the pandemic. They have faced a very difficult time, and the Government need to resolve that part of the equation. They could perhaps do so by looking at extending the VAT relief that they introduced, as the SNP has called for.
We were very glad that the Government brought in the reduction in the rate of VAT, but it would be useful to see that continued beyond the cut-off in April next year. That would give a sector that has faced such a difficult time a bit of extra support into next year. It does not make much sense to me to cut that off, and not to incentivise people to go out and make use of the theatres and music venues we all have in our constituencies.
The sector has had a very difficult time. The proposed tax credits are useful, but we need to look at the wider picture. If there is no venue in which to perform or to showcase an orchestra, ballet, theatre production or pantomime, because those venues have gone bust and no longer exist, the Government are missing a trick. It is important that we support the venues and those who work in the sector, wherever that is, and that we look at the wider picture, rather than at a narrow bracket of tax reliefs.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about world heritage sites. The answer to his question is that a world heritage site would be considered to be a site of cultural significance. It would be considered as an exhibition and would qualify, so long as it is maintained by a charity or local authority.
The hon. Gentleman recognised that those who had commenced productions before 27 October would not qualify for the relief. He is right about that, although we have doubled relief until 2023 and increased it until 2024. Productions that started before the announcement have been able to benefit from the normal rates of relief and the comprehensive package of support provided for the cultural sector over the pandemic. They will continue to benefit from relief at the 2020-21 rates. It is important, and we have made it clear, that these proposals relate to new activity, because it is new activity that we want to support through this particular relief.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about touring and musicians. HMRC has recently issued further guidance where industry has asked for it, in relation to the interpretation of the legislation. I will get back to him about those two points.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a few points; I am afraid I must challenge her on her statement that Glasgow Central is the best constituency in the country. The best constituency is, of course, South East Cambridgeshire—fortunately, no one will have an opportunity to respond to that. She made an important point about communication. The Chancellor mentioned these reliefs in the Budget statement and they were included in all the communications about it at the time, which were highly publicised. The hon. Lady makes an important point, however, and I will continue to ensure that when we make reliefs, those who qualify for them are aware that they do. We are doing quite a lot of work on how to spread the message more broadly to enable companies to take up the reliefs that the Government offer.
Alison Thewliss
The point is that large production companies will have accountants who will know what those companies are eligible for, but smaller companies might not even be aware of what is available because they are too small to fill in the paperwork. They may need extra support to do so. Anything the Government could offer in that regard would be useful.
Lucy Frazer
That is a valuable point. I know in my constituency that small organisations got a variety of grants from the Arts Council and were able to access those reliefs, but I will discuss that point further with my officials. I thought the hon. Lady might want to intervene on the question of which constituency is the best in the country.
Lucy Frazer
I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Alan Mak.)
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2022 View all Finance Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 December 2021 - (14 Dec 2021)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Dame Angela Eagle, Dr Rupa Huq
† Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
† Butler, Rob (Aylesbury) (Con)
Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)
Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
† Frazer, Lucy (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
† Holden, Mr Richard (North West Durham) (Con)
† Howell, Paul (Sedgefield) (Con)
† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
† Mak, Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)
† Murray, James (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
† Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)
† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)
† Whately, Helen (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)
Chris Stanton, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 14 December 2021
(Afternoon)
[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]
Finance (No. 2) Bill
(Except Clause 4, Clauses 6 to 8 and Schedule 1, Clause 12, Clauses 27 and 28, Clauses 53 to 66, Clauses 68 to 71, Clauses 84 to 92 and Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 93 and Schedule 14)
Clause 23
Returns for disposals of UK land etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
Clause 23 extends the time for payment of capital gains tax on property disposals from 30 days to 60 days, as well as clarifying the rules for mixed-use properties. It will affect disposals that have a completion date on or after 27 October 2021. Since April 2020, UK resident persons disposing of UK residential property where capital gains tax is due have been required to notify and pay the tax within 30 days of their sale completing.
Most people are not affected by the requirement because the sale of main homes is exempt from capital gains tax through private residence relief. Non-UK resident persons have paid within 30 days since April 2015 for residential property and from April 2019 for disposals of both UK residential and non-residential property, even if they have no tax to pay. However, the Government recognise that having 30 days has not always allowed taxpayers enough time to settle their affairs. In recognition of that, the Government are extending the 30-day time limit to 60 days. The change was informed by taxpayer representations and comes in response to the Office of Tax Simplification report in May 2021, where increasing the time limit to 60 days was a key recommendation.
The measure allows taxpayers more time to produce and provide accurate figures, particularly in more complex cases, as well as sufficient time to engage with advisers. It also clarifies the rules for a UK resident person calculating the capital gains tax notionally chargeable for mixed-use properties. The changes made by clause 23 will, first, extend the time limit for capital gains tax payment on property disposals to 60 days following completion of the relevant disposal. Secondly, for UK residents, the changes clarify that when a gain arises in relation to a mixed-use property, only the portion of the gain that is the residential property gain is to be reported and paid within 60 days.
Increasing the time limit to 60 days will delay some revenue until later in the scorecard. That is because some capital gains tax payments will now be paid in a different tax year. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the measure to move £80 million out of the scorecard to later years, with the majority incurred in 2021-22. The measure is expected to impact an estimated 75,000 individuals, trustees and personal representatives of deceased persons who sell or otherwise dispose of UK land and property each year.
In summary, those liable to pay capital gains tax will now have 60 days instead of 30 days to report and pay the tax due on UK land and property disposals. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I want to say for the record that I believe Erith and Thamesmead is the best constituency. As the Minister has described, clause 23 relates to returns for the disposal of UK land. It extends the time limit for payment on property disposal from 30 days to 60 days, as well as clarifying the rules for mixed-use properties. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, that will affect disposals with completion dates on or after 27 October 2021.
A reporting and payment period for selling or otherwise disposing of an interest in UK land was initially introduced to help reduce errors and increase compliance. The measure increased the time available for taxpayers to report their disposals. The increase intends to allow more time for taxpayers to produce and provide accurate figures, which will be particularly helpful in more complex cases, as well as assuring sufficient time to engage with advisers. The change also clarifies the calculation for the capital gains tax notionally chargeable for mixed-use properties.
We do not oppose the doubling of the time period for reporting and paying capital gains tax on UK property. However, we remain concerned about the lack of awareness surrounding the reporting and paying process. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the measures the Government will take to help individuals selling properties to be aware of their obligations and what support the Government will offer individuals struggling to access the stand-alone digital system for reporting those transactions.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the Labour Front-Bench team for not opposing the measure, which is indeed very sensible. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regularly engages with all stakeholders and agents, who will therefore know about the change, but the hon. Lady makes an important point about communication, which we touched on this morning. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Cross-border group relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 24 makes changes to abolish cross-border group relief to ensure that loss relief is limited to UK losses, thereby providing relief only for companies that the UK can tax. It also amends the rules restricting the amount of losses foreign companies with a UK branch can surrender to UK companies, bringing companies resident in the European economic area in line with companies resident in the rest of the world.
Cross-border group relief provides UK companies with the ability to claim relief for the losses of their EEA resident group companies, even though the UK is unable to tax any profit made by those companies. The UK cross-border relief rules were introduced in 2006, owing to a 2005 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union that found the previous rules to be incompatible with the EU freedom of establishment principle.
Under the current system, the UK Exchequer bears the cost of giving relief to UK companies for losses of EEA companies, as the latter pay no tax to the UK Government. The rules for restricting surrender of losses of a UK branch of a foreign company were also amended to be more favourable to EEA companies as a result of CJEU judgments. Favourable treatment for losses of EEA companies or UK branches of EEA companies is not right, and is inconsistent with our approach to the rest of the world, especially now that the UK has left the EU and is no longer bound by EU law.
Clause 24 will principally affect large, widely-held corporate groups, and will ensure both equal treatment of losses of companies in EEA and non-EEA countries and protection for the UK Exchequer against unfair outcomes. Historically, group relief was available only for losses of UK companies or UK branches, so the abolition of cross-border group relief and the alignment of branch rules is a reversion to a previously accepted position. Other countries generally do not give cross-border loss relief, so abolishing it would be very much in line with the international mainstream.
In summary, the change will allow the UK to depart from this historic position and more effectively pursue its fiscal policy objectives. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As we have heard, clause 24 concerns cross-border group relief and is accompanied by schedule 4. The clause and schedule repeal legislation that provides for group relief for losses incurred outside the UK and amend legislation that provides for group relief for losses incurred in the UK permanent establishment of an EEA resident company.
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the Government are bringing group relief relating to EEA resident companies into line with relief for non-UK companies resident elsewhere in the world. Claims involving companies established in the EEA are currently subject to more favourable rules in the UK relating to relief for non-UK losses and losses incurred by the UK permanent establishment of a foreign company.
These rules were introduced to give effect to the UK’s obligations as a member state of the EU. Having left the EU, the UK is no longer required to maintain those rules, and it is inconsistent to treat groups with EEA resident companies more favourably than those with companies resident elsewhere in the world. The clause therefore removes that inequality by aligning group relief rules for all non-UK companies.
The changes to legislation made by the clause broadly restore the group relief rules to what they were before separate rules were introduced for EEA resident companies in line with EU law. We do not oppose this measure, as it rightly removes an inequality between companies and contributes towards a level playing field.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Lady for indicating her support for clause 24, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 25
Tonnage tax
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
Clause 25 reforms the UK’s tonnage tax regime from April 2022, with the aim that more firms will base their headquarters in the UK, using the UK’s world-leading maritime services industry and flying the UK flag. The UK tonnage tax regime was introduced in 2000 to improve the competitiveness of the UK shipping industry. It is a special elective corporation tax regime for operators of qualifying ships. Now that the UK has left the European Union, the Government will make substantive reforms to the regime for the first time since it was introduced, to help the UK shipping industry grow and compete in the global market. The reforms will make it easier for shipping companies to move to the UK, make sure that they are not disadvantaged compared to firms operating in other countries and reduce administrative burdens.
Clause 25 will make changes to the tonnage tax legislation contained in schedule 22 to the Finance Act 2000 to reform the regime from April 2022. Specifically, it will give effect to the following measures announced at the autumn Budget in 2021. The Government will give HMRC more discretion to admit companies to the regime outside the initial window of opportunity, where there is a good reason. The Government will reduce the lock-in period for companies participating in the tonnage tax regime from 10 to eight years, aligning the regime more closely with shipping cycles.
Now that the UK has left the EU, the Government will remove the consideration of flags from EU and EEA countries. Following this legislative change, HMRC will update its guidance to encourage the use of the UK flag by making it an important factor in assessing the value that companies who want to participate in tonnage tax will bring to the UK in the strategic and commercial management test. Finally, following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Bill will simplify a rule that may include distributions of related overseas shipping companies in relevant shipping profits.
These changes to modernise the tonnage tax regime will make sure that the UK’s maritime and shipping industries can compete in the global shipping market, bringing jobs and investment to nations and regions across the UK. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for her explanation of clause 25, which makes amendments to the tonnage tax regime. Tonnage tax is a special elective corporation tax regime open to operators of qualifying ships that fulfil certain conditions. The amendments will have effect from 1 April next year. At the autumn Budget in 2021, the Government announced that they would introduce a package of measures to reform the UK’s tonnage tax regime from April 2022, which they say aims to ensure that the British shipping industry remains highly competitive in the global market. As part of the package, the Government say these amendments support their aim of simplifying the operation of tonnage tax legislation and making it more flexible following the UK’s departure from the European Union. Clause 25 gives effect to some of these measures by amending the tonnage tax legislation contained in schedule 22 to the Finance Act 2000, as the Minister said.
In his Budget speech on 27 October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“When we were in the old EU system, ships in the tonnage tax regime were required to fly the flag of an EU state, but that does not make sense for an independent nation. So I can announce today that our tonnage tax will, for the first time ever, reward companies for adopting the UK’s merchant shipping flag, the red ensign. That is entirely fitting for a country with such a proud maritime history as ours.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 282.]
Unfortunately, TaxWatch has pointed out that the proposed reforms will do no such thing. In fact, TaxWatch has described them as a retrograde step. As the Minister mentioned, the clause will remove the flagging requirement that requires ships to be registered in EU registers, but it does not replace it with anything. Companies will qualify for the tonnage tax regime regardless of where they register their ships, whether it be in Panama, Libya, Bermuda or any other flag of convenience. Can the Minister explain why that is the case? Moreover, we find it deeply regrettable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Mr Speaker put it, ran “roughshod” over Parliament in briefing the press on the tonnage tax before informing Parliament.
I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to two points. First, can she comment on whether she personally feels it is acceptable for a Government Minister, or officials acting on their behalf, to brief the press on Budgets before the House of Commons? Secondly, what assessments has she made of the consequences of this premature briefing, in terms of whether any private company or individual could have profited from advance knowledge of legislation before it was presented to Parliament?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I support the comments made by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on this issue. Switching flag is the most crazy kind of gesture politics. Would it not have been better to look at green shipping? That would create a tax incentive for the industry, which is one of the leading contributors to emissions, to transfer to better forms of power, to reduce its carbon emissions and to have some positive impact on global emissions and the net zero target, rather than pursuing the gesture politics of switching flags on a ship.
Helen Whately
As I set out, the clause reforms the UK’s current tax regime to help the UK shipping industry grow and compete in a competitive global market. Overall, this will be to the benefit of our maritime industry and, therefore, to the UK as a whole, supporting GDP, tax revenues and jobs in the UK.
I will pick up on a couple of comments made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople. On the points made by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, the clause is all about helping our shipping industry compete in a global market and making sure firms are not disadvantaged compared to those operating in other countries. It comes at a minimal cost to the Exchequer and we expect to see tax revenues in the sector increase as a result, because it will mean that more shipping groups are likely to headquarter in the UK. That will bring tax advantages and benefits to the UK, as well as tens of thousands of jobs that relate to that.
On the second point that the hon. Member made, I emphasise that the Treasury takes the recommendations of the Macpherson review very seriously and follows them in full. The reforms to our tax regime were rightly announced some months before they will come into force, in April next year.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central talked about environmental factors. As part of the reforms, HMRC expects to update the guidance on assessing eligibility for the tonnage tax regime, and environmental factors will be considered as part of that, so it can help us on decarbonisation actions and ambitions.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for her explanations. Has an assessment been made of whether anyone profited as a result of the Chancellor’s premature announcement to the press? Has any assessment been carried out?
Helen Whately
I emphasise what I said a moment ago: the Treasury followed in full the approach that should be taken, as set out in the Macpherson review in 2013. The Government’s tonnage tax reforms will ensure that the UK’s maritime and shipping industries remain highly competitive and bolster our reputation as a great maritime nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Amendments of section 259GB of TIOPA 2010
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 26 makes a change to ensure that corporation tax rules for hybrids and other mismatches operate proportionately in relation to certain types of transparent entity. Following recommendations by the OECD, the UK was the first country to implement anti-hybrid rules in 2017. These rules tackle aggressive tax planning by multinational companies that seek to take advantage of differences in how jurisdictions view financial instruments and entities.
With the benefit of three years’ experience of operating the rules, and with other countries following suit and introducing their own version of the rules, the Government launched a wide-ranging consultation on this area of legislation at Budget 2020. Following that consultation, several amendments were made to the rules in the Finance Act 2021, but the change that we are now considering, relating to transparent entities, was withdrawn from that Act to allow the Government additional time to consult stakeholders, so that they could ensure that the amendment had no unintended conse-quences.
We have had further engagement with stakeholders, and the amendment now provides for the specific change for transparent entities that the Government committed to making following last year’s consultation. The change made by the clause is technical and will impact multinational groups with a UK presence that are involved in transactions with certain types of entity that are seen as transparent, for tax purposes, in their home jurisdictions. Following the changes, this type of entity will be treated in the same way as partnerships in the relevant parts of the rules for hybrids and other mismatches. It is important that these rules are robust in tackling international tax planning, but also that they are not disproportionately harsh in their application.
Abena Oppong-Asare
The Minister clarified what the clause does. We do not oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Insurance contracts: change in accounting standards
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 29 introduces a power to lay regulations before Parliament in connection with the new international accountancy standard for insurance contracts, known as IFRS 17, introduced by the International Financing Reporting Standard Foundation. These regulations will allow the Government to spread the transitional impact of IFRS 17 for tax purposes, and to revoke the requirement for life insurers writing basic life assurance and general annuity business to spread their acquisition expenses over seven years for tax purposes. The corporation tax liabilities of insurers are based on their accounting profit. IFRS 17 will apply to companies that prepare their accounts under international accounting standards and is expected to become mandatory for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2023, subject to its endorsement by the UK Endorsement Board.
Depending on the types of insurance business written, adoption of IFRS 17 will create a large, one-off transitional accounting profit or loss for many insurers. The Government expect that spreading these one-off transitional profits and losses for tax purposes will greatly reduce volatility in Exchequer receipts and should also help to mitigate the cash flow and regulatory impacts of the accounting change. This will support the long-term stability of the insurance sector in the UK and contribute to the UK maintaining its position as a leading financial services centre.
The adoption of IFRS 17 will also make it more complex for life insurers writing basic life assurance and general annuity business to undertake the necessary calculations to spread their acquisition expenses over seven years for tax purposes, as currently required. Additionally, commercial changes in the life insurance market mean that the need for this requirement has reduced in recent years. Removing it for all life insurers writing basic life assurance and general annuity business, and instead following accounting treatment for tax purposes, will be a welcome simplification. The details of the final legislation will be informed by a consultation that was published alongside the “Tax Administration and Maintenance” Command Paper on 30 November.
The clause will allow the Government to respond to the potentially large and one-off tax implications caused by the adoption of the new international standard for insurance contracts, IFRS 17. I therefore recommend that the clause and schedule 5 stand part of the Bill.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As we have heard, clause 29 sits alongside schedule 5 and refers to insurance contracts and changes in accounting standards. As the Minister has mentioned, the clause has an enabling power that will allow the Government to make provisions in secondary legislation in connection with international financial reporting standard 17, and to revoke the requirement for all life insurance companies to spread acquisition costs over seven years for tax purposes.
The corporation tax liabilities of insurers are based on their accounting profit, and many insurers prepare their accounts under international accounting standards. The new international accounting standard for insurance contracts, IFRS 17, is expected to become mandatory for periods of account beginning on or after 1 January 2023, subject to its endorsement by the UK Endorsement Board. IFRS 17 will affect the timing of recognition of insurers’ profits and losses, and its adoption will create transitional accounting profits or losses, which we understand may have significant regulatory consequences. We recognise that the Government will need powers to be able to deal with the tax implications of IFRS 17.
The removal of the requirement for all life insurance companies to spread their acquisition costs over seven years for tax purposes is a simplification that has been allowed by IFRS 17. We welcome the simplification of tax arrangements and do not oppose the clause, but can the Minister tell us what provision will be put in place for insurers, for whom the change in accounting standards could cause a transitional administrative burden?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Member for her question, but the whole purpose of the clause, which will allow costs to be spread over a number of years, is to make things easier for insurers. I am glad that she is satisfied that the clause is sensible, and I am very grateful for her support for this provision. I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 30
Deductions allowance in connection with onerous or impaired leases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 30 makes technical amendments to the corporate loss relief rules introduced in 2017. They ensure that the rules continue to operate as originally intended and that eligible companies can claim the relief to which they are entitled. When a company makes a loss, it can carry forward that loss and use it to offset its taxable profits in the future.
The Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 reformed the UK’s loss relief regime. The corporation tax loss rules restrict set-off for carried-forward losses for large companies. In general, this means that only 50% of the current-year profits above the deductions allowance of £5 million can be covered by carried-forward losses. The restriction does not apply to accounting profits stemming from lease renegotiations that are aimed at preserving a company’s ability to continue trading. The impact of covid and the associated restrictions on businesses has resulted in an increase in the restructuring and renegotiation of leases. The introduction of a new accounting standard has meant that the legislation needs amending to cover the change in accounting treatment for leases, as without that, the lease renegotiations providing companies with the opportunity to remain in business will result in a prohibitive tax charge, which may instead force them into insolvency.
The changes made by clause 30 will ensure that companies in financial distress continue to benefit from full relief for carried-forward losses that offset accounting profits arising from lease negotiations, regardless of the accounting standard they adopt. The clause introduces a technical amendment to ensure that corporation tax loss relief rules work as intended, ensuring that companies in financial distress can access relief for their carried-forward losses.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Clause 30 concerns deductions allowance in connection with onerous or impaired leases. The clause amends sections of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 to ensure that the legislation continues to work as intended. It does so by continuing to provide an exemption from the loss reform rules for companies in connection with onerous or impaired leases in specific circumstances. As the Minister said, the measure enables such companies to obtain full relief for carried-forward losses that offset profits arising from lease renegotiations where they adopt international financial reporting standard 16.
Loss reform was introduced in section 18 of schedule 4 to the Finance Act 2017, and had effect from 1 April 2017. The reform made two main changes. It increased a company’s flexibility to offset carried-forward losses either against the company’s own total profits in latter periods or in form of a group relief in a later period. Additionally, it limited the amount of profit against which carried-forward losses can be set. Each group or a company that is not part of a group has an annual deductions allowance of £5 million in profit. Carried-forward losses can be set against that amount, which is restricted to a maximum of 50% of a company’s total profits for the period. The restriction to carried-forward losses was extended to include corporate capital losses with effect from 1 April 2020. Having reviewed the clause, the Opposition do not oppose it.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the fact that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Provision in connection with the Dormant Assets Act 2022
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
The Committee will be disappointed to learn that this is probably the last clause that we will deal with today. It introduces schedule 6, which supports the expansion of the dormant assets scheme to a wider range of assets. The clause ensures that where an asset is transferred into the dormant asset scheme and an individual later makes a successful claim to the ownership of that asset, they are in the same position for capital gains tax purposes that they would have been in without the scheme.
The dormant asset scheme enables funds from dormant bank and building society accounts to be channelled towards social and environmental initiatives. The scheme allows dormant funds to be unlocked for good causes, while protecting the original asset owner’s legal right to reclaim the amount that would have been paid to them had a transfer into the scheme not occurred.
In 2021, following a consultation, the Government announced their intention to expand the scheme to include assets from the pensions, insurance, investments and securities sectors. The process of transferring the assets into the scheme could, in certain cases, qualify as a disposal for CGT purposes, resulting in neither a gain nor a loss. As the asset owner cannot be located and does not know that the transfer has occurred, it is not appropriate or feasible for the tax to be paid by the individual at the point of transfer to the scheme, or for a notice of a loss to be made. The change made by the scheme addresses that by ensuring that a CGT charge arises only where a person comes forward to claim the asset. That ensures that the individual remains in the same position for tax purposes that they would have been in had the asset not been transferred into the dormant asset scheme.
Where the asset had previously been held in an individual savings account, changes made by the schedule ensure that no income or CGT arises when the asset is reclaimed. That ensures that savers in ISAs are not disadvantaged by their accounts being transferred into the scheme. The scheme also updates references in the existing legislation to ensure that it reflects the widest scheme created by the Dormant Assets Bill.
The schedule will commence only on the making of a Treasury order, because the Dormant Assets Bill is not yet law. The intention is to lay the necessary commencement order before Parliament when that Bill becomes law. For that reason, the schedule contains time-limited powers that allow the Treasury to make changes by secondary legislation if changes to the Dormant Assets Bill result in additional tax issues. The Government believe that the provisions strike the right balance between supporting good causes and taxpayer fairness.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As we have heard, clause 31 and schedule 6 concern the Dormant Assets Bill. The changes broadly ensure that individuals remain in the same position for tax purposes as they would have done had the assets not been transferred into the dormant assets scheme. Overall, we do not oppose the measure, but we are aware that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has concerns about the availability of accessible guidance to those making a claim under the dormant assets scheme who may be unaware of the tax consequences of their actions. Will the Minister clarify when guidance will be issued?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s indication that the Opposition will not oppose this measure. HMRC does generally provide guidance, and I am very happy to update the hon. Member on any guidance on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
The Chair
I wish all Members a merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year, and I extend that to the Clerks and officials and everybody involved with the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Alan Mak.)
Adjourned till Wednesday 5 January at half-past Three o’clock.
Written evidence reported to the House
FB01 Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG) (re: Clause 10 Increase of normal minimum pension age)
FB02 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) (Clause 23 Capital gains tax: disposal of UK land etc.)
FB03 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) (Clause 31 and Schedule 6 Dormant Assets)
FB04 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) (Part 2 (clauses 32-52) Residential Property Developer Tax)
FB05 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) (Clauses 9-11; Clause 98 Employment Taxes)
FB06 The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (Clause 94 and Schedule 15 (Notification of uncertain tax treatments by large businesses))
FB07 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) (clauses 16-22 – Creative reliefs)
FB08 Association of British Insurers (ABI)
FB09 British Property Federation (re: Residential Property Developer Tax in Part 2 of the Bill)
FB10 Scottish Widows
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 View all Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 10 December 2021 - (10 Dec 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent or off. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Members are encouraged to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government and Commission advice. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That may be done at home or in the testing centre on the estate. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 13
Arbitration awards available
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
As usual, Mr Hosie, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The clause sets out what awards an arbitrator may make following a reference to arbitration. It provides clarity to arbitrators and parties considering arbitration about the criteria for successful referral.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
Subsection (3) requires an arbitrator to dismiss a reference if they find that the tenant’s business “is not viable” and
“would not be viable even if the tenant were to be given relief from payment”.
Will the Minister say more about what constitute viable and unviable businesses? Groups representing the hospitality sector, for example, have made it clear that the seasonal nature of their businesses should be reflected in the viability test. As well as being provided with guidance, arbitrators should also have the right level of flexibility.
Paul Scully
I am happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance. The reason why we do not have a specific definition of what constitutes viability or affordability is that businesses models vary greatly, including with seasonality, and within and between sectors. Under clause 16, which we will consider later, we include factors that the arbitrator should consider when assessing the viability of the tenant’s business.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Arbitrator’s award on the matter of relief from payment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The Bill contains principles that are key to ensuring that rent debt is resolved in a proportionate way for tenants and landlords. The clause sets out how arbitrators must consider those principles when making an award under the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
I have a couple of questions about the clause. First, will the Minister clarify why the Government have chosen to make the repayment time under subsection (7) 24 months? Has he concluded that that will be sufficient time for businesses to repay what they owe, even if further covid restrictions are put in place? The current circumstances are a cause for concern to businesses that have seen revenues drop while costs continue. Secondly, reflecting the concerns of stakeholders including the Pubs Advisory Service, will the Minister clarify whether subsection (2) implies that the arbitrator will consider only the final proposal when making the award, or will they consider all proposals made by both parties in the round?
Paul Scully
In awards that give tenants time to repay the debt, tenants will have no longer than 24 months to do so. That recognises that additional time to repay may help businesses to recover and start to trade as normal, while ensuring that the issue of rent debts does not drag on unnecessarily. As for how it works, the scheme uses a key aspect of pension arbitration, by which each may propose a financial solution to pay protected rent, and the arbitrator will select the proposal that is most consistent with the principles set out in the Bill, assuming that one at least follows those principles. Otherwise, the arbitrator must make whatever award the arbitrator considers appropriate when applying the principles.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Arbitrator’s principles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Review of awards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must no later than three months following the day on which this Act is passed conduct a review to assess whether sections 15 and 16 of this Act have been interpreted consistently by approved arbitration bodies.
(2) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to published awards.
(3) If a review under subsection (1) identifies material inconsistencies in the interpretation of sections 15 and 16 of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue further guidance or amend existing current guidance to arbitrators about the exercise of their functions under the Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of awards to assess whether sections 15 and 16 of the Act have been interpreted consistently and publish or amend guidance as necessary.
Seema Malhotra
New clause 1 is a probing amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of awards to assess whether sections 15 and 16 of the Act have been interpreted consistently and to publish or amend guidance as necessary. We have heard issues raised about the interpretation of viability of businesses and making sure there is enough experience with arbitrators to ensure a consistent approach to resolving rent debt. In tabling the new clause we are seeking a review. It is helpful to know if the Secretary of State is seeking feedback on how the system is working and whether there are inconsistencies identified, which may require further guidance to be given to arbitrators about the exercise of their functions under the Bill. That is in the interest of strengthening the regime and trust in it among tenants and landlords alike. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on what feedback process he is expecting to see otherwise, so that we can make sure there is learning through the system and that it works effectively.
Paul Scully
We are committed to the principles in the Bill. That is why we have included them in the legislation. We will require arbitrators to follow them in their work. Arbitration bodies will only appoint arbitrators that are considered suitable to carry out arbitration as set out in the Bill. These bodies also have the power to oversee any arbitration when an arbitrator is appointed.
The arbitration system is designed to be a quick, effective and impartial solution to rent debts that cannot otherwise be resolved. Requiring a review of the arbitration process within three months of the Bill being in force could slow that process down. It may add additional steps and requirements for arbitrators who have already proven their suitability and impartiality for the role. It may postpone the appointment of arbitrators, further delaying cases if arbitration bodies must await the findings of the review before acting.
If new or revised guidance were required following a review, it would take additional time to produce and would not be in place for many cases referred to arbitration. We currently expect that all applications to arbitration would be made within six months and that cases should be resolved as soon as practicable afterward. Under the Bill’s provisions, the Secretary of State can also request a report from approved arbitration bodies covering the exercise of their functions under the Bill, including details on awards made and the application of the principles set out in the Bill on arbitrations they oversee.
There is a requirement for arbitrators to publish details of awards made, including the reasons behind it. That will show how arbitrators have applied the principles in the Bill to come to their decision. If there is any need to revise the guidance, for example to clarify or add new information for arbitrators, the Secretary of State is already able to do so. In summary, the Bill already contains several ways of monitoring the application of its principles. If the need arises, guidance can be updated to ensure that arbitrators have the information required to carry out their work. I do not believe that a required review would benefit the aims of the Bill. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her new clause.
Seema Malhotra
On the basis that there are other mechanisms that the Minister will—I use the word will—be using to ensure that there is feedback from the system, we will not push the new clause to a vote today. However, I do think it will be important to keep this under review. I expect that on Report in the new year, when circumstances might be different, we may want to look again at some of these amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Arbitrator: assessment of “viability” and “solvency”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause is important because it relates to the key principles of viability and solvency that underpin the arbitration process. Arbitrators must ensure that an award maintains or restores a business’s viability as long as it is considered that it would be preserving a landlord’s solvency.
Seema Malhotra
Subsection (2) lists factors to which an arbitrator may have to have regard when assessing landlord solvency, so far as the information is known. Could the Minister confirm whether further details about this evidence will be released by the Government? Again, I am just asking about consistency in the arbitration process.
Subsection 3 states that the arbitrator must disregard the possibility of either party borrowing money or restructuring their business. We support this measure and think it will contribute to ensuring that the arbitration process is fair. However, if would be helpful to hear some clarification on the regulations outlined in clause 16, and what further guidance will be forthcoming.
Paul Scully
I have talked about the fact that in this clause there are a number of factors when assessing the viability of a tenant’s business. I would also point the hon. Lady to the code of practice, which is not only for the use of the arbitrator, but for people who fall outside the scope of the Bill. It contains a non-exhaustive list of evidence that can be considered when determining viability and affordability, including existing and anticipated credit debt balance; business performance since March 2020; the tenant’s assets, some of which may be liquid, others of which may be plants or machinery; the position of the tenant with other tenancies; insolvency of a major customer; unexpected retentions or knowledge of a lack of working capital; or loss of key personnel or staff redundancies. Further factors can be found in annex B of the code of practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Timing of arbitrator’s award
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause establishes the timeframe for making awards, requiring arbitrators to make an award as soon practicable or, in the case of a normal hearing, within 14 days.
Seema Malhotra
We recognise that both businesses and landlords will benefit from prompt solutions to rent debt. Can the Minister explain why a different time frame is appropriate for the making of the award depending on whether an oral hearing is held or not? It would also be helpful if he could explain what
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
means in this context. What would be a reasonable period of time for the award to be made?
Stakeholders have suggested to us that under the pubs code, awards and adjudications can take up to a year to be published. Presumably the Minister can confirm that this would certainly not be reasonable. He has talked in general terms about time limits before, but given that there is no stipulated time limit under clause 17(1), what recourse would the parties have where no award is forthcoming in a timely manner?
Paul Scully
Although the applicant making a reference to arbitration must submit a formal proposal, there is the option for the respondent to also submit a formal proposal. Both parties also have the option to submit revised proposals. In addition, some cases may be more complex than others, and the arbitrator may need to ask for further information. The Bill therefore provides that the arbitrator must make the award as soon as reasonably practicable, which will allow for any additional work required because of the complexity of the case. I assure the hon. Lady that we are indeed hoping and expecting such cases to be resolved within a matter of months rather than, as she described in relation to the pubs code, anywhere approaching a year.
When there is a long period, there is a clear date on which the hearing concludes and evidence has been given, so that is why the Bill provides that the arbitrator has 14 days from the day on which the hearing concludes to issue such an award. Some cases that go to oral hearings may have added complexities, so the arbitrator may need more than 14 days to consider arguments, facts and evidence that have arisen. There is a discretion there for the arbitrator to extend the time limit if they consider that it would be reasonable, in all circumstances.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Will there will be any retrospective payments? In the bundle of evidence some companies submitted, they say that they have been pressed for their outstanding debt. If this Bill goes through, does that mean that any retrospective payments will be made by the arbitrator?
Paul Scully
I will write to the hon. Gentleman if I am getting this wrong, but I think the arbitrator can take the whole situation into account, including what has been paid and the evidence that has been given, when making the final judgment. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if that is not as full an answer as he wants.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Publication of award
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The arbitrators will be required to publish awards and the reasons for making them in the interest of transparency, but they will also be required to exclude confidential information for anything published, unless notified by the person to whom the information relates that they consent to its publication. Landlords and tenants can ask for confidential information to be redacted.
Seema Malhotra
We support the clause and the exclusion of confidential or personal information that may cause harm or concern. Labour believes that the arbitration process established under the Bill should be subject to appropriate transparency, with appropriate safeguards for commercially sensitive or other confidential information. The publication of awards should also support a consistent approach being taken across cases heard under the regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Arbitration fees and expenses
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 19, page 12, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying limits on arbitration fees.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in clause 19, page 12, line 8, after “question” insert
“and having regard to the accessibility and affordability of the arbitration process.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider the accessibility and affordability of the arbitration process when specifying limits on arbitration fees.
Seema Malhotra
I am pleased to move amendment 4, which relates to limits on arbitration fees, and speak to amendment 5, which relates to the accessibility and affordability of the process. We recognise that parties have to meet their legal and other costs, but we believe that arbitration fees and expenses should be proportionate to the arrears that are the subject of the dispute, and that they should not create a significant cost for the parties. I am sure the Minister recognises the harmful effect that a high arbitration cost would have on businesses that are already struggling, and it is only those in very difficult circumstances that are going into the process in the first place.
Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State the discretion to specify ceilings for arbitration fees in secondary legislation. We believe the Secretary of State should make such regulations to provide a cap, which would be the effect of amendment 4. We have also tabled amendment 5, which
“would require the Secretary of State to consider the accessibility and affordability of the arbitration process when specifying limits on arbitration fees.”
That is to ensure that, when setting new limits, the Secretary of State explicitly takes into account how the limits will affect the ability of business tenants and landlords to enter the arbitration process. I hope the Minister recognises the importance of ensuring that arbitration is not too costly for either landlords or tenants, particularly as businesses are again seeing falls in revenues at this stage. There is a cross-party desire to tackle rent debt, but we want the arbitration process to work. For that, businesses must be able to afford to enter the process.
I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to a concern raised by a stakeholder about the fees and costs that the arbitration bodies may apply. I understand that there is a £750 fee associated with a complaint under the rules of certain arbitration bodies. Would such a cost be included within the cap? I thank the Minister in advance for his response.
Paul Scully
As the clause stands, the Secretary of State will have the delegated power to make regulations specifying limits on the fees and expenses of arbitrators, but if the power is exercised, approved arbitration bodies will still have the discretion to set fee levels up to the cap limit. We have adopted a market-based approach that enables arbitration bodies to set fee levels for themselves, because they are best placed to decide, given their experience of costing arbitration schemes to make them affordable for parties and attractive enough for arbitrators to take on cases. The Secretary of State’s powers are intended to be used only when circumstances determine that it is appropriate.
We have designed the arbitration scheme to be affordable, and we are working with arbitrators to agree the cost schedules, which may answer the hon. Member’s question. Setting fee levels at this stage would be counterproductive, because we do not know what the market rate is while discussions are ongoing. A market-based approach is the optimum way to ensure that, on one hand, there is enough capacity in the system to deal with the case load and that, on the other hand, fees are affordable. Hon. Members have also asked that an express requirement be inserted that would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the accessibility and affordability of the arbitration process when specifying those limits. As I said, affordability is an important consideration in our discussions. It will be an important factor that will determine accessibility. We will take it into account when deciding if and how to exercise this power.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks, but I do not think that they approach the heart of the debate. I would like to push amendment 4 to a vote, because this is an important issue.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
Clause 19 concerns the fees and expenses of the arbitrators of approved arbitration bodies. We want to make sure that we have capacity and that it is affordable. If the cost does indeed prove to be a barrier, we can cap the fees to ensure that it remains affordable.
Seema Malhotra
Notwithstanding the concerns we have just raised, which we will continue to pursue, we support clause 19.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Oral hearings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Being mindful of European convention on human rights considerations and the right to a fair trial, it is important that landlords and tenants have the option of a hearing. Any hearing would be in public unless the parties agreed otherwise. An oral hearing would add time and costs to the arbitration process, and the parties would be responsible for meeting those costs. This clause is important, as it gives the parties the right to an oral hearing and establishes the process for doing so.
Seema Malhotra
Labour generally supports these measures, but it would be helpful to understand whether the Minister expects oral hearings to be the exception rather than the rule. As the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators made clear in evidence about the business arbitration scheme, there was an assumption against oral hearings, with a document-only approach, which keeps costs and time low and, as it would say, allows for a more efficient process. Will guidance set out when oral hearings might be necessary or appropriate? We would like to understand more about the cost of oral hearings. Can the Minister say what he might expect the cost of oral hearings to be? Would he explain what action the Government will take to ensure that all hearings are affordable?
Paul Scully
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we would expect oral hearings to be very much the exception, because we want to make sure that we get through the process for landlords and tenants as quickly as possible. Under clause 21, the Secretary of State will provide arbitrators with guidance on the process of the scheme, including in relation to their function and exercise under the Arbitration Act 1996, as modified by the Bill.
There are a number of areas, such as what evidence the parties should provide when attending any oral hearings, where there is a risk of being too prescriptive, as what is relevant may differ between cases. Guidance would therefore be more helpful than strict rules. However, the ability to go for an oral hearing will very much depend on the arbitrator’s skills and experience, and will take into consideration the landlord and the tenant—as I said, they do have a right to a fair trial. The costs would depend on the complexities of the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Guidance
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 21, page 13, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the exercise of arbitrators’ functions and the making of references to arbitration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 21, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(a) shall provide further information as to how arbitrators should assess ‘viability’ and over what timescale for the purposes of section 16.”
This amendment would require guidance published under this section to include information on the interpretation of “viability”
Seema Malhotra
I will speak briefly to these amendments, which relate to viability. As we have outlined several times, we are asking how arbitrators would assess viability, and what skills and experience they would have to do that. We have tabled these probing amendments to seek guidance with information on the interpretation of viability.
There is benefit in having some flexibility, while still commanding the confidence of both sides, so that judgements can be made with the information available, but there is also a question of trust. We need confidence that the definition around viability will be interpreted consistently across arbitrators and arbitration bodies. Amendment 7 would reflect the concerns of stakeholders that guidance must address the meaning of viability and the timeframe over which it would be assessed.
Paul Scully
As the clause stands, the Secretary of State already has a delegated power to issue guidance. Hon. Members have asked that amendments be made to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue that guidance. As I have explained, it is not necessary to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate to be more prescriptive in the clause is.
Clause 16 already sets out a list of evidence that the arbitrator must have regard to when assessing viability. We have also set out a detailed, non-exhaustive list of the types of evidence that tenants, landlords and arbitrators should consider when assessing the viability of a tenant’s business, and the impact of any relief on the protected rent debt on the landlord’s solvency in annex B of the revised code of practice.
We are in ongoing discussions with arbitration bodies and landlord and tenant representatives to gauge what further guidance they need. We want to be informed by those discussions in deciding whether further guidance is needed and, if so, what precisely it should contain. If further guidance on viability is needed, we are prepared to produce it, but that is clearly covered by the clause as it stands.
It is essential that arbitrators maintain flexibility in assessing the viability of a tenant’s business, including the types of evidence required to make those assessments, so that they can be made in the context of each individual business’s circumstances. If guidance is too prescriptive, there is a risk of depriving arbitrators of that necessary flexibility, potentially resulting in unfair arbitration outcomes.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. That was a very helpful set of comments, in light of what he has also outlined in relation to the ongoing discussions, which we are pleased to hear of—indeed, we have had discussions as well—as that is important.
Looking particularly at the pubs and hospitality sector, and other businesses with great variation in income, their repayments may need to happen over a more reasonable period of time. It is helpful to know that the Minister is considering where there may be differences between sectors, and recognises a system that takes into account the circumstances of individual businesses, because they can differ in how they are affected by slowdowns and so on.
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is certainly an area that we will keep under review. We will not press our amendment to a vote today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause provides the power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to arbitrators or to tenants and landlords.
Seema Malhotra
We support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Modification of Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause introduces schedule 1 to the Bill. Rather than include a detailed procedure for the arbitration process in the Bill, part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 will apply by virtue of section 94(1) of that Act. The long-standing arbitration procedures that are well known to arbitration bodies and arbitrators will apply to arbitrations under the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister outlined the clause and how it introduces schedule 1. We support the measures and will vote for the clause and the schedule to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 23
Temporary moratorium on enforcement of protected rent debts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8 in schedule 2, page 19, line 3, at end insert—
“whether against the tenant or a person who has guaranteed the obligations of the tenant”.
This amendment would clarify that the definition of “debt claims” includes claims against guarantors.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause and schedule 2 cover a temporary moratorium on enforcement measures.
The difficulties of paying commercial rent during the pandemic are best addressed through negotiation. The Bill provides a system to resolve protected rent debt when negotiation has not worked. It has been designed to consider both parties’ circumstances in the exceptional context of the pandemic. If the landlords could pursue other enforcement methods in respect of the respected rent, parties would lose the opportunity to resolve the debt by mutual arbitration applied by the Bill’s arbitration system. That is why the clause introduces a temporary moratorium on enforcement measures detailed in schedule 2.
During the moratorium period, landlords may not make a debt claim, exercise the right to forfeiture or use the commercial rent arrears recovery—CRAR—power to seize goods in respect of unpaid protected rent debt. They may not recover protected rent debt from the tenancy deposit while the temporary moratorium is in place. If they have done so beforehand, the tenant cannot be required to top up the deposit in that period. If the tenant makes a rent payment without specifying the period it covers, the payment must be treated as relating to unprotected rents before protected rents.
Schedule 2 also enables the arbitrator to consider protected rents under a debt claim issued between the Bill’s introduction and its coming into force, or a judgment on such a claim. It also treats rent payments made after the end of the protected period, when closure or other relevant restrictions are lifted, as for unprotected rents before protected rents.
I emphasise that the Bill’s moratorium and other remedies are temporary. We want the market to return to normal swiftly. Under the clause, the temporary moratorium applies only until arbitration is concluded or, if neither party applies for arbitration, until the application period closes. The temporary moratorium also only prevents access to remedies in relation to protected rent debt. If the tenant in scope of the Bill has failed to pay rent attributable to a period before 21 March 2020 or after the protected period ended, the landlord can take action in respect of that debt. Clause 23 and schedule 2, which the clause introduces, are important to give viable businesses an opportunity to resolve protected rent debt by mutual agreement through the Bill’s scheme.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I will speak to clause 23 and schedule 2, as well as amendment 8, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston.
The clause prevents rent debts from being collected during the moratorium period, which begins on the day the Act is passed. As we have said previously, we welcome efforts to put a moratorium on the enforcement of protected rent debts, and the clause outlines a number of protections to stop landlords collecting rent arrears debts, including by preventing the making of a debt claim using commercial rent arrears recovery powers or using a tenant’s deposit. The measures have been broadly welcomed by businesses and we support them.
The provisions on the moratorium period cover the period
“beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
Last week, Kate Nicholls of UK Hospitality told the Committee that as soon as the Bill is enacted, communications should go out to ensure that commercial tenants are aware of the arbitration process. That point holds for small businesses and independent businesses. I very much hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that the Bill and the protections in it come into force as soon as possible and, equally, that tenants as well as landlords are aware of the protections.
Schedule 2 sets out in more detail the process by which landlords are prevented from making a debt claim and ensures that landlords are unable to take civil proceedings during the moratorium period. We support those provisions, although we know from the feedback we heard during the witness sessions last week the importance of ensuring that tenants are aware of the moratorium period and of the ability to enter into arbitration. Businesses absolutely need to be made aware of the measures.
The schedule outlines in further detail the various definitions used in the Bill, reaffirms that landlords are not able to make a debt claim against protected debts during the protected period, and outlines how parties can apply for debt claims to be stayed while arbitration goes on.
I want to outline the important issues that we raised about the arbitration process. The process should be fair and transparent, and it needs to have the widespread confidence and support of tenants and landlords. As the witnesses in last week’s evidence sessions said, it is crucial that smaller tenants and landlords should not be made to suffer as the result of an expensive or long-running arbitration process in which they are at risk of being muscled out by the greater power of larger organisations. We welcome the arbitration process and the relief that it will bring, but the process itself needs to be fair, and it needs to ensure a balanced playing field.
Schedule 2 also outlines the fact that a landlord may not use the commercial rent arrears recovery power for protected debt, which we welcome. It also seeks to ensure that a landlord is prevented from enforcing a right to forfeit the tenancy in relation to the non-payment of rent. Subsection 9 prevents a landlord from using a tenant’s deposit. We welcome that provision as part of the wider package of protecting tenants and ensuring that landlords cannot seek to get around the spirit of the arbitration process and the protections around arrears.
Amendment 8 seeks to clarify that the definition of debt claims includes claims against guarantors. It aims to provide extra clarity about whether the protections given against county court action are also provided to the guarantors of tenancies. We have received written testimony from experts in the arbitration field and from the head lessee of the Subway chain, who express concern that guarantors and former tenants were not included in the implications of the legislation. I am sure that the Government want to see, just as we do, that the protection against rent arrears action is spread across all the businesses impacted by covid, as well as those that have given the additional support that new and small businesses so often need, such as their guarantors. Of course, many small businesses are franchisees of chains such as Subway, and its head lessee’s evidence must count for a lot of organisations where there is a head lessee and a franchise system.
We do not want to see a back door created whereby tenants are protected from enforcement but the guarantors are still liable. We also heard evidence from the guarantor of a nightclub in Surrey. We have two issues here: the guarantors and the head lessee. It is crucial that the Government ensure that the guarantors of tenants are also protected against debt claims during the prescribed six-month period. We do not want to see the common-sense measures circumvented if landlords are able to go after guarantors with no limit. As I say, the amendment is specifically about guarantors, but we also have concerns on behalf of head lessees.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for her comments. Indeed, I agree with her. She said that she wants the Bill to be passed as soon as possible, so I am speaking as quickly as I can to make sure that we can get that done.
On the communications, we have already given plenty of notice. The original announcement was in June. The policy statement and the code of practice were published. We have hosted webinars with key stakeholders, and we will continue to engage with them. The hon. Member is absolutely right. We want to make sure that this measure is known by all so that they can take advantage of it. If they are unable to settle their rent debts between themselves, we can bring this to a head quickly through arbitration and get back to a normal free market as soon as possible.
On the amendment, I can reassure the hon. Member that we will take full note of written evidence that comes in, but paragraph 2 of schedule 2 already prevents claims against guarantors. It prevents the landlord from making any debt claim in respect of protected rent within the moratorium period specified by the Bill. The provision in question is not limited to claims against tenants, so it does not need to state expressly that it covers claims against guarantors.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 24
Temporary restriction on initiating certain insolvency arrangements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Both parties are expected to engage with the arbitration process and must comply with any award made. They may choose to settle the matter by negotiation ahead of arbitration, but other processes that enable the arbitration system to be avoided should not be available. That is why clause 24 prevents a party from proposing or applying for a company or individual voluntary arrangements or certain other restructuring arrangements with their creditors.
Ruth Cadbury
Just as we welcome the actions in clause 23, we welcome clause 24 placing restrictions on the ability of either a landlord or a tenant to enter into specific insolvency arrangements when the matter relates to protected rent debt. That is a welcome move, as we do not want to see viable companies going into insolvency because of rent arrears.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Temporary restriction on initiating arbitration proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause prevents either party from invoking alternative measures that have not been designed specifically for debts related to the pandemic.
Ruth Cadbury
We heard in testimony last week that the vast majority of landlords and tenants have been able to reach agreements on rent arrears, and it has generally been a productive and straightforward process. The clause ensures that the tenant or landlord cannot unilaterally start arbitration proceedings and must go through the referral process, requiring the other party also to make submissions in writing. I am interested to hear what steps are in place for businesses, and especially small businesses, when a larger landlord or tenant refuses to enter arbitration fairly.
Paul Scully
If both parties wish to resolve their unpaid protected rent debt by an alternative form of arbitration, they may agree to do so. In terms of the arbitration itself, the businesses—either the landlord or tenant—can act unilaterally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Temporary restriction on winding-up petitions and petitions for bankruptcy orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 26 and schedule 3 temporarily prevent landlords from petitioning, in relation to protected rent debt, to wind up businesses in scope of the Bill or petitioning for bankruptcy for businesses that are individuals, such as sole traders, that would otherwise be viable. The clause and the schedule support viable businesses by allowing debts to be resolved by mutual agreement or by the Bill’s arbitration system, which considers both parties’ circumstances in the exceptional context of the pandemic. As with the other temporary restrictions in part 3, the restrictions detailed in clause 26 and schedule 3 apply only in relation to protected rent debt.
Ruth Cadbury
We welcome the measure in clause 26 as it will prevent landlords from going through a back-door method of targeting businesses unfairly. We also support schedule 3 as it will ensure that viable businesses are protected and can enter into the much-needed arbitration process. Paragraph 3 of schedule 3 ensures that bankruptcy orders in relation to rent arrears made before the day on which the Bill becomes law shall have no power. This will prevent businesses that will be helped by the legislation from being declared bankrupt, which we support as it will protect otherwise viable businesses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 27
Power to apply Act in relation to future periods of coronavirus control
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The measures in the Bill are a response to the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic and will support commercial tenants and landlords to resolve their rent debt. To ensure that we are prepared for a future situation of a further wave of coronavirus giving rise to further business closures, we are including a power to reapply the provisions in the Bill. This will enable the Government to reapply any and all provisions in the Bill so that we can take a targeted approach to respond to the specific circumstances of any future period of coronavirus.
Ruth Cadbury
Given the past few days and the news of business revenues plummeting, we of course welcome the clause. We know that many businesses are already feeling the pinch, as we have seen in the news. There is already worry and concern in the sector about staff shortages and rising supply costs, and on top of that businesses are concerned about customer numbers. The Government appear to rule out any return of covid-related support for businesses, but at least the clause offers some relief in respect of rent arrears. Although we welcome the inclusion of a power to ensure that businesses do not get punished for rent arrears in the future if they are forced to close, I take this chance to remind the Government that businesses are feeling the pinch, even if they have got over the outstanding revenue losses from the previous almost two years. We know that customers are cautious in the face of the new variant, and that businesses will be impacted, so we support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Power to make corresponding provision in Northern Ireland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The Bill will not apply directly to Northern Ireland. Instead, this enabling power was requested by the Northern Ireland Executive. It is intended to allow them to introduce the measures in the Bill at their discretion. The arbitration scheme remains an option for Northern Ireland while they assess their need for those measures. We will of course continue to work closely with our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive.
Ruth Cadbury
We welcome clause 28, but our comments and concerns about businesses in England and Wales apply just as much to those in Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The Bill will bind the Crown where the Crown is a landlord under the business tenancies in scope of the Bill. I commend clause 29 to the Committee.
Ruth Cadbury
Clause 29 is a straightforward clause, setting out that the Bill binds the Crown. We have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Extent, commencement and short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
This clause sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, which has been carefully considered, and the continued engagement of the devolved Administrations. It reflects the differing needs of each part of the UK and ensures that the tenants and landlords that will most benefit from this measure can access it. It extends to England and Wales, with limited provisions extending to Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Ruth Cadbury
We have nothing further to add on clause 30, Mr Hosie. However, this is the last time that we will speak in this Committee, so I will take the opportunity to thank all those who have provided expert submissions to the Committee, who have spoken in the last week and who have sent written submissions. I thank Members for their attendance, and I thank the staff who have administered the Bill so smoothly and enabled us to finish so quickly.
I conclude with an overarching point. Some of the submissions that we have received, particularly this week, from expert bodies with significant legal and other professional expertise in the area of landlord and tenant law, arbitration and settlements still express significant concerns about the detail of the way the Bill is drafted. I hope that between now and Report and Third Reading, the Government will look at their comments, meet them and address some of the detailed and expert points that they raise. I fear that they probably know what they are talking about.
Paul Scully
I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to you, Mr Hosie, to the Clerks and to everybody for making this happen. We want to ensure that we get the Bill into legislation as quickly as possible, but that does not mean that we will rush it and not have further consideration. Beyond the passage of the legislation through Parliament, we will continue to engage with stakeholders, including arbitration services, landlords and tenants, to ensure that we get it right. It is so important that we get this enacted now, so that landlords and tenants can get the benefits when they need them—now, not when it is too late.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2022 View all Finance Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 December 2021 - (14 Dec 2021)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. I do not think I need to remind people about the advice being given in relation to the wearing of face coverings; I will assume that anybody not wearing one has a reasonable excuse for not so doing, but we do not challenge people. I also remind colleagues that Hansard would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. The consumption of tea or coffee is not permitted during sittings, and we would like electronic devices to be switched to silent.
We do not want to see an abuse of the indulgence of laptops and things like that; the impression given to people watching is that Members might not be concentrating on the debate, and might instead be doing other work. The convention is that people should use their electronic devices to help inform their work on this Committee. I am not going to be able to invigilate that, but I rely on Members to be co-operative and think about the impression given to people watching this Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 14 December 2021) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 December 2021;
(b) at 3.30 pm and 6.00 pm on Wednesday 5 January 2022;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 January 2022;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 January 2022;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Clause 5; Clauses 9 to 11; Clauses 13 and 14; Schedule 2; Clause 15; Schedule 3; Clauses 16 to 24; Schedule 4; Clauses 25 and 26; Clause 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 30 and 31; Schedule 6; Clauses 32 to 41; Schedule 7; Clauses 42 to 45; Schedule 8; Clauses 46 to 49; Schedule 9; Clauses 50 to 52; Clause 67; Clauses 72 to 75; Schedule 10; Clauses 76 to 83; Schedule 11; Clause 94; Schedule 15; Clauses 95 to 99; Schedule 16; Clauses 100 to 102; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 13 January 2022.—(Lucy Frazer.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Lucy Frazer.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to Members by email, and some was circulated yesterday. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate; generally, that is because they cover the same subject matter. The decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. This is designed to help people who are following these proceedings keep up to speed.
Clause 1
Income tax charge for tax year 2022-23
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Clause 1 legislates for the charge of income tax for 2022-23. Clauses 2 and 3 set the main default and savings rate for income tax for 2022-23, and clause 5 maintains the starting rate for savings limit at its current level of £5,000 for 2022-23.
Income tax is one of the Government’s most important revenue streams, expected to raise approximately £230 billion in 2022-23. The starting rate for savings applies to the taxable savings income of individuals with low earned incomes of less than £17,570, allowing them to benefit from up to £5,000 of savings income tax free. The Government made significant changes to the starting rate for savings in 2015. They lowered the rate from 10% to 0%, and increased the band to which it applied from £2,880 to £5,000. These clauses are legislated annually in the Finance Bill.
Clause 1 is essential because it allows for income tax to be collected in order to fund vital public services on which we all rely. Clause 2 ensures that the main rates of income tax for England and Northern Ireland continue at 20% for the basic rate, 40% for the higher rate, and 45% for the additional rate. Clause 3 sets the default and savings rates of income tax for the whole UK—the basic, higher and additional rates of 20%, 40% and 45% respectively. Clause 5 confirms the band of savings income to which it applies, maintaining the starting rate limit at its current level of £5,000 for the 2022-23 tax year. The limit is being held at that level rather than increased by the consumer prices index to ensure simplicity and fairness within the tax system, while maintaining a generous tax relief.
Clauses 1 to 3 ensure that the Government can collect income tax for 2022-23. Clause 5 continues the Government’s commitment to support people of all incomes and at all stages of life to save. Taken with the personal savings allowance and the annual individual savings account allowance of £20,000, those generous measures mean that about 95% of savers will pay no tax on their savings income.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the clauses on behalf of the Opposition. As we have heard, clause 1 imposes a charge for income tax for the year 2022-23. It is for Parliament to impose that tax charge for the duration of the financial year. I understand from my well-informed parliamentary researcher that the first income tax that bears a resemblance to the modern graduated form that the clause refers to was introduced by William Pitt the Younger in 1798; as we will see in later clauses of the Bill, there has been some departure from the tax bands of £60 and £200 annually introduced then. We will of course not oppose clause 1, although we note for the record that under this Government the tax burden will rise to its highest level for 70 years.
Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax for the year 2022-23, which will apply to the non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers in England and Northern Ireland. The clause provides that the main rates of income tax for 2022-23 are the 20% basic rate, the 40% higher rate, and the 45% additional rate. Income tax rates on non-savings, non-dividend income for Welsh taxpayers are set by the Welsh Parliament. The UK main rates of income tax are reduced for Welsh taxpayers by 10p in the pound, and the Welsh Parliament sets the Welsh rates of income tax, which are added to the reduced UK rates. Income tax rates and thresholds on non-savings, non-dividend income for Scottish taxpayers are set by the Scottish Parliament.
We note that, although the rates of income tax are not rising in the Bill, the same cannot be said for national insurance. That tax was increased by the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021, which we debated in September. As I said at the time, that national insurance rise and the new levy being introduced represented a tax rise that falls directly on working people and their jobs, which is why we opposed the progress of that Act.
Clause 3 sets the default rates and savings rates of income tax for the tax year 2022-23. Subsection (1) provides for a basic default rate of 20%, a higher rate of 40% and an additional rate of 45%. Subsection (2) provides for savings rates on income tax at the same rates as the default: 20% for basic, 40% for higher and 45% for additional. Those rates match the rates of earned income, and we will not oppose the clause.
Clause 5 freezes the starting rate limit for savings in the tax year 2022-23 at £5,000. As it is not a devolved matter, the freeze applies across the United Kingdom. The starting rate for savings can apply to an individual’s taxable savings income, such as interest on bank or building society deposits. The extent to which an individual’s savings income is liable to tax at the starting rates for savings rather than the basic rate of income tax depends on the total of their non-savings income, including income from employment, profits from self-employment and pensions income. If an individual’s non-savings income is more than their personal allowance and exceeds the starting rate limit for savings, the starting rate is not available for that tax year. Where an individual’s non-savings income in a tax year is less than the starting rate limit, their savings income is taxable at the starting rate up to that limit.
Income tax is charged at the 0% starting rate for savings rather than the basic rate of income tax on that element of an individual’s income up to the starting rate for savings income. The clause sets the starting rate limit for savings for 2022-23 at £5,000, but it does not override section 21 of the Income Tax Act 2007 in relation to the starting rate limit for savings for 2022-23. We know that the freeze on the limit is taking place in the context of a rising rate of inflation, which will have an impact on savers in real terms. In her reply, I would be grateful if the Minister explained what assessment the Treasury has made of those who will be affected by the freeze.
Lucy Frazer
I will make a couple of points in response. First, the hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned the tax burden rising; he will know that we are still in the midst of a pandemic and that the Government have spent £400 billion to ensure that public services, particularly the NHS, get the money they need. He will know why we are introducing a rise in national insurance contributions for the first time: to fix social care. He asked me about savings and those on the lowest incomes. The Government have raised the personal allowance by nearly 50% in real terms in the last decade. It is the highest basic personal tax allowance of all countries in the G20, and remains one of the most generous internationally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2, 3 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Liability of Scheme Administrator for Annual Allowance Charge
James Murray
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 9, page 5, line 20, leave out “6 years” and insert “5 years and 9 months”
James Murray
Clause 9 relates to the liability of insurance scheme administrators for the scheme’s annual allowance charge. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the clause and our amendment to it. The clause amends the period within which an individual can give notice to their pension scheme administrator to pay the annual allowance charge of previous tax years, using a system known as “mandatory scheme pays”.
The clause also amends the period within which a scheme administrator must provide information about and account for an amount of the annual allowance charge. As we know, mandatory scheme pays is the process that helps an individual pay their annual allowance charge liabilities for a current tax year when certain conditions are met. The individual elects for their pension scheme administrator to be jointly liable for their annual allowance tax charge, in return for an actuarial reduction in the value of their pension pot.
The annual allowance is the maximum amount of tax relieved pension savings that an individual can build up during a tax year. Where an individual exceeds the maximum amount of tax relieved pension savings, they will be liable to a tax charge on the excess amount. That tax charge recoups the excess tax relief that the individual has already received on their pension savings. For mandatory scheme pays, the annual allowance charge must exceed £2,000, and the individual’s pension input amount for that pension scheme must exceed the £40,000 annual allowance.
The clause will enable more individuals who meet the conditions to benefit from the mandatory scheme pays facilities because the measure applies to all individuals that receive a retrospective amendment to their pension input amount for the previous tax year. This is a measure we broadly support—the simplification of a relatively complex tax rule is a good thing both for the pension contributors and for those who hitherto had to disentangle its complexity.
However, we would like to raise a point with the Minister; we have tabled amendment 11 as a probing amendment with that in mind. Amendment 11 would affect clause 9, page 5, line 20, by leaving out “6 years” and inserting “5 years and 9 months”. We have tabled the amendment out of concerns drawn to our attention by the Chartered Institute of Taxation about the hard stop deadline being introduced for notices under section 237B of the Finance Act 2004. Clause 9 part 3 introduces a new section
“237BA Time limit for notices under section 237B”.
Subsections (4)(b) and 5(b) provide for a hard stop deadline of
“the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the end of the tax year in question”
for both the scheme administrator providing an individual with information about a change to their pension input and output and the individual member giving notice to the scheme administrator to pay the annual allowance charge through scheme pays.
The result of the two subsections is that it is possible for the scheme administrator to issue a statement with a change to the pension input amount in line with the legislation after, say, five years, 11 months and 30 days, meaning that the member would have just one day to make the scheme pays election and give notice to the scheme administrator that they want to do so. That is clearly an unreasonable timeframe for the member, so our amendment suggests one possible way of making sure the scheme member is given fair warning.
Our amendment proposes a ring-fenced three-month period during which the member would have time to process and make arrangements for a scheme pays election and to give notice to the scheme administrator. I hope we can agree that such an approach would simply allow members some protection against unreasonable circumstances that could arise. We will not push the amendment to a vote, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the points it raises in her reply.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 9 extends the reporting and payment deadlines so that an individual can ask their pension scheme to settle their annual allowance tax charge of £2,000 or more from a previous tax year by reducing their future pension benefits in a process known as scheme pays. The annual allowance limits the amount of UK tax relieved pension savings that an individual can benefit from in the tax year. If an individual’s pension savings exceed the annual allowance, a tax charge is applied. The tax charge recoups the excess tax relief that the individual has already received.
Scheme pays was introduced to help individuals pay an annual allowance charge in their current tax year where certain conditions are met. The unlawful age discrimination found in the 2015 public sector pension reform known as McCloud, which I will come on to in clause 11, highlighted a need for scheme pays to be available also for previous tax years from when an annual allowance tax charge arises. The changes made by clause 9 extend the date by which an individual can ask their pension scheme to pay an amount of their annual allowance tax charge. That means that where the charge arises because of a change of facts and the charge is £2,000 or more, the scheme pays facility is now another option for the individual to pay their tax charge.
The changes made by clause 9 also extend the date by which the pension scheme administrator must report and pay an annual allowance tax charge to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs using the accounting tax return. The extended date applies where the charge has arisen because of a change of facts about an individual’s pension savings. The date for reporting and paying the charge relates to when the scheme administrator is notified of the charge by the individual, following a change of facts rather than a fixed period after the end of the tax year. That means that the scheme pays facility is now available to individuals for their annual allowance tax charge from an earlier tax year.
Amendment 11 seeks to reduce the relevant time for a scheme to notify individuals from six years to five years and nine months. Unfortunately, that would mean that if an individual were notified more than five years and nine months after the tax year, scheme pays would not be available. The individual would, however, still be liable to the tax charge, leaving them to pay it out of their own pocket. I therefore urge the Committee to reject amendment 11.
In summary, clause 9 provides for scheme pays to be an option for individuals to have their pension scheme pay their annual allowance tax charge for a previous tax year where the conditions are met.
James Murray
I recognise that the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, although I would have welcomed a reassurance that she would take the principle behind the amendment away, discuss it with her officials and perhaps report back to the Committee at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Increase of normal minimum pension age
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 10 makes changes to increase the normal minimum pension age to 57. It also establishes a protection regime, which will enable some individuals to continue to access their pension before the age of 57 without any adverse tax impacts. The normal minimum pension age is the age at which most savers can access their pension without incurring an unauthorised payment tax charge. The coalition Government announced in 2014 that the normal minimum pension age would rise to 57 in 2028, reflecting long-term trends in longevity and changing expectations of how long we will remain in work and in retirement.
Clause 10 legislates to increase the normal minimum pension age to 57 on 6 April 2028. That increase will not apply to members of the police, firefighters, or armed forces public service pension schemes, who will receive protected pension ages to reflect the special nature of their work. Those who have an unqualified right in their scheme rules to take their pension before age 57 will also receive protected pension ages. Those who made a substantive request to transfer their pension before 4 November 2021 will still be able to complete their transfer into a pension scheme that already offered unqualified rights to a pension below age 57 and get a protected pension age.
That is a shorter window during which pension scheme members can transfer their pension to keep a protected pension age than was initially published in the summer. The Government listened carefully to stakeholder concerns that a longer window could have adverse impacts on the pensions market. The shorter window still delivers the original policy intent, so that those who were in the process of transferring their pension when the protection regime was first announced do not lose their protected pension age. Closing the window without prior notice avoided unnecessary turbulence in the pensions market and helped to protect consumers.
Those with protected pension ages will be able to access their pension benefits before age 57 without incurring an unauthorised payment tax charge. A protected pension age is specific to an individual as a member of a particular scheme. If an individual has a protected pension age in one scheme, they will not automatically have a protected pension age in another scheme: that would depend on the second scheme’s rules. Increasing the normal minimum pension age to 57 in 2028 reflects the principle that the normal minimum pension age should be set 10 years below the state pension age. The protection regime balances the need for fairness to pension savers with simplicity for pension providers. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 10 relates to the increase of the normal pension age to 57 from 6 April 2028. The stated intention of the clause is to protect members of the registered pension schemes who, before 4 November 2021, had a right to take their entitlement to benefit under those schemes at or before the existing normal minimum pension age. It exempts members of certain uniformed service pension schemes from the increase, and it introduces new block and individual transfer rules specific to the new protection framework in order to reduce the restrictions on retaining a protected pension age following a transfer. The UK has a long tradition of protecting and rewarding those who have served their country. It is therefore right that we support clause 10, as it provides that protection by safeguarding recipients’ right to retain entitlement to benefits when transferring schemes.
We note, however, that the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has concerns about the transitional arrangements relating to the clause. Paragraph 28 of the Government’s explanatory note regarding this clause states:
“There may be some transitional issues. For example, an individual who does not have a protected pension age and at 5 April 2028 will have reached age 55 and has started but not completed the process of taking pension savings before the change in normal minimum pension age. The government will provide further advice on the proposed transitional arrangements and provisions in due course.”
That raises concerns about when further advice on the proposed transitional arrangements will be made available, as well as questions about the extent to which that advice will be effectively communicated to the people concerned.
It is vital that people have full detail of any transitional provisions well before the increase to age 57 comes into effect; otherwise, there is a risk that people reaching age 55 in the run-up to 6 April 2028 will make decisions without knowing all they need to know. For example, an individual could cash in a pension in full and put the money in the bank so as to crystallise access to those funds, which may well leave them worse off in the long term, having likely incurred a large tax liability on the encashment and potentially affected their means-tested benefit entitlement. They might also have triggered the money purchase annual allowance, therefore restricting—perhaps unwittingly—their ability to make further contributions. In light of this, will the Minister clarify precisely when “due course” is, in relation to the Government’s further advice regarding the proposed transitional arrangement for the provisions? Will she also confirm what measures the Government will take to make sure that people are aware of the advice when it is finalised?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This issue speaks to what I and my colleagues have often asked for in Finance Bills—that is, to be able to take evidence. We have received some very good written evidence from different organisations—I thank Scottish Widows, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group and the Chartered Institute of Taxation for sending evidence to the Committee—but some of the detail requires a bit more interrogation. It would be useful if Finance Bill Committees were able to take evidence on the detail.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ealing North said. Saying that something will happen in due course is not a great reassurance to many people. We have seen the terrible mess that the Government left for the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality—who did not receive enough notice of state pension age changes. As a result, many have lost out on what they expected to happen when they reached retirement.
In its evidence, Scottish Widows makes the point well:
“Simplicity is a key driver of engagement with pensions… The average person has 11 jobs in their lifetime—with auto enrolment that could mean them having at least 11 pension pots. Some of these will now be accessible at age 55, others at 57.”
It also notes that
“some customers may have different pension ages within the same pension pot.”
That is not the simplicity that people really need when it comes to planning for their retirement.
There is a range of views. Scottish Widows appears to welcome the changes. The Chartered Institute of Taxation is not convinced that a change to the normal minimum pension age is necessary or desirable. What ought to be at the centre of this discussion is the people who will claim that pension. They need the clearest possible advice and the longest possible amount of notice in order to plan. I ask for clarity from the Government. It is just not acceptable to come before the Committee today without a date and say, “in due course”. People need to be able to plan for one of the most important events in their lives.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Ealing North both mentioned the transitional arrangements and notice. They are right to identify that the Government have acknowledged the importance of establishing a clear position on the transitional arrangements and that we have said that we will provide further advice on the proposed transitional arrangements and provisions in due course. That remains the position, but I am very happy to keep both Members updated as we progress.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a point about evidence. I know she is interested in the taking of oral evidence—she has made that point before. There is, of course, a standard process on the measures in the Finance Bill. That process involves a huge amount of consultation, with particular milestones, including engagement with industry and stakeholders, often a consultation, and sometimes draft legislation that then comes forward into the Finance Bill. That is the way the Finance Bill operates.
The hon. Member mentioned the WASPI women, which I know many hon. Members from all parties feel strongly about. As she will know, it was decided 25 years ago to make the state pension age the same for men and women in what was then a long overdue reform.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Public service pension schemes: rectification of unlawful discrimination
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
The clause allows for regulations to be made to address the tax impacts of the remedy to the unlawful age discrimination that arose from the 2015 public service pension reforms. The Government reformed most public service pensions in 2015, but excluded those closest to retirement from the reforms. The court found that that exclusion amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of age. That is known as the McCloud case.
Following consultation, the Government are introducing a remedy to rectify that discrimination, which affects about 3 million people. The remedy includes options for them to choose at retirement what type of pension rights they will receive for the remedy period. The remedy period covers the years between 2015 and 2022, with an exception for the judiciary, who will instead make their choice in 2022. That was decided following consultation with the sector.
Most of the legislation required to implement the remedy is contained in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill, which is progressing through the Commons. However, where those changes mean that the Government will provide individuals with different historical pension rights, changes to pension tax legislation are also required. The purpose of clause 11 is therefore to allow the Government to make regulations to put the individual, as far as possible, in the tax position in which they would have been had the discrimination never happened. It also ensures that regulations can be put in place to address the tax impacts of the public service pensions remedy on the employers and those responsible for the tax affairs of the pension schemes.
I mentioned that the legislation implementing the remedy is going through Parliament. Once it is finalised, the Government will use the power in clause 11 to draft regulations that will provide for the tax changes needed as part of our move to rectify the discrimination. For example, the Government will use the power to ensure that compensation payments payable as a result of the remedy can be made tax free, as they are calculated on that basis under the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill.
The Government will also use the power in clause 11 to ensure that pensions and lump sums payable as a result of the remedy that would have been authorised payments had they been made at the relevant time are treated as meeting the conditions to be authorised. One further example is that members may choose benefits for the period 2015 to 2022 that lead to a significant increase in their pension accrual in a single tax year. Without a change to legislation, that could result in individuals paying more tax than if the pension that they ultimately chose had accrued annually.
The Government will use the power in clause 11 to make good the tax treatment of those affected by the remedy set out in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill. Regulations made under the power will ensure that, broadly, those affected will be in the tax position that they would have been in had they not suffered discrimination. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
As we have heard from the Minister, clause 11 relates to public service pension schemes and the rectification of unlawful discrimination. It provides the Treasury with the power to make regulations to address the tax impacts that arise in consequence to or in connection with the rectification of unlawful discrimination set out in part 1 of what is expected to become the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. Those changes will have effect on or after 6 April 2022, and are capable of having retrospective effect.
As we are aware, when reformed public service pension schemes were introduced in 2014-15, the Government agreed, following discussions with trade unions, to allow active members of pre-existing public service pension schemes who were close to retirement to remain in those schemes, rather than requiring them to start to accrue pension benefits in a new scheme. That was called transitional protection. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found in what is known as the McCloud judgment that the transitional protection unlawfully discriminated against younger members of the judicial and firefighter pension schemes, and gave rise to indirect sex and race discrimination.
On 15 July 2019, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made a written ministerial statement setting out that the Government considered that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had implications for all public service pension schemes, and planned to introduce proposals to remedy the discrimination across the schemes. On 19 July 2021, the Government introduced the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill. The provisions of part 1 of that Bill will apply retrospectively, to provide a remedy for the discrimination. The rectification affects individuals who were members of a public service pension scheme on or before 31 March 2012 and at any time between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022, and so had pensionable service during that time.
Under chapter 1 of part 1 of Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill, individuals who were moved to a new scheme will be retrospectively returned to their previous scheme for the period of remediable service. Any member with remediable service will be able to choose to receive pension scheme benefits based on the rules of either the legacy scheme or the new scheme, although for most individuals there will be no significant change in the tax position. The legislation will provide the Treasury with the power to make regulations that make the necessary changes to tax legislation so that, as far as possible, individuals can be put in the position in which they would have been, absent the discrimination. We will therefore not oppose the clause.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s indication that he will not oppose the clause, and have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Structures and buildings allowances: allowance statements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 13 makes provisions to improve the operation of the structures and buildings allowances for taxpayers. The clause will require relevant allowance statements to include the date that qualifying expenditure is incurred or treated as incurred in cases where its absence could prevent future owners of an asset from claiming the full amount that they are entitled to.
The SBA allows companies to reduce their taxable profits each year by 3% on the cost of construction, acquisition, renovation or conversion of non-residential buildings and structures. The investment is fully relieved after 33 and a third years. A business must hold a valid allowance statement to claim SBA. That document records information such as the relevant building or structure and the amount of qualifying expenditure incurred. It is passed on to subsequent owners to ensure the right records are kept for an asset.
The allowance period is the period over which SBA can be claimed, and it typically begins on the date when the structure or building is first brought into non-residential use. However, in cases where expenditure is incurred or treated as incurred after non-residential use has commenced, the allowance period will begin from that later date. That may be the case where renovation work is being carried out in a multistorey office building and the first tenants move in to one floor of the office building even though some construction continues on a different floor.
Without the inclusion of that date on the allowance statement, subsequent owners of a structure or building may not claim all the relief they are entitled to. Instead, they may reasonably assume that the allowance period began on the day the asset was first brought into non-residential use, not the date of the subsequent expenditure. Clarity for businesses on the remaining length of the allowance period for each portion of expenditure means they will be able to claim the full relief to which they are entitled.
The changes made by clause 13 are wholly relieving and will only benefit firms towards the end of the allowance period of 33 and a third years. The measure will apply across the UK. The clause will be effective for qualifying expenditure incurred or treated as incurred on or after the date of Royal Assent of the Bill. Therefore, it will not be retrospective and will not impact allowance statements already in existence. Clause 13 ensures that, in future, businesses can claim the full tax relief to which they are entitled.
James Murray
Clause 13 concerns the structures and buildings allowance statements. As we heard, it introduces a new requirement for allowance statements to include the date that qualifying expenditure is incurred or treated as incurred when that is later than the date on which the building or structure was first brought into non-residential use. The clause has effects for qualifying expenditure incurred or treated as incurred on or after the date of Royal Assent.
As we know, SBAs are a capital allowance available for the cost of constructing, renovating, converting or acquiring non-residential structures and buildings. When SBAs were first introduced, from 29 October 2018, the allowances were given at 2% per annum of qualifying expenditure on a straight-line basis. That rate was increased to 3% per annum with effect from April 2020. The period over which SBAs are available to be claimed is known as the allowance period.
A business must hold an allowance statement to claim SBAs, which includes certain details such as the date the asset is first brought into non-residential use. As we heard, that is normally the date that the SBA’s allowance period of 33 and a third years commences. However, where qualifying expenditure is incurred after the asset is brought into non-residential use, the allowance period starts on a later date. The new paragraph inserted by the clause adds an additional requirement to record that later date on the allowance statement, where relevant, to ensure the correct amount of SBAs may be claimed over the allowance period. The minor amendment to section 270IA(4)(b) of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 ensures consistency with the new paragraph.
We do not oppose the clause, as it is important to ensure the correct amount of SBA is claimed over the correct time to avoid unnecessary hardship or disruption.
Lucy Frazer
I am happy that the hon. Gentleman recognises that this is a clause worthy of Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Qualifying Asset Holding Companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 1 to 6.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 14 and schedule 2 introduce a new regime for the taxation of certain asset-holding companies being used by funds and institutional investors to make their investments. Asset management firms manage the savings and pensions of millions of UK citizens. The majority of UK households use an asset manager’s services, either directly or indirectly, for example through their workplace pensions. The reforms have been developed following extensive consultation as part of the wider review of the UK funds regime announced at Budget 2020. A key objective of the review is to consider reforms to enhance the UK’s competitiveness as a location for asset management and investment funds. It is a well-established principle that investors in funds should be taxed broadly as if they had invested directly in the underlying assets.
The new qualifying asset holding companies regime seeks to ensure that, where intermediate holding companies are used to facilitate the flow of capital, income and gains between investments and investors, the tax they pay is proportionate to the limited activities that they perform. With that policy objective in mind, the regime comprises a number of features, including a gains exemption for the disposal of certain shares and overseas property; specific rules where investment returns are passed to investors; withholding tax removed from payments of interest; and exempting repurchases of share and loan capital from stamp tax charges.
The new regime also contains safeguards. For example, the existing taxation of profits from trading activities, UK land and intangibles will not be affected. Furthermore, the new regime will be available only in certain circumstances—to prescribe investment arrangements involving diversified investment funds, charities, long-term insurance business, sovereign immune entities, certain pension schemes and public bodies.
Government amendments 1 to 6 seek to address three technical points better to reflect the original policy intention of the new regime and to ensure consistency with wider tax rules. Those include refinements to the eligibility criteria and ensuring that they are applied consistently. They follow engagement with the industry on the legislation since the introduction of the Finance Bill.
The clause introduces a new regime for qualifying asset holding companies from April 2022 that will build on the UK’s strengths as an asset management hub by enhancing the attractiveness of the UK as a location for the establishment of asset holding companies. I recommend that the clause and schedule 2 form part of the Bill.
James Murray
As we have heard, the clause concerns qualifying asset holding companies, and sits alongside schedule 2. The aim of the clause, we understand, is to recognise certain circumstances where intermediate holding companies are used only to facilitate the flow of capital, income and gains between investors and underlying investments to tax investors, broadly as if they had invested in the underlying assets, and to enable the intermediate holding companies to pay tax that is proportionate to the activities they perform.
At Budget 2020, the Government announced that they would carry out a review of the UK funds regime, covering tax and relevant areas of regulation. The review started with a consultation on the tax treatment of asset holding companies in alternative fund structures, also published at Budget 2020. The Government responded to that consultation in December 2020, launching a second-stage consultation on the detailed design features of a new regime for asset holding companies. The Government’s response to that consultation was published on 20 July 2021.
The clause and schedule 2 introduce the new regime. We understand that the purpose of the measures is to deliver a proportionate and internationally competitive tax regime for qualifying asset holding companies that will remove barriers to the establishment of such companies in the UK. The Government have said that the new regime will include the following key features: eligibility criteria to limit access to the intended users; tax rules to limit the qualifying asset holding company’s tax liability to an amount that is commensurate with its role; and rules for UK investors to ensure that they are taxed so far as possible as if they had invested in the underlying assets directly.
We understand that the eligibility criteria will ensure that the asset holding companies may only be used as part of investment structures where funds are managed for the benefit of a broad pool of investors or beneficiaries. An asset holding company cannot carry out other activities, including trading, to any substantial extent. The tax benefits arising from asset holding company status apply only in relation to qualifying investment activity. The tax treatment of any limited trading activity or any non-qualifying investment activity that is carried on by an asset holding company will not be affected by the company’s status as an asset holding company.
We note that the Government have tabled six amendments to schedule 2, which accompanies the clause. Amendments 1 and 2 seek to pin down the definition of investment management profit-sharing arrangements. According to the explanatory statement, that is to ensure that the legislation is capable of encompassing arrangements in which an entitlement to profits arising in connection with the provision of investment management services by an investment manager arises to another person, such as a company or a trust.
Amendments 3 and 6 provide that a fund that is 70% controlled by category A investors meets the diversity of ownership condition. Amendment 4 seeks to allow existing funds marketed before the commencement of the qualifying asset holding company regime to be treated as meeting regulation 75(2) of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 if certain information has been produced by the fund and has been made available to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Amendment 5 modifies the way in which the interests of creditors are accounted for in determining whether a fund is closed. We will not be opposing clause 14 or the Government’s amendments to it.
Alison Thewliss
I am a wee bit concerned that the Government have brought these amendments so late in the day. I appreciate that they have brought them now, rather than seeking to come back and amend legislation further down the road. That is something, I suppose. Does the Minister intend to review this legislation, and on what timescale? I am a wee bit worried about the letter we received yesterday, which said that, as originally drafted, the legislation includes some inconsistencies with wider tax rules and within the regime’s eligibility criteria. Given those worries and these amendments, I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government are going to keep an eye on this legislation to make sure that it is not exploited or used in the way that it is not intended to be. We need to make sure that people are paying the tax that they ought to be and that the legislation is not used as some kind of dodge.
Lucy Frazer
I welcome the lack of opposition to these clauses, which will support UK growth, by the hon. Member for Ealing North. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a point about the fact that the Government have made amendments late in the day. I reassure her that they are technical changes. Following engagement with the industry since the introduction of the Finance Bill, the amendments required were pointed out to us and, therefore, it is important that we include the amendments in the Bill. We keep all legislation under review. We are very concerned, as the hon. Member will have seen from other measures in the Bill, about tackling tax avoidance, so we will keep an eye out for any misuse of the measures. I commend the amendments and clause 14 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 1, in schedule 2, page 97, line 24, leave out “performing investment management services”.
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments designed to secure that the definition of investment management profit-sharing arrangements is capable of encompassing arrangements where an entitlement to profits arising in connection with the provision of investment management services by an investment manager arises to another person (such as a company or a trust).
Amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 97, line 25, leave out from “profits of” to end of line 26 and insert
“investments in connection with the provision of investment management services in relation to those investments.”
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments designed to secure that the definition of investment management profit-sharing arrangements is capable of encompassing arrangements where an entitlement to profits arising in connection with the provision of investment management services by an investment manager arises to another person (such as a company or a trust).
Amendment 3, in schedule 2, page 99, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) the fund is 70% controlled by category A investors.”
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments that provide that a fund that is 70% controlled by category A investors meets the diversity of ownership condition.
Amendment 4, in schedule 2, page 99, line 42, leave out “6 April 2020” and insert “1 April 2022”.
This amendment will allow existing funds marketed before the commencement of the QAHC regime to be treated as meeting regulation 75(2) of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 if certain information has been produced by the fund and has been made available to HMRC.
Amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 100, line 19, at end insert ‘—
(i) as if in subsection (4) of section 450 of that Act, the reference to a loan creditor were to a creditor of the fund in respect of a normal commercial loan (within the meaning it has in paragraph 3),
(ii) as if in that subsection, at the end there were inserted “and for the purposes of subsection (3)(d)”, and
(iii)’
This amendment modifies the way in which the interests of creditors are accounted for in determining whether a fund is “close”.
Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 100, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
“(6) A fund is 70% controlled by category A investors if a category A investor, or more than one category A investor between them, directly or indirectly possesses—
(a) 70% or more of the voting power in the fund or, in the case of a fund that is not a body corporate, an equivalent ability to control the fund,
(b) so much of the fund as would, on the assumption that the whole of the income of the fund were distributed among persons with interests in the fund, entitle that investor or those investors to receive 70% or more of the amount so distributed, and
(c) such rights as would entitle that investor or those investors, in the event of the winding up of the fund or in any other circumstances, to receive 70% or more of the assets of the fund which would then be available for distribution among persons with interests in it.
(6A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)—
(a) a category A investor indirectly possesses something if the investor possesses it through a body corporate or a series of bodies corporate;
(b) the interests of the participants in a category A investor that is a collective investment scheme that is transparent (within the meaning given by paragraph 6(7)) are to be treated as interests of the investor (instead of its participants) if that investor meets the diversity of ownership condition as a result of sub-paragraph (2)(a);
(c) in determining, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(b) or (c), proportions of income or assets persons with an interest in the fund would be entitled to, ignore any interest any person has as a creditor of the fund in respect of a normal commercial loan (within the meaning it has in paragraph 3);
(d) paragraphs 5(5) and 6(5) and (6) apply for the purposes of determining the interests of persons in a fund as they apply for the purposes of determining relevant interests in a QAHC.
(6B) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (5)(a)(i) and (6A)(c), references to a creditor of a fund are to be treated, in the case of a fund that is a partnership, as not including any creditor who is a partner of that fund.” —(Lucy Frazer.)
This amendment is one of a pair of amendments that provide that a fund that is 70% controlled by category A investors meets the diversity of ownership condition.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15
Real Estate Investment Trusts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 15 makes targeted changes to the tax rules for real estate investment trusts. These changes alleviate certain constraints and administrative burdens to enhance the attractiveness of the UK’s real estate investment trust regime for real estate investment.
A real estate investment trust, or REIT, is a collective vehicle that allows investors to obtain broadly similar returns from an investment in property as they would have had had they invested directly, through a specific set of tax rules. This regime has proved popular since its introduction in 2006, with around 100 UK REITs currently established. However, recent consultations issued as part of the Government’s review of the UK funds regime have identified a number of areas where the REIT regime could be reformed to remove unnecessary barriers and make it more competitive. The Government are now acting to amend these areas of their regime to make the UK a more attractive location for holding real estate assets.
The changes to the REITs tax rules will reform a number of areas. They will remove some administrative and cost burdens for existing UK REITs and remove some barriers to entry, widening the scope of businesses able to elect to be a UK REIT. In particular, the changes will remove the requirement for REIT shares to be admitted to trading on a recognised stock exchange where institutional investors hold at least 70% of the ordinary share capital. They will amend the definition of an overseas equivalent of a UK REIT to allow it to be met by companies and jurisdictions without an equivalent regime and remove the “holder of excessive rights” charge, where property income distributions are paid to investors entitled to receive them without deduction of withholding tax.
Finally, the changes will introduce a new, simplified balance of business test, which are the rules requiring that at least 75% of the rights, profits and assets relate to the property rental business, and exclude certain activities relating to the planning obligations from the test.
The targeted changes introduced by the clause and schedule will make the existing REITs regime more attractive, consistent with the Government’s objective for the review of the UK funds regime. The changes will come into force on 1 April 2022.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 15 and schedule 3 concern real estate investment trusts. The clause and schedule amend the REIT rules and, as the Government have said, seek to remove superfluous restraints and administrative burdens. That includes the removal of the requirement for REIT shares to be admitted to trading in certain circumstances; the amendment of the definition of an overseas equivalent of a UK REIT; the amendment of the “holder of excessive rights” charge to corporation tax; and changes to the rules which ensure that a REIT’s business is primarily focused on its property rental business. The changes take effect from 1 April 2022.
A REIT is a company through which investors can invest in real estate directly. Specific tax rules for UK REITs were introduced in the Finance Act 2006. The regime has proved popular, and the number of UK REITs steadily increased to 92, as of June 2021. Subject to meeting certain relevant conditions, the company may notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that it is to be treated as a UK REIT. Its property rental profits and gains are then, in broad terms, treated as exempt from corporation tax, subject to ongoing conditions such as the requirement to distribute 90% of its exempt profits as property income distributions, which are in turn treated as property rental income in investors’ hands.
At Budget 2020, the Treasury launched a consultation on the tax treatment of asset holding companies, which included questions about investments in real estate. Responses to the consultation led to the inclusion of proposals for changes to the REIT regime in a second consultation on asset holding companies, which was launched in December 2020. The schedule introduces those changes, which are intended to remove restrictions and administrative burdens where they are no longer necessary. For that reason, we do not oppose the clause or schedule.
Alison Thewliss
I have a question about transparency and how the regime will interact with the Government’s draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill. I remember some discussion about people moving ownership to trusts and other things, but I am not quite clear how this interacts with that work on transparency.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing North for indicating that he will not oppose this aspect of the Bill. As he has said, the regime is very popular. I am very happy to get back to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on her particular question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 16
Film tax relief: films produced to be television programmes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Review of effectiveness of film tax relief provisions of Act and of potential for misuse—
“(1) The Government must publish, within six months of this Act coming into force, a report on the effectiveness of the provisions of section 16 of this Act.
(2) This review must include an assessment of the extent of, and potential for, misuse of the relief provided in section 16.
(3) The assessment under subsection (2) must include an evaluation of the relevance of the experience of misuse of existing film tax relief.
(4) The evaluation provided for in subsection (3) must include—
(a) the—
(i) total number of enforcement actions, and
(ii) number of successful enforcement actions taken against companies suspected of misusing film tax relief,
(b) the actions taken against the promoters of schemes designed to enable misuse of film tax relief, and
(c) a statement as to the plans the Government has for further action against misuse of film tax relief.”
This new clause would require a review of the effectiveness of the provisions in section 16. This review would include assessing actual and potential misuse of the relief, drawing on experience of the present film tax relief regime.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 16 makes changes to the film tax relief to give added flexibility to film producers who might decide to change their distribution method. The Government are ensuring that film producers can claim the film tax relief for films that are broadcast or streamed rather than released in cinemas, provided that the film meets the criteria for high-end television tax relief.
There is an imbalance between release for film and TV where some films that are no longer intended for a cinematic release and switch to streaming lose eligibility for tax relief. The distribution landscape has changed significantly since the introduction of these reliefs, and more films are released directly to video on demand services. This trend has accelerated recently due to the covid pandemic.
The changes made by the clause to the film tax relief will provide greater certainty for producers, ensuring that relief is not lost should a company decide to change its distribution method. This will help ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to invest and encourage the production of culturally British films.
New clause 14 would require the Government to review the effectiveness and potential misuse of clause 16 within six months of the Act coming into force, and would include within it an evaluation of misuse of the film tax relief. That evaluation would include the total number of enforcement actions, and the number of successful enforcement actions, taken against the companies suspected of misusing film tax relief.
The Government oppose the new clause on the basis that it is not necessary, as the Government are already monitoring and evaluating the success of their tax reliefs. This follows the structured approach to evaluating tax reliefs that HMRC began in October 2020 as a general good practice policy approach. HRMC has contracted an independent research agency to evaluate the screen tax reliefs, including film tax relief and high-end television tax relief. That evaluation aims to provide a thorough and independent evaluation of the reliefs, including their effect on employment and business growth. The impact of clause 16 will be noted as part of the evaluation, which is expected to be published next year, although that evaluation will not cover misuse of the relief. The requirement in new clause 14 that a review of clause 16 be published in six months is also impractical, because the measure only comes into effect for accounting periods ending on or after 1 April 2022. It is likely to be at least a year before companies make claims in relation to clause 16, and even longer before enforcement action is taken.
It is also worth noting that HMRC is taking actions to clamp down on the abuses that the new clause is concerned about. The current film tax relief was introduced in 2007 to replace film partnership reliefs. It is a corporate relief, and now focuses on film producers, not on investing partnerships. HMRC continues to settle and litigate historic schemes related to the old film partnership reliefs, but the current regime has not been subject to the same abuse, and has had a positive reputation in the industry.
The corporate film tax relief has proved very successful at attracting inward investment. It is highly popular with film-makers, and has contributed to making the UK a top film-making destination. This new relief is well targeted and has not been subject to abuse like the previous scheme. The change made by clause 16 is therefore to support businesses that meet the qualifying criteria for the relief, and while HMRC will remain vigilant regarding any emerging risks, we do not believe that clause 16 poses any significant additional risk. Further, reviews and disclosure of enforcement action statistics as requested by the new clause would not be useful. As such, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
The changes made by clause 16 will help ensure that the film tax relief continues to support the UK’s thriving film-making scene. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 16 allows films to remain eligible for film tax relief even if those films are no longer intended for theatrical release, provided they are intended for broadcast and meet the four conditions required for high-end television tax relief. The clause is effective for accounting periods ending on or after 1 April 2022. We do not oppose measures that support the entertainment and hospitality industry, particularly given the ongoing challenges brought about by the covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, the measures contained in clause 16 are, in themselves, sensible and appropriate.
More widely, though, we are aware that film tax relief was introduced by the Finance Act 2006, and applied only to films intended to receive theatrical release. That intention must be met at the end of every accounting period. Similarly, high-end television tax relief was introduced by the Finance Act 2013, and allows companies to claim relief on television programmes so long as they meet certain conditions.
The intention to broadcast must be met at the outset of production activities, and is then treated as being met for the remainder of production activities, regardless of the intention for the programme. That raises the possibility that a film that was initially intended for theatrical release may miss out on either relief if the intention changes part-way through production, and it is instead planned to have a television release. This is the case even when such a film would have been eligible for television tax relief if the decision had been made at the very start of production activities. Clause 16 ensures that where a film would have been eligible for high-end television tax relief if not for the date that the broadcast intention was decided on, it will not miss out on that relief, but will be eligible to claim it.
I am sure that the measures in this clause will provide welcome relief to those in the film industry. However, we would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the operation of the film tax relief more widely, which is a debate that our new clause 14 seeks to encourage. Looking back briefly to 2014, the Public Accounts Committee reported on the misuse of tax relief, including the film tax relief, to which it made explicit reference. The report found:
“There is a lack of transparency and accountability for tax reliefs and no adequate system of control, following their introduction….Tax expenditures are often alternatives to spending programmes, but are not managed or evaluated as closely…The Departments do not keep Parliament adequately informed of changes in the costs of reliefs…The Departments are unable to cope with the demands of an increasingly complex tax system, including tax reliefs…The Departments do not respond promptly to unexpected increases in the costs of tax reliefs. Data on movements in the cost of reliefs is not available until tax returns are received, and HMRC takes time to react when it notices a cost increase, as it wants to ensure its response is appropriate. However, a longer elapsed time in reacting to an increase in the cost of a tax relief raises the total amount of public money at risk. In the case of film tax relief, it took ten years to resolve the problems and cost over £2 billion.”
I am aware that the operation of the film tax relief has been changed in recent years, but it is important to ensure that the tax relief continues to be effective. We need the Government to reassure us that they are taking adequate action against the possible misuse of tax reliefs. With that in mind, we tabled new clause 14, which would require the Government to include an assessment of the extent of, and potential for, misuse of the relief provided in clause 16. That assessment must also include an evaluation of the misuse of existing film tax relief more widely.
In relation to that wider potential misuse of existing film tax relief, our new clause requires the Government to set out, first, the number of total and successful enforcement actions taken against companies suspected of misusing film tax relief; secondly, a report of what action has been taken against the promoters of schemes designed to enable to misuse of film tax relief; and thirdly, what plans the Government have for further action against the misuse of film tax relief in the future.
The Minister has set out that she will not accept our new clause, but I ask her to commit to a firm timetable for a review of existing film tax relief that would have a similar effect. There are already reports suggesting that the use of film tax relief is increasing. I remind her that the 2014 Public Accounts Committee report said that
“Departments do not respond promptly to unexpected increases in the costs of tax reliefs.”
If the Minister will not commission a review along the lines that we have suggested, I would be grateful if first she could reassure us on the record that she does not believe that there are significant levels of misuse of film tax relief. Following the point that she made earlier, I would be grateful if she could also explain what the timetable is for the publication of the evaluation of film tax relief. If she does not have that to hand, could she write to me before the recess?
Alison Thewliss
I am more than happy to support what the Government are proposing here. Consistency in these tax reliefs is really important to allow businesses to plan. My constituency particularly has a booming TV and film production sector, with the recent announcement of the BBC Studioworks development at Kelvin Hall in my constituency, and an £11.9 million investment, £7.9 million of which is coming from the Scottish Government to invest in the high quality TV and film production in Glasgow.
It is important to acknowledge the wider picture. This is not just about one tax relief; it is about the wider ecosystem. We have lots of independent production companies in Glasgow Central, and more widely in Glasgow, working away and producing high quality stuff. We have post production as well in companies such as Blazing Griffin, which does high-end stuff for the likes of Netflix. However, I would be doing them all a wee bit of a disservice if I did not mention the significance of Channel 4, and the importance of keeping it in its current model and standing away from the plans to privatise it. That model is what supports the wider ecosystem in the city of Glasgow—the model where independent production companies are able to keep their intellectual property and products, and sell them. That allows all the certainty within the sector to continue.
As I said, the issue is not just about this one tax relief; it is about the Government looking at and acknowledging the wider ecosystem that supports independent production within Glasgow. Companies such as Blazing Griffin have pointed out to me that, were it not for Channel 4, we would not have Netflix. One thing in the ecosystem depends on another, and I urge the Government to look at that in the round when it considers such tax reliefs. Where tax reliefs have been withdrawn or changed in the United States, all that happens is that production companies lift and shift, and go elsewhere. We do not want to risk doing that with such changes as those that the Government propose for Channel 4.
Lucy Frazer
I will briefly respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Ealing North. There are four short points: first, I hope the hon. Member has taken some reassurance from the fact that I mentioned that the current regime is not subject to the same abuse as the historic regime. Secondly, I mentioned that we were doing an independent review of reliefs. Thirdly, he asked me for the timing of that project. It started in May 2021, and we expect the project to be finished and to have written a report before the end of March 2022, for publication later in the year.
The hon. Member also mentioned avoidance quite a lot; we are also interested in tackling avoidance, and we will be coming to, later on in this Committee, a whole raft of measures tackling promoters. I am sure that he will welcome those.
Lucy Frazer
Clauses 17 to 22 make a series of changes to the creative industry tax reliefs, in order to support the cultural sector as it recovers from the effects of the pandemic. These changes include temporary rate increases for theatre tax relief, orchestra tax relief, museums and galleries exhibition relief and an extension of the museum and exhibitions tax relief. The changes ensure that reliefs remain targeted, free from abuse and sustainable.
The effects of covid on the creative industries have varied depending on the nature of the medium. Social distancing and wider restrictions have had a particular impact on theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries, as they rely on live performances and exhibitions to generate revenue. Clauses 17 and 21 temporarily double the headline rate of relief for theatre tax relief and museums and galleries exhibition tax relief, from 20% for non-touring productions and 25% for touring productions to 45% and 50%, respectively. From April 2023, the rates will be reduced to 30% and 35%, and they will return to 20% and 25% on 1 April 2024.
Clause 19 temporarily doubles the headline rate of relief for the orchestra tax relief from 27 October 2021, from 25% to 50%, reducing to 35% from 1 April 2023 and returning to 25% on 1 April 2024. The temporary higher rates of relief will provide a further incentive for theatres, museums, galleries and orchestras to put on new productions, exhibitions and concerts over the next two and a half years. This is a tax relief for culture worth almost a quarter of a billion pounds.
Clauses 18 and 20 make changes to theatre tax relief and orchestra tax relief to help clear up areas of legislative ambiguity and reinforce the original policy intent. The changes will apply to any new productions commencing from 1 April 2022. The clarifications are as follows: first, the commercial purpose condition for theatre tax relief and orchestra tax relief will be clarified so that productions must be separately ticketed to be considered as having been performed before a paying audience.
Secondly, the educational purposes condition will clarify that it is the audience that is being educated, not the performers. Thirdly, the legislation clarifies that productions made for training purposes will be excluded. Fourthly, teaching costs incurred by educational establishments, which are not directly related to performances, will be specifically excluded from relief. Finally, the definition of a “dramatic piece” will be clarified, so that to qualify for the relief, productions must contain a story or a series of stories and must have an expected audience of at least five people.
Clause 22 extends the sunset clause of museums and galleries exhibition tax relief from April 2022 to April 2024 in order to give certainty to museums and galleries through the recovery from the effects of the pandemic. The Government will also take steps to prevent abuse or attempted abuse of museums and galleries exhibition relief by clarifying the existing legislation. The clause makes minor changes to clear up areas of legislative ambiguity and reinforce the original policy intent. The changes will apply to any new exhibitions commencing from 1 April 2022.
The first clarification will be to the definition of an exhibition, which will be clarified so that the
“display of an object or work”
cannot be secondary to another activity. Secondly, to prevent private companies that are not museums or galleries from claiming on temporary outdoor sites, it will be clarified that being responsible for an exhibition is not sufficient for a company to qualify as maintaining a museum or gallery. Finally, the Government are relaxing the criteria for qualifying as a primary production company to allow more flexibility for museums and galleries scheduling touring exhibitions.
The changes will help UK theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries bounce back by incentivising new productions over the next two and a half years; continue Government support for charitable companies to put on high-quality museum and gallery exhibitions; and ensure that the relief is targeted and sustainable.
James Murray
Clause 17 will temporarily increase the rate of theatre tax credit for theatrical productions that commence production on or after 27 October 2021. From 27 October 2021 to 31 March 2023, companies will benefit from relief at a rate of 50% or 45% for touring and non-touring productions. From 1 April 2024, the rates of relief will return to the existing levels of 25% and 20% respectively.
Companies qualifying for theatre tax relief can surrender losses in exchange for a payable tax credit. The amount of loss able to be surrendered in a period is dependent on several factors, but will ultimately depend on the amount of core production expenditure that has been incurred in the UK or European Economic Area. A higher rate of relief is also available to theatrical productions that take place at more than one premise and are considered touring productions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how the definition of touring will be applied.
Section 1217K(6) of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 defines touring thus:
“A theatrical production is a ‘touring production’ only if the company intends at the beginning of the production phase—
(a) that it will present performances of the production in 6 or more separate premises, or
(b) that it will present performances of the production in at least two separate premises and that the number of performances will be at least 14.”
Paragraph (b) indicates that if a theatre company puts on 14 performances that were split between two venues—perhaps in the same town, just round the corner from one another—it would be eligible for 5% more tax credits than if it kept all 14 performances in the same venue. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether that is the case.
As we have heard, clause 18 concerns theatrical production tax relief. It amends part 15C of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to clarify several areas of legislative ambiguity relating to eligibility for theatre tax relief in relation to theatrical productions where the production phase will begin on or after 1 April 2022. We understand that the amendments are made to narrow the focus of the legislation and, according to the background of its explanatory note, to
“reinforce the original policy intent”.
Subsection (2) requires the intended audience to number at least five people for a production to be considered a “dramatic production”. It also stipulates that for a dramatic piece to qualify as a dramatic production, it must tell
“a story or a number of related or unrelated stories.”
Subsection (3) adds productions made for training purposes to the list of productions that are not regarded as theatrical and do not qualify for relief.
Subsection (4) amends the commercial purpose condition in section 1217GA of the 2009 Act so that a performance will not meet the condition unless it is separately ticketed and such ticketing is expected to make up a significant proportion of the performance’s earnings. A ticket may cover things besides admission to the performance, so long as such things are incidental to the performance and it is possible to apportion the ticket price between the performance and anything else included in the price. The subsection additionally clarifies that for a performance to meet the commercial purpose condition by being educational, it must be provided mainly to educate the audience.
As we have heard, clause 19 provides a temporary increase to orchestra tax credit. It temporarily increases the rate of orchestra tax relief for concerts or concert series that commence production on or after 27 October 2021. From 27 October 2021 to 31 March 2023, companies will benefit from relief at a rate of 50%. From 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, the rate of relief will be set at 35%. From 1 April 2024, the rate of relief will return to its existing level of 25%.
Companies qualifying for orchestra tax relief can surrender losses in exchange for a payable tax credit. The amount of loss that can be surrendered in a period is dependent on several factors, but ultimately it depends on the amount of core production expenditure that has been incurred in the UK and the European Economic Area. This temporary rate rise is also being introduced to theatre tax relief, in clause 17, and museums and galleries exhibition tax relief in clause 21. It allows companies to claim a larger tax credit and is designed to support the industries as they recover from the adverse economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic.
Orchestral productions are a tremendously important cultural asset in this country, and we are pleased to support the clause, which provides additional support to a cultural industry that has been hit hard by the pandemic. However, will the Minister outline what measures are in place to support musicians of other genres, or who perform in non-orchestral configurations? This is a welcome relief for orchestras, but other musical groups could be left out.
As we have heard, clause 20 pertains to tax relief for orchestras. This clause amends part 15D of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to clarify several areas of legislative ambiguity within orchestra tax relief. These changes have effect in relation to concerts or concert series where the production process begins on or after 1 April 2022, and they are comparable to the changes concerning theatre productions in clause 18, in so far as the Bill clarifies that relief is not applicable to orchestral productions that take place for training purposes. It amends the Corporation Tax Act so that a concert will not meet the definition unless it is separately ticketed and such ticketing is expected to make up a significant proportion of the performance’s earnings.
Those are uncontroversial provisions that we do not oppose, because they reduce the risk of the tax relief being misused and maintain the spirit in which the legislation was originally developed. However, we note the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s concern that orchestras that made a series election before the Budget—for example, an orchestra that made a series election in September for its whole annual season—would appear to lose out on the higher rate of relief for their entire season. That is perceived to be unfair, and we would welcome clarity over whether that is the Government’s intention.
Clause 21 provides a temporary increase to the rate of relief afforded to museums and gallery exhibitions that commence production on or after 27 October 2021. From 27 October 2021 to 31 March 2023, companies will benefit from relief at a rate of 50% or 45% for touring and non-touring exhibitions respectively. From 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, the rates of relief will be set at 35% and 30%. From 1 April 2024, the rates of relief will return to their existing levels of 25% and 20%.
Companies qualifying for this relief can surrender losses in exchange for a payable tax credit. The amount of loss that can be surrendered in a period is dependent on several factors, but it ultimately depends on the amount of core production expenditure that has been incurred in the UK and European Economic Area. We do not oppose the measure, because it relates to another sector that has been hurt by the pandemic and that we want to see back on its feet, providing the best educational and cultural enrichment that it can to the British people.
However, will the Minister clarify where world heritage sites fit into the legislation, and whether they could be considered museums or gallery exhibitions? According to UNESCO, the UK and Northern Ireland have 33 world heritage sites: 28 cultural, four natural and one mixed.
Finally, clause 22 concerns the aforementioned tax relief to museums and gallery exhibitions, clarifying some legislative ambiguities and amending criteria for primary production companies. Those amendments have effect in relation to exhibitions where the production stage begins on or after 1 April 2022. The relief was introduced with a sunset clause and was due to expire from 1 April next year, but this clause extends the relief for a further two years. Any expenditure incurred after 1 April 2024 will not qualify for relief unless there is a further extension.
As we can see, subsection (1) amends the definition of an exhibition so that a public display of an object is not an exhibition if it is subordinate to the use of that object for another purpose. For example, if a historic passenger train offers rides between two towns, although the train may have historical or cultural significance, its main purpose is to provide passenger transport. This does not preclude the possibility of there being an exhibition on board the train.
Finally, and more broadly, we are aware of concerns from within the industry regarding productions that straddle the commencement dates of these reliefs. For each relief, the increased rate applies only to productions where the production stage for the exhibition began on or after the Budget on 27 October 2021, when the change was announced. So, a production that received the green light on 26 October, or earlier, would not gain the benefit of the increased rate, however long it ran for after the commencement date for the increased rate. We understand there are those in the sector who perceive that as harsh and arbitrary, and we welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.
Alison Thewliss
Of course, I support the proposed tax credits. They will be a useful part of the picture of support for theatres, museums and orchestras, of which there are many in my constituency of Glasgow Central—which is, of course, the best constituency in the country, as I am sure everyone would agree. We have the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra and Scottish Ballet, as well as Tron Theatre company and the Citizens Theatre company. These proposals may be of assistance to them, so I ask the Minister what communication has been put out to the sector to ensure that it is aware of the relief and taking it up as required.
I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Ealing North, and I, too, seek answers from the Minister to the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. It strikes me that many of these proposals provide assistance for productions of some kind, but that misses the other side of the equation. It is good to support companies, but if the venues and theatres in which they wish to perform go bust because they do not have the support that they need, that will not solve the problems that the companies have faced for the past year as a result of the pandemic. I urge the Minister to look at support for the sector more widely.
Many who work in the sector—in orchestras and in theatres, behind the scenes and on the stage—are freelancers, and many have received no support whatsoever from the Government during the pandemic. They have faced a very difficult time, and the Government need to resolve that part of the equation. They could perhaps do so by looking at extending the VAT relief that they introduced, as the SNP has called for.
We were very glad that the Government brought in the reduction in the rate of VAT, but it would be useful to see that continued beyond the cut-off in April next year. That would give a sector that has faced such a difficult time a bit of extra support into next year. It does not make much sense to me to cut that off, and not to incentivise people to go out and make use of the theatres and music venues we all have in our constituencies.
The sector has had a very difficult time. The proposed tax credits are useful, but we need to look at the wider picture. If there is no venue in which to perform or to showcase an orchestra, ballet, theatre production or pantomime, because those venues have gone bust and no longer exist, the Government are missing a trick. It is important that we support the venues and those who work in the sector, wherever that is, and that we look at the wider picture, rather than at a narrow bracket of tax reliefs.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about world heritage sites. The answer to his question is that a world heritage site would be considered to be a site of cultural significance. It would be considered as an exhibition and would qualify, so long as it is maintained by a charity or local authority.
The hon. Gentleman recognised that those who had commenced productions before 27 October would not qualify for the relief. He is right about that, although we have doubled relief until 2023 and increased it until 2024. Productions that started before the announcement have been able to benefit from the normal rates of relief and the comprehensive package of support provided for the cultural sector over the pandemic. They will continue to benefit from relief at the 2020-21 rates. It is important, and we have made it clear, that these proposals relate to new activity, because it is new activity that we want to support through this particular relief.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about touring and musicians. HMRC has recently issued further guidance where industry has asked for it, in relation to the interpretation of the legislation. I will get back to him about those two points.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a few points; I am afraid I must challenge her on her statement that Glasgow Central is the best constituency in the country. The best constituency is, of course, South East Cambridgeshire—fortunately, no one will have an opportunity to respond to that. She made an important point about communication. The Chancellor mentioned these reliefs in the Budget statement and they were included in all the communications about it at the time, which were highly publicised. The hon. Lady makes an important point, however, and I will continue to ensure that when we make reliefs, those who qualify for them are aware that they do. We are doing quite a lot of work on how to spread the message more broadly to enable companies to take up the reliefs that the Government offer.
Alison Thewliss
The point is that large production companies will have accountants who will know what those companies are eligible for, but smaller companies might not even be aware of what is available because they are too small to fill in the paperwork. They may need extra support to do so. Anything the Government could offer in that regard would be useful.
Lucy Frazer
That is a valuable point. I know in my constituency that small organisations got a variety of grants from the Arts Council and were able to access those reliefs, but I will discuss that point further with my officials. I thought the hon. Lady might want to intervene on the question of which constituency is the best in the country.
Lucy Frazer
I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Alan Mak.)
Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2022 View all Finance Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 December 2021 - (14 Dec 2021)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
Clause 23 extends the time for payment of capital gains tax on property disposals from 30 days to 60 days, as well as clarifying the rules for mixed-use properties. It will affect disposals that have a completion date on or after 27 October 2021. Since April 2020, UK resident persons disposing of UK residential property where capital gains tax is due have been required to notify and pay the tax within 30 days of their sale completing.
Most people are not affected by the requirement because the sale of main homes is exempt from capital gains tax through private residence relief. Non-UK resident persons have paid within 30 days since April 2015 for residential property and from April 2019 for disposals of both UK residential and non-residential property, even if they have no tax to pay. However, the Government recognise that having 30 days has not always allowed taxpayers enough time to settle their affairs. In recognition of that, the Government are extending the 30-day time limit to 60 days. The change was informed by taxpayer representations and comes in response to the Office of Tax Simplification report in May 2021, where increasing the time limit to 60 days was a key recommendation.
The measure allows taxpayers more time to produce and provide accurate figures, particularly in more complex cases, as well as sufficient time to engage with advisers. It also clarifies the rules for a UK resident person calculating the capital gains tax notionally chargeable for mixed-use properties. The changes made by clause 23 will, first, extend the time limit for capital gains tax payment on property disposals to 60 days following completion of the relevant disposal. Secondly, for UK residents, the changes clarify that when a gain arises in relation to a mixed-use property, only the portion of the gain that is the residential property gain is to be reported and paid within 60 days.
Increasing the time limit to 60 days will delay some revenue until later in the scorecard. That is because some capital gains tax payments will now be paid in a different tax year. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the measure to move £80 million out of the scorecard to later years, with the majority incurred in 2021-22. The measure is expected to impact an estimated 75,000 individuals, trustees and personal representatives of deceased persons who sell or otherwise dispose of UK land and property each year.
In summary, those liable to pay capital gains tax will now have 60 days instead of 30 days to report and pay the tax due on UK land and property disposals. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I want to say for the record that I believe Erith and Thamesmead is the best constituency. As the Minister has described, clause 23 relates to returns for the disposal of UK land. It extends the time limit for payment on property disposal from 30 days to 60 days, as well as clarifying the rules for mixed-use properties. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, that will affect disposals with completion dates on or after 27 October 2021.
A reporting and payment period for selling or otherwise disposing of an interest in UK land was initially introduced to help reduce errors and increase compliance. The measure increased the time available for taxpayers to report their disposals. The increase intends to allow more time for taxpayers to produce and provide accurate figures, which will be particularly helpful in more complex cases, as well as assuring sufficient time to engage with advisers. The change also clarifies the calculation for the capital gains tax notionally chargeable for mixed-use properties.
We do not oppose the doubling of the time period for reporting and paying capital gains tax on UK property. However, we remain concerned about the lack of awareness surrounding the reporting and paying process. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the measures the Government will take to help individuals selling properties to be aware of their obligations and what support the Government will offer individuals struggling to access the stand-alone digital system for reporting those transactions.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the Labour Front-Bench team for not opposing the measure, which is indeed very sensible. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regularly engages with all stakeholders and agents, who will therefore know about the change, but the hon. Lady makes an important point about communication, which we touched on this morning. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Cross-border group relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 24 makes changes to abolish cross-border group relief to ensure that loss relief is limited to UK losses, thereby providing relief only for companies that the UK can tax. It also amends the rules restricting the amount of losses foreign companies with a UK branch can surrender to UK companies, bringing companies resident in the European economic area in line with companies resident in the rest of the world.
Cross-border group relief provides UK companies with the ability to claim relief for the losses of their EEA resident group companies, even though the UK is unable to tax any profit made by those companies. The UK cross-border relief rules were introduced in 2006, owing to a 2005 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union that found the previous rules to be incompatible with the EU freedom of establishment principle.
Under the current system, the UK Exchequer bears the cost of giving relief to UK companies for losses of EEA companies, as the latter pay no tax to the UK Government. The rules for restricting surrender of losses of a UK branch of a foreign company were also amended to be more favourable to EEA companies as a result of CJEU judgments. Favourable treatment for losses of EEA companies or UK branches of EEA companies is not right, and is inconsistent with our approach to the rest of the world, especially now that the UK has left the EU and is no longer bound by EU law.
Clause 24 will principally affect large, widely-held corporate groups, and will ensure both equal treatment of losses of companies in EEA and non-EEA countries and protection for the UK Exchequer against unfair outcomes. Historically, group relief was available only for losses of UK companies or UK branches, so the abolition of cross-border group relief and the alignment of branch rules is a reversion to a previously accepted position. Other countries generally do not give cross-border loss relief, so abolishing it would be very much in line with the international mainstream.
In summary, the change will allow the UK to depart from this historic position and more effectively pursue its fiscal policy objectives. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As we have heard, clause 24 concerns cross-border group relief and is accompanied by schedule 4. The clause and schedule repeal legislation that provides for group relief for losses incurred outside the UK and amend legislation that provides for group relief for losses incurred in the UK permanent establishment of an EEA resident company.
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the Government are bringing group relief relating to EEA resident companies into line with relief for non-UK companies resident elsewhere in the world. Claims involving companies established in the EEA are currently subject to more favourable rules in the UK relating to relief for non-UK losses and losses incurred by the UK permanent establishment of a foreign company.
These rules were introduced to give effect to the UK’s obligations as a member state of the EU. Having left the EU, the UK is no longer required to maintain those rules, and it is inconsistent to treat groups with EEA resident companies more favourably than those with companies resident elsewhere in the world. The clause therefore removes that inequality by aligning group relief rules for all non-UK companies.
The changes to legislation made by the clause broadly restore the group relief rules to what they were before separate rules were introduced for EEA resident companies in line with EU law. We do not oppose this measure, as it rightly removes an inequality between companies and contributes towards a level playing field.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Lady for indicating her support for clause 24, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 25
Tonnage tax
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
Clause 25 reforms the UK’s tonnage tax regime from April 2022, with the aim that more firms will base their headquarters in the UK, using the UK’s world-leading maritime services industry and flying the UK flag. The UK tonnage tax regime was introduced in 2000 to improve the competitiveness of the UK shipping industry. It is a special elective corporation tax regime for operators of qualifying ships. Now that the UK has left the European Union, the Government will make substantive reforms to the regime for the first time since it was introduced, to help the UK shipping industry grow and compete in the global market. The reforms will make it easier for shipping companies to move to the UK, make sure that they are not disadvantaged compared to firms operating in other countries and reduce administrative burdens.
Clause 25 will make changes to the tonnage tax legislation contained in schedule 22 to the Finance Act 2000 to reform the regime from April 2022. Specifically, it will give effect to the following measures announced at the autumn Budget in 2021. The Government will give HMRC more discretion to admit companies to the regime outside the initial window of opportunity, where there is a good reason. The Government will reduce the lock-in period for companies participating in the tonnage tax regime from 10 to eight years, aligning the regime more closely with shipping cycles.
Now that the UK has left the EU, the Government will remove the consideration of flags from EU and EEA countries. Following this legislative change, HMRC will update its guidance to encourage the use of the UK flag by making it an important factor in assessing the value that companies who want to participate in tonnage tax will bring to the UK in the strategic and commercial management test. Finally, following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Bill will simplify a rule that may include distributions of related overseas shipping companies in relevant shipping profits.
These changes to modernise the tonnage tax regime will make sure that the UK’s maritime and shipping industries can compete in the global shipping market, bringing jobs and investment to nations and regions across the UK. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for her explanation of clause 25, which makes amendments to the tonnage tax regime. Tonnage tax is a special elective corporation tax regime open to operators of qualifying ships that fulfil certain conditions. The amendments will have effect from 1 April next year. At the autumn Budget in 2021, the Government announced that they would introduce a package of measures to reform the UK’s tonnage tax regime from April 2022, which they say aims to ensure that the British shipping industry remains highly competitive in the global market. As part of the package, the Government say these amendments support their aim of simplifying the operation of tonnage tax legislation and making it more flexible following the UK’s departure from the European Union. Clause 25 gives effect to some of these measures by amending the tonnage tax legislation contained in schedule 22 to the Finance Act 2000, as the Minister said.
In his Budget speech on 27 October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“When we were in the old EU system, ships in the tonnage tax regime were required to fly the flag of an EU state, but that does not make sense for an independent nation. So I can announce today that our tonnage tax will, for the first time ever, reward companies for adopting the UK’s merchant shipping flag, the red ensign. That is entirely fitting for a country with such a proud maritime history as ours.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 282.]
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I support the comments made by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on this issue. Switching flag is the most crazy kind of gesture politics. Would it not have been better to look at green shipping? That would create a tax incentive for the industry, which is one of the leading contributors to emissions, to transfer to better forms of power, to reduce its carbon emissions and to have some positive impact on global emissions and the net zero target, rather than pursuing the gesture politics of switching flags on a ship.
Helen Whately
As I set out, the clause reforms the UK’s current tax regime to help the UK shipping industry grow and compete in a competitive global market. Overall, this will be to the benefit of our maritime industry and, therefore, to the UK as a whole, supporting GDP, tax revenues and jobs in the UK.
I will pick up on a couple of comments made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople. On the points made by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, the clause is all about helping our shipping industry compete in a global market and making sure firms are not disadvantaged compared to those operating in other countries. It comes at a minimal cost to the Exchequer and we expect to see tax revenues in the sector increase as a result, because it will mean that more shipping groups are likely to headquarter in the UK. That will bring tax advantages and benefits to the UK, as well as tens of thousands of jobs that relate to that.
On the second point that the hon. Member made, I emphasise that the Treasury takes the recommendations of the Macpherson review very seriously and follows them in full. The reforms to our tax regime were rightly announced some months before they will come into force, in April next year.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central talked about environmental factors. As part of the reforms, HMRC expects to update the guidance on assessing eligibility for the tonnage tax regime, and environmental factors will be considered as part of that, so it can help us on decarbonisation actions and ambitions.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for her explanations. Has an assessment been made of whether anyone profited as a result of the Chancellor’s premature announcement to the press? Has any assessment been carried out?
Helen Whately
I emphasise what I said a moment ago: the Treasury followed in full the approach that should be taken, as set out in the Macpherson review in 2013. The Government’s tonnage tax reforms will ensure that the UK’s maritime and shipping industries remain highly competitive and bolster our reputation as a great maritime nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Amendments of section 259GB of TIOPA 2010
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 26 makes a change to ensure that corporation tax rules for hybrids and other mismatches operate proportionately in relation to certain types of transparent entity. Following recommendations by the OECD, the UK was the first country to implement anti-hybrid rules in 2017. These rules tackle aggressive tax planning by multinational companies that seek to take advantage of differences in how jurisdictions view financial instruments and entities.
With the benefit of three years’ experience of operating the rules, and with other countries following suit and introducing their own version of the rules, the Government launched a wide-ranging consultation on this area of legislation at Budget 2020. Following that consultation, several amendments were made to the rules in the Finance Act 2021, but the change that we are now considering, relating to transparent entities, was withdrawn from that Bill to allow the Government additional time to consult stakeholders, so that they could ensure that the amendment had no unintended conse-quences.
We have had further engagement with stakeholders, and the amendment now provides for the specific change for transparent entities that the Government committed to making following last year’s consultation. The change made by the clause is technical and will impact multinational groups with a UK presence that are involved in transactions with certain types of entity that are seen as transparent, for tax purposes, in their home jurisdictions. Following the changes, this type of entity will be treated in the same way as partnerships in the relevant parts of the rules for hybrids and other mismatches. It is important that these rules are robust in tackling international tax planning, but also that they are not disproportionately harsh in their application.
Abena Oppong-Asare
The Minister clarified what the clause does. We do not oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Insurance contracts: change in accounting standards
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 29 introduces a power to lay regulations before Parliament in connection with the new international accountancy standard for insurance contracts, known as IFRS 17, introduced by the International Financing Reporting Standard Foundation. These regulations will allow the Government to spread the transitional impact of IFRS 17 for tax purposes, and to revoke the requirement for life insurers writing basic life assurance and general annuity business to spread their acquisition expenses over seven years for tax purposes. The corporation tax liabilities of insurers are based on their accounting profit. IFRS 17 will apply to companies that prepare their accounts under international accounting standards and is expected to become mandatory for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2023, subject to its endorsement by the UK Endorsement Board.
Depending on the types of insurance business written, adoption of IFRS 17 will create a large, one-off transitional accounting profit or loss for many insurers. The Government expect that spreading these one-off transitional profits and losses for tax purposes will greatly reduce volatility in Exchequer receipts and should also help to mitigate the cash flow and regulatory impacts of the accounting change. This will support the long-term stability of the insurance sector in the UK and contribute to the UK maintaining its position as a leading financial services centre.
The adoption of IFRS 17 will also make it more complex for life insurers writing basic life assurance and general annuity business to undertake the necessary calculations to spread their acquisition expenses over seven years for tax purposes, as currently required. Additionally, commercial changes in the life insurance market mean that the need for this requirement has reduced in recent years. Removing it for all life insurers writing basic life assurance and general annuity business, and instead following accounting treatment for tax purposes, will be a welcome simplification. The details of the final legislation will be informed by a consultation that was published alongside the “Tax Administration and Maintenance” Command Paper on 30 November.
The clause will allow the Government to respond to the potentially large and one-off tax implications caused by the adoption of the new international standard for insurance contracts, IFRS 17. I therefore recommend that the clause and schedule 5 stand part of the Bill.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As we have heard, clause 29 sits alongside schedule 5 and refers to insurance contracts and changes in accounting standards. As the Minister has mentioned, the clause has an enabling power that will allow the Government to make provisions in secondary legislation in connection with international financial reporting standard 17, and to revoke the requirement for all life insurance companies to spread acquisition costs over seven years for tax purposes.
The corporation tax liabilities of insurers are based on their accounting profit, and many insurers prepare their accounts under international accounting standards. The new international accounting standard for insurance contracts, IFRS 17, is expected to become mandatory for periods of account beginning on or after 1 January 2023, subject to its endorsement by the UK Endorsement Board. IFRS 17 will affect the timing of recognition of insurers’ profits and losses, and its adoption will create transitional accounting profits or losses, which we understand may have significant regulatory consequences. We recognise that the Government will need powers to be able to deal with the tax implications of IFRS 17.
The removal of the requirement for all life insurance companies to spread their acquisition costs over seven years for tax purposes is a simplification that has been allowed by IFRS 17. We welcome the simplification of tax arrangements and do not oppose the clause, but can the Minister tell us what provision will be put in place for insurers, for whom the change in accounting standards could cause a transitional administrative burden?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Member for her question, but the whole purpose of the clause, which will allow costs to be spread over a number of years, is to make things easier for insurers. I am glad that she is satisfied that the clause is sensible, and I am very grateful for her support for this provision. I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 30
Deductions allowance in connection with onerous or impaired leases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Clause 30 makes technical amendments to the corporate loss relief rules introduced in 2017. They ensure that the rules continue to operate as originally intended and that eligible companies can claim the relief to which they are entitled. When a company makes a loss, it can carry forward that loss and use it to offset its taxable profits in the future.
The Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 reformed the UK’s loss relief regime. The corporation tax loss rules restrict set-off for carried-forward losses for large companies. In general, this means that only 50% of the current-year profits above the deductions allowance of £5 million can be covered by carried-forward losses. The restriction does not apply to accounting profits stemming from lease renegotiations that are aimed at preserving a company’s ability to continue trading. The impact of covid and the associated restrictions on businesses has resulted in an increase in the restructuring and renegotiation of leases. The introduction of a new accounting standard has meant that the legislation needs amending to cover the change in accounting treatment for leases, as without that, the lease renegotiations providing companies with the opportunity to remain in business will result in a prohibitive tax charge, which may instead force them into insolvency.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Clause 30 concerns deductions allowance in connection with onerous or impaired leases. The clause amends sections of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 to ensure that the legislation continues to work as intended. It does so by continuing to provide an exemption from the loss reform rules for companies in connection with onerous or impaired leases in specific circumstances. As the Minister said, the measure enables such companies to obtain full relief for carried-forward losses that offset profits arising from lease renegotiations where they adopt international financial reporting standard 16.
Loss reform was introduced in section 18 of schedule 4 to the Finance Act 2017, and had effect from 1 April 2017. The reform made two main changes. It increased a company’s flexibility to offset carried-forward losses either against the company’s own total profits in latter periods or in form of a group relief in a later period. Additionally, it limited the amount of profit against which carried-forward losses can be set. Each group or a company that is not part of a group has an annual deductions allowance of £5 million in profit. Carried-forward losses can be set against that amount, which is restricted to a maximum of 50% of a company’s total profits for the period. The restriction to carried-forward losses was extended to include corporate capital losses with effect from 1 April 2020. Having reviewed the clause, the Opposition do not oppose it.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the fact that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Provision in connection with the Dormant Assets Act 2022
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
The Committee will be disappointed to learn that this is probably the last clause that we will deal with today. It introduces schedule 6, which supports the expansion of the dormant assets scheme to a wider range of assets. The clause ensures that where an asset is transferred into the dormant asset scheme and an individual later makes a successful claim to the ownership of that asset, they are in the same position for capital gains tax purposes that they would have been in without the scheme.
The dormant asset scheme enables funds from dormant bank and building society accounts to be channelled towards social and environmental initiatives. The scheme allows dormant funds to be unlocked for good causes, while protecting the original asset owner’s legal right to reclaim the amount that would have been paid to them had a transfer into the scheme not occurred.
In 2021, following a consultation, the Government announced their intention to expand the scheme to include assets from the pensions, insurance, investments and securities sectors. The process of transferring the assets into the scheme could, in certain cases, qualify as a disposal for CGT purposes, resulting in neither a gain nor a loss. As the asset owner cannot be located and does not know that the transfer has occurred, it is not appropriate or feasible for the tax to be paid by the individual at the point of transfer to the scheme, or for a notice of a loss to be made. The change made by the scheme addresses that by ensuring that a CGT charge arises only where a person comes forward to claim the asset. That ensures that the individual remains in the same position for tax purposes that they would have been in had the asset not been transferred into the dormant asset scheme.
Where the asset had previously been held in an individual savings account, changes made by the schedule ensure that no income or CGT arises when the asset is reclaimed. That ensures that savers in ISAs are not disadvantaged by their accounts being transferred into the scheme. The scheme also updates references in the existing legislation to ensure that it reflects the widest scheme created by the Dormant Assets Bill.
The schedule will commence only on the making of a Treasury order, because the Dormant Assets Bill is not yet law. The intention is to lay the necessary commencement order before Parliament when that Bill becomes law. For that reason, the schedule contains time-limited powers that allow the Treasury to make changes by secondary legislation if changes to the Dormant Assets Bill result in additional tax issues. The Government believe that the provisions strike the right balance between supporting good causes and taxpayer fairness.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As we have heard, clause 31 and schedule 6 concern the Dormant Assets Bill. The changes broadly ensure that individuals remain in the same position for tax purposes as they would have done had the assets not been transferred into the dormant assets scheme. Overall, we do not oppose the measure, but we are aware that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has concerns about the availability of accessible guidance to those making a claim under the dormant assets scheme who may be unaware of the tax consequences of their actions. Will the Minister clarify when guidance will be issued?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s indication that the Opposition will not oppose this measure. HMRC does generally provide guidance, and I am very happy to update the hon. Member on any guidance on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
The Chair
I wish all Members a merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year, and I extend that to the Clerks and officials and everybody involved with the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Alan Mak.)
Westminster Hall
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
Co-operatives and Mutual Societies
(3 years 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
Dame Angela Eagle (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. This is 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. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Colleagues may wish to know that I have just had a negative one, so I think I, at least, am safe for now. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of co-operatives and mutual societies to the economy and public life.
I am delighted to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela, and I am very grateful to everybody who has attended. I am slightly conscious that today’s other business might have distracted some of my Conservative colleagues who signed up to the application. I lament the fact that they are not here, but there we are—I cannot think what else is going on at the moment. I am very grateful to Co-operatives UK for inspiring this debate and for providing an excellent brief, on which I will rely closely.
A free society—one based on a market economy—really must have within it a place for co-operatives, and the Conservative party might not always have embraced that idea as tightly as I might have liked. Given the length of time for which we have been in power, and given how long we will have been in power by the next general election, I hope that the Conservative party can champion and not merely embrace co-operatives as a really important part of a free society. Co-operatives can be harnessed as tools to expand opportunity, wealth, liberty, pride and aspiration more fairly in the UK, both geographically and socially. They are a powerful tool for funding and implementing the UK’s new net zero strategy.
The co-operative economy is diverse, resilient and growing. There are now more than 7,000 independent co-operative businesses in the UK, with a combined annual turnover of almost £40 billion and more than 250,000 employees. They trade in sectors as diverse as agriculture, renewable energy, retrofitting, the creative industries, manufacturing, distribution, wholesale, retail and finance. In 2020, the turnover of the co-operative economy grew by £1.1 billion, and twice as many co-operatives were created as dissolved. Most co-operatives in the UK are consumer-owned, but in recent years we have seen a marked growth in community ownership, worker co-operatives and freelancer co-operatives. Many of the UK’s largest co-operatives comprise other businesses, such as farmers co-operatives.
By international comparison, though, the UK co-operative economy is small and growing slowly. Less than 1% of businesses in the UK are co-operatives. Germany’s co-operative economy is four times bigger than the UK’s, and France’s is six times larger. That might well derive from history, but I say to the Government that now is a moment when we can choose positively to take a path that makes it more possible for co-operatives in the UK to grow. The UK’s co-operative start-up rate is also comparatively low. In recent years, South Koreans have created 12 times more co-operatives per head of population than we in the UK have. Perhaps the co-operative model is underused and is something of a best-kept secret in our society and economy.
Co-operatives are great vehicles for creating and sustaining decent, rewarding and empowering livelihoods. For example, after five years of trading, the average worker co-operative in the UK supports six times more livelihoods and is almost twice as likely still to be trading as start-ups generally. According to a multi-country study, although they are currently far fewer in number than businesses generally, worker co-operatives are on average larger and employ more people. There are examples of co-operative entrepreneurship, for example the taxi drivers in Cardiff who clubbed together to set up their taxi-hailing co-operative, and of participation in existing freelancer co-operatives, such as the new co-operative mutual aid platform, We-Guild, or the creatives’ co-operative Chapel Street Studio.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the taxi co-operative in Cardiff. I was delighted to work with a number of local drivers who were dissatisfied with their working conditions in other firms and who got together, worked with the Wales Co-operative Centre—to whom I pay tribute—and set up the remarkable co-operative, Drive, which references the Welsh phrase “Thank you, Drive!” at the end of a journey. I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr Baker
Marvellous. I am looking forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution later, when I hope he will tell us all about that. It is wonderful to have cross-party agreement on some of these subjects, and I hope we can drive forward the agenda.
Large co-operative employers are at the forefront of good business behaviour when it comes to investing in people. I think that follows directly from the ethos of the co-operative movement—the idea of valuing everybody equally and having open and inclusive membership, for example. I will not go through all the details, because we will be here for an hour, but co-operative models can be used as tools for community-led economic development. There is a wide range of examples from right across the country—I hope Members will share some—which show how co-operatives can be at the heart of bringing people together.
What can co-operatives achieve? They can expand wealth and well-being. The efficacy of the model can lead to a proliferation of co-operatives that can help to strengthen the private sector, including in places that need it the most. That is because co-operatives are distributive by design. Value, wealth and well-being are shared more broadly through day-to-day activity.
A growing body of data shows that co-operatives are especially resilient businesses. At a time like this, resilience could not be more important. Official data in our country shows that co-operative start-ups are twice as likely as start-ups generally to survive the first five years of trading, for example, with similar findings in other countries. Separate research shows that co-operatives in the UK that raise equity via community shares—a crowdfunding model unique to co-operatives—are more resilient still, with a 92% survival rate.
Official data also shows that co-operatives were four times less likely to permanently close in 2020 than UK businesses generally. Research published by Scottish Enterprise shows resilience among employee-owned businesses in Scotland throughout the pandemic. The fact that twice as many co-operatives were created as dissolved in the UK in 2020, when there was a net reduction in the number of businesses in the UK overall, suggests that co-operative entrepreneurship was a comparatively resilient force during the economic and psychological shocks of the pandemic.
Why are co-operatives so resilient? They have purpose, and their ownership and governance dictate long-termism. In an economic shock, it is the members making the tough decisions in their collective, long-term interests; it is not investors demanding lay-offs to protect short-term returns. Co-operatives also patiently build up and re-invest reserves and use members’ capital wherever possible, rather than piling on debt to achieve faster growth. My hon. Friend the Minister knows some of my views about excess debt creation.
I am conscious of time, and I want to give way to other Members, but I will say that at a time like this, when we need to recover to from coronavirus, co-operatives can be an ever more important part of our society in bringing people together and giving them a shared purpose and an equal stake in the business in which they work.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking about co-operatives now, but I am sure he will come on to mutuals, which are also included in the heading of the debate. Does he agree that it has been remarkable and refreshing to see the members of the mutual society LV= use their power in the past few weeks to demonstrate exactly what he has referred to? They wanted power to go to the membership, as opposed to going to shareholders for a fast buck.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope to make a few remarks about mutuals, but I am focusing first on co-operatives. I have been involved in the inquiry into LV= by the all-party parliamentary group for mutuals. LV= made quite a compelling case, but the point is that, as he said, it is up to the members what they do. In a free society, we make progress through trial and error. It might well be that that members have made a mistake in rejecting the bid, but it is their right to do so; it is their right to choose.
I am a huge fan of mutuals, because I can see that they are bound to create a set of incentives that support the people whom the business serves. I remember in my youth being very disappointed that so much carpetbagging was going on, with people taking £500 in exchange for demutualising. I was very disappointed at the time, and even as a teenager I could see that it was not a good idea. In the case of LV=, I fear that things are not going where they should. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure there is a good quality inquiry into what is going on, and into how regulation can better support people’s desire to support the mutual spirit in the future. I think he would agree that we cannot afford to be romantic and exempt co-operatives and mutuals from the realities of commercial life, or the exigencies of things such as competition law.
I turn to performance and efficacy. The principle of mutual purpose and democratic governance is found in all co-operatives, and it has significant advantages. It is a proven way for people with a shared interest to collaborate effectively, achieving things together that they could not on their own. That is a great way to expand liberty.
Liberty is something that should be exercised in community. One of my favourite scholars said:
“Society is cooperation; it is community in action.”
We should remember that entrepreneurship is a great search to help other people; that is what entrepreneurs seek to do. If people make a profit justly, without breaking the rules or exploiting others, that is a good thing. It shows that those people have served others, according to their assessment of what has been produced. I believe that that combination of mutual interest and service to others through a market means that co-operatives should be a crucial part of our society.
I am conscious of time, so I will wrap up. The Co-operatives UK brief makes a number of suggestions to the Government, including that there could be more co-operatives, and some particular policy suggestions. There are three themes: to have better tailored business support and enterprise finance for existing co-operatives, co-operative entrepreneurs and the conversion of existing businesses to become co-operatives; to have legislative and non-legislative action to provide a more enabling corporate framework, through law, regulation and processes; and to have tax support for investment in co-operatives and co-operative development. I will not go through the full brief, but Co-operatives UK intends to publish it after the debate.
I appreciate this opportunity to hear from Members from all parts of the House about co-operatives. We can all enthuse about co-operatives, even as we remain, as I am sure the Treasury will do, robustly pragmatic rather than romantic. As the Conservative party softens and become more inclusive and society minded in the 21st century, we ought to say that co-operatives and mutual societies are an important part of our society that should be fostered in everyone’s interests, particularly as we come back from coronavirus. We need to build up the mutual relations of interdependence on which we all rely.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
It is my intention to call the Front-Bench speakers from 10.30 am, so you can do the maths yourselves in order for everybody to get the chance to speak.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on securing this important debate at such a critical time, when the economy and society should be in the throes of recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.
It has been 177 years since the since the pioneers successfully launched the co-operative movement in 1844 in Rochdale, Lancashire, which is not too far from my own Lancashire constituency of Preston. The movement has gone from strength to strength, and it has changed remarkably since then. As a Co-operative party MP, I have always believed that co-operatives and mutual societies are the future, not the past, and they are instrumental in creating a successful, democratic economy.
Co-operatives and mutuals contribute significantly to social integration, job creation, employment sustainability and the reduction of poverty, which makes them a serious player in the UK’s recovery from the pandemic. A key component in the make-up of co-operatives is the democratic ethos of fairness and inclusivity, where wealth and power are shared. Whether it is co-operative shops, funeral services, credit unions or, as has been mentioned, taxi firms, co-ops are owned and operated by the people closest to the business and are centred around their members and the community, rather than distant investors and shareholders focused solely on monetary returns.
When considering the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on our society, it is impossible not to acknowledge the glaring inequalities that have been exposed in our social and economic fabric. The poor of this country have borne the brunt of the devastation. The stark geographical and social divide is a clear indication that the current economic model is broken and not viable for the future.
If we are serious about levelling up the country and building back better, working people must be at the heart of economic recovery. Co-operatives and mutual societies provide a template for achieving success, where the principles of human and social capital are at the core of policy. There is no doubt in my mind that to achieve a stronger, sustainable and more resilient recovery from the covid-19 crisis, the Government must take steps to expand the co-operative sector. The evidence tells us that co-operatives are resilient; 76% of co-ops survive the first five years of business, compared with only 42% of other types of business in the UK.
I was interested to hear the points made by the hon. Member for Wycombe about whether LV= members should have gone with Bain Capital. Only time will tell whether that would have been a good move, but many of the building societies that demutualised and turned into banks were extremely vulnerable in the financial crisis some 15 or 20 years ago. I was a member of Leeds Building Society, and I tried to vote against demutualisation. In the end, I was given £2,000 and ended up with a bank I did not particularly want.
As has been mentioned, the trade body Co-operatives UK notes that about 1.5% of co-ops were dissolved in 2020, compared with 6.5% of businesses in general. Despite the pandemic, the number of independent co-ops has grown by 1.2% in 2020.
On the contributions of co-operatives to public life, the valuable and diverse sector has demonstrated its worth in meeting community need in the face of adversity, which it has done up and down the country in the last 21 months. I proudly note the co-operatives in my constituency of Preston, which led by example and contributed to the collective welfare of the local community during a time of great need. By investing in people from the start, co-operatives were able to defend workers’ wellbeing and livelihoods during the pandemic, while understanding the hardships that people faced and serving the community around them. Studies show that economies with a larger co-operative sector are more equitable, productive and accountable, with a narrower gap between rich and poor.
With all this evidence on the benefits of co-operatives, both before and during the pandemic, I wonder why there are not more of them. As the hon. Member for Wycombe said, in 2020 less than 1% of businesses were co-ops. Despite the evidence that they are nearly twice as likely as other types of businesses to survive their first five years, not nearly enough of them are being started. In the UK, more than 7,000 co-ops contribute roughly £40 billion to the economy, in spite of numerous financial and social barriers that hinder their ability to reach their full potential.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making powerful points. I want to share another example of success that we can learn from. The Welsh Labour and Co-operative councillors in Vale of Glamorgan Council in my constituency have done remarkable work with Big Fresh Catering Company, a local authority trading company built on co-operative principles. In its first year, it has turned a £350,000 deficit into a £500,000 surplus, which is now being reinvested in our schools. That is an example of co-operative principles making a difference, led by Welsh Labour and Co-operative councillors.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I commend my hon. Friend on his involvement and the success that he outlines.
In developed countries such as our own, co-operatives play a much bigger role in GDP and cultural make-up, by design. As the hon. Member for Wycombe said, in Germany, the co-operative sector is four times bigger than in the UK. In France, 18% of GDP comes from its co-operative economy, which is six times larger than the UK’s. Unlike in those countries, our economy is tailored to the interests of private business, despite the overwhelming evidence of the co-operative sector’s success and resilience.
I believe that a strong and growing co-operative sector is key to creating a post-covid economy where wealth and power are shared, particularly in efforts to level up the regions of the country that have been worst hit by the pandemic. We cannot create such an economy by maintaining the status quo and hoping that more co-operatives and mutual societies will carry on as they have done—instead, co-operatives and mutual societies need the support that other business models receive, which is why the Government must urgently commit to bringing forward practical business support aimed at significantly growing the UK’s co-operative sector as part of our economic recovery. In their policy, the Government must enable a corporate framework that recognises and champions the success of co-operatives and mutual societies, and understands the value and mutual benefits of achieving that success.
As we rebuild today and for the future, we have an opportunity to create an economy of ambitious growth, wellbeing and social protection for all. That is why I believe that co-operatives and mutual societies are one answer to the problems raised by the current pandemic.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.
Robert Owen is regarded as the founder of our co-operative movement. He believed that character is formed by environmental influences such as educational opportunities on the one hand and by poor working conditions on the other. His vision was for villages of co-operation, a new world order of mutual help and social equality, and his followers were called co-operators or socialists. I am very proud that Robert Owen was born on 14 May 1771 in Newtown, Powys, in my beautiful country of Wales.
The Co-op group traces its roots back to the start of modern co-operation in Rochdale in 1844, and 177 years later the Co-op group continues to put its members and their passions at the centre of its business, with a focus on working with others—co-operating. Since its launch in 2016, the Co-op group’s local community fund has provided approaching £100 million to more than 20,000 local good causes, making it one of the largest funding mechanisms for charities in the UK.
UK co-operators believe that too much power and wealth rests with a small number of investors, shareholders and executives. Decisions are often made for the benefit of the powerful and the wealthy and not for the benefit of communities, workers, consumers and the environment. I believe the answer lies in the Marcora law. I was fortunate to secure a Westminster Hall debate on 8 September about the co-operative purchase of companies. I urge the UK Government to learn from Italy, where the former Industry Minister, Giovanni Marcora, established the worker buy-out system more than 30 years ago.
The Marcora law was established in a period of economic crisis in the 1980s to encourage workers to become entrepreneurs, saving their jobs by taking their entitlements plus three years’ projected social security payments in a lump sum to invest in a new company, supported by Government loans and advice. Specifically, the Marcora law established a rotation fund for the promotion and development of co-operation, and a special fund for the protection of employment levels. It gives workers the pre-emption right to purchase their companies and, more importantly, the financial support to buy out all or parts of an at-risk business and to establish it as a worker-owned co-operative.
The Cooperazione Finanza Impresa—CFI—operates the Marcora law on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Government. The CFI is an institutional investor and has been implementing the Marcora law since 1986. The Ministry holds a 98.6% share of the capital investment and has an overseeing role on the CFI board. The CFI has made investments of more than €300 million in 560 companies, saving the jobs of 25,000 workers and retaining the skills and experience of the Italian workforce. Hundreds of Italian businesses at risk of closure have been preserved as worker co-operatives, with a return of more than six times the capital invested by the CFI funding mechanism. Our UK Co-operative party public polling shows that 64% believe that the economy would benefit if workers could buy their businesses when they were at risk of closure.
During my debate, I urged the UK Government to introduce legislation that would give workers an adequate opportunity to request ownership during business succession and to provide an early-warning system to warn workers in advance of insolvency or when viable businesses are at risk of disposal. That would give workers the time and ability to assess the scope of acquisition and prepare a co-operative business model, and it would provide an opportunity to bid for a business at risk of shrinking or closure. A UK Marcora law would sustain businesses and help the UK shift to a fair and democratic economy through our co-operative values.
I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), whether he would introduce a UK Marcora law and he told me that there were no plans but that the Government were open to proposals. Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales, and his Welsh Labour Government were overwhelmingly re-elected last May on a Senedd election manifesto that pledged to provide greater support for worker buy-outs. Mark has stated many times that he will work with the co-operative sector and the Wales Co-operative Centre to double the number of worker-owned businesses in Wales, and he appointed Vaughan Gething, the Minister for Economy, with specific responsibilities for the co-operative sector in Wales.
In Wales, we are proud to have the Wales Co-operative Centre, set up by the Wales Trades Union Congress in 1982 to provide business support to co-operatives in Wales. The centre’s research shows a business succession timebomb. Small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99% of businesses and 62% of private sector employment in Wales, but 43% do not have a succession plan and only 12% of family firms make it to the third generation. One in five SMEs faces the prospect of closure or succession in the next five years, with 29% under the same ownership for the past 21 years. So 15,000 business owners may be leaving their businesses. That is one of the reasons a UK Marcora law is so important: to save family businesses.
My friend Huw Irranca-Davies, MS for Ogmore and a former MP, who is chair of the Senedd co-operative group, introduced an employee ownership Bill to the Welsh Parliament to give workers support to buy out their workplace if it is at risk of failure. It received cross-party support in principle in the Senedd from Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats. Huw will now meet Welsh Government Ministers to see how to progress his Bill.
While I was disappointed with the response from the Under-Secretary of State to my debate of 8 September, a few days later I had a lovely surprise. I received a letter from Camillo De Berardinis, the CEO of the CFI, saying that he had watched my speech in the Westminster Hall debate and that he was inviting me to be the guest speaker at the 35th anniversary of the CFI on 16 November to celebrate the commitment of all the Italian workers who had bravely tackled the crisis of the company they worked for and successfully recovered it. I was honoured to accept that invitation. It was virtual, by the way; I did not manage to get to Italy, but there we go.
The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be giving up campaigning to have a UK Marcora law. On 11 January, I will introduce a ten-minute rule Bill entitled the co-operatives employee company ownership Bill. I know the Minister is very magnanimous and he does listen, so, to conclude, does he now have any plans to introduce a UK Marcora law?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I have spoken in these debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall as well. First, I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for setting the scene so well. He brought the issue to Westminster Hall some time ago and I spoke then, and I mean it honestly when I say that his presentation has been absolutely on the button.
I have often said that co-operatives, mutual societies and indeed credit unions are a phenomenal help to so many families throughout Northern Ireland—I obviously want to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the issue. I want to speak about the co-operatives in my constituency and the Newtonards Credit Union branch, which has been the salvation of many people I know in a difficult time.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and concur with his comments on LV= mutual, which the hon. Member for Wycombe also referred to. It is really important that those at the ground level of the co-operatives, mutuals and credit unions have some say in where they go. My local credit union has mentioned that it would do more for people if it was given the opportunity to do so.
I was happy read an article last week on affordable social housing in Northern Ireland that gave examples of how things can progress. In it the Northern Ireland Communities Minister indicated that the role that credit unions and others can play should be further explored. She said:
“If we are to achieve our objectives it is likely that a wider range of sources for financing will be needed such as charitable trusts and foundations, credit union loans, capital markets: from the sale of long-term bonds and developer contributions.”
The benefits of housing co-operatives, community-led housing and self-build initiatives
“will also need to be explored further”.
She is absolutely on the button, and she is right in what she says.
In a debate on affordable housing we had in this Chamber last week, I mentioned the good work of community-led housing and self-build initiatives. The good that could be done must be more widely investigated throughout the United Kingdom, and I urge the Minister—he always responds in a constructive way to our requests—to work collaboratively with the devolved Administrations to unlock further the best-kept secrets of credit unions. He has spoken about credit unions before, and we have had conversations about them both outside and inside the Chamber.
A lovely article in the Financial Times succinctly sums up what co-operatives, mutuals and credit unions are really about:
“The history of non-profit lenders has been intertwined with civil rights movements in the UK and abroad since the second half of the 20th century, as campaigners, religious groups and philanthropists sought to help marginalised groups gain greater access to financial services… Credit unions act like community-focused banks, using deposits from members’ savings accounts to fund low-cost loans with interest rates capped at 1 per cent per month in Northern Ireland and 3 per cent per month in the rest of the UK—about 43 per cent APR.”
In the past, I was fortunate to have one of the Minister’s colleagues—he was then a Minister but he is not now—visit Northern Ireland and particularly the credit unions. His input on that visit was incredibly helpful. We visited the credit union in Newtownards and met the man in charge, George Proctor. He has built up the membership—both adults and young people—phenomenally and it has become a major go-to when it comes to being a voting member and being able to borrow money whenever people need it.
The credit union sector is large and has grown in recent years. There was about £1.6 billion in outstanding loans at the end of 2020—up 19% since 2016—but the sector also faces challenges in keeping up with regulations and changing customer expectations of services such as online banking. The number of UK credit unions fell by more than a fifth in the same period, as smaller unions closed and were taken over by larger groups. Although the numbers are down, the clientele has kept steady and has risen. Credit unions are an essential component in any rural area and town, as they offer people the ability to save money, to borrow money, when needed, at a small interest rate, and to repay that money at an affordable rate, with no stress. Suddenly, the boiler breaking down three weeks before Christmas does not result in a nightmare but can be quickly and efficiently dealt with by using local credit unions.
I am fortunate to have 13 registered credit unions and co-operatives in my constituency, and I will name each one for the purposes of Hansard: Downpatrick Co-operative Marketing Ltd, Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd, the Ballynahinch Credit Union Ltd, Portaferry Credit Union Ltd, Newtownards Credit Union Ltd, Newtownards Royal British Legion Club Ltd, BDS Credit Union Ltd, Ards Saturday Market Traders’ Co-operative Limited, Comber Community Credit Union Ltd, Strangford Down Ltd, Northern Ireland Horse Board Co-operative Society Limited, North Eastern Lobster Fishermen’s Co-operative Society Limited, Ballywalter Youth and Community Co-operative, and Comber Earlies Growers Co-Operative Society Limited. All of those, at different levels and with different financial resources, represent a large number of people.
Mr Gregory Campbell
My hon. Friend is itemising the co-operatives in his local area, which can be replicated across the United Kingdom. Does he agree that as long as these groups, whether they are mutuals, co-operatives or credit unions, can demonstrate their professionalism and their adaptability in the modern marketplace, are to be supported? They need to see the wider community rally behind them and get involved with them for the better future of all of our communities going forward.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I do agree. When we look at the breadth of the market, and who these organisations represent, it indicates support that goes above and beyond. There are cattle market co-operatives, farmers’ co-operatives, fishermen’s co-operatives, plus a few reasonably sized credit unions. The agricultural co-operatives, the credit unions and the market traders co-operative—bringing all those people together, as my hon. Friend said—are examples of co-ops that help to sustain an independent rural community and a way of life. They are an essential component of these communities and a lifeline for them.
These organisations are undoubtedly able to do more, when we consider that the Financial Conduct Authority estimates that 28 million people—more than half of UK adults—have some element of financial vulnerability. In February 2020, up to a third of adults had less than £1,000 in savings, and one in 10—about 5.6 million people—had been paying a high-cost loan with an annual interest rate above 100% at some point in the preceding 12 months. What co-operatives, mutuals and credit unions do is enable their members to borrow at rates that they can afford to pay back. It is not like going to a payday loan company or others in the community who take advantage of people in their time of vulnerability. What these organisations offer is critical for the future.
Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of any discussions he may have had with credit unions or co-operatives in Northern Ireland. I know I asked that earlier on, but it is always good to get a perspective here, in Westminster, where we are all under the great Union flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together—we are all part of that.
There is an issue with lending, and it is my firm belief that credit unions could be a way of dealing with this issue. Further, more investment and help should be given to allow credit unions to push their products and abilities into more communities as a viable savings and loans option. With that, I will conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Wycombe for introducing this debate, and I look forward to the comments from the shadow Ministers and the contribution from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers no later 10.28 am.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Dame Angela. You will be pleased to hear that I will not inflict 20 minutes of Plymouth co-operatives on everyone. However, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for introducing this debate. It is really important that co-operatives and mutuals have a voice in Parliament; that is why, for the past many decades, we have had a Labour and Co-operative group of MPs that has been making the case for co-operatives. I am proud to be a Co-operative party MP; those are not just some extra syllables in my job title. Being a Co-operative MP is not just a label; it is an instruction to campaign for mutuals, fairness, co-operation, doing business in a fairer way and sharing wealth and power. Those of us in the Co-operative party take every opportunity to put forward the huge advantages of co-operative and mutual business models.
We have seen huge changes and progress in recent years, both under the last Labour Government and, where campaigns have been successful, under the current Government. However, we are seeing the context change; we are seeing a hollowing out of our communities and a more precarious environment for businesses. However, we are seeing no less entrepreneurism and no less drive and creativity from our businesses. People are now looking at alternative models to organise their business to make a difference.
When businesses fail, it is often because those in charge have become removed from the realities of the shop floor. That is where mutuals and co-operatives have an advantage over other business models. When workers have a stake in their own business, they can contribute to the decisions that are made; they can see that businesses can be better run, more sustainable and better focused on not only the product and service they offer to their customers, but the people who work in that business to make it better every day.
Co-operatives provide an opportunity to renew our high streets and villages and to give everyday people a say in how their local community works. The opportunity to expand the co-operative and mutual sector is immense. I would like to see the Government adopt Labour’s policy of doubling the size of the co-operative sector. It is a bold, challenging ambition; however, if Ministers put in place the right conditions to make it happen, it is also achievable.
Doubling the size of the co-operative sector would lead to more sustainable, greener and better jobs in all our communities, more people having a stake in the businesses they work for and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe, better productivity and better outcomes at the end of it. It is a win-win-win situation. There are only two things that hold it back: a view that the market will provide for itself—in which case, let us remove the legislative blocks that sometimes discriminate against co-operative and mutual businesses—or a view that it will not provide the type of future we need. I do not see a future that does not include more mutual and co-operative businesses. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe, and I hope that is what we will hear from the Minister when he gets to his feet.
In the south-west, we have long believed in the power of co-operatives to strengthen our economy. In Plymouth, we have co-operatives such as Nudge Community Builders, which works to transform life chances in one of our poorest communities—not just in Plymouth, but in Britain—by rebuilding and refurbishing buildings along Union Street and Stonehouse. It is transforming that community by not only improving the buildings, but creating spaces for start-ups, social enterprises and community services. It is helping to restore pride in something by allowing people to invest in their own community through that effort.
I bought shares in Nudge’s co-operative share issue to help reopen the notorious pub The Clipper, on Union Street, taking it from a 24-hour boozer to an amazing community space. It has transformed that community just by changing one pub. I have also bought shares in its latest effort, to reopen the Millennium building—a former nightclub and cinema, and the scene of far too many antics to discuss in polite company—as a new hub for live music, with a brewery, a shop and restaurants, and a place for people to come together. That building has stood derelict for decades, and it is a co-operative and community venture that is bringing it back to life. That share issue is still open, if the hon. Member for Wycombe wants to show his support. I know that Nudge would welcome a final push to help get it over the line.
However, it is not just Nudge that has done brilliant things using co-operative share issues. I also praise Plymouth Energy Community.
Mr Steve Baker
The hon. Gentleman has spoken with such passion and enthusiasm—he could not see, under my mask, the enormous smile he put on my face. If he sends me a link to Nudge’s site, I will have a look at investing. I would be delighted to consider it.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm. I am really passionate about this issue, and people in Plymouth that have invested are passionate too. It is not just about investing. Co-operative share issues have not had the press they deserve, because it is not just that putting that 50 quid in a co-operative share issue or a mutual will return more financial benefit than leaving it in a bank where interest rates are low. It is about the social purpose—the social multiplier—and the economic multiplier that will come from that investment. It is taking place not only in Plymouth, but right around the country.
Plymouth Energy Community has funded solar panels on the roofs of our city’s primary schools and our largest leisure centre, as well as on the top floor of all our car parks. It has opened Plymouth’s first solar farm in Ernesettle and it is about to apply for planning permission for a second solar farm at Chelson Meadow—next to Saltram House—which is the scene of Plymouth’s largest landfill. I will support that share issue when it opens, too.
CATERed is another superb example of a co-operative in Plymouth. Faced with the challenge of poor school food, the Labour council brought together food provision into a co-operative, which our primary schools and some secondary schools have now bought into. That provides not only healthy, nutritious food but an investment in the staff who provide that food—in the kitchen and serving—which is unbelievable. What is important is that those staff feel valued, the food is healthier, the profits are reinvested and there is not a turkey twizzler in sight. It really is a model for others to follow.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend’s example sounds very much like the Big Fresh Catering Company in the Vale of Glamorgan, which I mentioned. Does he agree that co-operative councils, such as in Cardiff—Plymouth sounds like a co-operative paradise; I assure him that Cardiff is too—are also making differences in other areas of public services by using co-operative principles? I think of our music strategy and the Cardiff Music Board, Cardiff Commitment, which is supporting young people back into education or training, and our race equality plan. All have co-operative principles at their heart, investing in that social capital in our communities.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is an energy around this policy area not only because it returns good outcomes but because it is the scene of so many good ideas and so much innovation. That innovation is often at the periphery, because co-operatives and mutual are not mainstreamed in the way that they really need to be. There is not an accelerator that moves those ideas into the mainstream. As co-operators, many of us are quite nice, decent people, and mutualism has a reputation of being nice and caring for and lovely, which often means that we are quite comfortable sitting in a corner. As an economy, we often say, “We have got a fair mutual side; it’s over there in the corner.” We know it is important because we put it in the corner where we put all our important things. It is time now to move mutual and co-operative policies into the mainstream, not only as niche providers but as an alternative to mainstream provision that would give those mainstream business models a run for their money. To do that, some of those legislative and, in particular, financial resourcing barriers need to be removed. There is an opportunity to go through them progressively and remove them, to make sure that we are getting there.
Creating a co-operative development agency in England, following the lead of Wales, would make a big difference. We could put new duties on Governments to promote the growth of co-operatives, not just of businesses. We could look at new capital instruments, such as a national co-operative-held investment bank, which would allow better investment in UK co-operatives. We could consider a new duty on banks to encourage greater lending to co-operatives and to ensure banks are held to account over the types of businesses they support. There is sometimes discrimination in funding to co-operatives because their corporate structures can be a little bit different, a little bit challenging. However, the social benefit and opportunities that come from that investment can be even bigger than investing in the usual type of business models. There is an opportunity there to make that happen.
Christina Rees
My hon. Friend is giving a passionate and comprehensive speech. The number of co-operatives is low. Perhaps there is a case for a business model in which a co-operative’s share of a private or public enterprise could be incorporated into the model, so that we raise awareness of the advantages of being part of a shared ownership scheme.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Long before I had grey hair and was elected to this place, I wrote an article for the Co-operative party about co-operative insurgency—the idea that a harder, bolder form of co-operation could also come out of a purposeful building out of a co-operative shareholding in business models. To follow my hon. Friend’s idea, it is not only about creating a co-operative or mutual from day one; it can be about mutualising a business model. Even a small, co-operatively held component of a big publicly listed company could help drive and direct an ethos and culture change within that business, which could produce better outcomes for staff and the overall business model.
However, I am afraid that not all is well in our co-operative sector in Plymouth. Our Plymouth credit union is on the verge of closure, which I worry will deny access to finance for people on the margins of finance and society in particular. The City of Plymouth Credit Union’s office is opposite my office, on Frankfort Gate, and at the end of the week, the queues that come out of that credit union show a number of individuals who always face challenges—not only economic and financial challenges but challenges elsewhere. We must also be aware of the closure of credit unions. I do not know what will replace the provision the Plymouth credit union gives to some of those most marginalised people, but we need to find an alternative. The basic bank accounts that the Treasury has been promoting via businesses will not be enough to replace the service provided by Plymouth credit union, and I encourage the Minister to look at what happens when credit unions fail.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent contribution. As I said in my contribution, when some of the smaller credit unions closed they were amalgamated with larger ones. Is that a possibility for the credit union that he is discussing?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that it will be, but I fear it may not. The challenge is that the future is very uncertain, especially for smaller credit unions that do not have the financial backing of a larger credit union. The social benefit that they provide is considerable, and it is worth the Treasury looking at that.
My final point is a challenge to those people who speak about co-operatives and mutuals, like myself and everyone in this place. Often the debate around co-operatives and mutuals is an urban-themed one; as an MP for a city, most of my examples have been urban themed. However, there is enormous potential in telling the story of the success of the mutuals and co-operatives in our rural and coastal communities. In our rural communities, we see an amazing penetration of successful co-operative businesses, providing support at scale not only for rural housing and, in particular, agriculture, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but for fishing. Greenhook Fishing in Plymouth is our brand-new co-operative. It is pioneering sail-powered fishing in Plymouth, and is bringing back the Plymouth Hooker, a fantastic old-style fishing boat. It also provides opportunities for people who have left prison and veterans to be re-trained in new skills, not only in boat construction but in fishing.
Greenhook Fishing is following a model that is present in many other coastal communities and rural communities —of co-operatives being successful, getting on with it and never identifying as a co-operative. My challenge to those who speak about co-operatives is that we should talk up rural and coastal co-operatives as well. I am very pleased that the Co-operative party has started a new commission around rural co-operatives, to feed into Labour’s rural review, that will make the case for further investment in rural co-operatives as distinct from urban co-operatives and the challenges that they face. The future is bright for mutuals and co-operatives, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I now call the Front-Benchers, beginning with Chris Stephens.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for leading the debate. I want to touch on the importance of the co-operative sector in Scotland, particularly in community energy, and the key role co-operatives will have in ensuring that we meet our net zero targets. I am keen to speak about that later.
First, I should declare my membership of Glasgow Credit Union, which is the largest and most successful credit union in the UK, with over 50,000 members. It was formed in 1989 by workers at what was then Glasgow District Council, and it has moved on and flourished from there. I thank the Greater Govan Credit Union, Pollok Credit Union, Vale of Leven Credit Union and Penilee Credit Union for their work on behalf of Glasgow South West constituents. Joining a credit union was by far and away one of the best financial decisions that I have ever made, and I know that many constituents and many people across the UK feel the same way.
The Minister will know that I have championed the credit union sector cause. To help it grow, I hope that he will join me in pushing the Prudential Regulation Authority to consider changing the capital requirements for credit unions. Successful credit unions appear to be getting punished if their assets rise above £10 million. I know that the Minister has some sympathy with that point, and I look forward to some positive comments about the credit union sector.
Co-operatives and mutuals can help develop communities and the economy. Co-operatives are a form of business owned and run by members. In the UK, co-operatives operate under various governance models and legal forms, including workers co-operatives, multi-stakeholder co-operatives, community benefit societies, community interest companies. It is interesting that they have existed in the modern form since 1844, when cotton mill workers in Rochdale formed the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers to buy goods at lower prices. That example lives on in Glasgow South West, with the creation of the Threehills community supermarket, which is now starting to operate. That has become a very successful model.
The Financial Conduct Authority, of course, holds a public register of major societies, and Co-operatives UK publishes a report each year about the scale of the sector; the 2021 report is quite interesting reading. It noted that there were 7,200 co-ops, employing 250,000 people, with a combined turnover of £39.7 billion, and ranging in size from large retailers, such as the Co-op, to credit unions, farmers’ associations, and, of course, community pubs—what a fantastic idea they are, too. Interestingly, the report argues that co-ops appear to be much more resilient to the challenges brought by covid-19 and, indeed, their coming out in support of their members was a factor in that achievement. Perhaps more interestingly, the report also notes more ambitions and optimism about the future from co-ops than among other small businesses.
In Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, through Co-operative Development Scotland, supports company growth through co-operative models, which can protect community services that bring benefits to the local economy. It helps businesses and community enterprises grow by offering advice and services, including free masterclasses and one-to-one support. A community co-operative is a democratic values-led business model, in which community members come together to buy and run an asset for the benefit of local residents. Typical assets in Scotland include wind turbines, hydro schemes, shops, and pubs, among other things.
The Scottish Government have made strong progress towards community energy, including through co-operatives. They recognise that local energy cannot be delivered in isolation; it must develop alongside, and within, a vibrant national energy network. Both are crucial to ensuring that we transition to a net zero future by 2045 in a way that delivers secure, affordable and clean energy for ususb all.
The Scottish Government established their flagship community and renewable energy scheme—or CARES—with the aim of supporting and growing community and local energy projects throughout Scotland, as well as aiming for a considerable increase in the number of shared-ownership energy installations across the country. The scheme is open to a host of different groups and organisations, including bencoms and co-operatives, community groups, faith groups, housing associations, local authorities, national and regional non-profit organisations and rural small businesses.
The Scottish Government had a target for 500 MW of community and locally-owned energy by 2020, which was exceeded, so they increased it to 1 GW by 2020 and 2 GW by 2030. Progress towards that target has been positive, but changes in UK Government subsidies—for example, the closure of the feed-in tariff scheme—have undermined that progress. However, we continue to encourage shared ownership models as a means of increasing community-led involvement in commercial projects.
We are committed to helping island communities—a point was also made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about rural and island communities—and we must ensure that they also become carbon neutral. Supporting those carbon neutral islands should be in the vanguard of reaching the net zero emissions targets by 2045.
As we move towards recovery from the pandemic, greater focus and priority must be given to decarbonisation as a driver for community-led action. New opportunities for communities will arise in the shift towards more localised energy solutions, giving more influence and choice and, in doing so, improving the quality of life for those living here.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Angela. I am standing in today for the shadow Minister, who has other business in the House. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his help in advance of this debate.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to make the case for co-operatives and mutual societies, which give us a greater say and stake in the institutions that affect our lives and play such an important role in improving equality and productivity at work. I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for bringing forward this debate. I think it is fair to say that I have not always seen eye to eye with him on every debate in this House, but I am pleased to say that in this debate I wholeheartedly agree with him on the importance of mutuals and co-operatives in our economy.
The principles of co-operation and mutual support have roots in small “c” conservative and socialist traditions. The histories of the co-operative movement and the Labour party in this country are closely entwined. Our shared history was referenced several times by people from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) talked about Robert Owen, who was born in her local area. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) talked about the roots of the modern co-operative movement, which can be traced back to 1844 and the Rochdale Pioneers.
It is no coincidence that the co-operative movement emerged when it did. It was at a time of great industrial upheaval, and people recognised the common bonds that united them and their shared interests. We are approaching a different type of industrial revolution as we decarbonise our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, more co-operative ideas and practices are needed to make the best use of our resources, which will be crucial for the green transition.
As many people will know, the Labour party was founded in 1900 at a time of profound change. The Co-operative party was established 17 years later in 1917. In 1924, the two parties entered an electoral agreement to stand joint candidates in elections. We recognise our shared values and commitments to building a society in which power and wealth are fairly shared. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—I always mention the full title of the constituency because I get annoyed when people call me just “the Member for Hampstead”—talked about the fact that the Members here represent both parties. They are not just extra words on the electoral ballot; it is an instruction for fairness and equality, and I know that a lot of the Members who have made the effort to be here represent both parties in Parliament.
In 2021, our two parties advocate not only for co-operative shops owned by the customers, but for the whole mutual sector. Co-operatives and mutual societies have never been more important for the UK’s economy and public life. The hon. Member for Wycombe talked about more than 7,000 co-operatives operating across the UK with a combined turnover of almost £40 billion. Almost 235,000 people earn their livelihoods directly through co-operatives. Again, the hon. Member talked about the sectors that they trade in, which are as diverse as agriculture, renewable energy, the creative industries, manufacturing, distribution, wholesale, retail and finance.
However, we have seen a decade of rising inequality, low growth and productivity, which has left many businesses poorly prepared for covid-19 hitting us. However, we have seen how co-operatives have proved resilient in the face of hardship. The sector grew by £1.1 billion in 2020, despite the economic challenges resulting from the pandemic.
The resilience of co-operatives is rooted in the higher levels of productivity that can result from employee ownership. In the United States, the National Centre for Employee Ownership tracked the performance of over 57,000 firms and found that employee ownership could greatly improve a business’s productivity and chances of success. This resilience and strength allowed the mutual sector to play such a heroic role during the pandemic by plugging gaps in the Government’s support for communities across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, in his whirlwind tour of his constituency, pointed out some of the co-operative ventures in his patch, including Nudge, Plymouth Solar Farm and CATERed—my personal favourite because of my previous role in education—which provides healthy food for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) talked about Cardiff Co-operative Council, which seems to be carrying out an astonishing number of administrative tasks but also trying to promote more equality in his patch.
I looked up some examples before this speech, including Arla Farmers, which contributed £900,000 litres of long-life milk to the Government’s grocery packs for vulnerable people during lockdown. The Little Pioneers nurseries—again, a personal interest of mine because of my previous role—run by Midcounties Co-operative, kept nurseries near hospitals open and affordable for children of key workers. They also offered additional temporary places for key workers who were unable to rely on their usual childcare arrangements and developed a frontline hero support fund to subsidise fees for key workers’ families.
However, despite the fantastic contribution that co-operatives and mutual societies make to society and the economy, not everyone in the Government has been a friend to the sector. Less than 1% of businesses in the UK are co-operatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston and the hon. Member for Wycombe both pointed to Germany’s co-operative economy, which is four times the size of the UK’s. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath talked at great length about Emilia-Romagna in Italy and said that we could learn a lot from that region. Co-operative enterprises generate close to 40% of GDP in that region, and the province has the lowest socio- economic inequality of any region in Europe. I hope to look further at my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, which sounds very interesting. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the details as well.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston that if the Government were really serious about levelling up and building back better, they would be looking to learn from other countries about how to expand the sector. Instead, the growth of co-operatives in this country is being held back by a legislative and regulatory framework that is not designed for co-operative businesses. Given their unique structure, co-operatives are often excluded from traditional investments. I hope that the Minister will look at that closely.
I am pleased that the sector has some powerful advocates on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Wycombe, who secured this debate and has spoken on this topic many times, but I wish more Conservatives Members would support him and champion this cause. Under this Government, the number of mutual credit unions has plummeted by more than 20% since 2016—something that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referenced in his speech. It is ordinary customers who have paid the price, with many forced into the arms of unethical lenders.
I was delighted last week to see members vote to reject the controversial takeover of the insurer LV= by the private equity firm Bain Capital. I want to spend a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who cannot be here today because of a family emergency. I was in correspondence with him yesterday, and I know how hard he worked to protect the mutual status of this historic firm. I thought it would be remiss of me not to mention him, even though he could not be here. We all know that LV= was founded to ensure that even the poorest people in Victorian Liverpool could afford the dignity of a proper funeral. While we can celebrate the incredible campaign to prevent the sale of this historic mutual institution, the Government must now ensure that it is much harder for organisations to lose their mutual status at the expense of the members they serve.
The sector does so much to boost productivity, fairness and equality, but with the right support I believe it could contribute even more to the UK economy and public life. While the strength of co-operatives and mutual societies rests with their members, the sector will reach its full potential only with a supportive regulatory and legislative framework put in place by the Government. Labour is proud of the achievements of the co-operative movement, and in government we would be even more ambitious about its future. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about how Labour has pledged to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath pointed out, the Welsh Labour Government have already made progress on that front.
I will finish by asking the Minister about the vision going forward. The sector has been neglected for a decade. Our great mutual and co-operative institutions have been put at risk of takeover by foreign equity firms, so will he outline his plans to reassure Members who care passionately about this cause that the Government can be trusted with the future of this important sector?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Angela.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for calling today’s debate. As we have heard, he is a strong believer in the transformative capabilities of the co-operative and mutuals sector. He opened the debate with a very reasonable challenge on the drivers and enablers of growth across the different parts of the sector. I will reflect carefully on what he said and examine further the proposals that underlay some of the contributions this morning, but I will also think about what we can do to work with regulators to address those drivers.
I also thank the other Members who have contributed this morning. It has been a fascinating debate, and we have heard about a number of enterprises, across a number of constituencies, that are making a real difference to communities up and down the country. The Government strongly support the co-operative and mutuals sector—not just financial mutuals, which offer mortgages, affordable credit and insurance, but the whole sector across the country. We see it as making a special contribution to society and the economy due to, as Members have said, the focus on the interests of their members in the long term, the democratic nature of those institutions, and their local focus and commitment.
The evidence for that is clear. For example, a recent report from the Association of Financial Mutuals highlighted that mutual insurers serve over 30 million people across the UK, and that contribution deserves recognition. I have recently engaged a number of times with the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who is unable to join us this morning, and I recognise that he has brought forward a set of proposals and written to the Chancellor. We will be reflecting on that very carefully. I have received correspondence from LV= subsequent to the vote, and I will continue to update the House on that.
I am a big believer in the power of co-operative institutions of all sizes, from the giant Co-operative Group to High Wycombe Rugby Club and the Chalke Valley Community Hub in my own constituency. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about his prolific investments, from the Clipper pub to sail-powered fishing; I am pleased that this forum has perhaps offered him further investment opportunities from my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe.
The variety of businesses embracing the co-operative model founded by the Rochdale Pioneers almost 200 years ago is something to be championed, and there is much that other sectors can learn from the guiding principles of co-operatives and mutuals. Those organisations can contribute to a new era of responsible capitalism in which financial services, firms and businesses do not just focus on their bottom line, but also on their societal impact. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) highlighted a number of examples in his constituency, such as the taxi drivers and the work going on to improve the quality and resilience of the supply of food in schools.
I agree that there is potential for the sector to generate even more prosperity, opportunity and liberty by helping people to take greater control of their lives and finances. Clearly, though, co-operatives and mutuals need strong foundations. In recent years, we have made some significant advances on that front. We have cut the red tape facing the sector through measures such as the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. We made it easier for such organisations to attract capital, and that supportive approach continued during the pandemic. Co-operatives and other mutuals were not only given access to our financial assistance schemes, but we also took legislative action through the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.
Beyond the pandemic, we have reaffirmed our commitment to the co-operative model and the values that underpin it through our £150 million community ownership fund, which supports co-operatives and community-owned businesses to level up the UK by enabling them to take over valuable and viable local assets at risk of closure. The first set of announcements on that were in the recent Budget, and that is across the whole of the United Kingdom. That will mean a minimum of £12.3 million in Scotland, £7.1 million in Wales, and £4.3 million in Northern Ireland. We have announced 21 projects receiving the first tranche of that funding, which I hope will be a significant intervention. Another issue I would like to focus on—to reference the points made by the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on the Marcora law and her wider engagement with the experience in Italy—was discussed in a previous debate. I am sorry that she was disappointed with the Under Secretary’s response and I look forward to her ten-minute rule Bill in the new year.
However, we need to recognise the difference between the UK and Italian economies, which I think will make the Marcora law less effective here. We cannot subsidise businesses that are predisposed to fail. I remain open to discuss any constructive proposals with her, but Italy has a much higher rate of long-term unemployment than the UK has currently, so it is not clear if providing an advance sum of unemployment benefit would generate savings on welfare spending in the UK, as it may do in Italy. I am sincere in my call to bring forward constructive proposals, appropriate for the UK economy, perhaps drawing on the experience we have seen in Italy.
Christina Rees
I thank the Minister for his offer to have further discussions. Can I bring more information about the success of the Marcora law in Italy to share with him at that discussion?
John Glen
Absolutely. I sincerely look forward to that and we will engage with the substance of the information.
In my role as Economic Secretary, I would like to focus on the role of mutuals as providers of financial services, because they can play a significant role there. I see these organisations as key to providing people with greater financial stability and therefore greater choice. Indeed, I believe this is levelling up in action.
Credit unions are at the core of this. A few weeks ago, I visited the Glasgow Credit Union that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned, and a few years ago I visited 1st Class Credit Union in Glasgow. They are two of the largest and most successful credit unions of the 402 that exist across the United Kingdom. The Glasgow Credit Union even offers mortgages, consequential of the deep relationships and bonds it has with its members and its understanding of their financial position. That demonstrates the potential that well-organised, well-supported credit unions can provide in communities.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) listed the 13 credit unions in his constituency and talked about the distinct tradition that exists in Northern Ireland with respect to credit unions, across multiple sectors. Credit union and co-operative legislation is devolved in Northern Ireland, but I continue to listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say on this matter.
Affordable finance is key to generating opportunity, wealth and liberty for people around the country.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I both raised the point about the Prudential Regulation Authority, the work it does and the capital requirements it places on credit unions. Does the Minister have anything to say about that? Can he encourage the PRA to make some changes to help successful credit unions?
John Glen
I am extremely grateful for the prompt; one of my kind officials passed me a note on this matter and reminded me that there has been progress in this area. We saw some changes in the way that was delivered last year. In 2020, the PRA implemented a simplified capital regime for credit unions to remove barriers to growth. This created a graduated rate approach, removing the 2% capital buffer and the link between capital requirements, activities and memberships. These changes were broadly welcomed by the sector, but I have committed to continuing to work with the sector further. I hope I will be allowed to introduce legislation next year to address some outstanding concerns that exist within the sector as a whole. I am grateful for the prompt and to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West for raising that matter.
As I said, affordable finance is key to generating opportunity, wealth and liberty for people around the country. We provided £3.8 million to fund the pilot for the no-interest loans scheme, which I have championed over a number of years. The scheme is run by Fair4All Finance, which encourages credit unions and other non-profit lenders to offer these loans. I believe that when this gets through the “proof of concept” phase imminently, it stands to be able to expand significantly. A number of individuals have approached me wanting to support this work, and I look forward to campaigning to broaden that pool on a sound foundation of how it would operate.
We have introduced other changes to help credit unions to generate greater opportunity and wealth for communities. For instance, we introduced and ran a pilot prize-linked savings scheme for credit unions until March this year, which was a real success. Independent research found that it helped to increase positive awareness of credit unions, enabled individual savers to build financial resilience and demonstrated that prize-linked savings be an effective tool in encouraging people to build a nest egg. We have 13 credit unions around the country and the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd currently involved in continuing the scheme, and I hope more will join them in future.
We have also released £96 million of dormant asset funds to Fair4All Finance, to support access to affordable credit products, including those from credit unions. Last Monday, on Second Reading of the Dormant Assets Bill, we introduced the extension of the pool of moneys that will be available from an extended range of financial instruments—£880 million over the next 10 years—which will be for Fair4All Finance to allocate. We will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows. That phrase is used a lot, but I am working hard to generate that opportunity in the next Session. It would allow credit unions to offer a wide range of products and services.
I want to spend a moment on building societies, because they are key to unlocking opportunity and driving positive change across the country. For example, in mortgages, Yorkshire and Skipton building societies are among the first institutions to bring back a 95% loan, when there was a problem in the spring, and 95% loan to value mortgages after the lockdown. That obviously brings first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. In addition, the sector is pioneering new products that will decarbonise the UK housing stock. For instance, Nationwide offers a green additional borrowing mortgage, and the Leeds building society has launched two new mortgages for the most energy-efficient homes.
To help building societies continue to flourish, we want to ensure they benefit from an appropriate legislative framework. That is why last week we published a consultation proposing several changes to the Building Societies Act 1986, working with their representatives, to try to provide them with greater flexibility in their funding model, and maintain their key mutual status, which is so important. The consultation also includes proposals to update their corporate framework in line with companies.
Sir Mark Hendrick
The Minister has waxed lyrical on the good work that the Government are doing on credit unions and is now touching on building societies. Is he considering changing some of the regulations on demutualisation? As I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Wycombe, if we cast our minds back, we will remember that the demutualisations of the past gave a number of those building societies, which were more dependent on mortgage lending, a lot of leverage that made them very vulnerable during the financial crisis. Will the Minister comment on that, and on how he will be proactive in developing the co-operative sector, as well as building societies, through his work on mutuals?
John Glen
I mentioned the response we are considering when I talked about the hon. Member for Harrow West and LV=. The reason I am waxing lyrical is that we have genuinely put in place specific interventions across a number of dimensions of the broader sector to ensure that building societies can continue to operate more effectively, offering services that their customers want, and retain their current status. I mentioned the community ownership fund as a source of support for individuals and community groups, encouraging them to form new business models that might be more effective in dealing with their long-term community interest.
I am conscious of the time, but I hope I have illustrated that the Government are committed to supporting mutuals and co-operatives and the unique qualities they provide. Just as those organisations provided opportunity, wealth and liberty to those Rochdale pioneers, we see them as key to strengthening communities, expanding possibilities and increasing prosperity for people today. I look forward to continuing the conversation on specific interventions. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe as I entered the Chamber this morning, it is important that we strike the right balance between hearty aspirations for a healthy sector receiving appropriate consideration of reasonable changes to the rules and regulations underpinning them, and a doe-eyed romanticism about things that are not financially secure in the medium and long term. My job is to interrogate those opportunities and take legislative action where I can, but also to be clear that we have to take a clear, economically valid and reasonable approach to this issue if we are going to have a secure and thriving sector, which I sincerely hope we will.
Mr Baker
I have immensely enjoyed this debate and everybody’s contributions to it. It is an honour to be the person who happened to have their name on the top of the application, so it is with some humility that I speak last. I particularly want to say how much I enjoyed the remarks of my hon. Friend—and on this issue, he certainly is my hon. Friend—the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). The sheer enthusiasm he has for the contribution of co-operatives to his community said more than any number of statistics that any of us might have cited. That is the reality of co-operatives and mutuals in our society. They are deeply loved institutions, precisely because their members feel part of them: “It is my mutual. It is my co-operative. I am part of it.” I only hope that all of us might aspire to the degree of earnest and heartfelt support for those institutions that the hon. Gentleman has put on record, and I hope he will not mind me embarrassing him by expressing such gushing support.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what he has said. He has been very clear that the Government want to support mutuals and co-operatives. I will write to him later today with the Co-operatives UK brief, which is quite extensive, and will specifically draw its recommendations to his attention, in the hope that he might be able to take up some that do not conflict with his justified pragmatism and his desire not to be too romantic. I know that my hon. Friend would not want to be accused of an excess of romanticism.
I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to sum up the debate, and to all hon. Members who have spoken. On a day like today, it is a treat to have spoken in unity rather than in division.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I think romance is always required in politics.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of co-operatives and mutual societies to the economy and public life.
Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme
(3 years 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
Dame Angela Eagle (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 guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) to his place as a substitute for the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has executive departmental responsibility for this issue.
I have a number of specific concerns about the Post Office’s administration of the historical shortfall scheme, which I will come to in due course, but I want to say something to the Minister and his colleagues in Government. If he takes nothing else away from the debate, I want him to take this away: from assisting constituents in relation to the HSS, it has become apparent to me and, I have no doubt, to others in the House that the culture in the Post Office still leaves a great deal to be desired. It is probably not unique for the Post Office to have a poor culture, but I say that because it has been accepted by Ministers. In fact, it is now a universally accepted truth that what happened in relation to the Horizon scandal was allowed to happen, and happened for as long as it did, because of the culture in the Post Office.
My basic concern is that if the culture is still not right, such a scandal could happen again. This is an opportunity for Ministers. We do not expect them to be responsible for the day-to-day management of the scheme or anything else in the Post Office—there are plenty of people who are rather handsomely paid to do that—but Ministers can and should insist on seeing that there has been a demonstrable change of culture.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. What he says is absolutely right, and the scheme almost entirely mirrors what we did with Lloyds bank. We asked the bank to mark its own homework in opening a compensation scheme, which proved to be a complete travesty. It has to be completely redone, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds to Lloyds, and it has obviously caused massive distress to the victims. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the HSS must be done impartially?
Mr Carmichael
Yes, of course, although there would not be a cost to the Post Office, because there is only one shareholder—the Secretary of State—so it would ultimately come to the taxpayer. I will touch on that in a few minutes.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was not just the fact that the system let people down. It was the mental and physical health issues that people suffered as a result. Some of them ended their lives early, experienced illness or depression, or lost all they had. The implications of all this go far beyond the system.
Mr Carmichael
Absolutely. Indeed, as I will come to in a few minutes, my constituent Elena Kimmett, who was for many years the sub-postmistress in Stromness, illustrates truth better than anyone else I can think of.
I thought the question about culture was perhaps just me being a grumpy guy after a bad meeting, as I can occasionally be, but I had a recent lengthy discussion with the National Federation of SubPostmasters. In correspondence to me, the federation put it in the following terms:
“The culture of the Post Office of today and tomorrow must be significantly different to that of the past. In a recent survey of Postmasters conducted by the NFSP, only 29% believe they are being listened to by Post Office today. In terms of resetting the relationship between Post Office and the network, Postmasters gave Post Office a score of 5 out of 10 for their progress so far.”
The executive director with responsibility for the historical shortfall scheme, Declan Salter, was left in a position in July this year where the Post Office board did not renew his contract, and it has still not been renewed. I would like to hear about that from the Minister, either today or in due course in correspondence. It has left the administration of the scheme rudderless. We need to know the intentions of the board. If it is not going to renew the contract of the person it put in charge of the scheme, it should at least come forward and tell us what it intends to do instead.
Throughout this whole sorry affair, the strategy of the Post Office has been to use public money to outgun the sub-postmasters. The settlement with the sub-postmasters was forced on them by the Post Office. That is in the context of the Post Office knowing, by 2013 at the latest, that many of the convictions were unsafe.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that it is actually worse than that, because the Post Office spent £100 million to defend the indefensible? He said earlier that the Government are the only shareholder. Does that not give rise to the question of what the Government, as shareholder, and Ministers were doing to actually stop the Post Office frittering away £100 million of public money?
Mr Carmichael
It does. That has to be examined and established in the fullness of time. That is probably more than we will achieve today. It is still one of the outstanding questions in relation to this issue.
The question of public money being used to defend the indefensible, as the right hon. Gentleman raises, goes to the heart of the way in which the historical shortfall scheme is being administered. That hit me like a bolt of lightning on 23 November, when I was part of the good faith meeting—that is a term of art, not a description of what we actually went through—with representatives from the legal firm acting for the Post Office, Herbert Smith Freehills. I do not know what Herbert Smith Freehills charged the Post Office for that one hour, but the poor lawyer it put forward certainly earned her money in a way she had perhaps not anticipated at the beginning of the meeting. I pick my words with some care, because having checked the Herbert Smith Freehills website earlier today, I see that I was at university with its chief executive. However, I am left feeling that, if the Post Office just paid everybody what they asked for, it would probably end up still better off financially than it has by pursuing it in this way.
Nobody on that call was able to explain the position of the Post Office. We were told right at the start that there would be no recording of this meeting; in a good faith meeting, that seems a quite remarkable way of demonstrating good faith. I know myself, as a former legal practitioner—albeit more than 20 years ago; I would probably know just enough to be dangerous these days—that there are two ways in which lawyers can be used on these occasions. They can be used as an adviser, and indeed as a conduit for good information, or they can be used to insulate the client from the anger of the claimant. It was pretty clear from the Post Office putting nobody up for that so-called good faith meeting that it was the latter, rather than the former.
The meeting involved me and Anne Robertson, principal of JEP Robertson & Son solicitors in Orkney. Incidentally, as someone instructed to administer an estate, she has gone above and beyond anything that anybody could reasonably expect of a solicitor in that situation. Her client is in fact now the estate of the late Elena Kimmett, the postmistress in Stromness from 31 July 1989 until she resigned in October 2008, essentially because she could take no more. I first had contact with Elena in my early days as a Member of Parliament. I started talking about post offices and she got in touch and said, “Well, if you’re interested, come in and see me and I’ll tell you what it’s really like.” And she did.
We all talk about the role of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. Elena Kimmett was somebody who instinctively took enormous pride in the fact that she was part of the Post Office, which allowed her to help so many people, including older people, within the community. She was caught in the Horizon scandal and was absolutely devastated by the apparent disappearance of cash within the new computerised system. She had a long sequence of relatively small losses, which gradually increased, and caused her enormous anxiety.
I have spoken to Elena’s sons about it. They tell me she balanced her books every Wednesday; they well remember the gradual change in her. She went from being a happy, competent, outgoing mother to somebody who was withdrawn, quiet and reserved. On Wednesday night, the balancing night for the post office, instead of coming home for the usual family meal, she started not to want to take part and would instead just eat a few biscuits and have a glass of wine. That is the change that the situation she was going through wrought in her. She was making up the losses from the Horizon system from her own pocket. She asked the Post Office on many occasions for help, but she was always told that the system was infallible and that if money was going missing and it was not her, then it must be her staff. Her staff had all worked for her for long periods of time, and included her mother and husband.
In May 2002, matters came to a head when there was a shortfall of £3,000. She contacted the Post Office again and was told, again, that the system was infallible. She inquired whether other offices were experiencing similar difficulties. She was told no, there were no others and that it was her problem and her responsibility. That was a significant amount of money for Elena and her husband to take from their own savings to put into the business.
Elena eventually gave up the post office in 2008. One year ago today, on 13 December 2020, just six months after she had made an application to the historical shortfall scheme, she died. Her two sons and her former employees have no doubt that Elena’s life was badly affected by the actions of the Post Office—she was devastated, and felt she could not continue in the job that she loved.
That brings me to my questions about the administration of the scheme. My concerns begin with the composition of what is called an application form, but which should properly be regarded as a claim form. The wording of the questions is clearly slanted towards fault and questions actions by employees that are completely unrelated to the employment. The wording actively discourages and gives no space or invitation to specify what the experience of the applicants has been or the effect that it had on them. The application form did not specify that it would be the only opportunity that Elena would be given to state her case. No advice was given that she should seek legal advice before completing and submitting what was a legal claim.
Can we hear from the Minister or the Post Office on who drafted the form? There was no warning whatsoever to applicants that any offer would be considered solely upon and restricted to the amount stated on the form. The form seems to be designed to steer applicants away from any thought of compensation, even to the point of the space given for the response.
The question then arises of consequential loss. There is nothing in the form that would allow for the sort of compensation that Elena should, in law, have been entitled to. The application form asks postmasters to identify any alleged shortfall losses, as well as any other losses that are caused by the Horizon shortfall—namely, consequential loss. That appears to limit any payment to the claimant to proven consequential loss as defined by the Post Office. There is no reference to compensation for anguish, upset or distress caused by its action. There is no reference in the form to any payment. In correspondence to me on 22 October 2021, the Post Office was sympathetic and apologised, but it could not extend the offer on the basis of the information available “at this stage”. Those are the significant words. Having subsequently given it information about Elena Kimmett’s loss, I would have expected it to entertain that, but there appears to be no opportunity for it to do so.
There is a lot more that I could say, but I am aware that others want to make brief interventions and I want to make time available for the Minister to give the fullest possible answers. I will finish with this one final nugget from that good faith meeting on 23 November. When we indicated at the end that we were not content with what we had been told and would not accept the offer, the representative of the solicitors acting for the Post Office turned round and said, “Be aware that if you go to the next stage, it is possible that the sum offered could be reduced or withdrawn completely.” If ever there was a point when we understood the lack of respect that still pertains between the Post Office, its representatives and the sub-postmasters whom we represent, that was it. That was the disgrace. That is why it has to change.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I call Kevan Jones next. I hope to call the Minister at 20 past 11.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate today. He talks about culture. I have been involved in the issue for more than 10 years. It was first brought to my notice by Tom Brown, a constituent, who came to me with a similar case. A highly respected individual in the community was suddenly accused by the Post Office of stealing £86,000 because of the Horizon system. He spent two years of hell, and when he went to go before a judge at Newcastle Crown court, he arrived at the door and was told by the Post Office that it was not pursuing the case. In that time, he would have gone bankrupt and paid £86,000 back to the Post Office. In the 10 years in which I have been dealing with his case and many other cases, the culture described by the right hon. Gentleman is spot on. It is arrogant and dismissive. There is a cover-up.
We are now into a scheme that needs to be abolished. It is designed to put the onus back on the individual postmaster and postmistress and to reduce the liability of the Post Office. The scheme was open for only three months in 2020, and if someone did not get their claim in by then, they could not get a claim at all, so that was designed to reduce the numbers and reduce liability. The Post Office has no idea. In its accounts, it budgeted for £35 million of compensation. The figure is now estimated to be more than £300 million.
The scheme also excludes the 555 people, including my constituent, Tom Brown, who took action against the Post Office. We got to the truth only when the case went to court. The Government used £100 million of public money to try to stop the case going forward. They had to settle with the claimants because they ran out of money. There was a tsunami of money from the Post Office. I welcome today’s written ministerial statement about those who were convicted and who can be included in the compensation scheme. However, the scheme needs to be abolished. It should be put to one side. We need a comprehensive scheme outside the Post Office. The Government will have to put in place a scheme for everybody, including the people they have already put forward and including the 555 who took the class action. Without their taking that action, we would not have discovered the lies, deceit and cover-up by the Post Office. I am sorry, I do not accept the Government washing their hands of this and saying that the Post Office is at arm’s length from the Government. They had an active shareholder on that board who did nothing to stop the scandal. I call for the scheme to be scrapped and a comprehensive scheme to be put in place that covers everyone to be compensated. Yes, it might cost hundreds of millions of pounds, but that is because it was not the postmistresses and postmasters’ fault. It was the fault of the Government and the Post Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
I am grateful, Dame Angela, for the chance to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate hon. Members for their contributions today and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising the matter. I am here with apologies from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has been called into the House on primary legislation elsewhere. However, I relish the chance to respond on behalf of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, having experienced in my constituency the appalling injustice that the sub-postmasters suffered.
In one village in my constituency, Gressenhall, I saw the misery, the family disruption and the hell, as referred to by hon. Members, that the sub-postmasters were put through in a frankly disgraceful episode of institutional contempt for the little guy—if I can put it like that—at the bottom of the system. I am pleased today that, as hon. Members have remarked, we are announcing through a written ministerial statement—there will be an oral statement, subject to the Speaker’s permission, tomorrow—the Government’s commitment to fully fund the historical shortfall scheme and the losses for those who have not yet been compensated.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister makes a fair point, but so does the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). The scheme excludes those who took part in the group litigation. That is entirely unfair and unjust. Lee Castleton, who is not one of my constituents but somebody I have tried to help through a third party, got £28,000 in compensation but he lost more than £400,000. That is simply unfair and that route for compensation cannot persist.
George Freeman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is the lead Minister on this matter and I will raise that with him. For the record, I want to make clear what has happened. Those who settled have a settlement. Today, we are tackling the issue of those who were not subject to a settlement. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point. This must be fair and it must be seen to be fair.
I want to begin by echoing the Government’s support for the point about culture. It is vital that the painful and difficult lessons from this disgraceful saga are properly learned. Let the message go forth from this Dispatch Box that we expect the Post Office to tackle that culture change properly. I am delighted that there is a culture change programme and two new non-executive directors. However, this is not a tick-box exercise; it is a serious commitment that an organisation wholly owned by the taxpayer delivers properly and learns the lessons from this disgraceful saga. I dealt with the issue when I was a Minister in the Department in the coalition Government in 2015. I saw what seemed to me to be institutional obfuscation and institutional defence of injustice. All those who conspired in that should hang their heads in shame.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentions a law firm. I signal that some lawyers have stepped up to the mark on this and in particular Patrick Green QC at Henderson Chambers, who worked pro bono to help many of the sub-postmasters; Neil Hudgell at Hudgell Solicitors; and Freeths, who did tremendous work speaking up for those who did not have a voice. It is only because of the bravery of those sub-postmasters and their lawyers that we are where we are today.
It is good news that we have announced that funding, but I do not want to focus on that today. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, has campaigned hard on it and he will speak to the House tomorrow. However, I want to set the record straight on where we are today for those watching or reading this debate. As everyone in the Chamber will be aware, the Post Office introduced the Horizon scheme in early 2000 and subsequently recorded shortfalls in cash at post office branches, which the Post Office then blamed on sub-postmasters—completely unfairly, it subsequently turned out. That resulted in horrific suffering, not just in losses for the small businesses being run by the sub-postmasters, but family losses, divorces, depression, mental health problems and anxiety, not to mention the loss of a facility in many rural areas that is crucial to the community. Many people were sent to prison. That is an absolute disgrace. It is important that the lessons are learned properly and that the culture that conspired to allow that to happen is seriously changed.
In 2017, a group litigation order was brought against the Post Office by the 555 postmasters. The postmasters won two landmark trials in 2019 and reached a settlement with the Post Office for £57.75 million. Those court cases and subsequent cases in the Court of Appeal have demonstrated just how wrong the Post Office was to behave in the way it did. It has apologised, and is now working to overhaul its culture to address the findings of Mr Justice Fraser.
Mr Kevan Jones
The postmasters had to settle because they ran out of money. My constituent Tom Brown got £20,000 in compensation; he paid £86,000 back to the Post Office. Can the Minister tell me where that £86,000 is, and why Tom is not entitled to get it back?
George Freeman
The right hon. Member makes a really important point. I will raise that specifically with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, and perhaps he can address it in his statement tomorrow. On behalf of the Government, I express our deep sympathies to those sub-postmasters mentioned today—to Tom and to those in Scotland, York and around the country. This is an injustice that must urgently be tackled.
Mr Carmichael
The best way to demonstrate a change of culture and good faith would be for the Post Office to start the whole process again from the beginning, instead of insisting that people who have made applications under a flawed process will have to see them through to the end and get less than they are entitled to as a consequence.
George Freeman
I understand the point that the right hon. Member is making. Let me include, for the record, the history of how we got to this situation. As part of the 2019 settlement, the Post Office committed to putting in place a scheme for those postmasters who were not part of that settlement and did not have criminal convictions related to the Horizon scheme. The historical shortfall scheme was set up to meet that commitment, and it is an important step. It opened in May 2020 and closed to applications later that year.
To be fair, the Post Office made significant efforts—quite rightly—to reach out to all postmasters, sending 7,000 individual letters to current postmasters and a further 20,000 to former postmasters. It is fair to say that the Post Office was quite surprised—I do not think that any of us in this room will have been—by the response. The scheme received over 2,300 eligible applications. I hear the points that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about the nature of that form. Because I am not the lead Minister on this, I have not looked at it, but he makes an important point, which I will raise with the Minister. The form needs to make clear to people what they are entitled to and needs not to discourage them from understanding their rights, the enforcement of which is long overdue.
The response to the HSS meant that the cost of the scheme went beyond what the Post Office could afford, and it turned to the Government as its 100% shareholder. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, has set out that the Government will provide sufficient financial support to the Post Office to ensure that the historical shortfall scheme can proceed properly and that those people are fully compensated. I understand that that raises a question about the fairness for those who settled out of court, which is a point that the Minister will no doubt want to address. The Post Office is contributing from its own funds.
Kevin Hollinrake
If the estimate is £300 million and there are 2,300 applications, that is £130,000 each. Lee Castleton got £28,000. The constituent of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) got £20,000. That just cannot be right.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I am sure that the Minister will want to address. I want to mention the question of speed. When the Government step up and say, “We will fully fund this,” it is incumbent on the Post Office to pull its finger out and get on with processing claims more quickly. I understand that the intention is that the vast majority of applications will be claimed within months, by the spring, and all of them will be claimed within the year —and that is long overdue.
I will close by picking up on a couple of the points that hon. Members have made. I will ask the Minister to write to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the board. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the same points about his constituents. With the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I share the Government’s apologies to Tom Brown and others in his constituency, and I take the point about lessons for Ministers and for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made a very good point; we cannot have unaccountable quangos marking their own homework, and there are really important lessons about accountability.
It is good news that the Government are making a commitment to fully fund the HSS, but there are other issues that still need to be sorted so that this never happens again and that the injustices are properly resolved.
Question put and agreed to.
Abortion Services Commissioning: Northern Ireland
(3 years 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
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Members are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give one another and staff members space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.
In addition, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are active legal proceedings in the High Court in Belfast between the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children—SPUC Pro-Life Ltd—and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Minister for Health. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters of sub judice to allow full reference to those proceedings, as they concern issues of national importance.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the commissioning of abortion services in Northern Ireland.
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I am particularly pleased to lead this debate on a topic that is close to my heart. Members may be aware that I recently left my role as shadow Minister for Northern Ireland to join the shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport team. The issues on the ground in Northern Ireland are complex, but this topic was always the one that spoke to me the most during my time in the shadow Northern Ireland team. My successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), will be an equally loud voice for women’s rights, and I wish her well in her new role. I look forward to hearing her comments.
Abortion in Northern Ireland is, as I hope we all recognise, an extremely sensitive and emotive issue that engenders passionate views on both sides. While I always look forward to a good debate, and I would expect nothing less on a topic such as abortion, I hope that Members will be respectful in their contributions. I politely remind colleagues that the focus of this debate should remain the commissioning and delivery of abortion services.
My personal opinion on abortion is clear: it is important that anyone considering an abortion, regardless of where they live, receives impartial, non-directive and clinical information on pregnancy in order to make an informed choice. While some argue that abortion is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland, especially now that the Northern Ireland Executive is able to legislate on this issue, the conformity of the whole UK with the European convention on human rights is a matter for Westminster, not Stormont. The UK Government ultimately have a responsibility for ensuring that all our nations across the UK abide by our international and domestic legal obligations, and that is what brings us to this place today.
We must remember that Northern Ireland has a pro-choice majority when it comes to abortion. A number of Members, including the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), and others who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, are committed to upholding that majority.
I must place on record my gratitude to the many individuals and organisations who have laid the groundwork for today’s debate. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) have spoken on this topic at length. I hope my contribution will do their work some justice. I have also been supported by the team at MSI Reproductive Choices and Women’s Aid Northern Ireland—long may their fantastic work continue.
The changes to abortion laws, which extended abortion rights to the women of Northern Ireland, were made in line with the recommendations made by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Affording women in Northern Ireland these rights was a pivotal step in finally aligning abortion policy across all nations in the United Kingdom, and in my view it was a very welcome move. The legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland required under law came into effect in March last year, following an extensive consultation period. The circumstances around the legislation of abortions were clear. During that time, officials engaged with stakeholders, including the Northern Ireland Department of Health, healthcare professionals, the all-Ireland Church Leaders Group, abortion service providers and individuals with personal experience.
The initial regulations were replaced by the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which came into effect in May. The regulations, approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as required by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, will remain in force in Northern Ireland. These regulations outline the legislation on abortion under any circumstances by a registered doctor, nurse or midwife up to 12 weeks and up to 24 weeks where there is a risk to physical or mental health in the opinion of two registered medical professionals. Thanks to this change, abortions with no gestational limit are also now legal in Northern Ireland, where there is an immediate necessity to save a life or to prevent a grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman, or in the case of severe foetal impairment or fatal foetal abnormality.
I had the great privilege of responding to those regulations on behalf of the Opposition in Committee earlier this year. At that time, I and a number of other colleagues spoke about the heartbreaking challenges that many women and girls requiring abortions face thanks to the delays in delivering safe and local abortion services. It would be remiss of me not to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow —my good friend—who has led the way in her commitment to women and girls in Northern Ireland. It is only thanks to her amendment to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019—I must add that the amendment was passed overwhelmingly by the House —that the situation changed, in theory, for women and girls. Finally, women and girls would no longer be required to use unsafe, unregulated services or to make the heartbreaking journey across the Irish sea to seek an abortion in Britain. Those changes were a very welcome move and a critical step for women’s rights and, ultimately, equality across Northern Ireland. However, years down the line, these women and girls are still waiting.
I fully recognise concerns around the devolution settlement, especially as a Welsh MP, and I am sure colleagues will want to raise such concerns today. Put simply, however, in the prolonged absence of a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland, it was right that the law was amended to reflect the UK’s human rights obligations. Despite the legislative progress that has been made, we all know that the reality for women seeking abortions in Northern Ireland is fundamentally unchanged. The law simply is not being properly implemented. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland has not commissioned or funded termination services for the purposes of implementing the abortion regulations across Northern Ireland.
According to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Department has also failed to issue any guidance to health and social care trusts on the provision of abortion services, including when and in what circumstances medical staff may exercise their freedom of conscience when delivering a service. These are basic asks, and ultimately the Executive must abide by their responsibilities around abortion services, especially since they are now enshrined in law.
When it comes to service delivery, the five health and social care trusts across Northern Ireland simply do not have the resources to uphold their responsibilities. Earlier this year, the health and social care trusts collectively applied for additional funding to meet the new legislative requirements for abortion services, but frustratingly, the Health and Social Care Board did not consider that. Across the trusts, abortions were offered within existing services and only where resources allowed. Staff were transferred from other sexual and reproductive services that were on hold as a consequence of coronavirus. A simple glance at the reality of the situation suggests that that short-term plan is completely inadequate.
Colleagues will be aware of the timeline that various health and social care trusts across Northern Ireland have followed over the last year or so. In October 2020, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust was forced to transfer staff back to other sexual and reproductive healthcare services, meaning that it ceased to take any new referrals for abortion services. At that time, the remaining four trusts were unable to provide abortions for between 10 to 12 weeks, because of the lack of resources.
Just months after the regulations legalising abortion came into effect, barriers were clearly already in place for those requiring support, and that is simply not good enough. It is utterly frustrating that legal action from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was required before any proper action was taken to fix the problem, which persists today.
Colleagues will be aware that in November 2020, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission initiated legal action against the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department of Health for Northern Ireland for failure to commission and fund abortion services in Northern Ireland. The judgment in that case was finally reached in October this year and, as we all know, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) was found by the High Court to have failed to uphold his duties to provide full abortion services in Northern Ireland.
Although it is not ordinarily the Opposition’s role to defend the Government—I hope Members will understand that this is a particularly rare exception for me—the failures of Northern Ireland’s Department of Health must be included in the dialogue. We all know that without funding public, services will undoubtedly suffer. That is a fairly basic linear pattern. Without funding or a commissioned framework, health trusts across Northern Ireland simply cannot provide these much-needed services.
In October, the High Court made its will clear—enough is enough. The Secretary of State must work with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to push it to act. He must act swiftly if he is to comply with the law and stop those who oppose it from denying people access to the abortion process through bureaucratic channels. I am pleased to see that after the legal proceedings were launched, the Secretary of State formally directed Stormont to commission abortion services before the end of March 2022, but the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says that the situation has not yet improved. That absolutely must change.
The reality that is often lost in the conversation is that the decision to have an abortion is an emotive one. It is rarely an easy one. The pandemic has undoubtedly had an impact on both the commissioning and the delivery of abortion services in Northern Ireland, and that is understandable to a certain extent. What is not understandable is the cruel effect that delaying the availability of these services is having every day on women and girls in Northern Ireland. Many will have been forced to travel to unfamiliar cities, and at the height of the pandemic they would have had to do so alone, without a consoling hand or a smile to support them during this very difficult time. That is the case thanks to sheer political failure.
My final point, which I am sure other Members will refer to in their remarks, relates to abortion exclusion zones. Freedom of speech and the right to protest is a very important human right, and I know from having spoken on this topic before that there are many Members in this place today who will disagree with my position on abortion. When it comes to exclusion zones, however, I want to highlight the comments made by the Chief Commissioner to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Alyson Kilpatrick, who said last week that a law to introduce safe access zones outside abortion clinics would not stop pro-life campaigners taking part in public protest.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate. Does she agree that those who advocate a pro-abortion stance in this debate—which is more appropriately and properly dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly —often fail to take account of the plight of the unborn child when they, quite regularly, elucidate and elaborate on the issues affecting women in positions that she has alluded to for the past 10 minutes? Does she understand that there are others involved, such as the unborn child?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to the debate. We do disagree in our personal views on abortion. The full consultation process was carried out. Ultimately, at the heart of this issue are the women and girls who need these services, sometimes desperately. They are being denied their fundamental human rights in law to access these services. Abortion is a personal choice for anyone to make, and those women and girls need to be at the heart of this debate.
The commissioner, Alyson Kilpatrick, was briefing Stormont’s Committee for Health on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s position on the private Member’s Bill, which seeks to make it illegal to protest or hold demonstrations inside exclusion zones. She said that protesters
“can use the media. They can use various other platforms. They can campaign and protest outside decision-makers’ premises. In fact, the Bill also allows them to protest relatively near to abortion clinics… What it does not allow is for protesters to invade the space and upset, unnecessarily and disproportionately, people who want to avail themselves of the service. They have absolutely every right to say that they disagree, but they do not have a right to impose that on people who are in the process of accessing the service.”
It is therefore vital when debating the situation with abortion services in Northern Ireland that we bear in mind the difficulties that some women and girls face even when those services are available to them.
The commissioning and indeed availability of abortion services is complex. Put simply, every single day that passes denies women and girls the safe, local service they are entitled to. At any time, that would be deemed unacceptable. In a pandemic, it is morally unjustifiable. While it can be dangerous to draw comparisons, I do often consider how the dialogue around other equalities differs from the conversation around abortion. I consider it my duty as an elected representative to challenge these inequalities at every opportunity.
Let me be clear: as someone representing a devolved area, I understand well the sensitivities around the devolution settlement. The balance of our political system relies on the deep respect for devolved powers. Contrary to what other Members may think, I truly believe that that respect is not a contradiction to my overwhelming belief that the United Kingdom is at its best when we work together to uphold fundamental rights. The obligation to uphold said rights lies with this Parliament and this UK Government. Where those rights are denied, as they currently are, the Government have a moral and legal duty to act.
We all need to be honest here. The Northern Ireland Executive are failing women and girls in their obligation and that cannot continue. Quality healthcare and safe, local abortion services are a basic right, and the time to act has long come and gone. For the sake of women and girls in Northern Ireland, it is vital that access to services is commissioned immediately. It is clear that we cannot rely on the Northern Ireland Executive to do so alone. I, therefore, urge the Minister to provide an update on her discussions with the Minister for Health in the Executive. I hope she is able to provide the reassurance that I and so many women and girls in Northern Ireland desperately seek.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I call Ian Paisley, will hon. Members please check that their mobile devices are on silent?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Pritchard, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on bringing the matter to the attention of the House. She is absolutely right that this is a narrow debate on a narrow set of issues. It is not, therefore, about women’s rights, despite the fact that what we have heard today has been padded out with a lot of comments about women’s rights.
It is not, unfortunately, about the rights of the unborn child, whom we should pause to consider, because no one ever speaks up for them. No one ever speaks up for that beating heart in a mother’s womb; no one ever gives voice to that. Today is not about that, unfortunately. Today is about the narrow confines of the rule of law, and where law should properly made.
I am aghast at the irony of today’s debate. We have had a lot of comment about this being the rightful place to make these laws, and how it is not a contradiction to stand as a Member from another devolved region and say that the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland has no right to make those laws and regulations. When that region is currently in court on these very matters, trying to shape the laws of Northern Ireland, it is the most abhorrent contradiction for this place to try to grasp that power back, and the Assembly in Northern Ireland is on this very day debating some of the issues that pertain to this matter. The irony is not lost on anyone, except the unborn.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is a great champion for the life of the unborn child, as are all his DUP colleagues. Does he share my concern that the regulations violate the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and fundamentally dishonour the devolution settlement? That point is particularly appropriate now that Stormont has been restored.
Ian Paisley
That was a telling point and absolutely right and proper. Yes, this does dishonour and betray the devolution settlement. There are no two ways about; that is the only want it cuts. When powers are devolved to one region and then it is decided that it is not doing things the way we like, so the powers should be taken back, that is not lost on anyone.
We are not allowed to make up facts in this debate. The myth has been projected today that the majority of people in Northern Ireland agree to and with the most liberal abortion laws in any other part of the United Kingdom. Given that that has never been tested, that statement is erroneous and not factual. Any time the Assembly has voted on such matters over the years, it has taken the other view. Whenever this House has voted on it, the representatives from Northern Ireland who attend this place were divided, but the majority voted against the new regulations as outlined.
We cannot make up the facts and pretend that, because one or two Members support this, all Northern Ireland supports it. That is a myth and one that has to be challenged. Talk to any section of society in Northern Ireland, in the tribal way that Northern Ireland is often caricatured—talk to members of the Roman Catholic faith, members of the Protestant faith, members of no faith—and one will find that the weight of opinion is solidly for the rights of the unborn child. That is the socially conservative society that Northern Ireland actually is.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some 80% of respondents to the consultation on the imposition of the legislation did not want it imposed on Northern Ireland, which completely dispels the myth that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are pro-abortion. In fact, they are pro-life.
Ian Paisley
I do not need to make the point, because my hon. Friend has just made it so exceptionally well.
When the regulations were first set in train in July 2019, it was argued in this Parliament that Parliament was duty-bound to pass the amendment that became section 9 because Northern Ireland, it was stated, was in violation of its international human rights obligations under the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and the recommendations of the 2018 CEDAW Committee report on Northern Ireland.
However, when ones drills down into that report, the explanatory memorandum to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 acknowledges the fact, which the Government now confirm, that paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW Committee report, which the House rested upon when it made its case in 2019, do not constitute legally binding international obligations. Constantly, those arguing for these liberal laws hang their hat on the false premise that it was an international obligation, when it was no such thing. That myth needs to be dispelled. We should not base our laws upon a lie, and that is what has happened. That is why people are so agitated about what the Government did.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd is right: everyone is entitled to their own opinions on these serious, weighty and emotional matters; however, they and the Government are not entitled to make a pretence that the law was an international obligation that had to be followed when it was no such thing. The Government have now changed their former line of reasoning, arguing that it is the 2019 Act rather than the CEDAW recommendations that requires them to force Stormont to implement the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 and the 2021 regulations. If ever something has been made perverse, it is the way in which the law is now being argued for.
It is plainly an untenable situation, where non-binding recommendations have been misrepresented to create a binding Act that removes any obligation to and any protection that the unborn child heretofore had. In doing so, the Government leave Northern Ireland in a straitjacket on one of the most sensitive issues that it could ever consider. The UK Government should not have imposed the same law on Northern Ireland that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has criticised in respect of the United Kingdom. That committee expressed its concern
“about perceptions in society that stigmatize persons with disabilities…and about the termination of pregnancy at any stage on the basis of fetal impairment.”
By allowing for abortion up to birth—think of it—in cases of non-foetal disabilities such as Down’s syndrome, cleft lip and club foot, the regulations are deeply offensive to the values of Northern Irish people and their politicians.
The House is currently considering a private Member’s Bill that the Government have given fair wind to, introduced by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), on the rights of children with disabilities. I am honoured to be the secondary sponsor of that Bill. On the one hand, Parliament is trying to introduce laws to protect children with Down’s syndrome, to honour them and to give them their place in society. At the same time, this House says, “Destroy that Down’s syndrome child.” That is what is perverse and wrong, and it is why people are so agitated.
We shall see evidence of that in the latest progress of the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which is being debated as we speak in Stormont. There is a myth that a majority of Northern Ireland politicians are for these liberal laws, when, in fact, the only vote that has taken place in the legislative Assembly since these laws were introduced was on a law to amend them and to remove some of the most horrible liberal policies that affect the unborn. That point, and that sense of irony, is not lost on us.
I welcome the fact of this debate. I also welcome the fact that the Opposition are not here in force today. I think that is surprising, because the Opposition have made a habit of trying to push these matters on to Northern Ireland. I think that, perhaps, under their leader the penny is starting to drop that they cannot keep interfering in the devolution process. They cannot keep saying on the one issue—the Protocol—that they cannot get involved in a debate because they are defending the Belfast agreement, and then the next day come into this place and say, “We want to interfere in the Belfast agreement, set its issues aside, and interfere in a piece of legislation in Northern Ireland.” They cannot have it both ways—that is the message that we send out. This House cannot have it both ways, because that would be obscene and it would be wrong.
Today, I proudly proclaim my defence of, and give my voice to, the unborn. The unborn have a right to life. It is not a health issue to remove the life of an unborn child. It is a moral issue, and this House should have the moral compass to do what is right.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for securing this debate. The issue of abortion in Northern Ireland is challenging for many people. Many of us, myself included, have had to go on a real journey of compassion and learning over several years. I am very aware of the sensitivities around it and of the strongly held views. However, it is very clear that there is nobody who this affects more, and nobody that this is more distressing for, than women and girls.
As with many issues over the years that the Executive found too hard to deal with, the changes in Northern Irish law were brought about via interventions from this place from Members of the Opposition. The inadequacy of the previous regulations was very clear for many years. Many women had to go to court and relive the most distressing experiences, in order to build momentum and support for change. This is in many ways a rule of law issue. Despite what other Members have said today, without a plebiscite, we do not know exactly what every single member of the public thinks in Northern Ireland. However, I would be very surprised if any Member could tell me, with a straight face, that a majority of people support the previous provisions under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which carried a sanction of up to life imprisonment for those involved in an abortion—regardless of the circumstances.
Whatever people have to say about how they came about, these regulations are the law; this is a rule of law issue and it is entirely inappropriate that these services have yet to be fully commissioned. We are all very much aware of the pressures that the health service and health professionals are under. However, if we are honest, we know that healthcare and health service pressure is not at the core of this issue. We also know that it is not acceptable to duck our responsibilities and force women to travel to Britain—especially in a pandemic.
People know, in their heart of hearts, that to deny these services is simply exporting the issue. They know that this legislation does not actually reduce the number of people who require an abortion; it just has the impact of making a stressful situation even worse for those who are going through it. Despite the pandemic, we know that 371 women and girls still travelled to Britain for abortions, which by law, they should have been able to access in Northern Ireland. We know that many others had to resort to unregulated abortion pills—with all the potential health and legal complications that would result from that.
I am a deep believer in devolution, and it is a matter of regret to me that the Executive failed to commission services in line with their legal obligations. It is also a matter of regret to me that in 23 years, to the best of my knowledge, the Executive have not delivered any piece of equality legislation. Those who believe they are holding some imaginary line should realise that in fact, they are growing the belief among many people in the centre ground in Northern Ireland that the only way they can have the rights and entitlements they wish to have is by changing the constitutional paradigm.
Tomorrow, we will be back in this Chamber discussing the impact of Brexit in Northern Ireland, and there are Members who will rehearse in that debate a very uncompromising position about the need for there to be no divergence whatsoever between Britain and Northern Ireland. As recently as yesterday, the Democratic Unionist party leader repeated his calls to bring down the Assembly over the principle of divergence between Britain and Northern Ireland. The mantra is that there can be no divergence in Northern Ireland—that everybody in Northern Ireland has to have the right to exactly the same sausages as people in Britain have—yet they are willing to fight and stand against people in Northern Ireland having the right to the same healthcare services as those in Britain. The prospect that many more women will be forced to either travel or go to court in order to change the current situation is cruel and distressing.
I will briefly reference the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which in a weird echo is being debated in the Assembly as we speak, and which targets some of the most distressing cases of women seeking an abortion. Those cases are incredibly rare—less than 0.1% of abortions, as I understand it—but that Bill has still invited hours and hours of discussion by MLAs about the plight of those women. By all credible assessments, the Bill is legally incompetent and unlikely to receive Royal Assent. It is found by many disability campaigners to be a fairly cynical and exploitative move that undermines many of the efforts that are being made for people with disabilities, and I believe it is effectively a campaigning opportunity for some people to play out the most distressing experiences in the lives of people who, in nearly all cases, are facing a heartbreaking diagnosis after a much-wanted pregnancy.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd has also referenced the safe spaces—the exclusion zones. While abortion is a conscience matter for the Social Democratic and Labour party, that is a piece of legislation that we are all strongly in support of, and I welcome the ruling of the Human Rights Commission that it does not diminish the right of people to protest if they so wish.
In conclusion, the issue of abortion is not something that I take lightly. I know that many people who have arrived at a different position than I have arrived at come from a place of sincerity and compassion, but I also have no doubt that the decision that many women take requires the same level of compassion and dignity, and it is long past time that we make available the services that the law provides for them. There are clearly wider conversations to be had about how we can improve the circumstances of people who are faced with these sorts of choices, such as more adequately securing people’s belief that the state will meet their needs and support them if they are dealing with a very disabled child, because that is not the case at the moment. I am sure that every Member of this House meets families who are living a hell, given the inadequacy of the services that are provided to their families. Perhaps if those services were more comprehensive, people would not feel that abortion was the best choice for their family.
We also fully support better reproductive services, better education, and better information around relationships and consent in school—all the things that we should do to reduce the number of occasions on which people feel abortion is the only choice for them—but quite clearly, for those who do, that is their choice, and the services should be there to meet that choice.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a matter of deep regret that this House has sought to impose its will above the devolution settlement. At the heart of devolution must lie respect for the areas of legislation that have been determined to fall within the jurisdiction of devolved authorities. In complex and highly charged matters such as abortion, the benefit of the doubt should always be granted to the devolved authorities that they are capable of managing their own affairs.
Both the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 were passed despite the overwhelming majority of MPs representing Northern Ireland who take their seats in Westminster voting against the regulations on both occasions, despite the overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation on the legislation being opposed to its imposition in Northern Ireland and despite the Assembly being back up and running prior to those regulations becoming law. The very premise for the legislation was flawed, with the claim that intervention was required by Westminster because Northern Ireland was in breach of international law. That claim has been demonstrated to be absolutely wrong—even the explanatory notes for the legislation noted that the CEDAW report recommendations
“are not binding and do not constitute international obligations.”
My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) eloquently outlined the change that had to be made in the regulations’ explanatory notes to demonstrate that the very foundation on which that law was brought forward was factually incorrect. That is a crazy way to make law—to build it on something that is fundamentally wrong.
The regulations go far beyond what is legally required, as well as beyond the law in England and Wales. They are also discriminatory against those diagnosed with disabilities. A submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated:
“Abortion is a sensitive matter throughout the United Kingdom, but no more so than in Northern Ireland to which the Abortion Act 1967 has not been extended”.
The Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
“radically alter the framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland”,
and
“its provisions exceed those already available elsewhere in the UK. For example,”
that includes unconditional access to abortion where
“the pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week”.
We hear about Northern Ireland’s stance on pro-life and about the number of people who have had to make a difficult journey to GB for access, but we do not often hear about the 100,000 lives who are alive today in Northern Ireland because we did not sign up to the 1967 Act. One hundred thousand lives—people working in our hospitals and the NHS, teachers, and those right throughout our society who are alive today and contributing to society because they were not aborted. Our law values life.
Tragically, the radical regulations permit sex-selective abortion, since the sex of a foetus can be determined through non-invasive prenatal testing. Imagine, baby girls—in the main—being aborted just because they are girls. We call ourselves a progressive society; there is nothing progressive about having a law that allows for babies to be aborted because of their sex.
On the subject of disability, Lord Shinkwin noted during the debate in the other place on the latest version of the abortion regulations imposed on Northern Ireland earlier this year:
“The regulations…threaten me because they challenge that right by devaluing my existence. The narrative of the regulations is that I should not really exist. Indeed, I would be better off dead.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 2271.]
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
On that point, on the importance of the unborn and of protection for the unborn, and on the recognition of that in law, whenever we hear of incidents such as the Omagh bombing, when the unborn were killed, they are included in the numbers of the dead. In the incident at Hillsborough, the unborn were included among the dead. I believe that that is the point: they are a life and they are deemed in law to be a life. The recognition is there, and yet now we believe that we can snuff it out.
Carla Lockhart
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. the most basic human right is the right to life and, unfortunately, in our society now the unborn do not have that right. That is not right, and we should not accept it.
As Lord Shinkwin notes, the CEDAW recommendations, one of the great premises on which the law was introduced, expressly prohibit perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities. The regulations appear to contravene the very recommendations to which they claim to conform. Other Members may be unaware—Members from Northern Ireland have already noted this point in the debate—that proceedings continue in Northern Ireland today, highlighting how unwarranted and extreme these abortion regulations are.
This very afternoon, Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland will consider the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill, a private Member’s Bill brought forward by my good friends and colleagues, MLAs Paul Givan and Christopher Stalford. The Bill seeks to amend the regulations to remove the ground for an abortion in cases of severe foetal impairment.
The Bill passed the second stage in the Northern Ireland Assembly with 48 votes to 12, and was supported by an overwhelming 99.55% of the more than 9,000 submissions to the Northern Ireland Committee for Health consultation. The Bill will now have its consideration stage this afternoon. It goes some way towards meeting the objective of the CEDAW report, on which section 9 of the 2020 regulations is framed—that stereotypes towards persons with disabilities should not be perpetuated. Under the current regulations, babies with entirely non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, cleft palate and club foot, can be singled out for abortion in Northern Ireland because of their disability. The provisions allow for them to be aborted right up to birth.
As has been said, we need a society that values people. We see the amazing Bill that has been brought forward for children and young people and people living with Down’s syndrome. We want a society where our legislation values those people and lets them see that we want them to exist and to contribute to society. Our abortion laws allow for them to be aborted up to birth. That tells people with disabilities that their lives are less worthy of protection than the lives of those without disability, and perpetuates deeply unhelpful stereotypes about their quality of life by suggesting that it might be better for them not to have been born.
The regulations matter because they send a clear message that people with disabilities are not equal to others—the Bill being discussed in Northern Ireland today says they are. In England and Wales, where a very similar law is in place, 90% of babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome before birth are aborted, and we know of women who have been offered multiple terminations of their unborn child, up to a very late stage of pregnancy, because their child has been diagnosed with the disability.
A submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the 2021 regulations noted:
“The Committee will recall that the proposals consulted on by the Northern Ireland Office in respect of the 2020 Regulations were rejected by almost 80% of those responding. And yet this breadth of feeling was not reflected in the legislation which subsequently ensued.”
The Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill
“goes some way to begin to redress that democratic deficit.”
The Bill indicates the Assembly’s capacity to legislate for itself on abortion, as well as the disparity between the regulations imposed without consent on Northern Ireland and the views of the majority of the population and their elected representatives. I urge the Government to rethink, to respect the devolution settlement and to allow Stormont the time and space to formulate a made-in and made-for Northern Ireland policy.
Finally, I pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who has left early. Never once in this debate is the baby mentioned by the pro-abortion speakers. It is all about the women. I value women. I am a woman myself. I have a baby myself. I value women, but I also value the life of the unborn. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim has said, I am unashamedly pro-life. I will be a voice for the voiceless. We need to get to a point in this society where our laws legislate and create a society that values life and where people can choose life. Yes, we need additional services—I would be the first to say that—to help women who choose life, but I want our laws to value the unborn and value the baby in the womb.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), my co-chair on the pro-life all-party parliamentary group. I commend her for her informed and sensitive speech and for all that she does to be a voice for the unborn in this place.
I rise to speak in this debate to support the right of the Northern Ireland Assembly, representing the people of Northern Ireland, to determine the way forward on abortion—a matter devolved there for some 100 years. I will also highlight the problems arising from the 2020 and 2021 regulations.
I agree that this is a sensitive matter; it is one of fundamental importance in terms of the lives of the unborn, respecting the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and respect for the long standing Sewell convention of devolution—that the UK Parliament does not normally legislate in respect of devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislature. Before I move on to the particular problems of the 2020 and 2021 regulations, I will first refer to two other issues: the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021. There were multiple submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee earlier this year as it considered the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021. Those submissions illustrated the worrying damage that imposing such changes could inflict on the Union. I will quote just one, which says that the Secretary of State’s new powers would
“give him complete control of policies related to abortion and education in Northern Ireland, which are devolved matters. They will take away from the people of Northern Ireland any power to affect any abortion policy the Westminster government choose to impose”,
and that,
“given the current unrest in the province, these measures could do untold damage to the already fragile Northern Ireland Assembly and the Good Friday Agreement.”
Those are profound implications.
I turn to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, which published a report on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 in April highlighting several constitutional issues arising from the regulations. The Committee stated:
“The 2021 Regulations raise an important issue concerning devolved competence. On the one hand the Secretary of State cites a statutory duty, arising from section 9 of the 2019 Act, to make the 2020 and 2021 Regulations… On the other hand, one of the governing parties in the Northern Ireland Executive opposes the Regulations as an unwarranted interference with the devolution arrangements… The prospect of different laws on abortion operating in Northern Ireland would cause substantial legal and political difficulties, and risk undermining the devolution arrangements. We urge the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to adopt a more constructive approach to resolve this matter.”
I agree.
I now turn in detail to the problems arising from the 2021 and 2020 regulations. Some of these points have been touched on, very eloquently, before; forgive me, Mr Pritchard, if I touch on them again. They are worth repeating. The 2020 regulations allowed the Westminster Government to introduce a completely new abortion framework to Northern Ireland—even broader than the already extremely permissive regulations applicable here. For example, the regulations allow for an abortion, without the need for any ground or reason to be given, for any pregnancy up to 12 weeks. That, effectively, permits sex-selective abortion, as it is now possible to tell the sex of an unborn child between seven and 10 weeks.
Government Ministers here have repeatedly stated that sex selection is not a lawful ground for the termination of pregnancy. When sex-selective abortion was debated in Westminster in 2015, a Minister described it as an “abhorrent practice”. In permitting abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, the regulations go far beyond the law in Great Britain. Indeed, they are even more permissive than required by the CEDAW report, which I will come on to shortly.
The 2021 regulations are even broader, as they deal not only with abortion but with wider issues such as sex education. However, no formal consultation has taken place on the regulations. The Government relied on a mere six-week consultation on the 2020 regulations—six weeks that ran during the general election campaign of 2019 and in the lead-up to Christmas that year.
Then there is the question of the cost of implementing this new framework for abortion in Northern Ireland, which is shrouded in confusion. There was no impact assessment for the 2020 regulations. It appears that the UK Government—the Minister may correct me—have given no indication of how costs will be borne, arguing that this is a matter for the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. However, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland considers this funding to be a matter for the UK Government.
There is the further legal point of controversy as to whether the obligations in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 were a one-off, so that the 2020 regulations met them, which is the view of the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin QC, or whether those obligations are continuing, which I understand is the view of the Government.
It is critical to remind ourselves, as colleagues have done, that the minor UN CEDAW committee was not the UN speaking as a whole, which was often the impression that we were given when we were discussing the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. Those discussions were far too brief. I remember one important debate on the Bill, on 18 July, that lasted just one hour. On another occasion, if I remember correctly—and I stand to be corrected—we were asked to look at House of Lords amendments in just 17 minutes, which was totally inadequate for the consideration of such important legislation.
That CEDAW committee was not the UN speaking as a whole and, as we have heard, its recommendations are neither binding nor international law. That has been specifically confirmed by the Northern Ireland Office itself in its explanatory memorandum to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021, which states, with reference to paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report:
“In particular, those recommendations are not binding and do not constitute international obligations.”
The whole premise on which we passed the 2019 Act was false.
On the basis of those non-binding recommendations, the Government seek, through the 2021 regulations, to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to direct not just Ministers but civil servants and health bodies in Northern Ireland to implement a broad abortion framework. That is a far wider group of people and bodies than envisaged by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which allows the Secretary of State to give direction to Ministers or a Northern Ireland Department only in certain circumstances, namely,
“for the purpose of giving effect to any international obligations”
—and we have agreed today, I hope, that the CEDAW recommendations were not international obligations—or for the purpose of
“safeguarding the interests of defence or national security or of protecting public safety or public order”.
The wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State by the 2020 and 2021 regulations cannot be justified on any of those grounds.
I turn now to commissioning. There is no reference to what services might be commissioned in either the 2020 or the 2021 regulations. The regulations are now, as Mr Pritchard has said, the subject of a pending court decision, which makes for a further legal complication. The requirement to commission services under the direction of the Secretary of State may disappear if that legal challenge is successful, leaving a legal loophole. What is particularly concerning about the commissioning, however, is that the regulations do not include any proposed inspection arrangements for premises conducting abortions, whether NHS or private. It would appear that the Northern Ireland Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority has no powers to inspect any premises to compare with those of the Care Quality Commission in England. If that is the case, that omission is doubly concerning when we consider recent reports by the CQC of abortion clinics in England. In the last few weeks, a British Pregnancy Advisory Service clinic in Middlesbrough was rated inadequate after inspectors found that medicines were not stored safely and that systems to protect people from abuse were not “effective”, while a Doncaster BPAS clinic was put into special measures following an inspection. It is essential that proper provision for the inspection and regulation of abortion services is in place in Northern Ireland.
As mentioned, abortion remains a devolved matter that rests with the competency of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2019—which, in section 9, includes the order-making power under which the regulations were created—was imposed on Northern Ireland at the behest of parliamentarians from other parts of the UK. No Northern Ireland MP in Westminster supported the passing of that Act.
The Northern Ireland Assembly have been up and running for some time. It not only has the legislative competency to act on abortion-related matters but, as we have heard, it is in the process of doing so through the Severe Foetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Respect for the competencies of that Assembly and the devolution settlement surely dictates that all other abortion matters should be determined by the Assembly, particularly since abortion has been a devolved matter for so long.
The Severe Foetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill seeks to address the discriminatory nature of abortion law implemented in Northern Ireland under regulation 7 of the 2020 regulations, which permits abortion up to birth on the grounds of disability. It is a matter of increasing concern across the UK in terms of its discriminatory aspect, as we heard in the House only two weeks ago in a debate on the proposed Down’s syndrome Bill.
Application of regulation 7 would very much go against the progressive tide of thinking in that respect. The fact that abortion up to birth for serious foetal disability is already in effect in GB is no reason to implement it in Northern Ireland—particularly as it is now considered to be deeply concerning and ill-defined legislation. I know that because my son was born with a club foot. I do not consider that to be a serious disability. We have seen it corrected; no one looking at my son today would know that he had been born with that disability.
Even the CEDAW report on which the regulations rely stated:
“In cases of severe fetal impairment, the Committee aligns itself”
with the UN
“Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the condemnation of sex selective and disability selective abortions, both stemming from…negative stereotypes and prejudices towards women and persons with disabilities.”
With great sadness, I conclude that imposing the ill-thought-through and hurried-through regulations would demonstrate a profound lack of respect for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. As I have repeatedly said in this House—I refer to my remarks on 8 July, 18 July and 9 September 2019, and on 8 January 2020—the hurried handling of the issue of abortion, which is a devolved policy area, and the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act and the subsequent introduction of regulations has been, in my opinion, unconstitutional, undemocratic, legally incoherent and utterly disrespectful to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I ask the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to wind up at about 3.38 pm, to allow the Front-Bench Members 10 minutes each.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on an issue that is very close to my heart. I will replicate the opinions of my colleagues and of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I am my party’s health spokesperson. As a Northern Ireland MP—I was born and bred there and I still live there—I have listened to the views of those around me: of women and men; of young and old; of those who are affected by the meddling of this House in one area and cry out for help in other areas, only to be told that the issues are devolved. There is no justification for interference in the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland in this matter.
The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 conferred egregiously wide powers on the Secretary of State to
“direct a Northern Ireland Minister, a Northern Ireland department, the Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency to take any action capable of being taken that is required for the purpose of implementing the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86”
of the CEDAW report. The regulations note that the Secretary of State will have powers to direct any “relevant person” to take any action that they are capable of for the purpose implementing the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report. It is not clear that Parliament intended to allow such wide-ranging powers to be created, given the obligations voted on in section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which outlines such powers as applying to Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments only, while the 2021 regulations extend these powers to direct public health organisations.
That sets a dangerous precedent for commissioning on a devolved issue. There is no clear limit to the sweeping powers granted to the Secretary of State; they are potentially indefinite. The Northern Ireland Office states that
“the statutory duty imposed on the Secretary of State by section 9 of the NIEF Act is such that until all of the recommendations in the CEDAW Report are implemented in Northern Ireland, he will not have complied with his statutory duties in full.”
That is very concerning and very worrying. These are wide-ranging powers across a spectrum of issues that extends well beyond abortion. The list under paragraph 86 of the CEDAW report, for example, also includes sex education. The powers taken by the Secretary of State in the 2021 regulations allow the UK Government to override Stormont on devolved issues on an ongoing basis, even though the Assembly is functioning. We may not like all the things happening at the Assembly, but it is a functioning Assembly and it has a cross-section of political support in Northern Ireland.
Notably, consent for constitutional change is one of the fundamental principles of the 2005 St Andrews agreement, which restored the political institutions of Northern Ireland in July 2006. The radical abortion amendment to the 2019 Act has not received the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Repeatedly laying these statutory instruments glosses over the deeper issues related to devolution and that abortion is devolved to Northern Ireland, but seemingly now in name only.
Abortion is an immensely sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, a place where both lives matter—both the life of the pregnant woman and the life of the unborn child, the baby yet to be born. It is an issue that crosses the bounds of political persuasion, class or creed. At the walk for life at Stormont, which I was happy to attend with my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), I stood shoulder to shoulder with nationalists, Alliance voters and Unionists alike. We rose above the politics because life matters, including the life of the unborn baby. I was thankful for the thousands and thousands who came out to respectfully plead that we did not implement the most liberal abortion laws in Europe, to no avail.
I respect the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—she knows that, I spoke to her beforehand—and I want to be respectful to everyone because it is my nature to be so. With that in mind, I say this. The hon. Lady referred to consensus. First, back on 2 June 2020, 75 of the 90 Members of the Legislative Assembly demonstrated cross-community opposition to the imposition of abortion legislation that discriminated against those with non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, and an absolute majority voted specifically against the imposition of abortion regulations that allow disability discrimination, as the 2021 regulations have done. Secondly, I am aware of a poll earlier this year that indicated that 60% of the people of Northern Ireland were against abortion on demand for any purpose. Those are two reasons why the consensus that the hon. Lady referred to does not hold up.
Thirdly, a poll by the University of Liverpool and Britain’s Economic and Social Research Council showed that only 5% of the public in Northern Ireland support introducing abortion up to 24 weeks, which is what the UK Government implemented through their regulations. Fourthly—my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann made this point, but it is important that I put on the record that I feel the same; it has never been contradicted, and indeed has been enhanced—it has been reported that an estimated 100,000 people would likely not be alive today had Northern Ireland been subject to the same drastic expansion of abortion legislation as the rest of the UK has experienced since the Abortion Act 1967. With abortion on demand, those people would not have jobs and would not be contributing to society. I thought that was a very salient tale of just how important that is.
In effect, it seems that abortion in Northern Ireland has become a reserved matter, predicated on the consent of Westminster, and by extension, the CEDAW recommendations, rather than a devolved matter of full legislative control as before 2019. In the last two days, from my constituents in Strangford, I have been contacted with some 400 emails on this issue—I say that honestly. How many emails have I had in favour of abortion in the last six months? Three. Three in favour of abortion, and 400 in the last few days. Indeed, in those six months, thousands spoke against it.
I want to reflect the opinion of those in Strangford and across Northern Ireland. I am very proud to represent everyone on this issue, and people do take the time to come and tell me their views. I have had nationalists come to my office who pleaded with me to stand firm against this most liberal abortion regime in the world. The case is clear. The majority are against abortion.
One of my constituents tells me that she emailed one Member of the House who has spoken out passionately, telling this House that she spoke for the women of Northern Ireland. I will not shame anybody, because that is not what I do, but my constituent, who wrote to that Member and asked her to represent her, is still waiting for a reply. There is a pick-and-choose when it comes to Northern Ireland that goes from Government right down to individual Members. I am not picking and choosing. I can speak with authority and say with certainty that the overwhelming majority of those who have contacted me are appalled at this legislation. They are appalled that the wishes of a cross-section of the Assembly have been ignored by the Government. They are appalled that the legislation means that a reason for taking a life at 27 weeks can be a cleft lip. Does anyone really think that that reason could be condoned legislatively or in any other way?
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann speaks with passion, compassion and sense, and I commend her for that. My voice should not carry any less weight because I am a man. I speak for my constituents—male and female, young and old. I represent them very well, I believe, and I am fervently urging Members to consider what they are asking to be implemented expressly against the democratic will of the people of the Province.
There is coming a day shortly when the day-to-day business of Northern Ireland could well be the responsibility of this House, and all decisions could be made here, but not now and not at this time. Today is not that day. It is the place of the Northern Ireland Assembly to make a decision on abortion. It should be up to Assembly Members to respect them. They should be respecting the thousands upon thousands of my constituents who say that they do not want abortion on demand, that they want to speak up for the unborn and, above all, to respect life. The life of the unborn baby is so important to all of us.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing this timely debate on the commissioning of abortion services in Northern Ireland. I am proud of her work, as my predecessor, for women and girls in Northern Ireland. I will endeavour to do all that I can to support them.
At the beginning of my parliamentary career, I worked as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the shadow Northern Ireland team and was a member of the Women and Equalities Committee. This afforded me the opportunities to work with colleagues in Northern Ireland and to have a greater insight into the inequality of women in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the UK. I had the opportunity to meet the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) before she was in this place. I remember the conversation well. She spoke today about compassion and learning and that this issue is a journey. I think we all understand what a journey it is for women in Northern Ireland.
Being part of the Women and Equalities Committee when it did the report on abortion law in Northern Ireland gave me an in-depth view of the change that was needed to move forward. I pay tribute to all the organisations and politicians who spoke to us. Moreover, I pay tribute to the women who shared their deeply personal experiences with us as well.
The standpoint of the Labour Front Bench is that these women should have the right to make an informed choice. Any woman who suffers a loss or makes a decision to end a pregnancy should have support services available to them. I was very dismayed to hear that there is an 80% increase in need, and limited funding means that women have got up to a six month waiting list for support. How can this be acceptable in 2021?
I have listened to all of the speakers in today’s debate. It is important that we all understand and are respectful of each other’s views. I was brought up a Roman Catholic and my father was the deputy head of a Roman Catholic school. I had that one-sided view of the right to life. However, as a woman and having been in education for 20 years, I have seen at first hand the pain that girls and women have had to go through. That is why those services are so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd outlined at the start, this is not a debate about the mechanics of devolution; it is a debate about the rights and the duty of this Parliament to uphold the rights of citizens across the United Kingdom. The law is clear: we need to get on with delivering those services.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the views of the people in Northern Ireland. I want to draw their attention to an Amnesty International poll, done by an independent research company in 2020, which
“demonstrates an overwhelming demand for change to Northern Ireland’s draconian abortion laws.”
It is important that we are fair, just and transparent about the data that is out there on the views of people in Northern Ireland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd explained in her excellent speech, the changes to abortion laws extended abortion rights to the women of Northern Ireland. They were made in line with the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and affording women in Northern Ireland those rights was about aligning abortion policy across the United Kingdom. It was a key moment for us, but little has changed since March 2020 for women in Northern Ireland. This is the title of the debate, and the lack of the commissioning of abortion services in Northern Ireland is having a direct impact on women.
The debate is about the rights of women in Northern Ireland and their right to access basic reproductive healthcare without needless barriers. It is about their right to clear, accurate and impartial advice and guidance about their healthcare choices. There is a worrying lack of impartial guidance, if any guidance at all, on a woman’s right to choice when she finds out she is pregnant. The GP should be women’s first port of call and they do not always get the advice they need there. When women turn to the internet and google abortion services in Northern Ireland, they are led to services that put in delaying tactics, making it impossible for them to terminate their pregnancy if they wish to. It also forces more and more women to purchase abortion pills online. We should not be in that situation. Fortunately, those women are not living in fear of prosecution now when they use that service.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Unfortunately, I need the time.
The lack of commissioning means that Informing Choices NI has had to withdraw its central access point and BPAS has had to come in to support it as well. Women have a right to have high-quality access services as early as possible and as late as necessary and those rights are currently denied to women because of the inaction of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State. It has been nearly two years since those essential services should have been made routinely available in Northern Ireland, but as colleagues have said, the reality for many women is that the change in legislation might as well not have happened.
The lack of funding or a commissioning framework has led to piecemeal service provision, with women’s access dictated by their postcode. Women in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area have had not access to services in nine months and they cannot go to another trust to access services, having to pay nearly €500 privately to go to Ireland or to England and access pills online if it is not too late. What should be a service for all becomes a service for a lucky few: those who can take a hit to their income, take a day off work or travel the hours to access healthcare. That is not fair. The impact of covid has also been felt in service provision and in the travel restrictions.
The reality for women in Northern Ireland is that access to basic healthcare rights is in no way guaranteed. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland meet me to discuss an immediate way in which the Government can address the current crisis for women in Northern Ireland? What additional measures will the Executive put in place, especially in light of the new covid variant omicron, to ensure that the provision will be extended and maintained into the new year?
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, because this is a very important issue for women and girls in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for securing the debate. The Northern Ireland Office Ministers regret that they are unable to be here today, but I am sure they welcome the opportunity to have this debate and hear the wide-ranging views on abortion in Northern Ireland. It is an extremely emotive and sensitive subject and it is important that we have that debate in this place.
It is now more than two years since the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 was passed, where Parliament stepped in and decided that women in Northern Ireland should have access to the same healthcare rights as women in England, Scotland and Wales. Even though the law was changed two years ago, it is true that services have not been commissioned in full.
The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act placed a duty on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that abortion services which meet the recommendations are put in place and implemented. He has a legal duty to uphold that. As we have heard today, it is true that women have to access abortion in the rest of Great Britain, even though early medical abortion is available in four of the five trusts in Northern Ireland and BPAS has stepped in to provide an interim referral service for women and girls on a temporary basis.
Women and girls who require surgical abortions and post-10 week abortions still have to travel to Britain. The only way for the legal obligations to be met is through local commissioning. The Secretary of State has been clear with the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Executive about the commissioning of abortion services that are consistent with the regulations passed in 2019. Despite continuous engagement by the Secretary of State, he remains frustrated that progress is not being made.
As a result of the ongoing delay in commissioning services specifically by the Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Executive, Members will be aware that in July this year, the Secretary of State issued a direction to the Northern Ireland Department of Health, the Minister of Health, and the Health and Social Care Board to commission and make abortion services available by no later than 31 March 2022.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for giving way because that point is absolutely vital. By the Secretary of State recommending to the Minister in Northern Ireland that he commission these services, is that not an acceptance that these services are devolved matters? Conversely, matters that are reserved, such as the protocol, can be debated here—and posed and changed here—if that is the Government’s position. If the Government’s position is that this matter is devolved, it should remain devolved.
Maria Caulfield
I thank the hon. Member. I was going to come on to the point he raised in his remarks, but will touch on it now, if I may. Health is a devolved matter and that is very much recognised. It was frustrating. It was a free vote, and he knows how I voted and I would do the same today. However, at the time, there was no functioning Assembly. This Parliament had to make decisions, not just on this issue, but other issues such as budgetary matters. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at the time, I remember making the case to MLAs that this was why it was so important to get the Assembly up and running, because decisions were made in this place that did not reflect and respect devolution. Decisions were having to be made in this place on devolved matters.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I totally agree that this is a very sensitive issue and there are strongly held views on it, but it is as if we are sometimes speaking in a vacuum. Yes, there was a political vacuum in Northern Ireland when the law was made, but there was also an issue around the law, where the High Court clearly stated in the Sarah Ewart case that the Northern Ireland Executive were falling foul of the law in terms of human rights protections around fatal foetal abnormality and sexual assault.
Whatever people might think about the law that this place brought in, the Northern Ireland Executive did not bring in a law to deal with that issue. Nobody that I have heard who opposes the law here has come up with a solution to deal with the fact that Sarah Ewart and many other women were forced, when the baby was not able to be born or to survive, to carry to full term. Those people were left without any recourse by our Northern Ireland Executive, so it is all very well talking about devolution and everything else, but when responsibility lay with the Northern Ireland Executive, they did not lift the ball, did not deal with it and left women, such as Sarah Ewart, in a very invidious position.
Maria Caulfield
We are left with the law that was passed in 2019, so the Secretary of State is now under a legal duty to implement it. He has directed the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to include it on the agenda for the Executive Committee. That is not taken lightly because, while I understand the points the hon. Gentleman has just made, health is a devolved matter, but the UK Government have to uphold their legal duties in terms of the decision.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has taken the decision in line with his statutory duty. He recognises that it is an unprecedented step, but it was taken after allowing a year for the commissioning of services since the Northern Ireland Office provided a framework in spring 2020. The Secretary of State has clearly stated that fully commissioned services must be provided by March next year. If it becomes clear before that deadline that the Department of Health, or indeed the Northern Ireland Executive, are not making progress, he will have to take further steps to ensure that his legal duties are upheld.
I know that I am running out of time, but I will just follow up on a couple of comments. The hon. Member for Pontypridd asked about progress, and I hope that I have set out that the Secretary of State has set the deadline of March and is monitoring progress closely. On the issue of exclusion zones, my understanding is that there is a Bill before the Assembly, brought forward by an MLA, that is being debated on that very issue, and in terms of devolution, the decision will be made there.
On the importance of devolution, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), absolutely, health is a devolved matter and these decisions are devolved for a reason. My plea to MLAs now is the same as when I was on the Back Benches in 2019 and being forced to make these decisions: however fragile the Assembly is, it is important that it keeps going so it can make these devolved decisions. Colleagues have set out clearly the importance of that, which I recognise.
The Secretary of State has said that he is committed to continuing to work closely with colleagues and stakeholders in Northern Ireland. It has always been our position that these services should be delivered locally. I am grateful to all hon. Members. I know that this is a sensitive and difficult issue to debate, but I thank everyone for debating it in such a sensitive and respectful manner. With that, I draw my remarks to a close.
Alex Davies-Jones
It has been a privilege to take part in today’s debate and have the opportunity to speak up on behalf of women in need of abortion care in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the contributions of colleagues from across the House, and although I recognise that some of us are unlikely to ever reach a consensus on the issue, it has been good to see that the debate has been mutually respectful. I particularly welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who spoke passionately about the need to have women and girls at the heart of the issue, and we need to uphold and make available their legal right to local services for a safe abortion.
The central theme of the debate has been choice. In law, women in Northern Ireland have the right to choose, but that is meaningless without access to safe, local abortion services. We have been debating the issue of access to abortion in Northern Ireland for years, and it is simply past the time for action to take place. With that in mind, I welcome the Minister’s reiteration of the Secretary of State’s commitment to bring this in by 31 March 2022 to ensure that the legal duty is upheld.
While I am no longer the shadow Minister for Northern Ireland, I am pleased to have passed the brief into the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). I will closely scrutinise the Government’s work on the issue, and I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to work to meet the needs of women in Northern Ireland without delay.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the commissioning of abortion services in Northern Ireland.
Greenwashing in Finance
(3 years 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
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tackling greenwashing in finance.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who has passed responsibility for this debate to me as she is unable to attend. Subject to the House’s confirmation this evening, I am happy to say that I will replace her on the Treasury Committee, where she has done such fine work.
On the face of it, greenwashing sounds pretty trivial. The Treasury Committee provides a lot of very interesting information on the subject in its report of April 2021. Chris Cummings of the Investment Association described it to the Committee as
“finding something that looks a bit green and promoting it as a green success story”.
People may say, “Well, companies do that all the time, don’t they? They exaggerate their marketing claims and it doesn’t sound like too big a problem.” But, unchecked, it is a massive problem because finance has a huge role to play in decarbonising our whole economy, not just the financial part of it.
I will give some useful examples of greenwashing. BP got into trouble a year or two ago for promoting its green credentials by saying that it was putting solar panels on all its service stations. The reality, however, is that at that time BP was 96% focused on oil and gas exploration in its investment and economic activity. I very much hope—and I am sure that this will be the case—that BP will decarbonise its organisation over the coming years. Nevertheless, its claim can clearly be described as greenwashing.
McDonald’s said that it had moved from plastic to paper straws. However, the paper straws were not recyclable, and neither were many of the containers used in its products. Coca-Cola claimed to be one of the most environmentally friendly organisations on the planet, yet it is the No.1 plastic polluter on the planet. We need to ensure that there is clear evidence about which companies are green and which are not.
Of course, all these companies form part of the investment strategy for many of the important fund managers for which the UK is famous. Tracker funds are particularly popular among investors, particularly unsophisticated investors. A couple of years ago The Guardian reported on an environmental, social and governance-related tracker fund that included two of the world’s largest oil and gas companies. We must ensure independent verification of claims of green credentials.
On the positive side, the fact that companies are making these claims at least gives cause for hope that this issue is important to the investor community. If people think there is a market for this, if we can get the independent criteria right for the future, and if green credentials can be easily and objectively ascertained, there will be a lot of cash flow.
Indeed, that is what happened when the Government introduced their green bonds, which were hugely over-subscribed. That was great and it shows that people are keen to invest in things that can contribute to decarbonisation and a cleaner planet. Indeed, the experience has been similar in just about every jurisdiction and nation that has offered opportunities to invest in green companies and funds, with schemes being over-subscribed.
People choose what to invest in based on their principles. They are keen to support this part of the economy, so they want to be sure that they are investing in something that is green. The difficult with greenwashing, however, is that the investment might not be green; if independently verified, that would result in significant disappointment. Fund managers and finance houses invest cash on behalf of others in these companies. Many people make such investments because they want to contribute to decarbonisation, so it is tremendously important that the cash flows to the right companies—namely, those that are green and that are transitioning to a greener position.
The other big issue is risk. If somebody had invested in one of the top four US coal producers back in 2010, the current market capitalisation of those companies would mean that the value of that investment had reduced by 99% over the past 11 years. There is a big risk in investing in something that might become a stranded asset because of our transition to a greener environment. The difficulty, of course, is that it is the smaller, less sophisticated investors who are more likely be caught in that trap.
In evidence to the Treasury Committee only this week, Charles Randell, chair of the Financial Conduct Authority, said that the marketing of green funds and investment opportunities was open to scammers to hijack. Therefore, while people think they are doing the right thing by investing in the right areas, others are piggybacking on that to create new opportunities to scam the general public.
The UK has a huge role to play in financing the transition to a green zero-carbon future. It is one of the leading financial centres in the world, managing about £10 trillion in assets, contributing about £132 billion to our annual economic activity and about 7% of our GDP. Its role in this area, providing the finance for decarbonisation, is hugely important. That is why this conversation is hugely important,—because we need the cash flow to go to the right places for decarbonisation. The finance sector has a huge role to play, so we need to ensure that those are bona fide green investments.
Although the UK is a world leader in finance generally, it is too early to say that we are a world leader in green finance. We are doing many things that are moving in the right direction, but it is too early to say that, certainly according to the conversations I have had with people from the City, and there will be independent verification of that as we go along. We need to ensure that we take the right steps in future to make sure that we are a world leader not just in finance but in green finance. It is too early to say that today.
The UK Government have done much good work in this area, with the green bonds I referred to earlier and the UK Green Investment Group, which will pump-prime investment into green technologies. Indeed, the Chancellor has set out that the UK will become the world’s first net zero-aligned financial centre, which is very welcome.
There is clearly big UK demand. In evidence to the Treasury Committee, the FCA chief executive said that in the coming years about 33% of fund manager investments would be into ESG, which is very welcome news. However, according to a recent investor survey, 80% of investors quoted the lack of disclosure and consistent definitions of green as a drawback to their ability to invest in the right areas. We need clarity so that fund managers and consumers clearly understand what is properly green and what is just greenwashed—in other words, that people get what they think they are buying.
The Government’s work on green taxonomy—how investments are categorised in different corporations—is welcome. They have set up the green technical advisory group to look at that. There will be climate-related financial disclosures by 2023 for the largest companies and more information by 2025. Some of the larger pension funds are already required to provide that information in their annual reports. There are also mandatory transition plans. All of those things are good UK domestic innovations, but this stuff needs to be international, not just national. Our broad rules are based on what happens in the EU, but the Government have set out that we are going to move on from there and set up a more challenging regime that is more pertinent to the UK domestic situation.
The EU has already set out its position in some areas and has completed its first phase of setting standards, but there are questions about whether it is aligned to the 1.5° warming target. Also, according to the criteria, gas is potentially permanently allowed rather than seen as a transition fuel, and nuclear is also included. Is that based on science or has this been the subject of lobbying by certain sectors? Such questions need to be answered.
The key is to make sure that the measures by which we judge green investments are standardised and harmonised internationally, with proper data and metrics behind them so that we do not compare apples with pears. We need to be able to tell whether they are proper green investments. There are different kinds of green investments. For example, there are investment funds that invest purely in green technologies such as renewables, and others that invest in ones that are transitioning from one technology to the other, which could be just as important as the green technologies themselves.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s perspective on this, but I am not entirely clear on who will draw up the rules. As I have said, I am sure that the green tech advisory group will be charged with a lot of the responsibility, but I would appreciate more information on whether the FCA and the Treasury will be working together on this.
I have some questions for the Minister. We have worked together on lots of different things and I look forward to talking to him about this issue in the coming days, weeks and months. Who will do the standardisation and harmonisation? When will it happen? What will it cover in terms of labelling the standards themselves and the benchmarks? Will those standards include scope 3 emissions, meaning not just the scope 1 direct emissions from the organisations but those from their supply chain and customer base? Will the criteria be measured against the 1.5° target? There are mandatory transition plans for our largest FTSE 100 companies by 2023; when will the rest of the economy be required to look at those mandatory transition plans?
Finally, I have a word of caution about unintended consequences. We want to minimise the risk of stranded assets. We need to make sure that companies and fund managers have a glide path so that they understand the transition period, adjust for the future, make strategic investments and not be left high and dry by a sudden change in policy. It is incredibly important that we take businesses with us. Even businesses that are considered brown today may be green tomorrow, and they need to be given the right period of time to decarbonise, because they too could be a very important part of our future decarbonisation plans and strategy.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on leading this debate, even if he acquired it from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). I wish him well in his new role on the Treasury Committee, subject to the approval of the House later this evening. I thank him for the constructive contributions that he has made during my tenure, including on this subject.
Let me start with a simple statement of fact: the Government have high ambition to transform the UK financial sector and align it with net zero. We are taking bold action to deliver on that. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we launched two record-breaking green gilts this year in September and October, and announced new sustainability disclosure requirements for businesses across the economy to report their impact on the planet. We are starting to see real results. London was ranked the leading hub globally for green finance this year in a leading index run by Z/Yen, overtaking Amsterdam. I do not want to be complacent, but I think we have made significant progress already, specifically on green finance.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, for giving way and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this debate. On the issue of those reporting requirements, as has been said companies clearly have indirect as well as direct impacts through their supply chains. Is it only direct impacts that will have to be reported, or will the indirect impacts of company supply chains also have to be acknowledged?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall come in a few moments to address the details of the reporting requirements, the mechanisms for enforcing them and their extent. If I have not adequately scrutinised his point and given him the right response, I will right to him—but I hope I will cover it fully in a moment.
Z/Yen said that London was
“propelled up the table by the government implementing measures to stimulate Britain’s green finance sector”
and that it
“has the best sustainability standards in the world”.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned, at COP26 the Chancellor announced that the UK would go further and become the world’s first net zero-aligned financial centre. That is easier said than done. In fact, delivering this will require the Government and private sector to work hand in glove—I welcome the UK private sector’s leadership on this. At COP26, we heard that organisations with $130 trillion of assets globally have now made a net zero commitment. These are big numbers with big implications; it is critical that the claims that firms make about their green performance are credible and backed up with real action.
I will now turn to the title and substance of today’s debate. It is absolutely clear that we need a robust approach to greenwashing. We have heard that phrase a lot over recent years, but I would define greenwashing as when businesses, or investment funds, make misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental performance of their products or activities. That can lead to the wrong products being bought—undermining trust in the market—and to misallocation of capital intended for sustainable investments. In other words, it has the potential to be a significant problem at a time when we are trying to make a sincere and credible transition that is verifiable.
The Treasury Committee report on decarbonisation and green finance, published in June, was also clear that
“‘greenwashing’ is detrimental to good consumer outcomes and to the achievement of... net zero”.
As interest in environmental, social and governance investing increases—which it is, rapidly—it is only right that there should be more attention given to, and more scrutiny of, the claims that firms make. It is for all those reasons that the Government have sought to be on the front foot on tackling greenwashing.
I will take the Chamber through the three areas of action: disclosures, mainstreaming climate into financial regulation, and transition plans. On disclosures, as I mentioned previously, it is the Government's intention to propose legislation, I hope in the next Session, to implement economy-wide sustainability disclosure requirements. This will see financial services firms, real economy corporates and investment funds reporting information on the risks they face from climate and environment, and those that they create. A key element of SDR will be reporting against the UK green taxonomy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has mentioned. The taxonomy will set a robust standard for when economic activities can be considered environmentally sustainable. It is specifically designed to tackle greenwashing by creating a common understanding of which activities, and which investments, can actually be considered green. There is one other aspect on disclosures. Asset managers, asset owners and investment products will all be required to substantiate any sustainability claims they make in a way that is accessible to clients and consumers. All of this will create much-needed transparency in the market and ensure that firms cannot claim things without backing them up.
Our second area of action as a Government has been mainstreaming climate change in the UK’s financial regulation. In March, the Chancellor set out new remit letters to the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Committee, which included climate change for the first time. In November, the FCA published its new environmental, social and governance strategy, and the themes of trust and transparency are core to the FCA’s plans in this area. I am also aware that market participants are increasingly reliant on third-party ESG data and rating services to make decisions, which is why the Government are considering bringing these firms into the scope of FCA regulation and will report back next year.
I also want to address transition plans. Industry leadership on climate change, particularly through net zero commitments, has been impressive, but commitments need to become concrete action. That is why the Chancellor announced at COP26 that the UK would move towards making the publication of transition plans mandatory in the next 12 months. A transition plan should set out an organisation’s high-level carbon targets, its interim milestones and, most importantly, the actionable steps it plans to take. That will improve transparency around how those headline commitments translate into action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked me a number of questions about which businesses will have to report, when those requirements will come into force and how reporting will help us reach net zero, and I will take those in turn. We will ensure that any burden on business is proportionate and provides useful information for investors’ decision making. Exact details of organisations and products in scope will be determined by the relevant regulators and Government Departments following consultation. Anticipated timings are set out in the roadmap that we published in October.
The UK’s approach ensures that the SDR will come into force in a sequenced, co-ordinated manner, so that reported data flows from corporates to the financial sector, investors and financial market participants make sense, are logical and are scrutinisable. The “Greening Finance” road map, published by the Government in October, sets out the indicative path to introducing integrated sustainability disclosure requirements across the whole economy. The implementation of legislative and regulatory measures will be subject to the parliamentary timetable that I referenced earlier.
In terms of the impact of reporting on the UK getting to net zero, high-quality corporate sustainability reporting is clearly foundational to investors having the information that they need to make well-informed investment decisions. Any action to align capital investment with the transition to net zero is contingent on financial markets having access to the right and relevant information, and identifying which companies are successfully managing their climate-related risks and opportunities. Fixing that information gap is the first phase of the UK’s approach, and getting market participants to act on the information is the second phase, which will ensure that financial flows across the economy shift to align with that net zero commitment. There has been a concerted attempt across Government to ensure that we are very clear about what that journey needs to look like, and more will flow from the legislation next year. I hope that addresses my hon. Friend’s points.
The Government are taking determined action to tackle greenwashing and maintain trust in the growing market for sustainable finance. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton, and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for their well-informed contributions and challenges. I hope that this has been a helpful exchange for my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. I will consider his points carefully, as I always do, and take forward any elements to which I have not responded.
Question put and agreed to.
Neighbourhood Policing: West Midlands
(3 years 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
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for neighbourhood policing in the West Midlands.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead today’s debate. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for securing this debate, and for allowing me to open in his stead. I congratulate him on his appointment to the shadow Home Office team; I know he will be a great champion for the safety and security of our communities in that brief. He has been doing an outstanding job in raising the issue of the lack of policing in the west midlands. I also thank colleagues who have joined us this afternoon to discuss this timely and important topic. We are holding this debate to discuss police funding for the west midlands and to argue for our region to get the fair funding that it needs and deserves.
The west midlands has the fourth highest rate of crime in the country. This Government have been in power for a long time—11 years, to be exact. When they were re-elected in 2019, it was on a promise to level up every region in the United Kingdom. Nowhere needs that more than the west midlands, which has lost out terribly from policing cuts over the past decade, and where many of our communities have been blighted by crime.
We all know the Government’s record here, particularly on the delivery of justice for victims; we have plummeted to record lows in the last decade. Between 2010, when the last Labour Administration were in government, and 2020, the percentage of crimes that ended in a charge or court summons was halved. The delivery of justice for victims of violent offences is even worse. Someone who has been robbed is half as likely to see the culprits charged or taken to court—down from 19% to 8.2%. For violence against the person, charge rates are four times lower than they were a decade ago. Some 98% of reported rape cases do not result in a charge. What does that say to women?
That is where we are after a decade in which the Conservatives have cut 20,000 police officers from our forces. We have seen central Government grants to the police fall by 30% in real terms, and forces are increasingly relying on income raised through council tax, known as the police precept. Police have also been forced to make more use of reserve funding—money set aside for unforeseen spending—and have had to sell off capital assets, including police stations, to help to raise funds. Between 400 and 600 police stations were closed between 2010 and 2018 by the Conservatives, in addition to the loss of 20,000 officers.
We on this side of the House know that cuts have consequences. That kind of capacity, experience and expertise cannot be replaced overnight. The Prime Minister pledged to recruit an extra 20,000 officers by 2022 and, since then, only 11,000 extra officers have been recruited. Truly, only the Tories could cut 20,000 police officers, watch crime rates soar, recruit 11,000 officers, pat themselves on the back and say, “Job well done.”
In the west midlands, we have had 2,221 officers cut and £175 million slashed from our budgets since 2010. At the same time, there have been huge cuts to the services that are vital to preventing crime in the first place, such as youth clubs, mental health services, local council funding and probation services. The police are also having to respond to complex and serious crimes, ranging from human trafficking to sexual crimes against children, which are becoming increasingly common. Despite that, the Government’s much-trumpeted uplift programme promises to restore only 1,200 officers to our region, leaving us 1,000 short of where we were. Is that levelling up? No, it is not—the people of the west midlands would say so too.
The situation has been absolutely frightening for some of our constituents. In one case that I had recently, two masked men broke into the home of an elderly lady in my area and tried to rob her. A neighbour’s light came on, they were disturbed, and they ran off, but I cannot imagine just how petrified she was. The police officer who responded did his absolute best; he gave her advice on changing her locks, and so on, but when asked how she could possibly feel safe and secure—how she could be sure that they would not come back—he could only say to her that she could move in with her relatives. That is deeply unacceptable.
I remember working on the case of another lady who was pulling into her driveway when a man ran over and stole her bag out of her passenger seat. She called the police and gave them a description of the man and his getaway car, but without CCTV, they said there was not much more that they could do. They did not have the resources to prioritise it and the case was NFA’d—no further action was taken. We hear this all the time.
I cited some of the most appalling national statistics on charge rates earlier. Is it not incredible that in the UK, the CCTV capital of Europe, our charge rates are so appallingly low? Many of our constituents see the rise in violent crime in their areas, and they are scared. Violent crime is rising, with conviction rates at record lows. Gangs with machetes on the streets are not uncommon, as is knife crime. Is this the new norm? The Conservatives have become the party of crime and disorder. To keep our communities safe and restore confidence, we need to bring back neighbourhood policing. Constituents say to me all the time that they barely see officers on their streets and that they do not know their officers’ names. They do not know whom to call and are instead directed to online reporting.
So stretched have services been that the police are constantly reacting, making trade-offs on what to prioritise, and doing less and less proactive work. They are not able to build relationships or undertake vital preventive work and early interventions with young people, which we know are so effective. Neighbourhood policing is what many police officers proudly tell me they want to be doing more of—being a trusted presence within the community, working closely with people and using a range of problem-solving skills to address community issues, which we know have worked in the last decades. It is about providing a visible deterrent to people who think they can commit crime and get away with it.
Under the Conservatives, criminals have never had it so good, which is why I back the plan for the new West Midlands police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, to put boots back on the ground with 450 extra neighbourhood police officers, guaranteeing that officers are based in all our local areas and ensuring that victims of crime are always a top priority and can access timely advice, care and support. Clearly, the funding situation is not easy for West Midlands police, but it is right to direct investment into more officers on the ground, rather than maintaining empty stations. Bricks and mortar, without people, do not stop crimes, but this is a situation of the Government’s own making.
Let us be clear that officers are much needed. There are rising levels of theft and robbery, and devastating cuts to preventive and mental health services have left the police to pick up more and more of the pieces, with less time to spend fighting crime. The College of Policing estimates that 2% to 20% of incidents reported to the police are linked to mental health issues. Under this Government, neighbourhood policing numbers in our region have been decimated, dropping from 1,821 to 760 between 2010 and 2018. Police community support officer numbers also fell, from 811 in 2010 to 464 in 2021.
Given the expectation that a new policing funding settlement will come out on Thursday, we have called today’s debate to make a last-ditch plea to Ministers to give our region the funding it needs. I work closely with my local police and have nothing but admiration for their selfless service, bravery and professionalism, but they are being let down. The west midlands is not getting a fair share. It is patently unfair that forces with lower crime rates, such as nearby Warwickshire, have increased their police numbers over the past decade, whereas our region could still be left 1,000 officers short under the Government’s uplift plans. With the new funding settlement on Thursday, my question to the Minister is very simple: will he give West Midlands police the fair funding that they need? Will he hear the pleas of our constituents who feel let down by the Government and give our forces a fighting chance?
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for making such an eloquent speech and raising all those figures. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who secured the debate. Owing to his position as a shadow Minister, he is unfortunately not able to take part.
This is a crucial debate to my constituents and the people of Birmingham. We have people who live in fear. In my constituency, gangs maraud around with knives, baseball bats, sticks, machetes and, in some instances, guns. The police are called, but they are not able to attend because they need sufficient numbers for such an event, which I understand.
There is a business in my constituency. A group of young people got together and opened a car wash. They do not employ labour from abroad; they wanted to do it themselves and make a living for themselves. For some reason, they were set upon by a gang—probably because they did not want them to open the business where they had. They made several complaints to the police themselves. Nobody turned up. A week later, when the father approached me and spoke to me, they still had not come. I made enquiries and the police were not able to visit those young people, who wanted to better their lives and their local environment.
It is not the fault of the police officers who work in my area. They work extremely hard—fantastically hard—but they do not have the numbers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston says, the West Midlands PCC is working extremely hard to increase numbers. It is important to heed the words of the PCC. If they do not have the officers to do the work, it is difficult to do the work. That is what the problem is.
I have a fantastic sergeant working in my constituency, Nick Hill. He came in as a breath of fresh air in my patch. He is available literally all the time. He comes to community events. He wants to engage, to the extent that we were able to set up a police drop-in at a local church on a Tuesday afternoon, so that people who could not get through to the police on the phone or by other mechanisms could come and see the police and report things. That is a fantastic initiative.
We have some local police officers who are doing a fantastic job. On my own security, Nick has been fantastic. If I tell him where I am holding surgeries, he tries his best to support me. We all have to think about our position and our safety, particularly since the tragic incident of Sir David Amess. That is an additional requirement for the police. More issues are being added to the list for the police to address.
There are also issues within the policing structure. The Home Office has said that more officers need to have a degree to work on the streets.
Mr Mahmood
Well, that is what I am being told—that police officers need to have a degree to be able to work. A lot of recruits have been taken in. I know about four recruits who have come into my constituency as police officers who have come in through the degree mechanism, and there are others who have been told they need to complete degree qualifications in order to move on, which removes them from the limited number of police we have. There are some people who want to be on the street, who want to do policing, who have the qualification, who want to build connections within the community and deliver those services. What we want are police officers who understand local communities and know what is going on.
In another policing debate, I mentioned a PCSO in my area who was a member of the Labour party, and joined the police, so he cannot deliver leaflets for me any more. Rob Capella has done fantastic work. He has been there almost 20 years now. He is recognised by the community. Less so now, because he has less of a team to operate, but he used to go on the streets to understand and speak to people. He was a huge resource as the eyes and ears of the police, working in the community, and that gleaned great intelligence. We can only do that if we have sufficient numbers of police.
Before 2010, we used to have neighbourhood meetings. We would get police there. We would get PCSOs there. We would get people speaking to them in Perry Barr. My hon. Friends here will understand that, in Perry Barr, where we have Handsworth, Lozells and Aston, there have been significant issues with policing and crime. Before 2010, we had some of the lowest crime rates across the country. We did only one thing: increase the police. We had more PCSOs in those areas, and we delivered for the community.
People in the Asian community have a huge issue in terms of robberies that are taking place. Most people understand that it is a traditional practice to have gold jewellery, particularly for weddings and those sorts of events. Those things have been targeted specifically, and damage has been done to buildings and to people. We need more police officers, and we will achieve that only if, on Thursday, we look at the police settlement for the west midlands and listen to the PCC, who is working hard to ensure that we get more police officers. It is the only way to deal with crime. That is what Margaret Thatcher said—to give an example of someone the Minister may look up to. The only way to police is to ensure that there is sufficient policing in the community. If we do not have sufficient police in the community, it is not safe for them or for my constituents. My plea is that West Midlands police get their fair share of the police officers required to give our communities peace of mind and to have law and order in our city and my constituency.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), on leading the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is now the shadow Minister for Immigration—and apparently for debate procurement—on securing the debate.
I hear all the time from constituents who are frustrated about the small number of prosecutions of those who burgle our homes, steal our cars and threaten our loved ones. It is inescapable that falling police numbers are part of the explanation of why that is happening and why people are so frustrated. Even if the Prime Minister and the Policing Minister keep their promise and restore some of their party’s cuts to police funding, we will still end up with 1,000 fewer officers in the west midlands than in 2010, and we will continue to suffer from an unfair formula that drives up our council tax and gives us a smaller share of Government grant than places such as neighbouring Warwickshire, resulting in its ability to increase its police numbers at the very time that ours have been substantially reduced. That is the unfairness.
I am totally behind the call for a fairer formula, properly applied, and better funding for West Midlands police. It is essential if our constituents are to get a better deal. I also wonder whether other areas of reform need consideration. In 2005, my old boss, Charles Clarke, who I am sure you remember, Sir Edward, suggested proposals to increase police numbers and to lower costs by reshaping and reducing the overall number of forces. His ideas, as the Minister may know, were bolstered by a report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that argued that the existing structure of the police was not fit for purpose. It recommended creating strategic constabularies of sufficient size to provide effective neighbourhood policing and tackle organised crime.
Those plans were opposed by politicians of all parties, if I remember correctly, and by chief constables and the then Association of Police Authorities. As a result, we still have broadly the same configuration in place almost 17 years later, although now it seems to have been bolstered by police and crime commissioners.
I acknowledge that lots of police and crime commissioners do a good job and make a good impact, although it occurs to me—the Minister will recall a debate in this place a few weeks ago—that they have in their own way led to a further politicisation of the police. They have brought much more politics into the police, which is why we had an argument the other week about the West Midlands police and crime commissioner’s Conservative opponents opposing his police plan which, of course, is a requirement. But the creation of so many commissioners also means that reform, which may mean reducing the number of forces, is much less likely to take place now.
I have concluded that we need two things: top-quality detectives, investigators and specialists to help crack the cyber-crime that destroys businesses and empties bank accounts, to stop people such as modern slavers and to smash criminal gangs. But we also need police to tackle burglary, vehicle theft and antisocial behaviour. If neighbourhood policing is forced to compete with organised crime for resources, I suspect it will always be the poor relation. In the west midlands, we have already lost 50% of neighbourhood officers.
Perhaps now is the time to think again about reform. Why not a two-tier system, with ringfenced resources protecting the numbers policing our streets, gathering local intelligence and keeping the community safe and a separately funded second tier of specialised officers able to wage war on organised crime? That would require revision of the formula and probably a reduction in the overall number of forces, but it could yield the kind of policing that many of our constituents are asking for.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for securing this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for leading it.
It goes without saying that over a decade of Conservative budget cuts have had a hugely damaging effect on police forces up and down the country. Since 2010, police staff numbers across England have declined dramatically. We have over 21,000 fewer people working in the police: 8,000 fewer officers, 7,000 fewer staff and 7,000 fewer community police officers.
We have talked about how the police cannot deal with these levels of cuts without a devasting impact on public safety, on upholding the law and on the morale of the remaining workforce. However, those national figures do not give the full picture, which is why we are here today in this important debate.
The impact of deep funding cuts to neighbourhood policing in the west midlands has been beyond terrible. The region currently suffers from the fourth highest crime rates in the country. Between 2010 and 2018, Government cuts have decimated neighbourhood policing in the west midlands by almost 40%. This is disgraceful. In the last 10 years, the number of police community support officers has been cut in half.
Officers are now severely overstretched and unable to be a visible presence in a single neighbourhood, and crime rates in the west midlands have certainly not been cut. Over the last 10 years, overall crime in the west midlands has risen by 21% and violent crime has risen by 41%. That is not a coincidence.
While the Government have spent a decade dismantling neighbourhood policing in the west midlands, our police officers have found themselves struggling to combat or prevent crime and unable to provide the public with policing rooted in their neighbourhood. My constituents in Coventry North West are suffering the consequences of that. They tell me that seeking justice when they are the victim of a crime is incredibly difficult. Many feel unsafe in their own homes or on their streets, especially the most vulnerable among them.
This is certainly the case for one of my constituents, Maureen Crealey. After parking her car in her own driveway, Maureen woke up to find that it had been stolen in the middle of the night. This was one of a string of car thefts on her street. When Maureen reported this crime to the police, they gave her a number and took her details, but no one has since gone to her house. No one has gone to examine her street or provided reassurances to the public. Maureen is a widow who lives alone and has been left feeling frightened, abandoned and vulnerable—not by the police but, in her own words, by a system that has failed to give our police the necessary
“manpower to cover our streets”.
Maureen was very clear when she wrote to me:
“More money needs to be invested in our police to protect the citizens of Coventry.”
I could not agree more. Without extra resources and police officers, police forces do not have the capacity to give constituents such as Maureen the support they need to feel safe in their own homes. In fact, police capacity to respond to anything except the most dire emergency has been diminished significantly. I know that this reality pains many current and former officers. Officers know only too well that policing in this country is cash-strapped and struggling to keep up with complex demands and rising crime rates. This is exactly why antisocial behaviour, drug dealing, theft and home burglaries are all too common in Coventry.
The police are not able to deal with these common crimes, because this Conservative Government have hamstrung policing capacity in my city. Most worryingly, the cuts have regrettably diminished trust in the police. Many constituents do not feel that the police are on their side or are visible enough in their community. This is often because police officers cannot be everywhere at once and because their capabilities are being slashed by the Government. We must take urgent action to support our neighbourhood policing in the west midlands. The Government must support our outstanding police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, who has been working tirelessly to rebuild neighbourhood policing and invest in community police officers.
I call on the Government to work with Simon and to restore our neighbourhood policing in the west midlands, but the Government must not stop there. They must reform the policing funding formula to ensure that sufficient sustainable resources are fairly allocated to the west midlands. They must strengthen youth and prevention services to make sure that we tackle the root causes of crime. They must pass a victims Bill that prioritises the needs and experiences of victims as they move through the criminal justice system. To truly fulfil the Government’s pledge to level up the west midlands, will the Minister agree to enact these much-needed measures, or will the Government’s inaction be further proof that “levelling up” is another hollow slogan from the Prime Minister?
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for securing the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who is my constituency neighbour, for leading it.
I recently had the pleasure of joining local police units on an operation in the Sparkbrook area of my constituency. The operation was focused on road and traffic offences and was a huge success. Several untaxed and uninsured drivers were picked up, stolen vehicles were towed and parking tickets were issued by Birmingham City Council’s civil enforcement officers. The operation was very well received by residents and was a great example of the kind of productive work that can be done in partnership between the police and the local authority. Officers were glad to be out in the community, working to keep people safe, and residents were thankful for their efforts.
However, it also gave me an opportunity to speak to Inspector Fitzpatrick and Sergeant Chris Gallon, who informed me of the constant challenges faced by themselves and officers. We all know that police numbers are stretched thinner than ever before and that the Government’s promise of 20,000 more officers across the country will barely begin to address the challenges faced. Crime is becoming more complex, with many offences spanning numerous boundaries in terms of enforcement and responsibility. The decimation of local council funding and support after years of Tory austerity has meant that police are often the first to respond to those in greatest need of care. All this occurred alongside a worrying spike in gang activity and other serious crime.
As a result, our police officers are often bogged down in reactive policing, with fewer and fewer resources available for proactive, long-term community work. We know that neighbourhood policing takes time, commitment and sustained effort over many months to build productive partnerships with local businesses and community groups. Local officers in Birmingham, Hall Green are already doing much of this work despite the scant resources available to them. Imagine what could be achieved if our police were fully resourced and supported in their efforts.
Another thing I learned while speaking to officers is that the problems confronting neighbourhood policing are clear and straightforward. Resources are simply not available, either to the police or the local council. It is evident that our communities want a greater police presence. Neighbourhood policing gives us the opportunity to really tackle the social problems that many of our constituencies face daily. I urge the Government and the Minister to examine seriously the resources required to ensure consistent delivery of neighbourhood policing in the west midlands.
Back in 2000, when I was given responsibility for neighbourhoods and community safety, police numbers were increased and we saw a decline in criminal activity in the west midlands and Birmingham area. That has reversed under Tory austerity. Enough is enough—that is what our constituents tell us daily. It is vital that the Government and the Minister listen not only to residents but to the police themselves, and particularly those who patrol the streets we live in and who see what is happening, about what is needed to keep communities safe, for the police to protect and for us, as elected Members, to represent them.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for securing the debate. This Government value all our police officers. That is why, with our 11,053 extra police officers, we are not on target, but ahead of target to deliver our manifesto pledge of 20,000 new officers; there are 867 new officers already working in the west midlands.
The financial settlement gave West Midlands police an inflation-busting 5.8% increase to its budget—a staggering £36 million. In addition, the rises in local tax that residents pay, together with council tax, put West Midlands police at the top of league tables across the country for precept increases; since 2012, a staggering increase of 79% has been imposed on people in Dudley North and across the west midlands by the Labour police and crime commissioner.
Dudley people—and those across the west midlands, I am certain—can see that effective policing is about more than just money. It is about local decision making and how that filters down from the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner.
Marco Longhi
I would rather not, just now. The facts sadly speak for themselves. We need the right strategy for deploying all the new police officers we recruit, making the right decisions locally, and having the will and competence to deliver on them. The Labour police and crime commissioner has closed dozens of police stations, while spending more than £30 million on refurbishing plush offices at his headquarters in Lloyd House in Birmingham.
Steve McCabe
Does it say in the hon. Gentleman’s speech whether he will give way at any point?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Calm down. The hon. Gentleman does not have to give way if he does not want to.
Marco Longhi
Meanwhile, Dudley and Sedgley police stations have closed. Some hope was given to Dudley people when a new police station was promised in Dudley. It was hailed by my predecessor—the noble Lord Austin—as a new multimillion-pound station to replace the one in Brierley Hill. Several years later, we are still waiting for it. In 2019, it was announced that it would open in 2021, yet no detailed plans have been submitted by the police and crime commissioner to the council planning department.
Dudley is a major metropolitan town—I believe it is the largest town in the country that is not a city—and it has been without a central police station since late 2017. We are paying the price for no presence as a result of inaction and incompetence. Perhaps the Minister might inquire of the police and crime commissioner when Dudley people might see shovels in the ground and the promised new station.
I have great respect for a local police inspector in Dudley by the name of Pete Sandhu and his team. They are trying their utmost to make do with offices borrowed from Dudley Council that are, quite frankly, not fit for purpose. Inspector Pete Sandhu, the local police teams and PCSOs in Dudley town, the surrounding villages and those across the west midlands not only deserve but need a station that is fit for purpose. Unfortunately, time and again, Labour police and crime commissioners have failed their constituents—including mine.
Steve McCabe
On a point of order, Sir Edward. Is it in order—or, indeed, the custom—for the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary to read someone else’s speech during a debate?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to reply to that?
Marco Longhi
I would. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) checked, he would find that I am not, in fact, a PPS.
Steve McCabe
I apologise to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). Can I ask who wrote his speech?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
We have established that. I apologise—I did not call you earlier because I thought you were a PPS; you are sitting in the PPS’s place. I know it is a bit of an insult to call anybody a PPS, so I think we all owe you an apology.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on taking on the mantle. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) on their powerful speeches. Every one of them cares about nothing more than the safety of their constituents, and that is why Labour Members are here en masse. Sadly, there is only one Government Member present—the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). I suggest that he talks to more of his constituents about how they experience crime in their constituency and ponders what they have to say.
This is a vital and timely debate. The Government have dropped the ball on crime: serious violence is up, prosecutions are down, and they have no plan to tackle their failures. The west midlands is an excellent part of the country, with brilliant people who have hopes, dreams and aspirations that are being hampered by this Government. In the excellent police and crime commissioner Simon Foster, whom I visited only a few weeks ago, they have a champion with the right priorities, but he is fighting against crime with one hand tied behind his back because of a Government whose complacency has allowed serious violence to thrive and neighbourhood policing to dwindle.
There are four areas where that complacency has driven up violence and other crimes, such as antisocial behaviour. First, of course, is the lack of policing. The 21,000 lost police officers is a well-worn statistic, but less well known are the 50% cuts to police community support officers, the eyes and ears of our community. The Government have dismantled neighbourhood policing since 2010. Do not take my word for it: twice as many people now as in 2010 say that they never see police on the streets.
Secondly, the UK is now Europe’s largest heroin market and a target for international drug-trafficking gangs. That has increased violence on our streets and steered a trend towards youth violence, with increasingly young children carrying knives and drugs. Thirdly, violence against women and girls has reached epidemic levels, as defined by Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue, Zoë Billingham, in her damning report earlier this year. Prosecution rates for crimes such as rape and sexual assault are on the floor. Fourthly, all the services that support young people, such as youth work, treatment for drug addiction and support for children with special educational needs, and that more broadly tackle inequality and poverty have been decimated after 11 years of drift.
The west midlands has not been exempt from the impact of those cuts. Despite the excellent work of Simon Foster, who has put rebuilding neighbourhood policing at the heart of his agenda, the force will be 1,000 officers short of where it was in 2010. By anyone’s description, that is a large number of officers for one region. It cannot be right that, even with the so-called uplift to police numbers—as an aside, just 400 of the first tranche of 6,000 national recruits have been placed in frontline roles—the west midlands faces such a large shortfall.
The Government make a fanfare of their fêted levelling-up agenda, but make no mistake: there is no levelling up when it comes to the west midlands constabulary. If this Government do not put in place more funding, West Midlands police will face annual cuts of £60 million to deal with rising costs. The west midlands police and crime commissioner recently made a cross-party call for fair funding for the force that he oversees, and is calling for the Government to plug the black hole and put funding in place for the 1,000 missing officers. I support those calls. Does the Minister?
I recently met Simon Foster and saw for myself the excellent work that he is doing through solid policing, and through innovation via the violence reduction unit. For example, a new scheme places youth workers along routes to schools; they act as trusted adults, pull children away from crime, and de-escalate potential violence. Violence reduction units do good preventive work, but there is no long-term funding model for them, and the Minister knows that. They rely on annual funding. I am especially disappointed that Andy Street seemed unaware of this fact on “Politics Live” last week. He claimed that a long-term funding model had been put in place, and also seemed unaware of his role in tackling violence through his responsibilities for youth unemployment, community cohesion and housing, which all have vital roles to play. Can the Minister confirm whether the VRU in the west midlands will receive a funding settlement of longer than one year?
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue noted that West Midlands police
“is good at strategic planning, organisational management and providing value for money.”
However, it added that the force cannot
“meet the demand for its services in protecting vulnerable people with the resources it has.”
Ultimately, it is the people of the west midlands who lose out; it is they who bear the brunt of this lack of funding. That cannot be acceptable. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they must start with organisations such as West Midlands police. Can the Minister commit to filling the gaping hole in resources in the west midlands, so that it is not 1,000 officers down on 10 years ago?
Neighbourhood policing in every community will always be Labour’s top priority. Keeping people safe will always be Labour’s top priority. I urge the Government to make it theirs.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
As always, Sir Edward, it is a joy to appear before you, and it was great to hear the speech from the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones)—I think it was 3a this time. I have heard it a number of times before. [Interruption.] I am sorry; they are all broadly the same.
I often find these debates a bit disheartening. They make me wonder how many years will have to pass before Labour Members stop constantly using the refrain “austerity”. It is almost 12 years ago that that necessary corrective financial action was taken, and I hope that in time, Opposition Members will mature beyond looking back over a decade for the impact that they are seeing today. Even if they do not, wouldn’t it be nice if any argument about austerity were presaged by an apology for crashing the economy—for the Labour Government that ran it hot, allowed the banks to take dreadful risks, ran down the country’s reserves and then almost bankrupted the country, ushering in a coalition Government who had to take difficult financial decisions? [Interruption.]
Kit Malthouse
I have never shied away from those difficult financial decisions that have to be taken. Nevertheless, generations will pass, and maybe in 50 years the Labour party will stop talking about that period of austerity and talk about what is happening today. Today, I thought I was coming to a debate about the value of neighbourhood policing. However, it has become obvious that this is a pretty naked political manoeuvre in advance of some difficult financial decisions that the police and crime commissioner for the west midlands will have to make as he moves towards setting his council tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) has highlighted how significantly council tax has increased over the past few years.
Most of the hon. Members present are experienced parliamentarians. As such, they all know that the funding formula is set in law, and when the police settlement is announced later this year, it will be divvied up between the forces as per the legislation. There is nothing we can do, discretionarily or otherwise, to change that; the funding formula has been in place for some time. We have acknowledged that it is elderly, as I have said at the Dispatch Box—the hon. Member for Croydon Central has heard me say it many times. We are working on a replacement, and we hope to have one in place soon. Nevertheless, this year, as hon. Members know perfectly well, the police settlement will be settled on the basis of that legislation, so the social media posts, tweets and videos that Members put out will be promoting to the public a misapprehension that something could change before later this week, when the police settlement will be announced.
Beyond that, I find these debates a bit disheartening because of the lack of curiosity exhibited by Members about the performance in the west midlands. For example, they never ask themselves why other police forces are doing better. Why is Liverpool doing better than the west midlands? Why is Humberside doing better than the west midlands? They point to the reduction in police numbers in the west midlands and the fact that the numbers at the end of the uplift may not be above where they were in 2010, but they do not ask themselves why there are forces, such as those in Kent and London, where those numbers will be higher than in 2010.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kit Malthouse
I will give way in a moment. Those Members are unwilling to acknowledge the reason, which is that decisions were made by the previous Labour police and crime commissioner that set the west midlands back. They have to take responsibility for those decisions; they cannot, I am afraid, just come to this Chamber and keep saying that everything that goes wrong in the west midlands is the Government’s fault, and that everything that goes right is the Labour party’s achievement. Nobody is buying that in Edgbaston, Selly Oak, or anywhere else in the west midlands. They recognise that difficult decisions had to be made, and I urge the Labour party to acknowledge those difficult decisions.
David Jamieson was not all good, and he was not all bad. He had difficult things to do, and he made a set of choices that produced a particular outcome and a particular baseline in the west midlands. I have no doubt that that was what he said in the elections that he won, and that the people of the west midlands took him at his word and believed him. They have re-elected a Labour police and crime commissioner, so presumably they are happy with that performance, but complaining that everything that goes wrong is down to the Government seems a little naive to me.
Sarah Jones
Knife crime has gone up in every single part of England and Wales.
Sarah Jones
It is true. I can send the Minister the statistics. Crimes have gone up across the country. It is not accurate to blame one area or another for those universal increases and the universal drops in prosecution. Of course, there are good police forces and less good police forces, and everyone tries their best. The point we are trying to make is that we are 1,000 police officers down, which means neighbourhood policing will suffer. On the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) about the police station, I should have mentioned that the police and crime commissioner is waiting for the Conservative council to sell them the land to build the police station. Perhaps we could talk about that later.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but it is unfair and pulling the wool over the eyes of the people of the west midlands not to stand by the fact that a Labour police and crime commissioner—or any other police and crime commissioner elected, presumably —has an impact on the force. The decisions they make must have some implication for the way the force is run and its finances.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kit Malthouse
I have taken an intervention already; I will take another in a minute. It is extremely important for the confidence that people need to have in the west midlands that that is acknowledged. This was a different period financially for the country; people had to take difficult decisions. The west midlands made a certain matrix of decisions that resulted in the outcome today. A number of forces around the country made different decisions. As a result, they will have more police officers than they had in 2010. That is something with which hon. Members will have to wrestle; I am afraid that is the plain truth.
On neighbourhood policing, I am pleased to hear that there is a thrust in the west midlands to invest in neighbourhood policing, not least because the neighbouring Staffordshire force has been doing that for some years, to great effect. The police and crime commissioner and the former chief constable there took the decision to invest in neighbourhood policing and, interestingly, traffic policing, as the basic building blocks of an excellent delivery of service to their people. As a result, they saw significant reductions in neighbourhood crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North referred to the uplift number, which is 800-odd. I encourage exactly that kind of intervention. It is what lies behind our desire to expand the number of police officers in the country.
Difficult decisions had to be taken over the previous decade—you were part of the team that took those difficult decisions, Sir Edward, as a member of the party in power at the time—but the economics of the country now allow us to invest in policing in the face of changing crime.
Tahir Ali
Will the Minister explain why £175 million has been taken from west midlands policing since 2010, resulting in 2,200 fewer officers on the street? Giving back 800 officers does not replace the 2,200 lost. There is a deficit of 1,600. Can the Minister please explain?
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman missed it, but as I explained earlier, his predecessors blew the credit card and broke the bank in the country. Difficult decisions needed to be made, and the police and crime commissioner David Jamieson made a certain set of decisions about how he and the chief constable were going to prioritise spending.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central is probably tired of hearing this, but I was Deputy Mayor of London for policing between 2008 and 2012. We faced precisely the same budgetary challenges as the west midlands. It was extremely difficult; we had a £3.5 billion budget, and in two years I had to take something like 10% out of it, which is an enormous cut, but we chose to prioritise police officer numbers. We fought tooth and nail to maintain those police officer numbers above 31,000, and we were successful in doing so. As a result, our crime performance was better. That was also because of the tactics we pursued; it is not all about numbers.
Different decisions were made by police and crime commissioners during that period, and that has resulted in different outcomes for each of the forces. It would be foolish and, to be honest, financially illiterate, not to recognise that. We can see that in police forces’ reserves position, in the disposition of the property portfolio, and in the balance between police staff and police officer numbers. Every year, police and crime commissioners, who preside over all those things, have to produce a result from that quite complicated combination.
Marco Longhi
Can the Minister help me out with a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central? Dudley Council is ready to sell the land right now if the police and crime commissioner decides to sign the contract. Also, planning permission is not contingent on property ownership. This is about local decision making. We could shorten the long time that it would take to get planning permission and get things going now.
Kit Malthouse
Sir Edward, I feel like a Foxtons representative here, negotiating a property deal across the Chamber. How dynamic we can be when we put our minds to it.
There is significant extra funding going into policing, and there has been over the last two years. We now have a three-year funding settlement that gives us an enormous uplift in resources. For the west midlands, that means £655.5 million next year, which is an increase of £35.1 million. That is a very large increase, and I hope the west midlands spends it well. We can all agree that neighbourhood policing is a significant priority, and that we would like more investment in it. It is welcome that the police and crime commissioner is doing that in the west midlands.
We agree that the funding formula is out of date and a little old fashioned. It has not been reviewed for some time, and we are working on a replacement. I have given an undertaking at the Dispatch Box that we expect to hold that review before the next election, assuming that Parliament runs its full term. Finally—I will give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) time to wind up—there has been much debate about what position the 20,000 police officers will put us in. Hon. Members make all sorts of claims about where we will be. They forget that in the final year of the Theresa May premiership, there was a recruitment drive for 3,500 police officers; that can be added to the number as well. When we get to the end of the 20,000 uplift, we will, I think, have the highest number of police officers the country has ever had.
Preet Kaur Gill
I am sorry that the Minister decided to go off track in his response. In any event, I am grateful to him. I thank all the hon. Members who took part in the debate, which made it clear that at the centre of the issue are families and others across the west midlands who have felt left behind, and who deserve a fair police funding settlement. I hope the funding settlement will reflect that.
Mr Khalid Mahmood
The Minister did not clarify the point about the management of West Midlands police. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services said:
“The force is good at strategic planning, organisational management and providing value for money.”
That includes the input of both the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable in the west midlands. I will not see West Midlands police run down in that manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for neighbourhood policing in the West Midlands.
Written Statements
Postmasters with Overturned Convictions: Funds for Full and Final Settlement
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
This House is aware of the distressing impact that problems with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system have had on the lives and livelihoods of many postmasters.
The Court of Appeal handed down a landmark judgment on 23 April 2021 which quashed the convictions of 39 postmasters whose prosecution had relied on Horizon evidence. Seventy-two convictions have now been quashed to date, and several others are in progress. There are potentially hundreds more postmasters whose convictions have relied on Horizon evidence and may seek to have their convictions quashed.
We want to see these postmasters with quashed convictions compensated fairly and swiftly. So far, the vast majority of postmasters who have had their convictions quashed have each received an interim compensation payment of up to £100,000 while they wait for the next steps in the proceedings.
I am pleased to confirm that today the Government are making funding available to facilitate Post Office to make final compensation payments to postmasters whose convictions have been overturned. We are working with Post Office to finalise the arrangements that will enable the final settlement negotiations to begin as soon as possible. By providing this funding, Government are helping Post Office deliver the fair compensation postmasters deserve.
With the Secretary of State’s status as sole shareholder in the Post Office, my Department continues to engage actively with Post Office Limited on this and will maintain strong oversight of the compensation process.
[HCWS473]
COP Presidency Year Priorities
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
COP26 concluded with agreement by all parties to the historic Glasgow climate pact. This pact, combined with increased ambition and action across mitigation, adaptation, and finance means that the goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C remains in sight. But it will only be delivered with concerted and immediate international efforts.
Today, I want to update the House on our priorities for the presidency year, to ensure we build on and secure the legacy of our COP presidency and the UK’s international reputation as a climate leader.
Delivering the Glasgow climate pact
Throughout the UK’s presidency year, we will work with Egypt as incoming presidency, the UNFCCC Secretariat, and to convene parties to deliver on the agreed outcomes in the Glasgow climate pact. In doing so we will continue to champion science, especially the IPCC and its major reports in 2022, and the urgency of action. The Paris agreement made promises and now Glasgow’s legacy is focused on delivery.
Mitigation
In the context of the latest climate science, all countries have agreed to revisit and if necessary strengthen their 2030 targets for urgent action this decade. Progress was made in the run-up to Glasgow and in our presidency year, we will work with all parties to deliver on this commitment and go further and faster to close the gap to a 1.5°C pathway. This will include working with countries to explore further sectoral action and public and private opportunities for investing in their low-carbon, resilient transition. We will work with the UNFCCC and other international organisations, and seek to use the calendar of international events in 2022 to progress this work. We look forward to working closely with Egypt and the UAE, as incoming COP27 and COP28 presidents, and with Germany and Indonesia, respectively G7 and G20 presidencies, to ensure commitments and agreements made at COP26 are built upon and delivered.
Adaptation, loss and damage
At COP26 we made significant progress on adaptation and boosted efforts to deal with climate impacts. The Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation was launched, for which four mandated workshops will be held in 2022. Developed countries also agreed to at least double their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing countries by 2025. This is a significant step forward which will help reduce vulnerability, strengthen resilience and increase the capacity of people and the planet to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
We will work with countries to come good on this commitment, increasing the availability, efficiency and accessibility of adaptation finance for climate-vulnerable countries and providing support and leadership to initiatives that are part of the UK’s presidency mandate.
Loss and damage was a critical issue at COP26 and we have moved into a new phase focused on action. Under our presidency we will ensure progress continues to be made through the new Glasgow dialogue on arrangements for funding relevant activities, and making sure the Santiago network on loss and damage gets up and running.
Finance
Under the UK’s presidency, 95% of the largest developed country climate finance providers made new commitments, with many doubling or even quadrupling their support for developing countries to take climate action. These pledges mean that we can provide confidence that the $100 billion finance goal will be met by developed countries and multilateral development banks by 2023 at the latest, with $500 billion being delivered over the period 2021-2025. We will continue to build momentum on mobilising the $100 billion per year to support developing countries, including increased finance to help vulnerable countries cope with climate impacts. We will also oversee the start of the new ad hoc work programme on the new collective quantified goal.
We have improved financial flows to those most vulnerable by launching the access to finance taskforce with Fiji, including a commitment of £100 million of funding to support climate-vulnerable countries to deliver on their climate plans. Pilots will be launched in Bangladesh, Fiji, Jamaica, Rwanda and Uganda. Building on the South African just energy transition partnership model and the UK’s leadership of the G7, we will explore new opportunities for transformational, country-led climate action through the clean and green initiative. In this context, we will also champion climate action as a core component of the work of international financial institutions, to support the delivery of Paris-aligned growth and development.
We will build on the progress made in Glasgow in aligning private finance flows with the Paris agreement globally; and in providing tailored support to specific countries and sectors. We will work with partners to leverage the trillions of private finance needed to finance the transition in all countries including the major emitters, and remain accountable and transparent throughout.
Driving sectoral change
COP26 must mark the start of a decade of accelerated climate action. At Glasgow we saw countries commit to accelerate the phase-out of coal power, halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation, speed up the switch to electric vehicles and commit to work together to reduce emissions in key sectors.
Progress in these and other sectors has an important part to play in unlocking further progress on medium and long-term targets. In the year ahead, we will work to turn sectoral commitments into clear delivery plans, including through implementing the Energy Transition Council and Zero Emissions Vehicles Transition Council 2022 action plans, so we can accelerate the pace of the global transition to zero-emission vehicles and meet our Paris agreement goal. On coal, we will work with partners to ensure that commitments from key G20 countries to end overseas coal financing are made good, that signatories to the Glasgow declaration on ending international fossil fuel support implement their commitments and that more countries have the support to enable them to commit to new coal power and to phasing out existing coal plants.
On forests and land use, we will work with endorsers of the Glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests and land use to assess progress, raise ambition and accelerate global action on forests and land use, in order to meet our collective target of halting and reversing forest loss and land degradation by 2030. We will work with our partners to ensure the financial commitments made to protect key forested areas—such as the Congo basin and the Amazon—are fully implemented, and that indigenous peoples and local communities receive the support they were promised at COP26. We will continue the work to tackle the financial incentives driving deforestation, supporting the financial institutions and development banks in delivering their commitments to eliminate deforestation from their portfolios and align them with nature. We will also work with fellow Governments to implement the actions in the forest, agriculture and commodity trade roadmap, which was launched at COP26 by 28 countries responsible for 75% of global trade in forest risk commodities.
As in 2021, we will work with partners to ensure major events in the international calendar including at CBD COP 15, G7, UNGA and G20 support these objectives and will use the full range of instruments to encourage higher-ambition NDCs, further commitments on net zero, and on coal, cars, cash and trees.
Delivering an inclusive presidency year
The Glasgow climate pact emphasises the importance of collaboration across sectors and all parts of society to deliver effective climate action. All those who make and shape our economies and societies have a role to play in the implementation of the Paris agreement.
At COP26, we were pleased to agree the 10-year Glasgow work programme on action for climate empowerment, and the new three-year work programme on local communities and indigenous peoples, alongside other important steps. Through the UN-backed global campaign Race to Zero, we saw nearly 8,000 businesses and other non-state actors committed to halving global emissions by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest—the largest ever such coalition.
During our presidency year, we remain committed to taking a whole-of-society approach. We will work in collaboration with civil society, young people, businesses and Governments to deliver on our commitments. We will continue to encourage countries to remove the barriers to participation and work with them to implement the necessary policies and projects.
Delivering this ambitious programme will only be possible with a whole-of-Government and all-of-UK approach. A strong team will remain in the Cabinet Office co-ordinating work across Government to support and deliver the UK’s COP presidency. The FCDO’s diplomatic network will remain essential to our international efforts, as will leadership from BEIS, Defra, DfT, DIT, HMT and others.
Existing parliamentary processes will also ensure the necessary scrutiny and support to deliver on the commitments made at COP26.
[HCWS479]
Hong Kong: Six-monthly Report
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today, and is attached. It covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2021. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-development-office I commend the report to the House.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-12-14/HCWS474/
[HCWS474]
Designated Settings Indemnity Scheme Extension
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
Further to the written statement on 29 June 2021, I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the undertaking of a contingent liability. This relates to an extension of the designated settings indemnity support (DSIS), which offers targeted and time-limited state-backed indemnity arrangements to care homes registered, or intending to register, as “designated settings”, and which are unable to obtain sufficient insurance cover.
On 18 January 2021, the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment announced in a written ministerial statement, and accompanying departmental minute, provision of these temporary indemnity arrangements under the DSIS. The DSIS includes cover for clinical negligence, employer’s and public liability where a care provider seeking to become a designated setting is unable to secure sufficient commercial insurance, or where an existing provider has been operating without sufficient cover. Employer’s and public liability is covered under the new coronavirus temporary indemnity scheme; clinical negligence is covered by the clinical negligence scheme for trusts. The DSIS is supervised by DHSC and administered by NHS resolution, and to date, has proved to be an effective package of support to designated settings.
DSIS initially provided cover for designated settings until the end of March 2021 and was subsequently extended until 30 September 2021. Now, following a further review of DSIS, it has been extended until 31 March 2022, in order to maintain the current level of support for these vital settings. This extension will benefit current DSIS participants, as well any additional settings that may wish to apply for the support and who meet the criteria for inclusion. We will review the progress of the support ahead of this end-date.
I regret that in this circumstance, due to the need to ensure that there were no gaps in DSIS cover after the former 30 September end date, the normal 14 sitting days for consideration was not possible. A departmental minute will be laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS476]
Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Following the end of the transition period, the Government continue to regard food and feed safety and standards as a top priority. This statutory instrument corrects and addresses deficiencies both in the retained EU law as well as in the domestic legislation that provided for its execution and enforcement in England.
The Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2021 will be made under powers in the Food Safety Act 1990 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The purpose of this instrument is to:
amend article 53 of the retained general food law to correct a deficiency that has arisen as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. The amendment will ensure that the emergency measures that may be applied where a serious risk to health is identified can be applied to all goods entering into GB;
amend the authorisation provisions for feed additives and GM food/feed, so that the decisions made by Ministers will be enacted through legislation making these consistent with other retained EU food and feed law; and
provide a time-limited period of adjustment, up until 30 September 2022, for businesses to meet new UK address labelling requirements for certain food products. This would allow businesses to use up old labelling stocks, without facing enforcement action for failure to label affected products with a UK address during this time.
As required under the “enhanced scrutiny procedure” set out in schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the draft instrument and explanatory memorandum have been published online for a period of at least 28 days before the instrument is formally laid in Parliament. To read the full draft statutory instrument and explanatory memorandum, please visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulations-on-food-and-feed-safety
[HCWS481]
Airside Licensing Call for Evidence: Government Response
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The 2017 report of the House of Lords Select Committee that carried out a post-legislative scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003 recommended that the Government should revoke the exemption from the Licensing Act that applies to most international airports in England and Wales.
Following the report the Government issued the Airside Alcohol Licensing at International Airports in England and Wales: Call for Evidence. Its aim was to understand the scale of the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers, the extent to which airports and airlines use the existing statutory powers and other measures to address the problem, the impact of the proposed application of the Act on all affected parties, and to assess the practicalities of administering a licensing regime airside.
Since the Government launched the Call for Evidence on introducing alcohol licensing airside at international airports in England and Wales, we have seen the aviation industry and airports heavily impacted by the global pandemic of covid-19. The pandemic has meant a significant delay to publishing this response, however these unique circumstances have not changed the decision that was reached.
The Call for Evidence has not provided new evidence which makes a compelling case for extending all of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 to airside premises. The premises which serve alcohol airside operate in a highly secure environment which function in a very different way to high streets and night-time economies across England and Wales.
There would be limited benefit in requiring those premises to obtain a premises licence. Many safeguards that can be introduced by a local licensing regime such as enhanced security, searches or CCTV are already in place within an airport. In any event, the provisions of the Act that prohibit the sale of alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 and the purchase of alcohol on behalf of somebody who is under the age of 18, apply to the sale of alcohol whether from licensed premises or not. The transient and short-term nature of the clientele means that considerations around noise, or impact on residential areas for example, are greatly reduced in this environment.
In addition, there are already penalties in place to address drunkenness in passengers. It is an offence under the Air Navigation Order to be drunk on an aircraft and airlines have the authority to prevent passengers they believe are intoxicated from boarding aircraft.
For these reasons, the Government does not intend to extend all of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 airside.
The Government Response will be available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS475]
Intergovernmental Relations: Third Quarterly Report
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Earlier today, the UK Government published the third quarterly report of our engagement with the devolved Administrations on the www.gov.uk page for intergovernmental relations. The report has also been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
The report details engagement between the UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive between 1 July and 30 September 2021. It covers a period of collaboration on a range of important areas, including preparations to ensure a safe and secure COP26, as well as partnerships between UK and devolved Administrations on net zero, covid-19 response and recovery, the resettlement of Afghan refugees and the roll-out of covid-19 booster vaccines across the UK.
The report is part of the UK Government’s ongoing commitment to transparency of intergovernmental relations to Parliament and the public.
[HCWS477]
Travel Red List
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government have conducted a review of the temporary and precautionary international travel measures introduced to slow the spread of the new covid-19 omicron variant.
From 4 am on Wednesday 15 December, all 11 remaining countries and territories will be removed from the red list. As such, passengers arriving from Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, will not have to stay in a managed quarantine hotel on arrival in England from this date. As omicron cases rise in the UK and in countries around the world, the travel red list is less effective in slowing the incursion of the variant from abroad and these temporary measures are no longer proportionate.
While all countries have been removed, the red list policy remains in place alongside the managed quarantine service policy, acting as a crucial line of defence against the importation of variants of concern.
The additional temporary testing measures for passengers taken in response to omicron also remain in place. The Government recognise the impact that these temporary health measures have on the travel and aviation industry, and they will be reviewed again in the first week of January.
[HCWS482]
Personal Independence Payment
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
Today the Department will publish the latest update on progress on making backdated payments to personal independence payment claimants who are affected by the MH and RJ decisions of the upper tribunal (UT). The release will be published at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pip-administrative-exercise-progress-on-cases-cleared.
The MH decision changed how overwhelming psychological distress is considered when assessing someone’s ability to plan and follow a journey. The RJ decision changed how we decide whether someone can carry out an activity safely and if they need supervision.
As at 1 November 2021, we have reviewed around 980,000 cases against the MH decision. This includes cases where claimants have previously been assessed as having “overwhelming psychological distress” or who have a “psychiatric disorder” as one of their main health conditions. We have also reviewed around 1,100,000 cases against the RJ decision. This includes cases where claimants have a “neurological disease” as one of their main health conditions. All reviews will have been carried out by a case manager within the department.
Around 8,200 arrears payments, totalling around £42 million, have been made. We gave a commitment that no one would see their PIP reduced as a result of this exercise.
In addition, we have written to the vast majority of other claimants in scope of the exercise we said we would in our update to the House [Official Report, 11 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 26WS]. We are continuing to send out letters and carry out reviews for any claimant who asks us to.
This has been a complex and substantial exercise, involving over a million reviews against two UT decisions. Our approach demonstrates that we have prioritised claimants who are most likely to benefit, in order to make backdated payments as quickly as possible. We are now writing to claimants who we do not expect to benefit, so they can request a review if they think they have been affected by these decisions.
We have set out further background to this release in an updated frequently asked questions. I will deposit a copy of this document in the Library of the House.
We will release a final report at the end of 2022, when we know the outcomes of outstanding reviews.
[HCWS478]
State Pension Age Review
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
My Department is launching the second Government review of state pension age, which must be published by May 2023, under section 27 of the Pensions Act 2014.
As the number of people over state pension age increases, due to a growing population and people on average living longer, we need to make sure that our decisions on how to manage the costs of state pension provide fairness to both taxpayers and pensioners and that it continues to provide the foundation for retirement planning and financial security.
In line with the legislative requirements to review whether the rules about pensionable age remain appropriate, this review will consider a wide range of evidence from every part of the United Kingdom. It will explore the implications of the latest life expectancy data, including evidence on healthy life expectancy disparities, to provide a balanced appraisal of the costs and options to make sure our decisions on state pension age are robust and transparent. The review will also consider how we best support an ageing population and their opportunities to work.
In line with the statutory framework, I am also commissioning two independent reports to contribute to the evidence-base that will inform this review. I will be commissioning the Government Actuary to provide a report analysing the latest life expectancy projections. I am also commissioning Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG to provide a report which considers the metrics we use for analysis when setting state pension age. Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG has a recognised wealth of senior level experience from a career in business and the public sector, including serving as a company director, working in the UK and internationally as well as being a pension scheme trustee in a FTSE 100 company. I welcome an external consideration of this issue. I have also asked Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG to consider the views of other experts and stakeholders. I attach the terms of reference for Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s report to this statement, which will also be made available today on the www.gov.uk website.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-12-14/HCWS480/
[HCWS480]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between each other, which we have done—fantastic—and to wear face coverings when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber, I shall adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes so that we can vote.
Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021. Together with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 and the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021, which follows the negative procedure, these SIs are key parts of 32 measures that the Government are taking to address the current shortage of heavy goods vehicle, or HGV, drivers.
It gives me no pleasure to introduce these regulations to the Committee once again. Noble Lords will recall that they were originally laid under a slightly different name, and I shall call the original regulations the “No. 2 regulations”; they were laid on 16 September 2021. They were debated in some detail on 9 November, but they were not approved in both Houses in time to come into force on 15 November 2021, as set out in the SI. Since affirmative statutory instruments cannot be amended once laid in draft, we decided to re-lay substantially the same regulations afresh, which I shall call the “No. 5 regulations”. The No. 5 regulations replicate the No. 2 regulations already debated in your Lordships’ House, save for an updated title and coming into force provision.
I shall provide a bit of a reminder about the context, which has slightly fallen out of the media in recent weeks. The haulage sector has been experiencing an acute shortage of HGV drivers worldwide for some time. It has affected the industry for many years, but it has been further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, which meant that driver testing had to be suspended for much of last year. During this time, the shortage increased further, as new drivers could not join the industry to replace those retiring or leaving. The shortage of HGV drivers affects the supply chains of not only fresh food but fuel, medicines and medical equipment across Great Britain.
I would like to acknowledge the publication of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 23rd report last Thursday, which drew special attention to these regulations. I thank the committee for its hard work and continued scrutiny of these and other regulations. As the report highlighted, the impact assessments were not available at the time when the instruments were to be scrutinised by your Lordships’ House, and I offer my sincere apologies to noble Lords for this. I hope noble Lords understand that we were, and are, working at pace to deliver government interventions, including regulatory change, which could alleviate the HGV driver shortage problem, but I recognise the committee’s concern that the impact assessment was not able to be provided. I reassure all noble Lords that the Department for Transport takes very seriously its responsibilities with regard to evidence-based policy-making. I am pleased to report that the impact assessment has now been submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee for its scrutiny.
I turn very briefly to the content of the SI. The overall aim of the No. 5 regulations 2021 is to increase the number of HGV drivers within Great Britain by increasing the number of test slots available to drivers wishing to pass a HGV driver test, while maintaining road safety standards. The regulations will remove the requirement for drivers who hold a category B licence—namely, for driving a car—to take a separate car and trailer—a category B+E—test before they can drive a vehicle combination in that class. Instead, category B+E entitlement will be automatically granted to car drivers and backdated to all valid category B car licences that have been obtained since 1 January 1997. I note that licences obtained before that date already have the entitlement to tow a heavier trailer, and that a licence is needed only for trailers over a specific weight, not for any trailer at all. Removing this test frees up about 2,400 more tests each month that can be allocated to those wishing to take an HGV driving test, which in turn will help ease the driver shortage. We know that these tests are being taken up by would-be HGV drivers.
The public consultation, which ran from 10 August to 7 September, showed support for the change, with 75% of people responding positively to the removal of the trailer test.
Road safety is, of course, of the utmost importance, and I understand why road safety concerns have been raised. Theory and practical training will continue to be recommended to help maintain driver safety on the roads. An accreditation scheme is being developed, with help from the trailer industry and training providers. This accreditation scheme will provide voluntary training opportunities for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer not only of a size that would previously have required a licence but of any size for either recreational or business use. It will also include training on trailer maintenance and other areas not previously specifically covered by the test. Essentially, training will improve.
My officials have met the trailer and towing safety advisory group to develop the outline of the scheme and to consider core modules that would be applicable to all drivers who tow, as well as sector-specific modules. These might cover activities such as safely managing livestock or breakdown recovery towing. We are also already working with trainers and those in the leisure and business sectors to develop the training package and, together with these groups and the police, will identify the additional data needed to monitor towing standards effectively.
The scheme is planned to launch early next year. We will recommend that all drivers wishing to tow a trailer of any size undertake training to safely tow and manage them. We will encourage drivers through our existing campaigns and via our work with a wide range of stakeholders, including leisure and towing groups. We have committed to review the legislation at regular intervals, initially after three years have passed and thereafter at five-year intervals. The impact assessment will be published early in the new year. Our commitment to reviewing the legislation after three years is earlier than the standard five.
As I noted previously, many drivers already have grandfather rights—about 16 million drivers who passed their driving test before 1 January 1997 can already drive a car with a heavier trailer without having to take a separate test. This change affords that same entitlement to drivers who passed their test after 1997. Furthermore, all car licence holders already have the right to tow smaller trailers. We will of course be encouraging all those who are new to towing, of any size of trailer, whether or not they would have previously had to take a test, to take up training.
We should be proud that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. I reassure noble Lords that our support for the #towsafe4freddie campaign will continue, and we will draw attention to the importance of motorists doing safety checks of their trailer whenever they are towing.
The removal of the separate test for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer or caravan frees up 30,000 vocational test slots annually. This equates to an additional 550 tests per week, or a 37% increase in weekly tests, relative to pre-pandemic levels. This is a significant increase in available capacity. Furthermore, thanks to the great efforts of DVLA staff, the backlog of 55,000 driving licence applications for HGV drivers has been eliminated, and these are now being processed within the normal turnaround times of five working days.
These regulations are just one of the 32 interventions that the Government are putting in place to tackle this issue to help reduce the strain on our national supply chains, which is affecting every aspect of our daily lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing yet another set of regulations, which we seem to have debated quite frequently over the last few months, as she said. They give me the opportunity to reflect, now that Covid-19 has been with us for the best part of two years, that the delays in DVSA activity seem to have been going on for that length of time. There are still reports of people being very delayed in getting driving licences back, which I know is not the same thing, but I sometimes question whether the DVSA is fit for purpose and whether it perhaps needs a major upgrade of its IT system or something like that so that it works well. I have never had a problem applying online—other people might do—but when I saw recent press reports about some excessive delays of many weeks I began to wonder.
It is still odd that we think that we can get people to pass a test to drive HGVs or other vehicles without reversing when it is such an inherent part of the HGV operation, in particular with semi-trailers. I tried to do it myself under supervision about 10 years ago—not on a highway, I hasten to add—and it was very difficult, probably because I am thick and stupid. You could argue that it does not really matter because most reversing will take place on private property, so if anybody has an accident then the Department for Transport is not affected in any way, but it is quite important that people should be able to reverse. The Minister said that this change would provide 2,400 more tests a month. I do not know how many that is as a proportion of the total number of tests a year, but how much money and time are saved by not reversing? It would be an interesting statistic, which she might or might not have.
There comes a time when you begin to reflect that tests are getting easier and easier. You could argue that you do not need tests at all. How many more people would get killed on the roads if there were no tests? That is a very stupid question and I do not expect a sensible answer from the Minister, but it is questionable how much drivers need to learn and know before they drive these very large 40-tonne trucks around. I worry that being unable to reverse might just make it difficult.
Driving around Cornwall, as I do occasionally, you meet a lot of people in cars who are obviously strangers, especially in the summer. Obviously, one of you has to reverse when you meet them on a narrow road. An enormous proportion of the people you meet who are not local cannot actually reverse their car. There are no trailers attached to them; it is just their car. On many occasions, friends of mine say to the other driver, “Why don’t you get out and I’ll reverse it for you?” It works, but I am not sure it is a way to go forward.
We will see what happens with this, and I trust that there will be no increase in accidents and no problems with it. It also comes with the safety checks that the Minister mentioned. One of the safety checks that clearly does not happen very often, as we debated last night, relates to the height of lorries when they hit bridges. We had a good debate. Sadly, it took place before the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and I had a very helpful meeting with Network Rail today. One suggestion came under the category of driving tests, which is why I mention it now. Perhaps the Minister could look into it. When you do a driving test for an HGV there are various modules, some compulsory and some optional. One of the optional modules is on how not to bash your lorry against a bridge. It seems a bit odd that in this country that should be optional. When the next round of regulations comes to us on things like this, I wonder whether the Minister could look at making that bridge-bashing module into an obligation. There are many other solutions, which we can talk about on another occasion, but that one would be quite easy to do.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, things are in a terrible mess on all fronts, are they not? The Department for Transport is an example of where problems seem to have got a bit out of hand. I thank the Minister for her explanation, but I find it no more satisfactory than the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did. That committee is not known for its extreme language, but its report is excoriating on these regulations. It refers, in a letter to the Leader of the House, to them being a particularly egregious example of departments failing to provide the required explanatory material in the required timescale. The Government’s defence, which the Minister has set out clearly today, is that this is an emergency measure. But, to be honest, that is surely stretching our credulity.
After years of warnings from the logistics industry, the Government have been panicked into taking steps to deal with the driver shortage. The Minister herself made it clear, on a previous occasion, that the shortage of drivers went back 10 years. She has told us on several occasions, and repeated it today, that the Government have taken 32 separate measures to tackle the problem. She also said recently that most of them were small, incremental steps that added up to an effective package. So if this measure were delayed because the required evidence of the road safety impact is not yet available, it would have only a marginal impact on the Government’s overall response. There is, therefore, no reason to cut corners.
This is, after all, a very indirect measure: it reduces standards and requirements for the drivers of non-HGV vehicles in order to free up spaces for the drivers of HGV vehicles. It was unacceptable, when these regulations originally came to the House, that the road safety impact had been ignored. It is doubly so now that they have had to be returned to us, because the Government have now had time to note the concerns expressed and do the necessary analysis. In previous debates on these regulations I have raised my concerns on safety, but what is more important is that I am reflecting the concerns of experts.
The B+E testing requirements were introduced in 1997, as a result of real safety concerns, on the basis of evidence. I am aware that the Minister is far too young to remember it, but there was a debate on the issue of road safety. Since then, our roads have become much busier; hence accidents will be more, not less, likely. The regime for B+E testing and training is being abandoned, with no meaningful replacement. The plan is to review it within three years, but that is far too long for something that is going ahead with no evidence at this stage. I urge the Minister that, at the very minimum, there should be a review after one year.
In the view of those in the haulage industry, it is simply wrong that someone can tow a trailer or caravan weighing up to 3,500 kilograms with no testing or training—and do so the day after they pass their driving test for a small car or van. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I have just come from a meeting with Network Rail about bridge strikes. It is asking for more testing and training, not less; that is what it says its evidence requires.
The Government have abandoned the wealth of evidence, year after year, showing that new and novice drivers are far more likely to have accidents because of their inexperience. The insurance industry knows this, which is why new drivers are charged much higher premiums. The logistics organisations strongly oppose this change and regard it as irresponsible. Unlike the C+E change, it will be virtually impossible to reverse because new licences will be issued with the B+E qualification on them.
As noble Lords can imagine, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Trailer and Towing Safety shares those concerns. Specifically, its concerns include, first, the lack of an impact assessment on road safety and, secondly, the statistics that it knows of. In the B+E test for car and trailer driving, pass rates suggest that there is consistently a fail rate of 30%, with 8,575 people failing the test in 2019-20. Under the proposed legislation, these drivers would be deemed qualified and able to tow a trailer immediately because they will not need to have taken a test. To the APPG’s mind, these proposals undermine the Government’s previous commitment to trailer safety and the campaign #towsafe4freddie, which it values. It shares the concern of the towing industry that this measure will have an impact on both safety standards and livelihoods because it will mean that a much broader range of people will be qualified for this sort of commercial work, which will undermine the qualifications and skills of those who have been through the test.
Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to pause and think again. At the very least, I ask her to defer this until the department has done its own impact assessment and then reconsider in the light of that impact assessment. Better still, I urge her to abandon it because, by all logic, this cannot be good for road safety. It is really not worth the risks it creates. This is not about the usual topics of impact assessments. When we have impact assessments, we have fine calculations about how many pounds something will cost small businesses and so on; this impact assessment will be assessed in terms of lives.
We have a fundamental change creeping in, with inadequate evidence, under the guise of urgency. It is not really an urgent measure, because it will be permanent. We need legislation based on evidence. We have had enough of policy-making on the hoof; we need evidence-based policy-making. I urge the Government to give themselves a chance to get that evidence, to reconsider the matter, and to bring this back only if they genuinely feel that this will be safe.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I feel that our discussion on this order today is largely academic, since the Government have already implemented it in reality. Clearly, the words and good work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—which I will quote from since I think it deserves to go on the record in Hansard—count for nothing, even though, on behalf of the Government, the Minister thanked the committee for what it had done. The Government have not taken any notice of what the committee said, so that is a funny sort of thanks.
These regulations make amendments to the requirement to undergo a practical car-plus-trailer driving test, which I think is known as category B+E. The amendments will make such a test optional only, and the entitlement to tow a trailer will be given to anybody passing, or who has passed, a car driving test from the coming into force of these regulations. On that score, perhaps the Minister could confirm the figure referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the nearly one-third of drivers who failed the B+E test will now be able to be on our roads towing a heavy trailer. Could the Minister, on behalf of the Government, just confirm that that is what this means? Of course, the regulations go further than that, because they increase dramatically the number of people who can tow a trailer without a test, since anybody who has passed a car driving test can tow such a trailer. Could the Minister confirm that that is the situation?
Rather surprisingly, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“There may be a negative impact on road safety of these measures”.
I would be grateful if the Minister, on behalf of the Government, could refer to the evidence on allowing people who have failed the test to tow a trailer to now do so and allowing anyone who has passed the car driving test to tow a trailer. What is the evidence that leads the Government in the Explanatory Memorandum to say that
“There may be a negative impact on road safety”?
If there is no impact, why have we been carrying out this test for a number of years? I would like an answer to that question.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser: I sincerely hope that this is the last occasion that the SLSC has to write such a report and refer to me in that fashion. It does not make me particularly happy and, coming on the heels of another issue that we have had regarding our SI programme, I reassure all noble Lords that I will meet with the appropriate officials very early next year and we will sort it out. It is not acceptable, and I do not wish for my department to be seen in such terms by your Lordships’ House and its committees. It is not what I want to happen, and I will do everything I can to make sure it does not happen in future.
I thank all noble Lords for their further consideration of these draft regulations. I will focus on the areas on which I have additional information that I have not raised previously with noble Lords or with the SLSC, but, again, I will write to give a full account of the Government’s position to make sure we cover all the issues raised.
The first point is the need for speed and the urgency with which these regulations are being put in place, which was noted by noble Lords and the SLSC. Obviously, had the first debate gone as we had planned, they would already be in place. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned that the first consideration is the need to quickly free up test slots to get new HGV drivers qualified and on the road. Noble Lords have debated many times the length of the shortage, that it was a long time coming, and that it has got acute during the pandemic. I knew that there was a shortage prior to the pandemic, as people used to come and tell me, but there was no impact, or it could not be felt, because the industry was able to deal with it and the supply chain could cope. The pandemic has meant that the lack of resilience of the supply chain has been exposed. That is why we need to act urgently now. I could not have brought this to your Lordships two years ago and said that it was urgent because it absolutely would not have been, but it is now.
It is the case that we release a significant number of tests. We know that they are being taken up and that people are applying to be HGV drivers. They are entering the industry, which is exactly what we need to see. We removed the tests back in September. We basically said that they would not go ahead. That has obviously helped. It is worth noting that we will at some stage lose the extra testing capacity provided by the MoD. That obviously cannot go on for ever. Therefore, putting this in place is obviously very helpful.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for her detailed response but there are huge inconsistencies in it. I draw to her attention the fact that the Government appear to have a limited approach to relevant data. She talks about the difficulties in obtaining data, but we have firm data on both the number of people who fail this test every year and the number of new drivers who have accidents in the first year or two of their driving careers. There are other approaches that the Government could have taken, such as doing away with the test and saying that you must have two years’ driving experience before you can tow a trailer as large as this. Did the Government consider other approaches? They seem to have gone for the extreme, riskiest option rather than looking at other things, such as increasing the capacity of driving test centres.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
This Government are increasing the capacity of driving test centres; it is one of the 32 interventions that we have already outlined. We could have put in a two-year requirement but that would not have achieved what we wanted because there is no reason why you would deny somebody who is a perfectly good driver, even though they have just passed their driving test, the chance to do the training and tow a heavy trailer. I am not sure that there would have been a good rationale for denying somebody that right when, quite frankly, old people like me can already drive a heavy trailer—and I have never been anywhere near any training. There are already inconsistencies in the system, so these regulations create a simple system that everybody can understand, with mitigations in place to ensure that it is as safe as possible.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying how much of an honour it is to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. This is my maiden outing in this Room; it is a melancholy reflection, given that I took up office more than a year ago, but here I am in the Moses Room for the first time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
You are welcome.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am obliged. This draft instrument is made under the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020, which I will refer to as the PIL Act. The Act currently gives force of law to these conventions and ensures that they are read together with any reservations and declarations made at the time of approval. It also sets out, in new schedules to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the text of the conventions. To ensure that the information is complete and readily accessible, this instrument will insert the text of the reservations and declarations alongside the convention texts in new schedules to the 1982 Act.
This draft instrument is technical in nature and does not alter the UK’s status as a party to either the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements or the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. It also brings into domestic legislation the texts of the UK’s reservations and declarations to those conventions. The UK has participated in the 2005 and 2007 Hague conventions since 2015 and 2014 respectively. Previously, we were bound by the conventions by virtue of our membership of the European Union—a status that continued to apply throughout the transition period in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. In September 2020, the United Kingdom took the necessary steps to join the two conventions as an independent party, as part of preparation for leaving the EU. This included depositing the necessary instruments of accession and ratification.
To be able to make this instrument, the PIL Act requires the Secretary of State to consult with such persons as they think necessary. To meet this requirement, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Secretary of State, consulted key stakeholders in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as legal practitioners, academics and judges specialising in private international law, with whom the Ministry of Justice engages regularly. No objections to this instrument were received. In addition, as this instrument will apply to all UK legal jurisdictions, the consent of Scottish Ministers and the department of the Northern Ireland Executive has been obtained.
When rejoining these conventions as an independent party, the declarations and reservations by which the UK had been bound as a member of the European Union were not amended. This instrument will not make any changes to those reservations and declarations. While the existing reservations and declarations have been retained, this will not prevent the United Kingdom from changing them to either or both these conventions in future or withdrawing reservations to the 2007 Hague Convention if at any time it should to Parliament seem appropriate so to do.
Overall, as I have noted, this instrument is technical in its nature and will not alter the application of the conventions, nor their respective declarations and reservations. None the less, it is important to have the text of these declarations and reservations readily available in domestic legislation and alongside the text of the conventions for ease of reference for practitioners. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in his introduction, the Minister said that that was his maiden speech in the Moses Room. I remember having a discussion upstairs about a year ago on some similar legislation, also to do with reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders—the 2007 Hague Convention, to which I shall refer later in my contribution. As the Minister says, this instrument is technical in nature. We on our side support the Government on it.
The 2005 and 2007 conventions were transferred to domestic law as part of the package of the private international law Act last year; this instrument seems to transfer the definitions within the conventions over to UK law. I open with what may be a simplistic question to the Minister: will the definitions under the 1996 Hague Convention be transferred by secondary legislation in the new year? Is that an additional piece of process that we should expect?
The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements ensures the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to international commercial transactions. These clauses are common, particularly in high-value commercial contracts. The UK previously participated in the 2005 convention by virtue of EU membership, as we have heard; the EU ratified the 2005 convention, and it entered into force from 1 October 2015. On 28 September 2020, the UK deposited its instrument of accession to the 2005 convention to ensure that it continues its independent participation in the convention. The Minister set all that out in his introduction to today’s debate.
The 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance provides for rules for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance. Both the 2005 and 2007 conventions ensure legal co-operation across jurisdictions to provide certainty and fairness for those involved in cross-border litigation. The Labour Party supported the transfer to domestic law of both conventions during the PIL Act 2020, as referred to by the Minister.
Finally, I return to my personal issue—I remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was there last year when I raised it; I see her nodding her head—with my hat on as a family magistrate. One of the most excruciating things that I do in that role is try to enforce the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. The Minister wrote me a letter, which I have in front of me, in which he fairly set out the legal processes whereby reciprocal enforcement should be done. I accept that my assertion—that there are insufficient powers to enforce maintenance orders reciprocally—was wrong.
The point I wanted to make to the noble and learned Lord is that, whether I was right or wrong, it is still an excruciating process. It is very difficult to do. Very often the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders fails. I accept the point that he makes in his letter that it is not because of a lack of powers; maybe it is a lack of administrative will. It is absolutely an excruciating process for me as a magistrate and with the administration process around it. The parties we see in court are often in despair about trying to resolve these issues.
Nevertheless, I understand that we are talking on a more general basis today. I welcome the instrument that the noble and learned Lord has put forward. I am also in direct contact with the relevant Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the family court, so he does not need to introduce me to him. I will fight my own battles on this front.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. I well remember the opening of my account in the Room upstairs. I also remember the noble Lord’s close questioning, informed, as today, by his valuable experience on the Bench of magistrates in the family area of law, if I might put it like that.
The noble Lord posed a question about the 1996 Hague convention. The United Kingdom joined that instrument in its own right rather than through the European Union, so as I understand it no further action on that convention will be necessary.
I note with concern the noble Lord’s observations concerning the excruciating nature of the treatment of these matters in his capacity as a magistrate. I will do what I can, along with my noble friend Lord Wolfson in the Ministry of Justice, in order to assist.
At this stage, I register my appreciation and that of the Government for the assistance we received from stakeholders who engaged in consultation with us in the preparation of these instruments, and for the co-operation of our colleagues in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations will ensure that the UK meets its legal obligation to implement the provisions in Annexe 15 to the TCA concerning the trade in wine. The amendments made by this instrument concern lot marking and transitional marketing arrangements. They will remove the requirement for VI-1 certificates to accompany imports of wine into Great Britain and put in place provisions underpinning the simplified certification arrangements for exports of GB wine to the EU.
Turning first to the measures that concern VI-1 certificates, these regulations will make changes to retained EU Regulation 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council and make consequential changes to retained EU Regulation 2018/273. This will remove the requirement for a wine imported into GB to be accompanied by a VI-1 certificate, or a simplified form of that certificate, where that wine has been produced in line with our regulatory framework for wine.
This change will apply to wine imports from the EU. We are exercising a choice not to introduce unnecessary trade barriers in the form of self-certificates of the type mentioned in Article 3 of Annexe 15 to the TCA. This decision will ensure that wine products originating in the EU will continue to have free and unfettered access to the GB market. This will help to support an industry worth more than £1 billion per annum and maintain the UK as a global hub for the wine trade.
In parallel, we will also remove the VI-1 requirement for imports of wine from all other countries, such as Australia, Chile, New Zealand and the USA. This will be done on the basis that they, too, meet our regulatory requirements. These wines represent about 50% of the wines on our shelves and, due to EU rules, have been subject to a VI-1 certificate to be marketed in Great Britain.
The removal of VI-1 certification represents a positive first step in simplifying our wine regulations to remove aspects of the bureaucratic and discriminatory regime that we inherited from the EU. I offer my thanks to the wine trade and noble Lords for continuing to make such a compelling case for removing VI-1 certificates. The Government have listened and acted to remove this unnecessary piece of red tape that we inherited from the EU.
This SI will also make changes to retained EU law to ensure that wines produced in GB are subject to the appropriate supervision, inspection and authentication checks necessary to underpin the use of the new simplified certification arrangements for exports of GB wine to the EU. These proposals will also introduce provisions to ensure that the lot code arrangements for wines will continue to operate between GB and the EU. This will implement Article 4(3) of the TCA and will be done by amending the Food (Lot Marking) Regulations 1996. The changes will ensure that a wine bearing a lot code that complies with EU law in a member state can continue to be marketed in Great Britain. Lot codes are an important tool to help to trace wine products that have been prepared or packaged under the same conditions.
Finally, these regulations will implement Article 5 of Annexe 15 to the TCA concerning transitional arrangements for the marketing of wine products. Amendments will be made to the Wine Regulations 2011 and the Food Information Regulations 2014 that will allow for the marketing of wine products that, at the date of entry into force of the TCA—1 May 2021—had been produced, described and labelled in accordance with the rules existing at that time. The provisions allow two years from 1 May 2021 for wine stocks to be run down at the producer and wholesale levels, while stocks at a retail level can continue to be sold until they are exhausted. Transitional labelling arrangements are an important consideration in the wine sector where products can have an extended shelf life and their quality can appreciate over prolonged periods of time.
Overall, this instrument is primarily concerned with introducing the changes necessary to implement Annexe 15 to the TCA. It is important as this helps to underpin our relationship with the EU, which, collectively, is the most important wine-producing and trading region on the planet. However, this instrument also marks an important first step in freeing up our wine trade from unnecessary inherited red tape.
We have a flourishing wine and viticulture sector. Through this instrument, the Government are delivering on the levelling-up agenda by making regulatory changes that support wine importers, bottling plants and exporters across the country. From Accolade Wines in Avonmouth and Kingsland in Manchester to Greencroft in County Durham, we are removing a burdensome technical barrier to trade. Defra will continue to work with the industry and across government to ensure that we have the best possible regulatory regime for wine. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials in the briefing, as well as for his introduction to this relatively straightforward instrument.
The Explanatory Memorandum gives clear detail. Paragraph 7.3 refers to wine that has been stored and appreciated in value, and is then marketed later when it may not have the requisite information details that we are introducing in this IS; the Minister referred to this. Ensuring that this does not happen is referred to, in the last sentence of paragraph 7.3,
“by amending the Wine Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/2936) and the Food Information Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1855).”
The Minister referred to those statutory instruments. However, there is no indication of when this might happen. Can he say whether a date has been given for that action?
Paragraph 7.8 gives details of the trade in wine with Northern Ireland and the effect of the Northern Ireland protocol on the wine industry. It makes the claim that, although the instrument
“will be looked at again once those negotiations have been concluded”,
there will be no
“significant effect on the trade in wine between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
Is the Minister sure that there will be no significant effect? The wording of the EM implies that there will be an effect but it will not be significant. I know that this is straining at gnats, but it would be helpful to have clarification.
Consultation with the industry, including the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, WineGB, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, has taken place. Not surprisingly, since the VI-1 wine import certificates are to be abandoned and the process simplified, there was general satisfaction in the process to be instituted and followed. It will reduce costs, which is good for business.
However, I am somewhat concerned that the consequent reduction in the price of wine could lead to harm from increased alcoholism, especially among young people, due to it being cheaper. Although a glass of wine is an enjoyable thing for most adults, the cheaper it is for those on low incomes, the more likely it is to be tempting to consume more than is healthy. Addictions of all type are a strain on the health service, and alcohol addiction can lead to anti-social behaviour and violence. I am not suggesting for one minute that the reduction in the price of wine will lead to wholesale disorder on the streets, but it is a consideration for young people.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has produced information paragraphs on this SI, having consulted Defra. There is a transition period, to which the Minister referred, of two years for producers and wholesalers of wine, and until stocks have been exhausted for retailers. Can the Minister say whether an estimate has been made of how long it might be before stocks of wine imported under the TCA before the lot codes came in might be exhausted? Is it likely to be sooner than two years, or might stocks be left at the end of the two years? If so, what arrangements will be made to ensure that these wines can still be marketed although they will not have the lot codes in place?
Lastly—I am sorry but this is a bee in my bonnet— I note that no impact assessment was produced. It is clear from the EM that there are likely to be impacts; it would have been helpful for these to be gathered together in one place. Apart from these minor comments, I am satisfied with this SI. I can see that it will be very good for business and will improve the movement of wine between GB and the EU, so I support it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking the Minister and his officials for taking the time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, to go through these amending regulations in advance. It was very helpful. I also thank him for clearly explaining the purpose of the detailed statutory instrument that we are looking at. As he explained, these regulations will ensure that the United Kingdom meets its legal obligations to implement the provisions in Annexe 15 to the trade and co-operation agreement, which deals with the trade in, and of, wine. Specifically, they will amend rules concerning lot marking and the import and export certification arrangements for wine products, as well as putting in place the transitional marketing arrangements, which are important.
However, I will concentrate on the removal of VI-1 certificates. As we have heard, the instrument proposes changes to ensure that wines from the EU and other third countries imported into GB will not require a certificate and analysis report any more. Defra has said that VI-1 certificates
“serve no purpose to business or the consumer, and simply add unnecessary costs to the trade in wine.”
After considering options for the future of wine certification, the Government announced on 25 July their intention to remove the requirement for VI-1 certificates on all imported wine into Great Britain, as the statutory instrument before us is intended to do. We have heard that this measure is also likely to reduce costs for our wine importers while increasing the global attractiveness and competitiveness of the UK as a hub for the wine trade. We understand that this change has been much welcomed by the wine industry, which estimates that it will save it around £100 million every year, so we also support this statutory instrument and welcome the changes it brings in.
We would also like to acknowledge the work of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, mentioned by the Minister, in pressing the Government to alter their previous position. Noble Lords may remember that that was initially just to roll over the European Union rules and regulations on wine imports. It is very welcome that the Government have listened to the industry and brought in these changes.
Leaving the EU made a significant difference because the EU’s rationale for bringing in an import document—effectively, a technical barrier to trade—was, in reality, to protect its own wine industry. Whatever our views on our departure from the European Union, for us, as a net importer of wine, it made little sense to maintain the rules designed to disadvantage our imports. While I pay tribute to the UK’s many excellent wine producers, we import more than 99% of the wine that we consume in this country, and around half of those imports are from the EU.
Again, it is good that, following industry engagement, the UK Government initially introduced a much-welcomed grace period for VI-1 forms for all wine imported from EU countries, meaning that the forms have never actually been required for EU wine imported into the UK. That is why we now support the Government’s intention to remove this documentation from 1 January next year.
Having said all that, we have a few questions and concerns that I want to draw to the Minister’s attention. First, there is the impact on Northern Ireland, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. As we heard, the SI does not extend to Northern Ireland, given the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and the ongoing UK-EU negotiations on it. Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which the noble Baroness mentioned, says that relevant provisions will be brought forward
“once those negotiations have been concluded.”
Does this mean that the Government have no intention to trigger Article 16? If that is the case, why have the Government given the impression that they might actually do so?
The Explanatory Memorandum continues:
“In the meantime, we do not anticipate this will have any significant effect”—
as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, stressed—
“on trade in wine between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
To me, this is all a bit unsatisfactory and unlikely. Can the Minister tell us how that conclusion was reached? What discussions took place with the Northern Ireland Executive before that conclusion was reached? What engagement was there with colleagues in the Irish Government in Dublin? As the noble Baroness said when talking about the implications for Northern Ireland, clarification in this area would be extremely helpful.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions, questions and broad support for this measure. To take the noble Baroness’s last point first, I wish the same on everyone else over Christmas. I think we all deserve an extra glass of wine—drunk in moderation, no doubt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked when the provisions will be introduced. It is intended that they will come into force on 1 January 2022, in a few weeks’ time. This will include the provisions to amend the Wine Regulations 2011. Longer term, the Government will consider consolidating and updating the Wine Regulations 2011 as part of our general review of domestic wine policy.
Both noble Baronesses asked about Northern Ireland, and quite rightly so. The statutory instrument does not apply in Northern Ireland, as they correctly pointed out, and will not result in any changes to the certification of GB-produced wine sent to Northern Ireland. Obviously, Northern Ireland will continue to follow the rules for VI-1 certification set out in the protocol. Most movements of GB wine to Northern Ireland have fallen within the scheme for temporary agri-food movements to Northern Ireland, and movements of GB wine to Northern Ireland are very small. They often fall below the 100 litre de minimis requirements for a VI-1 certificate set out in EU law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. It is an absolute priority for the Government. She will be aware of the negotiations that my noble friend Lord Frost is leading. We very much hope that they will be successful and that the circumstances of the Northern Ireland protocol, which must change, will be understood and accepted on both sides. I cannot give her an up-to-date assessment of those negotiations but it is very much hoped that we can reach agreement without resort to any attempt to trigger Article 16. That would be a failure of negotiation, and we are working hard with our European partners. That is very relevant to this, because it is a massive industry for France, Spain, Germany and Italy, and we want to continue to have it here.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the impact of the measure. They rightly raised concerns about the cost of wine and asked whether that would have an impact on increased usage. Industry estimates that the cost savings due to the removal of VI-1 certificates would amount to around 10p per bottle of wine for an averagely priced bottle of around £6. That would represent a saving of approximately 1.7% of the retail price or 1% for a bottle of £10 wine.
However, this would most likely not trickle down to consumers. I hope it does, but that is a matter for the trade. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association pointed out in discussions today that the marketplace is limited because of the cost of complying with the VI-1 certificates; it costs about £350 every time you go to a laboratory for analysis for the correct certification. The loss of that cost will mean that a wider choice is available to the public, but I hope everyone will agree that it is not a dramatic reduction that is likely to impact on the wrong kind of alcohol use.
The point on the impact assessment was very well made. The primary objective of this instrument is to bring in measures to enable the UK to implement the TCA, which has already been agreed and ratified. The only aspect that goes beyond options set out in the TCA is removing the requirement for wine imports from the rest of the world to produce a VI-1 certificate. We accumulated significant evidence that this decision would be widely welcomed by the wine trade. The need to conduct an impact assessment was deemed unnecessary, and this view was supported by the Department of Health and Social Care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a general point about supporting the wine industry. We are working closely with the industry to promote English and Welsh wine. Defra is working closely with the FCDO to ensure that Great British wines are served at our embassies around the world and doing a lot to promote what was in our lifetimes a nascent and very small industry but is now developing extremely well. We want it to be an option for land managers to look at new vineyards but also a means of helping our exports.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will look in Hansard to see whether there are some points I have missed. In the meantime, I remind noble Lords of the positive changes contained in this instrument. The regulatory changes we are introducing enable us to meet our international obligations and implement the 15th annexe of the TCA concerning the trade in wine with the EU.
We have listened to the wine trade and your Lordships and have removed the requirement for VI-1s, not only for our imports from the EU but for those from other excellent wine-producing nations across the world. I hope noble Lords will therefore agree that this instrument is worthy of your Lordships’ support. I beg to move.
Consumer Scotland Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Consumer Scotland Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2022.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, this draft order was laid before the House on 8 November 2021. I am grateful to have the opportunity today to open the debate on these consequential amendments that support the decision of the Scottish Government to establish Consumer Scotland as the body responsible for the devolved areas of consumer advocacy and advice. Consumer Scotland has been created by the Scottish Government as a source of expertise focused on advocating for change on issues that affect people in Scotland.
This order assists with the implementation of Consumer Scotland by establishing it as a non-ministerial body of the Scottish Administration. It also ensures that its new functions are reflected in UK legislation. Through this order, Consumer Scotland will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament and will be added to the list of bodies whose members are disqualified from being members of the House of Commons under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This is necessary as Consumer Scotland must legally be operationally independent of Scottish Ministers. Furthermore, the legislation will also give consumers confidence in the independence of this new body.
Let me provide some background on consumer law in the UK. In 2010, BIS, as the department was then called, consulted on changing the consumer landscape to make it easier for consumers to access advice. Consumer advocacy functions and the responsibility for the delivery of general consumer advice by Consumer Direct were transferred to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. This resulted in the abolition of Consumer Focus in 2014.
Under the Scotland Act 2016, functions relating to the delivery of consumer advice and advocacy, but not consumer protection, were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This meant that it was the Scottish Government’s responsibility to fund and decide on the delivery mechanism for consumer advice and advocacy in Scotland. The power to raise a levy on industry to fund energy and postal advice and advocacy, against an agreed work programme, remains the responsibility of the UK Government. Consumer advocacy is just one of the activities that Citizens Advice Scotland and the bureaux network undertake. The advocacy work, including highlighting issues of consumer detriment and potential remediation, will pass to Consumer Scotland. These outputs will support front-line delivery by individual bureaux and other organisations.
Next, I would like briefly to provide some background on the type of secondary legislation we are discussing today. Scotland Act orders are legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved significant powers to Scotland and provided the foundation of the devolution settlement. The order before us is a Section 104 order, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish statutory instrument. In this case, provision is required in consequence of the Consumer Scotland Act 2020, which I shall refer to as the 2020 Act.
Turning once again to the purpose of this order, as I mentioned earlier, the 2020 Act allowed for the establishment of Consumer Scotland as the body responsible for the devolved matters of consumer advocacy and advice. The aim of the order is to amend UK legislation, which will provide Consumer Scotland with full authority in its role of dealing with consumer advocacy and advice. Consumer Scotland will take over a range of responsibilities relating to advocacy in the energy, postal services and water sectors, currently undertaken by Citizens Advice Scotland. The advice it provides will be on new and emerging issues or matters of general interest to a range of consumers.
In 2020-21, Citizens Advice Scotland advised over 171,000 clients and dealt with over 647,000 advice issues, helping clients to gain nearly £147 million. Citizens Advice Scotland will remain a vital player in this area, and it will continue to provide advice to individuals, and also on a range of other areas, including social security and tackling poverty.
In closing, this instrument supports the Scottish Government’s decision to establish Consumer Scotland, which will give consumers confidence in the independence of the new body, and ensure that its functions are reflected in UK legislation. This instrument, the policy behind it and its legislative contents have the support of Scotland’s Governments in London and Edinburgh. It represents an excellent example of devolution in action to deliver for the people of Scotland. I commend the order to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the background to this instrument. Of course, it is set out very clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum, which I have read.
I have just one comment, which is on the change of name. The name Citizens Advice Scotland is very well known to people who live in Scotland, and the crucial word in the name is of course “advice”. As an ordinary consumer in Scotland in need of advice, the body to go to would be Citizens Advice Scotland. The new name going into the legislation is Consumer Scotland, which does not include the word “advice”, which begs the question of whether this new body continues to have the function of providing advice. As I understand what the Minister said, and what is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, the answer is yes; there is no change in function, but there is a change in name.
I was not quite sure whether I picked up the Minister correctly as to whether Citizens Advice Scotland will exist as a body beneath the umbrella of Consumer Scotland, or whether its name will go altogether. If its name goes altogether, there is a question as to the extent to which Consumer Scotland will advertise and make it known to everybody in Scotland that it has an advisory function as well as an advocacy function. For the ordinary person in the street, that is possibly more important than the advocacy—which is important, of course, but not everybody in the street is thinking of it. People seeking advice want to know where to go.
Can the Minister reassure us that the advice function will not only continue to be performed but the people in Scotland will be aware that Consumer Scotland is the body to which to go?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a bit of a maiden speech, in that I must have done at least 100 SIs over the past years, especially in that wonderful rush towards leaving the EU, but I have managed to avoid Scottish SIs until today. As a result, I found reading the SI and the Explanatory Memorandum something of a challenge. Everything I now say may be rubbish, because I might have got it wrong, but I do not really think that we are here to discuss the merits of Consumer Scotland.
It seems to me that the Scottish Government created Consumer Scotland, and as far as I can see that is their business, and they have to be accountable to their electorate over whether it is a good or a bad thing. To do its full job, as I understand it, it needs to take over responsibility of Citizens Advice Scotland with respect to energy, postal services and water, because they are not devolved areas, and therefore it is our responsibility to agree that these non-devolved areas shall be given to Consumer Scotland. As I said, to do this, it needs our authority, because those areas are not devolved. This oversight activity seems to have worked in the past with Citizens Advice Scotland, and I have no reason to believe that it will not work as well with Consumer Scotland. Our only interest should be whether those transfers will bring harm to those services in the rest of the UK—and, frankly, I do not see how it can possibly produce any harm.
As far as I can see, the other parts of the SI seem to be technical in nature, and we have no interest in whether Consumer Scotland is a good or a bad thing. That is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I therefore fully support the draft instrument.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I start by thanking both noble Lords for their general support for this order. Our amendments to the UK legislation made through this Scotland Act order will enable, as I hinted —or said—earlier, effective implementation of the Scottish Government’s decision to establish Consumer Scotland.
The few questions that arose were over the relationship and to do with the changes, and I hope that I can answer them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, asked whether the advice function would continue to be performed in Consumer Scotland. I shall give the noble and learned Lord a little more detail on this. Consumer Scotland, as it will be called, will have five key functions. The first is a general function to provide consumer advocacy and advice—so the word “advice” is definitely in there. Secondly, it has a representative function to provide advice—again, it says “advice”—information and communication to other public bodies on consumer advocacy. Thirdly, it has a research and investigation function to research consumer matters and conduct investigations into consumer harm. Fourthly, it has an information function to provide public-facing consumer advice and information; and, finally, a recall of goods function, which will allow for the managing of records of recall of goods. As the noble and learned Lord will know, that is something that has been in England for some time.
I just add that Citizens Advice Scotland will still operate in Scotland. It will remain an important partner for Consumer Scotland and the Scottish Government in tackling consumer issues, providing advice to individuals and in a range of other areas, as I mentioned earlier, including social security and tackling poverty.
I shall try to answer a question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on how the body might differ, and I shall perhaps add to what I have been saying. The 2020 Act created an independent consumer champion dedicated to representing the interests of consumers, so it will be a source of expertise, focused on advocating for change on issues that particularly affect people in Scotland. It will recognise Scotland’s distinct circumstances, such as its rural population and devolved industries. That would include matters of transportation, which I suspect will be of interest to the noble Lord, and the fact that there are particular specific issues in that respect for Scotland. I hope and believe that Consumer Scotland will create better outcomes for citizens in Scotland.
I hope that that gives a little bit more meat to the bones on the questions raised. To close, our support for the Scottish Government on the establishment of Consumer Scotland demonstrates Scotland’s two Governments working very well together, and the commitment of this Government to strengthen the devolution settlement. I hope that with those remarks, this order will be passed, and I commend the order to this Committee.
Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020 and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020 and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2022.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, this draft order was laid before the House on 16 November 2021. I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to debate these consequential amendments, which support the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce opposite-sex civil partnerships to Scotland.
Civil partnerships were first introduced across the UK through the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, with the first civil partnership taking place in December 2005. Opposite-sex civil partnerships were then introduced in England and Wales in 2019, and in Northern Ireland in 2020, following a ruling by the Supreme Court. The Scottish Government passed the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020, which enabled opposite-sex civil partnerships to become available in Scotland in 2021. Consequently, 22 opposite-sex civil partnerships were registered in Scotland in June 2021. From July to September 2021, there were a further 216 opposite-sex civil partnerships in Scotland, making a total so far of 238.
The order makes a range of technical changes to reserved legislation that are required in consequence of the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020, which I will refer to henceforth as the 2020 Act. It is important that we support the Scottish Government to provide equality of opportunity as they introduce these changes in Scotland. Later in my remarks, I will outline the legislative changes that we seek to make in this order but, first, I want to offer a real-world example of what these changes will mean in Scotland. The order is complex, but one example is the change made to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 on assisted conception. The amendments will ensure that, when it comes to establishing the parentage of a child in assisted conception cases, couples in a civil partnership are treated in the same way as married couples.
Before we look at the legislative detail of this order, it is worth spending a moment explaining Scotland Act orders to everyone here today; I hope that the Committee will forgive me because I outlined this in the previous debate, when noble Lords were very patient in listening to me. This type of statutory instrument is a form of secondary legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved significant powers to Scotland and formed the basis of the devolution settlement that has been in operation for more than 20 years. The order before us today is a Section 104 order, a type of order that allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament. It can also be made in consequence of secondary legislation made by Scottish Ministers. In this case, provision is required in consequence of the aforementioned 2020 Act.
Turning to the purpose of this order, I shall highlight some of the key legislative changes made here. The main changes reflect that civil partnership in Scotland no longer includes a same-sex relationship; it now includes an opposite-sex relationship too. Therefore, amendments are made to the Equality Act 2010, for example, further to protect persons such as religious and belief celebrants who do not wish to take part in the registration of mixed sex-civil partnerships. These amendments to the 2010 Act, which is generally a reserved matter for Westminster, reflect that, in Scotland, religious and belief celebrants can register civil partnerships in much the same way as they can solemnise marriage.
A number of amendments are also made to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The changes made reflect that, now opposite-sex civil partnership is recognised, it is possible for civil partners to apply for gender recognition and stay in the civil partnership. Changes are made to the rules governing applications for a gender recognition certificate by some persons who are party to a civil partnership registered in Scotland but resident elsewhere in the UK. Provision is also made to make it clear that, for the purposes of the law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, a civil partnership registered in Scotland continues after either party to it has obtained a full gender recognition certificate.
As I have mentioned already, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 is also amended to ensure that children of marriages and children of civil partnerships are treated the same in cases of assisted reproduction and that the legal parenthood of these children is therefore clear. The order also makes changes to a range of legislation with regards to the registration overseas, through UK consular officials and the Armed Forces, of marriages and civil partnerships.
In summary, this order supports the establishment of opposite-sex civil partnerships in Scotland. The instrument and the policy behind it have the support of Scotland’s two Governments. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome this order for a particular reason, if I can give a little bit of history. As the noble Viscount will be aware, I sat as a Lord of Appeal in the days when the House of Lords was the final Court of Appeal. In one case, which is very firmly in my memory, a couple appeared before us who were unable to marry. As far as one could tell they looked a perfectly normal, very respectable and charming man and woman, but the problem was that the man had been born as a woman. In those days, we did not have all the language to express that, as we have nowadays. It was a sex change problem. The problem was that the Marriage Act made it absolutely clear that whether one was a man or woman for the purposes of marriage was dependent on the sex at birth. We were unable to give them the authority to marry, but we drew the Government’s attention to the fact that there was a human rights element to this—a right to family life and so on—that they were being denied by the wording of the Marriage Act.
I must say that the Government acted commendably well in response to what we said. It led to the Government bringing in the civil partnership legislation, which was to deal with the problem of people of the same sex at birth wanting to marry. Certainly, as Law Lords, at the time we never contemplated that marriage would have to be replaced by a civil partnership between opposite sexes, but the Government have moved on, and there is obviously public demand for this now—people want to use civil partnerships rather than go through a formal marriage. I understand that. It makes obvious sense to do what the measure does to make up the position so that there is an equality of treatment through all the legislation.
There is one common law right that I do not think this measure deals with, but there is a way round it. If one dies intestate there is a legal right that children have, called legitim. At the moment, children of civil partnerships do not have that right because in common law it is available only to children of particular individuals who marry. Civil partnerships are not recognised in the way the legislation is designed for common law, because it is for children of a regular marriage.
There is not a problem, because those who wish to take advantage of legal rights can cure the problem by the adoption process, because adoption has allowed for it, but I wonder whether the noble Viscount and his advisers might take away consideration as to how to deal with legitim. At the moment, as I understand it, you have to go through the adoption process to give the children of a civil partnership the right to legitim. I might be wrong about this. As it happens, I have been looking at a soon to be published textbook on this subject that indicates that children of a civil partnership do not have the right to legitim, which one would want them to have. Because it is common law it is not embraced in the legislation, but it might be helpful if something was done about that to address what is quite a real problem. This is a right that attaches to every estate; it is a legal right given by common law. You cannot disinherit children in Scotland, because they have a right to a part of the estate. We would want to be sure that that survived into a civil partnership.
The only other point I want to ask the Minister about is whether there is any statistical information on how widely this provision is being used for its original purpose, between same-sex couples, and/or now between couples of opposite sexes. I rather think it has overtaken the same-sex situation. Although that solution is available—it is the one solution that same-sex couples have—it has rather overtaken it. But that would be quite interesting, if there are statistics readily to hand; if there are not, do not bother about it—but it would be interesting to know how widely it has been taken up between those two branches of couples.
That all having been said, I very much welcome this legislation. It makes obvious good sense and, as far as I can see, has done all the right things where statutory law is concerned, leaving aside the common-law problem to which I have drawn attention.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am struggling in a sense with this Scottish stuff. I suppose it shows that I do not really understand the devolution settlement. My simple idea is that the settlement says, “Scotland can do what Scotland wants to do, except where powers are reserved to the United Kingdom as a whole”. It seems that what we have in this order means that, to achieve that, reserved law sometimes interferes at the edges. If one is respecting the devolution settlement, one should accede to the requests of the Scottish Government to change this stuff around the edge to meet what Scotland wants to do. Once again, I do not think it is really our business whether what Scotland wants to do is a good or bad idea.
I was not helped on this order because I did not have the training, mind or history of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I always enjoy him presenting his ideas on these occasions. Unfortunately, I did not really grasp the SI. I read it—no, let us be realistic. I read the Explanatory Memorandum several times, but I just could not keep up with the interrelationships.
Another thing I am sensitive about in the Scotland situation is that to blunder into such sensitive areas and make any comments on the substance of what the instrument is trying to achieve is probably unwise because one could, at the end of the day, create offence. Accordingly, I shall refrain from commenting on the substance. I have only one question: the Explanatory Memorandum says at its beginning that it is created by the Scotland Office, but it reads as if it is a consensus document between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government. Who fundamentally created this statutory instrument? That is: whose ideas were they, and it is in fact a consensus document between the Scottish and UK Governments? If it is, I can see no way in which the SI adversely affects the UK-wide legislation, which I believe is the limit of our concerns. Accordingly, we support this statutory instrument.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for their support for this order. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, as I should have done before, into Scottish matters. I am sure he is being extremely humble and knows a lot more than he is giving out. As I come originally from north of the border and know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, does so too, we are reasonably well versed in this. However, the noble Lord is very welcome indeed.
I also say at the outset that I was very interested to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. I am well aware of his experience, and it was very interesting to hear his real-life example. He spoke movingly about how, in that example, the issue revolved around and focused on how children are treated and cared for. He raised a question about children’s rights in this respect. I shall obviously have to write to him about the specific issue he raised, which is a legal issue, and I will copy in the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rather than trying to cobble something together this afternoon.
I am not sure that I have all the statistics that the noble and learned Lord asked for. I have the statistics for the number of people in civil partnerships or marriages going through gender recognition, and I think that might have been part of what he was asking for. It is too soon to produce statistics which are available on the number of people in civil partnerships who obtain gender recognition. However, in 2020-21, the gender recognition panel granted 427 gender recognition certificates. Of those, 33 were granted to married people and 394 to single people. The gender recognition panel does not produce separate figures on the number of applications for gender recognition from Scotland. However, we estimate—and it is an estimate —that there are about 25 applications a year from Scotland. As I said earlier, it is too early to give definite figures, but that might give an indication.
I come to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the interrelationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I mentioned earlier that the Scottish Government and the UK Government came together to produce this. It is a consensus document; I can definitely confirm that. I do not know who wrote it, but I think I am right to say that it was the UK Government. It is our job to take this through, but it is with the consensus of the Scottish Government. On the nuance of that, I will write in the same letter to confirm precisely how it came together. I can say that confirmation that the two Governments are working well together is clearly there.
I think I have answered the questions as far as I am able. In closing, I hope that we can now take this forward, and I therefore beg to move.
House of Lords
Maldives: Tariffs
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Mobarik
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to lower the tariffs on tuna imported from the Maldives.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, the Maldives is an important trading partner for the UK and we are keen to co-operate on trade opportunities including in such areas as food, drink and sustainable development, including fishing. However, the country is rated by the World Bank as an upper-middle-income country and therefore does not qualify for reduced tariffs under the UK’s generalised system of preferences, which, of course, lowers tariffs for developing countries.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. I am aware that the Maldives has transitioned from a developing to a middle-income country and is therefore not eligible for GSP. However, it seems to me an injustice that the Maldives, one of the few countries to practise genuinely sustainable fishing where fish are caught one by one, is the only Commonwealth country with small island development status on which the UK imposes an import tariff. The UK has economic partnership agreements with Caribbean and Pacific states, the Seychelles and Mauritius, which, incidentally, has a higher per capita income than the Maldives. Given that the tuna fishing industry is vital to the Maldives economy, can my noble friend tell us when there is likely to be a change in the status of the Maldives in its access to the UK market?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point about the fishing practices used by fishermen in the Maldives, on which we must congratulate them. However, there are classifications that determine whether a country is a developing country. To go outside those classifications would have ramifications elsewhere.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, surely we need to be more flexible than that these days. I congratulate the Maldives Government on their sustainable practices, which the noble Baroness mentioned. The UK Government are rightly a champion of ocean conservation and biodiversity. Where there are good fishing practices, particularly for tuna, should we not give them strong trade preferences—yes or no?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Again, the noble Lord is quite right to applaud the fishermen in the Maldives but, as I said, these things are governed by rules not always set by the WTO. We hope always to take a lead on this but, at present, our tariff rates on tuna do not differentiate between production methods of the same goods, such as different ways of catching tuna.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Does my noble friend not agree that the way forward is for us to enter a bilateral economic partnership agreement with the Maldives? I believe that the Government of the Republic of Maldives would be open to that possibility. Could we initiate such discussions?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes another good point. The UK currently has a busy and ambitious FTA negotiation programme with a full pipeline of negotiations. Sadly, we therefore have limited capacity to consider new FTA or EPA negotiations in the immediate term. However, the Maldives is an important trading partner to the UK and officials are exploring pragmatic options to enhance bilateral trade relationships in areas of mutual interest. I am sure that noble Lords will applaud that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the Government talk a lot about wanting to be a champion for the Commonwealth—and so they should—and about sustainability. We have a nation here with small island development status that, as far as we know, is fishing sustainably on a global basis, so it seems extraordinary that the Government are being so cool on the prospect of having some kind of bilateral agreement with the Maldives. Will they perhaps warm up a little and try to progress this a bit more quickly?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, no one could feel warmer towards the Maldives than I do. In a sense, it is a matter of congratulation for the Maldives that it is now an upper-middle-income country. We should congratulate it on that, but the downside is that it is no longer classified as a developing country.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister, who has mentioned a list of countries that have a higher priority than the Maldives for a free trade agreement, tell us which African countries are on that list and when they will get an agreement negotiated?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, on many occasions the House has heard me refer to the FTA negotiations. We are hoping to finalise now with Australia and New Zealand, we are hoping to resume trade negotiations with the US and our negotiations with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and we are hoping to start negotiations with India and the GCC. I think that the House will recognise that that is a full pipeline and, frankly, we cannot do everything at once.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister recognise the sustainable and ecologically friendly fishing practices of the Maldives. Will he recognise, at least as a medium-term objective, the desire for the UK to move to zero tariffs and zero quotas with our friends and allies in the Commonwealth?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, that is another good point made by my noble friend. The issue of a free trade agreement covering the whole of the Commonwealth is the rich diversity of nations in the Commonwealth. Some are large and some are small; some have a certain economic capacity and others have another economic capacity. A free trade agreement with the Commonwealth would of course have to be negotiated over that whole range of countries. It is a wonderful, idyllic idea but in practice it would be hard to achieve.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, we all understand why the Minister’s department cannot do everything at once, but why is Africa so often at the bottom of the list?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I think that is a rather unfair point. I do not have the figures at my fingertips but I well remember a debate that we had just a couple of months ago on the agreements that we have reached with certain African countries. We are making progress. Of course we would all like to make more progress, but at a time of limited capacity you have to prioritise.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind the size of the Maldives, will my noble friend not allow his warmth to become generosity in this season of good will?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Of course size matters, my Lords, but it is not an easy criterion to apply to free trade agreements.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I understand that since Brexit we have joined the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. With all our knowledge of sustainability and conservation, are we actually contributing to that organisation? Are we urging it to improve constantly?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, it is a long time since I did geography at school, but I am not entirely sure that what we are doing in the Atlantic necessarily applies to the Maldives. I do not have full details of the agreement that the noble Baroness refers to, so I will research it and write to her.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware—and we should be proud—of the huge maritime protection zones which we have placed around so many of our overseas territories and which cover hundreds of thousands of square miles. Does he agree that we have insufficient maritime assets to protect and look after them, particularly bearing in mind the House of Commons Defence Committee’s report that said that we have too few ships?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord on extending the range of this Question to talk about the important matter of the Royal Navy. Of course, I fully sympathise with him on that. Who would not want it to be one of our glorious services?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Remembering that principle not size should govern the Government’s thinking if possible—and remembering, with deep appreciation, Sir David Amess taking a great interest in this subject and inviting me to join him for a meeting with a UK Minister—surely the ability to offer zero tariffs is one of the really meaningful ways to best assist the emerging markets. Could I encourage the Minister to take that on board?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, when setting MFN tariffs and the UK global tariff, we of course have to balance various interests: UK interests, meeting strategic trade objectives and the maintenance of the Government’s commitment to developing countries. The GSP’s whole purpose is to give preference to developing countries. I repeat: it is the classification of the Maldives as no longer a developing country, which this House should congratulate it on, that means that it is not treated in the same way as developing countries in this instance.
Covid-19: Vaccine Donations
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many of the 100 million COVID-19 vaccines they have committed to donate to the rest of the world have been delivered and where they have been sent.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has delivered over 21.2 million doses to recipient countries. Some 16.6 million have been distributed through COVAX, a further 3.4 million doses are with COVAX for allocation and distribution and another 6.3 million will be delivered to it directly from AstraZeneca in the coming weeks. In addition, 4.6 million doses have been delivered bilaterally to 17 countries, including Jamaica, Kenya and Indonesia.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, unvaccinated populations will mean more variants and we must redouble our efforts to help to vaccinate the world. Will my noble friend agree to update the House in writing at the end of this calendar year, and at the next deadline of June next year, with details of how many vaccines the UK has shipped and indeed delivered? Responsibility for global vaccines seems to sit across multiple departments: FCDO, DHSC, BEIS, DIT and of course the Treasury. We have seen the success of our domestic vaccine efforts, thanks to a focused and dynamic Minister, so will the Government consider giving one Minister responsibility for global vaccination?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first point, yes, of course, and I shall write to her with an update. We have already responded to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on this issue. I will take her suggestion of one single dynamic Minister for global vaccines back and share it with the department.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, what progress has been made so far on helping countries to provide their own capacity to build their own vaccines so that it is not left to other countries to donate but, instead, they would be able to manufacture their own?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. The UK has engaged and continues to engage thoroughly on the issues around the TRIPS waiver, which has been discussed. We have certainly seen how we can work though transferring technology, for example. Indeed, early on in the pandemic, that same working together aided the world, in bringing together India and the UK on the Serum Institute of India initiative with the University of Oxford.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, in the wake of the new omicron variant, which undermines existing vaccination efforts, will the Minister support the temporary TRIPS waiver proposed by South Africa and India to the WTO and supported by more than 100 countries, including the US? This would allow for widespread manufacturing scale-up regionally, ensure that all countries could get access to the vaccines they need to protect their populations and reduce the risk to all of us of new variants emerging.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s concern. We are engaging pragmatically on the TRIPS waiver. However, when looking into some of the hurdles that developing parts of the world have faced, we see that the main issue is still a lack of skills, in terms not just of health infrastructure but physical distribution of the vaccine even once it is in country. Vaccine hesitancy is also a large barrier. As I have said, we are engaging on the TRIPS waiver, but we are very clear that any negotiation should not lead to a reduction in the quality of the vaccine.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, who decided that this country would donate 100 million Covid vaccines to the rest of the world and who chose which countries should be the beneficiaries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the 100 million vaccines, as my noble friend will be aware, this was very much part of our drive during our leadership at the G7 and it was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. On distribution, we are looking at key factors. Ultimately, we look at our own ability to provide vaccines, both through COVAX and bilaterally. We then make a decision on the availability of those vaccines as well as the ability to distribute them across the world. That decision is taken by the FCDO.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the two key issues in reaching the target of 70% of the global population being vaccinated are delivery mechanisms and manufacture. At the Foreign Ministers meeting at the G7, Liz Truss stressed the importance of strengthening health systems, which is vital to ensuring that vaccines are administered. What she did not address is how we are going to do that. Can the Minister commit his department to giving us a strategy of implementation so that we are confident about reaching the target in June of 70% of the global population?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very practical point, and I share his view on the importance of having the necessary infrastructure around the world to ensure equitable and safe distribution of vaccines. We are working closely through the COVAX facility as well as the World Health Organization to ensure that we can support that principle fully. Equally, prior to our bilateral donations being made, we go through quite thoroughly the infrastructure in a given country and its ability to ensure the safe and equitable distribution of the vaccine once it arrives.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is not just a matter of quantity, supply and logistics but, as the Minister indicated, of vaccine hesitancy. What consideration have the Government given to working with partners such as the Anglican Communion, which is well placed at local level to work with local leaders to use the right language and to persuade local people to take the vaccines?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will know what a strong supporter I am of the Anglican Communion and other faith-based institutions in different countries as key partners on not just vaccine issues but civil society issues. I will certainly take back what the right reverend Prelate has said, but let me assure him that we are working with the Anglican Communion and other faith communities to tackle vaccine hesitancy. Indeed, we experienced it here in the UK as well, and the churches and faith groups played a sterling role in ensuring that it could be overcome.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, this country is in the midst of a damaging and costly response to a new variant of Covid-19. If we are to avoid a constant stream of disruptions of this sort, is it not in our country’s strategic interest that we work urgently to ensure the vaccination of the rest of the world?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in response to my question on vaccine equity on 2 December, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said:
“I think, actually, the first duty of a Government is to protect their own population.”—[Official Report, 2/12/21; col. 1456.]
Does the Minister recognise that omicron demonstrates that Governments cannot protect their own populations unless they first understand that, in a pandemic, acting in the global interest is the only way of protecting the national interest? If he does recognise that, why are the Government cutting support for African health services at their time of greatest need in delivering vaccines to their people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, we allocated specific support for African nations and have continued to support them in that respect. On his first point about my noble friend’s response, it is important to secure domestic vaccinations, but I agree with what he has put forward: we are only as safe as everyone else is. Therefore, we must support other countries, but this is not a binary choice; we can do both. We can secure our own populations and help those elsewhere in the world as well.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is it any wonder that we face a tidal wave of omicron when we have provided only one-fifth of the vaccine doses promised to countries overseas? Did the Minister hear the evidence given by an expert to the Select Committee in another place that it was very short-sighted of the Government not to support the facility at Livingston in Scotland which was ready to provide hundreds of millions of doses that could be sent overseas? Will he ask his colleagues in the departments concerned to think again about keeping that facility open?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one thing that the challenge of Covid-19 has shown is our interdependency and the need to work together. We have certainly demonstrated that. On the noble Lord’s first point about short-sightedness, on the contrary, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister returned from his own challenge with Covid-19, the first thing he did was to spearhead the COVAX facility. That is doing exactly what the noble Lord suggests in ensuring that the most vulnerable are supported. I shall follow up on his specific question about the Livingston facility.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, there have been reports in the press that the problems in sub-Saharan Africa relate not to supply but distribution. Which is the difficulty, supply or distribution of vaccines?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there is a need to do more on supply to ensure equitable distribution of vaccines. However, as I have said in earlier answers, there is equally a real challenge with infrastructure in developing parts of the world to ensure that, once vaccines arrive, they can be distributed around the country.
Breast Screening
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure screening of the estimated 1.2 million women in England who missed breast screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; and what assessment they have made of the extent to which health disparities may have been exacerbated due to the reduction in screening attendance.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Morgan on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Recovery of screening has been an ongoing priority and all NHS breast screening providers are now operational. We allocated £22 million towards mobile breast screening units and £50 million towards increased regional capacity, and have collaborated across cancer alliances, primary care networks and NHS England and NHS Improvement regional teams to promote uptake. We know inequalities in screening exist, exacerbated by changes to service provision during the Covid-19 pandemic. Inequalities remain key in restoration planning, and guidance was recently published on reducing inequalities in breast screening.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He appears to be aware that it is in fact minorities and socially deprived women who have been hardest hit by the shortfall in screening take-up due to Covid. I understand from his response that the Government are issuing guidance. What action will that guidance envisage to ensure that these minorities and deprived women receive screening for breast cancer?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point; we need to tackle inequalities not just in this area but across all healthcare. One of the things we have been looking at is research into why women in certain areas do not come forward. That is why we have invested in mobile breast screening units, so that we can take screening services closer to those people who are reluctant to come forward.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we heard the Minister’s Answer about the money that has been pledged, but the elective delivery plan promised by the end of November has not been published. Can he say when it will be published and how it will help to find and treat the just under 10,000 fewer than usual women who would have been diagnosed with breast cancer between March 2020 and October 2021?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The plan will be published in due course. When we look at the backlog for the breast screening programme, we see that all 77 NHS breast screening providers are now operational and screening women. Some have caught up, and others are not predicted to recover by the end of March 2022. That is why NHS England and NHS Improvement have comprehensive plans, including spending and investment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as I can testify, breast cancer screening is vital. Allied to this is the need for funding for secondary breast cancer. I know that an audit has been launched here in England, but there are no such audits for secondary breast cancer in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Will the Minister use his good offices with those appropriate Ministers to ensure that such audits are established and that this House can be furnished with ongoing reports of the audit here in England, and the results thereof, to ensure that funding can be deployed into oncology, nursing and care support?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the importance of co-ordination and sharing information across the devolved Administrations. I have meetings scheduled with health Ministers from the devolved Administrations, and I will make sure that my office puts this on the agenda.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, will the Minister tell us how the stage of presentation of breast cancer has altered over the past two years? How many women presenting with stage 3 and stage 4 cancers had never been screened?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving me advance notice of the question, and so giving me the chance to get some information. Data on cancer stages is currently published only annually, and NHS Digital is publishing the data from 2019 on Thursday 16 December. The latest data from 2018 shows that nearly 86% of breast cancers were diagnosed at stages 1 and 2, meaning that about 15% were diagnosed at stages 3 and 4, but this was pre-pandemic. I will make sure that I get the updated data as soon as possible.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in October, when we last had a Question on this issue, the Minister was asked about the need to ensure that innovative new treatments such as Trodelvy reach patients as quickly as possible. I gather that this issue is still not resolved. As yet, there is no agreement between the drug company Gilead and the NHS, which means that access to this transformational treatment is extremely ad hoc and unfair. Will the Minister please help to expedite this issue with NICE, the MHRA and the manufacturer?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness will acknowledge, the MHRA and NICE are independent, but I can, of course, raise the issue with them.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age? If I am right in that, what plans do the Government have to help older women?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The statistics we have show that four out of five breast cancers tend to develop in women over 50. Therefore, screening is really for women between 50 and 71, which will catch most of them. The 2012 review of breast cancer screening, the Marmot review, estimated that inviting women between the ages of 50 and 70 reduces mortality in the population invited by 20%. It also found concerns about screening women outside those ages and overdiagnosis.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this issue, like many across the NHS, is exacerbated by what the Financial Times today referred to as a workforce crisis. When will the Government take urgent action to stem the large and increasing outflow of trained medical personnel that is proving so debilitating to the provision of health services across the board?
Lord Kamall (Con)
In previous debates this week I have outlined what we are doing to increase recruitment. On the specific issue in the mammography workforce, Health Education England is providing £5 million to support a new training and development programme through the National Breast Imaging Academy. That itself will increase recruitment, improve screening targets and increase early diagnosis of cancer.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, while we wait for the routine screening programme to get back to normal, is there a fast-track mechanism for women who believe they have themselves detected a lump or a worrying change in their breast tissue to be screened and seen by a specialist?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The method for booking screenings has now changed, so people can book online on demand, rather than waiting for a referral.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is beyond doubt now that screening is beneficial? Can he assure us that no credence is given to those arguing that screening leads to overtreatment? Can we say that that is scotched?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government completely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, wishes to speak virtually, and I think this is a convenient point for me to call her.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as GPs are having to work in vaccination centres, would it be possible for people who think they have or may have cancer—breast cancer or other cancers—to go straight to secondary care for investigations? GPs cannot do everything at the same time. Does the Minister agree with me that it is important to have a speedy diagnosis for cancer?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I think all noble Lords would agree with the noble Baroness that it is important we have speedy diagnosis. On the specific question, I will check and get back to her.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that, at the same time as aid and assistance to the developing world is being cut in the health sector, we are increasing the recruitment of doctors and nurses, not least from Africa, while Africa is experiencing a real issue with the distribution of the Covid vaccine? Is there not something terribly wrong there?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue; I know he has been a strong champion of Africa over the years. The fact is that, when it comes to recruitment, we adopt ethical guidelines in line with the World Health Organization. I will give him one example. Recently, I had a discussion with the Kenyan Ministry of Health about sending Kenyan nurses. I asked whether we were depriving them of their nurses, and was told “No; we train far more nurses than our health system can absorb, and therefore we see this as a powerful way to increase earnings for our country.”
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble and gallant friend, Lord Stirrup, the Minister’s answer related to what was happening in the recruitment of new staff. Can he say something about what the Government are doing to retain existing staff?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I have previously announced government investment in retention programmes and looking at getting back those who have retired and increasing training places in medical schools and elsewhere.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, going back to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, could the Minister remind the House exactly what is the rationale for not including women over 70 in the screening programme, given that, as he has conceded, vulnerability to breast cancer increases with age?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Marmot review found that screening women outside the ages of 50 to 70 could lead to overdiagnosis and to referring women for unnecessary tests and overtreatment. But women in other categories with a very high risk of breast cancer—those with a family history, for example—are often screened earlier and more frequently. Women are not automatically invited for breast cancer screening if over 71, but they can request screening themselves.
Covid-19: Entertainment and Arts Venues
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further support they will provide to entertainment and arts venues following the introduction of new COVID-19 regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are continuing to support the sector through the Culture Recovery Fund, which has provided nearly £2 billion of public support for arts and culture. To help people over the winter, we have reopened the emergency resource support strand of that programme, giving more applicants at risk of financial failure an opportunity to bid for support. We continue to work with our arm’s-length bodies and the sector to understand the pressures being felt as a result of the pandemic and the move to plan B.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the considerable difficulties the arts are having getting back on their feet, with many venues experiencing low ticket sales before the most immediate crisis. Will the Minister look again at the Live Events Reinsurance Scheme, which does not cover regulations that make events financially unviable or where cancellations occur because of staff contracting Covid? Will the Minister look as well at extending the Culture Recovery Fund to creative freelancers, many of whom, particularly in the music sector, did not receive help under the Self-employment Income Support Scheme?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl is right to point to the fact that we are doing everything we can to support the sector to return to doing what it loves and what people love to enjoy it doing. We launched the live events reinsurance scheme in September, and I will certainly look at examples where people are not able to benefit from it. Self-employed people have been able to enjoy some of the other support that has been given by the Treasury but, again, I am very happy to hear from freelancers and those representing them to make sure that the support is being given.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend acknowledge that English choral music is particularly enriched by church music? Is the Royal School of Church Music eligible for grants from the Culture Recovery Fund?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not know specifically, but I will follow up on my noble friend’s request, find out whether it has bid for any of the rounds of the Culture Recovery Fund and write to him with the answer.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Carlisle United Football Club. What plans do the Government have to ensure that places are available for away fans in football games which are subject to the latest Covid regulations?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will discuss that matter with my honourable friend the Sports Minister. Of course, the Culture Recovery Fund has been helping organisations right across the wide range of things that people enjoy.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, yesterday’s newspapers reported on the new musical “Cabaret”. These five-star reviews remind us what a magnificent magnet our London theatres in particular are for inward investment and tourism. However, the Society of London Theatre is warning us that these new circumstances—and they are new; the Prime Minister had to have a special broadcast, and we have to have special legislation—mean that the theatres are now faced with entirely new threats, yet from the department it still sounds like it is business as usual, rather than action this day.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the department, both at official level and ministerially, has been speaking to the sector throughout the pandemic. Of course, we have stepped that up since the move to plan B. I have a meeting tomorrow with our venue steering group so that I can hear from it myself. I have been to two theatres since we moved into plan B: the Young Vic on Thursday, and the Greenwich Theatre to see the pantomime at the weekend. I am pleased to report that they were full houses of people wearing masks. The most important thing we can do to support not just the cultural sector but every part of our economy is to get our boosters, wear our masks and have consideration for those around us.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, given that so many freelancers fell through the Government’s welcome support network during Covid, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, promised from the Dispatch Box to write to me about the rules concerning universal credit, because she accepted that there was a problem. Would the Minister be kind enough to fulfil that promise, as I have yet to hear from her? Also, the double whammy of Covid and the restrictions on touring have really hit the musical sector. Given that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, told us that the advantages of Brexit would outweigh the disadvantages, could the Minister enlighten me as to what advantages the creative sector has so far garnered?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott has been away for a few days, so I will certainly pick that up with her office to make sure that the noble Lord gets the answer to his first question. I also have a meeting with counterparts in the DWP to take up this issue in response to a question we had in a debate recently with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, knows, we continue to work bilaterally on touring. We provide information on GOV.UK to make sure that the sector has clarity about the rules, and we are making progress with many other countries in ensuring that they match the welcoming access we provide to musicians who want to come to the UK.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, many venues which took out government-backed Covid loans early in the pandemic are either now starting to repay the loans or are coming up to being asked to repay them. With the continuation of the pandemic, are the Government looking at whether those repayments can be deferred? Given the contribution that live entertainment and the arts make to our well-being and that of our communities, what work is being done across government, including with the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, to recognise that so that this time, if needed, support measures can hit the ground running?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the money continues to be disbursed. So far, we have helped more than 5,000 organisations around the country and the money continues to go out. As we set out in the accompanying fund guidance documents, the Government will keep the delivery of the funding under active review and will consider how best to adapt it in line with the needs of the sector. We continue to work with other departments to make sure that our response is appropriate.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many public houses have a tradition of providing live music. That seems to have ceased since Covid. Have the Government any measures whatever to try and encourage public houses to start to open up as venues for live music?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The rules on certification vary depending on the size of establishments, their opening hours and whether they serve alcohol after certain times. The noble Lord is right that live music can be enjoyed in all sorts of settings and we want people to get back to doing that safely. The best way for them to do that is to help us by getting their boosters and wearing their masks.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the cultural venue future for the north of England would be considerably enhanced if communications were improved—that is, if you could actually get to venues in the first place? What weight are he and his department giving to discussions about northern rail and other transport infrastructure?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. We want to ensure that people have access to entertainment, arts and culture wherever they live and however they get there. We work with the Department for Transport, local authorities and metro mayors to deliver that.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests. The noble Lord has rightly focused on the enjoyment that people get from the arts and of course I would be entirely in sympathy with that, but he has not mentioned the economic benefit that comes to the country from the success of the sector. That very much includes the performing arts, particularly theatre. Have the Government made any assessment of the likely impact on our economy if there is serious damage to that sector over the next few months or years?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. This is about not just the enjoyment that the arts bring but the contribution they make to our economy and society. The Culture Recovery Fund was testament to that—money from the Treasury to make sure that our vibrant and expanding cultural sector was still there and in good health as we emerged from the pandemic. That is why we keep that under review and are keen to ensure that it can continue to grow as quickly as it has been.
Lord Bird (CB)
As most people get their entertainment from television and from Netflix and Amazon, is there a way that we can tax these much more severely because they take so much out of our live music, our theatres and all sorts of things? Can the Minister not start petitioning for a real tax of Amazon and all those others?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, during the pandemic thanks to the Culture Recovery Fund a lot of independent venues have been able to stream the work that they have done, bringing it to people to enjoy in their homes. A lot of the film and television production companies have been working with us, making use of apprenticeships to help get lots of people into the creative industries and taking up job opportunities. They are part of the solution. We want a thousand flowers to bloom.
Subsidy Control Bill
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Subsidy Control Act 2022 View all Subsidy Control Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2021 - large print - (13 Dec 2021)
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (14 Dec 2021)
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motion B.
Your Lordships will understand that the Bill is essential. It must pass this week or the Armed Forces Act 2006 will cease to have effect. As my honourable friend Mr Leo Docherty, the Minister in the other place, made clear yesterday, we have been listening to the concerns of noble Lords and honourable Members and the Government have responded to them. We recognise that all Members of this House want to do the best they can for our Armed Forces and to support them in the vital role that they play.
I turn first to the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I think we all agree that criminal wrongdoing must be robustly and swiftly addressed for the sake of our service personnel and for the victims of crime. We respectfully maintain that the provisions in the Bill will meet these concerns. They will require civilian prosecutors across the United Kingdom to agree with the Director of Service Prosecutions protocols for determining in which jurisdiction cases should be heard. The Bill provides that civilian prosecutors will always have the final say on the choice of jurisdiction under those protocols.
The Government therefore agree that civilian prosecutors should be able to decide whether a case proceeds in the service or civilian jurisdiction. However, we are unable to agree that a role for the Attorney-General is needed, and we consider that it is wrong for there to be an explicit and inbuilt bias towards one system or the other. Each system is and should be capable of dealing with all types of offending, with decisions made by prosecutors on a case-by-case basis. The service justice system will be dealing with all offences when they occur overseas, and it really makes no sense to truncate our capability in this area and create the very real risk that the system could be seen as second class if serious offences such as rape and serious sexual assault can be dealt with in the service justice system overseas but not in the United Kingdom.
There was some discussion in this House last week about the implications of this amendment for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The earlier amendment applied only to England and Wales, giving the role of authorising a service justice prosecution to the Director of Public Prosecutions after consulting the Attorney-General. The latest amendment retains that feature but creates rules for Scotland and Northern Ireland, giving the authorising function to the Lord Advocate in Scotland and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
Let me be clear that this formulation remains unacceptable to the Government. As I have said, the provisions of the Bill already give the final say on jurisdiction to the civilian prosecutors: the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Lord Advocate, and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Our objection remains to any involvement of the Attorney-General or Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and to any inbuilt bias towards either system, for the reasons which I have explained.
We recognise, however, that we could increase confidence in the service justice system by being more open and transparent about the cases that the system is dealing with. This is why a specific commitment was given in the other place yesterday to improve our annual statistical update on offences contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and historic sexual offences dealt with in the service justice system to include other serious offences. Our bulletin in spring 2022, published on the GOV.UK website, will, in addition to reporting on rape statistics, now include granular data on cases of murder and manslaughter, and for sexual offending those cases involving personnel serving in the Armed Forces who are under 18 at the time of the offence. Furthermore, from January 2022, we will start to record separately information about domestic violence and child sexual abuse offences in the service justice system so that these too can be reported in our spring 2023 bulletin.
Greater reporting will enable the Government to be held to account and to transparently monitor the health of the service justice system so we can make adjustments and improvements where necessary. We know of course that the service justice system deals with a significantly lower number of cases than the civilian system and that small variances in the data can produce seemingly large swings in performance when expressed as percentages. However, low case numbers aside, the service justice system has trained police investigators, prosecutors and judges who are experienced and capable of dealing with the serious offences which are of concern here. We are strengthening and improving investigative capability through the defence serious crime unit.
I now turn to the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the need for a report to be laid within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, setting out the implications of not applying a new covenant duty to central government. I appreciate the sincere desire that lies behind the original amendment. As the Minister explained in the other place yesterday, the Government have already committed to reviewing the operation of the covenant duty to indicate whether other policy areas or functions could be usefully included. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in both Houses and, recognising the strength of feeling across both, the Government have now committed to going further and have set out in clear terms how such a review will occur. I am pleased to repeat these clear terms, to share that commitment, and to set out as follows how we see such a review progressing.
The review will encompass the operation of the new duty across the UK, going further than your Lordships’ proposals, and it will consider whether it would be beneficial to exercise any of the powers conferred by this Bill to add to its scope. This will include specific consideration of whether central government and any of its functions could usefully be added. The Government will report on the review as part of the covenant annual report in 2023, 18 months after the new duty is expected to come into effect. This timescale is more realistic than the six-month timeline from Royal Assent suggested by your Lordships, which is too short a period for any meaningful review to take place.
Once the Bill is passed, elements of the new duty, such as the statutory guidance, will require further statutory consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. We expect to see the new duty standing up in law by the middle of 2022 at the earliest, which is around the time that your Lordships’ amendment would have required a report. We also need to allow for an implementation period to give local authorities time to adjust to their new responsibilities. Therefore, to conclude and publish the review at the 18-month point of the new duty having been in operation is most appropriate.
Recognising the level of interest in this new duty, we will provide an update in the covenant annual report in December 2022, some six months after the duty is expected to come into effect. We will be able to say more at this point about the scope and methodology for conducting the review, and Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to assess and comment in the 2022 covenant report debate. We are committed to ensuring that parliamentarians from both Houses can contribute and give their views as part of the review process.
I have sought to reassure this House where I have been able to do so. We are up against time, the Bill must pass, and I urge noble Lords to support the Government. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Thomas of Gresford
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 1D as an amendment in lieu—
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civilian court unless, by reason of the circumstances, including but not limited to specific naval or military complexity involving the service, trial by court martial is directed by—
(a) in England and Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultation with the Attorney General;
(b) in Scotland, the Lord Advocate;
(c) in Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, after consultation with the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Justice Minister, Dominic Raab, speaking on “Today” this morning, said:
“I’m proud of our tradition of freedom in this country. We believe in liberty under the rule of law … We want to reinforce our typical British liberties like freedom of speech, the liberty that guards all the others … trial by jury, that’s a common-law right, very much part of the British tradition.”
In another part of the thicket, the Defence Secretary, Mr Ben Wallace, is seemingly against trial by jury and is acting contrary to the advice of his advisers and the judgment of his departmental Ministers, as Johnny Mercer, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans until April of this year, told us last week. Mr Wallace refuses to accept that, where charges are brought against a person subject to service law for serious cases of murder, manslaughter, rape or serious sexual offences allegedly committed in the United Kingdom by a person subject to service law, there should be a presumption that the accused should have the “common-law right” to trial by jury. Let us spell it out clearly again. If you join the services, you lose the common-law right to trial by jury—which is very much part of the British tradition, as Mr Raab would have it.
In the Commons last week, Sarah Atherton, the Member of Parliament for Wrexham, who has made her way up from the ranks of the Intelligence Corps to the green Benches in the other place and to the chair of the defence sub-committee charged with studying this issue, voted against her own Government and in so doing lost her ministerial appointment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, it is with pleasure that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It has been a long campaign since I first initiated a series of debates following the case of Sergeant Blackman for murder. I also note, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, the proposals of the Lord Chancellor to embed the right to trial by jury in his reforms, as was referred to this morning. It would be gravely inconsistent of the Government to declare this right in statute while denying it to service men and women.
The right to trial by jury—the right to trial by one’s peers—goes back to Magna Carta, with all the protections that have been hammered out over the years for majority verdicts, announced publicly, with everyone knowing exactly what is happening and the careful directions that are given to juries. It should be the right of every serviceman and every servicewoman, too.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I rise to support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The key issue is trial by jury. I completely accept the improvements in the service justice system—I saw them in my former role as Lord Chief Justice. However, the Minister does not grapple with the fundamental issue: why take away the right to trial by jury? It is important, because sometimes Ministers misspeak on the “Today” programme, to see what the Deputy Prime Minister wrote in this morning’s Times:
“Trial by jury is another ancient right, applied variably around the UK, that doesn’t feature in the ECHR, but will be in our bill of rights. We should be proud of our history of liberty—and preserve a human rights framework that promotes it.”
It seems inconsistent with that declared policy of Her Majesty’s Government that the Ministry of Defence opposes the fundamental right of trial by jury for those who put their lives at risk for our country. That is what this amendment has at its heart.
It seems to me that by their support of this amendment in the course of debate, the Opposition have accepted that a mistake was made in 2005 when the right to trial by jury was taken away from those in the armed services for these very serious offences. Why does the Ministry of Defence not have the courage to admit that a mistake was made and restore the fundamental right of every member of the Armed Forces to trial by jury for these most serious offences?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I give a cautious but warm-hearted welcome to the remarks and undertakings from the Dispatch Box by the Minister about my amendment. She will recognise that the amendment last week required a report from the Secretary of State about why he, and so central government, should not have statutory authority or due regard. As the Government have stated in both Houses that they have reached the view that legislation is not necessary, it should not have been unduly onerous or difficult for them to explain why in a report to both Houses in the six-month timeframe. Now, however, I sense a changing view and the need for a longer period before making a report.
This change of view is most welcome. It has effectively been demonstrated since Report by the decision of the MoD to refer the case of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps to the Home Office, from one central department to another, dealing with a veterans issue that could not be gripped at devolved or local authority level. However, the MoD must continue to discharge its responsibilities to those veterans. It must continue to take an active interest in their plight until the Home Office responds. Will the Minister give that undertaking now? It should not need to wait for further consideration under the Nationality and Borders Bill when it comes to this House. My hope is that the Government will take “nonne” or a “ne” rather than a “num” approach in answering the request and reporting on why central government must have a legal covenant duty of due regard.
I am very conscious that time is pressing to gain Royal Assent, without which the Government have no statutory right to military forces. I was also somewhat reassured by the Minister’s statement in the other place, so I have not moved any further amendment. I thank the Government for conceding that the role of central government must be considered and reported upon to Parliament.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, let me say once again that Her Majesty’s Opposition support the Bill; we have sought only to challenge the Government to improve it. I believe that, including today, it has been a very good debate in your Lordships’ House, with important contributions from all parts of the Chamber. As we have seen, this has led to many important clarifications and further commitments from the Government. In this, the House has been helped by the approach of the Minister, who has been both engaging and constructive in the work that she has done.
We accept the Government’s Motions A and B as sent back to the House today, but we remain determined to hold the Government to account as we go forward, ensuring that commitments made on the record—both in this House and in the other place—are indeed met. We remain disappointed that the Government have not agreed to Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which we have supported all along.
We will want to test the Government on the commitments that they have made on transparency. Leo Docherty MP talked about all sorts of statistics, which were now to be used by the Government to enhance transparency with respect to serious violence, serious sexual violence, the recording of sexual offences against under-18s and so on—and these will be included in the annual report. When reporting those statistics, however, what will happen if problems remain despite the Government’s belief that the service justice system, as it is to be constituted, will improve the situation? What if the situation does not change? Will that be the time, perhaps, for the Government to consider Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon? It would be helpful if the Minister could say how the Government will judge the statistics that they are committed to publishing with respect to dealing with sexual violence and sexual offences within the criminal justice system.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and, much as he has done, welcome the changes and further commitments that the Government have made on reporting with respect to the covenant, its scope and its extension to government—so that government itself must have due regard to it—with the first annual report to be published in 2023, and an interim report in 2022. We welcome that, but what happens if these reports show that change is needed, and how will they be reported to Parliament?
We believe that the Government have moved forward, making concessions and additional commitments. We thank the Minister for ensuring that the debate has taken place and has been used to inform decisions in the Ministry of Defence; I am sure that all your Lordships welcome that. However, as the Minister knows, serious questions remain around the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We look forward to seeing how these will be dealt with as we go forward.
It would not be appropriate for us to allow the Bill to pass today without once again praising the bravery and professionalism of our Armed Forces. As well as their duty abroad, they are once again to be called upon to help in the fight against the pandemic. Whatever discussions and debates we have, they should know that this Chamber, and all your Lordships, recognise that duty and service as we pass this Bill. We will never, and should never, take that for granted.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, because throughout the Bill’s progress in this House, we have genuinely had well-informed debates which have been extremely helpful in the scrutiny of the legislation. I again pay tribute to all who have facilitated that positive review of it. I also thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
Let me try to deal with some of the points which have arisen. In relation to the service justice system, there was a sense of reprise of previously presented arguments. I know they were presented in good faith. Some have now been addressed by the Government, but, as your Lordships will be aware, others they reject. We have a fundamental point of principle here, which is that some of your Lordships feel that there should be a bias and an explicit tilt towards the civilian system, while the Government are not convinced that that is in the interests of the service justice system or of those who would have to use it. What matters is that the service justice system is robust, which it is, and this Bill introduces many improvements to it.
I do not want to bore your Lordships by repeating the arguments I have previously adduced as to why the Government support the approach of concurrency of jurisdiction. I simply observe that trial by jury is not a part of the service justice system, but we require a system which works both overseas and across the United Kingdom, is professional and has capability and capacity. That is what this Bill provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked me specifically about publishing the detail of the protocols. I would direct him to Clause 7, creating a new Section 320A, and to subsection (8) of that, which directs that the current version of the protocol must be published in whatever manner the directors think appropriate.
I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his kind remarks and his acknowledgement of the Government’s willingness to hear his concerns and to seek to address them. I am not a position to deal with the specific point that he raised, but he will know that announcements are likely in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised two issues. He asked what would happen if the publication of the more detailed data and statistics for the service justice system caused concern. I said that we are very clear as a Government that that additional data will help to inform us as to where we may need to make adjustments or where improvements may be necessary if issues arise which occasion concern.
On the covenant, the noble Lord asked a similarly aligned question about the reports: what if they suggest that the positive progress we all want is not being made as effectively as we would hope? First, that will inform the Government, but, secondly, as his honourable friend in the other place said, it is the job of opposition to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise. I absolutely agree with that; that is what the Opposition exist to do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is an exemplar of holding me as a Defence Minister to account, and I am sure that formidable and tenacious approach will continue.
What this Bill and our debates are all about, and what we try to do in improving this legislation, is of course for the benefit of our Armed Forces. All of us are very conscious not only of what they have done over time, of the sacrifices they make and of the commitment they give, but, perhaps very particularly at this time, of the extraordinary support they have been giving to the country during the pandemic. I know that your Lordships will want on behalf of this Chamber to express our unqualified appreciation—
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I would be grateful if she could write at some point saying why trial by jury is not being conceded for members of the Armed Forces. It may require some legal argument. I would be delighted to read it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will address the noble and learned Lord’s point in a moment, but if I may continue with my tribute, it is very important for this House to send a message to our Armed Forces that we absolutely value everything they are doing. I am particularly conscious of that at this time. Their contribution is extraordinary and invaluable to the country, and we would want them to know just how much we appreciate that.
The noble and learned Lord will be aware that the jury system is not part of the service justice system. It is the view of the Government that the service justice system is robust, that this Bill will make distinct improvements to it and that it has to operate in a manner which makes it fit for purpose both overseas and across the United Kingdom. That is what this Bill does. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
If the Minister will allow me, will she deal with the inconsistency between the Lord Chancellor’s remarks this morning that he seeks to embed the right to trial by jury in statute and the fact that, at the same time, this is being denied to service men and women?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think the noble and learned Lord overlooks the tradition of the service justice system and why we have such a system. That has been one of its characteristics over decades: that is the character of the system. It exists to serve a particular purpose, which most people in this Chamber acknowledge, and that is why it has different characteristics from the civilian justice system.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. Many fine words have been said and two issues have really come forward. The first is the denial of the right to trial by jury to members of the Armed Forces—they sign away that right when they join up. This issue will not go away but will rumble on and on.
The second issue relates to victims and the problems so clearly delineated to Sarah Atherton’s committee. She had representations from more than 4,000 women serving in the Armed Forces, all going the same way. Indeed, one person from an NGO which helps them said she was looking after 600 servicewomen, none of whom wanted trial by court martial; all wanted their right to have a trial in the ordinary courts so that the alleged transgressors could be brought to justice in the ordinary way.
This is absolutely fundamental to the constitution of this country. Regarding what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said a moment ago, in his press release today Mr Raab talked about the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Slave Trade Act and so on, calling them to his aid in supporting the right to trial by jury. It is a simple point.
I am very conscious that there are good things in this Bill that I have worked for for ages, such as majority verdicts in courts martial. I do not want to see this Bill fail, nor do I want the military to be let loose at this particular time by this Bill falling for lack of time. Therefore, I do not propose to press my amendment, but I hope we will come back to this issue. I hope that that will not be in five years’ time with our next Armed Forces Bill but that, once statistics emerge and show us the true situation, the Government will have the guts to admit that they were wrong.
This is not a historic thing going back decades. Jurisdiction was given to courts martial to try murder, manslaughter and rape in 2006, so this is barely 15 years old. Consequently, it is not a great military tradition— if it is being presented in that way. Up until that time, the service justice system insisted that offences committed by servicemen in the United Kingdom, on the soil of this country, should be tried in the ordinary courts. I hope we get back to that very quickly. I will not press the matter and beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.
Education (Environment and Sustainable Citizenship) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education (Environment and Sustainable Citizenship) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Education (Environment and Sustainable Citizenship) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 11-I Amendment for Committee - (1 Dec 2021)
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 November be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I will make a Statement on measures to make sure that our health and care system is as safe as possible in the battle against Covid-19 by making vaccination a condition of deployment for more health and social care settings.
Across the UK, the overwhelming majority of British people have played their part by getting vaccinated against Covid-19. Over 81% of people over the age of 12 have had two doses, a figure that rises to around 91% when you look at NHS staff. The impact of this outstanding vaccination effort is clear. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that at least 127,000 deaths and 24 million infections have been prevented as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination programme. In addition, around 260,000 hospitalisations have been prevented in those aged 45 years and over.
But we still need to do more. Uptake rates vary between different health and care organisations and across the country, and, despite the incredible effort to boost uptake across the country, over 94,000 NHS staff are still unvaccinated. It is important that our health and care staff get jabbed to protect the vulnerable who are in their care and to protect the NHS workforce in the wake of new variants, such as omicron. We made vaccination against Covid-19 a condition of deployment in care homes from 11 November this year. Contrary to initial fears, we are not aware of any care home closures where vaccination as a condition of deployment has been the primary cause.
Today, we are putting before your Lordships the regulations to extend this requirement to health and other social care settings, including NHS hospitals and GP and dental practices, regardless of whether a provider is publicly or privately funded. Anyone working in health or social care activities regulated by the Care Quality Commission will need to be vaccinated against Covid-19 if they are deployed to roles that have direct contact with patients or service users, apart from a few limited exemptions—for example, for medical reasons.
I hear the concerns that have been expressed or raised about the impact of these measures on the workforce, especially during these winter months. For this reason, we are allowing a 12-week grace period to give people the chance to make the positive choice to get protected. We are committing to enforcement of the requirements by 1 April next year, subject to the will of Parliament.
We are also increasing the number and diversity of opportunities to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, using the booster campaign to make the most of walk-ins, pop-ups and other ways to make sure that people are getting the vaccine as easily as possible. The NHS has already written to all providers providing early guidance, setting out what vaccination as a condition of deployment means for the system, as well as advising on next steps to boost uptake and help to ensure smooth implementation. After consulting on the policy in September, we have seen a net increase of over 55,000 NHS staff vaccinated with a first dose.
These steps complement key interventions that we have made to support services, including bolstering capacity across urgent and emergency care and the wider NHS, including with a £250 million investment in general practice, £55 million for the ambulance service and £75 million for NHS 111, and publishing an adult social care winter plan, including £388 million to support infection prevention control and £162.5 million for workforce recruitment and retention. In addition, we have invested £478 million for support services, rehabilitation and reablement care following discharge from hospital, and we are ensuring that health and social care services are joined up.
Although the Government believe that these measures are a proportionate way of protecting those at greatest risk, we recognise that some noble Lords have asked whether we should or would extend these measures even further. So let me state clearly that although we have seen plans for universal mandatory vaccinations in some countries in Europe, we do not support them here. The Government have no intention of extending condition of deployment to other workforces or introducing mandatory vaccination more widely.
At this point, I would like to address head on some of the concerns your Lordships may have regarding concerns raised by the Regulatory Policy Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about these regulations. I sympathise with noble Lords who are concerned with some of the procedural aspects of the passage of this legislation, but in unprecedented times such as these it is right that the Government do everything in their power to protect the vulnerable.
The Government have responded to the concerns raised by the Regulatory Policy Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee as quickly as possible and have provided further information to your Lordships, including on the actions on workforce capacity—as I have set out—and the steps we are taking in collaboration with the NHS and adult social care sector to mitigate the risks to small business, which is of particular concern to the Regulatory Policy Committee. An updated Explanatory Memorandum has been provided to Parliament, and the department’s consideration of the RPC’s concerns has been published on the government website.
The updated Explanatory Memorandum provides further information on the scientific and clinical rationale for the policy, the exemptions that have been provided and those not provided, and the steps we have taken to further encourage uptake of vaccinations and to mitigate workforce issues. The Secretary of State also wrote to all Peers on 10 December to set this out.
In these difficult times, we have seen the very best of those who work in health and care. We have seen care, compassion and conscience. Noble Lords across the House continue to pay tribute to the heroic responses across the health and care sectors. Today’s Motion is about protecting not only health and care staff but the patients in their care. By protecting patients and staff, we protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. I commend this Statement to the House.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I just want to make a quick adjustment: we are of course debating the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Noakes
Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 because Her Majesty’s Government have not published a full impact assessment”.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this order with his customary clarity. I tabled my amendment because when I read the excellent report of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Committee, I saw red. This was yet another set of regulations from the Department of Health and Social Care that came without an impact assessment. My amendment asks the House to decline to approve the regulations as a full impact assessment has not been published. I was informed by the Printed Paper Office yesterday afternoon that the impact assessment was in fact laid on Friday, which I had discovered online over the weekend. So, to an extent my amendment has been overtaken by events and I do not expect to press it to a Division. The Department of Health and Social Care is, however, still seriously in breach of its obligations in relation to impact assessments with this late document, and I shall move my amendment so that the issues can be debated.
The department published a so-called impact statement alongside these regulations, but noble Lords should be in no doubt that there is a big difference between an impact assessment and an impact statement. The impact statement amounted to nine pages and was in a rather large font size. The impact assessment amounts to 69 pages in a normal font size. The arrival of this impact statement so late is all the more shocking because it has been rated red and not fit for purpose by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which carries out the independent reviews of impact statements required by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. It is a very unusual for the RPC to rate statements not fit for purpose, so this is a serious issue.
While my instincts are against the compulsion these regulations introduce, I was prepared to be persuaded if a good case had been made. In the absence of the analysis and evaluation accompanying the regulations, the case was not made. The very late impact assessment, together with the RPC’s views, raise many questions that cannot simply be answered by a couple of sentences from my noble friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box or, indeed, by revised papers put on websites late in the day. It suits the Government to operate in this way. They have become accustomed to making sweeping changes to our lives without meaningful challenge from Parliament.
The 21st report of the Secondary Legislation Committee is excoriating in its criticism of the regulations and the quality of the supporting material accompanying them. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, had tabled a regret Motion that captured many of these criticisms, and I am sorry she has pulled it, doubtless for political reasons. I agreed with it and would have supported it had she chosen to divide the House. My amendment focuses on impact assessments because this strikes at the heart of effective policy-making and, importantly, effective parliamentary oversight. On effective policy-making, it is a clear requirement on the Government that the development of policy should be subject to rigorous analysis and evaluation of options, set out in a Green Book. There is little evidence that this has taken place.
Secondly, the Government’s better regulation framework builds on that foundation and requires impact assessments to be prepared at the consultation phase for policy development, as well as at the final policy implementation stage—the stage we are now at. Regulatory impact statements at the final stage have to be independently appraised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, but it is voluntary at the earlier consultation stage. It came as no surprise to find that when the DHSC issued its consultation on this policy in September, it did not include an impact assessment, let alone have it independently assessed.
All this raises serious questions about the quality of analysis underpinning the Government’s policy formulation, which has been a concern throughout the pandemic. Some on these Benches have regularly challenged the lack of impact assessments for the policies pursued under the Covid banner. Regulatory impact assessments are required in order to evaluate burdens on business, primarily, but the bigger issue is whether the Government have considered the broader costs and benefits of their Covid policies. We have been particularly concerned about the lack of analysis of the non-Covid health harms as well as the non-health harms—in particular, to education and to the economy. Certainly, there has been little government analysis of this in the public domain.
The Government’s line has always been that they are not required to produce regulatory impact assessments for policies expected to last less than one year—an excuse not available for these regulations. That is technically correct, but it entirely misses the point, which is that good policy formulation requires a comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits, however long the policy is expected to last, and that is what the Green Book requires.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to contribute, but I just want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for that speech. I shall get Hansard tomorrow, make my little checklist and wait for what is coming from the other place—the borders Bill; the human rights Bill; the electoral reform Bill—and I will check off her claims about parliamentary scrutiny and believing in the House to see how sincere that speech really was.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I would not doubt for half a second that my noble friend was entirely sincere. I also believe that she made some extremely powerful points which apply right across the legislative pattern, and which apply equally to both Houses. I hate to say this of a Conservative Government, but they behave as if they treat Parliament with contempt. Whether one is talking about Christmas tree Bills, Henry VIII clauses or the lack of impact assessments—a point made so very powerfully by my noble friend—the Government are found wanting. If we were marking in Greek letters the performance of the Government, I would, as an old schoolmaster, give them “gamma double-minus.”
It really is sad that we have a Government who are treating Parliament in this manner. I sincerely hope that, when he comes to reply, my noble friend the Minister will give a firm undertaking to draw the attention of his parliamentary masters in government to this debate and to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in particular. They should read, mark, learn and inwardly digest it—to quote the collect for the second Sunday in Advent.
When it comes to the substance, I always deplore anything that smacks of retrospective legislation, because that again is treating Parliament with studied contempt. I know how difficult it has been during these last 18 months or more. We all know that—and we all know that mistakes have been made, sometimes with the very best of intentions. But it is deeply disturbing that there has not been a recognition that retrospective legislation is the very antithesis of democratic parliamentary government.
I have suggested many times, including very recently, that there should be a continuing committee of both Houses looking at Covid legislation and being able to pronounce on it quickly. I made this point only recently to my noble friend. He completely, I am afraid, misunderstood it and told me quite inaccurately that this was a matter for the Lord Speaker—but anybody who knows what the Lord Speaker is able to do and not able to do knows that that is fundamentally wrong.
I know that he is new to Parliament and is serving his apprenticeship with great distinction—we all appreciate that—but it is important that the powers that be realise that in an unprecedented situation unprecedented measures are sometimes needed. They have shown that by issuing diktats; they have not shown it by creating a vehicle for continuous parliamentary monitoring—and they should.
On the subject of compulsory vaccination, my noble friend Lord Bethell knows very well that I have been on about this almost from the very beginning, urging that care home workers should receive compulsory vaccination, and I believe that it is entirely logical to extend that to those who work, because people who come into close proximity to patients at their most fragile and their most vulnerable should not themselves be a potential risk to those patients. We know that in some care homes during the early months—I appreciate that it is much better now—you could find that 30%, 40% or even 50% of care home workers, looking after the most fragile and physically feeble of people, themselves not vaccinated.
How do you solve this? It is, of course, a combination of persuasion and cajoling, but at the end there has to be a point where you say that we cannot allow this to continue indefinitely. Therefore, I think on that point the Government are right and I am grateful for it.
However, we are a Parliament and therefore I come back, as I began, to the admirable speech from my noble friend Lady Noakes. She pointed out—as many others have over the past two or three years, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who I think must go to bed with an image of Henry VIII by his bedside—how cavalier has been the treatment of both Houses of Parliament by the Government. We are approaching a new year. Let it be a resolution of the Prime Minister and all his Ministers that they are accountable to Parliament; they are not the masters of Parliament.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I wish to make some comments about the actual substance of this statutory instrument, although I will start by saying that I have a lot of sympathy with what has already been said about the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny and indeed the lack of an impact assessment, which is extremely regrettable.
As I have said in your Lordships’ House before, I am very sympathetic to the overall principle that both front-line health and care workers should be vaccinated. However, as I have always said, it must be handled in the right way, particularly given the absolutely acute pressures that both health and social care are under and will be over the winter months. It is absolutely critical that the right amount of help and support is made available to health and care workers who are genuinely vaccine hesitant—and that means things such as one-to-one conversations during work time in which they can express what their concerns are and, I hope, get additional information.
I know very well from personal experience that care homes that, for example, have brought GPs in to have one-to-one conversations, taken the concerns that care workers have expressed seriously and tried to explain why it would be a good idea to have the vaccine, have had an awful lot of success, and I am concerned that there is not enough focus at the moment on that help and support. It was very regrettable—this point was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee —that the draft Explanatory Memorandum made no reference to any lessons learned from the rollout of the earlier care home regulations, as well as being silent on what contingency plans the department had to cope with the expected staff losses when the regulations take effect. I know that those staffing issues will be particularly acute in London, where I live.
I recently had a helpful meeting with Healthwatch, which shared with me some very good research. It commissioned an organisation called Traverse to undertake in-depth conversations with a range of people, mainly of African, Bangladeshi, Caribbean and Pakistani ethnicity, to understand the reasons for their vaccine hesitancy and what can be done about it. Although the research was carried out with the groups I have specified, I suspect that the conclusions drawn in the report have more widespread application.
I found it interesting that the attitudes expressed were incredibly personal to the individual. One of the lessons learned is that you cannot lump all this together and say, “This is the issue for this group”; you have to think very carefully about individual concerns. There was most clearly, as we know, a lack of trust, which featured strongly in terms of the vaccine, and there was very strong distrust of those who had any possibility of standing to gain commercially from the rollout, which I thought was an important point. Probably most notable of all, people said that they trusted most of all front-line healthcare workers to talk about Covid and the vaccine and had less trust in very senior people in the NHS or Public Health England, who were perceived to have less tangible experience. That interesting document ends with very seven practical tips: ways to try to encourage health and social care workers to become less vaccine hesitant.
I end by asking the Minister whether he is aware of this document—if he is not, I am very happy to send it to him—but, more generally, what steps the Government and NHS England have taken to promulgate this sort of important and practical good practice and advice?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend the Minister in introducing the regulations before us in praising the heroic efforts of the whole health service: the volunteers, nurses, doctors and pharmacists—everyone involved. The vaccination programme is essential, but I hope that GPs and practitioners will have the vaccines in time to roll them out. My noble friend is aware of my work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I think many of us are grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about process and impact assessments, and I echo those.
I shall make one or two comments about the substantive issues. Incidentally, we have been thanking the Government and medics for the rollout, but I want to pay tribute to the people who are going to be sitting up half the night: the managers of GP practices—they are the ones who get people there to get the vaccine. Very often they are forgotten, so I want to make that point.
I want to make some points about the very real problems that there are with this way forward. I am very sympathetic and, on balance, I think this is the way forward, but for many decades we have taken very seriously those who have very real concerns about receiving a vaccination. Those are not concerns that I share personally, but there are those, for example, who are concerned about the use of aborted foetal cells or testing on animals. We—both myself and more widely in the Church of England—have always maintained the position that freedom of belief or religion should not be compromised by the introduction of any form of coercion or forced decree. This is difficult, because it is not just about someone’s right but about the effect that they have on someone else. Recently, I heard from someone who was jabbing—giving vaccinations—that someone came in without a mask on. They challenged him and he said, “I don’t get on very well with masks”, to which one of the nurses said, “Well, I hope you get on well with a ventilator.” That is the implication; we know what the medical science is.
The problem is that there is the danger of a subtle form of racial discrimination via the backdoor. Ethnic minorities comprise a much higher percentage of healthcare staff compared with the overall population. We know that they are more likely to be religious than the white British majority, and vaccine hesitancy is much higher among these communities. There is a whole range of complex issues to do with social trust and people’s position in society that I do not want to steamroller over without raising and putting on the record as we move forward with this programme. A worrying confluence of factors could leave those historically discriminated against being forced to choose between violating deeply held principles and unemployment. No one, whether white or from an ethnic-minority background, should be forced into that corner.
This raises the really important issue of how we are addressing vaccination hesitancy. I have been talking to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about how can we help with that more widely across the globe. This is a reminder to those of us who are in touch with—particularly if you are in my line of business—black churches and so on that we need to up our game in addressing the reasons for vaccination hesitancy. We need to do it urgently, because the more that we can win the argument, the more we will save ourselves a lot of unintended consequences of discrimination that may result from these regulations.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Your Lordships will no doubt be delighted to know that, in January, I shall be leaving it—not by choice but because I have been cycled off.
At the heart of this dispute with the Department of Health and Social Care is the requirement, not option, that any department submitting secondary legislation—principally to this House, since it is almost never discussed at the other end of the Corridor in the House of Commons —should include an impact assessment. This is not an optional extra. It is not a take it or leave it. It is a requirement at the heart of the process. The committee is meeting at the moment—it may have concluded—and it has a Conservative chairman, who is very good. There is no predetermined disposition among its members to seek a confrontation with any government department. However, in this case, the Secretary of State and his department have point-blank refused to carry out an impact assessment. It is a challenge to Parliament and to the parliamentary process. That is what is taking place.
I agree with almost everything that the right reverend Prelate said about enforcing vaccination and I realise that there are some very serious problems to be resolved there. But that is not what the argument is about. It is about whether Parliament—in this case, your Lordships’ House—has the right to require any government department to produce an impact assessment about its proposals for legislation. It is quite a simple matter. It is not onerous in most cases. It is necessary for the committee to consider the impact assessment—along with other aspects of the legislation, of course—before reporting to your Lordships’ House. I did not hear in the Minister’s opening remarks a coherent explanation—and I have never received or seen one—of why that is not possible in this case.
As I said, your Lordships require their colleagues on the committee to analyse secondary legislation. That is our role and, if we do not have an impact assessment, we cannot fulfil it. That is the issue. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said, but this is not about enforcing vaccination. It is about trying to learn to understand the impact, through an impact assessment, of this proposed secondary legislation. If committees are not allowed to take a stand on this, there is little purpose to them, because this is one of the fundamental issues of secondary legislation. That is our job and our responsibility and it is what we have been trying to do.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but I will say a few words. First, I am completely against any compulsory vaccination of any kind. It goes completely against all that we should believe in and I am totally opposed to it. Secondly, I recently put down two Written Questions to the Minister’s department: one about people who had been vaccinated and one about people who had tested positive with antibodies. I wanted to know the difference between the two; I wanted to know about protection from the disease and about transmission of the disease. The Answers that I got said, “We’re looking at it, but as far as we can tell at the moment, there is no difference”—it was 84% versus 85%. There is no difference between the protection that the vaccine offers and the protection given by antibodies in the normal course of events. Surely we are not going to vaccinate people who have the antibodies. It is absolutely pointless, particularly if they are thousands of schoolchildren. Can we not test people who have the antibodies and tell them that they do not need to be vaccinated? That seems to be common sense.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it seems that we have come down to debating two specific issues. The first is, of course, the question of mandatory vaccination for healthcare staff and whether we should support it. The second is the way in which the Government have been treating Parliament over not just this issue but the hundreds of statutory instruments that have been brought in relation to Covid, many of them by the Minister’s department.
We are entitled to a full response as to why the impact assessment was published so late. As I said, I am afraid that this is not the first occasion. I have been following the work of Big Brother Watch over the Covid experience. It has set out clearly the hundreds of SIs that have been brought here retrospectively and the impact on parliamentary democracy. We all know that we are in the middle of a crisis and that, of course, the Government have to act quickly—we all understand that. Even so, the one thing that we are entitled to say is, if they are doing that, they should be able to produce the documentation to justify the action that they are taking.
The mandatory vaccination of healthcare staff was not a decision that was suddenly reached in the last few days; it has been trailed for weeks in the consultation. I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I am not speaking on its behalf, but the GMC and many other organisations responded to that consultation, so there is no excuse, in this instance, for there not to be a full impact assessment published alongside the SI so that my noble friend Lord Cunningham and his committee can consider it with ample time and we can then enjoy their recommendations to us.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, before I follow up my noble friend Lady Tyler’s comments, I want to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The way in which this has been done—I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—is absolutely shocking; it is a contempt of Parliament. I was horrified when I read the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about how bad it was and how late the sort of impact assessment—I call it a sort of impact assessment —has been produced.
Of course, we do not need an impact assessment to know what the problem at the heart of this is, apart from the compulsion element, which I understand: it is the fact that so many people are hesitant and mistrusting about having a vaccination. We also know from the work of Healthwatch, mentioned by my noble friend, that the most effective way of addressing the problems that people have with the vaccination is to have a one-to-one discussion with them so that they can say what their problems are and have them addressed. It needs to be done with a person whom they trust—somebody who they believe has some knowledge and understanding of the issues.
The difficulty with doing this at the moment is that all those people are very busy. We have the winter problems coming up; we have the omicron variant of Covid-19 increasing day by day and our NHS is on the edge of falling over. So I have a little suggestion for the Minister. There are plenty of doctors and nurses relatively recently retired who for one reason or another are reluctant to come back into the front line at the moment. However, they retain the respect of the health community. I understand from the executive summary that the total cost of replacing members of staff who are likely to leave because, whatever happens, they do not want to have a vaccine is £270 million. Could not some of that money be used to get those doctors and nurses with the knowledge and the trust of their recent fellows to have those conversations, without interrupting the staffing of hospitals, where it is bad enough at the moment, as we have lots of vacancies? We know that we cannot take all those people out to have those conversations, because it takes time and it has to be done with sensitivity and consideration. Could not some of that money be used to bring back some of those very experienced people to have those conversations and, hopefully, to reduce the number of those who absolutely will not be vaccinated and, sadly, will leave the profession?
I shall ask the Minister one more question. A few weeks ago, I asked him whether patients had the right to request that they should be treated by vaccinated staff only. Whatever the Government do, it will not all be done until April, which is months away. So there will be lots of patients treated between now and then by people who are not vaccinated. I asked the Minister whether patients had a right to request to be treated by vaccinated people only. He very kindly wrote to me, but I am afraid he was not able to give me a definitive answer. Now all the work has been done on this statutory instrument, I wonder whether things have become any clearer on that issue.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, a great deal of concern about procedure has been expressed from all sides of your Lordships’ House. I have nothing to add on that, except to say that I share those concerns.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. The first builds on the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who talked about how we have to win the argument on vaccination and the concern about unintended consequences and potentially discriminatory outcomes. When I look at the impact assessment, it is focused entirely on the care and health sectors. For example, paragraph 126 refers to
“the possibility of negative behaviour change resulting from the policy. For example, a German experiment found that vaccination requirements increased anger among individuals with existing negative vaccination attitudes and led to a decrease in uptake”.
As far as I can see, there does not appear to be in this impact assessment any consideration of impacts outside the health and care sectors. If we are creating this process, it will have impacts right across society, not just in the health and care sectors. We are talking about systems thinking here: not just what making a decision in the health and care sectors means for the health and care sectors, but what it means across the whole of society. What are the negative impacts of people in general deciding not to get vaccinated because of this?
The second point I draw from a very useful briefing from the Homecare Association. I do not think anyone else has asked this question, and I feel I should ask it for the Homecare Association. It said that it is extremely concerned about the intention to legislate rather than persuade. It is asking about a contingency plan if, indeed, the results are towards the worst end of the impact assessment. What are the Government doing to plan for this situation, when we have already had 1.5 million hours of commissioned care not delivered between August and October because of lack of availability? If this gets much worse, what plans do the Government have to fill the gaps?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, there will be one winder taking part remotely, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I hope we can go to her now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus and a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adult Social Care. The Minister started and ended his contribution to the House by saying this was a statement. I suspect the Minister is in no doubt now that this is actually a statutory instrument. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her Motion, given the clear failings of the presentation of this statutory instrument. The Minister needs to hear the concern from every part of your Lordships’ House this afternoon, and it very gracious of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to say that she will not press her fatal Motion, for all the reasons cited by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
The 21st report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states at paragraph 10:
“An EM … should be a freestanding, comprehensive explanation, and it should not be necessary to conduct extensive research into other documents in order to achieve an understanding of what an instrument does: we regard this EM as an example of poor practice.”
From these Benches we thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, whose presence will be missed when he leaves it, for going further and collating as much other information as it could for your Lordships’ House. The committee is excoriating about the failures of the legislation, the Explanatory Memorandum and the guidance, including unclear definitions in law.
For example, what does “vaccinated to a complete course” mean? At what point does the booster jab become compulsory? Will whoever is checking check that the severely clinically extremely vulnerable have had their four doses instead of three? That would require access to very personal staff health information. There is no definition and there are no practical suggestions. The use of the term “registered person” is set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008, but there is no explanation of who, in reality, in a hospital, has responsibility for checking that staff have had their vaccines.
This SI speaks of people with face-to-face clinical and non-clinical ancillary contact with patients and those who are directly involved in patient care having to have the vaccination. The guidance, however, is still not published to define what is and is not in scope. Does it include clerks on the wards? What about catering staff bringing meals? Does “not being vaccinated” mean that you have to stay a certain number of feet away from patients?
The Secondary Legislation Committee report also points out that non-face-to-face staff are exempt—but they can still mix with front-line staff at other times. Does the Minister think that Covid can tell the difference and that the virus will not transmit from an exempted co-worker to a front-line member of staff in the cafeteria? We know that omicron is bypassing the vaccinated, even if it is bringing possibly less serious disease—although we are waiting to see the evidence.
The government consultation document published on 10 December on vaccination says that more than 1.2 million social care workers in England have now taken up the vaccination. As of 19 August, vaccination take-up was around 87% of staff in younger-adult care homes; 81% of domiciliary care staff; and 75% of staff in other settings. In London, obviously, this is lower, as we all know. This data, however, directly contradicts the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that only 65% of care homes are meeting the 80% staff rate; so they are not even co-ordinating on their own data. The Government’s own data has shown that there has been a 3% reduction in social care staff since March. Some—not all—will have left because of compulsory vaccines. They are not just leaving the care home; they are leaving the profession. They are going into retail or hospitality, and we know that people, having left, often do not return.
I entirely agree with my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lady Walmsley that targeted help and support has worked with a large number of social care staff, as the Government’s own figures in the 10 December document demonstrate. The evidence is that the most effective way of changing the minds of vaccine-hesitant people is to give them a chance to sit down with a local doctor and their own community leaders, ask questions in their own time and listen to people that they trust. The problem with compulsion, especially short-notice compulsion, is that it removes the opportunity to take that time to listen, think, discuss and be reassured. Worse, as we are moving into another wave of the pandemic, doctors will not have the time to do this, whether it is with other NHS workers or with more social care staff.
Even more than that, the Government undermine their own arguments for urgency. At paragraphs 25 and 26, the Secondary Legislation Committee report points out that, in discussing making the flu vaccine compulsory, the department said that
“the government has considered the concerns raised in relation to introducing flu vaccination requirements. The flu programme runs between October and March, with most flu vaccinations happening October through January. Due to the need to balance this with the time necessary for health and social care to implement the regulations, the government has decided not to introduce vaccination requirements for flu at this time. The government will keep this under review following this winter and ahead of winter 2022-23.”
It seems extraordinary that, while this precedent has been set to delay one type of compulsory vaccination due to the time of year and the extreme pressures on the healthcare and social systems, the Government are insisting on doing it for another. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of an NHS hospital. I thank the Minister for explaining this statutory instrument, although I have to confess that I had a moment of panic during his opening statement. I thank him also for explaining his understanding of how the Government arrived at this point. I note that the department has at last produced at least something called an impact assessment, as well as other documentation. This was the subject of my Motion to Regret, now withdrawn. That does not mean that I no longer regret the lackadaisical manner in which this Government approach their accountability to Parliament and the legislative process.
As most noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have said to the Minister in clear language, we still wish to know how the legislation will operate. We hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming about, for example, the “significant workforce capacity risk” which the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee mentioned in its very critical report. We note that the committee was damning in its criticism, and I thank my noble friend Lord Cunningham for speaking about the fact that these things are not an option but a requirement.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we agree with her criticism of the Government’s handling of these issues. We absolutely agree about the procedure, the drafting and the lack of justification that supports the legislation. I have been commenting on this from this Dispatch Box since March last year. However, the noble Baroness did not say that this was necessarily the wrong way to go. I withdrew my regret Motion because, today, given the new clear threat of omicron, we need to focus on the way forward. I do not believe that that is a political reason for withdrawing the Motion. Had the noble Baroness tested the opinion of the House on her fatal Motion, we on these Benches would have supported the Government, just as we are doing right now in the Commons. The Labour Party has acted, and will always act, in the best interests of our NHS, our public health and our nation.
Of course, we want everyone working in the NHS to take up the vaccine. It is safe and effective, and the Government should be focused on driving up vaccination rates through persuasion, education and support for the vaccine-hesitant, as many noble Lords, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, have said. We know that omicron is now a clear threat. It is important that the elderly and the vulnerable, and those being cared for in healthcare settings, are protected. Vaccination also protects staff from severe disease, so we will not oppose the Government on this.
Compulsory vaccination for NHS staff is a difficult question—of course it is—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and my noble friend Lord Hunt explained to the House. We would all much prefer that all front-line NHS staff voluntarily agree to have the vaccine. The latest SAGE advice, however, suggests that omicron may increase the risk of hospital-acquired infections. Vaccination will not eliminate all transmission, but it will reduce the risks and protect both patients and staff in the NHS from severe disease. It may also reduce staff absences caused by Covid.
Of course, there is a precedent for certain NHS staff having to be vaccinated, for example against hepatitis, and given the evidence that being vaccinated reduces the risk of transmission, it is reasonable to ask whether those who are looking after our loved ones should themselves have taken every step possible to reduce the risk that they may pass the virus on to those whom they are caring for, many of whom may be elderly and vulnerable.
However, ahead of any rollout, the Government must ensure that this change does not make the staffing crisis in the NHS any worse and must work with the royal colleges, NHS Providers and the trade unions to agree a framework for how this change is rolled out. The trade unions and royal colleges have been critical of the proposals for compulsory vaccination, ahead of what will be, and is becoming, a very difficult and challenging winter for the NHS because of the implications this could have for staffing. So we welcome the fact that the Government have pushed the date back to April 2022, but we continue to be concerned about the implications that mandatory vaccination for NHS workers will have on staff shortages. We have asked the Government to set out a plan for this.
For the record, on the separate issue of mandatory vaccination for the public, the Prime Minister probably puzzled the whole nation—he certainly puzzled me—when he floated this idea. We are opposed to this—as is the Minister’s boss, I expect. We are opposed to the use of Covid status certification for access to essential services. Forcing the general population to have the vaccine would not only be wrong but impractical. The Government have not brought forward any measures to introduce this, and we would not support any future attempt to do so.
Finally, all of us want to enjoy Christmas safely this year. We all want to protect our NHS, which has been suffering from staff shortages and record waiting lists and has been performing miracles for the last 18 months. Our best defence against all variants of the virus, including omicron, is that we all get vaccinated.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I apologise to noble Lords for getting the terminology wrong at the beginning. I will make sure that that is corrected in future.
I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for raising this important issue, and for challenging us and rightly holding the Government to account on many procedural issues. I accept that your Lordships perform an essential role in scrutinising the measures that we have put forward today. That is one of the things that makes me very proud to be a Member of this House. I recognise the strength of feeling of your Lordships for and against what we are proposing and about the procedures thus far. I know that these feelings are sincere and heartfelt.
I now turn to some of the point raised by noble Lords. My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised questions about the red-rated impact assessment from the Regulatory Policy Committee. I hear the concerns of this House, and I acknowledge that, due to the necessity to move as quickly as possible and minimise the risk to those who are vulnerable, we were unable to publish the full impact assessment alongside the regulations being laid. We set out a statement of impacts, and the full impact assessment has now been published on GOV.UK, but I accept the argument made by noble Lords that this is rather late. We have also now published additional consideration of the points raised by the RPC in relation to private businesses.
My noble friend Lady Noakes also asked what the Government have done in response to the criticisms of regulations from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I reassure noble Lords that we have published the updated Explanatory Memorandum to provide additional information on the specific concerns raised. I also accept the criticisms that this could have been more timely. This includes more information on the scientific and clinical rationale for the policy, the exemptions that have been provided for, those not included, and the steps that we have taken to further encourage uptake of vaccinations and to mitigate work- force risks.
The SLSC also raised concerns about the impact assessment on process. We have worked hard and as quickly as possible to finalise the impact assessment that we feel best captures the likely impact of this novel policy in the uncertain circumstances that we are still living through and the need sometimes to react quickly. As my noble friend Lady Noakes rightly said, this impact assessment was laid before the House in advance of this debate.
My noble friend Lady Noakes also raised the question of whether a cost of £270 million is value for money, considering the impact assessment. While it is not possible to model the non-monetised benefits that this policy would have due to the limited data available, the health benefits through reduced infections and deaths among health and care users—as well as the wider community—from the workforce being vaccinated are likely to be large and should be considered when focusing on costs.
A key benefit is the impact of reassurance to patients and care users that they are being looked after by staff who are vaccinated. This avoids the very dangerous situation of people feeling wary of going to the NHS and other health and care providers, which can have dangerous long-term implications regarding health outcomes for our society. This is non-monetised, yet it remains a highly significant factor.
My noble friend Lady Noakes also asked about the workforce impact of this legislative instrument. As of 5 December, 521,000 staff in all care homes, or nearly 96%, have been vaccinated with the first dose, and 511,000 staff, or 94%, are reported to have received a second dose based on responses from 99% of providers. Although NHS workforce figures are dynamic as people join and leave, since the Government consulted on the policy in September, the latest published figures show an overall net increase of NHS staff vaccinated with a first dose of over 55,000.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also raised valid questions about the impact on the social care workforce. We are not aware of any care homes where VCOD is the primary reason for closure, but we continue to work with our regional assurance team, which works closely with regions across the country to understand the local and regional pressures, and offer support and advice as appropriate.
In social care, we have already put in place a range of measures to help local authorities and providers to address workforce capacity pressures; indeed, I have announced some of those in this House. As in healthcare, there will be a 12-week grace period for workers in the wider social care sector before requirements come into force, which will give all unvaccinated staff time to get their jab. We are focusing every effort on promoting and encouraging vaccine take-up across social care, and £300 million was announced for the workforce on Friday 10 December to support the care sector over winter.
My noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble Lords, Lord Cunningham and Lord Hunt, and several other noble Lords have eloquently raised points about the use of retrospective legislation and emphasised the importance of parliamentary processes. I sympathise with noble Lords who are concerned about some of the procedural aspects of the passage of this legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Cormack rightly said, in unprecedented times such as these it is right that the Government do everything in their power to protect the vulnerable. Vaccination is our best defence against Covid. It reduces the likelihood of infection and therefore helps to break chains of transmission, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly acknowledged. It is safe and effective. The legislation will protect those receiving care in all health and social care settings as well as our valuable health and social care workforce themselves.
I agree with my noble friend on the point about reviewing the use of such legislation. I assure noble Lords that Regulation 5 sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out an annual review of these regulations, taking into account clinical advice and accessibility and availability of authorised vaccines, and to publish a report setting out the conclusions of this review.
On my noble friend Lord Cormack’s suggestion of an ongoing Joint Committee, I apologise if the response I suggested was inaccurate. I suggest that I discuss it with him so that I can learn from his experience of parliamentary procedures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referenced the importance of encouraging the hesitant. I completely agree. We both come from the same part of London; indeed, she informed me that we went to the same school. We come from an incredibly diverse area, and we understand the different concerns and pressures in many of these communities; as noble Lords will recognise, I myself come from one of these communities. But as she will know, the NHS has focused in recent months on a targeted approach to improve uptake in hesitant groups by undertaking campaigns not only based on function, such as at midwifery staff, but directed at different communities, such as ethnic-minority groups and students, as well as using the booster campaign as an opportunity to re-engage staff. I repeat my gratitude to noble Lords across the House who have suggested to me ways that we can address many of these communities, including working with interfaith communities and networks which really understand these communities and have the trust of many individuals.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who supported the points I made about needing better information for parliamentary scrutiny of government policy. This was very ably led by my noble friend Lord Cormack who put it very well when he talked about treating Parliament with contempt. That was echoed by a number of noble Lords. It was very good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, from his perspective on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has served this House very well, particularly in relation to this order.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, questioned my sincerity in bringing these points to the House. I am a mere Back-Bencher; I was trying to make the kind of points that Back-Benchers should be making about effective parliamentary scrutiny. I cannot be held accountable for what the Government do in bringing legislation in the future, so I would encourage him not to try to use my speech as a checklist against future primary legislation brought to your Lordships’ House. This will not be my fault.
I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said. He accepted my criticisms with good grace and did not seek to defend the indefensible. As to the future, I would have hoped to have something a little more encouraging than that he hoped they would do better in the future and that he would take the matters back to his department. I hope he will take the matters raised back to his department but with a stern resolve to get them dealt with better next time. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this an incredibly serious inquiry that we are discussing in this Urgent Question. Four men were vilely murdered by a man who targeted young, gay men. They were failed by the police and the system. The jurors’ verdict that fundamental failings in the police investigation probably contributed to three deaths is serious in itself, but equally, the families and partners have raised concerns about homophobia blighting the investigation and the way they were treated. They have accused the Metropolitan Police of being prejudiced and institutionally homophobic.
Given how serious this is, is there not a need for an independent inquiry which, unlike the other inquiries already announced, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will look specifically at whether homophobia was involved in this investigation, and lessons learned for the police not only in London but, crucially, across the country, rather than trying to keep it under review, as the policing Minister said in the other place just yesterday? We cannot change the past, but we must do all we can to ensure it does not happen again. The victims of this horrific crime need to at least know that.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I join the noble Lord in lamenting the deaths of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth, and Jack Taylor, three of whom might not have died. The inquest’s conclusions provide very serious lessons for policing to consider and act upon. It is also right that independent and professional bodies have the opportunity to review the case. HMICFRS has been asked to conduct an inspection into the standard of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigations. The IOPC will also assess whether to reopen, either in full or in part, its investigation.
I understand that the coroner ruled that on the basis of the evidence, it would not have been possible for a conclusion to be reached on whether homophobia was an overriding factor in mistakes made, but the MPS has already announced an independent review, headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, into its culture. I will, of course, take a very close interest in her findings and any recommendations she makes.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I speak as a gay former senior police officer whose former partner died, as these men died, of the drug GHB. There is an expectation that the Commissioner will front press briefings when the reputation of the Metropolitan Police is in jeopardy, as she did over the death of Sarah Everard and the photographing of murdered sisters Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry. When the jury in this case concluded that the deaths of three young gay men could have been prevented had the police done their job properly, she was nowhere to be seen. Can the Minister explain why? Did the Commissioner think this was not important enough? Is this further evidence of institutional homophobia? There may be an innocent explanation, but I hope the Minister understands how this looks.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In response to the noble Lord’s question about why the Commissioner was not publicly fronting any statements or comments, one thing we can say is that attitudes in the police have changed since the time of those young men’s murders, which is not to diminish this in any way. The Commissioner is, of course, a member of the LGBT community. I do not know the answer. I do not think it diminishes in any way the horror and the feelings of the Metropolitan Police about what has happened. I will say that, since the time of those murders, diversity within the police has improved—it has a long way to go, but it has improved—and there is more training in place to improve that diversity and the culture in which the police operate.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, we all take extremely seriously the findings of this inquest, but could the noble Baroness tell us what steps are in place within the Metropolitan Police, or any other police service in the country, to ensure that when there are adverse findings, as there were in the case of this inquest, or when there are issues raised through reviews by the inspectorate or, indeed, by an independent review, whether commissioned by the police themselves or by the Government, the lessons from those reviews are taken on board, acted upon and continue to be acted upon?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. We can pay lip service to inquiries and investigations or we can actually try to make sure that there is a shift in the way that we operate. I know the Metropolitan Police is committed to a series of actions, including providing further training to officers, which is clearly needed. With more training and support, response team officers now investigate all but the most serious and complex crimes and victims are not passed between different units, and the quality of each investigation is improving. The College of Policing is regularly reviewing the training offered to police forces, and the NPCC is delivering a series of programmes to support forces in securing the trust of the public. The public need to have more faith in the police and that trust desperately needs rebuilding, certainly in the light of recent events such as the terrible murder of Sarah Everard. The noble Lord will probably know that the NPCC appointed Maggie Blyth as the national police lead for violence against women and girls, and a police plan of action on inclusion and race is also being led by the NPCC. Some things have been done, but there is a long way to go.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 View all Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 69-I Marshalled list for Report - (10 Dec 2021)
18:48 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 1 agreed.
19:59 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 126 / Noes: 134 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“(ba) financial support provided by ARIA may be treated as convertible to equity interest in the business entity which has received such support; (bb) for a period of ten years after ARIA has provided financial support, or made property available, the business entity which has received such support must obtain the consent of ARIA before—(i) transferring specified intellectual property rights from the United Kingdom to any territory outside the United Kingdom, or(ii) selling or otherwise transferring a controlling interest in that entity to another entity not resident in the United Kingdom;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable ARIA to make it a condition of the provision of financial support to a business that it is convertible into an equity interest in the business and that, for 10 years after ARIA has provided financial support, or made property available, the business requires the consent of ARIA either to transfer abroad intellectual property rights or to sell or transfer a controlling interest in that business to another business not resident in the United Kingdom.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 1 would enable ARIA to make it a condition of the provision of financial support to a business that it is convertible to an equity interest in the business and that for 10 years after ARIA has provided that financial support, or made property available, the business requires the consent of ARIA either to transfer abroad intellectual property rights or to sell or transfer a controlling interest in that business to another business not resident in the United Kingdom. I am grateful for the support from my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington and the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Clement-Jones, who have added their names as supporters of the amendment. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, who prepared the first draft of the amendment—although, anticipating that its drafting may be criticised, I make it clear that I take full responsibility for its revised form.
In moving Amendment 1, I support the other five amendments in the group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and have added my name to Amendments 2 and 8. I am pleased that these amendments have been grouped, as they are a response to the same concern. The House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that I advanced in Committee. I am grateful for the support that I received then from the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Lansley and Lord Broers, and my noble friends Lady Chapman and Lord Stansgate.
Yesterday, I and other noble Lords received a letter from the Minister, which I will come back to later. First, I will explain exactly what the amendment would do, because it is relevant to the letter, which was extremely welcome; it covers the issues that have been raised and shows that those who have amendments in this group have common concerns with the Government —we are broadly on the same page. The degree to which we differ is marginal now, and much less than it was at the beginning of these issues being raised in Committee. So that is progress, but I do not think we are yet where we want to be.
This amendment is to Clause 2, headed “ARIA’s functions”. It would amend Clause 2(4) to add to the conditions that in particular, in exercising its functions, ARIA may attach to financial support or making property available to other parties. It would do this in the context of a clause which has six subsections, five of which are permissive, including that being amended. They are permissive to the extent that they set out what ARIA may do and are designed to give ARIA the flexibility needed for it to carry out the challenging function it is charged with.
However, Clause 2(6) is instructive. It requires ARIA to have regard in exercising its functions to the desirability of doing so in a way which, as the Minister summarises it in his letter, ensures that
“public investment in research and innovation should drive long-term socioeconomic benefit and deliver overall value to UK taxpayers”.
That is a very good summary of what is required, and it is demanded of ARIA by this section of the Bill.
By going to the permissive elements of ARIA’s function, these amendments go beyond willing the end; they help ARIA by willing the means, specifically in relation to intellectual property. This amendment would do so by ensuring that the successes of ARIA stay for a sufficiently long time in the hands of those who have the UK’s best interests at heart.
I thank the Minister for his letter, and I welcome the invitation to a meeting with the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, George Freeman, and himself to discuss further the concerns that underlie these amendments. I accept, as the letter says, that these concerns are broader than just this Bill, but we only have this Bill to deal with today and they are very significant in the context of what we are asking ARIA to do.
I thank the Minister not only for that invitation but for the all-Peers session that he arranged on 1 December to brief noble Lords on the devolved Administration agreement and ARIA’s governance. Those who attended were delighted that George Freeman turned up unexpectedly and generously shared with us, candidly, his views about several matters relevant to the establishment of ARIA and the policy implications of setting it up.
I was very pleased that, in response to a question about ownership of intellectual property posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the Science Minister shared his concern about the risk that publicly funded research and innovation may lead to foreign, as opposed to British, private or public gain—the issue at the heart of these amendments and mine in particular. We all now know that the Science Minister shares the concern that lies behind this problem. In fact, he shares it so much that he deflected the specific question about intellectual property and said, “I am much more worried about a very successful ARIA development falling into the hands of foreigners”.
In Committee, I pointed out that twice before the Committee stage I had tried to engage the Minister on this very issue—what is happening in the United Kingdom and has been happening for some time to some of our best and brightest businesses, and the effect it is having on our ability to apply these developments to the benefit of the United Kingdom. I even quoted on one occasion the concerns of the Bank of England about the way in which those businesses are funded and the damage this leveraged debt might do to the UK economy in the long term, but I could not engage the Minister on these issues. I was repeatedly told that we are an open economy that welcomes this investment, when in fact, in most cases, it is not investment at all
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, said, there are six amendments in this group, five of which have my name. I am grateful to noble Lords who have also put their names to those amendments, including the noble Lords, Lord Browne, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Broers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broers, not least because of the impetus I derive from his contributions in our Committee debates—about the centrality of the acquisition, use and deployment of intellectual property to ARIA’s activities being central to its task. If I may be so presumptuous, I am looking forward to hearing some of the noble Lord’s arguments again, if he has the opportunity, because I am sure he will convey the arguments behind a number of my amendments better than I could. If it is not impertinent on my part, let me say that we will miss his counsel and advice when he retires from the House at the end of this week, and I am glad that we have the opportunity of hearing his advice today before that happens.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to one simple fact: at present, nothing at any place in the Bill refers to intellectual property. It refers to property and rights, and I suppose Ministers might say, entirely correctly, that they are within that thought. But intellectual property is the essence of what ARIA will be doing. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, said, the Minister most helpfully sent us a letter explaining the centrality of intellectual property activities. Ministers wish for ARIA to devise its own strategy for the intellectual property it creates. For that to happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, we want the Bill to make it clear to ARIA, in law, what its powers and responsibilities are. The powers it needs in relation to intellectual property need to be specified.
There are other ways in which Ministers have decided to say that ARIA can set conditions for its financial support, but it does not refer to the conditions relating to intellectual property. Ministers can attach conditions to the grants and funding they give to ARIA, but those do not refer to intellectual property; listed in the schedule are the supplementary powers that will be available to ARIA to do various things, including create partnerships and join ventures and companies, but they do not refer to intellectual property.
The purpose of five amendments in this group is to fill those gaps; Amendments 2 and 3 propose that when ARIA is providing financial support to its research projects, among the conditions it can apply are those relating to the acquisition, disposal, retention and assignment of intellectual property. It clearly ought to be able to do those things. Ministers may say that of course it can because it has the necessary powers. So why are other things specified but not this, since it is central to its activity?
When we look, for example, at the supplementary powers in the schedule given to ARIA, various things are mentioned. It can
“borrow money … acquire and dispose of land … accept gifts … form and participate in partnerships … and … form companies;”
but the schedule does not refer to the ability to acquire, retain, assign, license or dispose of intellectual property and related rights. Indeed, even where it refers to acquisition and disposal of land, as we discussed in Committee, it does not refer to land or other property. These, it seems to me, are all the ways we should better define, in legislation, what ARIA’s powers are.
I have left out one amendment. Amendment 8 relates to the Secretary of State providing grant funding to ARIA. Clause 4 says that this may be subject to conditions, and the only condition which is then referenced is the provision under which sums paid by the Secretary of State to ARIA may be repaid with or without payment of interest.
We have not been provided with, is the framework document that will establish the relationship between the Treasury and ARIA as a publicly funded body. That being the case, if we regard something as important enough, should we put it in the legislation so that it has to be addressed in the framework document? When ARIA, as a result of its funding, has rights relating to intellectual property, can it retain the revenue derived from that investment, or does it have to give that revenue back to the Secretary of State? The frame- work document will, I suspect, provide a reference to this; we know this is important.
In my former constituency, the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, which the Medical Research Council provided funding to, had major research projects, including with highly talented individuals who created immense value. They were enabled to participate in those projects and retain some rights in that intellectual property, and the LMB itself retained revenues which then, by way of negotiation, served to enhance and sometimes substitute for the grant funding received from the Government. If ARIA is to have a strategy for the funding it receives from the Government, it needs to know in advance whether it can retain revenue derived from investment. Can it retain it, or does it have to give it back to the Government? All Amendment 8 does, essentially, is require the Government, when they provide such grants, to set out under what circumstances that revenue can be retained by ARIA for further investment in additional projects to meet its functions or whether it has to pay it back to the Government.
That is where I want the most specific assurances from my noble friend that the Government will provide that opportunity to ARIA. In the absence of that, at a later stage, when we reach Clause 4, depending on the nature of the assurances I receive from my noble friend, I may wish to test the opinion of the House. But we will leave that for a later moment.
For the moment, I am very glad to express my support for what the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said. There is a wider issue, of course there is, but we do not really know the extent, for example, to which the National Security and Investment Act is enabling Ministers to intervene and to protect intellectual property in this country. In any case, that is in relation only to national security issues, and the intellectual property that we are concerned about here will inevitably go much wider.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his kind remarks. I have spent most of my life in this environment working on very complicated projects, and I feel very strongly about this issue. I therefore support Amendments 2, 3, 21 and 22, which would secure ARIA’s rights to retain and exploit the intellectual property generated by its research and to obtain intellectual property from elsewhere in order to advance its projects. As I have mentioned before, the projects that ARIA will be working on will draw upon knowledge from all over the world. It is unlikely—almost impossible—that it can generate all its own intellectual property. The world has changed; that is not the way high technology develops today.
It is also of prime importance to the creative engineers and scientists working on ARIA projects that they feel that their creativity is recognised. There are various ways in which this recognition can be granted, but the most straightforward is for them to receive financial benefit, usually through shared ownership of the intellectual property. High-technology companies and universities have found it effective to have a fraction of the income from patents and other intellectual property go to those who create the intellectual property. This creates a sense of fairness and generates loyalty. The result is highly motivated employees who are not tempted to keep their ideas to themselves and go elsewhere where they can be more fairly treated. This is essential. There is massive competition for the top technological brains in this country. We will not get them into ARIA if they think that they will be entangled in a whole lot of bureaucratic government regulations that prevent them from getting the benefits of being entrepreneurs who are free in the world.
I notice that Amendment 17 seems designed to deal with such errant behaviour—how dare they consider doing such things?—but this sort of thing has its dangers, in that its very existence shows that the organisation does not trust its employees, even encouraging them to take their talents elsewhere. It happens with everybody. When you are working on a project, you suddenly have a brilliant idea. You know that you have cracked the nut and really opened up a way for progress, and your first thought is, “My God, I could be rich if I took this off and formed my own company”.
This happens with big companies. I spent a lot of time in IBM, which had to be terribly careful because it provided huge resources for people to make immense progress, but at the same time we did not want people, when they made that progress, to be immediately motivated to leave and exercise that somewhere else, and make more money; I am afraid that money is a motivation. In IBM, in essence you got points towards quite a lot of money when you invented something. You also got a very large award if you did something that opened new pathways in a technology, over and above your salary.
That is the way a company such as IBM in the great days, and Bell Labs subsequently, kept their brilliant people working there. ARPA has that reputation. You will be treated fairly, do well and get paid a lot if you work in ARPA or DARPA; they are prestigious places to work. I imagine that ARIA will be just like that; it will be a prestigious place to work and there will be lots of reasons for that. At times, there has been concern in the UK about the brain drain out of the country. Of course, this has been largely because the incomes offered to creative engineers and scientists have been higher elsewhere, but it is also because it has been perceived that their creativity will receive more recognition.
Those are my remarks on intellectual property for the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. That is the core of what we are doing; it is the intellectual output. It is a very familiar feeling among academics.
I also support Amendment 1, because I believe that it should help to arrest the flow of technology businesses that originate in ARIA being acquired by overseas businesses, which is a concern that everybody has. I just wonder whether 10 years is sufficient time for this to be effective. There are two very important examples of our losing, or potentially losing, outstandingly successful companies originating entirely in the UK.
The first is Arm, which designs the microelectronic chips for the majority of the world’s portable information and communications equipment. Founded in 1990, it went public in 1998, and was then acquired financially by Japan’s SoftBank for about $32 billion in 2016, 26 years after it was founded. If conditions similar to those in this amendment had been in place in the UK, it would have had little or no effect, and its effect would have been even smaller today in preventing the threatened takeover by the US company Nvidia, which began in 2020. Fortunately—as an aside—the American Federal Trade Commission looks as though it may prevent that takeover anyway because of the threat it presents to world competition in the semiconductor business.
The second company is Solexa, which was based on the fundamental research of Balasubramanian and Klenerman in Cambridge that enables the high-speed decoding of DNA. They obtained their initial seed funding to form Solexa in 1998, and in 2000 Solexa’s corporate facilities were established. Solexa was then acquired by Illumina in early 2007, and now generates billions of dollars of revenue. The conditions of this amendment might have slowed if not stopped this takeover. The amendment would help to retain businesses emerging from ARIA in the UK, but it is also important to enhance the activities of the Competition and Markets Authority, which is looking at that, to solve this problem much more widely in the UK. The loss of Solexa was a laughable mistake— one of the most exciting companies in the most exciting scientific field being pursued, and we just wave it goodbye.
We have to fix these problems. I will vote for these amendments if they are put to a Division.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 2, to which I have added my name, and the other amendments in this initial grouping. I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Broers, who, as the House now knows, will leave this House at the end of this week. He is president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee and, as noble Lords can see for themselves, he has carried on, to the very end, making excellent arguments for science. I thank the Minister very much for the letter and the offer of further discussions and a meeting with the Minister for Science, which I welcome.
In view of the points that others have made, I will be very brief. As has been said more than once in its passage through your Lordships’ House, the Bill is more about an idea or experiment than it is about anything concrete—at least at this stage. No one, including the Government, can be entirely sure what will happen after we establish ARIA and it sets out to fulfil its mission. We can probably all agree that this is what makes it an exciting venture. But one thing that we can be sure of is that, if it all goes well, ARIA will amass a great deal of intellectual property over the next 10 years, and it will certainly be dealing with successful ideas about which we know nothing as yet.
So these amendments—Amendment 2 in particular—are essential to enable ARIA to benefit from the intellectual property that it creates, and we must ensure that, whatever it comes up with, its intellectual property cannot be sold off or acquired by others without its agreement. Not to agree this amendment would run a risk that I do not think we should run.
Lord Morse (CB)
I too will speak to support the amendment advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who has explained it very clearly. It is worth getting back to basics on it—if I may use that expression—for a second. The ARIA scheme is about driving our national research frontiers forward by publicly funded risk taking, if I can summarise it as simply as that. It is a good idea that is widely supported.
But this is the reverse of what will happen if foreign-owned companies are allowed to acquire companies that own intellectual property derived from ARIA or to take that intellectual property offshore. If this happens, the reverse of the objective of the scheme will be achieved. This possibility is not far-fetched. I spent 10 years as Comptroller and Auditor-General at the National Audit Office, and, during that time, I saw cases relating to a series of companies where exchange of control provisions in the hands of government were not exercised properly or the scheme was administered rather feebly. As a result, these things became faits accomplis and the property went offshore. Sometimes, you would be told, “Well, we believe in the market operations, so we really don’t like to interfere with this sort of thing”.
Actually, we need strong, clear decision-making about this now. We need to make it clear in this amendment that we are not prepared to see intellectual property that has been paid for by British taxpayers go offshore. It makes mugs of British taxpayers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to cast some doubt on Amendment 1. It is very well intentioned, but I fear that it may be mistaken. The background to my concern is my regret that ARIA is modest: some £200 million a year is being provided, which is a pinprick compared with the vast sums spent on other things, such as Covid and bailing out the banks.
The Bill is meant to set up an agency that can take risks free from bureaucracy and the day-to-day constraint of politics—a latter-day Manhattan Project, if you like. Bureaucratic and other constraints are being applied to the R&D budgets of many billions in the hands of UKRI. That is fine, but I do not think that they have a place in ARIA, which should be run leanly and efficiently and not encumbered by expensive experts—on IP, for example—and large legal departments. It should be able to think and act outside the box.
So I object to the provision in paragraph (bb)(ii) in Amendment 1, and I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has signed the amendment, because we generally agree on these IP issues. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that we need to know whether ARIA can keep the income that it receives from IP and rights. To answer his question, I see IP and rights as being in the same box—but no doubt the Minister will clarify that when he speaks.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the centrality of intellectual property to the Bill and, in particular, on two themes, very briefly. First, on the protection of intellectual property, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, spoke very movingly and interestingly about the concerns that were brought up by George Freeman in the meeting that we had. It was reassuring to hear George Freeman speak so clearly and emphatically. That is why Amendment 2 is very interesting and worth a really good look.
I am very concerned that, in our efforts to build Britain into a science and research superpower, all that we will be is a laboratory for others to borrow from and that we will simply supply the unicorns of the future from overseas. Somehow, we have to capture that value here in the UK.
The second point, which the noble Lord, Lord Broers, spoke so movingly about and selected such a good example of, is about how we encourage the breed of entrepreneurs that I hope will come out of ARIA. We must encourage this. We should not have something like Amendment 17, which somehow suppresses the entrepreneurialism of our researchers and scientists. I have been to Kendall Square on the MIT campus, next to the Harvard campus, which is buzzing with excitement, with start-ups and major new enterprises feeding off the intellectual energy of those great universities. That is what we need to have here in the UK.
On Clause 1, I am torn between my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lady Neville-Rolfe, who both put their arguments so well. I would like to split the difference and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that these are things that I would like to hear about from George Freeman from the Dispatch Box. That argument has merit.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am largely going to speak to and support Amendment 1. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for raising these important issues on the question of ARIA’s ability to impose investment conditions. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I do not see those as bureaucratic constraints.
One key issue in delivering technology into the market in this country is the commercialisation and translation of that technology. We have seen report after report telling us about that. The UK is a top nation for the global impact of its R&D but not so effective at innovation, where it ranks 11th in the world for knowledge diffusion and 27th for knowledge absorption, according to an October 2021 report by our own BEIS department. The greater risk averseness of the VC and private equity market for technology start-ups in the UK compared to that of the US is common ground in the investment community itself; we need to hang on to our unicorns. As a result, outside fintech, we have seen too many high-technology companies sold to overseas companies at too early a stage. We have heard examples from the noble Lords, Lord Broers and Lord Morse—and, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, took the risk of quoting the Daily Telegraph.
The National Security and Investment Act will impact on that to some extent, but in a limited number of sectors involving national security. Without this kind of scale-up support we cannot become—to coin the phrase so often used by this Government—a science and tech superpower by 2030. This excellent amendment will, I hope, ensure that those making decisions about future financing at least have some friction in the system to ensure that they have to think twice about where and how to raise capital for the future; at the same time, it gives ARIA skin in the game to help it do so. The Minister has said in correspondence that he shares the objectives of this amendment, so I hope that he will agree at the last stage to accept it.
As regards the other amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in this group, I agree in principle with many of the issues that he has raised and the support for intellectual property rights that should be retained by ARIA in certain circumstances. He had powerful support from the noble Lord, Lord Broers, whose expertise we are certainly going to miss when he retires from the House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, says, we have only this Bill today. We cannot solve all the problems relating to the taking of stakes by companies or our research institutions, but we can put this into ARIA’s terms; I very much hope that we will do so today.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself listening to some excellent speeches and frantically scratching sections from my own contribution as I do not see the point in repeating the points that have already been made. I put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Browne, in particular, for his generosity with his expertise and time in working so collaboratively on this issue, which has support on all sides. The principle is very simple: the state is taking a big risk by granting funds to speculative research projects. In cases where that risk pays off—we hope that is not an infrequent event, but we understand that this is about high-risk ventures—ARIA should have the ability to protect the potentially significant benefits that will arise from initial taxpayer support. It seems equally appropriate that ARIA has a say in potential takeovers or transfers of intellectual property. We know that there is a big market for speculative purchases of new technology. While ARIA may decide that there is no public interest in preventing certain events from taking place, there might be other investments that should be safeguarded.
It is clear from the debates that we have had in Committee and this evening that there is a shared desire on all sides—including, to be fair, from the Minister—to deal with this issue. He has correctly observed previously that the problem we are trying to fix is not limited to ARIA; that is understood and agreed with. However, while the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, does not fix everything, that does not mean we should not try to fix the thing that is in front of us now. It moves us in the right direction and is appropriate given the specific activity of ARIA; the Opposition are solidly in support of Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for what has been an excellent and very well thought-through debate. While the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, was lucky enough to be scratching bits from her contribution, I found that I was adding lots more to mine to take account of some of the excellent contributions. The debate showed the House at its finest, even if I do not necessarily agree with all the points raised, as I will outline.
Amendment 1, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, imposes a number of conditions on ARIA’s financial support. He made his case well, raising a number of important issues regarding the UK’s approach to capturing value from public investment in R&D, the role of public IP retention within that, the Government’s powers to intervene in acquisitions and our approach in so doing. I have listened carefully to all the contributions made by noble Lords on this matter, and I think that there is some measure of common agreement. We are all agreed that public investment in R&D should indeed drive long-term socioeconomic benefit and ultimately drive value to UK taxpayers who are funding it. We are clear across this House that exploitation of IP will play an integral role in creating these benefits, and that our paramount concern should therefore be generating the maximum public value from that exploitation; I will return to that specific issue shortly.
The debate that we have had today on the benefits derived from public investment in R&D speaks to a much wider issue, which extends beyond intellectual property, ARIA and this piece of legislation. I respectfully say that I do not think that Report on the Bill is the most effective forum for setting precedents to this very expansive and wide-ranging area of government policy. While I will do my best to address the range of points raised this evening, the Government’s approach to foreign investment and how IP rights are treated within the public funding disbursed across the entirety of our considerable R&D system are indeed extensive areas of policy.
I recognise that there is some common ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has set out—although perhaps not as much as he might have indicated. As he said, I offered to facilitate a meeting with the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, who came along to our all-Peers meetings to discuss these issues in the round. I still believe that this is the correct forum to discuss this issue in sufficient breadth—something that I do not think could be provided through this amendment to the proposed arrangements for ARIA alone. I suspect that the noble Lord will not be satisfied with my offer but nevertheless I repeat it here.
I have welcomed the insightful contributions of noble Lords in the scrutiny of the Bill so far, and I recognise the importance of Amendment 1 in providing a vehicle for this debate, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will recognise that this represents an unusual and strong restriction and we would have serious concerns as to its proposed workability.
To respond directly to the noble Lord’s amendment, let me set out the Government’s current position. The UK is a premier destination for foreign direct investment. I recognise the concerns the noble Lord has expressed about the current context and the issue of leveraged loans highlighted by the Bank of England, but, in general, I think we all have to recognise that this investment brings tangible economic benefits and the Government are rightly cautious about introducing wider powers to act on the grounds of public or economic interest, as such an approach could destabilise investment into the UK, reduce economic growth and ultimately, therefore, risk jobs and prosperity.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care he has taken in responding to this debate and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I find myself in the position—other than in the Minister’s case—of saying that I agree with everything everyone else said, and I include in that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I agree with everything that she said, other than that she has, with respect to both her and the Minister, made the same mistake in that they characterise this amendment as imposing or mandating behaviour on the part of ARIA. With respect to both of them—I pointed this out in my opening remarks to the Minister—this is a misreading of the Bill.
The amendment is placed in a position which does not mandate or impose anything. It enables ARIA to choose what it wants to do but directs its attention to what all contributors to this debate have made clear is an issue of necessity as far as they are concerned if we are to achieve what this letter I have received from the Minister expresses as our common objective—that is, to generate the greatest public value from ARIA’s exploitation activities which will be publicly funded. There is a common understanding that if these exploitation activities fall into the hands of businesses that are based abroad, large amounts of money and great improvements in our society and our socioeconomic affairs will be denied to the people of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt about that.
Lord Ravensdale
“(7) In exercising its functions ARIA must give due consideration to the following—(a) compliance with the duty imposed by section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target),(b) adaptation to climate change, or(c) meeting other environmental goals (such as restoration or enhancement of the natural environment).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include the UK’s net zero target and environmental goals as matters which ARIA must give due consideration to when exercising its functions.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I will speak to Amendment 19, in my name. I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet and as an engineer and project director with Atkins.
I thank my supporters who have signed these amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Oates. Alongside them, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Broers, for their invaluable support and advice throughout this process. Like others, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Broers. His will be a huge loss to the House; we will much miss his expertise. I particularly pay tribute to his work leading the All-Party Parliamentary Engineering Group, which is all about getting schoolchildren excited about engineering and exposing them to the latest ideas. It has made a huge difference, as I know from the involvement of a school that is local to me. Maybe one day we will see some of those children pushing new frontiers with ARIA—who knows?
I spoke at Second Reading and in Committee on the progenitor organisation for ARIA, DARPA. In 2013, DARPA took the gamble of awarding a small firm called Moderna $25 million to develop the idea of using messenger RNA to make vaccines. So I had reason to be personally thankful for the work of DARPA at the weekend, having received my Moderna booster on Saturday. I could also mention the GPS technology that guided me to the vaccination clinic, and the internet that I used to book the appointment—innovations that were both seeded by DARPA. DARPA has literally changed the world in so many ways, creating trillions of dollars of value. We all look forward to ARIA doing the same within the UK.
Starting with Amendment 4, I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet me to discuss the amendment, and for all the work that he and his team have done to investigate its implementation. As I stated at that meeting, I want to clarify a potential misconception about my amendments. I am not seeking to implement a mission or purpose for ARIA. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in Committee. It is clear that the Government want to maintain flexibility for ARIA, and so I have withdrawn my original Committee amendment, which attempted to implement one. Instead, I am looking to put a “have regard to” statement in the UK’s primary strategic goal of climate and the environment, similar to the other statements in Clause 2(6) of the Bill on ARIA’s functions, which talk about economic growth, promoting scientific innovation and improving quality of life. ARIA would still be free to choose whatever missions it likes within the constraints of Clause 2(6) and this proposed new subsection, as the Government intend.
Part of the argument for this amendment is consistency. The Government have sought to implement similar climate and environmental amendments across a whole range of recent legislation—the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, the Pension Schemes Act and the Financial Services Act—and these are all “have regard to” amendments. My amendment uses the same wording as these amendments, specifically using wording from government amendments to the skills Bill.
I know that the Government want to ensure that they are taking a systems view of net zero, with climate as a golden thread through all relevant legislation. This certainly is relevant, given that we know how important R&D is to our net-zero and environmental targets and how important ARIA could be to those. As we know, the International Energy Agency stated that almost half of the needed emissions reductions for 2050 are expected to rely on technologies that have not yet reached the market. This is a great opportunity for the Government, given the focus on delivery post COP. It is a minor but beneficial amendment which would ensure that the organisation has regard to the primary strategic goal of the UK, but which does not detract from what the Government want from ARIA overall.
Amendment 19 simply calls for ARIA to develop its own environmental and social governance, or ESG, strategy, to consider the impacts of the exercise of its functions and the projects which it funds. It would allow the board of ARIA to consider their own strategy for alignment with the environmental and climate goals, and so is consistent with the other amendment. I note that other government-created bodies are also developing ESG strategies. For example, the FCA recently published an ESG strategy, and the national infrastructure bank has a requirement to develop an ESG strategy in its framework document. Bringing ARIA in line with other government organisations would again ensure consistency and that it is playing its part in the principal strategic goal of the nation.
Finally, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered relating to both amendments, so I look forward to hearing his proposal in detail when he sums up. I beg to move.
Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4)
“(d) meeting Sustainable Development Goals 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero hunger) and 3 (good health and wellbeing).”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
In moving Amendment 5 in my name, I will briefly comment on Amendments 4 and 19. Had there been space in our procedures, I would have attached my name to Amendment 4; I note that it has broad cross-party support. It addresses the Climate Change Act and imposes a legal requirement to comply with the duty of Section 1 of that Act, which concerns net-zero emissions. That is an important and good way of expressing it, and I hope that we will see that eventual outcome.
Amendment 19 talks about ARIA having an ESG strategy. This would not be my preferred way forward. In a way, it is better than nothing, and I see the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, about lining up with other vaguely similar institutions. However, we have seen a great deal of criticism of ESG as not always being a very strong or effective tool.
My Amendment 5 calls for ARIA to include sustainable development goals 1, on poverty, 2, on zero hunger, and 3, on health and well-being. These are internationally recognised and accepted goals, with targets within them to which the UK, like every country on this earth, is signed up. Surely these should be the goals of every element of the Government, both direct and arm’s-length parts.
I thank the Minister and his staff for engaging with me in discussions on this, but before I get to that I want to address why it is so important to talk about poverty, health and hunger in this ARIA Bill. When people talk about what ARIA will achieve, very often it sounds as if we are talking about Silicon Fen, often known as the “Cambridge cluster”—the region around Cambridge which has so many high-tech business, including software, electronics and biotechnology. But if you look at the reality of life in Cambridge, the top 6% of earners take home 19% of the wealth generated in the city, and the bottom 20% of earners get 2% of the wealth generated in the city.
I encourage noble Lords, if they have not yet seen it, to have a look at an article in the Guardian by Aditya Chakrabarti, who visited a foodbank in Cambridge recently. In his reflections there, he noted that this is a tiny city with a population half the size of a single London borough, yet in one postcode in Cambridge you can expect to live until 87. In a postcode just down the road, it is 78. This is the kind of development that has delivered a miserable life for many, many people. This is why I tabled this amendment.
In the discussions that I mentioned with the Minister and his staff, which raised some very interesting issues, they pointed me to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, which states that, in exercising its functions,
“ARIA must have regard to the desirability”
of various things. Clause 2(6)(c) states that one of those is
“improving the quality of life in the United Kingdom”.
I would be very interested to hear from any noble and learned Lords who might be able to assist me. I am not a lawyer and I am not quite sure what the legal definition is of “quality of life”. I suggest that it is open to political contention and discussion. More than that, in the context of what I was saying about Cambridge, whose quality of life are we talking about? That is a very important question to ask. In your Lordships’ House, I often comment on the Government’s pursuit of GDP as a goal in itself, but here we are talking about quality of life, which surely has to include a distributional element.
That was my purpose in tabling this amendment. I was asked whether I intended to put it to a vote. Given that I called a Division yesterday, and given that I have not had as much time as I would have liked to devote to thinking it through and finding a form of words that really works, it is not my intention to put it to a vote. However, I would be very interested to hear from the Minister what the Government mean by “quality of life” in Clause 2(6)(c). Do the Government acknowledge that that has to address distribution as well as GDP growth? I cannot see any way that it could not. If the Minister is looking for a way of measuring this, I point him to the Living Standards Framework used in New Zealand, which directs the New Zealand Treasury and the actions of the New Zealand Government. That is a good measure of the quality of life. I beg to move.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 4 and 19 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Browne of Ladyton, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and myself. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in particular for his tireless work on this issue. I too join in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Broers, and wish him well in his retirement. I also have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which raises very important and wider questions, but I am going to focus on Amendment 4.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has said, a number of Acts of Parliament that have gone through this House have had “have regard” amendments relating to climate change made to them. I was pleased to be a signatory to the cross-party amendment to the Financial Services Bill, which the Government substantially accepted in this regard. This point of consistency is extremely important. However, I would have preferred it if the Government had been willing to accept a stronger amendment on the purpose of the organisation, but I recognise that political pragmatism is wise on occasion.
In Committee, we had a very useful discussion about whether the agency would benefit from the sort of mission and focus that helped the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the United States—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale—achieve its success. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, told us that DARPA’s mission had been to not be taken by surprise by new technology and, perhaps by implication, to surprise others with the advanced technology of the United States. That may well have been the mission, but the purpose of the mission was surely what drove DARPA’s success: to maintain the national security of the United States against the threat of Soviet communism. It is that purpose which provided DARPA with its edge, its sense of urgency and an understanding of the stakes of the mission on which it was engaged.
While Soviet communism posed an existential threat to our freedom then, today the threat we face from climate change and ecological destruction is even more acute: an existential threat to life itself. Surely, there can be no more profound purpose to drive our new advanced research agency, no greater focus to inspire research, innovation and the practical application of science, than that of tackling a threat to humanity itself.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a great delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, who brings his business acumen and passion for both innovation and climate change to the feast. We have discussed these together often in Peers for the Planet.
We have the climate change Acts, and a huge amount of attention is paid to climate change in every part of government life and in their multi-billion-pound R&D budget. ARIA is a small, independent body and should be left to decide what is most important to our future and to the inventive opportunities that it is set up to create. That might include climate change, health, poverty or the quality of life. Technology, for example, improves our lives, but it also brings risks. ARIA should be left to decide what is most important. It should be able to think completely outside the box and make its own choices, and not be bound by precedent. I am afraid that I am therefore sceptical about these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend have made a compelling case for supporting this amendment, based on the climate and ecological emergency that we face. Tackling those challenges will require massive innovation and ingenuity and the development of practical applications from that. If ARIA has the bold, independent, innovative culture that the Minister emphasised throughout Committee, then it must be the ideal vehicle for this research, and we should spell it out. We should make ARIA an essential component of the net-zero strategy.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing back his amendment on these important issues. It has been a real pleasure working with him and hearing from him throughout the debates on this Bill. In Grand Committee, Labour proposed making addressing climate change a core purpose for the first two years of ARIA’s existence. It is, after all, one of the greatest challenges, if not the greatest, that we face, and it is science and technology that we look to for new tools and solutions. We were disappointed by the Minister’s response to that suggestion and to the proposals put forward by other noble Lords. We feel this is of critical importance, so we would be prepared to support Amendment 4—depending, of course, on what the Minister has to say.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has tabled Amendment 5, which seeks to promote three of the UN sustainable development goals, which Labour supports. My noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury looks for any opportunity to press the Government to secure progress on them, domestically and overseas. Without wanting to soften the Minister’s cough—as I think we say where we are both from—I am sure he will say that the Bill is not the correct vehicle. However, whether or not there is a vote, the Government should understand that amendments such as this, which embed climate as a golden thread in legislation, will be put forward by noble Lords and Members in the other place at every opportunity.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his productive engagement on the amendments in his name, as well as others for contributing to this important debate. Clearly, this issue matters to us all. I will start by exploring the intention behind the amendment. If it is to signal the importance of climate action, of course there is no disagreement between us on that. It is clearly an issue of the utmost strategic importance to this country, and that is reflected in the Climate Change Act, which marks the UK as the first major economy to pass laws to end our contribution to global warming by 2050. Our statutory obligations and ambition on this issue could not be clearer, and they do not need to be marked elsewhere. I do not believe that we should add to this legislation to signal our general intent. It is not appropriate for any provision to be added to a Bill unless it has an actual effect.
The alternative is a statutory duty that seeks to influence—and therefore constrain—ARIA’s activity in some way and, as drafted, the amendment would do so in a very sharp sense. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his willingness to engage with the concerns that I put to him and explore alternative ways to achieve his objectives. I have raised these points with him directly, so for the benefit of others I will outline my position—with apologies to the noble Lord, who has heard all this before.
There are well-rehearsed arguments that I have put forward against a defined climate mission. I remind noble Lords that UKRI, through which the overwhelming majority of our public R&D funding is delivered, funds a full portfolio of projects focused on tackling climate change. Where there are specific research and innovation needs to support the Government’s strategic priorities in this area, UKRI delivers across: adaptation and resilience; clean energy; and sustainable industry, agriculture and transport. I think we are all aligned behind the idea that ARIA should complement, not duplicate, our existing capabilities. That is why this amendment is rightly presented now as a more general obligation. The excitement and support that ARIA has generated within the research community has been based on its different model of funding, with agility and risk appetite absolutely central to all the recommendations of how and why ARIA should be created.
ARIA should not be focusing on the scale-up and exploitation of known technologies, for climate change or indeed any other government priorities; noble Lords with expertise in this area will know well that the extent of its funding, at £800 million over five years, makes it completely unsuitable to play such a role. ARIA will contribute by focusing its programmes on the most ambitious objectives, and funding high-risk research and innovation to achieve them. When ARIA finds solutions to these hard problems or gathers learnings along the way, they will be adapted and applied to other fields in different contexts: that is where the benefits to our climate ambitions are likely to be felt.
Breakthroughs in materials science led to huge progress in what is possible in terms of battery storage or fusion. Those technologies are now critical to the energy transition, but much of the original research was not done with that goal in mind. Being prescriptive limits the scope to take completely novel approaches, as we hope and expect ARIA will do. Placing this obligation on ARIA requires us to answer the question: who will assess whether the radical breakthrough targeted by an ARIA programme might—in future, in some way—contribute to our climate goals?
The National Audit Office will assess the regularity of ARIA’s spending each year, which would include this addition to its funding. Is it well placed to make this assessment? That is not intended as any slight at all on the NAO—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morse, will be glad to hear that. However, I submit that even the researchers and innovators steeped in a technology cannot predict how it might evolve or be applied in the years to come. That is the nature of innovation and high-risk research. Essentially, it is unknowable. Adding this provision to the Bill asks us to make that essential assessment not only knowable but justiciable. Whoever performed the assessment of whether ARIA’s activities fell within the scope of this obligation would have their judgment subject to judicial review.
I strongly suggest that the actual effect of this amendment would be to push ARIA towards objectives where the assessment would be clear cut. It would disincentivise risk-taking, new approaches or exploring the application of technologies in unusual or unprecedented contexts. I submit that it would work against the grain of everything we are seeking to achieve with this organisation—
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
Is it not a fact that, although the Minister believes that we cannot make concrete commitments on method, we now have some very concrete commitments on outcomes? Glasgow is the best example of medium-term commitments. Unless we monitor those against the metric—the Minister will know that he used that word some months ago—how do we get around the following dilemma? We have concrete commitments on outcomes in a lot of areas but are now putting quite serious dilemmas—I am not saying it is nit-picking—before ourselves as to how we can make sure that we are on track to go where we are trying to get to.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. I am not 100% sure of the point that he is making. I agree with him that we have concrete commitments, but we have a well-defined track of a number of strategies heading towards those commitments. In the Bill we are talking about funnelling one small part of our R&D funding into a separate agency, while seeking to take novel, innovative approaches to research and development.
I have cautioned against placing this obligation in the Bill but that does not mean that it is unimportant for ARIA to have an awareness of these issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, articulated so forcefully. I am pleased that many noble Lords attended the briefing we held where my colleague George Freeman, the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, discussed this. It is not plausible that any appropriate CEO candidate for ARIA would be ignorant of the opportunities connected to net zero within research and innovation. There is a similar situation with regard to Amendment 5 and the sustainable development goals, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
As a result of the ongoing discussions that we have had on this issue during the passage of the Bill, I am able to commit now that, as an alternative, ARIA will evaluate itself against the pillar of the 2021-25 greening government commitments most relevant to this amendment on mitigating climate change by working towards achieving our net-zero environmental goal. This would be included within the framework document; ARIA would therefore be required to consider this objective from its very first cycle of reporting and evaluation.
I also agree that it is through its projects, and its funding, that ARIA’s greatest contribution to our net-zero objectives will be made. I can therefore also commit that ARIA would have regard to its projects contributing to our climate change targets and environmental goals. This is distinct from the sustainability reporting framework and should sit alongside it as a broader obligation, rather than being part of that evaluation process. That consideration would again be included in ARIA’s framework document. In my view, that is the appropriate place for such requirements, which relate to the effective governance of the organisation and its alignment to wider public sector objectives, as it can be more readily updated to reflect changing circumstances or priorities.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I apologise; the procedure is a little different and more complicated because I put down an amendment to an amendment. It is not my intention to respond substantively to the Minister’s response to Amendment 4. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has consistently championed Amendment 4 and variations of it, so it is most appropriate that he responds on that one. I should just say that I failed to declare earlier that I am a member of the committee for Peers for the Planet. On Amendment 5 and my side of this, I do not think the Minister responded to my question about defining quality of life. I realise this may be a legally complicated matter, so will he commit to write to me about this and lay a copy of the correspondence in the Library?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Regarding the noble Baroness’s question on the definition of the quality of life—we are getting into a very esoteric debate for this time of night—I do not think there is a technical definition specific to her suggestions that I can point towards. It is not in such common usage but, if I can find an appropriate definition, I will of course send it to her.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I want to make one other point very quickly. He talked a lot about the hard sciences. It is interesting that, when we had a private discussion with a number of his colleagues, there was also a lot of focus on what might be described as the softer biological sciences and issues such as plant health and the human microbiome. I hope those will be considered within ARIA’s remit. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his proposal and for ensuring that ARIA will be asked to demonstrate through integrated reporting how sustainability is an essential characteristic within its strategic objectives, operations and policy-making. I believe that this proposal meets the intent of my original amendments through implementation in the framework document. It will ensure that ARIA has regard to the areas set out in my original amendment; it will be asked to consider and demonstrate how it has met them. In particular, as he said, it will ensure that ARIA has regard to its projects contributing to our climate change targets and environmental goals. Through working together with the Government, we have reached a good compromise on this issue. I again thank the Minister, his team and my supporters and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(7) ARIA is a public authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and Schedule 1 to that Act is amended accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would subject ARIA to Freedom of Information requests.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. As my noble friend said in Committee, without the FOI amendments, ARIA would follow in the footsteps of a very small number of institutions that currently do not have Freedom of Information Act obligations. I will not extensively rehearse all the arguments, but suggest that the organisations involved, which include the Royal Family and security and intelligence bodies, are not natural bedfellows to ARIA. The Minister complained about the burdens for ARIA of responding to FOI requests but nowhere, not even in Dominic Cummings’s evidence to the Commons Science and Technology Committee last February, was the FoIA identified as an obstacle to ARIA’s success.
The Minister has continually highlighted that ARIA is modelled on DARPA. ARPA was subject to the US Freedom of Information Act and DARPA is subject to it as well. This has not prevented them achieving the successes which the Government wish ARIA to emulate. We talked in Committee about the equivalent number of requests received before the restructuring of the research bodies, which were exactly equivalent to those of DARPA. The argument that DARPA charges fees falls away too. The main classes of requester—the news media and educational staff—and requests in the public interest are not charged. In practice, only commercial requesters have to pay.
As I said in Committee, there is no question that, under the FoIA, ARIA’s research programme could be prejudiced, given the clear exemptions under the Act for research interests. In Committee, the Minister gave away the real reason for the Government’s refusal to include ARIA under the FoIA. He illustrated his general contempt for freedom of information legislation, saying:
“From my point of view, it is a truly malign piece of legislation”,
and that
“there must be many hundreds of civil servants engaged in doing nothing other than responding to these fishing expeditions”.
It looks like this is personal—or is the truth that the Government find the daylight shed on them by the FoIA truly inconvenient, and ARIA is just the start of an erosion of FoIA rights?
Transparency is crucial for all our public institutions. ARIA will be in receipt of a substantial amount of public funding—£500 million over the next three years—so there are compelling grounds for its inclusion. Coming under the FoIA is an essential part of retaining public trust.
As regards Amendment 7, which relates to procurement, the Minister said in Committee that:
“When ARIA is commissioning and contracting others to do research for it, it will be operating in a fundamentally different way from traditional R&D grant-making where procurement rules do not apply.
In my view, it is therefore appropriate for ARIA to be given freedom from procurement rules to ensure that the agency has greater flexibility in its contractual arrangements.”—[Official Report, 22/11/21; cols. GC 147-49.]
If ever I heard a circular argument, that was it.
Why are the Government having to perform drafting contortions to exclude ARIA from these procurement requirements in the Bill? Why on earth should ARIA not be subject to exactly the same procurement regime as other public bodies? UKRI is subject to rules and procures and commissions services, including research services. What makes ARIA so different? I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 6, to which I added my name. This is a subject I raised at Second Reading, but I reassure the noble Baroness acting as the Whip that, on this occasion, she can relax; there is unlikely to be any need to interrupt me on the grounds that I have gone on too long, because I want to be very brief.
There are two reasons why ARIA should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The first is one of principle. Public bodies set up in statute should be subjected to the same FOI requirements as apply elsewhere. In this country, I submit that FOI legislation is an essential safeguard in the political world in which we now live. To reject this amendment will send a bad signal and set a bad precedent. I even suggest to the Minister that he may reconsider his view as and when he sits on these Benches in the future.
The second reason is practical. We do not want to allow ARIA to come to be viewed with public suspicion and distrust, especially as it has the right to fail, so being open about its work will be beneficial. If it turns out that it is not easy to discover what it is doing, public support for ARIA might be damaged, to the detriment of its wider role. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which a campaign is waged against ARIA for excessive secrecy, possibly utilising inaccurate information about it, and for public support to be damaged; nor, in my judgment, would making ARIA subject to freedom of information turn out to be an excessive practical burden. Moreover, if there are aspects of ARIA’s future work that turn out to be sensitive, the Government already have powers elsewhere in the Bill for the Secretary of State to intervene on grounds of national security.
I will leave my remarks there, but I strongly urge the acceptance of Amendment 6.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I spoke about the freedom of information aspects of these two amendments in Committee, and I repeat that I think it is reasonable to exclude ARIA from the freedom of information requirements.
I do not regard the Freedom of Information Act as malign, and I am sure my noble friend does not either. It is appropriate in many cases that our public bodies are opened up, but it is true that it is burdensome. That has been a constant complaint, and certain kinds of organisations attract lots of fishing expeditions which increase the burden, and this goes beyond what would be regarded as being reasonable.
In Committee, I quoted both Tony Blair—who, having introduced the Freedom of Information Act, had a Damascene conversion and did not regard it as a helpful thing in the end—and Professor Philip Bond, the Professor of Creativity and Innovation at the University of Manchester. Both of them highlighted the fundamental reason why ARIA should be free from the Freedom of Information Act: because the last thing our scientists need when looking at the next internet, or whatever it is, is to be overcome with excessive caution because they are worried about what would happen if their conversations had to be revealed through Freedom of Information Act requests. Creativity thrives in an environment where it is not subject to ex-post analysis.
The other reason why I wanted to speak this evening is that I do not understand why Amendments 6 and 7 have been positioned as they are in Clause 2. They seem to set up a conflict with the provisions of Schedule 3, which is introduced by Clause 9. I have not followed through the detailed drafting in respect of freedom of information, but I have followed it through in respect of the Public Contracts Regulations. Basically, Amendment 7 says that the regulations will apply to ARIA, while paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 says that the requirements do not apply to ARIA.
So, the effect of these amendments—and I believe the same is true of the freedom of information amendment, but I have not completely followed that through—is that one part of the Bill would say that the requirements do not apply, but the next part would say that they do apply. That does not seem to me a very clever way to write amendments or legislation, so I suggest that the amendments themselves are defective. Also, I think they are defective in drafting terms—in particular, the public contracts amendment does not mention the separate Scottish regulations, which are included in paragraph 17 of Schedule 3. Paragraphs 13 to 15 are much more complex than Amendment 6, so that may well not be as effective as noble Lords seem to suggest.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Labour tabled a combined version of Amendments 6 and 7 in Committee, and we welcome the re-tabling of the text by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We debated FoI extensively at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and in private meetings with the Minister and his officials. Despite the strong feelings expressed, the Government have offered us absolutely nothing—not just on FoI but on transparency more generally.
The Government’s determination to keep ARIA’s projects and decision-making secret is worrying. This is a matter of principle: do they believe in transparency, or not? If they do, such a measure should be put in the Bill. If they do not, they have not really given us a sufficiently good explanation for their reluctance to do this. We believe that it is in ARIA’s best interests to have the benefit of engagement of the public through the use of FoI. Failing to do that is not going to stop ARIA’s activities becoming known; it will just happen in a less controlled manner and create more suspicion.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed on this group of amendments. Turning to Amendment 6 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I start by thanking my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Patten for their supportive statements in general as the Bill has progressed through this House.
ARIA will be a lean, streamlined agency which we expect to employ people in the tens. It will recruit a small team of exceptional individuals with both technical expertise and scientific vision. I contend that it is appropriate that we consider how their time, focus and energy is best applied.
We have designed this new, unique agency to operate and behave in a way we do not usually see in the public sector—with leanness, agility and efficiency being core to its function. We have also tasked it with embracing risk and failure. As noted by my noble friend Lady Noakes during consideration in Grand Committee and again this evening, these exceptional scientists should not be fearful of or driven to risk-aversion by the prospect of FoI disclosures, nor should they be distracted or bogged down by the bureaucracy of fulfilling such requests.
The issue of the volume of FoI requests we expect ARIA to be subject to has been raised throughout the passage of this Bill, and comparisons have been drawn between the number of requests received by smaller public bodies such as parish councils, and other research organisations such as UKRI. Pursuing this exemption reflects our expectation that, given ARIA’s profile, its focus on high-risk research and the speculation on its activity so far, it would indeed be subject to a disproportionately high number of FoI requests. It is not accurate to suggest that ARIA would get the same number as a single UKRI research council or other small organisations. It is already clear that its activities will generate a much higher degree of interest and, therefore, corresponding requests.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a comparison to the number of FoI requests to DARPA. Let me remind the noble Lord that when making an FoI request in the US, requesters are required to consider paying applicable fees up to $25. If requests are expected to exceed this cost, the requester is notified to agree additional payment. While fee waivers or reductions can be granted in certain circumstances, it is not a like-for-like comparison to the FoI process in the UK. Therefore, in my view it is not right to assume that ARIA will receive a similar number of FoI requests to DARPA.
I also reassure noble Lords that our reasons for placing ARIA outside FoI legislation are specific and do not extend to other new public bodies, which will not have the same requirement for flexibility and agility and therefore will not require the same exemption.
However, to suggest that the agency will therefore be operating under a veil of secrecy is, in my view, not accurate. We expect ARIA to be an outward-facing and transparent body, which will proactively provide information about its activities to encourage collaboration around its programme goals, increase public understanding of its work and build public trust. Alongside this, it will be held to account by robust transparency arrangements. Let me remind noble Lords about them. It will publish its annual report and a statement of accounts, which will be laid before Parliament. It will be subject to annual audits by the National Audit Office. It will appear before and be accountable to Parliament through its chief executive officer and it will remain, of course, an arm’s-length body of my department in BEIS.
That said, I have also taken into account the opinions of noble Lords on this matter. To reflect the considered debate in Grand Committee on the balance of ARIA’s transparency and accountability arrangements with this unique freedom, I am happy to provide further assurances to noble Lords on ARIA’s reporting requirements. Annually, ARIA will proactively publish information on its regional funding and will make information publicly available on all delivery partners supported through the full range of its funding mechanisms. Taken alongside and together with ARIA’s annual report and accounts, these are significant and robust transparency arrangements which will ensure Parliament and the general public are informed of ARIA’s activities, the projects it funds and where it funds them.
I hope that, given these reassurances, noble Lords are satisfied that the FoI exemption serves an important function for ARIA and that we have struck the right balance here. I thank them for their input.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
Before the Minister moves on to the next amendment and off the FoI amendment, has he read the Department of Defense information handout? That makes it clear that the vast majority of those who request information from DARPA would not have to pay any fee at all. Can the Minister share—either now or at some point—with noble Lords the genesis of his belief, which he has now repeated a number of times, that everyone who asks for information from DARPA has to pay a fee in the United States? If that is not true, then the comparison that we all make is a relevant comparison and is the only data; the only other thing we have is the Minister’s animus against freedom of information requests. And is he aware of the provisions of Section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think the noble Lord will find, if he looks at my remarks, that I did not say that every applicant will pay fees but that there is a general expectation that a fee of $25 will be charged, or even more in some cases if more information is required. However, there are exemptions to that, which can be exercised. If the noble Lord looks back at Hansard, he will see that I did not say that everyone would be charged a fee. In most cases, a fee would be applicable, but there are certain exemptions.
I turn to Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, which relates to procurement regulations. I note that the noble Lords did not address this, but it is worth while setting out the Government’s position on that amendment. I believe there are clear reasons why this exemption is beneficial to ARIA and why it will be integral to the agency’s effective operation. First, unlike other R&D funders, ARIA will be commissioning and contracting others to do research for it in pursuit of its own technological visions or research goals. The process of contracting and commissioning means ARIA will be operating in fundamentally different ways from traditional R&D grant making, where procurement rules already do not apply. Placing ARIA outside the existing public procurement rules will mean that the agency can freely procure expert investment and consultancy advice, which will be important given the highly varied and technical nature of the agency’s work.
While we imagine that the bulk of ARIA’s research activities will be carried out by its partners and funders, it remains possible that ARIA may wish to procure and own a piece of research equipment to crowd-in interest from other research partners, or to accelerate the progress of a project. Freedom from traditional procurement rules will facilitate ARIA making those investments quickly and with ease. In my view, it is appropriate for ARIA to have greater flexibility than the R&D exemption would afford it so that it can design and tailor its contractual arrangements to precisely suit its research endeavour.
Secondly, in designing ARIA, we have put a premium on the agency investing and acting quickly. In our view, this agility would be incompatible with the public tendering process mandated in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which can require contracting authorities to put contracts out to open tender for up to two to three months. Such a delay could prevent critical investments being made with sufficient speed or, indeed, at all. In choosing to exempt ARIA from standard procurement rules, we have learnt from the successful approach taken by DARPA, which benefits from “other transactions” authority, giving the agency the flexibility to operate outside traditional US government contracting standards. It is our belief that ARIA should benefit from similar flexibilities.
I also dispute the notion that taking ARIA outside traditional procurement rules will leave the agency vulnerable to cronyism. I think this was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in Committee. This exemption will ensure ARIA’s leadership and programme managers—who have been recruited for their technical expertise and scientific vision—can take decisions on ARIA’s procurement with autonomy, as they will have the freedom to procure at arm’s length from government and Ministers.
As I have already detailed, ARIA has clear lines of accountability, transparency and scrutiny in the preparation of its an annual report, scrutiny by the NAO and an annual independent audit to report on its procurement activities. As I have already alluded to, to reflect the constructive and considered debate in Grand Committee, ARIA will publish information on its delivery partners, and this expectation will be detailed in ARIA’s framework document. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for tabling an amendment to that effect previously. I hope she and other noble Lords welcome this principled commitment to transparency, which would extend to delivery partners supported through the full range of ARIA’s funding mechanism.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords have been assured that exempting ARIA from traditional procurement rules will be integral to the agency’s effective operation. The package of accountability, conflict of interest procedures and governance provisions that sit within this Bill are an appropriate counterbalance to that. Taken in the round, this represents an essential, proportionate and balanced freedom, placed in the hands of ARIA’s incoming leadership and programme managers. Taken together, I hope that the assurances and explanations I have been able to provide for noble Lords will allow the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. There is clearly an argument to be had on our Amendment 7 and the whole procurement regime. The one argument that the Minister has is that DARPA is not subject to procurement rules.
However, the position is quite other on Amendment 6, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, has said. This is a matter of principle. The Minister keeps coming up with some quite colourful phrases. This evening he said that scientists should not have to be fearful at the prospect of FoI disclosure. That is quite an interesting phrase—those scientists quivering in their labs, waiting for freedom of information disclosure. I must say it is quite a colourful way of looking at the situation, but, clearly, we have a matter of principle to decide on here, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We come to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Is it moved or not moved?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking to and will support Amendment 9.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
One moment. I asked about Amendment 7 in the noble Lord’s name.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Now we get there. Amendment 9, Lord Clement-Jones.
Amendment 9
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in Committee the Minister explained that he accepted the DPRRC’s recommendations regarding Clause 10, and indeed was taking it out of the Bill, but added:
“Clause 8 is, I believe, an important part of the Bill. Although the DPRRC also raised concerns about this power, there is a strong policy rationale and a clear precedent for this particular delegation of power.”
He was then able to cite one solitary example, the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, which was dissolved by the super-affirmative procedure, but he admitted that that was in the context of widespread public body reform. He continued:
“In contrast, the power in Clause 8 is narrow, such that ARIA can only be dissolved. It cannot be merged or have its functions or governance changed in any way, as set out in my response to the DPRRC last week.”—[Official Report, 22/11/21; cols. GC 162-63.]
I still believe that the objection from the DPRRC stands. It said it was not necessary legally, politically or practically for something created by primary legislation to be dissolved by secondary legislation. On the contrary, if Parliament creates ARIA, the right to dissolve it should naturally belong to Parliament.
This is all reinforced by the recent report of the DPRRC, Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive. This kind of power assumed by the Government is what it objects to. I agree with the committee’s conclusions that we need to stop this accretion of Henry VIII powers by the Government, who are still proceeding willy-nilly in the face of the clear views and warnings of one of our own very well-respected committees.
The Minister said that these were narrow and limited powers, but what could be wider than abolishing the very subject of the Bill? That seems to be an extraordinarily wide power and a completely unjustified use of a Henry VIII power. So I look forward to the Minister’s reply but I very much hope that the Government will rethink their response to the DPRRC’s objections to the inclusion of Clause 8. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not with us this evening because, following Committee—which I attended, sat through, listened to all the debates of and did not say a word in—he said he was surprised that I had not found something better to do with my time. I just wanted to explain that I am extremely interested in this subject, but I am interested not in the detailed implementation of this legislation but in what it says about how research should be conducted. I am also glad that we have been joined by the Whip, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, because, in a previous debate on another subject, he cast me as a pessimist—and I have to own up to being a pessimist on this particular proposal as well.
However, I support the Bill because it provides an interesting scientific experiment from which we can learn. We have a very small sample size: we have the existing system and the new system, a sample of two. But, as scientists often do, we have to work with the material that we have. So I am pleased that we have this proposal. Let us see how it works—albeit that I am a pessimist.
So, in Amendment 10, I am proposing that the Government should commit themselves to a review of how this proposal affects the corpus of research that takes place in the United Kingdom. This is a helpful suggestion. If pushed, I might possibly accept that it is unnecessary, because it will be done anyway. People will look to see what happens, and I just hope that the Government will recognise this and build it into the legislation.
I support Amendment 9—clearly this is an overreach of power on the part of government. I also support my noble friend Lord Stansgate’s Amendment 11, which proposes a much more detailed and thorough review of how this proposal matches up against the specific objectives that the Government have set out.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, which is in my name. Of course, the idea behind it also applies to Amendment 10, as just outlined by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who has probably halved my speech because there is no need to repeat everything.
This amendment is very straightforward. It seeks to ensure that, at an appropriate time—I have suggested half way through its allotted 10 years—Parliament has the chance to be sure that ARIA is fulfilling its broad mission. After all, as we all agree, we are doing something new, and, while it is scheduled to receive only a small amount of funding compared with the wider scientific landscape, the fact is that we are still talking about £800 million of public money. So I ask the House: is it that unreasonable to want to ascertain how it is getting on after five years?
In looking ahead, Parliament will want to be sure that, for example, ARIA has not begun to duplicate work that can or could be done elsewhere—by UKRI, for example. Parliament will want to be satisfied that it has not been captured in some way by a scientific cabal or that it has not become involved in dealing with what you might call the “known unknowns”—because other parts of the scientific world are in charge of that—when we want it to focus on the “unknown unknowns”. We are all hoping—at least, I hope that we are—that ARIA will continue to focus on exciting and potentially disruptive new areas and inventions.
The purpose of this amendment is not—I repeat, not—to enable a future Government or Parliament to require a report into every single programme with which ARIA is engaged, or to burden ARIA with what we might call “excessive accountability”. We have already agreed to give the programme managers a huge degree of freedom, including the freedom to fail. However, we must remember that ARIA’s initial lifespan of 10 years will span at least one Parliament and maybe more, and it seems reasonable, without placing too great a burden on it, to enable a future Parliament to have the chance to satisfy itself that it is fulfilling its strategic mission. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and commend this amendment to the House.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we remain disappointed that the Government failed to accept the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation to omit Clause 8, which provides a very broad power to be carried out with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has retabled the amendment, although I suspect that the Government will not change their approach this evening.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Stansgate for tabling their Amendments 10 and 11, which would ensure that there is better understanding of ARIA’s work as it progresses toward the magic 10-year mark. We agree with the thrust of both those amendments. On Amendment 10, it is important that lessons can be learned and any required changes enacted to ensure that ARIA’s funds are continually put to the best possible use. Amendment 11 would give Parliament a loose oversight role, which feels incredibly important, given its almost complete lack of involvement once the body has been established. I noted that when he was in his place earlier, the Minister described the arrangements that the Government are proposing as “robust”. I gently say that they are anything but.
We hope that the Government see some merit in these proposals. It is not clear that the provision needs to be statutory—I accept that—but can the Minister give a clear commitment about interim or periodic reviews beyond the publication of annual reports, which are the absolute minimum that we should expect, and opportunities for Members of this House and the other place to discuss and debate them?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I want to start by addressing the comments on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on this Bill. As noble Lords will know, the Government made significant changes to the Bill in Committee to respond to the DPRRC’s recommendations. We have taken its report extremely seriously and shown that we are willing to engage with, and act on, its recommendations.
Regarding the committee’s other recent report, on the delegation of power more generally, we would submit that the changes we have made to this Bill are a clear demonstration of the relationship between the legislature and the Executive operating as it should and of legislative proposals submitted and amended in response to scrutiny. Certainly, what we are proposing for ARIA is a world away from some legislation made in the context of Brexit or the pandemic, which is the focus of the committee’s concern in its report.
We have carefully considered the committee’s recommendation with regard to Clause 8. In our view, the power to dissolve ARIA through regulations made under this clause, which would be omitted by Amendment 9 in the name of noble Lord, Lord Fox, remains an important part of the Bill. We have decided not to accept the recommendation in this instance because there is both a strong policy rationale and a clear precedent for this delegation of power.
As was said in Committee, the power can be exercised only 10 years after the Bill receives Royal Assent, and it is therefore an indication of the Government’s long-term commitment to ARIA. I think there is broad agreement that this patience will be essential if ARIA is to pursue successfully the most ambitious research and innovation. It goes to the heart of what ARIA is about. It must have the opportunity to prove itself before it is judged, and this has been recognised by many R&D stakeholders.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Callanan referred to the precedent for this delegation of power. Under powers contained in the Public Bodies Act, several bodies established in primary legislation have been dissolved by statutory instrument. Again, if noble Lords will permit me, I will refer to the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, which was created by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and was abolished using powers from the Public Bodies Act in 2013. The Public Bodies Act gave Ministers broad delegated powers not just to abolish bodies but also to merge them and change their governance structure and functions. That goes far beyond the power in Clause 8. As we do not know the context in 10 or more years’ time, when this power might be exercised, it is right that it is applicable in a range of scenarios.
On consultation, there is a broad requirement for the Secretary of State to consult those they think appropriate. I suggest that Parliament and Select Committees will be included among these stakeholders, and that the Secretary of State will think it appropriate and necessary to consult them. We do not believe that there is no opportunity for parliamentarians to be involved in those discussions. I hope I have managed to convince noble Lords of the seriousness with which we take the DPPRC’s recommendations, the careful consideration we have given to its view of Clause 8 and the very good reasons I think there are for departing from its recommendation in this instance, and retaining it. I hope noble Lords are convinced and that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The power in Clause 8 shares with Amendments 10 and 11 a recognition of the experimental nature of ARIA, which has been highlighted by many in the R&D community. These amendments speak to our desire to extract the greatest possible benefit from our £800 million investment in this new agency. We hope those will be both direct benefits from the research and innovation it funds and indirect benefits in terms of learning that can be applied to R&D funding in the UK more generally. I hope that learning will be a dynamic process, and while I sympathise completely with the intent behind these amendments, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that there are already more than adequate arrangements in place for public bodies such as ARIA to be formally reviewed. I do not think anything further is necessary.
Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, introduces a review of various aspects of ARIA’s operations, including whether it has fulfilled its functions and achieved value for money. Both of these are core considerations of the National Audit Office. The regularity of ARIA’s spending—whether it is in line with its functions—will be part of the annual assessment and certification of ARIA’s accounts, and the NAO will be able to conduct value-for-money examinations of ARIA as per the National Audit Act in the usual way. I hope the noble Viscount will agree that a further review mechanism on these points is not needed.
I turn to the second two elements of this amendment, which deal with the geographical spread of grants and ARIA’s transparency arrangements. I stand by my noble friend’s earlier commitment that ARIA will proactively publish information on its regional funding annually and, in the interests of transparency, make information publicly available on all delivery partners, supported through the full range of its funding mechanisms. I hope this reassures the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that there are already arrangements in place to cover all these important points he has raised and that he does not feel it necessary to press his amendment further.
Amendment 10 is very specific to ARIA. As I have said before, I do not think a one-off formal report is the right way to envisage these lessons being learned. It should be a dynamic process: some important points may become apparent relatively quickly while some advantages or disadvantages of the ARIA model may not emerge even within the six years outlined in this amendment. We have discussed the need for patience, and I believe that means we must resist, as far as possible, the temptation to poke and prod and investigate this new organisation. Clearly, there is a balance to strike here, but it is my contention that the default position must be to let it be and gather these learnings in the most light-touch way we can.
In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has allowed an entire year for the review to be conducted and published. That indicates a significant intervention in ARIA’s activities and a degree of close scrutiny that I do not think is a natural companion to risk-taking and high ambition. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, also expressed concern about 10 years being a long time without scrutiny. There are a number of avenues for scrutiny—as a public body, ARIA will be subject to tailored reviews of its governance and effectiveness. It will need to bid for new funding in coming years and evidence its effectiveness and impact at that point. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurances that it is absolutely our intention to learn from ARIA to the benefit of the wider R&D system, and that he will not press his amendment, on the grounds that such a structured and formalised obligation may not be the most appropriate way to do so.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which, I am afraid, amounted to a very polite raspberry to the DPRRC. She used very polite phrases such as “carefully considered”, but the fact is that the Government are intent on ignoring one of the major recommendations of the committee—namely, that the powers in Clause 8 are inappropriate.
The Minister talked about a clear precedent, and I referred to the precedent that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, cited in Committee. But when the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council was abolished, it was done by the super-affirmative procedure, and the Government have not even offered to use that in this case. This is rather different to that situation; this is effectively abolishing the whole substance of what the Bill is about: ARIA itself. I do not think there could be anything more radical than a Henry VIII power that does that.
I am afraid that I do not really regard what the Minister said as a full response to the DPRRC, and I am certainly not persuaded by the Government’s position. But this is part of a longer, long-running argument between the Executive and Parliament. Clearly, the DPRRC, which I support very strongly, wants much greater parliamentary involvement and oversight in decisions such as this. It believes that, where possible, primary legislation is the appropriate instrument, not secondary legislation. Does the Minister want me to give way?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I could come back on the specific point he made about the Public Bodies Act. This Act was developed in the context of widespread public body reform. It was therefore appropriate that the super-affirmative procedure was applied. In the context of much broader powers, it was right that their use was subject to this higher level of parliamentary scrutiny. In contrast, the power in Clause 8 is much more narrowly defined, such that ARIA can only be dissolved—it cannot be merged, or have its functions or governance changed. That is a significant difference between the two.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, that is a significant difference between us. Merging is one thing, but total abolition is another. Perhaps the Minister could have offered the super-affirmative procedure in those circumstances. As I say, this is part of a long-running argument. The Executive are determined to hang on to their Henry VIII powers. I hope that Parliament will continue to press for fewer Henry VIII powers, much greater use of primary legislation, where appropriate, less use of skeleton Bills, and so on. This is a very broad landscape that we are debating. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Stansgate
“Interim review of ARIA
(1) Within five years of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of ARIA and its operations.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—(a) the extent to which ARIA has, whether acting alone or jointly with others, fulfilled the functions listed in section 2(1),(b) whether projects undertaken or funded by ARIA are achieving value for money,(c) the geographical spread of grants awarded by ARIA, and(d) the operation of transparency measures and whether further measures are required.(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the contents of the review, including any recommendations arising from it, to be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
To enable Parliament to review the work of ARIA after its initial five years.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I look forward to reading the National Audit Office reports over the next few years and taking part in such discussions as we may have in this House on how ARIA is developing.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
As the noble Viscount has made a short speech, I must now put the Question. The Question is that the amendment be agreed.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I should have added the words, “I beg leave to withdraw my amendment”.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have just explained that, as the noble Viscount has made a short speech, it is not possible to withdraw, so I must put the Question. It is up to Members of the House how they vote.
Lord Craig of Radley
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 12 and 14 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and myself. Noble Lords will be aware that a number of fields of modern technology and research are coming to rely more and more on mathematical sciences. When I gained my degree in pure maths at Oxford over 70 years ago, and for many years since, maths was seen largely as an adjunct to other fields of science and technology, but the world of digital—particularly of AI, machine learning, 5G and quantum computing—is now becoming mainstream. These diverse technologies rely very greatly on mathematics for help to find solutions and answers.
Mathematical sciences today are employed in many ways: from risk analysis of the use of driverless cars to the likelihood of collisions and how best to avoid them in space; from sifting with AI through large quantities of medical data to spot treatments for illness, to the best ways of introducing superfast broadband nationwide; contributing to security risk analyses, or delving into the more esoteric problems of known and unknown unknowns. Mathematical sciences feature in improvements that will benefit the lifestyle and health of wide cohorts of citizens and the esoteric work of astronomers unlocking the secrets of the cosmos. Analysing and predicting trends in the Covid-19 epidemic is another active field in which mathematical sciences play an important part.
The marginalisation and exclusion of mathematical sciences in government legislation prompts this amendment. For example, the 2004 guidelines on research and development limit the definition of mathematical contributions in research and development to the “physical and material universe”. Far from sticking to current definitions in this new legislation, is it not time to recognise the unique and growing contributions of mathematical sciences in the new digital age of AI, quantum computing and much, much more? The ARIA Bill is an ideal opportunity to do so and move on. The focus and capacity of the Bill’s provisions should explicitly embrace the mathematical sciences. These now include “blue skies” maths, which is sometimes referred to as a new form of “pure” maths.
My amendment is thus not a probing amendment; it is a simple and straightforward proposal to reflect the advances being made by mathematical sciences in the digital age. I challenge anyone to assert that this new agency will not be making use of mathematical sciences in its work. This Bill is an excellent opportunity to give the rightful recognition in statute to the key role of mathematical sciences in advanced research and inventions. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble and gallant Lord’s amendments and have added my name to them. More broadly, I support the work of the London Mathematical Society and the Protect Pure Maths Campaign to emphasise the importance of mathematics alongside science and technology, not only to the whole STEM ecosystem but to the UK economy overall. The briefing that I have received from them estimates—I am sure this is correct—that mathematics adds more than £200 billion to the UK economy, which is nearly 10% of our GDP; and it is one of the top three subjects for graduate earnings. As the noble and gallant Lord explained, mathematics enables most of today’s exciting and urgent technological developments, including artificial intelligence, driverless cars, and the development of quantum computers and superfast broadband, as well as the modelling of the Covid-19 outbreak, underpinning national security, the finance sector and the rollout of vaccinations.
Mathematics is a British success story. If it gets recognition at this level from Parliament, I am certain that it will send a powerful and supportive message to young people across the country to consider mathematics as a career or for further study—and that can only be a good thing.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 13 does not differ greatly from the previous amendment. Indeed, it differs in only one word: “pure”. In proposing my amendment, I have been mindful that mathematics is in danger in universities from an attempt by administrators to reduce its presence. At the University of Leicester, where I am an emeritus professor, a considerable number of staff described either as “pure mathematicians” or “managerial sociologists” have been sacked. The so-called pure mathematicians have been sacked on account of the unpopularity of maths, as revealed in perennial student surveys. Mathematical subjects tend to be unpopular with students because they are challenging. Nevertheless, they are the backbone of degrees in science, engineering and other subjects. I suspect that the managerial sociologists have been sacked because administrators are loath to recognise the expertise of others in a subject in which they believe they have significant experience. Be that as it may, my present concern is with mathematics.
Very few mathematicians would call themselves “pure” mathematicians. They describe themselves as mathematicians without qualification. Pure maths is concerned with giving order and clarity to the subject of mathematics, of which the exposition stands in constant need of reform. Applied mathematics, as the name suggests, is concerned with applying mathematics to substantive issues. We cannot have the one without the other. Legislation that declares that mathematical advances are not science unless they are advances in representing the nature and behaviour of the physical and material universe speaks of a wrong-headed attitude on the part of administrators who may have little understanding of the nature of science. In derogating the role of mathematics, this attitude could have dire consequences. I hope that the acknowledgement of the importance of mathematics to science will serve to counteract the wave of intellectual vandalism occasioned by the insurgency of administrators that is sweeping through British universities. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, but I propose that it should stand or fall with the other amendments in this group.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I think it may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain that only the first amendment in a group is moved. The noble Lord is speaking to his amendment, but it is moved or not moved only according to its place on the Marshalled List.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 12 and 14, to which I have added my name, and the other amendment in this group. I hope the House will appreciate that this is not a subject that was touched on in Committee—so it is fresh for consideration by the House today. It is nevertheless very important. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Hanworth have set out the case in some detail, and I do not want to repeat some of the examples they gave, very good though they are. However, I emphasise that mathematical sciences are vital not just to the future of science but to the work of ARIA.
Amendments 12 and 14 are very simple. They would insert the words “and mathematical” in the definition of scientific knowledge and scientific research in Clause 11. These amendments arise because the mathematical community is unsure about whether mathematical sciences are sufficiently included in the definition in the Bill—and it is because the mathematics community is unsure that this debate is taking place. Sometimes people think of sciences as only, or mainly, the core sciences of biology, physics and chemistry, but this is not the case. Mathematics underpins all the other sciences —hence we now use the term STEM as a routine acronym.
Perhaps I could just briefly introduce into this debate the definition of mathematical sciences that is accepted in the community: it is a group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered as sub-fields of mathematics proper, such as statistics, computer science, computational science, data science, quantitative biology, operations research, control theory, cryptology, econometrics, theoretical physics, continuum mechanics, mathematical chemistry and actuarial science.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have signed and I support Amendments 12, 13 and 14. As someone immersed in issues relating to AI, machine learning and the application of algorithms to decision-making over the years, I, too, support Protect Pure Maths in its campaign to protect pure maths and advance the mathematical sciences in the UK—and these amendments, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, reflect that.
The campaign points out that pure maths has been a great British success story, with Alan Turing, Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose, the Nobel Prize winner—and, of course, more recently Hannah Fry has popularised mathematics. Stephen Hawking was a great exemplar, too. However, despite its value to society, maths does not always receive the funding and support that it warrants. Giving new funding to AI, for instance, risks overlooking the fundamental importance of maths to technology.
As Protect Pure Maths says, the 2004 BEIS guidelines on research and development, updated in 2010, currently limit the definition of science and research and development for tax purposes to the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the physical and material universe. We should ensure that the ARIA Bill does not make the same mistake, and that the focus and capacity of the Bill’s provisions also explicitly include the mathematical sciences, including pure maths. Maths needs to be explicitly included as a part of scientific knowledge and research, and I very much hope that the Government accept these amendments.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for tabling Amendments 12 to 14, and those who contributed to the debate. We recognise the fundamental importance of pure and applied maths to other sciences, and as the focus of scientific inquiry in its own right. It is right that we take the opportunity to note that importance here.
The noble and gallant Lord gave a number of potent examples of the importance of mathematical contributions to scientific innovation. Much like, we hope, the projects and advances that will be supported by ARIA, breakthroughs in mathematics can lead to unexpected leaps of progress in separate fields or find application in solving intractable and seemingly unrelated problems in other areas of science. As we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who rightly reminded us, the UK has been home to many outstanding mathematicians of global significance, from Isaac Newton to Andrew Wiles.
However, I emphasise to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that the drafting of the clause that they have sought to amend follows existing powers in the Science and Technology Act 1965, and the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. It is important that it does so. Research into mathematics, including pure mathematics, has been funded in the UK using those powers for over five decades. Maths research is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—one of the research councils that make up UKRI. The EPSRC spends more than £200 million on this theme, which includes research into maths in areas from number theory to topology and artificial intelligence. It is clear that maths is included in the definition of sciences as currently included in the Bill.
The 2004 guidance referenced by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, predates the Higher Education and Research Act, which makes it clear that maths is included in the definition of science as drafted in the Bill. There is no need to particularise the interpretation through these amendments. Indeed, it would clearly be undesirable to seek to list exhaustively every possible field of scientific inquiry within the Bill. Departing from the existing embedded way these powers to fund research, including in mathematics, are drawn would be unhelpful.
ARIA’s programme managers will set ambitious programme-level goals. Although we do not often expect programme-level goals to lie within pure mathematics, it is right to highlight that ARIA might need to draw on pure and applied maths to achieve those goals, given their importance within the new fields noble Lords highlighted. It is right that ARIA may fund research in those areas.
We are confident that any activities of this nature that ARIA will seek to pursue are covered by its functions, and that the results of scientific research will encompass the results of mathematical inquiry that might be needed by ARIA. ARIA’s supplementary powers provide further reassurance. When exercising its functions, such as funding a programme with a specific scientific objective, ARIA’s supplementary powers allow it to do whatever is necessary in support of that. It is therefore the case that any mathematical endeavours that ARIA needed to draw on for a programme—for example, in support of a particular objective for machine learning—could be funded under its supplementary powers as well.
On that basis, although the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Viscount have raised important points, I hope they will be satisfied that there is no need for their amendments and feel able not to press them.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all those who spoke to this. Quite clearly, there is a difference of view between the Government and those of us who have spoken to them about how we should treat mathematical sciences in the present age. It is a pity that it has not been possible for the Government to agree to the amendment, but, in view of the late hour, I shall withdraw it.
Viscount Hanworth
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I fully accept that the Bill has adopted the same definition of science found in previous legislation. However, this is not a reason for continuing to accept an obtuse and damaging definition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I am sorry, but we have the same problem again. I must put the question.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 15, I will also speak to my Amendments 16 and 18 in this group. With these amendments, I am returning to the issue of governance of ARIA. We debated these or similar amendments in Committee, and I thought I would give my noble friend the Minister another chance to answer the issues that I raised.
Amendment 15 is directed at the maximum size of the ARIA board. In Committee, I explained that large boards are subject to weaknesses such as passive free-riding, dislocation and groupthink. While it is true that there is no magic formula determining the size at which boards become ineffective, studies generally agree that, once they get to 13 or 14, they do not work well.
Schedule 1 has no overall size constraint but does require a majority of non-executive directors. One way to constrain the size of the board is therefore to limit the number of potential executive directors. My Amendment 15 would limit those executive members to six, which implies a board size of 13, assuming that non-executives are appointed simply to achieve a bare majority. The current Bill would allow a board size of 15 with a full complement of seven executives.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government believed that a size of 15 was
“in line with standard practice”.—[Official Report, 17/11/21; col. GC 103.]
It might well be standard practice for public bodies that BEIS creates, but I am sure that it is not in line with any of the literature on effective boards. I would hope that BEIS, in particular, would want to be at the forefront of best practice in this area.
Amendment 18 is about the executive/non-executive balance on the board, and I full support a majority of non-executive directors. I am concerned, however, that by allowing a quorum of half the members, as paragraph 10(2) does, a quorum could be achieved with only one non-executive member. My amendment requires a majority of non-executives for all board meetings, in order to ensure that important decisions are not taken by a dominant executive cadre.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 16, would delete a power to pay pensions or gratuities to non-executive members, which I believe is drafting from another era and which keeps being repeated merely because it follows precedent. My noble friend the Minister said that the Government had no intention of using the power, but curiously then said that the Government wanted to retain it in the Bill. On the basis that the Government do not want to use the power, I hope my noble friend will now agree with me that it is time to read it its last rites.
Lastly, I will offer a comment on Amendment 17 in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I completely understand the thinking behind this amendment, but I believe we should be very wary of imposing this kind of legal straitjacket. We need ARIA to be the kind of place where high-quality people come to work. The concept of employment, which places a considerable fetter on life beyond ARIA, could well end up with exactly the wrong kind of people being attracted to work in ARIA. I agree with the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Broers, on this. I beg to move.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I just repeat a remark I made in Grand Committee in response to the noble Baroness’s speech: I think that she is expressing best practice, certainly as I understand it, on how boards should function. I reconfirm the supportive comment that I made before.
Amendment 17 stands in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for their support. My amendment is intended to address potential abuse; I just put that clearly in people’s minds to start with. It sets out to do so in this way: it specifies that those who have been employed in a department that is either supervising or sponsoring ARIA and have been directly involved as part of the team doing so should not be employed by an entity that has benefited from ARIA funding within five years of leaving the department. It also, in proposed new paragraph 8A(2), applies the same five-year exclusion to persons who have been employed in ARIA itself and who might seek employment in an entity that has benefited from ARIA. Finally, in proposed new paragraph 8A(3), it provides that a person falling under either of the two new paragraphs I mentioned shall not acquire a proprietary interest, either directly or indirectly, in intellectual property or bodies owning intellectual property that have benefited from ARIA for a period of five years.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I speak principally to support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse, to which I added my name, but having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, twice—in Committee and today—on Amendments 15, 16 and 18, I am persuaded by her simple, accessible and convincing explanation that changing the Bill in this way would be to its benefit. Hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Morse, that the amendments reflect current practice, I am even more convinced, so I have corroboration and I support them.
I have had the benefit of having had the noble Lord, Lord Morse, explain his amendment to me on a number of occasions. If I was going to be partisan about this, I could think of a lot of contemporary examples of behaviour which the existing ACOBA system has manifestly failed to deal with. Apart from anything else, recent history has damaged significantly the reputation of politics and politicians as a group, and it has bled into civil servants because of the apparent practice of senior civil servants taking positions in private industry while continuing to work in the Civil Service. I have no intention of going through all of them. I am just convinced by the argument made by the noble Lord, whom I have known for a long period, that if we do not recognise that this could become a problem, and if it does become a problem, it will seriously damage ARIA and we should protect it—at the very least by including these provisions in the Bill and indicating that Parliament decided that people who have had those experiences should not move to other positions where it looks as though they are exploiting the information that they had for their own personal gain, and therefore operating in a way that most people in the country would think unethical. If in these circumstances we do not have a narrative that says, “We in Parliament are concerned that this may happen and took the steps that we could to prevent it from happening”, we will be complicit in the damage that will inevitably be done not only to ARIA but, yet again, to those who work in the public service as officials, civil servants, Ministers or just politicians.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the expertise of noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on issues of corporate governance and, like my noble friend Lord Browne, I have enjoyed listening to her in Committee and again today. I will be interested to hear what assurances the Minister is able to give as a consequence of her amendments. I have learned a lot from her through this process and I look forward to learning more in the future.
I welcome Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Morse, whose case is no doubt bolstered by his experience over many years. It is a real joy to me that we have come to this House at more or less the same time. This is our first Bill together, and I am very pleased to add my name to his amendment.
There have long been concerns about “revolving doors” in politics—it is not something that started with this Government—but my noble friend Lord Browne was correct to observe that concern about issues such as those dealt with by Amendment 17 is growing, and frankly the Government have brought it on themselves. There is deep concern in the public mind about these issues and we shall see on Thursday what the people of North Shropshire make of it all.
I am struck by the fact that the Minister has taken the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morse—a very good amendment which we support—and has directed us to look at paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, which states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedures to be adopted for dealing with conflicts of interest.”
They may, but “may” is doing a lot of lifting there, and obviously they may not as well, so there is nothing to give us any assurance that the danger of which the noble Lord, Lord Morse, is correct to warn us could be averted by that provision. We are just not buying it. Although the Minister has, for illustrative purposes, provided a suggestion of how the regulations might look, that does not provide us any assurance whatever.
Given the Minister’s reluctance to accept any of the suggestions that we have made—none of the suggestions, from FoI to reporting, have been taken up by the Government—he is somewhat leaving ARIA exposed, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Morse, explained so well. We want this organisation to succeed, but because of the Government’s rigidity on these issues, the fear is that we are setting it up with a weakness: this lack of transparency and ability to challenge.
The Minister is kidding himself if he thinks that these issues will not be scrutinised and that some of the problems that may emerge will not somehow get out. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee will enjoy crawling all over this when it gets the opportunity to do so. We want this to work, but I am afraid that the Government’s approach is not doing ARIA any favours.
I want to hear what the Minister has to say and whether something can be done to provide us with the assurance we are looking for that ARIA will not be characterised—or mischaracterised, I hope—as some sort of secret agency. That would only cause this fascination and determination to probe into its activities to grow.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Before I start, I will deal directly with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, which I thought were a little unfair. We have responded to a number of the points she has made, and we have adopted some of her suggestions on transparency, delivery partners and regional funding. We obviously have not gone as far as she would like in some respects, but it is slightly unfair to say that we have not listened at all to many of the reasonable suggestions that have been put forward from all sides. I will come on to another suggestion that we will adopt shortly.
I start by responding to the amendments put forward my noble friend Lady Noakes. I thank her once again for her considered contributions, which, together, aim to ensure that ARIA is a well-governed and effective agency. I certainly echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about her great knowledge of corporate governance. My noble friend’s Amendment 16 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to determine a pension or gratuity for non-executive members. As I said in Committee, it is in fact not our intention to offer these for ARIA’s non-executive members. In consequence of the helpful suggestions and debates we had on that occasion, I have reflected further on the functions of ARIA and the duties and responsibilities we expect of its non-executive members, and I am pleased to be able to confirm to my noble friend that we do not see circumstances in which this power will be required. I am therefore able to say that the Government will support this amendment, and I thank my noble friend again for bringing it forward.
I turn to Amendment 15, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, who spoke about reducing the maximum possible number of executive members from five to four. The chair of the agency will have responsibility for appointing ARIA’s executive members. Following government guidance for corporate governance, we will set out the responsibilities for ARIA’s chair to review the performance of ARIA’s board and its members in the framework document. This will include evaluating the composition of the board and considering its size, diversity and balance of experience and skills. We expect that, in the initial phases of ARIA, this will tend towards a small board structure. However, I believe that it is important to retain at least some flexibility in the legislation to account for ARIA’s future needs as appropriate, and to allow for a slightly larger board if necessary.
As ARIA will be working across the public and private sectors, using a range of funding mechanisms and funding research at various stages of technological development, I do not think we should rule out a slightly larger arrangement so that ARIA can bring knowledge from a range of backgrounds and ensure that this is represented at board level. I thank my noble friend for her thoughtful remarks on groupthink; it is this diversity of thought and experience that would be the best antidote to such an outcome.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who supported the amendments that I spoke to in this group. There was a small, select bunch of us, but it was a high-quality debate.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the further helpful explanation that he has now given in relation to my Amendments 15 and 18. I should say that I am thrilled that the Government are accepting my Amendment 16. It remains only for me to say thank you and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 15.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we will all be relieved that we are on the final amendment of this Report stage.
Amendment 20 would have the effect of requiring the consent of the Secretary of State if ARIA seeks to use the powers in paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 1. These powers allow ARIA to borrow money, to acquire and dispose of land, to accept gifts, to form and participate in partnerships and joint ventures, and to form companies. I have no problem with these powers existing; they are useful techniques which are commonly used in research and development activities and scale-ups. I am, however, against public bodies taking on liabilities which are counted as public sector liabilities and which will end up being footed by taxpayers if they go wrong, without any controls. I am also wary of private sector counterparties, who may well be queuing up for a free ride on the public sector’s credit lines, knowing that they will be rewarded for success and may not have to pick up the tab for failure.
My noble friend the Minister replied to my amendment in Committee, saying that conditions would be attached to grant funding given under Clause 4 of the Bill, and that borrowing would have to meet stringent requirements set out in Managing Public Money. The Minister also said that any borrowing would have to be agreed with HM Treasury in advance. I accept that it is possible that this will work perfectly well, with ARIA agreeing to abide completely by whatever the Treasury and BEIS say. It is certainly likely to toe the line all the time that it is dependent on grant funding from BEIS.
My question to the Minister is based on a different scenario. Let us assume that BEIS has handed over the £500 million committed for this Parliament and that the Chancellor has said that there is no more money. We know that the power to wind up ARIA will kick in only after 10 years, so what does the Minister think will happen in the years between, say, 2024 and 2032, with no more grant money arriving? My guess is that borrowing money would become irresistible. Moreover, the value-for-money test in Managing Public Money will be very easy to satisfy, because the counterfactual of using public money will not exist. Complex structures that look like partnerships or joint ventures could actually be borrowing by another name—I have seen that all before.
That is why I believe it would be safer if this Bill embedded a consent requirement. A consent requirement might look rather heavy-handed at first sight, but it could easily be tempered by delegation arrangements which did not require all transactions to have to be sent to the Secretary of State for approval.
I look forward to hearing how the Government think they can keep control of an organisation which has unconstrained statutory powers once the Government have lost the lever of grant payments. If they are not certain that they can deal with all eventualities, I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that an amendment such as this one, or something similar, is needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very interesting discussion initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. At first, I thought she was suddenly getting into big state interference, but that is obviously not the case. It is curious why ARIA would need to be able to borrow money when it is being given a budget from the Government. Presumably the intention is not to give it the Government’s credit card also, because we will be underwriting the borrowing that takes place—I think. I am not quite sure on this; perhaps the Minister could explain some circumstances in which the borrowing of money would be needed and how that would be beneficial to ARIA.
On gifts, we are not quite clear what that is about. If the noble Baroness wanted to test the will of the House—I suspect that she does not want to, this evening—we would be interested in supporting that.
We really need to get some assurance from the Government, particularly on this issue of borrowing money.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Once again, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her thoughtful and constructive contributions throughout the progress of the Bill so far. However, she will be disappointed to know, I am sure, that on the substance of her Amendment 20, I am not convinced that adding a legislative requirement for the Secretary of State to approve how these supplementary powers are exercised would be beneficial to ARIA’s effective function or enhance its accountability measures that are already in place.
On ARIA’s ability to borrow money, I recognise that this has been consistently raised throughout the passage of the Bill by my noble friend. I thank her for her previous probing amendments on this matter, which prompted an important conversation on the balance between ARIA’s activities and the appropriate government oversight. As I outlined in correspondence with my noble friend, any borrowing would be contingent on ARIA complying with the rules of Managing Public Money and subject to approval by Her Majesty’s Treasury.
ARIA’s allocation and delegation letters, which the CEO of ARIA will be duty-bound to adhere to, will confirm that ARIA will be subject to, and comply with, all Managing Public Money rules that relate to borrowing. Managing Public Money sets robust conditions on borrowing, and states:
“Public sector organisations may borrow from private sector sources only if the transaction delivers better value for money for the Exchequer as a whole.”
Ensuring that ARIA’s expenditure is made in accordance with Managing Public Money guidance, except for in certain agreed circumstances, will be a condition of the budget ARIA receives from BEIS in its allocation and delegation letters from the BEIS Permanent Secretary to ARIA’s CEO.
There is an expectation of a level of faith between the Government and their arm’s-length bodies. This understanding of trust, and all of ARIA’s freedoms and powers, will be balanced with a number of core accountability principles. The CEO will be ARIA’s delegated accounting officer and will be personally accountable to Parliament for the stewardship of ARIA’s resources, decision-making and financial management. This includes the Public Accounts Select Committee, which will, I am sure, take an interest in such matters. The BEIS Permanent Secretary, as principal accounting officer, will retain an important oversight role, and has the power to make arrangements to ensure they are satisfied that ARIA’s systems are adequate and its finances soundly managed. The Permanent Secretary may intervene if ARIA is significantly off track, and in the unlikely scenario that serious concerns are raised, or there is financial mismanagement, the CEO’s delegated accounting officer authority can be revoked. I hope my noble friend is reassured that the mechanisms here are well established and robust and that they will be enforced.
Moving on to ARIA’s ability to form partnerships, I believe that adding a Secretary of State approval to ARIA’s activities in this area would significantly hinder its effective operations. In designing ARIA, we have put emphasis on the agency operating with significant autonomy from government, and with freedom from standard bureaucracy. Forming partnerships, such as providing grant funding to a project with a university or a business, will be an essential part of ARIA’s daily operations. We expect the agency to contract with, commission and collaborate with a range of different actors for each of its research projects—indeed, that will be one of its core functions.
We have designed this agency to be led and run by experts with technological vision. It is vital that these individuals are free from arduous processes so that they can act quickly, decisively, with autonomy and with clear authority. We should trust ARIA to have discretion over how it forms those partnerships, and I believe that requiring it to engage in a central government approval process for each partnership sits squarely contrary to its aims and purpose.
Moving to ARIA’s ability to form companies and to form and participate in joint ventures, my department is currently in negotiations with Her Majesty’s Treasury about the exact clearance processes ARIA will undertake for each of these transactions. The detail will be set out in ARIA’s allocation and delegation letters, the conditions of which the CEO, as accounting officer, will be duty-bound to comply with. However, I assure my noble friend that all iterations of this delegation letter will include sufficient assurances that ARIA’s internal assessment processes and capability are sufficiently robust. Given that these arrangements may need to evolve in the future, it would not be appropriate for this to be mandated at this stage in the Bill.
On ARIA’s ability to accept gifts, there are already stringent conditions on this in Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money that ARIA would need to comply with. ARIA would consult BEIS about gifts, and HMT’s approval is explicitly required for any gift over £300,000. Gifts made would be recorded in ARIA’s accounts and gifts received would be recorded in a register. These rules will also be confirmed in ARIA’s allocations and delegations letter from the BEIS Permanent Secretary.
ARIA’s power to acquire and sell land would be exercised only in compliance with the Managing Public Money guidance, which sets controls on the below-market sale of land, will compel ARIA to take professional advice when disposing of land and property assets, and will mandate ARIA to include land in its asset register.
Furthermore, introducing a blanket statutory requirement for Secretary of State approval would leave ARIA with less freedom than comparable arm’s-length bodies such as UKRI, which is able to exercise supplementary powers related to accepting gifts and the buying and selling of land without a legislated approval from the Secretary of State.
I appreciate that my noble friend has significant expertise and interest in the areas of financial management and propriety, and we welcome that. However, adding a statutory requirement here would not add value or challenge beyond what is already well established and enforced through Managing Public Money. Furthermore, as I have set out, adding the requirement to the forming of partnerships would, I believe, be genuinely detrimental to ARIA’s agile, autonomous operations, which I know my noble friend is keen not to prejudice.
Before I conclude on this final group of amendments, I once again thank all noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill for their excellent and constructive contributions throughout our scrutiny. ARIA provides us with enormous opportunities. I have been delighted to take the Bill through this House and engage with colleagues on all sides, who have focused on the task of providing appropriate scrutiny with enthusiasm, ability and great skill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking again the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for her support for my amendment. What the Minister has said in setting out in more detail how the various mechanisms work in the public sector to achieve de facto control over public bodies has been very useful. I hope he is right that this will work well in practice, and I completely accept his point that there has to be an element of trust and faith between BEIS and its public sector bodies. At the end of the day, this is a risk management decision on whether the balance has been set in the right place, given the particular circumstances of the public body.
I say to the Minister that I hope I shall never have to say, “I told you so”—I warn him that I have an elephantine memory. With that, it is late and time to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, that concludes proceedings on Report of this Bill. As it has been referred to as the ARIA Bill, I am tempted to suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, sees us out with a song.
Charities Bill [HL]
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Charities Act 2022 View all Charities Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 68-I Marshalled list for Report - (10 Dec 2021)
22:22 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 18 / Noes: 81 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
“(4) In section 348 (regulations subject to affirmative procedure etc)—(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) regulations under section 285(3) (power to amend period or multiplier specified);”;(b) in subsection (2), for “or (c)” substitute “, (c), (d)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the power to make regulations added by Clause 12 to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 1 in my name. As this was a Law Commission Bill, scrutinised through the Special Public Bill process, I thank the noble Lords who sat on the Special Public Bill Committee which examined it, chaired ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. It consisted of my noble friends Lord Cruddas, Lord Bellingham, Baroness Fullbrook and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Barker, and was ably assisted by our clerk, Alasdair Love. I thank them and all those who gave evidence to the committee.
Amendment 1 responds to an amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in Committee. I am grateful to him for his suggested amendment, and for the time that I have had to consider the policy behind it. The Government accept that the two thresholds in Clause 12—to vary the proportion of permanent endowment which may be borrowed, and the period over which such borrowing must be repaid—are of a different nature from the other financial thresholds contained in the Bill. Those other financial thresholds are concerned with monetary sums. They set the level at which it is appropriate for trustees to make their decision independently, or for the Charity Commission to oversee that decision. We maintain that in relation to the powers to vary those financial thresholds, and thus change where that balance is to be struck, the negative resolution procedure provides a proportionate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
However, Clause 12 does not indicate where regulatory intervention is required in the same way. It does not set out monetary sums. Instead, it places a percentage limit on how much a charity can borrow from its permanent endowment and specifies the period over which such borrowing must be repaid. Therefore, any variation of these thresholds has a slightly different implication. The financial thresholds elsewhere in the Bill can be adjusted to reflect changes in the value of money. By contrast, any amendment of the Clause 12 thresholds would not be about changes in the value of money.
We have carefully considered the various arguments regarding the right level of parliamentary scrutiny in relation to these powers, including the fifth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. We have been persuaded that it is appropriate for an additional level of parliamentary scrutiny to be put in place for any future changes made to the thresholds in Clause 12. Amendment 1 would therefore require any variation of the maximum proportion of permanent endowment from which a charity may borrow, and the period over which any such borrowing must be repaid, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative procedure. We consider that this amendment will help to maintain the balance between protecting donors’ funds and wishes and providing flexibility for trustees to make the best use of opportunities to fulfil their charitable purposes.
As a result of this change to Clause 12, it is also necessary to make consequential amendments to Clause 39 of the Bill. I will briefly explain these amendments. Amendment 1 inserts subsection (1)(d) into Section 348 of the Charities Act 2011 to confirm that any amendment to the delegated powers in Clause 12 is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Later in the Bill, Clause 39 makes other amendments to Section 348 of the Charities Act 2011. The Clause 12 amendment to Section 348 means that the wording in Clause 39 needs to be rearranged. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 are consequential amendments to change references to subsections in Section 348 to accommodate Amendment 1. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we support these government amendments. The Minister has explained them very clearly. I have nothing to add. He is just following up on recommendations in the fifth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
“References to the Tribunal
(1) In section 325 of the Charities Act 2011, in subsection (2), for “with the consent of the Attorney General” substitute “where the Commission has given the Attorney General 28 days’ notice of its intention to make such a reference”.(2) In section 326 of the Charities Act 2011, in subsection (1), at the end insert “provided the Attorney General has given the Commission 28 days’ notice of his or her intention to make such a reference”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment implements the Law Commission’s recommendations that the Charity Commission should not be required to obtain the consent of the Attorney General before making a reference to the Tribunal and vice versa.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late—later than any of us would wish it to be. In the famous phrase of Mr Jeremy Clarkson, it is time to put the pedal to the metal. Before I do, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for their putting their names to this amendment. The noble Baroness has tested positive for Covid and cannot be here tonight. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing her a very speedy recovery.
The only other preliminary remark I wish to make is addressed to the Minister, who has struggled mightily to find a way through this particular problem. However, I am afraid that he has been impaled—as I have—on what I can only describe as the obduracy and inflexibility of the Attorney-General’s Office. With that—to horse!
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. In view of the hour, as well as the great clarity of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in moving it, I can be brief. The Charity Commission is an expert body. It is perfectly placed to form its own view on all the matters identified in Section 325(1)(a) and (b) of the Charities Act 2011. The curiosity is that, notwithstanding that rather basic fact, Section 325(2) permits the commission to make a reference to the tribunal on these matters, or any of them, only with the consent of the Attorney-General.
I have two points. First, it seems to me rather wasteful for the Attorney-General, in effect, to have oversight—indeed control—over the decision-making of another expert body. That is especially the case here because the subject matter of Section 325 is very far removed from the traditional territory that we associate with the office of the Attorney-General—the criminal-law side of which will be familiar to all Members of your Lordships’ House. Secondly, I find it surprising that the Attorney-General should wish to retain this power at the margin of the regular diet of the office. One might imagine that the Attorney-General has many other very important matters to be thinking about, without the need to second-guess the deliberations of the commission.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I have played no part in the Bill, but, when I saw the amendment and the background to it, I thought that it was worth supporting at whatever time, as it were. I am not bothered about what time it is; if we worried about the time, we would never get any legislation done.
I am not a lawyer, and it is almost 50 years since I was a PPS in the law officers’ department. I remember that, when I went there, it was explained to me what law officers did and did not do and how they were different from other Ministers. In this case, it seems to me—again, as a non-lawyer—that the Attorney-General is operating as a supervising Minister, not a law officer. That is a completely different function.
I have not checked, but, if I remember rightly, the Charity Commission is nominally still a department. It is not some quango that is too big or a body that is of no significance; it is one of, I think, 21 non-ministerial departments. I do not know how many other regulators that we think are doing their job on behalf of the public and Parliament are actually hemmed in by this kind of power. Twice I have put forward proposals for a Select Committee on regulators, because no one looks at regulators systematically in Parliament to check that what they do is what is says on the tin and to see what the difficulties are. We wait for the odd scandal to come, and then there is a Select Committee—that is not good enough.
With this one, the fact of the matter is that the Attorney-General is not, and cannot operate as, a law officer. It is the role of a supervisor. I have been in six government departments: I know the difference between a Minister supervising an external body, developing its own policy, and coming up against the law officers. There is a difference, and in this case it is absolutely clear that the Attorney-General is not operating in the formal structure as a law officer.
If it is the Law Commission, we are used to hearing the other place say, “Oh, don’t bother about that. It’ll get nodded through. We can trust it. It’ll have done all the homework”. You do not do the time, simply because that is what the Law Commission is there to do. I cannot see any damage to it from this. This is a Law Commission Bill, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, he has used its report to construct the amendment. There has got to be a better reason. It is no good the Attorney-General hiding behind the law officer role when she is not performing that role. That bears some scrutiny, but of course we cannot do that in this place; it will require someone in the other place.
My final point is on the regulators, which we have to trust. There are a lot of regulatory bodies. The top 20 or 30 regulators look after billions of pounds of other bodies’ expenditure. Parliament delegates that role to those regulators.
The Charity Commission is a regulator; it is an awkward one, in the sense that the uniformity of charities is crazy. There are some 180,000 charities and the top 2% or so are probably dealing with half the money—there are loads of tiny charities which do not get a look in. When you get something such as the example of the Royal Albert Hall, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and which I am aware of from previous debates, you cannot ignore it. It is not right for Parliament or the regulator to ignore that—it is a failure of public duty. Therefore, the Minister will need to have better reasons than those given in the past for opposing this.
It is actually quite easy as a Minister at the Dispatch Box when you have an open and shut case such as this. I fully admit that I did it only twice in eight years when I was on that Bench in this House, but you can report back to the boss in the department: “Well, they were all against me; we were going to lose; it uses Government time; it was easier to accept the amendment because it was overwhelmingly agreed to”. You can do that, and if they are cheesed off with it, they can alter it down in the other place, because it is an open and shut case. So I invite the Minister to try it out; it can work. You can accept an amendment at the Dispatch Box on the strength of the debate and survive as a Minister, and the amendment can strengthen the Bill. That is what we are here to do.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches fully support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. When I heard the story of the Albert Hall that he outlined, there was only one thing I could say: “Land of Hope and Glory”. It seems to me that there is no justification for the way in which the Attorney-General acted in this case, without giving any proper reason. I did a bit of research to see what the published response of the Government was to the report of the Law Commission. No satisfactory reason for the need for the consent of the Attorney-General was given.
Because of the time, I will not delay your Lordships any longer, but it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, should be congratulated, not only on this amendment but on all the work that he has done in this field and the report that he brought forward.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the view of the Labour Party, the official Opposition, is that we will abstain if this amendment is put to a Division.
I heard the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. He makes a very strong case, which he has made again today. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, the traditional way that both Houses deal with Law Commission Bills is to essentially nod them through. That was, and is, the agreement between the usual channels regarding this Bill as well. However, the best that I can do for the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is to abstain, because there is merit in the underlying preceding agreement which the usual channels have had. That is the reason I take a different view from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who has expressed his support for the amendment.
We on these Benches will be abstaining. I will leave it to the Minister to make his own case.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for tabling this amendment and for outlining the case again. Before I respond to it, I certainly associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that my noble friend should be congratulated on all his work in this field. The Bill we are debating tonight is in very large part the result of his long-standing interest and considerable work in reviewing charity law.
On this issue, we have from the outset been at odds: where my noble friend sees obduracy, I see consistency. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is absolutely right: we can amend these Bills, even in the Law Commission procedure—we have just made some amendments in the previous group—but what is important is that we proceed on the basis of consensus and avoid areas of political disagreement. On this, the Government have been clear from the outset that we were not minded to accept the single recommendation from the Law Commission; and my noble friend has been equally consistent that he thought it was an important one. But we have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill our position on the role of the Attorney-General and the value placed on the Attorney-General’s oversight of references to the tribunal.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and his advice that I take this away: I have taken it away and discussed it with the Attorney-General and her office on numerous occasions through the passage of the Bill so far, and I have had some helpful discussions with my noble friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who is the chairman of the Special Public Bill Committee, and others, but our position remains as my noble friend Lord Hodgson knows it. Let me explain why that is.
Section 326 of the Charities Act 2011 provides the Attorney-General with the power to refer to the Charity Tribunal any question involving
“the operation of charity law in any respect, or … the application of charity law to a particular state of affairs.”
The Charity Commission has an equivalent power to make a reference to the tribunal where the question has arisen in connection with the exercise by the commission of any of its functions, but only with the consent of the Attorney-General under Section 325(3). These rights were considered by Parliament during the passage of the Charities Act 2006, which now appear in the consolidated 2011 Act, and it was agreed that this provision was necessary. The Attorney-General has an historic duty, on behalf of the Crown, to protect charitable interests in England and Wales. The Attorney-General’s consent for references to the charity tribunal is an important element in the system of checks and balances which should not be removed.
My noble friend says the Government have not made clear what specifically the Attorney-General’s role is. It is part of the Attorney-General’s role to assess whether a referral to the tribunal is in the interests of the public. This oversight also provides a second pair of eyes in ensuring that the costs associated with such a referral are not put on charities or on the public unnecessarily. So the Attorney-General works alongside the Charity Commission and provides a second opinion on referrals to the tribunal.
While this particular consent function is narrowly drawn, it is only one tool in a wider portfolio for performing her constitutional role as defender of charitable interests in the wider public interest. The Attorney-General’s wider role means that she has a unique perspective and is able to take into account considerations of societal issues and the wider repercussions for charities. In recent years, we have had Attorneys-General in both your Lordships’ House and another place. As such, the Attorney-General’s oversight reaches beyond charity law and regulation.
It should be remembered that the reference procedure is a unique declaratory power which enables the Charity Commission and the Attorney-General to seek rulings on what might be hypothetical questions. Outside this procedure, hypothetical questions are rarely entertained by the courts, for good reason. It is therefore right and proper that a public interest consideration is applied in the exercise of this unusual procedure. The value of the Attorney-General’s unique perspective has been recognised and commented on by the courts.
With this in mind, the Government oppose my noble friend’s Amendment 2, which would do away with the Attorney-General’s consent function altogether. We believe that by removing this mechanism completely, an important part of the Attorney-General’s oversight of charity law would be lost. So my noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say again that I am afraid we still disagree on this issue, as we did at the outset, and I would hope that he may yet withdraw his amendment.
It is important to note how rare these cases are. The Charity Commission and the Attorney-General have worked together on two references that the Attorney-General has made to the tribunal since the 2006 provisions were put in place, and there has been only one reference that the Charity Commission has sought the Attorney-General’s consent to pursue, which the Attorney-General, as my noble friend outlined, refused to give earlier this year. That is the context we find ourselves in for this debate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Is it not the case that, if the amendment were to pass, the Attorney-General would have the power to intervene at any stage in the public interest if the public interest became involved? I do not see why she has to give her consent before the reference to the tribunal can be made.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That consent function, my Lords, is something the Government consider important; it is part of the assessment of whether it is in the public interest for the reference to the tribunal to begin, with all the costs and time that it would involve. That is part of the reason why the Government cannot accept my noble friend’s amendment.
While supporting the Attorney-General’s role, we are also aware of concerns raised by noble Lords regarding the time taken for the Attorney-General to make a decision on whether to grant consent in the particular case to which my noble friend referred. His amendment is grouped with Amendment 4 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which provides that the Attorney-General must make her decision on an application for a reference to the tribunal within 60 days, otherwise consent would be deemed to be given. His amendment also requires that the Attorney-General publish a comprehensive statement explaining the reasons for any refusal of consent.
Regrettably, however, the noble and learned Lord’s amendment does not acknowledge that there may be good reasons beyond the Attorney-General’s control that require additional time in her decision-making. There may be times, for instance, when a case requires further information to be submitted, either by an individual charity or the Charity Commission, to enable the Attorney-General to make a fully informed decision. There may be mediation under way between parties involved which needs to conclude before a decision can be made, or a case could be particularly complex and require further investigation and deliberation. Given how complex these rare cases normally are, a strict 60-day time limit following which consent is automatically given would amount to the effective removal of the Attorney-General’s consent function by the back door. I have outlined the reasons why we do not agree that the consent function should be removed. Doing it in that way would also be inappropriate.
It is regrettable that a decision on whether to grant consent to a reference in the case involving the Royal Albert Hall took so long, but one complex case does not justify a change in the law. I thank once again my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his Amendment 4.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I just want to be clear about this. I fully take on board the point that it is one case, but the Attorney-General is in a different position to other Ministers. With other Ministers, we can get access to their diaries, what meetings they have had, so we can see who has lobbied them. How do we know who, if anybody, lobbied the Attorney-General during that period of nearly four years? How do we know that, with the Attorney-General being unlike other Ministers?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Attorney-General is a Member of Parliament. Previously, they have been Members of your Lordships’ House; the current Attorney-General is a Member of another place. She is therefore subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny and the methods available to Members in another place to ask her those questions. This is a reflection of her particular role, but she is not a remote person; she is a Member of Parliament who can be asked questions. She makes her view known, as she has in this case, but we do not think that this case alone should warrant a change in the law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Does the Attorney-General claim the same prevention of disclosing that there is when she gives advice to the Government for when she gives or refuses consent under this provision? If it is different, why has she not given more reasons for it in the case of the Albert Hall?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, no, I do not think that the Attorney-General claims client confidentiality in the same way. Her role overseeing charity law is part of her function as parens patriae. However, we think that it is important to maintain the consent function. As I have said, she is a Member of Parliament, so these questions could be posed to her.
The Attorney-General has set out her reasons why she does not think it would be in the public interest for reference to be made. Noble Lords may disagree with that, and they may ask her about that, but I reiterate that I do not think that one case, however long or complex it may be, should warrant a change in the law. It is for that reason that I hope my noble friend may yet withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, this has, as ever, been an interesting debate and I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner, Lord Rooker and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their support and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for the half-loaf that he offered. I am very grateful for that as well.
I do not propose to go on about this. My noble friend has talked about the oversight of charity law. I think we have seen what has been happening with the oversight of charity law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, produced quite an elegant half-loaf of a 60-day limit and a requirement to explain because the Attorney-General is performing a declaratory, not an advisory, role, which we discussed. The Attorney-General cannot even make that move to help a past Master of the Rolls with his elegant diplomatic solution.
It is late. Let us finish. If your Lordships support my amendment, you are voting for transparency, clarity and sunshine. If you vote against it, I am afraid you are voting for obscurity, obfuscation and concern that charity law may not be developing as even-handedly as it should. I have now been on this case for 10 years. I owe it to all the people who have been to talk to me, who say that this needs to be sorted out, that on this occasion I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment of Clause 12 in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment of Clause 12 in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment of Clause 12 in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes an unnecessary reference to section 226 of the Charities Act 2011.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Amendments 8 to 12 are in my name. I shall outline them as briskly as I can, and I think it makes sense for me to speak to them in reverse order.
Amendment 12 is a concessionary amendment, responding to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in Committee on 18 November. He highlighted an issue that had arisen during the Committee’s evidence-gathering: that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not offer the right to appeal Charity Commission decisions made under new Sections 280A and 67A that the Bill would insert into the Charities Act 2011. Having had time to consider the policy and implications that lay behind his amendment, I am happy now to bring forward this government amendment by way of concession.
The Government agree that appeal rights should exist in respect of Charity Commission decisions to withhold consent under new Section 280A. New Section 280A replaces existing powers under Sections 267 to 280 of the Charities Act 2011 for certain types of unincorporated charities to transfer property and alter their purposes. Two of these existing powers, under Sections 268 and 275, carry the right to appeal a Charity Commission decision to withhold consent. It is appropriate, therefore, that an appeal right is afforded to decisions under new Section 280A where Charity Commission consent is withheld. This would create an appeal right that is as close as possible to the appeal rights connected to those sections that will be repealed and replaced.
The Government acknowledge that affording the right to appeal Charity Commission decisions to withhold consent under new Section 280A, and not to extend that appeal right to cover decisions to give consent, is not exactly matched to the equivalent appeal rights given to charitable companies and charitable incorporated organisations under Sections 198 and 226 of the Charities Act 2011. It is, however, consistent with the existing appeal rights under Sections 268 and 275 of the 2011 Act.
These types of amendments that require Charity Commission consent for unincorporated charities under new Section 280A are wider than for charitable companies and charitable incorporated organisations. It is important also to note that the new power under new Section 280A is broader than the existing powers for unincorporated charities. The right to appeal Charity Commission decisions to withhold consent under new Section 280A will therefore be a slightly broader appeal right than at present. There is operational concern that any wider broadening of appeal rights to cover both the giving and withholding of consent would not be proportionate for the tribunal and the Charity Commission. In a similar vein, this concern is echoed in the suggestion to introduce what would be a completely new right to appeal Charity Commission decisions under new Section 67A, which allows trustees to apply funds from a failed or surplus fund-raising appeal for new purposes. Where those funds exceed £1,000, Charity Commission consent is required.
Decisions regarding the use of funds from a failed fundraising appeal can often involve internal disputes within a charity, and these cases are generally low-risk for the sector at large but can be contentious for individuals. There will often be one party left disgruntled with whatever decision the Charity Commission makes. Opening up new appeal rights in respect of these decisions is expected to invite a disproportionate administrative burden on the Charity Commission and the tribunal, given the types of issues usually at stake in such decisions. The context of a charity using funds from a failed appeal for different purposes is also a narrower decision to be taken by trustees and is less likely to have the same impact as a charity changing its general purposes.
Sections 280A and 67A should not, therefore, be treated in the same way. A judicial review is considered the most appropriate route to challenge a Charity Commission decision under Section 67A. Amendment 12 therefore inserts the right to appeal Charity Commission decisions under new Section 280A, where consent is withheld, into Schedule 6 to the Charities Act 2011. It does this by inserting paragraph 8(c) into Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Amendments 9, 10 and 11 shift some wording around in order to accommodate Amendment 12. Without these very minor changes, Amendment 12 would not make sense.
Finally, I speak to Amendment 8. In reviewing the Bill to draft these concessionary amendments, it was noticed that paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 refers to “Section 226” twice, unnecessarily. In the interests of avoiding using unnecessary words—which is a good lesson for this hour of night—this amendment removes those superfluous words from the Bill. This is purely a drafting change for tidying-up purposes.
I hope noble Lords will agree that this amendment and the consequential amendments which accompany it are appropriate and necessary for the reasons I have set out. I beg to move.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay at page 35, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay at page 35, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay at page 35, line 29.
“(c) after that entry insert—
“Decision of the Commission to withhold consent under section 280A(7) in relation to an amendment of the trusts of an unincorporated charity. | The persons are—(a) the charity trustees of the charity, and (b) any other person who is or may be affected by the decision. | Power to quash the decision and (if appropriate) remit the matter to the Commission.” |