House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is wonderful that the hon. Lady has returned to the theme of families; I remember the passion she showed in her time as shadow Minister for Children and Families.
The Government are investing £300 million to transform family help services in 75 local authorities. That money includes funding for family hubs, the supporting families programme and start for life services.
Tulip Siddiq
The Labour Government built more than 3,600 Sure Start centres, which provided a vital lifeline for many families throughout the country. This Government proceeded to close 1,000 Sure Start centres and then undertook a review of the early years sector that found that every parent and child should have access to early years support. Frankly, I could have told the Government that without undertaking a review. The review was published more than a year ago and I have not yet seen any plans for or details on having a family hub in every community in the country. When will the Secretary of State’s Department publish details of the family hubs in every community in the country? Or is this another instance of the Government paying lip service to the early years?
Nadhim Zahawi
What the hon. Lady omitted to say was that Sure Start was a good policy that was badly implemented under the Labour Government. They focused on bricks and mortar rather than on actually reaching and helping the families we will reach with the family hubs. We will announce very shortly the half of England’s local authorities that will have evidence-led, multi-agency family hubs that will reach exactly those families—exactly like I saw when I visited the family hub in Harlow with the Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
The Government are investing £290 million to establish a network of 21 institutes of technology throughout the country, actively targeting the areas where they are needed the most. Wave 1 has already established 12 IOTs across 50 locations, and wave 2 will add a further nine IOTs. We are getting the best of the further education sector, alongside the best of the higher education sector and the best of British employers, to deliver world-class technical education.
Peter Aldous
It is concerning that, after two waves of IOTs, a vacuum has emerged in East Anglia that places local learners at an unfair disadvantage compared with those elsewhere. I am grateful to the Minister for Higher and Further Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for the briefing that she provided to Suffolk and Norfolk MPs following the decision to reject the east of England bid; will she or my hon. Friend convene a meeting of those who prepared the bid, the two county councils and MPs to agree a strategy to fill the vacuum as quickly as possible?
Alex Burghart
As my hon. Friend noted, he had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education on this issue. I know he is a passionate advocate for education in his area and wants to see the excellent success of our IOTs replicated in his region. At this time, there are no plans to extend IOTs, but we very much keep the policy under review and want to see them go from strength to strength.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
The special educational needs and disability review will be published this month as a Green Paper for full public consultation, so that we can continue to listen. Throughout the review we have listened to hundreds of organisations—including the National Network of Parent Carer Forums, Let Us Learn Too and Special Needs Jungle—children and parents.
Paula Barker
A recent survey by the Disabled Children’s Partnership and Let Us Learn Too revealed that 60% of families with disabled children have sought mental health support because of the stresses of having to fight for basic services, while previous surveys have shown that nine in 10 disabled children are socially isolated. Given that, will the Minister outline how the Department for Education intends to use the SEND Green Paper to reduce the adversarial nature of the system and plans to improve access to mental health services for disabled children and their families?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her well-put question. She is right: we want to create a less adversarial system in which parents do not have to fight to get the rights to which their children are rightly entitled. We want the best outcomes for all children with SEND in this country. The hon. Lady will have to wait only a handful more days for us to publish the review.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that, from September, up to 3,000 new places are being created for children with special educational needs and disability through 35 new special free schools?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Through the spending review and the record £2.6 billion of investment in special school places, that will be delivered.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
We have delivered more than 1.9 million devices to schools, colleges and local authorities for disadvantaged pupils, as part of a £520 million investment during the pandemic. We have also partnered with the UK’s leading mobile operators to provide free data to help more than 33,000 disadvantaged children get online, and we have delivered more than 100,000 4G wireless routers for pupils without connections at home.
Siobhain McDonagh
When schools closed, the move to remote learning highlighted the digital divide in our society. Schools such as the outstanding Ursuline High School were already at the forefront of technology, giving every pupil a tablet and offering six lessons a day from home right from the start, but others did not have the kit required. For those still on the wrong side of the digital divide, every click widens the attainment gap. Aside from the emergency lockdown devices, what support is being offered to equip schools with the skills, time and kit to ensure that no child is left behind in our technological world?
Mr Walker
Let me join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work that the Ursuline academy did during lockdown. It is very important that schools reached out and provided the help where they could. It is important to recognise that the 1.9 million devices that were provided by the Department during the course of the pandemic were on top of around 2.9 million devices already with schools, so the kit is out there to do this. We will continue to work with colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that disadvantaged households get the technology that they need.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Education Secretary has announced that his Department will repurpose the Oak National Academy to provide UK-wide online learning. Families facing the Tory cost of living crisis need a guarantee that data used to support learning will not add to their spiralling household bills. Ofcom’s recent affordability report found that 1.1 million households are struggling to afford broadband. With more schools delivering learning via digital means, can the Minister set out whether he intends to keep these services zero-rated indefinitely?
Mr Walker
I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed our announcement this morning on Oak. We think it is a valuable tool that will support exemplification as well as delivering online support to pupils and students. With regard to zero-rating, we welcome the fact that that is continuing and we will continue to work closely with colleagues at DCMS to see how that can be supported over the longer term.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
I recently met my hon. Friend, who has been a persistent champion of his local school. The Department provides funding annually to improve school buildings and has allocated £11.3 billion since 2015, including £1.8 billion this financial year. We have also opened the next round of our school rebuilding programme, which will transform 500 schools over the next decade.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will know full well that I have been supporting the Gryphon School in Sherborne to fix its dilapidated temporary classrooms. The school has just submitted a severe needs funding request in order for us to replace those temporary classrooms. Will he review that and support the submission so that we can fix the issue?
Mr Walker
I recognise that my hon. Friend has consistently pressed the case for his old school in this Chamber and through meetings with myself and with colleagues in the Lords. The next round of our school rebuilding programme has now opened. We expect to select around 300 projects this year, and our aim is to prioritise those with the greatest condition needs. I welcome the fact that a bid has gone in from his school, demonstrating that condition need. Although I can assure him that he has done everything that he can to draw the attention of our Department to these issues, he will understand that I cannot commit to any individual school until the selection process is complete.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I cannot begin to describe how much Sale High School in my constituency needs a rebuild. There is a local financial solution on the table, which is being put at risk by Department for Education delays. Will the Minister commit to helping me bring this to a resolution today?
Mr Walker
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I just gave. Of course I am happy to make sure that the Department looks carefully at any individual bid of schools, especially where there is particular condition need. If he would like to write to me, I shall have a look at that case.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Last week I visited Derby High School in my constituency. It is a brilliant school with a fantastic senior leadership team and kids who are achieving their potential, but the structure of the building must match the ambition of each child within the school. It has been nominated for the school rebuilding programme. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me to see what this Government can do to deliver for children in Bury something that the Labour local authority is not doing?
Mr Walker
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. I understand that he has consistently championed the case of children in Bury. As I have mentioned, we have met other colleagues to discuss projects of this nature, so I am sure either I or my colleague in the Lords will be happy to meet him.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Joseph Leckie Academy has still not received the full amount that was allocated under Building Schools for the Future in 2010. Will the Minister please come and visit so that he can see the toilets, the school hall and the dining area, which are in desperate need of refurbishment?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Ashlawn School in my constituency is outstanding, with currently the longest waiting list for secondary places in Warwickshire. There is a need to renovate many of the school’s 1950s buildings but, regrettably, it does not meet the funding criteria for the school rebuilding programme. Do the Secretary of State or the Minister have any advice for Ashlawn on how it can get buildings that are comparable to the outstanding education it offers?
Mr Walker
The Department provides capital through a number of routes. There is, of course, devolved capital to local authorities and to multi-academy trusts, so my hon. Friend might want to look at what opportunities are available through that or through the condition improvement fund, in addition to the school rebuilding programme I have already discussed.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
On the subject of Department for Education delays, residents in Newcastle North are concerned that the new Great Park Academy may be unable to open on schedule next September. Original plans were for an opening in 2020, but that has now been postponed to 2023 and the school is currently in temporary accommodation on another high school’s site. We need to see progress on this urgently. I have written to the Minister and asked for a meeting to discuss the cause of the delays. After all the disruption of the past two years, we must deliver stability for our young people. Will he work with me to ensure that we can unblock what is delaying this project?
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Minister will know of Westgarth Primary School in Marske, which is in desperate need of urgent building works. May I invite him to visit Redcar and Cleveland in the near future, to meet me and the Galileo Trust to see what can be done to support the school, its pupils and its fantastic teachers?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
We are working across Government to support Ukrainian students in the United Kingdom by introducing a new humanitarian route; there will be a statement later today from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on that. It will provide them with an opportunity to extend their leave to remain or switch to graduate visas. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is leading on work to ensure that UK students in Ukraine are encouraged to return.
Deidre Brock
The announcement of the UK sponsorship scheme and the news that the Secretary of State just mentioned are very welcome for Ukrainian refugees. However, as they are temporary visa holders, will the families of those students be included in the Home Office’s Ukraine families scheme? Will the Secretary of State consult his ministerial colleagues on that?
Nadhim Zahawi
Those Ukrainians who are here on temporary visas will also be able to bring family members.
Steven Bonnar
Of the 2.6 million people who have fled Ukraine in the wake of the Russian invasion, UNICEF reports that at least 1 million are children. A large proportion of the 200,000-plus Ukrainian refugees who will enter the UK through the Ukrainian families scheme or the homes for Ukraine programme will be kids. What plans has the Secretary of State put in place to facilitate the integration of vulnerable Ukrainian child refugees into the UK education system?
Nadhim Zahawi
We have been working hard in the Department to ensure that we have, certainly in the initial phase, a capacity of up to 100,000 children going into early years, primary and secondary education, and into further and higher education as well.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Has my right hon. Friend seen the investigation by Theo Usherwood on LBC exposing pro-Putinist propaganda at some of our leading universities? At Leeds, Professor Ray Bush, still publicly listed on its website despite retiring, suggested that the US had chemical installations in Ukraine. That is, as we know, a lie that is being spread by the Kremlin. At Edinburgh, Professor Tim Hayward retweeted a Russian representative to the UN describing the attack on Mariupol’s hospital as “fake news”. At Leicester, Tom McCormack talks about “ludicrous disinformation” on both sides and boasts about appearing on Russia Today. Will my right hon. Friend contact these universities directly to stop them acting as useful idiots for President Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee for raising this issue. The Minister for Higher and Further Education is already on the case and is contacting those universities. Putin and his cronies are a malign influence on anyone in this country buying their false narrative. I repeat: it is a false and dangerous narrative and we will crack down on it hard.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
As a result of Putin’s war in Ukraine, the United Kingdom can expect an influx of a large number of young students. In the long term, they will need proper education, of course, but in the short term, could my right hon. Friend see whether he can build in some flexibility and normality so that these young people can get into schools and make friends as soon as possible?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that he and his family are passionate about wanting to support Ukrainians who are so vulnerable. We are making plans to make sure, as we did with the Afghan resettlement, that every child gets into the appropriate early years, primary, secondary or further or higher education, but I will certainly look at this. I think what he is getting at is that if there is a gap they may be wanting to feel welcome at their schools. I am already getting anecdotal stories about many schools where there is excitement about some of the Ukrainian children who are coming in.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In Ireland, Ukrainian teachers are being fast-tracked through the teaching registration process to enable them to support youngsters who will be attending school in Ireland. Obviously, language will be a big challenge for these youngsters initially. Has the Secretary of State considered replicating that Irish scheme to ensure that young people coming to school in the UK will be properly supported?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. That is one of the things I asked my team this morning with regard to the Ukrainians. Clearly, it will be predominantly women and children who are coming over because the men are fighting the Russian invaders. It is a question of whether we can get more recognition of qualifications so that Ukrainians who are able to can get work as soon as possible.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
The Government absolutely recognise the importance of preparing prisoners for employment upon their release. That is why we are, for the very first time, changing the law to enable serving prisoners who are close to release to start apprenticeships, helping them to retrain and upskill, and providing them with direct routes into jobs with businesses in their communities.
Alexander Stafford
Retraining prisoners is vital for rehabilitation. Does my hon. Friend expect these welcome plans for prisoner retraining to reduce reoffending, leading to a safer society for all of us? Will these plans be under way as soon as possible so that we can all start to see the benefits immediately?
Alex Burghart
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Officials in the Department for Education are working at pace with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make sure that we tear down the barriers so that people leaving prison can have had the best chance to rebuild their lives, earn money for themselves, and contribute to their communities. We expect to make progress on that this calendar year.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
Our changes mean a fairer deal for students, graduates and the taxpayer, and build on our work to drive up quality so that more young people go on to complete their education and then go on to graduate jobs, delivering real social mobility.
Margaret Ferrier
Decreasing eligibility, extending the repayment period and lowering the repayment threshold for student loans will disproportionately impact students from low-income families, and removing education opportunities will impact the trajectories of their lives and careers. What impact assessment has been undertaken on these changes from an equality perspective and how they will stifle student numbers?
Michelle Donelan
When we published our response to Augar, we also published our impact assessment in full, but at the heart of our plans is fairness, as I have said, for the taxpayer, for students and for graduates. No student will pay back more in real terms than they borrow. This is the Government delivering on our manifesto pledge to cut interest rates.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Research by the Higher Education Policy Institute shows that 70% of parents with children aged 11 to 15 want their children to go to university, but the Government do not share their ambitions. Instead, the Minister is proposing minimum entry requirements of a grade 4 in GSCE English and maths to access student finance. About 70% of pupils in England achieve a grade 4 in GSCE English and Maths, but that falls to less than half for those on free school meals. Why is the Minister prepared to sacrifice the aspirations of students and their families, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Michelle Donelan
Once again, this shows the Opposition’s obsession with targets and numbers. We want an education system that delivers for the individual, whether that means going into further education, an apprenticeship or university. We want to ensure that every young person knows that whichever option they pick, it is a high-quality option.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
We have been conducting a thorough review of the special educational needs and disabilities system, including looking at the specialist support for children and young people to help them to fulfil their potential. By the end of this month we will be publishing our findings and consulting on proposals to strengthen that system.
Dan Carden
In conjunction with the University of Liverpool law clinic, I am able to put on a weekly advice surgery for parents with children with special educational needs, and that service itself is over-subscribed. There is a real postcode lottery in provision, and we have seen demand for SEND statements and education, health and care plans soar by 480% over the past five years. Can the Minister say, particularly in terms of the shortage in the workforce and in resources, and the postcode lottery, what is the Government’s plan?
Will Quince
We know that covid-19 has impacted particularly heavily on therapy services and other support services for children and young people with SEND. I know that a number have adjusted their delivery models. We issued new guidance in September, but I am working closely with my counterpart at the Department of Health and Social Care to try to address this issue. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the SEND review, because in my view the postcode lottery and the inconsistency has to end, and with the SEND review it will.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I warmly welcome the confirmation from the Minister that the SEND review will be published this month. I am also grateful to him for the engagement we have had on how we can ensure that all children—including all dyslexic children—get the right screening and assessment so that they can get the support to be able to join in the gaining of literacy, which is so critical for success in the rest of their lives. I am grateful for his support so far, but can he reiterate that that will be central to this SEND paper?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and all the work he does in this area. It is so very important that at the heart of the SEND review, we have early identification and early support, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this important agenda.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Government’s own figures show that almost 50% of children with additional needs are waiting longer than five months for an education, health and care plan. One in five requests is refused and 95% of those decisions are overturned by the tribunal. Families fighting for support were promised that the SEND review would help, but two and a half years on, they are still waiting, while children are being systematically let down by this Government. What assurance can the Minister provide that the SEND review will deliver timely support for families and an end to fighting at tribunals?
Will Quince
First, let me say that in the next financial year, high-needs funding for children and young people with complex needs is increasing by £1 billion to more than £9.1 billion. That is an unprecedented increase of 13%, and it comes on top of the £1.5 billion increase over the past two years, but that is just the finances. Over and above the £2.6 billion we are investing in capital, the SEND review will answer many of the questions that the hon. Lady rightly poses, and she just has to wait a handful more days.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
We are committed to ensuring that all pupils can reach their potential and receive excellent support from their teachers. Our reformed initial teacher training content framework and the new early career framework, both developed with sector experts, will equip teachers with a clear understanding of the needs of children with SEND.
Kate Osborne
Research by the Education Policy Institute found that children from the most disadvantaged areas are less likely to be identified as having SEND than children from more affluent areas, with families in poorer areas facing higher thresholds to accessing support. Why is that the case and what is the Minister’s Department doing about it?
Will Quince
All teachers are teachers of SEND. We are doing a lot of work, and we will do as part of the SEND review, to ensure that teachers are equipped—but not just equipped, that they have confidence—to teach and identify special educational needs. All I would say, as I have said a few times, is that the hon. Lady should wait a handful more days for the SEND review.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government have committed to a form of local authority register for children not in school, as was detailed in the children not in school consultation response that we published on 3 February. We hope to legislate on that measure at the next available opportunity to create the duty to keep and update a register and for local authorities to provide support to home educators where they want it.
Andrew Selous
If a local authority found that illiterate home-schooling parents were unable to teach their children to read, write and add up, would it signpost them to proper adult literacy and numeracy as well as ensuring that the children could access their inalienable right to a good education?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Government guidance sets out the powers that local authorities have and the actions that they can take. He is right that the adult education budget has funding to support literacy and, with the new numeracy programme, to support numeracy. There is a role for stepping up in that space. Local authorities already have powers to specify levels of literacy and numeracy on a case-by-case basis, and having the statutory register will encourage them to use those powers.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
We have asked the Office for Students to refocus the access and participation regime on real social mobility by getting students on to courses that they complete and that lead to graduate jobs, not just getting them to the door. We have also committed up to £75 million to a national state scholarship to support high-achieving disadvantaged students.
Andrew Bowie
In the Secretary of State’s statement on the Augar review last month, he said:
“Access to higher education must be dependent on attainment and ability to succeed, and not inhibited by a student’s background.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 489.]
Will the Minister expand on how the Department will ensure that that is the case, so that we avoid the situation overseen by the Scottish Government where people from a deprived background are now less likely to enter higher education than when they took office?
Michelle Donelan
Under our Government, disadvantaged 18-year-olds in England are now 82% more likely to go to university than in 2010. We want universities to play an even greater role in improving access for those who are disadvantaged, however, so we are asking them to raise standards in schools and colleges; offer flexible and skills-based courses; tackle drop-out rates; and support students throughout university and on to graduation.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Whether we look at the national tutoring programme, which is failing to reach disadvantaged children; qualification changes that Ofqual admits will hamper progress to HE; the disparaging of university courses with higher numbers of deprived students on them; or the falling apprenticeship numbers, the truth is that this is a “Get back in your place” Government who stand as a barrier to aspiration for deprived students. Does the Minister not realise that the Government have not a shred of credibility on this subject? Their policies are the barrier to working-class aspiration, not the solution.
Michelle Donelan
It is a desperate time when we have a question such as that from the Opposition, which is not even really a question. The Government are delivering on our manifesto and enhancing quality, and have aspiration at the heart of everything we do.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I will decide whether something is in order or not, but thanks for that little lesson for me. Just to say, I do laugh when you talk about policy when the Government have been in power, so I try to balance out the political issues and objections on both sides.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is one of the most important Bills now before Parliament. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Bill to come back before the House?
Michelle Donelan
I can inform the House that the Bill will be back in due course, and we can guarantee this Government’s commitment to honour our manifesto pledge to strengthen free speech in our universities, because of how important we believe it to be.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
According to the Government’s own equality analysis of their reforms to student finance, those likely to see a negative impact, with increased lifetime repayments, include female graduates and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Male graduates and those from more privileged backgrounds will benefit more than average from the changes. Can the Minister explain why policies that will hinder social mobility and undermine equality of opportunity in higher education have been introduced?
Michelle Donelan
Fairness is at the heart of our announcement that no student will pay back more in real terms than they borrowed. It is also about rebalancing for the taxpayer, as every pound that is not paid back by a student is paid back by a taxpayer.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I was delighted to announced that the Isle of Wight will be an education investment area, which will receive a range of support to improve schools. We will boost the rate of children meeting reading, writing and maths standards by 2030, ensuring that opportunity is as equally spread as talent is in our country.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Island has made good progress in improving its education in recent years, which I am delighted about. I am very keen to get as much out of the education investment area as we possibly can, in order to drive up standards further. That ambition was evident in my recent visit, only a few days ago, to Christ the King College, where I talked to students and pupils. The Education Minister has had many invitations today, so will the Secretary of State please come to the Isle of Wight so that he can see the excellent work being done at the Isle of Wight College and at our schools?
Nadhim Zahawi
That invitation is far too tempting to turn down, so I shall make time to visit the Isle of Wight with my hon. Friend. Of course, I will be saying more about the work we are doing in the schools White Paper.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The science and geography national curriculums provide pupils with knowledge that underpins the development of green skills to help understand issues related to sustainability, climate change and resource use. Further, at COP26 the Secretary of State launched the Department’s draft sustainability and climate change strategy, which sets out key actions and commitments to enhance green skills provision across education.
Mr Sheerman
May I ask the Minister to work across parties on this issue? For a net zero economy, we need to do far more training for green skills. Too often I find that young people, at age 16, 18 or 21, do not know the pathway. When I talk to teachers in my constituency, and indeed those in early years, they all want to prepare their children for a green economy and to provide them with green skills for wonderful jobs in the green environment. Can he work a little harder and faster towards this?
Mr Walker
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. We all agree about the importance of this area. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we pursue the science, technology, engineering and maths agenda. We need to work across the education piece to ensure that we are preparing people for the jobs of the future. The strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published at COP26 is a step in that direction, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to work across parties and across the House, and in all parts of the country, to drive this agenda forward.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
We launched the independent review of children’s social care in March 2021. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform children’s social care services and systems. We will see the review’s final recommendations this spring and I look forward to responding in due course.
Scott Benton
We know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are the most influential on their health, wellbeing and opportunities throughout the rest of their lives. This is even more important in towns such as Blackpool, where health outcomes and educational attainment are already low. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the £300 million funding for the new Start for Life offer will help to address these outcomes for children and families in my constituency?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our family hubs programme is being developed in 75 local authorities, over and above the 12 in which the programme is already being rolled out, bringing together services for children of all ages and responding to the needs of the whole family. At its core is the Start for Life offer, which includes support for perinatal mental health and breastfeeding, as well parenting programmes. On top of that, there is the £200 million expansion to the Supporting Families programme. I understand that the Secretary of State is visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency in the coming weeks.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
For the first time ever, the Office for Students is setting minimum thresholds for completion and for progression rates to graduate jobs. We are also consulting on stopping the uncontrolled growth of low-quality courses.
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) suggested that it was an injustice to introduce minimum requirements for going to university, but does the Minister agree with me that the greater injustice is that one in five students feels that their course did not add any value to their career? Moreover, the reforms to interest rates will now mean that nobody will pay more than they borrow in real terms.
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From September 2023, we are reducing interest rates on student loans to the retail price index only. This, combined with the tuition fee freeze for over seven years, means that students can graduate with up to £11,500 less debt from the off.
Sir David Evennett
I fully support the idea of minimum eligibility requirements to maintain the high quality of our degrees. However, will my right hon. Friend assure me that students who do not meet those requirements will have alternative routes open and available to them, including via foundation years or college courses, that will allow them to progress subsequently to university when they are ready?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Too many young people are pushed on to courses that they are not ready for at the moment, which is why we are capping the cost of foundation years to enable more people to use this as an access route. We are also introducing the lifelong loan entitlement, which will make higher education and higher technical education much more flexible.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government are committed to ensuring that children and young people receive a balanced education. The Department has recently published new political impartiality in schools guidance, which will help support teachers in tackling sensitive issues in the classroom in a politically impartial way.
Jonathan Gullis
A minority of woke-warrior teachers think it is acceptable to push extremist nonsense on to pupils, such as white privilege, and try to cancel important historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill. However, these teachers are also aided and abetted by some trade unions, such as the Not Education Union. The failed and disgraced NEU demanded that the welfare state was reformed before approving of pupils going back to school with its ridiculous 100-point plan, and its president blames NATO instead of Vladimir Putin for the illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. Will my hon. Friend outline how we will hold politically motivated trade unions to account and prevent them from using teachers as a gateway to push their far-left agenda?
Mr Walker
I have to say that my hon. Friend always speaks out bravely from his own personal experience as a teacher, and I see that he has done so in his Telegraph article today. Pupils must form their own political views, and schools should not indoctrinate or encourage children to pin their colours to any particular political mast. The new guidance will help schools to make good decisions about working with external agencies and ensure that any engagement does not breach their legal duties.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The harrowing scenes in Ukraine have shaken the world, and it has been reported that a number of students from the UK are still trapped in Ukraine. Can the Minister please confirm whether contact has been made with those students, and what support he can provide to them?
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, that is nothing to do with the question. The problem is that supplementaries have to be linked to the question. If the hon. Lady tries again in topicals, she may just catch my eye.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The United Kingdom has a proud history of supporting refugees in their hour of need. In the last few years alone, we have committed to welcoming over 100,000 Hongkongers, 20,000 Afghans and now an unlimited number of Ukrainians, through an extended family scheme and of course the humanitarian route, for those fleeing the illegal and barbarous acts of Putin and his cronies. Work is under way across Government with charities and local authorities to ensure that people coming from Ukraine are properly supported, so that they can rebuild their lives. I know my Department is ready for this challenge because we have successfully found a school place for every Afghan child who has come here.
Gill Furniss
BTECs are a vital lifeline for hundreds of thousands of students, while A-levels and T-levels are not suitable for many because they are not able to achieve level 4. Why are the Government hellbent on cutting back on student choice, and how does that fit in with the Government’s levelling-up agenda and the aspiration for everyone?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am surprised that the hon. Lady is attacking T-levels, because they were the noble Lord Sainsbury’s idea in the first place. The important thing to remember is that this Government are committed to the ladder of opportunity for everyone, with much better choices and routes for people. This is not about getting rid of BTECs. High quality BTECs will continue, but where there is overlap, we are right to look at that.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government remain committed to delivering the free school programme, and appreciate the importance of a new secondary school in the Perranporth area. We are continuing to work with the trust and local authority, to secure the site and deliver new school places for Cornwall.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State believe that Randstad’s delivery of the national tutoring programme has been a success?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady will recall that the national tutoring programme had two pillars—academic mentors and tuition partners—and that programme is run by Randstad. By the way, last week I announced that we have hit 1 million blocks of tutoring, which I hope she welcomes. Schools tell us that those pillars are important, but also that they wanted a school-led route. That is what we did, and more than half a million tutoring blocks have been delivered that way. We must look at the tutoring programme and make those opportunities available for every child, especially those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Bridget Phillipson
I think families and school staff will find the Secretary of State’s response staggering in its complacency, given the failures that we are seeing as part of that programme. Almost two years after schools were closed to most children, and given the immense disruption to their education that they face, it should have been a national mission to support all our children to recover the learning and experiences they have lost in that time. Our children’s future, and our country’s future, depend on getting it right now. When will the Secretary of State finally get a grip?
Nadhim Zahawi
I notice that the hon. Lady did not recognise, or at least celebrate, the 1 million tutoring blocks that have been delivered, the majority of which have been delivered by brilliant teachers in our brilliant schools, because people wanted a school-led route to deliver that. That is the right thing to do. We are at 1 million blocks, we will hit 2 million this year, and we will go beyond that and hit 6 million in total—then I hope the hon. Lady will celebrate that. It is right for every child to get that opportunity, which was available only to the fortunate ones before.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend has been a champion for those who do not have the privileges that others have, and of spreading that opportunity equally. It is vital that universities work in partnership with colleges and local schools, to raise standards so that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have more options and can choose the path that is right for them. That is this Government’s absolute priority.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
We recently updated our international education strategy, and we are proud to be home to so many international students who enrich our culture in our universities and local towns. We have beaten our target many years ahead, which is testament to how dedicated we are to continue to grow our international pool of students.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Mr Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his non-invitation. Kirkby College was confirmed in the school rebuilding programme in July 2021, and the project will make a huge difference to the community. I am happy to commit to delivering it as quickly as possible. We are working closely with the incoming trust to scope the project before securing a construction partner, and we aim for construction to start in 2023.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Mr Walker
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We have consulted on the approach to be taken to assessing such schemes. As we discussed earlier, a change in condition is one factor that the Department can take into consideration in such cases, so I ask him please to write to us with more of the detail.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: essay mills denigrate the excellent work that the vast majority of students do by allowing a tiny minority to cheat. That is why, in our Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, which will soon receive Royal Assent, we are outlawing them, and we will punish everyone involved in them.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
I will certainly join the hon. Lady in those congratulations. Only last week I was with girls playing basketball. It is so important that we encourage girls in particular to take part in competitive sport. We know that there is a massive drop-off from primary to secondary. We are investing significant extra money through the pupil premium as well as £30 million of funding to open up school places after hours. I would be happy to meet her, because I know that she shares my passion in this area. Health and nutrition are really important, and we must get more people playing sport.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Some of the most rapid progress in the world is being made by schools in all countries that use information technology and artificial intelligence to support classroom tuition. Is the Department investigating how we could use that?
Nadhim Zahawi
I know that my right hon. Friend is passionate in this area. It is not about replacing great teachers; it is about enabling teachers to do their job in a much more efficient way. We are certainly looking at that; I will say more in the schools White Paper.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Michelle Donelan
I and the rest of the Government continue to encourage a meaningful dialogue, because, at the end of the day, those missing out are students, who have suffered unbelievably during the pandemic and faced challenges. The last thing they need is strikes and further disruption to their face-to-face education.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Equipping young people with the skills of the future is vital not only for green jobs, as we have heard, but for other emerging technologies. However, many such jobs will be underpinned by an understanding and appreciation of engineering. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider introducing a new design, technology and engineering course as one of the science options?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Russell Scott Primary School in Denton has been dubbed by the national media as:
“Britain’s worst built school where pupils paddle in sewage and get sick from toxic fumes.”
I raised this issue previously and Baroness Barran has now suggested a bid to the Department for Education for funding. Tameside Council is in the process of doing that, but it really should not be subject to a competitive process. I hope the bid will be looked on favourably by Ministers. It is crucial, it is levelling up, it is offering the best educational opportunities in safe buildings, is it not?
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
In Stroud and Gloucestershire, we have high numbers of home-schooled children. A lot of care is taken to look after their welfare and educate them to a high standard, and there is a really good relationship with Gloucestershire County Council. While many understand the drive for effective wellbeing and safeguarding, they are worried about the new compulsory registration scheme. Will the Minister meet me and my Stroud community, so we can learn more about the plans?
Will Quince
We very much support the right of parents to educate their children at home and we note that it can be driven by many different reasons. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we intend to legislate to ensure we have a “children not in school” register. That is something no parent who is doing the right thing should be concerned about, and, of course, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituents.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Figures provided to me recently by the Department for Education showed that on average a staggering 27% of children were not at the expected reading age when leaving primary school. That figure was pre-pandemic, so it will undoubtedly be worse now, especially in disadvantaged areas. What work is the Department doing to review primary school reading standards and will the Minister commit to the full £15 billion catch-up funding recommended by Sir Kevan Collins?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady is correct in what she says. Some 65% of pupils leave primary school with the appropriate level of reading, writing and maths, but that still leaves one third who do not. The Government’s ambition in the levelling-up White Paper is that 90% of primary school students should achieve the prerequisite level in reading, writing and maths. The £4.9 billion I am putting into recovery is beginning to really make a difference, especially the National Tutoring Programme, which has just hit 1 million courses.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
A school in Darlington is concerned about its energy contract with Gazprom. It wants to do the right thing and step away from contracts with connections to the Russian state. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the situation, which may affect many other schools across the country?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue. He will know that Gazprom is no longer on the roster of suppliers to the Government and the Department, but I am very happy to meet him about this particular case.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State spoke about the importance of a ladder of opportunity for our children. Can we also have a ladder of opportunity for black children? Many ethnic minority children do well in our school system, but for other groups, particularly black boys, the statistics show that, year on year, they underachieve academically and have disproportionately high levels of exclusion. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that group of children?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s question. The really important thing is to make sure we level up across the board. I was at Hammersmith Academy, which has 60% pupil premium and is a really ethnically mixed school, where every child is supported and stretched to be able to deliver the best they can do. That is the right thing to do and that is what we will do with the schools White Paper, which will be published imminently.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The covid inquiry terms of reference have just a tiny mention of education, suggesting that it looks at “restrictions on attendance”. That is like calling a mortuary a negative patient output. Will my right hon. Friend write to the chair of the covid inquiry and make sure that education and children are properly reflected, looking at the mental health problems and lost educational attainment of children during lockdown?
Nadhim Zahawi
The Chair of the Education Committee raises a number of important points, especially on mental health. This is not lost on this Secretary of State. The terms of reference are extremely broad, covering preparedness, the public health response and the response in the health and care sector, as well as the economic response. The restrictions on attendance at places of education are set out in the terms of reference as well. Moreover, there are other broad areas of potential relevance for education.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I have constituents whose teacher-assessed grades during the pandemic were markedly different from the grades predicted, often by the same teacher just a couple of months previously. When I complain to the school, it says I should go to Ofqual, but when I go to Ofqual, it says I should go to the school. Can we please have a clear appeal mechanism to sort out these long-running problems?
Mr Robin Walker
I would be happy to take up the issues the hon. Member raises with Ofqual, which I am due to meet later this week. It is important to reiterate that some of the challenges we have seen with TAGs are among the many reasons we think it is right that exams should go ahead. We need to move back to a proper, independently assessed system. I want to make sure that schools and colleges that have been asked to collect evidence of their students’ performance, covering the breadth of content usually seen in exams and assessments, recognise that, once they have that evidence, they are not obliged to collect any more. It is important that we have the fallback of TAGs, of course, but we do not necessarily want schools to be going out of their way to do extra work in this space.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent was delighted to become an education investment area and is seeking a new 16-to-19 specialist school, but I am still waiting for wave 15 of the free school programme to be announced so that I can bid for the long overdue free school in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. We need to improve academic outcomes and destinations. When is that coming?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Secretary of State seen the latest report from the autism commission that I co-chair, which focuses on not only autism, but the impact on the individual throughout their life and their family? Does he realise that the failure to get a statement and to get an assessment for years and years is causing so much unhappiness in those families?
Will Quince
I certainly recognise some of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman references. The special educational needs review will be published in the coming days. He may have questions following on from that. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Executions in Saudi Arabia
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Government to make a statement on the executions in Saudi Arabia this weekend.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
We are shocked by the execution of 81 individuals on 13 March. The United Kingdom strongly opposes the death penalty in all countries and in all circumstances, as a matter of principle. The UK ambassador has already raised the UK’s strong concerns with the Saudi national security adviser and the Saudi vice-Foreign Minister. We will continue to raise UK concerns with Saudi counterparts through our ministerial and diplomatic channels and seek further clarification on the details of these cases.
No aspect of our relationship with Saudi Arabia prevents us from speaking frankly about human rights. Saudi Arabia remains a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office human rights priority country, including because of the use of the death penalty, and restrictions on women’s rights, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. We regularly raise concerns with the Saudi authorities through diplomatic channels, including Ministers, our ambassador and our British embassy.
Crispin Blunt
Mr Speaker, thank you for granting this urgent question, which recognises the execution of 81 men on one day as of profound concern to this House and to our country, which has so many shared interests with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a new low for human rights and criminal justice in the kingdom, coming only a week after the Crown Prince promised to modernise the Saudi justice system? A decade ago, as a Justice Minister, I supported Government-to-Government work to help Saudi Arabia modernise its justice system, as we worked to build a strong and positive partnership with the kingdom. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that emptying death row in this way is not the kind of modernisation anyone would have had in mind when we signed off support to Saudi Arabia in happier times?
Does my right hon. Friend recognise the exquisite difficulties that this has presented to our Prime Minister? What assurances will she be seeking from Saudi Arabia in respect of human rights on her next visit there? Will she at least seek an assurance that executions of those arrested for crimes alleged to have been committed when they were children will cease? Will she make clear to the Crown Prince how appalled friends of the kingdom are, particularly in the light of the state’s assassination of Jamal Al-Khashoggi, only three years ago?
Does my right hon. Friend think that these events have been the behaviour of a friend?
Amanda Milling
The UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is of great importance, ranging from national security to economic interests, but the nature of that relationship does mean that we can speak frankly about human rights. As I said in my opening remarks, the United Kingdom strongly opposes the death penalty in all countries and in all circumstances as a matter of principle, and Saudi Arabia is well aware of the UK’s opposition to its use. We have raised these concerns with the authorities through a range of ministerial and diplomatic channels. We have also raised concerns with the Saudi authorities about the juvenile death penalty application.
The UK has always been clear about the fact that the murder of Khashoggi was a terrible crime. We condemn his killing in the strongest possible terms, which is why we sanctioned 20 Saudi nationals involved in the murder under the global human rights regime.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
We on this side of the House are appalled by, and utterly condemn, the execution of 81 Saudi men on Saturday. This massacre was the largest execution in Saudi Arabia’s history. We do not believe that the timing of the executions—while the world is focusing its attention on atrocities elsewhere—was coincidental. Referring to the killings, the Interior Ministry stated that it
“won’t hesitate to deter anyone who threatens security or disrupts public life”.
That demonstrates just how low the bar is for execution in the kingdom, where individuals can be sentenced to death for protest-related offences or for exercising their right to free speech.
This mass execution comes in a week when the Prime Minister reportedly plans to travel to Riyadh to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. We have seen what happens when human rights abuses go unchecked. I therefore ask the Minister these questions. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that human rights are at the forefront of any future trade deals with Saudi Arabia? Will the Prime Minister be expressing Parliament’s outrage at this massacre when he meets the Crown Prince? What assurances will the Government be seeking to ensure that such mass executions carried out by a friendly country never happen again?
Amanda Milling
As I have said, we were deeply shocked by the executions of the 81 individuals on 13 March. As I have also said, no aspect of our relationship with Saudi Arabia prevents us from speaking frankly about human rights, and we regularly raise our concerns about human rights with Saudi authorities through diplomatic channels, including Ministers and our ambassador, and at the embassy. Saudi Arabia remains an FCDO human rights priority country, particularly because of the use of the death penalty but also because of restrictions on women’s rights, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.
I am not going to speculate in respect of the Prime Minister’s visits.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does not this bad news reinforce the urgency of the UK producing more of its own oil and gas to reduce dependence on these powers? Could not that include onshore gas where the local community of people are willing? Would not that be speeded up if they were given a royalty?
Amanda Milling
It is important for all partners to work together to ensure that there is stability in energy markets, and OPEC also has a key role to play in this regard.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Alyn Smith.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I have a deep personal interest in Saudi Arabia. I grew up in Saudi Arabia—we spent much of the 1980s in Riyadh—and I am a friend of Saudi, with all the political issues that it has. I am glad to hear the Minister say there is a frank dialogue with the Saudis on judicial matters, but—I say this gently—it does not seem to be having much effect on the Saudis themselves. Friends speak bluntly to friends, and executing 81 people in public by beheading, whatever their alleged crime, is an atrocity and there need to be consequences beyond harsh criticism. I know the Minister will not speculate on the visit of the Prime Minister, but may I modestly suggest that she can relay the House’s concern that his visit should not go ahead and that there should be a consequence? Also, we have a programme of judicial and justice co-operation with the Saudis. Surely that has to end, or at least be suspended, given the deep concern of all in this House over each and every one of these cases.
Amanda Milling
I am afraid that, if I am going to get asked multiple times about the Prime Minister’s visit, colleagues are going to be disappointed because, as I have said, I am not going to speculate about that. As I have also said, our relationship with Saudi Arabia means that we can speak frankly about human rights matters. I have said from the outset that we were shocked by the execution of these 81 individuals and our ambassador has raised the strong concerns of the UK Government with the Saudi national security adviser and with its vice-Foreign Minister.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
What happened in Saudi Arabia was a gross violation of human rights and it places a strain on global relationships, which are crucial right now. Does the Minister agree that no country found to be complicit in human rights abuses such as those we are currently seeing in Ukraine should receive a penny of UK taxpayers’ money in international aid?
Amanda Milling
This goes back to the fundamental point that human rights violations are something that we do raise where we see them. We are not ashamed to do so and we will not stand back from raising them where they are seen to happen.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The UK Government have given the Saudi regime an estimated £20 billion in arms sales since the start of the war in Yemen, despite clear breaches of humanitarian law. It is extremely likely that British weapons have been used to kill civilians. In the light of the executions on Saturday, will the Prime Minister cancel his planned visit, and will this Government do what they should have done long ago and end arms sales to the Saudi regime?
Amanda Milling
As I have said before—I suspect I will be saying it a few times—I am not going to pre-empt the Prime Minister’s travel plans. In terms of arms exports, we take our strategic export control responsibilities very seriously and we examine every application on a case-by-case basis against strict criteria. We would not grant an export licence if we thought it was inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria, including respect for human rights and international humanitarian law.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As a boy, I witnessed two executions, one a beheading, in what is now called Yemen. I am vehemently against the death penalty. Can I ask the Minister if the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has any idea what percentage of the Saudi population is actually in favour of capital punishment?
Amanda Milling
I am afraid I do not have the answer to that specific question, but let us be really clear: the United Kingdom strongly opposes the death penalty in all countries and in all circumstances as a matter of principle.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
In 2018, the Saudi Arabian Government told the United Nations that
“if the crime committed by the juvenile is punishable by death, the sentence shall be reduced to a term of not more than 10 years detention”.
However, the following year, six young men sentenced to death for childhood crimes were executed, as was Mustafa al-Darwish in 2019, having recanted a confession that was extracted under torture. The Minister says that we can speak frankly to the Saudi Arabian Government. Will she frankly say to the House of Commons now that the promise the Saudi Arabian Government made to the United Nations that it would not execute minors for crimes committed when they were children was not made in good faith?
Amanda Milling
As I said, the Government have raised concerns with the Saudi authorities regarding the juvenile death penalty. We monitor these cases very closely, and we routinely attempt to attend the trials. In April 2020 the Saudi human rights commission announced a moratorium on discretionary death sentences for crimes committed by minors.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I strongly support the Minister’s reluctance to speculate on the Prime Minister’s travel arrangements, but does she agree that, should the Prime Minister happen to find himself in Saudi Arabia in the near future, it would be a good opportunity to say to the ruling party, in the strongest possible terms, that these events are a human rights outrage?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that I will not speculate; he understands why. Diplomats and Ministers clearly have frank conversations with Saudi Arabia about human rights. As I said at the outset, we were absolutely shocked by the executions at the weekend.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister may be shocked, but she should not be surprised, because this sort of thing has happened before. Actions speak louder than words. If the Prime Minister goes to Saudi Arabia in the next few days, we would be sending a very clear signal that, no matter what we say, we are not really bothered about this sort of thing.
It has been reported that we have a judicial co-operation memorandum of understanding with Saudi Arabia. Will the Minister commit to publishing it, along with the related human rights risk assessment made by the Government?
Amanda Milling
The key point is that, given our relationship with Saudi Arabia, we are able to have frank conversations about human rights. We are opposed to the death penalty in all countries under all circumstances. As I said, Saudi Arabia remains the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s human rights priority country, particularly because of its use of the death penalty.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Saudi Arabia has, at best, an ambiguous relationship with revolutionary Islamism. Can the Minister confirm that, in seeking to lessen our dependence on one source of oil and gas, we will not end up creating dependency on another unreliable and sometimes hostile regime?
Amanda Milling
The key point is that it is important that all international partners work together to ensure the stability of energy markets.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Mass executions are particularly grotesque and barbaric. There is no due process in the Saudi justice system, in which there is widespread use of torture, and 75% of executions are for non-lethal offences. Will the Minister specifically answer the case of Abdullah al-Huwaiti? He was a juvenile when the alleged offence was committed, and he is on death row awaiting execution. She has known about the case for months. What representations has she made to the Saudi authorities? What does she intend to do about it now?
Amanda Milling
I have been clear about our opposition to the death penalty. We have raised a number of cases with the Saudi authorities, and I will happily follow up on that particular case in writing.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Greek writer Aesop once said that a man is known by the company he keeps. That applies equally to states. This week, while the Prime Minister’s former friends in Moscow were committing atrocities in Ukraine, his existing friends in Riyadh were executing 81 people. It is obvious that the oft-repeated words of condemnation mean nothing. Is it not time that this country, rather than cosying up with such regimes, completely resets its relationship with regimes that do not share our values and that feel, because of their wealth, that they can continue to trample over basic human rights with impunity?
Amanda Milling
What I would say, actually, is that given our relationship with Saudi Arabia, we are able to have frank conversations about human rights.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm whether there is a memorandum of understanding on judicial co-operation between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia? If so, will she publish it?
Amanda Milling
As I say, I think I have set out quite clearly the various ways in which we raise human rights with the Saudi Arabian authorities.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
May I press the Minister? Does she not see any contradiction between rightly ending dependence on Putin’s Russia for fossil fuels and then seeking to replace them by going cap in hand to another murderous tyrant, who executes his own people and to whom we sell arms that are being used to kill civilians in Yemen? Is she aware of reports in the US that Saudi Arabia is pressurising President Biden to repay access to oil by supplying more military support for its war in Yemen? Can she assure us that this Government would not tolerate a “more arms for oil” deal with that murderous regime?
Amanda Milling
In terms of energy, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we are having to phase out Russian oil, which is absolutely the right thing to do. It is important that all partners work together to ensure the stability of the markets.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
There seems to be a bit of a pattern developing here. When the Deputy Prime Minister visited Saudi Arabia in June, the regime subsequently executed Mustafa al-Darwish, a child defendant convicted of protest-related offences. Now, days before the Prime Minister is due to go and speak business with the Saudi monarchy, the regime has executed 81 people. Does the Minister agree that the Saudi monarchy sees this UK Government as a soft touch—as people it can ignore—because Ministers do not possess the backbone to stand up for British values and for human rights, and the regime can therefore act with impunity and continue with its bloodshed?
Amanda Milling
As I have said on a number of occasions, it is because of our relationship with Saudi Arabia that we are able to have very, very frank conversations about human rights. We were shocked by the executions at the weekend. We do raise our concerns; the ambassador has raised concerns with the Saudi national security adviser and the Vice Foreign Minister.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Is the Saudi Arabian public investment fund a right, proper and fit-for-purpose owner of Newcastle United?
Amanda Milling
The Saudi Arabian public investment fund is a significant investor, having invested billions in the UK and other western markets. It operates across a range of sectors. We welcome the purchase of Newcastle United, a sign that the UK remains a great place to invest.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Our foreign policy, including our trade deals, must be underpinned by human rights and the rule of law. Does the Minister agree that it is arguably their absence from our current foreign policy and from our current international dealings that has led President Putin to feel that he can absolutely ignore all of that and do what he wants in Ukraine?
Amanda Milling
Let us be really clear. The international community and the UK have been absolutely clear throughout that the Russians’ invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, unjust and illegal, and we will do everything we can to limit Putin’s ability to wage war. On human rights, let us be clear: we call out human rights violations where we see them.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am puzzled as to why the Minister is so shifty about the existence of this memorandum of understanding on judicial co-operation—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say I am not comfortable with the use of the word “shifty” in the House, especially when it is a straight accusation to the Minister? Whatever we might think, I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady, with her good language from her court days, can come up with a nicer way of putting it.
Joanna Cherry
I am happy to put it more politely, Mr Speaker. I am puzzled as to why the Minister is so evasive in respect of the persistent questioning about the existence of this memorandum of understanding on judicial co-operation. If it does not exist, why does she not just say that it does not exist? If it exists, why can we not see a copy? Why can she not tell us whether there is a human rights risk assessment and publish that?
Amanda Milling
I do not know about being described as shifty, but I have been really clear about what we do as a UK Government in terms of raising human rights with the Saudi authorities. Saudi Arabia remains a human rights priority country and, as I say, Ministers and the ambassador all raise concerns about human rights.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is one thing for the morally bankrupt premier league to accept money from Saudi Arabia but it is another for the UK Government to turn around and say they welcome its investment. Our frank talking to Saudi Arabia has amounted to nothing more than diplomatic finger wagging and created no change whatsoever in Saudi Arabia’s attitude. In response to this atrocity, can we expect any change at all in the relationship between the UK and Saudi Arabia?
Amanda Milling
As I have said on a number of different occasions during this urgent question, the relationship with Saudi Arabia is of great importance and covers a range of national security and economic interests. It is because of that relationship that we are able to have frank conversations about human rights.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I am wearing the colours of my football team, Newcastle United, and it is important to say that in utterly condemning this atrocious, horrific massacre, I speak for many, many of my constituents and Newcastle United fans. Does the Minister agree that whereas football fans have no control over or influence in the ownership of their beloved clubs—especially in a premier league awash with dirty money—the UK Government have both control over and influence in who they trade with and engage with? The Minister has said what she is not going to do, but what is she going to do with that control and influence? Is she going to make it absolutely clear that sportswashing is not an option?
Amanda Milling
With regard to Newcastle United, we never had a role at any point in the club’s prospective takeover, which has been a commercial matter for the Premier League.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This is all incredibly depressing. I remember trying to ask questions in 2012, when I was shadow Minister for international human rights, about David Cameron’s visit to Saudi Arabia. The responses were like something out of “Yes Minister”: I kept being told that nothing was off the table or that a wide range of issues were discussed. It went on and on and I never got an answer, but we now hear that two years ago he went camping with Lex Greensill and the Saudi crown prince, which says a lot about what was probably discussed then.
If the Prime Minister does go to Saudi Arabia next week—I hope he does not—will he raise the case of Abdullah al-Huwaiti, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)? He was 14 years old at the time of the crime and was sentenced to death last week.
Amanda Milling
I am trying to think of another way to suggest that I will not be speculating on the Prime Minister’s travel plans this week, next week or next month.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Despite the Minister’s protestations, nobody in this Chamber believes that we would see the same weak response from the Government if the murders had taken place in, for example, Iran. Saudi Arabia is Britain’s single biggest weapons customer and Britain is Saudi Arabia’s second biggest arms supplier; is it not the case that, whether it is weapons for murderers in Saudi Arabia or peerages for Russian oligarchs in London, for this Tory Government money talks louder than human rights ever will?
Amanda Milling
I have been pretty clear that the Government were shocked by the execution of these 81 individuals at the weekend. I have also been clear that the UK opposes the death penalty in all countries and under all circumstances as a matter of principle, and Saudi Arabia is well aware of the UK’s opposition to the use of the death penalty.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Saudi authorities have said that these executions were carried out in compliance with Saudi law. Given that we know that the Saudi justice system falls far short of international standards, including obtaining confessions through torture and the use of the special criminal court for the prosecution of human rights defenders and political activists, what recent discussions have the Government actually had with the Saudi authorities about the failings of the Saudi justice system and about the cases of those who are in jail for trying to exercise their fundamental human rights?
Amanda Milling
As I have said, we regularly raise concerns about human rights, but, specifically, Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for human rights, raised them during his visit to Saudi Arabia earlier in February.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Pope Francis recently said that the death penalty is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the human person, and is inadmissible in all cases. Following on from what the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, 1.7 million Catholics live in Saudi Arabia—8% of the population. King Salman has a cordial relationship with the Church, and the Crown Prince recently visited the Archbishop of Canterbury to talk about inter-religious dialogue. What pressure can we put on civil society groups to explain to the royal family there that many of their people do not believe in the death penalty and give them an understanding as to why we do not believe in it?
Amanda Milling
The UK Government and partners do raise human rights issues and also our opposition to the death penalty. As I have said, the UK strongly opposes the death penalty. Saudi Arabia remains a human rights priority country, which is, in part, because of its use of the death penalty, but also because of its restrictions on women’s rights, freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Last week, the Minister for Defence Procurement was in Riyadh at the World Defence Show, actively promoting UK arms exports to the Saudi regime. Does the Minister agree that, in light of the weekend’s mass executions, the UK Government should cease all arms trade with a regime that shows no sign of respecting human rights?
Amanda Milling
Regarding arms exports, as I have said in an earlier answer, we do have very strong criteria by which we examine every application, and we will not grant an export licence if it is inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria, including in respect of human rights and international humanitarian law.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister has said many times now that the Government make representations and have frank discussions. Can she point to a single example of any impact or effect of those representations?
Amanda Milling
Let me provide one example in terms of what happened this weekend: the UK ambassador has already raised our strong concerns with the Saudi national security adviser and the vice-Foreign Minister. We do raise our concerns with the Saudi authorities, and Lord Ahmad raised human rights concerns during his visit last month.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
To what extent does the Minister personally think that it is appropriate to continue to sell arms to the brutal Saudi regime, which has no regard for the human rights of even its own people, publicly crucifying men after beheading them for homosexuality and stoning to death any woman deemed to have committed adultery?
Amanda Milling
I think I have answered the question in relation to arms exports on a number of occasions, so I refer back to previous answers.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights said that, in the cases that it has been able to document, the charges involved “not a drop of blood”, even under Saudi rules used to establish criteria justifying executions. Opacity in the Saudi judicial system and witness intimidation lend further secrecy to the nature of the charges against the executed, many of whom are believed to have been Shi’as. What material steps, not conversations, are the Government taking to show Saudi Arabia that they will not tolerate these barbaric abuses?
Amanda Milling
As I have said, we were shocked by the executions. We have raised our concerns and, through our ministerial and diplomatic channels, we will seek further clarification on the details of those cases.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Minister for her reply, declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and express concern over the restrictions on religious beliefs in Saudi Arabia? These executions are deplorable and they shock the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Has the Minister made any representations to her Saudi counterparts to review the rationale behind this mass execution? Can we apply any diplomatic pressure to urge a reconsideration of executions carried out in that way, which makes them appear as a spectacle rather than the murderous, sombre, sober and shocking events they truly are?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I know how passionately he campaigns on all matters of freedom of religion or belief. As I have said, the UK ambassador has raised our strong concerns about the executions at the weekend; through ministerial and diplomatic channels, we will seek further clarification on the details of those cases.
Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on our Government’s response to help those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine.
This Government and this House—indeed, everyone in the UK—continue to be in awe of the bravery of the people of Ukraine. They are victims of savage, indiscriminate, unprovoked aggression. Their courage under fire and determination to resist inspires our total admiration.
The United Kingdom stands with the Ukrainian people. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has been in the vanguard of those providing military assistance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been co-ordinating diplomatic support and, with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and Business Secretary, implementing a new and tougher than ever sanctions regime. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office have also been providing humanitarian support on the ground to Ukraine’s neighbours, helping them to cope with the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people—but more can, and must, be done.
To that end, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already expanded the family route. She has also confirmed that from tomorrow Ukrainians with passports will be able to apply for UK visas entirely online without having to visit visa application centres. As a result, the number of Ukrainians now arriving in this country is rapidly increasing and numbers will grow even faster from tomorrow.
We also know, however, that the unfailingly compassionate British public want to help further. That is why today we are answering that call with the announcement of a new sponsorship scheme, Homes for Ukraine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and officials in the Home Office, in my own Department and across Government for their work over the course of the past days and weeks to ensure that we can stand up this scheme as quickly as possible. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Richard Harrington, now Lord Harrington of Watford, whose experience in ensuring that the Syrian refugee resettlement programme was a success will prove invaluable in ensuring that we do right by the people of Ukraine.
The scheme that Lord Harrington has helped us to design draws on the enormous good will and generosity of the British public, and our proud history of supporting the vulnerable in their hour of greatest need. The scheme will allow Ukrainians with no family ties to the UK to be sponsored by individuals or organisations who can offer them a home. There will be no limit to the number of Ukrainians who can benefit from it.
The scheme will be open to all Ukrainian nationals and residents, and they will be able to live and work in the United Kingdom for up to three years. They will have full and unrestricted access to benefits, healthcare, employment and other support. Sponsors in the UK can be of any nationality, with any immigration status, provided they have at least six months’ leave to remain within the UK.
Sponsors will have to provide accommodation for a minimum of six months. In recognition of their generosity, the Government will provide a monthly payment of £350 to sponsors for each family whom they look after. These payments will be tax-free. They will not affect benefit entitlement or council tax status. Ukrainians arriving in the United Kingdom will have access to the full range of public services—doctors, schools, and full local authority support. Of course we want to minimise bureaucracy and make the process as straightforward as possible while doing everything we can to ensure the safety of all involved. Sponsors will therefore be required to undergo necessary vetting checks, and we are also streamlining processes to security-assess the status of Ukrainians who will be arriving in the United Kingdom.
From today, anyone who wishes to record their interest in sponsorship can do so on gov.uk; the webpage has gone live as I speak. We will then send any individual who registers further information setting out the next steps in this process. We will outline what is required of a sponsor and set out how sponsors can identify a named Ukrainian individual or family who can then take up each sponsorship offer. Because we want the scheme to be up and running as soon as possible, Homes for Ukraine will initially facilitate sponsorship between people with known connections, but we will rapidly expand the scheme in a phased way, with charities, churches and community groups, to ensure that many more prospective sponsors can be matched with Ukrainians who need help. We are of course also working closely with the devolved Administrations to make sure that their kind offers of help are mobilised. I know that all concerned want to play their part in supporting Ukrainians, who have been through so much, to ensure that they feel at home in the United Kingdom, and I am committed to working with everyone of good will to achieve this.
Our country has a long and proud history of supporting the most vulnerable during their darkest hour. We took in refugees fleeing Hitler’s Germany, those fleeing repression in Idi Amin’s Uganda, and those who fled the atrocities of the Balkan wars. More recently, we have offered support to those fleeing persecution in Syria, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. We are doing so again with Homes for Ukraine. We are a proud democracy. All of us in this House wish to see us defend and uphold our values, stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, and offer a safe haven to people who have been forced to flee war and persecution. The British people have already opened their hearts in so many ways. I am hopeful that many will also be ready to open their homes and help those fleeing persecution to find peace, healing and the prospect of a brighter future. That is why I commend this statement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
We were so relieved to hear that the Secretary of State was going to announce a scheme to allow Ukrainian refugees a route to safety after weeks of delay, but a press release is not a plan, and we are really deeply concerned about the lack of urgency. Yesterday, he went on TV to claim that Ukrainians could be here by Sunday, but he has just told us that they will still need a visa under the current application process. These are 50-page forms that have to be completed online, asking people who have fled with nothing to find an internet café to upload documents they do not have—water bills and mortgage documents—to prove who they are. The Home Office has been incredibly slow in issuing these visas. As of this morning, only 4,000 have been issued. We are lagging way behind the generosity of other countries. We could simplify this process today. We could keep essential checks but drop the excessive bureaucracy. He knows it; why has it not been done?
For weeks the British people have been coming forward in large numbers to offer help. It has been moving and heartwarming to see the decency and spirit on display in every corner of this country. But what exactly will the Government be doing, especially in relation to matching families to sponsors? On the Secretary of State’s tour of the TV studios, he suggested several times that people who are willing to sponsor a Ukrainian family need to come to the Government with the name of that family, and they will then rubber-stamp it. He cannot seriously be asking Ukrainian families who are fleeing Vladimir Putin, and who have left their homes with nothing, to get on to Instagram and advertise themselves in the hope that a British family might notice them. Is that genuinely the extent of this scheme? Surely there is a role for the Secretary of State in matching Ukrainian families to their sponsors, not just a DIY asylum scheme where all he does is take the credit. Will he please clarify what the Government’s role is going to be?
There has been a lack of urgency in getting people here and there is still a lack of urgency in ensuring that we support them when they do get here. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I spoke to council leaders, who stand ready and willing to help. Why has not anyone from the Secretary of State’s Department picked up the phone to them? Last week, I spoke to charities that he will ask to act as sponsors. They are acutely aware that the people who are coming will be quite unlike previous refugees.
Two million people are on the march—children alone, mums with very young kids and older people. The brutal reality of what is happening in Ukraine is that working-age people have stayed behind to fight. Those leaving will have healthcare needs, and they will need school places, maternity care and social care. One council leader told me today that his city, which traditionally plays a major role in welcoming refugees, has only nine secondary school places available. Has it not occurred to the Secretary of State until this point to pick up the phone to leaders such as the one I spoke to before he went into the TV studios and promised the earth?
These charities and council leaders are the same people who stepped up during covid. They spin gold out of thread every single day, and what is keeping them awake at night right now is how we do right by people and keep them safe. It was only a few months ago that the Home Office placed a child into a hotel in Sheffield that it had been told was unsafe without even bothering to tell the council, and he fell out of a window and died. Will the Secretary of State ensure that every council is contacted by close of play today? Will he work with them to do the vetting checks that are needed? They are experts in safeguarding children. Will he not only trust them, but support them?
Will the Secretary of State put a safety net in place, in case a placement breaks down? His Department confirmed over the weekend that families left homeless in that situation will not be able to claim their housing costs under universal credit. Surely that cannot be true. Surely we are not going to ask people who have fled bombs and bullets to lie homeless on the streets of Britain.
I suspect that the Secretary of State has felt as ashamed as I have to watch how this Government have closed the door to people who need our help. He shakes his head, but people have been turned back at Calais. They have been left freezing by the roadside with their children. We have had planes leaving neighbouring NATO countries packed to the rafters, except those to London, because this Government have turned people away. The British people who have come forward have shown that we are a far better country than our Government, but unless he gets a plan together—a real plan, not just a press release—all he is effectively announcing is plans to fail the people of Ukraine twice over. He said today that they have our total admiration, and they do, but they need more than that; they need our total support.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and what I think was her support for our scheme. She asked about the visa application process and the length and bureaucracy associated with it. As was announced last week in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, and as I repeat today, Ukrainians who have a valid passport can have their application turned around within 24 hours, but not in the way to which the hon. Lady referred, which was announced last week. It is time that, instead of manufacturing synthetic outrage, she kept up with what the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are delivering. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has already had a go.
The hon. Lady asked about matching families and sponsors. We are moving as quickly as possible to ensure, working with NGOs and local government, that individuals in need can be found the families and sponsors they need in order to get people into this country as quickly as possible. I am grateful to her for speaking to people in local government this morning; we were speaking and I was speaking to people in local government 10 days ago to ensure that this scheme was capable of being delivered.
The hon. Lady asked why we are requiring matching in the way that we are. That is because our scheme has been developed in partnership with non-governmental organisations, which have welcomed our approach. We have been doing the practical work of ensuring that refugee organisations on the ground can help to shape our response in order to help those most in need.
I know that the hon. Lady wants to help. I believe that everyone in this House wants to ensure that this scheme is successful. She makes a number of valid points about the need for school places. That is why additional funding is available to every local authority that will take refugees in order to ensure that school places are provided.
The hon. Lady asked about wraparound care. We are providing additional funding to local government to ensure that the expertise required to provide those who have been traumatised with the support they need will also be there.
The hon. Lady asked not only about the rapidity of vetting checks, but about how the comprehensive nature of those vetting checks can be guaranteed. We have been working with the Home Office to streamline that process so that it is as quick as possible, but also to ensure, as she rightly pointed out, that we do not place vulnerable children in accommodation where they might be at risk.
In all those cases, every single point that the hon. Lady made has been addressed by officials, NGOs and those in local government to ensure that our scheme works. As her questions have been answered, it now falls to her to get behind the scheme and support those open-hearted British people who want to ensure that we can do everything possible to help those in need. It is time to rise above partisan politics and recognise that this is a united effort in which our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and those in NGOs are working with the Government to put humanity first.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has generated a great deal of progress in the last few days, but he will understand that we still have a long way to go. I do not want to bore the House or you, Mr Speaker, with my experiences in France last weekend, but I learned a lot from them. We need a meet and greet system, and there are other things that we need to put in place quickly if the scheme is going to work, so I would be grateful if he or Lord Harrington of Watford could meet me today or tomorrow to ensure that we avoid some of the elephant traps that face us if we do not get it right.
Michael Gove
Over the last 10 days, my right hon. Friend has been in touch with me daily to outline offers of help from his constituents and others. He is a model constituency MP and a humanitarian. Lord Harrington of Watford will meet him tomorrow to ensure that we can operationalise those offers of help.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I, too, start by thanking people across the UK who have come forward with incredibly generous offers of accommodation and support for Ukrainians. Of course, we will do what we can to support the initiative. We regret, however, that this is only phase one; things are still not going fast enough. We will continue to argue that the best response available to the Government is to stop asking Ukrainians to apply for visas altogether. On that point, why will people accepted on to the scheme have to apply for a visa as well? Of course, some of them may be able to apply online, but an online process is not necessarily fast.
On sponsorship, we welcome the fact that people with limited leave to remain are now able to be sponsors, but when does the Secretary of State anticipate that charities, churches and community groups will be able to play their part? He explained a bit about the vetting process, but how will sponsors be supported to undertake their role? It is not just a question of cash. What happens if a sponsorship does not work out? What move-on support will be available?
On financial support, will the £350 a month be available to sponsors such as community groups as well as to individuals? Does access to public funds mean full access, including to the housing element of universal credit? Will there be £10,000 of local authority support per person as reported in the press?
What about the most vulnerable people, such as orphans, the elderly and others who will never know about the scheme’s existence, never mind how to apply to it? Can the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for example, refer someone to the scheme or for resettlement? What support would be provided in those circumstances? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish and Welsh Governments about their request to operate as super-sponsors? Will he endeavour to make that work?
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the scheme. He made the point about ensuring that we speed up all the security and visa checks as quickly as possible. As I mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already acted in that regard.
From tomorrow, anyone with a Ukrainian passport will be able to apply online. Thanks to a surge in the number of caseworkers in the Home Office, they should be able to have permission turned around and granted very quickly. A PDF will be sent straight to them and they can then fly into this country to a warm welcome. As a result, the surge of staff in our visa application centres will be able to deal with individuals who, for whatever reason, do not have a passport or the capacity to secure one quickly, which means that we will be able to more quickly process the number of Ukrainians who wish to come here. As was pointed out earlier, 4,000 visas have been granted and the numbers are due to surge this week.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that charities, churches and community groups have all stepped up. We want to ensure that we are working with all of them this week to facilitate their role, not just in matching individual sponsors and Ukrainians who might benefit but in extending the reach of the support we give so that it is not just a roof over someone’s head but the valuable interpersonal support of which so many are capable.
When I was chatting to faith groups earlier today, I had the opportunity to talk to representatives of not just the Ukrainian Churches, but the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church, including the Roman Catholic bishops in Scotland, all of whom are anxious to ensure that we do everything that we can to help. For individuals who, for whatever reason, find that a sponsorship solution does not work for them, we will ensure that the local government partners and charity partners with whom we are working receive the resource that they require. The £350 is there for individuals, but charities and community groups will have a vital role to play in helping to marshal individual offers.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about unaccompanied minors, orphans and others who need our support. We are working with those on the ground to ensure that we can have the right solution for them.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about working with the devolved Administrations. I was grateful to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales for their generous offer to act as super-sponsors, and we are doing everything we can to facilitate that. My officials are working with those in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to ensure that we can do that in a way that enables everyone to live up to their responsibilities.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He has answered many of the questions that arose over the weekend, but may I press him specifically on when he expects phase 2 to start and what work is already going on with non-governmental organisations? Those organisations make the point that they have many people who have already been checked by the Disclosure and Barring Service, but the volunteers coming forward in my constituency tend not to have been. We know that there are already backlogs in DBS checking, so can he assure me that that will be sped up?
I have a practical question about people who are planning to move home over the course of the next six months. Will they still be able to take part even if their address changes?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes three good points. We are working this week with civil society and NGOs. Indeed, Lord Harrington and I met them in order to ensure that we can expedite phase 2 as quickly as possible, and we will update the House in real time over the next few days. On the second point, about safeguarding, we are working with the Home Office. We do not believe that we need to have full DBS checks in order to ensure that someone is an appropriate sponsor. Very light-touch criminal checks will often be sufficient, and then local authorities can be supported in order to ensure that people are safe, in line with the points made by the Opposition—points that my right hon. Friend made much more sharply, of course. If people are moving house, which is something I have had to do recently, we will do everything possible to facilitate their support.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I think that it is accepted in principle there will be general support for a scheme that allows individuals to welcome refugees into their homes. In terms of detail, the Secretary of State accepted that there would be a cost to local authorities, which will be key to making this work, as I am sure he accepts. Has he agreed with the Local Government Association—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA—the costs that local authorities will get to cover education and other wraparound support services? Will those costs apply to people who come over on the community sponsorship scheme and to those on the family scheme? What about individuals who come here as family members but then cannot be accommodated in their family’s home because of the number of refugees involved? What are we going to do to accommodate those people? How is that accommodation going to be provided? What is the plan for that?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for his questions. The amount of money we are giving to local government is based on the Afghan resettlement scheme, so the amount that will be given to local authorities for early years, primary and secondary education matches exactly. Indeed, the overall local authority tariff—I hate to use the word “tariff” when we are talking about human beings—will be exactly the same. We are building on arrangements that we have with the LGA, and I have been in touch with James Jamieson, the leader of the LGA, as well as individual council leaders, to outline the level of support. Obviously, we will keep things under review to ensure that local government has what it needs.
On the second point, about people who come under the family scheme, there has always been a balance between speed and the comprehensiveness of an offer. The family scheme was introduced because we knew that it could be the speediest possible scheme, but the hon. Gentleman’s question points to a particular challenge that we have. We still have around 14,000 Afghan refugees in hotel accommodation, and we still have significant pressure on local authority accommodation and on housing overall. As we look to meet humanitarian needs, we need to be as flexible as possible, and we will be saying more about how we can mobilise other resources at the disposal of the state, local government or the private sector in order to provide additional accommodation of the kind that he mentions.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
With a three-year visa but only six months of guaranteed accommodation, will people have any tenant rights? What is the back-up provision if the sponsor wants to terminate well before the end of the visa?
Michael Gove
It is our expectation that those who commit to have someone in their home for six months are undertaking quite a significant commitment, but it is already the case that the expressions of interest suggest that there are many people who want to do exactly that. The experience of previous sponsorship schemes has been that those who have undertaken such a commitment have found it a wonderful thing to have done, and the number of those who have dropped out or opted out has been small. However, it is the case—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right—that there may be occasions where relationships break down, and in those circumstances we will be mobilising the support of not only of central Government and local government, but of civil society, to ensure that individuals who are here can move on. The final thing I would want to say is that many of those on the frontline coming here will of course be women and children, but many of those coming here will want to work, to contribute and to be fully part of society. It is the case already that we have had offers from those in the private sector willing to provide training and jobs to people so that they can fully integrate into society for as long as they are here.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to go back to the Secretary of State’s point when he highlighted that over 14,000 Afghan refugees are still in hotels, including hotels in my constituency of Vauxhall—accommodation that, frankly, is unsuitable for people suffering long-term trauma and people fleeing war. I was not quite sure what the Secretary of State’s response was, but how is he dealing with that type of long-term, unjustifiable and unsuitable accommodation?
Michael Gove
I have enormous sympathy for the hon. Lady. One of the reasons why Lord Harrington has joined my Department and is working with the Home Office is to ensure that we can get people whom we have accepted out of hotel accommodation, which is unsuitable for the long term, and into the community, but that requires us to ensure that those local authorities receiving individuals are supported in the way they are. I would be more than happy to return to the House to outline the steps we are taking to deal with this situation, but it comes back to the essential point that the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), brought out. As we show a warm welcome to people who are fleeing persecution, we need to ensure that that welcome can be truly stable and secure. That means additional accommodation, which means moving beyond hotels and local authorities, and that is why the Homes for Ukraine scheme harnesses the kindness of civil society, but there is more that we must do, and we will update the House in due course.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome the scheme that my right hon. Friend has set out. It was Sir Nicholas Winton who said:
“If something is not impossible, then there must be a way to do it”.
May I ask my right hon. Friend if he would extend the scheme, or the imagination he has set out today, to make sure that Britain offers a refuge to and harbours Ukrainian orphans who are able to come here, and will he work with Ukraine to bring them over and make sure that these children are looked after?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically compassionate and acute point. One of the areas of greatest difficulty is helping orphans and unaccompanied children, and that is something we need to do more on, and we will.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
This is significant and welcome progress, even if I suspect it still leaves us somewhere short of our obligations under the 1951 convention. Can the Secretary of State explain how this sponsorship scheme will interact with the rights of those who are already here, perhaps under a work visa? If their circumstances change, how will they then be able to obtain the same level of protection that will be given to refugees coming here under his scheme?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the scheme we are introducing today is not perfect, but we hope to work with him and others to make sure that it is improved as it develops. One of the things we want to do is to stress that anyone who has six months’ residency in the UK can act as a sponsor, but he quite rightly draws attention to the fact that there are Ukrainians in this country—some are students, for example, and others are in a position where they do not have indefinite leave to remain—and we will seek to regularise their status. The Home Secretary and Lord Harrington are, I know, already on it.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I very much welcome the conduit for the immense generosity of the British public that my right hon. Friend has set out. However, as he has recognised, what a Ukrainian refugee needs is not just a home, but the services that go with a home and, as others have said, local authorities will be providing those. Can I ask him about the very substantial co-ordination challenges not just between his Department and the Home Office, though that is important, but between the services that are being provided to refugees who are already here from other places and the services for those who will arrive from Ukraine? The fact is that, under the scheme he has described, people will go where there is a home for them, not necessarily where there is service provision for them, and he will need to ensure, will he not, that that service provision is indeed provided?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and this is a cross-Government, and beyond Government effort. As he reminds us, we have welcomed people who have come here from Syria or Afghanistan in a compassionate fashion, but there are delivery challenges for everyone in Government that we need to work out, to ensure the right services are there. We expect, but do not predict, that many of those who will benefit in the first stages of this scheme will be people moving to areas where there are already a significant number of people of Ukrainian ancestry. Some of the social networks will help, but we must ensure that as the scheme expands, the support is there.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that the webpage to volunteer to sponsor a Ukrainian refugee has gone live, but the ITV journalist, Paul Brand, has just reported that it does not work and the site cannot be reached.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his real-time update. I am sorry if Paul Brand’s internet connection is wonky. It seems that the connection of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is superior, as she has just signed up.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement, and I have been inundated by offers from my constituents who have rooms or homes that they would like to make available. May I ask a prosaic question? One or two of my constituents have asked about set-up costs and things like cots and children’s beds. What steps will my right hon. Friend take, either through his Department or working with local authorities, to match up individuals with charities, so that that initial equipment and clothing—all the things families will need—can be arranged at the start?
Michael Gove
I know my hon. Friend has already been working with her constituents in west Berkshire to do everything possible to support those who may benefit from this scheme. The charities, church groups and others with whom I and Lord Harrington have been in conversation over the past few days are already making the sorts of connections that she has been responsible for making, to ensure that detailed practical help can be there for those who are acting so generously.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Like many, I was confused by the Secretary of State’s suggestion that sponsors could match with refugees using Twitter and Instagram. That has raised a number of safeguarding concerns, given the trauma that many of these people will have been exposed to. Will refugees have access to the specialist support they need, and how will they be protected from exploitation in the UK?
Michael Gove
They absolutely will have access to that support. Anyone who acts as a sponsor will face light-touch vetting checks initially, and subsequently will be visited by those from local government who, to be fair, and as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, are experts in safeguarding.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I very much welcome this announcement, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the Government for listening to voices from across the House who have been urging this kind of action. Let me return to local authorities, and particularly lower-tier local authorities. My council in Ashford has been active and generous in helping refugees from Syria and Afghanistan. What should such local authorities that want to help be doing today to plug themselves into the system?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend and the One Nation group of Conservative MPs helped in the development of our policy with some of the ideas that they shared with the Department. I am grateful to him and his colleagues, and to individuals across the House who played a collaborative part in that. The money that we are giving to local authorities will go to lower-tier local authorities, and I will ask my Department to ensure that in Ashford, and elsewhere, and through the good offices of the Local Government Association, local authorities know how to access the resources they need.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Government’s response to the refugee crisis so far has shamed our country and damaged our reputation abroad. Today’s announcement is a step forward, but we need to go faster than the statement suggests to make up for lost time. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the many groups that have contacted me in Sheffield over the weekend a date by which the community sponsorship route will be open?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is quite right to have a light-touch approach to vetting for those seeking security. Clearly, large numbers of the people arriving will be vulnerable—they will be women and children—and ideally they will be placed with families with connections. However, inevitably, some will be placed with others. Will he go further and explain who will do the vetting—will it be local authorities or be done nationally—to ensure that these vulnerable people are not placed with anyone who may exploit them?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. It will be a national vetting process initially, with local authorities following up. As ever—this point has been made across the House—we have to balance two things: the speed with which people can be placed and the security of the setting in which they are placed. Our light-touch approach can ensure that we are not placing vulnerable individuals with anyone with any record of criminality. Subsequent to that, of course, there will be additional checks to ensure that the quality of accommodation and the basis on which people are housed is decent and fair.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My local authority, Cyngor Gwynedd, has been inundated with warm-hearted offers of accommodation and support. It is concerned, however, that it is still being left in the dark. For instance, despite the announcement of a hotline for the public, Gwynedd Council has not yet been given a regional contact from the Government. What will the Secretary of State do to fix his scheme’s weaknesses in communications and ensure that there are no brakes from here in Westminster on Wales’s ambition to be a super-sponsor as a nation of sanctuary for Ukrainian refugees?
Michael Gove
In the conversations that I have had with the Welsh Government, they have been anxious about co-ordinating with local government in Wales and indeed civil society so that they can provide support. On the right hon. Lady’s point about the Welsh Government being a super-sponsor, I discussed exactly what can be done with Minister Jane Hutt alongside the First Minister of Scotland. If Gwynedd Council and its councillors require more information, my Department will endeavour to provide that. If she faces any challenges, I hope that she will contact me direct to ensure that her constituents are aware of how to help.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
May I first welcome the appointment of Lord Harrington of Watford to his post? Yesterday, I spent time in the peace garden in Cassiobury park with the Watford Interfaith Association, who took prayers from many faiths across the area. I know how important faith is, especially at this difficult time, so will my right hon. Friend please set out the steps that his Department is taking to work with the Ukrainian people and the religious organisations here in the UK so that we can support them spiritually as well as physically?
Michael Gove
People of all faiths and none have stepped up to demonstrate their support for those fleeing persecution. In particular, I thank representatives of Ukrainian Churches here in the United Kingdom and, in particular, Bishop Kenneth Nowakowski, who has been talking to the Minister for Levelling Up Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), in her role as Minister for faith. Thanks to his and her direct intervention, a number of Ukrainian-speaking priests were able to come into the country at an accelerated rate to ensure that we provide the pastoral care that the Ukrainian community was so keen to see.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As with previous refugee crises, the Government’s response to the Ukraine crisis has been pathetic, revealing the true extent of the callousness within their hostile environment policy. By the way, the only reason we have had such a statement, which in itself was wholly inadequate, was that the Government have been dragged here, kicking and screaming, by the Opposition, the media and the good British people, who have said, “This debacle simply doesn’t represent us. We are much better than this.”
I want to press the Secretary of State on my Slough constituent’s case. A 15-year-old Ukrainian girl is currently in Poland. She has had to leave behind the death and destruction as well as her parents and brother in Ukraine. Her only family outside Ukraine is in the UK. They have tried their level best to bring her here, but the Government have shamefully said that she is ineligible for the Ukraine family scheme because she is not considered to be a close enough relation. Instead, they prefer to leave a vulnerable child to fend for herself. What can my constituents do to bring that young girl to safety?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just before the Secretary of State answers that, the hon. Gentleman knows that his question was far too long. All we need here is questions. Everybody knows the background, and every Member who stands up does not need to explain it. Just ask the question, because we have got an awful lot to get through today, and this is very important.
Michael Gove
On the hon. Gentleman’s individual case, Home Office officials are working incredibly hard every day in Portcullis House to deal with individual surgery cases of the kind that he mentions. I urge him to visit the caseworkers there. If for any reason that is inadequate, just email me direct and we will do everything we can.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that there is more that the scheme needs to do in order to be better. It is always the case that more needs to be done at every point when we are dealing with a humanitarian tragedy. We all recognise that, but I would respectfully say to him two things. First, this country has taken in people from Syria and Afghanistan, we are taking in people from Ukraine, and it is an uncapped scheme. Secondly, while we are going to disagree politically, I have had it up to here with people trying to suggest that this country is not generous. And as for all this stuff about the hostile environment, that was invented under a Labour Home Secretary, so can we just chuck the partisan nonsense and get on with delivery?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I applaud the generosity of the scheme. It is a shame that the Opposition have been on a scavenger hunt for the negatives in a very churlish way. May I ask two practical questions? First, some people do not have accommodation free for the whole year, for example where students have gone off to university, so will there be a scheme whereby there can be shared responsibility to take on family members? Secondly, on sponsoring work placements, how will the many hospitality businesses in Worthing that want to bring in chefs go about that? It needs to be done locally, because it is no good offering a job to somebody in a restaurant in Worthing if they have been placed in a home in Sunderland.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. To provide people with the jobs and support they need, we will work with him and others who are making business offers. I am very grateful to him for the work he has already done and continues to do to help the most vulnerable who are fleeing persecution.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I have been humbled by the response of the people of Argyll and Bute who have contacted me already to offer accommodation to fleeing Ukrainian refugees. Similarly, having met the chief executive of the council on Friday, I know that it, too, stands ready to play its part, as it did magnificently when Syrian refugees found shelter in Argyll and Bute after having also fled Putin’s bombs. Under the terms of the scheme, will local authorities be allowed to be sponsors for refugees?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the welcome that local authorities and people across Scotland showed to Syrians fleeing persecution, and the willingness they are showing to help Ukrainians fleeing persecution, is great. He is absolutely right that people in Argyll and island communities have already done that. We hope to allow the Scottish Government to be a super sponsor and allow them to work with local authorities in Scotland. That is what Scottish Government Ministers have proposed to us as the best way forward, and it seems sensible to me. We just need to try to make it work.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I strongly welcome the scheme that my right hon. Friend set out, but may I urge him to ensure that safeguarding and checking measures remain proportionate? As Conservatives, we generally believe that people can make decisions for themselves. I agree that with unaccompanied children safeguarding is critical, but the state should not get in the way of the generous response of the British people. Let us ensure that the checks are proportionate to the risk. Let the British people respond in the way that they already have.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his common-sense perspective, which I completely share.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My constituency has a proud record of welcoming refugees. Of the families who require settlement here, there will be some with an adult or a child with a disability who will have specific needs and require specific support. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether specialist support will be available—his statement did not allude to that—and whether there will be additional funding for it?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I know what a passionate and effective spokesperson she is for those living with disabilities. Absolutely, we will work with local government to ensure support is there for women, children and others fleeing persecution, many of whom will be living with disabilities and will need additional support.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I know that Buckinghamshire Council stands ready to do all it can to support and give a warm welcome, with good services, to Ukrainian families coming to Buckinghamshire under the scheme. To assist it with its planning, will he confirm whether funds made available to local authorities will just be for local authority services or will councils have to have a dual function of commissioning services from the NHS, academy trusts in schools and so on?
Michael Gove
The funding we will make available will cover general local authority costs. There will be an additional supplement for education, for the early years, for primary school and for secondary schools, but we are working with Martin Tett, a great local council leader, and others to ensure that any specific additional support that may be required is tailored appropriately.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I seek some clarifications from the Secretary of State. Charities such as Refugees at Home arrange hosting of refugees following a visit from a referrer or home visitor to assess the potential placement and liaise with potential hosts. Is that the role in the scheme that he envisages for such charities? He mentioned churches, charities and community organisations. The third sector is ready to help and has always stepped up, but it is not easy when it has already given such a lot during the pandemic. Will such charities be properly supported financially to help them expand the work they do quickly?
Michael Gove
On the first point, Refugees at Home has done an amazing job in helping to support the existing sponsorship route, which, as colleagues from across the House have pointed out, although admirable is not appropriate, in its own limited way, for what we are doing now. We have been talking to charities over the past 10 days to make sure that we learn from them about what level of support may be required. If more capacity building is needed within the third sector, we stand ready to do that. But we have been working with Reset Communities and Refugees, Citizens UK, the Sanctuary Foundation, the Red Cross and others to make sure that we can support them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask for an official point of contact for a very valuable resource, the Council for At-Risk Academics, which has not only been rescuing scholars from dictatorial regimes since 1933 but co-ordinates sponsorship from a network of universities? The main danger is a disconnect between the work it can do and the new sponsorship organisation and admission organisation. May we have an official point of contact for CARA?
Michael Gove
I was able to talk to a leading academic at the University of Manchester earlier today who is working in a very similar field. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend is put in touch with an appropriate official contact in my Department, and either I or Lord Harrington will be back in touch with my right hon. Friend in the next 24 hours.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The media contribution yesterday and the statement this afternoon have spurred on optimistic aspiration for those in my constituency and across the UK who wish to help. Will the Secretary of State dedicate a hotline for parliamentarians like us who want to iron out the cracks for individuals to assist them? We have heard about Wales and Scotland, but we know that the political situation is not as fertile as we would like it to be in Northern Ireland. Is he confident that schools, hospitals and housing will be made available, knowing, as he does, that they do not rest within local government?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. I have two points to make. First, we know the political situation in Northern Ireland, but we did have an opportunity to talk to Jayne Brady of the Northern Ireland civil service in order to make sure that Northern Ireland was fully looped into this approach. Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office are committed to doing everything to help. Lord Harrington will be holding regular surgeries for Members of Parliament, from all parties, who wish to help and mobilise local resource.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The people of Stroud are extremely big-hearted and they want to help in as many ways as possible, so we really welcome this innovative scheme, which I understand is the first of its kind anywhere. This offer is, however, complex, with many moving parts. As my right hon. Friend said, many refugees coming here will be mothers and women with children, so will he confirm that he is working with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that it is ready to assist with benefits and childcare options, because we know that many of these people will want to work and the jobs are actually there?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been working incredibly energetically with her team to provide the basis for such support.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, and we are grateful to Lord Harrington for having already agreed to appear before the Home Affairs Committee on Wednesday to answer questions.
How assured is the Secretary of State about the visa requirement that is still in place for Ukrainians coming to this country? As the Home Secretary said, 90% of Ukrainians do not have a passport and will therefore have to go to the visa application centres, which have been beset with problems—not opening as often as we want them to, online systems going down, and many other problems. They have struggled to deal with the family visa system for Ukrainian people. How assured is the Secretary of State that this will work, and will be up and running soon?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. Lord Harrington and I have been seeking to assure ourselves, with our Home Office colleagues, that the system that will go live from tomorrow and will enable passport holders—although, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, that is not every Ukrainian—to secure rapidly, online, the PDF form to which I referred earlier, will allow them ease of access. It is true that, as the right hon. Lady rightly observed, there have been challenges—I will not go into all the reasons now; she knows them very well—with the operation of our visa application centres, but, as well as setting up the new centre in Arras in northern France to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred last week, we have expanded opening hours in many other centres. In particular, Warsaw and Rzeszów in Poland, which were previously not open at the weekend because of complicated Polish labour laws, are now fully open. We will update the House continually on the speed and the effectiveness with which the centres are processing applications.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I welcome this important announcement. My constituents in the Scottish Borders are desperate to help. There is a slightly different system in Scotland, with the Scottish Government taking on a super sponsor position. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that his officials and the Department will work with Scottish Borders Council and the Scottish Government to ensure that the system is seamless, that those people wanting to help are able to do so, and that families coming to this country are supported in every way possible?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. We are of course working with the Scottish Government, and the scheme that will go live this week will allow individuals anywhere in the United Kingdom to offer to act as sponsors. We have explained to the Scottish Government that we just want to crack on.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Britain and Ireland are both surrounded by water, and neither is part of Schengen, yet Ireland has taken three times as many Ukrainian refugees as Britain despite having a population 13 times smaller. Why?
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The big society is back, and it is welcome, as are the expansion of the family scheme and the new sponsorship scheme which, as my right hon. Friend will know, I was very impatient to see last week. Certainly the 1,700 of us who stood together in Winchester cathedral on Saturday with our prayers for Ukraine are very appreciative.
The phased response is sensible. We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good; we have to get this up and running. Is my right hon. Friend working to a trigger or a timeline for when the charities and the church groups can become involved?
Michael Gove
That will happen as quickly as possible, not least because of the impassioned advocacy of my hon. Friend.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Many of my constituents have expressed to me their concern that the UK is simply not doing enough to help Ukrainian refugees. This Tory Government, of course, have form. Whether we are talking about refugees from Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine, they have a tendency to introduce red tape and shy away from their moral duty.
In his answers today, the Secretary of State has repeatedly referred to a “warm welcome”—which was, of course, the name given to the scheme designed to help Afghans. We know that that scheme is not running as smoothly as it should be, and it is not necessarily a “warm welcome”. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give us that these are not empty words, and that those who are fleeing conflict will be genuinely welcomed?
Michael Gove
The good news is that the hon. Lady’s predecessor as Member of Parliament for Airdrie and Shotts—one of north Lanarkshire’s finest—is now the Minister in the Scottish Government responsible for this. I look forward to working with Neil Gray, a great man.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work to operationalise this system. It will provide a stable place of refuge rather than leaving people in hotels for too long, and I know that the people of Rutland and Melton will join me in opening their hearts and their homes. My ask is that we do all that we can to ensure that the most vulnerable people come here, because they will not always have contacts in the UK and they are the most likely to be trapped in the east. Can he reassure me that we will focus our efforts on those most in need?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes some good points. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said that we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and this scheme is not perfect, but we are trying to ensure that we can move as rapidly as possible. That is why named sponsors are being deployed; it means that we can get people into homes. Again, we know that there is pressure on other accommodation. We will be seeing and doing more in every day that comes.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I also welcome this scheme, and my constituents have been contacting me about what they can do to provide such accommodation, but can I gently remind the Secretary of State that there are still thousands of women, activists, prosecutors, judges and others in Afghanistan who are still waiting to hear from the Afghan resettlement scheme? Will this type of scheme include those people in a further roll-out?
Michael Gove
I appreciate that there is pressure on the Afghan resettlement scheme. When it was set up, it was going to involve 20,000 people this year and then be extended. We are working with our partners, and part of Lord Harrington’s new responsibilities will include ensuring not only that we get those who are currently in hotel accommodation into more settled accommodation but that we live up to our obligation to others.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Can I ask my right hon. Friend whether any consideration has been given to establishing an advance office on the Ukraine-Polish border? People could go to such an office to get advice and some help to get to the UK, possibly in combination with those extremely good non-governmental organisations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Putting them all together right on the border would really help people coming through who do not know what to do.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has a distinguished record when it comes to helping people in conflict areas. I will work with the Home Secretary to ensure that our resources on the ground are positioned appropriately.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I have spoken to senior councillors in Dundee over the last week, and the city council remains open and willing to take and accommodate Ukrainian refugees. I also heard what the Minister said about working closely with the devolved Administrations who wish to become super-sponsors. Given that the Governments of Scotland and Wales know far more than I or the Minister do about their capacity and the capacity of their local governments, why does he not simply allocate substantial numbers of Ukrainian refugees to Scotland and Wales and let them get on with the job of providing sanctuary?
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s announcement. Can he confirm that, if households are taking on a family or individual registered with a community support charity—such as the Pickwell Foundation in North Devon, which has a proven track record of providing a warm, safe and sustainable welcome to refugees—they will still receive the £350 a month?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Both my local boroughs, Lambeth and Southwark, stand ready and willing to welcome refugees from Ukraine, as they have welcomed refugees from many other parts of the world in the past, but it is really hard for them to do so if they are not formally a part of the Government’s scheme. They will inevitably be playing catch-up on who is arriving in their area and what their support needs are. Local authorities know their communities best, and by cutting them out of a formal role in the scheme, the Government will create avoidable problems and inefficiencies. Will Secretary of State think again about the vital role that local authorities have to play in making sure that refugees have the fullest possible welcome in all our communities across the UK?
Michael Gove
I do not believe that we have cut local government out of the scheme, but of course I am committed to working with Lambeth, Southwark and other local authorities to ensure that individuals who are placed with sponsors are provided with all the support that local government is capable of providing and that local government gets the resource needed from central Government.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Many older people, particularly the widowed, who live alone in larger homes with plenty of spare rooms will be keen to offer refuge to Ukrainian refugees. However, quite reasonably, they will need to be assured that it is entirely safe to do so. My right hon. Friend says the Government are streamlining the processes to security assess the status of Ukrainians arriving here. Could he give more details on those processes, please?
Michael Gove
As I mentioned earlier, in the context of the Home Secretary’s announcement last week, we want to make sure that anyone who applies, either using a Ukrainian passport or through a visa application centre, goes through basic security checks. As we know, it is a hard and difficult fact that there are malign actors in that part of eastern Europe who may wish to abuse the scheme, so we have to balance security against other considerations. The speed with which we can now turn around applications is a sign that we are prioritising compassion.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State says he hopes that many people will be ready to open their home, but it seems that, due to Home Office guidance, none of the 3,000-plus spare rooms offered to Afghan refugees by hosts across the UK has been used. That does not inspire confidence in the Ukrainian scheme, so what steps will he take to ensure that the Ukraine sponsorship scheme is more successful than the Afghan scheme and that Home Office guidance facilitates rather than blocks Ukrainian refugees from settling here in the UK?
Michael Gove
The Home Secretary and I will do everything possible to improve the operation of the scheme, in line with the hon. Lady’s points.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the urgency he has brought to this issue, but may I press him to go faster still? Hay, Brecon and Talgarth Sanctuary for Refugees in my constituency has already done a phenomenal amount of work, and it stands ready to offer homes to people in Ukraine who do not know anyone in this country, as do my many tourism and hospitality businesses. Will he direct his officials to go even faster on phase 2 of the scheme so that we get this rolled out as quickly as possible?
Michael Gove
We absolutely will, and I recognise that individuals are already making offers. I had conversations with NGOs and others today, and they will be doing their very best for anyone who is willing to allow a match to be made. It is striking how charities and civil society organisations can be much faster and nimbler than even the best Government Department in bringing people together.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Following a really successful rally yesterday in which the people of Newport West and surrounding areas demonstrated their wish to help to house Ukrainian refugees, will the Secretary of State confirm that data on arrivals via this new route will be shared with councils? After all, having access to this data would help to ensure that children’s health and education needs are met quickly.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. It is critical that we ensure data is shared in a timely fashion.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. We all recognise that, in time, people will be able to register for NHS services. However, some people will need urgent medical treatment. Will he kindly liaise with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ensure that those who need urgent healthcare get it, even though they might not have an NHS number?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care moved with amazing speed to provide support to some of the most vulnerable, and he spoke to the Ukrainian ambassador earlier today about what more the NHS might be able to do. We will absolutely act in that spirit.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Have the United Kingdom Government set a cap, either actual or notional, on how many refugees we will take from Ukraine? If so, how was it, or will it be, decided?
Michael Gove
We will do everything possible to make sure the Scottish Government are satisfied.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. On the safeguarding of vulnerable refugees, I listened very carefully to what he said about historical and ongoing safety checks. Who will do the ongoing checks on refugee safety?
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, said at the weekend that visas should not be necessary
“as they are not necessary in the European Union”.
Along with his Scottish counterpart, he has called on the UK Government to waive visa requirements. This morning, the chief executive of the Welsh Refugee Council said that the scheme is not a humanitarian response, particularly in comparison with other European countries that have accepted hundreds of thousands of people. She described the scheme as
“quite disheartening…quite shocking, frankly.”
Will the Secretary of State look again at the heartless visa requirement scheme, which is so out of touch with the people of Britain and indeed the devolved nations? Will he please put people first instead?
Michael Gove
I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels as she does. I should say that, when I was talking to representatives of the Refugee Council, one of them said as we unveiled the scheme that they took their hat off to the Government because they were so pleased with what we have done. They want us to go further and, as I acknowledged earlier, the scheme is not perfect, but we have to balance speed with breadth, comprehensiveness, safety, security and other considerations.
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, because I can update the House that, since the website went live less than an hour ago, 1,500 people have already registered through the scheme in order to provide support.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of East Devon for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I have already received countless offers of accommodation from our generous towns and villages in East Devon. Could he outline the safeguarding measures in place, both for sponsors and for refugees?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. First, we need a light-touch approach that means that, when individuals come forward, we can be certain that they do not have any record of criminality. Subsequently, local government, including the excellent council in East Devon, can visit to ensure that accommodation is right. The checks that we are placing on people coming into the country, as we touched on earlier, are there to ensure that the tiny minority of bad actors, some of whom can be particularly exploitative and malignant, are kept out so that the scheme works for those who genuinely need it.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
May I press the Secretary of State again on the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) asked: will there be a cap on the number of Ukrainians allowed into the UK? If my constituents register today for the scheme, how quickly can they expect to have Ukrainians in their house?
Michael Gove
First, there is no cap overall on the number of people who can benefit. Secondly, as I mentioned, the Scottish Government have suggested that they could act as a super-sponsor for 3,000, and we are working with them.
On the hon. Lady’s particular point, if one of her constituents registers today, that means that they can be updated. Come this Friday, they and a named Ukrainian could complete the form. As soon as the form is completed, there will be a turnaround to ensure that the security checks on both sides are safely done. That should mean, God willing, that there can be Ukrainians coming to Glasgow in just over a week’s time.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Luton welcomes refugees. We stepped up to welcome any Afghan refugees, and our community is now stepping up to support our Ukrainian residents and refugees. However, far too many families of Afghan refugees are still in hotels in Luton, and there is a great deal of pressure on our housing system. What plans and measures are in place to support families moving into longer-term housing? Will the £350-a-month scheme be considered for other refugees, which might be more culturally appropriate?
Michael Gove
There are at least two very important points there. First, of course we need to move faster to move people from hotel accommodation into more suitable long-term accommodation, but there are constraints. I am not criticising anyone; it is just that there are constraints in Luton and elsewhere. That is why we need to think about how we can find, and indeed secure, more suitable accommodation. We have done amazing work—the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), has done amazing work—in making sure that homeless people, some of whom were originally from eastern Europe, are off the streets and in secure and safe accommodation, but more must be done.
The £350 payment has been designed to support people who are offering up their own homes, but let us see how it goes and see what more we can do in future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Bryce Cunningham of Mossgiel farm in my constituency has already done a fantastic job of organising getting aid out to a Polish charity. He is interested in being a sponsor and providing employment for Ukrainian refugees, but he does not have the physical accommodation in which to put them up. Would he be able to use the £350 a month housing allowance to, say, come to a rental agreement with the local authority? Would the Secretary of State reconsider allowing local authorities and community bodies to access that £350 a month so that we can provide as much help as possible for as many refugees as possible?
Michael Gove
Although I do not know all the details of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, it seems to me that what he wants to do is wholly admirable and something that we should facilitate. I will ask my team to be in touch with the hon. Gentleman and East Ayrshire Council to make sure that they can deliver in the way required.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
May I press the Secretary of State further on the situation in respect of Northern Ireland? Will he clarify whether the registration works at the UK level or the local level? Will the matching and the vetting be done at the UK level? How will Northern Ireland Departments access resources—will there be a Barnett consequential or will they apply for a grant from the UK Government?
Michael Gove
On the first point, I believe that, unless told otherwise and unless there is any barrier—by which I mean a technical barrier, not a legal barrier—any UK citizen anywhere in the United Kingdom can act as a sponsor. On the second point, we are discussing with the devolved Administrations how we can provide additional support, because if we were to restrict it simply to a Barnett consequential and then found that, as it happened, there were many more sponsors in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom, that would not be fair on those individuals. We want to take a flexible approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Secretary of State for thoroughly answering a large number of important questions.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 6 July 2021 (Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Question agreed to.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 View all Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 14 March 2022 - (14 Mar 2022)
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 217 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
The Bill passed through the other place, where it was carefully scrutinised and amended in only one respect: to seek to retain a role for this honourable House in respect of Dissolution. The Lords amendment provided that the Prime Minister could request the sovereign exercise—the revived prerogative powers to dissolve and call Parliament—only when this House agreed the motion
“that this present Parliament will be dissolved.”
That would create an untested, hybrid system by imposing statutory arrangements on top of the prerogative system that existed prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Such statutory constraints would undermine the flexibility that for generations characterised the pre-2011 arrangements that the Government want to reinstate. With respect, the Government therefore firmly disagree with the Lords amendment.
In fact, the Government and the Opposition both committed—in their manifestos, no less—to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The Lords amendment would repeal that Act only to retain one of its fundamental flaws. That is not our wish or our intention and it does not meet the commitment that we made to the electorate.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am hugely relieved to hear the Minister say that. I have stood in every election since 1997. Only when we saw the chaos caused by a Government who did not want to continue and an Opposition who did not want the chance to face an election could we see how dreadful that old system was. We need to get rid of it, bag and baggage.
Michael Ellis
I agree with my right hon. Friend; there is of course a good reason why the 2017 to 2019 Parliament is referred to as the zombie Parliament.
I remind the House of the commitments that both parties made in 2019. The Conservatives committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that, if we dismiss Lords amendment 1 today, the courts will not have a role in fixing the dates for elections, because, surely, that is matter for us, answerable to the electors?
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend is quite right that it is not productive, and, in fact, it would not be in the interests of the judiciary themselves, for the courts to have such a role.
We committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as it had led to paralysis at a time when the country needed decisive action. In a similar vein, the Labour manifesto said that the 2011 Act
“stifled democracy and propped up weak governments.”
A vote in the Commons could create paralysis in a number of contexts, including minority Governments, coalition Governments, or where our parties, Parliament or even the nation, at some point in the future, were divided.
As a majority on the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act noted, a Commons vote would have a practical effect only where Parliament were gridlocked. The problem is that if the Government of the day had a comfortable majority, a vote would be unlikely to make any difference; it would have no meaningful effect, beyond causing unnecessary delay and expense. However, when Parliament is gridlocked, a vote could mean denying an election to a Government who were unable to function effectively. We witnessed the consequences of such a vote painfully in 2019, so let us not repeat that mistake by devising a system where those events could happen again. Lords amendment 1 is, therefore, with the greatest possible respect, without merit.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned what happens in the event of a minority Government. What would happen where the Prime Minister of a minority Government wished to call a general election, but there was the possibility of an alternative Government being formed? Would that Prime Minister be able to dissolve Parliament by prerogative in those circumstances, or would another person be given an opportunity to form a Government and a majority in the House of Commons?
Michael Ellis
I do not want to get into hypotheticals, but what I will say is that the pre-2011 position worked extremely well. There is a reason why it worked well and it was proven to have functioned correctly. We seek to go back to a proven, tried and tested system, which works in a whole variety of different circumstances, not every one of which can be easily expostulated.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my disbelief at some of the opposition to the current position, especially as we recall the chaos that led to the last general election and the frustration among the public when Parliament, in many people’s eyes, seemed to lose the respect of the population?
Michael Ellis
Good constitutional practice involves protecting the integrity of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary and, in our view, the proposals do that and this amendment would not, so I agree with what my right hon. Friend says.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I sat on the Joint Committee that reviewed the 2011 Act and we spent long, productive and interesting hours looking at it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is really unproductive to look at our future arrangements in the context of what happened in 2019, just as it is to look at them in the context of what happened in 2010? The beauty of our system must be that the constitution can flex. Those were particularly unique circumstances in 2019, and we should not let them affect what happens going forward.
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is completely right. In fact, it is difficult to expostulate all the different scenarios that may occur in future, so it is best to avoid that, but we know what worked well—the status quo ante the 2011 Act.
As I say, we have experienced the consequences of a statutory scheme and we know what happened in 2019, but the amendment is also dangerously silent on critical questions of implementation and is likely to have undesirable consequences for our constitutional system. For example, it is likely to have negative consequences for the fundamental conventions on confidence. The privilege to request that the sovereign exercise the Dissolution prerogative is an Executive function enjoyed by virtue of the ability of the Government to command the confidence of the Commons. That is the alpha and omega of everything, and should not unduly constrained by any sort of prescriptive parliamentary process that would be disruptive and unhelpful when expediency is essential.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister responded to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) by saying that he fully agreed with her excellent statement, but he is in essence doing the exact opposite. Why this paradoxical situation?
Michael Ellis
I am obviously not doing that. We are able to see where mistakes have been made and where things have gone well in the past, and we see that in the pre-2011 position—the position we are seeking to achieve and that Labour sought to achieve in its manifesto, as did my party. That tried and tested system worked well, and worked well for generations.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
May I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to “The Crown”, of which I am sure he was an avid viewer? In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is my right hon. and learned Friend familiar with the Lascelles principles, as written to The Times under the pseudonym “Senex”, and can he update the House on whether they now form part of the Cabinet manual?
Michael Ellis
The Lascelles principles are something we still respect. One of the fundamental tenets of Sir Alan Lascelles’ letter was the fact that we wished to avoid any suggestion that the sovereign be involved in politics.
The amendment, as I was saying, is silent on the issue of the negative consequences. The privilege to request that the sovereign exercise the Dissolution prerogative is an executive function that is enjoyed by virtue of the ability to command the confidence of the Commons.
We must also question how the amendment would work in practice. For example, how would the parliamentary process be sequenced and when would it apply? Would the Prime Minister be required to confirm the support of the House only when they intend to request that Parliament be dissolved before the maximum five-year term, or would it apply following a loss of confidence? There are myriad questions that the amendment would leave unanswered; as we can see, it adds undesired complexity to what is a simple proposition—a return to the status quo ante.
The Bill intends to return us to that status quo, reviving the prerogative powers for the Dissolution and the calling of Parliament and preserving the long-standing position on the non-justiciability of those powers. The amendment would undermine the entire rationale for the Bill. If it is amended as proposed, we would be entering into precisely the kind of ill-thought-through constitutional innovation that we are seeking to repeal.
The simplest and most effective route is to make express provision to revive the prerogative powers for the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, returning our country to tried and tested constitutional arrangements offering certainty around the calling of elections. The prerogative power to dissolve Parliament is the ultimate expression of humility on the part of the Executive, placing the future and power into the hands of the people.
Finally, with all due respect for the undoubted expertise and value of the House of Lords, I suggest it is not appropriate for the revising Chamber to ask the elected House to revisit questions, not least when they relate to the process and role of this House, on which this House has already definitively decided. I thank their lordships, but I hope that they will now take note of this House’s clear view. Therefore, I would welcome this House’s sending a clear signal and I urge it to vote against the amendment.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Opposition in this debate.
I listened very carefully to the case that the Minister made for his motion to remove Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. I was sad to hear it, and I think we could do better. He is right that Labour, both in our manifesto and in the two years since, has supported the principle of the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was an ill-thought-out and poorly executed piece of legislation. I gently say, though, given how strongly the Minister stressed that, that it was this Government’s piece of legislation, not ours. He cautions us against novations in this space, but that was actually a lesson for themselves, and it is not quite fair to point it in our direction.
Kevin Brennan
Does my hon. Friend think there is any possibility that a future Government, or this Government given their past record, might abuse the power to dissolve Parliament in the way that they abused the power to prorogue Parliament during that period through a disgraceful hoodwinking of Her Majesty the Queen?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. I strongly believe in the maxim that how you do one thing is how you do everything, and I believe that the same cast of characters will broadly act in the same way at every opportunity. That tends to be, as with all the pieces of legislation that I listed, that the Government see things through a very narrow political prism, and that is what we are seeing today.
Dr Julian Lewis
How is it an abuse of power and a strengthening of the Executive for the Executive to say, “We want to go to the people and let the people decide whether we should be allowed to continue in government or be chucked out”?
Alex Norris
The Lords amendment is a very modest safeguard to that in saying, “At least demonstrate that a majority of the legislature agrees with you.” It is not unreasonable to say that Parliament could be involved in the Dissolution process in the way that noble Lords have said. It is a modest hurdle. All it asks is that the Prime Minister of the day be able to command a majority, and in different scenarios.
I know that the Minister is keen to avoid hypotheticals, but we do have to think about how these powers may apply in future. In a balanced Parliament like the previous one, the amendment might mean that the Government work a little bit more broadly to secure the election. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) referred to the dreadful election of 2019. I would argue that it was the Government between 2017 and 2019 who were dreadful rather than the election itself, being a passive process. Indeed, the Minister characterised it as a zombie Government. Given that he served in that Government, I think he does himself a disservice in characterising himself in that way.
Alex Norris
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The idea that it was dreadful that a Government who did not command a majority of this House could not just always get their way—that is how the system is supposed to work, I gently suggest.
Where a Government have a clear working majority, as we have today, the amendment would insure against a capricious Prime Minister—perhaps one losing the confidence of their own Benches in the light of, in a hypothetical, significant issues of judgment or personal character—just going and throwing everything up in the air in their own interest. Indeed, there is the scenario, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, where someone else might be able to form a Government, but the individual who would be most harmed could just call an election without that being explored.
John Redwood
The point is this: why should an Opposition, when facing a minority Government who want to resolve things via an election, be able to stop an election? They either have to form a coalition of their majority and govern, which is one option, or allow the public to decide. It was outrageous that the Opposition did not allow the public to have a Government.
Alex Norris
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because the reality is that before those parties could even come together to form that possible alternative Government, the Prime Minister could be in the car and on the way to call the election, and that process would be rendered moot. I cannot support that.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Many Members may find it rather difficult to think of a scenario when we would not need to have such a vote, but if other Members have watched “The Crown”, we have seen the example—a very fictitious one—where the scriptwriters wrote the moment when the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was losing the confidence of her parliamentary party and had that fictitious meeting with the Queen. In building legislation that will last, we need to ensure that we have sufficient, adequate checks so that any Prime Minister will not abuse their position. Is the truth of the matter not that we are going back to the status quo ante? Indeed, the existence of the ouster clause that excludes the courts means that the Government are going further than that.
Alex Norris
It is definitely fair to say that there are new arrangements. That is why the Minister said the amendment would be inappropriate, but I do not think it would be. By the way, I have not seen “The Crown”; my wife and I are working our way through “Flip or Flop”, and there are 160 episodes of it, so it may take some time. In the scenario that the hon. Lady talks about, we have seen in recent history Prime Ministers who are losing the confidence of their party talking in terms of “Back me or sack me”. The reality is that the Bill, without this minor safeguard, would mean that a “Back me or sack me” moment, rather than it being won as a parliamentary process with a party’s Back Benchers, would instead play out as a party psychodrama with the general electorate. I think that would be a bad thing.
I will finish with three further quick arguments against giving the Government the power they seek, or at least not without this minor fettering suggested by the Lords. First, it comes back to a question of electoral advantage and ensuring that elections are fair. It is an age-old argument, and an issue that has launched a thousand dissertations—it was one of the major reasons for the 2011 Act—but it has become only more salient since then. Over the past 12 years, we have seen increasing restrictions on party and non-party activity, and the Elections Bill will put more in. These provisions are backdated, and that provides a significant advantage for candidates of the current governing party during the short campaign period, but the advantage grows further for parties, as the regulated period for political parties is now 365 days prior to election day. It is a heck of an advantage to know that start. The amendment would not completely get rid of that, but it would even the scales, and that is another good reason to support it.
Secondly—others colleagues have brought this up, and if I stray out of order, I know I will be told off, so I will be very quick—surely the real lesson to take from that 2019 episode is that by including a parliamentary rubber stamp on Dissolution, we remove any risk of dragging the Crown into such a decision. I think all right hon. and hon. Members would seek to avoid that, because it was an unedifying moment.
Hon. Members have mentioned the courts and the justiciability of the decisions. The Lords amendment would settle that for certain because a vote in this House would be a definitive answer. I know that the Government think that the Bill’s ouster clause will resolve all matters relating to the courts, but I say to them that we will see; I do not think it is as definitive as they say.
I urge the House to support the Lords amendment. The Minister has made a passionate exposition of his case. I gently say to Conservative Back Benchers that the Bill is obviously targeted at restricting the activities of the Opposition, but that means them too. I see some mischievous faces, including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who is an independent figure. They mean to fetter their own—[Interruption.] The Minister says otherwise, but I gently say to him that the last time that was tested with the Government, which was the first week of September 2019, 21 of your colleagues lost the Whip—
Alex Norris
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker: 21 of the Minister’s colleagues. Of course, they were rare circumstances, but it has happened again in this Parliament that when the Government face opposition from outside, they seek to shut us out, and when they find opposition inside, they seek to lock yourselves out as well.
Alex Norris
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I say to the Government that it is not a one-way street and we think that having some checks and balances in our democracy is a good thing. In that spirit, I hope that hon. Members will vote in support of the Lords amendment.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for the introduction where he described me as being cheeky faced. It will stun the Opposition and surprise the Government that I will be voting enthusiastically with the Government in the Lobby later, so clearly my re-education is having the desired effect.
I rise to speak against the Lords amendment and in favour of the Government’s motion to disagree. I view the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 not through rose-tinted spectacles as a great beacon of constitutional progress, but as a politically expedient measure that helped to secure a coalition in which the junior partner feared being unceremoniously dumped part way through an electoral term.
The lesson of the passage of this Bill thus far, and indeed of the work of the Joint Committee and of my Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, is that the genie cannot simply be put back in the bottle. I slightly disagree with the Minister, because by removing a prerogative power, the 2011 Act made it impossible to return completely to the status quo ante, hence the need for the Bill where we are codifying Dissolution for the first time. That cannot easily be argued against.
At the heart of the Lords amendment is whether the House should maintain a veto on Dissolution and the calling of an election, and I believe that it should not. It is for the monarch to dissolve the House following a request—I emphasise “a request”, unlike the early drafting of the Bill, which suggested that Her Majesty be advised to dissolve—from Her Majesty’s Government.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Why is it good enough for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly to operate on fixed terms but not this place?
Mr Wragg
The hon. Gentleman invites me to be intemperate about the difference between this House and the other Parliaments of the United Kingdom, which I will resist entirely. Places evolve through their own conventions and those Parliaments are doing exactly that. There is no need for universality; surely he would argue that the beauty of devolution is that it allows for difference. If he wanted uniformity, however, he would essentially support the United Kingdom.
The impetus for the Bill came from the logjam of the previous Parliament.
It is important to note where the impetus came for this Lords amendment, because it is a symptom of the mistrust that followed the Prorogation that never was, in 2019.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I rise to speak in favour of the Lords amendment, which would require any Government seeking to dissolve this House early and call a general election to first seek and receive the support of a simple majority of the Members of this House.
Last year, when the Bill was first introduced by the Government, it was presented as a non-controversial resetting of a mistake that David Cameron made in his attempts to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. We were told that Cameron had made a bit of a mess of things, that this Bill would simply take us back to exactly where we were prior to 2010, and that we could almost pretend that it never really happened. However, as we have heard in this place and in the Lords, that is not the case. The Bill is not about reinstating what was in place prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but rather creates a situation whereby the Executive have even greater powers and the monarch, who hitherto had prerogative powers, merely enacts the Executive’s will to dissolve Parliament.
This Lords amendment seeks to place a very minimal check on the Executive’s power by making any Dissolution of Parliament a decision that has to have the support of the majority of this House. I do not think that our constituents would think that it is too much to ask for those who have been elected to this place, and who serve their constituents in this place, to have some say if a Parliament is to be dissolved early and a general election called.
Dr Julian Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, which is typically gracious of him. He calls it a “minimal check,” but the reality is that it is an absolute veto. If a Government do not have a majority in the House and if the Opposition sense that a Government might well win a majority if they went to the people, the Opposition are basically saying, “We are not going to allow the Government to get a mandate from the people.” That is precisely what would have happened in 2019 if Labour had not, for some reason, given way in the end.
Brendan O'Hara
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but that is a decision for this Parliament to take. We are elected to take decisions, and to abdicate that responsibility to the Executive is a dangerous route to go down; we should not do that. He says that it is the people, but we in this Parliament are the voice of the people, and there has to be a check on the powers of the Executive.
Patrick Grady
What we are hearing, especially from Government Members, is continued Westminster exceptionalism: that this place, particularly the Executive, once elected, knows what is best. That is why I raised the comparison with the devolved institutions, which operate to strict fixed terms. If they are to devolve early, that has to be a decision taken by the legislature as a whole.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right. What we are seeing is, as he describes it so eloquently, Westminster exceptionalism, because this does not go nearly far enough. It is the absolute minimum that one would expect.
As Tom Fleming of University College London and his colleague Meg Russell, the director of the constitution unit there, said of this Lords amendment:
“Requiring prior Commons approval for an early general election places some check on the executive, while reducing the likelihood of either the monarch or the courts being embroiled in damaging political disputes.”
They are right, but the problem for Tom Fleming and Meg Russell is in believing or hoping that that this Executive would welcome having checks being placed on their power, be they parliamentary or judicial, because they simply do not.
John Redwood
Can the hon. Member explain why Opposition parties in this House are so keen to prevent there being an early election? I thought Oppositions welcomed early elections.
Brendan O’Hara
It is very witty to frame this debate in those terms, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This is not about the power to hold a general election; this is about the power being ceded from this place to the Executive and what the Executive choose to do with that power when they get it. I will come on to what their powers could if that happens.
By opposing this Lords amendment, the Government are saying that the decision to dissolve this Parliament and call an election would rest entirely with the Prime Minister, and that that could be done without any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever and in the absence of any judicial oversight. I suspect that many people watching our proceedings will be surprised to see that the Government are so opposed to the Lords amendment given that it is so limited and that all it seeks is a simple majority in this House.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Is it not strange that Conservative Members who we have had to listen to banging on and on for years about Parliament being sovereign and Parliament having control are now willing to cede that control to the Executive for cheap political gain?
Brendan O’Hara
I thank my hon. Friend, and I suspect he may have been reading my speech earlier, because I will come to that issue shortly.
This Government are determined that the Prime Minister, without consultation with or approval from this House and free of the threat of legal challenge, can call a snap general election when it is politically expedient for him so to do. Regardless of what is happening at home or abroad, basically, electoral calculus and the position of the governing party at the time will decide when we have a general election. It is wrong, and I believe it is unacceptable in a modern democracy.
Of course, as my hon. Friend says, a great irony here is that the very limited check that the Government will vote down this evening will be voted down by people who were elected on a promise that this House would take back control. Well, they should realise that they are not taking back control; they are surrendering control. The collective outrage displayed at the general election of 2019 about the perceived emasculation of this Parliament by Brussels and the European Union—they were absolutely determined to restore the sovereignty of what they like to call the mother of Parliaments—is going to look rather hollow when, at the first time of asking, they vote to take powers away from this legislature and hand them over to the Executive. I hope that when they go through the Lobby tonight, they understand that this is not taking back control. Voting with the Government this evening is about this House handing control to the Executive and about abdicating responsibility to the Executive.
At the risk of adding a note of discord, let us have a look at who we will be handing those increased executive powers to. They will be given to a Prime Minister who has illegally prorogued Parliament, who sought to purge his party of all but his most loyal followers, and who had to remove the Whip from a long-standing and highly respected Member simply for being chosen to head a Committee over his preferred candidate. We will be giving greater executive power to a Prime Minister who, in defiance of the security services, ennobled the son of a former KGB officer turned billionaire Russian oligarch, a Prime Minister whose career three weeks ago was hanging by a thread and who has been revealed to be up to his neck in dirty Russian money, and a Prime Minister who is currently under investigation by the Metropolitan police.
If Conservative Members vote to defeat this Lords amendment tonight, that is the character of the man to whom this House will be handing even greater executive power. I advise them to think very carefully about their decision, because this Lords amendment is there to protect the role of the House of Commons, to avoid executive overreach and, ultimately, to protect democracy.
John Redwood
Opposition parties are struggling a bit with this idea of democracy, are they not? Taking back control was to have control by the people and for the people, and offering the people an early general election so that they could choose an effective Government when a Parliament was logjammed, hopeless and not prepared to govern with clarity and passion was the right thing to do. I just cannot understand why Labour and the SNP are still queuing up to defend the indefensible, and to say that because they may well be faced again with a situation in which they do not dare face the electors, they need some kind of legal rigmarole and manipulation of votes in a balanced or damaged Parliament to thwart the popular will yet again. “Never let the people make the decision,” they say: it must be contained within Parliament, even when a Parliament has obviously failed, as it did when it could not implement the wishes of the British people over the great Brexit referendum.
I want assurances from the Minister that this new policy will protect the Crown—the Queen—from the difficult business of politics. I think the Minister’s version of it is better than the version from the other place. Of course, it must keep the courts out. There is nothing more political than the decision about when we go to an election and when we give the people their power back and the right to make that fundamental choice. It is a choice that now can mean something, because we do not have to keep on accepting a whole load of European laws that we have no great role in making. Again, we need that absolute guarantee that we will have this freedom so that that can happen.
Those who say that they do not want the Prime Minister to have this much power have surely been in the House long enough to know that, while the Prime Minister has considerable power from his or her office, they are also buffeted and challenged every day by a whole series of pressures in this place and outside. If a leader of a party with a majority wanted an early election that their supporters did not want, I suspect that that would get sorted out without an early election. So we are only talking about what happens when a Government have lost their majority and the Prime Minister is doing his or her best to govern as a minority. We get the extraordinary position we got when the whole Opposition wanted to gang up to thwart the public making a choice, but did not want to govern. That was totally unacceptable, and the Opposition should hear the message from the doorsteps in the 2019 election. The public wanted a Parliament with a Government who could govern, so they decided to choose one. Those who sought to block it made themselves more unpopular, and they showed that they do not understand the fundamental point of democracy that, when Parliament lets the people down, the people must be able to choose a new and more effective Parliament.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I apologise to the House that, because I have been in Committee Room 10 launching the call for evidence on setting up a national strategy for acquired brain injury, I am afraid I was not able to hear the wonderful speeches that doubtless came from those on the Front Bench—well, on the Opposition side anyway.
I completely agree with what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has just said. Yes, I think the people of this country are crying out for a Government who can actually govern. They still were after the general election, and they certainly are at the moment. Yes, of course, the Prime Minister is buffeted, and I think the Prime Minister should be buffeted a bit more, to be honest.
What I do not understand is that this is the tiniest, most minimalist check on government that one could imagine. It simply means that a Government, which by definition already has a majority of Members of the House of Commons, should be required to come to the House of Commons to get a vote through to have a general election. It is absolutely minimal.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Is it equally the case that including this vote in the Bill would not mitigate people not being good chaps? If a Prime Minister has a majority and they could get that vote through—who knows what their reasons are—when they see things coming over the horizon that might give them some advantage, it makes it difficult for the monarch to say “no” under the Bill. Is it better to preserve what was best about our constitution before 2010, which relies on the Prime Minister and the monarch being responsible, and the good behaviour that should follow?
Chris Bryant
I think the danger is precisely the opposite. The arrangements that the hon. Lady would like us to have are ones that put the monarch in a regular position of making a decision, and brings them closely into not only party politics, but sometimes into partisan politics within a political party. It is perfectly possible that a Prime Minister might have lost, or be about to lose, the confidence of their political party, but that political party might still want to govern and carry on under a different leader. In other words, there may be within the House an alternative Government who would be better for the nation.
My other problem is that there seems to be a very high theological understanding of the role of the Executive. I think the former Leader of the House set that going with his rather Stuart early-17th-century understanding of the constitution, which is that basically, as long as the Prime Minister has the confidence of the House of Commons, he or she should be allowed to do pretty much anything and, frankly, parliamentary democracy is a little bit of an irritant. It is worth always bearing in mind that the Executive today is the only body who can ensure that business and legislation are considered, and the only body who decide when Parliament sits, when it will go into recess, and how long it will go into recess for. If we had the same rules today as we had in 1939, nobody would have been able to table an amendment to the recess debate that led to the big row before the beginning of the second world war. Today we have an Executive who are more powerful than they have been at any stage since the early 17th century, and it is time, occasionally, that the House of Commons said, “You know what? We’re a parliamentary democracy. Let’s take just a tiny bit of power into our own hands.”
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I will be brief as I gather I have only a few minutes to speak. The Lords amendment would require the House of Commons to give prior approval to a dissolution of Parliament, and that would be done by simple majority rather than the two-thirds majority required by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. On the face of it, that would be an improvement to the existing position, but it is still something of a half-way house that causes confusion. In the event that a Government lose their ability to command a majority in the House of Commons, it does not automatically follow that the House would vote to approve an election.
For example, it may suit Opposition parties to keep a lame-duck Government in place, so that they can inflict parliamentary defeat after parliamentary defeat, as a means of further undermining confidence in the Government. But in whose interests would that be? Certainly not the interests of the country. As hon. Members have said, we very much saw that in the “zombie” Parliament of 2017-19, when Parliament initially refused to allow an election to take place. The country became ungovernable, and contempt for Parliament rose dramatically—I speak as somebody who was outside Parliament at that time, and who shared in that contempt. I submit that that is not in anyone’s best interests.
We recently heard some confused interventions on this matter from the other place. For example, a Liberal Democrat peer asked:
“But why should a Prime Minister who cannot get a majority of the House of Commons for an election be entitled to a Dissolution?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2022; Vol. 818, c. 1590.]
I am still not sure whether that was a rhetorical question or whether the Lord in question was trying to figure it out for himself. Either way, it is non-sequitur reasoning because in the example he gave, a Government would not seek to dissolve Parliament unless they found it impossible to gain simple majorities in the first place. In my opinion, a rather better, and frankly rather more honest question would be: why would Parliament want to avoid an election, unless it feared that the result would go against its own wishes? That is the real question that those who support the Lords amendment must ask themselves.
There is concern in certain quarters that going to the electorate to seek a new mandate would allow an opportunistic Government to call an election at a convenient time to increase their majority. It is true that the power to call an election gives an advantage to a sitting Government, but that ability is a double-edged sword and can seriously backfire against a Prime Minister seeking to exploit a perceived opportunity. Post-war history is replete with examples of an incumbent Government misreading the political situation, and calling an election that fails to deliver the result they wished for. Harold Wilson’s Labour Government in 1970 and Ted Heath’s Conservative Government in February 1974 are obvious examples of that. Similarly, a failure to call an election can damage an incumbent Government. The obvious recent example would be from 2007 when Gordon Brown publicly flirted with calling an election, only to back off at the last moment and cause irreparable damage to his public image as a result. The power to call an election—or not—does not automatically confer an insuperable advantage on the incumbent Government. The Lords amendment is therefore completely unnecessary, and I will continue to support the Bill as it stands.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Members across the House want the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, but in its defence, it was a creature of its time and it delivered stable government for five years. Let us not reinvent history regarding why it was introduced in the first place. It disappoints me that so much of this debate has been seen through the prism of 2019. That was a unique political position where we were divided by an issue that crossed party and electoral politics. We risk making very bad law on the basis of what happened in that history.
Call me old-fashioned, but I am a romantic when it comes to our constitution. We have an unwritten constitution, and the less of it that is written, the more likely it is to flex to meet those challenges. On that basis I am opposed to the Lords amendment. However, equally, while the Government’s stated ambition is to go back to the status quo ante, the existence of the ouster clause goes beyond that, and the amendment is an alternative to that ouster clause—it is another way of ousting the courts from deliberation on our proceedings—so the ouster clause’s existence makes a strong argument for it as an option.
I regret that we are having this debate. As Conservatives, we ought to stick to the more romantic view of our constitution and be able to expect Prime Ministers to behave well and honourably in their deliberation with monarchs so that monarchs are never put in that difficult position. However, we have the Lascelles principles, which articulate the occasions where the monarch can be empowered to involve themselves in politics, and that should be enough. I recognise that the argument is lost—it was probably lost in 2011 when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was passed, and it certainly was when we came to the sad events of 2019—but I hope that we can go back to normal.
Patrick Grady
It is not really for the Scottish National party to defend the Westminster interpretation of democracy, but the Bill, and rejecting the Lords amendment, is such a retrograde step that we must put that on the record and see it as part of a bigger picture. This is not control being taken back by Parliament but control being taken from Parliament by the Executive and, as a number of other hon. Members have said, consolidating power as part of a package of measures—not least the Elections Bill.
The effect of all that is that the next election campaign starts today. Everyone in the Chamber must therefore be aware of what they are doing when they cast their vote on the amendment. The campaigning starts today. The power will end up with the Prime Minister and he alone, without the check of his Cabinet or of this House. That is a significant power grab that will further undermine confidence among the public in the institutions of this place. Again, I say to Government Members that, from an SNP point of view, that is fine in a way. The Bill and the rest of their package of reform is not strengthening the Union. As I said in my interventions, we can look at the systems in place to protect the devolved institutions’ democracies and see how they can dissolve only with the permission of the legislature or must operate to a fixed term that everyone knows in advance, but the Bill is taking this place backwards. It is increasing the divergence on these islands. Once again, from where I am standing, that is fine, but perhaps Government Members ought to think twice about it.
Michael Ellis
First, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) that I, too, am a romantic—that may come as a surprise to the House—especially when it comes to the constitution? I agree that flex is required and that it is highly desirable to have an unwritten constitution that gives us that flex and ability to change things as needed while accepting the conventions of our constitution.
The Lords amendment before the House is not a small amendment; in fact, it is a wrecking amendment as it would convert the whole purpose of the Bill. I can hardly think of anything more democratic than saying: a Government of any particular day might have lost of the confidence of the elected House and will therefore go to the country and ask the people for their view.
I know that the Opposition would not want to go back to 2019 and, as happened then, block a general election three times. That is no doubt why they agreed in their manifesto that the 2011 Act had to go. Let us not allow that to happen again. Let us hand power to the people, let us protect the sovereign from involvement in politics and let us disagree with the Lords amendment.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords]
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Professional Qualifications Act 2022 View all Professional Qualifications Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 March 2022 - (14 Mar 2022)
19:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 39 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Authority by whom regulations may be made (No. 2)—
“(1) In this Act ‘appropriate national authority’ means as follows.
(2) Where the regulations—
(a) contain provision relating to England only,
(b) apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, or
(c) contain provision which is not within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly,
the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor is the appropriate national authority.
(3) The Welsh Ministers are the appropriate national authority in relation to regulations under this Act which contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown).
(4) The Scottish Ministers are the appropriate national authority in relation to regulations under this Act which contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament.
(5) A Northern Ireland department is the appropriate national authority in relation to regulations under this Act which contain only provision which, if contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and
(b) would not require the consent of the Secretary of State.
(6) The consent of a Minister of the Crown is required before any provision is made by the Welsh Ministers in regulations under this Act so far as that provision, if contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, would require the consent of a Minister of the Crown.
(7) In this section ‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.”
This new clause is intended to replace the current Clause 16. It would mean that the Secretary of State would only make regulations under this Act if they relate to England or the whole of the UK, or are outside the legislative competencies of the Devolved Administrations.
New clause 3—List of regulators and regulated professions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a list of all regulators of regulated professions and the associated professions.
(2) The list must be updated on a regular basis.”
New clause 4—Guidance and assistance concerning mutual recognition—
“Upon the request of a regulator, the Secretary of State must provide guidance and all reasonable assistance on how to make the most of the provisions in the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement.”
New clause 5—Consent of the devolved authorities—
“(1) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor must obtain the consent of—
(a) the Senedd, to the extent that the regulations contain provision which could also be made by the Welsh Ministers by virtue of section 16(2) (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown under section 16(5));
(b) the Scottish Parliament, to the extent that the regulations contain provision which could also be made by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 16(3);
(c) the Northern Ireland executive, to the extent that the regulations contain provision which could also be made by a Northern Ireland department by virtue of section 16(4).”
Amendment 2, in clause 7, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) Before making the arrangements, the Secretary of State must consult the devolved authorities on the functions and operations of the assistance centre.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with the Devolved Authorities on the functions and operations of the Assistance Centre before it comes into being.
Amendment 3, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) Before making the arrangements, the Secretary of State must ensure there are representatives from each of the devolved nations on the board of the assistance centre.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure there are representatives for each of the devolved nations on the board of the Assistance Centre.
Amendment 4, page 11, line 28, leave out clause 16.
Government amendment 1.
Paul Scully
I am today proposing two amendments in relation to the devolved Administrations. New clause 1 would place a duty on the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor to consult the devolved Administrations before making regulations under the Bill that contain provisions that could be made under the Bill by the devolved authorities themselves. The new clause would also require the Government to publish a report on the consultation. Amendment 1 seeks to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 so that a Minister of the Crown’s consent is not needed for Senedd Cymru to remove the Secretary of State’s and the Lord Chancellor’s ability to make regulations under the Bill that are within the Senedd’s legislative competence.
I know that hon. Members across the House have shown strong interest in the issue of concurrent powers and devolved competence. To underline the Government’s commitment to a collaborative approach on this issue, I am introducing into the Bill, through the new clause, a new duty to consult devolved Administrations. The duty includes a requirement to publish a report in advance of any regulations being made by the UK Government that would be within devolved legislative competence. That report should set out the consultation process, and whether and how the representations made by the devolved Administrations during the consultation have been taken into account.
My officials and I have engaged extensively with the devolved Administrations during the passage of the Bill and, although we strained every sinew to reach agreement on securing legislative consent, it is a great regret that, unfortunately, we have exhausted all available avenues. Lord Grimstone and I have held eight meetings with our devolved Administrations’ ministerial counterparts. Baroness Bloomfield and Lord Grimstone have held nine industry roundtables, including two specifically for devolved regulators. There have also been weekly official-level meetings during the Bill’s passage and numerous exchanges of letters.
The amendments were originally offered to the devolved Administrations in December 2021, in exchange for support for legislative consent motions from their respective legislatures, but that offer was rejected. But the UK Government are committed to delivering effective policies that work for the whole of the UK, so, to underline that commitment, I am now introducing those amendments without any conditions attached. I strongly believe that, if both Government amendments are accepted, the Bill represents the best outcome for both the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, without impinging on the UK’s ability to act where necessary.
The regulation of professions often falls within devolved legislative competence. For that reason, the Bill gives powers to both UK Government Ministers and devolved Administration Ministers. Some of the powers may be exercised concurrently to allow UK Government Ministers to make UK-wide regulations where appropriate. The most likely use of concurrent powers would be to implement international agreements on professional qualifications that are negotiated on a UK-wide basis. It is vital that the UK Government are able to implement such agreements across the UK in a timely and consistent manner, as failure to do so could jeopardise the UK Government’s credibility and ability to secure ambitious provisions to support UK services exports with global trade partners.
Amendment 1 would allow for an Act of the Senedd to remove UK Ministers’ ability to use powers in the Bill to make regulations that would be within Welsh devolved legislative competence, without the need to first obtain the consent of a Minister of the Crown. The Welsh Government would still be required to consult the UK Government on the removal of powers. That was a key ask from the Welsh Government. It is in line with similar approaches taken by the Government on the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020.
In introducing those amendments, I hope that Members can see the UK Government’s determination to work collaboratively and transparently with all devolved Administrations and devolved regulators on the provisions of the Bill and on wider regulated professions policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Does the shadow Minister want to come in straightaway or shall I go to somebody else?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I do not intend to detain the House for long, but it is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of Plaid Cymru’s new clause 5, which would require the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments when acting in areas of devolved competence. Although I will not be seeking to divide the House on that, I hope that the new clause, alongside the repeated interventions of the devolved nations, will encourage the Government to reconsider their approach.
In its current form, the Bill represents an example of the Government legislating in devolved matters without having first secured the consent of Wales’s Parliament or, indeed, consent from any of the devolved nations. It betrays a blatant disregard for the constitutional framework of the UK, and further obscures the regulatory regime for workers, businesses and professional qualification providers.
Hon. Members should not mistake these concerns as mere trivial matters; they speak to the growing chasm of distrust between the Governments of the British Isles. Indeed, just last week, the Welsh Labour Education Minister accused the UK Government of acting in a manner that breaches the Sewel convention. Let us consider, for a moment, the implications of that statement: a Government Minister from one nation is accusing the Government of another of tearing up the constitutional convention that has been so instrumental in ensuring good governance and positive intergovernmental collaboration across our isles. That is what this Government and this Prime Minister are doing to the UK and that is why this Bill needs to be amended to respect the devolution settlement.
As I said, I will not be pushing our new clause to a vote tonight, but we will be supporting amendment 3 if it is put to a Division. I hope that Opposition Members as well as Government Members will acknowledge the seriousness of these constitutional concerns and accept the amendment as a first step towards government by consent, rather than imposition.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendment 3, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I am sorry to say that she is ill with covid, so I am here in her place.
The Bill allows UK Government Ministers to legislate on areas that would normally be under the authority of devolved Administrations. As it stands, there is no protection in place to allow the Scottish or Welsh Governments to revoke or amend these measures if needed. The entire reason we have devolved powers is to allow Ministers to make bespoke decisions that better reflect the needs of the local people and local economies.
The Minister’s statement that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure qualified professionals within the UK can work anywhere within the four nations clearly undermines the devolution settlement. We saw that with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and we see it again here. Without the appropriate safeguards, the Bill further erodes both the powers we have in place in Scotland and in Wales, and the trust between our Governments. On many issues, the UK has subsumed EU law into UK law with a view to gradual divergence over time. We are concerned that this Bill takes a clean slate approach and may put the UK at a disadvantage when trying to fill vacancies at a time of acute shortages in some sectors. The Bill provides inadequate detail regarding its full intentions and scope, leaving provision open to interpretation. The Government must commit to ensuring the highest standards of professional qualifications are maintained and are not bartered away as part of any trade agreement.
Clause 7 would mandate the Secretary of State to set up an assistance centre for people looking to enter a qualified profession in the UK or people with UK qualifications looking to practise overseas. Regulators would be required to provide information to the assistance centre to allow it to carry out its functions. We welcome the provisions relating to a centre to provide advice on and assistance with entry requirements for those seeking to practise a profession in the UK, or those with UK qualifications seeking to practise overseas. The obligation to make arrangements for the assistance centre lies with the Secretary of State. Amendment 3, which we will be pressing to a vote, would require the Secretary of State to ensure that there are representatives for each of the devolved nations on the centre’s board.
The Law Society of Scotland has urged the Government to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations when setting up the assistance centre. We therefore think it imperative—this reflects the acknowledgement of the role of the devolved Administrations in earlier clauses in the Bill—for them to be consulted on the arrangements for its creation, and to be represented on its board.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker—rather more swiftly than I expected.
It seems as though, week in week out, Members on this side of the Chamber in particular are shouting into the wind. Whatever legislation is put before us, we suggest amendments in good faith, only to have to rinse and repeat our previous arguments when the legislation returns to us with none of our proposed changes taken into account. We are therefore used to this Government doing hee-haw, but in this case they have actually made the Bill worse than it was before, disrespecting the devolved Governments and undermining the constitution over something that should not have been controversial.
The Scottish National party fully welcomes the principles behind the Bill, which will facilitate cross-border recognition and regulation of professional qualifications. Building an integrated system of transfer of professionals from abroad is particularly significant to smaller countries such as Scotland which seek to attract the skills and expertise of their neighbours. For example, the world-leading Scottish food and drink industry, and indeed that of the whole UK, has traditionally relied heavily on the services of vets qualified in the EU. Those vets were then able to bring their skills to Scotland under the terms of the EU’s rules on mutual recognition of professional qualifications. We are all for the idea of recognising consistency in qualifications; it is not controversial. However, the Government have managed to make it controversial: in fact, they have managed to create a constitutional stooshie out of thin air.
When I last spoke on the Bill, I raised concerns about its impact on devolution. The whole Bill obviously applies to Scotland, although certain professions and qualifications are reserved to this place.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Member is right to say that it is correct for professional qualifications to be transferable across the United Kingdom, but in the past the Scottish Government would have had no say in any of this because it all fell under the European Union. There was no concern about devolution rights in that case. Why the sudden concern about devolution rights now that it rests with this Parliament?
Owen Thompson
The right hon. Member tempts me, but, as I was about to explain, we have a number of qualification areas in which these are devolved matters and not reserved to this place. Under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the UK Government are now overruling devolved competences that were formerly in place.
The Bill does not make separate provision for devolved and reserved professions, so it applies to all regulated professions active in Scotland, whether reserved or devolved. It follows from this that, for those aspects of the Bill that affect the devolved nations’ areas of competence, special provisions should have been made to require devolved consent, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). It was the case then and it is still the case now.
Clause 16 ensures that any power conferred on the appropriate national authority in devolved areas can be exercised by UK Ministers. There is no requirement for UK Ministers to seek the Scottish Government’s consent when exercising such powers. A Secretary of State making regulations under those powers would therefore be subject to procedure in this place rather than the Scottish Parliament, or any of the devolved Parliaments. Here we have a Bill that alters the executive competence of Scottish Ministers by enabling the Secretary of State to act in devolved areas without having consent to do so. That is entirely unnecessary, and undermines the good faith agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments on the principles of the Bill.
I listened to the Minister, and I welcome the fact that so much engagement took place, but it is clear that, despite all that engagement, there was still a lack of any willingness to shift in any way to take account of the positions of the devolved Governments. That is why I suggested that the Government take up the Scottish Government’s proposal to introduce an amendment to clause 16 to require devolved consent before UK Ministers dabbled in devolved areas. Not only have the Government rejected that perfectly reasonable proposal; they have fabricated a convenient reason to do so, arguing that the devolved Governments
“might undermine the implementation of provisions in international agreements on recognition of professional qualifications.”
Sammy Wilson
I am not quite clear about the hon. Member’s logic. If he is saying that the Scottish Government would feel obliged to abide by any international agreements, there would not be any leeway for them to act independently anyway. What point is he trying to make? What independence is he seeking for the Scottish Government, or the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the Welsh Government?
Owen Thompson
I think the key word in that intervention is “agreements”. The Scottish Government, or within the European set-up the UK Government, would agree these frameworks with Europe. In this situation, the Scottish Government, and the Governments of Northern Ireland and Wales, have no say in what is imposed by this Westminster Government.
The truth is that there is nothing exceptional or even particularly noteworthy about a requirement for UK Ministers to seek such consent. It has been requested by the relevant Committees of the Scottish Parliament, confirmed by a vote of the Parliament as a whole, and raised multiple times in this place. It is not worth overriding the Sewel convention—something extremely serious which has happened on only four occasions, all of them directly related to major EU exit legislation. That makes one wonder if the Government are content to undermine the Sewel convention to the point at which it is no longer even a convention. Seeking consent would constitute little more than recognising devolved responsibilities and respecting the UK constitution, so the Government have some serious explaining to do to the Scottish Parliament if they go ahead with overriding Sewel yet again.
This farce has brought the Scottish Government to a point at which they simply could not recommend that the Scottish Parliament give the Bill its consent, and that should not be taken lightly. That said, I am heartened that we have a new clause before us—tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, albeit not to be pressed to a Division—that could deal with the issue. It changes the consultation requirement to a consent requirement, and removes the procedure by which the Government could ignore devolved views and simply report to the House on why they did so. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at the new clause seriously. This is not political point-scoring; it is about protecting the constitution as it currently exists. That is evidenced by the fact that the Law Society of Scotland supports the argument that I am advancing today. The Government have assured us time and again that they have no intention of overriding devolution, so why not put it in writing instead of relying on a pinkie promise?
The Bill falls into a pattern of power grabs and disdain for consent, from Brexit to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and little wonder, because it comes from a Government led by a man who called devolution a disaster. This disdainful attitude to UK-Scottish relations damages the UK Government’s claims that they welcome early engagement on the Bill. It also severely undermines their commitments to recently agreed intergovernmental arrangements. I hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on the unnecessary damage that the Bill will do to devolution in its current form.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
On the point about the damage that the Bill could do, is there not a point of principle at stake? This Government appear to be putting administrative utility ahead of devolved democratic considerations enshrined in various bits of Scotland Act legislation that should not be overridden lightly, particularly on matters such as professional qualifications.
Owen Thompson
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I absolutely agree. Of all the things to pick an argument over, why create this situation over something on which we broadly agree and are actually on the same page? It is not too late. My right hon. Friend is not pressing his amendment to a vote, but the Government could still accept new clause 5 so that we could fix this situation and deal with it. I sincerely hope that the Minister will prove my concerns wrong.
Bill Esterson
I will speak to new clauses 3 and 4 tabled in my name, then briefly come back to the Government amendment and to amendment 3. During the progress of this Bill through the Lords, it became clear that it had been thrown together in a completely unsatisfactory way. The Financial Times described the way in which the Government introduced it as a
“chaotic handling of a post-Brexit regime for recognising the qualifications of foreign professionals”.
Remarkably, the Government admitted introducing the Bill to Parliament without knowing which professions were in scope. We argued in the Lords that we had to know who and what was in the scope of the Bill. It stands to reason that the relevant regulators and professions need to be aware of these changes. Having initially listed 160 professions and 50 regulators that would be affected by the legislation, the Government twice published a revised list, ultimately increasing the numbers to 205 professions and 80 regulators. Due to do the increased number of regulators in scope, the Government also had to publish an updated impact assessment, with the total cost to regulators increasing by almost £2 million. That is hardly the way to inspire confidence that the legislation will help businesses or skilled workers.
The Government were criticised from all sides in the Lords, including by those on their own Benches. Baroness Noakes said that the legislation had
“all the hallmarks of being a Bill conceived and executed by officials with little or no ministerial policy direction or oversight…we learn that the Bill was drafted with a far-from-perfect understanding of the territory that it purports to cover. This is no way to legislate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2021; Vol. 813, c. 149.]
How can regulators and regulated professionals know where they stand when the Ministers responsible for the Bill do not even know themselves? When I raised this in Committee, the Minister responded that he had
“reservations about enshrining a list in the Bill.”
This was because of concerns about not knowing which professions were ultimately covered. He went on to say that the Government had committed to
“maintaining a list of regulated professions and regulators to which they consider the Bill applies, and to keep that list readily accessible and in the public domain.”––[Official Report, Professional Qualifications Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2022; c. 30.]
It is of course encouraging that the Minister has made such a commitment to maintaining a list. I am not asking Ministers to place a list of regulators on the face of the Bill, but for the certainty that regulators and professionals need to be able to operate with confidence, it is important that they now know whether they are within the scope or not, and that means maintaining the list that Ministers have agreed to keep in the public domain. Web pages can be deleted, links can be lost, and without an amendment requiring the maintenance of a list, there will be no legal duty on Ministers to do so. Indeed, if they decided on the day following the granting of Royal Assent to this Bill that they no longer wanted to publish the list on the gov.uk website, they could remove it. This amendment, which I will not be pressing to a vote, is a reminder that the Secretary of State and the Minister need to maintain the list in the public domain, as promised, for the benefit of the professions and professionals who need certainty. This should not be a controversial point, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that is indeed what will happen.
Turning to new clause 4, the Bill provides a framework to allow mutual recognition of professional qualifications between regulators and professional bodies in the UK and the equivalent organisations overseas. The provisions in clauses 3 and 4 will allow for the implementation of regulator-to-regulator mutual recognition agreements and of the recognition arrangements in new international trade agreements. As the Law Society tells us, the Bill will enable the mutual recognition agreement provisions in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement to be implemented. However, the Law Society also says that the provisions for mutual recognition agreements in the TCA are largely based on the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—but that in fact no mutual recognition agreements have been signed between the EU and Canada using the provisions in CETA in the three years since CETA came into force. The failure to use the provisions on which the Government are relying raises the concern that the provisions are not sufficient. To remind ourselves, this legislation, if applied effectively, might well help to address shortages in a multitude of professions, including the chronic shortage of nurses and vets.
In Committee, I asked the Minister how his Department would put in place the additional support, co-ordination and guidance needed to make the most of the provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement, especially if they are to form the benchmark for future free trade agreements. There is real concern that the model on which the provisions in the legislation are based will not deliver results. That is why I tabled new clause 4, which would oblige the Secretary of State to provide guidance to regulators on how to make the most of the provisions in the TCA.
The Minister has written to me since the Committee stage to say that BEIS has engaged with 20 regulators of professional bodies. It will be important to see that such engagement leads to the delivery of mutual recognition agreements using the template on which the Government are relying. The Minister referred in Committee to a limited pilot recognition arrangement programme. I would be grateful if he could explain how effective that pilot has been so far, and how he foresees its leading to the successful implementation of new regulations.
I shall turn now to what the Minister said about new clause 1. In Committee we tabled two amendments to address the concerns raised by the devolved Administrations. We asked for consistency from the Government in the way they approach this Bill. The consistency we asked for in one of the amendments involved a similar amendment to that included in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I see from new clause 1, having read it a number of times, that it is consistent with what is in the internal market Act and I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we raised, even though the Government voted against our amendments in Committee.
The Minister has addressed the concerns about those matters on which the devolved Administrations can make recommendations. That is an improvement on the more “flexible” approach to consultation that he talked about in Committee. That informal approach would have left no formal consultation mechanism. We have heard reservations expressed by a number of hon. Members on that, and I trust that the Government will still seek consent, in the spirit of new clause 1, when applying the regulations that are relevant to the devolved Administrations.
Briefly, I can tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that we will be supporting amendment 3. Representation of the devolved Administrations on the board is an important principle, and something that we return to again and again in legislation. We believe that, in the interests of the devolution settlement, that is entirely appropriate.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. I will whip through each amendment in turn, starting with new clause 2.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for tabling new clause 2, and I wish her well as she recovers from covid. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for speaking to the amendment. I remind the House that clause 16 sets out the definition of an appropriate national authority for the purposes of the Bill. It also sets out the concurrent powers for making regulations in areas of devolved competence.
These powers could be used by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor if, for example, a profession falls within devolved competence but is regulated at UK level. I understand the strength of feeling about the concurrent powers in the Bill, but I have been clear that any regulation made by the UK Government that falls within devolved legislative competence will be limited in scope and will always be made in consultation with appropriate Ministers from the devolved Administrations. The Government listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses, undertook extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations and negotiated in good faith in relation to those concerns. I am grateful for the devolved Administrations’ constructive and well-spirited engagement.
Paul Scully
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is an important piece of legislation that will change our approach to recognising professional qualifications in a way that works best for UK professions and supports our status as an independent trading nation.
It is disappointing that, despite the UK Government’s best efforts, the devolved Administrations have not felt able to recommend the granting of legislative consent to their respective legislatures. However, the UK Government remain committed to the devolution settlements, and I trust that the amendment made to require the Government to consult the devolved Administrations before they regulate in areas of devolved legislative competence underlines that commitment. The Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on this and future legislation.
It gives me great pleasure to thank everybody who has supported the Bill’s progress. I recognise the good work of Members from all parts of the House, as well as in the other place, who have engaged closely with the Bill, and the constructive way in which the Opposition have engaged with the Bill. I pay tribute to my private office, my officials and, in particular, the Bill team for their work over the past few months—I thank Matt Leech, Jamie Wasley, Jen Pattison, James Banfield, Monique Sidhu, Haddeka Taj, Jack Palmer, Nick French, Raegan Hiles, Tom Corker, Alpa Palmar, Hannah Marshall, Ben Clifford, Funmi Olasoju, Aneesa Ahmed and Tim Courtney.
I recognise the commendable work of parliamentary counsel, the House authorities, parliamentary staff, Clerks and Doorkeepers. I thank the members of the Public Bill Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), for their swift but in no way less thorough scrutiny of the Bill, which I commend to the House.
Bill Esterson
The Bill is much improved following its passage through the Lords and the scrutiny carried out in this House, not least by the addition of new clause 1, which was tabled by the Secretary of State on Report and addressed at least some of the concerns expressed about the devolution settlement.
It is vital that there is a robust regime so that our professionals can operate effectively here and overseas and we can to address shortages in many of the occupations covered by the legislation, including those of nurses and vets, as we have discussed many times throughout the Bill’s passage. I plead with the Government to give the guidance to the regulators, the professional bodies and the professionals, so that the system that the Bill sets up is effective in creating mutual recognition agreements that will make a difference to the professions, with the resultant impact on the economy. The legislation will affect 205 professions and 80 regulators. It is vital that there is certainty as to who is included and that the list of who is covered is up to date, to the benefit of professionals and the economy.
I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the role of all those involved in getting the Bill through both Houses. My thanks go to the Clerks and my office for their help in the construction and tabling of amendments and support in respect of my speaking notes. With that, I thank all who have taken part in our debates.
Owen Thompson
I will be brief. The comments that I made earlier still stand. We have not seen any movement at all to recognise the genuine concerns of the devolved Parliaments of these nations, without which we cannot support the Bill as it stands. Pinky promises and “We might not do this” or “We wouldn’t intend that to happen” simply are not enough. That completely undermines the devolution we have, and on that basis we will oppose the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 March 2022 - large print - (14 Mar 2022)
21:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on the use of sentient animals in Ministry of Defence exercises—
“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report under section 2 on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of their use by the Ministry of Defence.
(2) The report shall cover use of animals as defined by this Act in section 5(1).
(3) The report shall cover use of animals by the Ministry of Defence in—
(a) military exercises,
(b) military engagements, and
(c) experiments by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
(4) This report shall include recommendations for future government action under section 2(3) and (4).”
This new clause requires the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the use of sentient animals in scientific experiments and military exercises by the Ministry of Defence and its executive agency the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.
New clause 3—Report on the use of sentient animals in animal experimentation in
government policy—
“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report under section 2 on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of government policy on experimentation on animals.
(2) The report shall cover both animal experimentation where alternative (non-animal based) methods of testing exist, and where no alternative exists.
(3) The report shall cover—
(a) medical testing,
(b) cosmetics testing, and
(c) weapons testing.
(4) This report shall include recommendations for future government action under section 2 (3) and (4).”
New clause 4—Animal Welfare Strategy—
“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee must publish and lay before Parliament an animal welfare strategy within 12 months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The animal welfare strategy must set out the process by which government departments and Ministers are to ensure that in the formulation or implementation of policy all due regard has been had to any adverse welfare consequences for the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
(3) Each department must notify the Committee of any policy under consideration where there is a reasonable likelihood that it would have an adverse impact on the welfare of animals.
(4) Where the Committee is of the view that in the process of formulating or implementing policy a department has not complied, or is not complying, with the process set out in the strategy and therefore may not be having, or has not had, all due regard to animal welfare, the Committee can make recommendations to that department or request an explanation from the relevant minister. Any recommendations or explanation must be made in writing and published.
(5) Recommendations and explanations need not be published if they concern a matter of national security or commercially sensitive information.
(6) Failure to comply with the process set out in the strategy, will not automatically be taken as a failure to have had all due regard to animal welfare, if the Minister can demonstrate that they have met the objective of having had all due regard by other means.
(7) Ministers and departments must provide the Committee with any information the Committee reasonably requests to enable it to carry out its function.”
This new clause would ensure that there is a clear strategy setting out how the animal welfare implications of policies in formulation or implementation are to be incorporated in the process of developing, deciding and implementing those policies. This would ensure that the same process applied across all departments.
New clause 5—Report on the impact of government policy on river pollution on
sentient animals—
“The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report on the impact of government policy on river pollution on sentient animals.
(1) The annual report must include—
(a) the number of sentient animals killed or injured as a result of polluted rivers.
(b) a description of the actions of water companies to guarantee the protection of sentient animals.
(c) an assessment of the effect of government policy on (a) and (b).
(2) The first annual report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”
This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient animals.
New clause 6—Report on the impact of trade agreements on sentient animals—
“The Animal Sentience Committee must produce an annual report on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of UK trade agreements.
(1) The annual report must cover how the UK government has taken the sentience of animals into account when establishing new trade deals.
(2) The first annual report on the impact of trade agreements on sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”
This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the impact of UK trade agreements on sentient animals.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “must” insert “by regulations”.
This amendment would require the Animal Sentience Committee to be established by regulations.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in the process of formulating policy, it is satisfied the Government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
(1B) It is not the function of the Committee to—
(a) comment on the policy decisions of Ministers or to recommend future policy or changes to existing policy, or
(b) consider other considerations of public interest, including economic, cultural and religious considerations, or impacts on different species, in the formulation and implementation of any policy.
(1C) Schedule 1 makes provision for the Committee’s membership and powers; and other aspects of the Committee’s work.”
This amendment clarifies the Committee’s role and makes clear the Committee is limited to commenting on process. It makes explicit that Ministers should take into account any other public interest considerations. It also gives effect to NS1, which sets out the structure, membership criteria and operation of the Committee.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 5, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—“(2) The regulations must set out—
(a) details of how the Animal Sentience Committee is to be composed, and
(b) its terms of reference.
(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft statutory instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This would require the Animal Sentience Committee to be established by regulations, which must set out its composition and terms of reference, ensuring Parliament has the opportunity to approve the final form of the Committee.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is consequential on NS1.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(4) No person may be appointed as a member of the Committee unless they have confirmed that they—
(a) are not a member of, or affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights;
(b) are not employed and have never been employed by or been a consultant of an organisation promoting animal rights; and
(c) are not in receipt of, nor have ever been in receipt of, direct or indirect payments or funding, from an organisation promoting animal rights.”
The amendment would ensure that a person may not be appointed a member of the Committee without confirming that they are not and have never been a member of or affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights, nor are or have been in receipt of funding from such an organisation.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have all due regard to the need for the Committee to possess appropriate expertise and experience, to include animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law, and public administration. The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as a member of the Committee if the person is—
(a) a member of the House of Commons,
(b) a member of the House of Lords,
(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,
(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(f) a councillor of a local authority.
(g) is an employee, former employee, or is a consultant or former consultant to, a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, or is or has been in receipt of any payments or funding from such a charity or organisation, whether directly or indirectly.
(1B) Appointments shall be subject to regulation by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.”
This amendment would clarify the range of expertise of the membership of the Committee and preclude certain categories of person. This is an alternative to Amendment 6 and uses the same wording as that found in NS1.
Amendment 21, page 1, line 8, leave out clause 2 and insert—
“Reports of the Committee
(1) The Committee must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out whether it is satisfied that all due regard has been had to animal welfare, in accordance with the Animal Welfare Strategy. The report is to be published and laid before Parliament.
(2) The report must state in the affirmative or negative whether it is satisfied that each department of state has complied with the Animal Welfare Strategy.
(3) The Committee may produce interim reports relating to individual departments and policy areas under consideration, at any time, including making recommendations, where it considers it is necessary to ensure compliance with the animal welfare strategy for the purpose set out in section 1(2).”
This amendment largely replicates the existing Bill but takes account of the Animal Welfare Strategy, while still allowing the Committee to play a role where it feels that there has been a failure of process in compliance with the Strategy at a stage before a policy decision has been made.
Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out “or has been”.
This amendment would ensure the Animal Sentience Committee looked at policies under consideration, or proposed, not policies that have already been decided.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 9, leave out “or implemented”.
This amendment would ensure that the Committee is focused on the process of deciding policy and not the implementation of that policy. It would also ensure the Committee did not look at past policy decisions being implemented.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 10, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Animal Sentience Committee to report on all government policy across departments.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 12, leave out “or has had”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 14, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The report must state whether in the view of the Committee the question in subsection (2) has been answered in the affirmative or in the negative.”
This amendment would require the Committee to state clearly whether in deciding any policy the minister had, or had not, had full regard to the implications of that policy on animal welfare.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Recommendations made by the Committee must respect legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Committee to have regard to the balancing factors included in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 13 of Title II, to which the UK was a party before Brexit.
Amendment 16, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(8) In producing a report under this section, the Animal Sentience Committee must consult the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Animal Welfare Committee and publish a note in the report of the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion and advice on the recommendations contained in the report.”
This amendment requires the Committee to consult the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Animal Welfare Committee on its reports and include a report of its opinions and advice.
Amendment 22, page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3 and insert—
“Response to reports
(1) The relevant Minister must lay before Parliament a response to the report, where a failure to comply with the Animal Welfare Strategy has been identified.
(2) The response must be laid before Parliament within a period of three months from the day on which the Committee’s report is published.”
This amendment is consequential on NC4 and ensures that ministers must explain to Parliament any failure to comply with the Animal Welfare Strategy identified by the Committee.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, after “2,” insert
“where the committee has found the question in section 2(2) to have been answered in the negative,”.
This amendment would require the Minister to respond only where the Committee has found that the minister has not had all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
Amendment 17, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The response must contain the views of other expert committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee, and, where they disagree with the views of the Animal Sentience Committee, the Secretary of State must state which view the Government supports and the reasons for making that decision.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s response to the Animal Sentience Committee report includes the views of other expert committees, and, if in conflict, the Secretary of State must state with which committee’s view the Government agrees and give the reasons.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to each response to a report from the Animal Sentience Committee laid before Parliament under paragraph (1).”
This amendment would require the Minister to give an oral response to Animal Sentience Committee reports, creating an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of report recommendations and the Government’s response.
Amendment 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 1, at end insert—
“‘Policy’ means any proposal or decided course of action by or on behalf of a minister in the exercise of their statutory or common law powers. Policy does not include the decisions of ministers not to act, including changing an existing policy or law.”
This amendment provides a definition of policy for the purposes of the Animal Sentience Committee.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 1, at end insert—
“(1A) Nothing in this Act applies to an animal while it is in its foetal or embryonic form, except in relation to an animal to which sections 1 (protected animals) and 2 (regulated procedures) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as amended apply.”
This amendment ensures consistency with existing legislation.
Amendment 20, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (2) may only be exercised if the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are sentient, and the Secretary of State lays a report before Parliament setting out the scientific basis for determining that the species concerned is sentient.”
This amendment, as in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, seeks to ensure the power to extend the scope of sentience is based on scientific evidence and does not result from a political motivation or personal preference.
New schedule 1—The Animal Sentience Committee—
Membership
1 (1) The Animal Sentience Committee is to consist of—
(a) a member appointed by the Secretary of State to chair the Committee, and
(b) at least 8 but no more than 11 other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have all due regard to the need for the Committee to possess appropriate expertise and experience, to include animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law, and public administration.
(3) A member is appointed for such period not exceeding 4 years as the Secretary of State determines.
(4) The Secretary of State may reappoint as a member of the Committee a person who is, or has been, a member. A member shall not normally be reappointed consecutively for more than two terms of office.
(5) The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as a member of the Committee if the person is—
(a) a member of the House of Commons,
(b) a member of the House of Lords,
(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,
(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(f) a councillor of a local authority,
(g) an employee or former employee, or a consultant or former consultant to a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, and
(h) a person in receipt of, or previously in receipt of, any direct or indirect payments or funding from a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights.
General Powers
2 (1) The Committee may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance of its function as defined in section 1(2).
(2) The foregoing includes, but is not limited to, requesting from the government such information and material as it considers necessary.
(3) So far as is reasonable and practicable, the government shall comply with any request from the Committee under paragraph 2(2). If the government declines such a request it shall provide to the Committee its reasons for doing so in writing.
(4) In the event that the Committee considers the government has failed to meet the duty in paragraph 2(3) it may make reference to this in any report produced in accordance with section 2 of this Act.
(5) It shall be for the Committee to identify those policies which in its view might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
(6) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the government shall take reasonable steps to advise the Committee of its intention to formulate or implement any policy which might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
(7) If in producing a report under section 2 of this Act the Committee considers it to be desirable that the government receives further guidance on how animal welfare might be improved in relation to the relevant policy, it may refer the matter to an appropriate committee established for the purpose of providing such advice to ministers.
(8) The Committee may invite to attend its meetings on either a permanent or temporary basis any person appointed to chair a body established by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive to provide advice on the welfare or protection of animals in relation to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy. Persons attending in such an ex officio capacity shall not participate in any decisions of the Committee.
(9) The Committee shall publish the name and qualifications of any person invited to provide advice to the Committee and shall publish any advice given.
Independence and transparency
3 (1) The Committee shall be independent and autonomous of any other body.
(2) Within six months of its establishment, the Committee shall publish a memorandum setting out how it intends to carry out its function. The memorandum is to be kept under review and may be amended from time to time as the Committee considers appropriate.
(3) The memorandum shall include guidance as to how it expects ministers to demonstrate they have had all due regard to the ways in which a policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
(4) Within 12 months of being established, and thereafter as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, the Committee shall prepare and publish a report on the exercise of its functions during that year.
(5) The Committee’s reports shall be laid before Parliament.
(6) The Committee will determine the form and content of each of its reports.
Expenses and resources
4 (1) Members of the Committee, and any members of sub-committees established under paragraph 6, who are not members of the Committee, are entitled to such expenses as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) The government is to provide the Committee with such staff and other resources as the Committee requires to carry out its function.
(3) Staff serving the Committee shall be based in the Cabinet Office and independent of any other Department of State.
Early termination of membership
5 (1) A member of the Committee may resign by giving notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by giving notice to the member in writing, remove a member of the Committee if the Secretary of State considers that the member is—
(a) unable to perform the functions of a member, or
(b) unsuitable to continue as a member.
(3) A person’s membership of the Committee ends if the person becomes—
(a) a member of the House of Commons,
(b) a member of the House of Lords,
(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,
(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(f) a councillor of a local authority, and
(g) an employee of or a consultant to a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, or receives any direct or indirect payment or funding from such a charity or organisation.
Sub-Committees
6 (1) The Committee may establish sub-committees.
(2) The membership of a sub-committee may include persons who are not members of the Committee but those persons are not entitled to vote at meetings of the sub-committee.
(3) The Committee must publish a list of the membership of any sub-committee where it includes persons who are not members of the main Committee.
Regulation of procedure
7 The Committee may regulate its own procedure (including quorum) and that of any sub-committees.
Validity of things done
8 The validity of anything done by the Committee or its sub-committees is not affected by—
(a) a vacancy in membership,
(b) a defect in the appointment of a member, and
(c) the disqualification of a person as a member after appointment.”
This new schedule is consequential on Amendments 3, 4 and 5. It sets out a structure for the Committee, criteria for appointments and how it is to operate.
Jim McMahon
At long last, this legislation has finally found its way through Parliament. The Government could have dealt with this years ago had they not opposed the recognition of animal sentience and had they included it in other laws that carried over in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
The Conservatives have a track record of umming and ahhing, and they cannot seem to decide whether animal welfare is important. The truth is that, despite their warm words, the action never quite lives up to the promise. There were rumours that, due to unforeseen political concerns, the Government planned to let animal welfare legislation simply fall away at the end of the Session, for no other reason than managing internal party tensions.
It is quite clear that this issue continues to paralyse the Government Benches. That is why we have little bits of animal welfare Bills floating around here, there and everywhere, each intended to narrow the scope and avoid having to address issues such as blood sports, hunting and shooting, and each in the end destined to fall.
We should be discussing a comprehensive animal welfare Bill. That is what the country wants, and it is what the Government promised. Nevertheless, the Minister could clarify that any outstanding Bills relating to animal welfare will either be completed in this Session or, if not, carried over into the next.
Turning to this Bill, my Labour colleagues and I support enshrining animal sentience in law. My party has been saying for a number of years that that is desperately needed. We support the Bill, in the sense that it is better than doing nothing, but it feels as though the Government are more interested in using this as a photo opportunity than in seizing the moment and ensuring that we have a long-term strategy on animal welfare.
That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) tabled this new clause and amendment 1. Labour’s new clause 1 places a direct legal obligation on the Secretary of State to produce an animal sentience strategy, requiring annual updates to Parliament on its progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) rightly stated at Committee Stage, the Bill in its current form,
“places indirect responsibilities on Ministers”,
in that,
“they must simply establish and maintain a committee and lay written responses, rather than assuming direct responsibilities on these matters, which is what we would like to see.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2022; c. 27.]
This new clause would not only bring us into line with neighbouring countries, but significantly strengthen the responsibilities of the Animal Sentience Committee and ensures that the work is about more than just words and symbolism. For the same reasons, we wanted the Minister to give an oral update on the Floor of the House on the Animal Sentience Committee reports, providing a platform for parliamentary scrutiny of the report’s recommendations and the Government’s response.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge also said at Committee Stage, for the Animal Sentience Committee to have any heft at all, the Government cannot be allowed to simply shrug off the recommendations in its reports, especially if they are politically inconvenient or cause Back-Bench stirs on the Government Benches.
The new clause would require a Minister to make a motion in both Houses of Parliament, which would provide a genuine opportunity to properly scrutinise the reports and the Government’s response. Without that, the Committee’s findings will simply not be given the attention they deserve, and we will not have the right scrutiny on the critical issue of animal welfare.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has said, as it stands the Animal Sentience Committee risks becoming just another toothless talking shop—a Whitehall committee where, in the end, the reports gather dust, while critical issues of animal welfare within policy making go unaddressed.
Opposition Members care deeply about animal welfare. In Government, the Labour party brought forward landmark legislation in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Hunting Act 2004. We are the party of animal welfare, so we cannot help but feel that this piecemeal piece of legislation will not address the long-standing concerns on animal welfare.
The Opposition are clear that all animals deserve protection, whether they are pets, wild animals, ocean animals or farm animals. It is hard to believe that this Government are serious about animal welfare, given that they are still resisting banning foie gras and fur imports, both of which are horrifically cruel and completely unnecessary. In last year’s Queen’s Speech, the Government committed to ending the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter and taking further steps to limit the foie gras trade. So where is that promise? The Secretary of State could have included that piece of legislation right here, right now but, as is typical with a Conservative Government, they are big on promises and small on delivery.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I will speak to amendment 2, in my name and those of 30-odd colleagues.
The problem with the Bill is that it goes beyond the commitment made by Ministers to recognise animal sentience in British law in the same way that it is recognised in European Union law. My amendment is designed to ensure that the safeguards of the EU law are duplicated in British law. Currently, those safeguards are not in the Bill, as was the original ask of the animal welfare lobby.
It seems to me that we should have a bit of equivalence here. If this committee is set up by statute, its remit should also be defined by statute. I therefore ask the Government seriously to consider accepting my amendment as a sensible, fairly minor, but nevertheless important amendment to the remit of the committee, which recognises local customs,
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”.
That seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to do. With these few words, I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to see whether she cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept my amendment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will speak in favour of new clause 5, which would ensure an annual report including,
“the number of sentient animals killed or injured”,
as a result of pollution, a description of water companies’ actions to protect animals and an assessment of the impact of Government policy on those two things. I will also speak briefly in favour of new clause 6, which we do not intend to push to a vote, which would establish an annual report into the ways the Government have taken into account animal sentience when establishing new trade deals.
Turning to new clause 5, Cumbria contains two national parks, the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District, the latter being a world heritage site. The richness of our biodiversity throughout Cumbria is of great importance, not least in our rivers and lakes, whose ecology is of global significance as home to countless species. Yet Government policy threatens that diversity and damages animal welfare. In 2020, across the United Kingdom, water companies were permitted to dump raw sewage into our waterways on 400,000 occasions for a total of 3.l million hours, at enormous cost to the lives of aquatic and semi-aquatic sentient animals. At the River Lune near Sedbergh, we saw the longest discharge in the country lasting for 8,490 hours. At Derwentwater, a discharge of 8,275 hours took place. Is it any wonder that only 14 % of Britain’s rivers are classed as being in a “good” state?
The Government’s Environment Act 2021 acknowledges the problem and sets an ambition to reduce the pollution in our rivers caused by the dumping of raw sewage. Of course, as we all know, the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Opposition Members, their own Back Benchers and members of another place to even do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Member aware that today’s papers have indicated that while some of the beaches in the UK have the blue flag designation that shows that the water should, in theory, be acceptable, that designation is sometimes not acceptable either?
Tim Farron
Yes. Often rivers can meet an acceptable standard but in reality not be healthy places, particularly as regards biodiversity and wildlife. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point and makes the case as to why the increased scrutiny that the new clause would bring about is that much more important.
The ambition of the Environment Act, which was given Royal Assent last year, is open-ended. There are no meaningful targets or timescales to prevent water companies from dumping raw sewage into our rivers, harming fish and other animals. In 2020, water companies made £2.2 billion in profits. At the same time, as I said, they were dumping sewage in our waterways on 400,000 separate occasions. What kind of accountability is that? What kind of justice is that? What kind of impact is that having on our wildlife? The new clause would expose that.
Between 2018 and 2021, there were only 11 prosecutions of water companies for dumping sewage in our lakes and rivers. United Utilities, which serves Cumbria and the rest of the north-west, was responsible for seven out of the 10 longest sewage leaks in 2020, but, outrageously, was not fined even once. Despite the damage done to the ecology and animal life in rivers such as the Leven, Crake, Brathay, Kent, Lune, Sprint, Mint and Gowan, discharges are permitted either because Government will not stop them or because hardly any of the offenders are ever meaningfully prosecuted. The meres, tarns, waters and lakes of our lake district are all fed by rivers into which raw sewage can be legally dumped. I am particularly concerned about the ecology of Windermere and the failure to take sufficient action to protect the animal and plant life that is so dependent on England’s largest and most popular lake. The new clause would hold Government and water companies to account so that our wildlife and our biodiversity is protected.
New clause 6 addresses the impact of trade deals on the welfare of sentient animals. This country has concluded trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and any scrutiny of those deals is now effectively meaningless because the Government have already signed them. Yet the impact on sentient animals will be enormous. Free trade is vital to liberty, prosperity and peace, but trade that is not fair is not free at all. These trade deals are not fair on animals and not fair on the British farmers who care for our animals. In Australia, for example, huge-scale ranch farming means the loss of many times more animals than in the UK because of the absence of the close husbandry that we find on British family farms. Some 40% of beef in Australia involves the use of hormones that are not allowed in the United Kingdom. Cattle can be transported in Australia for up to 48 hours in the heat without food or water. These are clearly lower animal welfare standards. By signing these deals without real scrutiny, the Government have endorsed that cruelty and enabled it to prosper at our farmers’ expense. Lower standards are cheaper, so these deals give a competitive advantage to imported animal products that have reached market with poorer animal welfare, thus undermining British farmers who practise higher animal welfare standards. That is why the new clause is important—because it seeks to hold Ministers to account and to limit how much they can get away with sacrificing the welfare of sentient animals at home and abroad in order to achieve a politically useful deal.
Despite this, this Bill has much to commend it. However, the new clauses would allow the Government to look the British people in the eye and say that they were prepared to take on powerful vested interests in order to protect animals and our wider environment. In seeking to press new clause 5 to a vote, I urge Members in all parts of the House not to take the side of the most powerful against those creatures that are the most defenceless.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and new clause 4, amendments 3 to 22, and new schedule 1, which are in my name.
From the outset, and for the avoidance of all doubt, I am not, through any of these amendments, arguing against animals being sentient or being able to feel pain. After all, the sentience of animals has long been recognised in UK law, as evidenced by animal welfare legislation passed over the course of nearly 200 years. The purpose of amendment 2 and the other amendments in my name is to help the Government to avoid the main dangers and unforeseen consequences posed by the undefined aspects of the creation of the new Animal Sentience Committee. Crucially, under the unamended version of the Bill, it remains unclear who will be on this committee and what direct powers it will have. The unamended Bill’s draft terms of reference seem to suggest that the committee could have a role in scrutinising the substance of policies and not just the processes that led to those decisions being made. The Secretary of State will have the final sign-off on the committee’s composition, but what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that it is made up of dispassionate and genuine scientific animal experts and not ideologically driven animal rights activists with political agendas?
The amendments would protect against the Bill clumsily becoming a Trojan horse for what I would consider an extreme agenda that the Government could live to regret in years to come. Indeed, passionate supporters of the committee’s creation have already talked publicly of its not excluding animal rights extremist groups such as PETA. My amendments, especially amendments 3, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 21, new clause 4 and new schedule 1, suggest some statutory structure for the committee, how appointments to it are to be made, and how it might operate. The amendments would clarify that the committee is concerned with the process by which current policy is being formulated and not with policy decisions taken or suggesting policy changes, whether proposing new policy or changes to existing policy.
The amendments would also help to address the question of the Bill’s retrospective effect. The current drafting, confirmed by the draft terms of reference, would allow the committee to report on past policy decisions. Without my amendments, there will be no limit to how far back the committee can look, which would, in practice, allow it to draw attention to policies that have already been decided and implemented, or are being implemented. I fear that in doing so, it could start to drive a policy agenda of its own. Far from ensuring that in the process of policy making all due regard is had to animal welfare, it could raise policy issues that are not under current consideration or have already been decided, or decisions made before Ministers were expected to take account of animal sentience.
The current draft terms provide little clarity, and there is little if anything binding on Ministers, whether current or future. To rely on terms of reference to provide detail in these areas is not desirable for a statutory body, as they are non-binding and can be changed at will without any parliamentary oversight.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today on new clause 1 and an issue that is very close to my own heart, as hon. Friends will know, as well as those of many of our constituents up and down the country. Indeed, it was a privilege to secure a Westminster Hall debate last year on covid-19’s impact on animal welfare. That debate took place almost a year ago to the day and I am pleased that we are now in a very different place when it comes to legislating to protect the most vulnerable.
As has already been said by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), this Bill has been a long time coming. We have only now reached this point thanks to the hard work of Members in this place and the other place, who have campaigned ferociously on these issues for many years. They include my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), as well as the former Member for Redcar, Anna Turley, who, were she still in this place, would be speaking passionately on this issue today.
I welcome the general thrust of this Bill to ban live exports and introduce animal sentience on to the statute book for the first time. It is also encouraging to see that animal welfare organisations such as the Better Deal for Animals coalition and Compassion in World Farming, and other charities including Hope Rescue, which is based near me in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), have cautiously welcomed the Bill, too.
I rise none the less to express concerns shared by several other Members that the Bill in its current form lacks scope and ambition. By making a specific provision that will allow our understanding of animal sentience to evolve as scientific research progresses, the Bill represents a brilliant opportunity to reinforce animal welfare legislation. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by.
As the Bill progressed through the other place, some sought to argue that existing laws, such as the 200-year-old Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, were sufficient to legally enshrine animal sentience, but that simply is not true. To rely on legislation from 200 years ago without seeing the need for modernisation would have been a kick in the teeth for animal lovers and activists across the country and fundamentally would have been a wasted opportunity. Our withdrawal from the treaty of Lisbon, which colleagues will be aware acknowledges animal sentience in article 13, renders those arguments completely defunct. We are now seeing the effects of how the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 failed to transfer these principles.
Contrary to those remarks in the other place, there is a gaping hole in British law regarding the welfare of animals, and it is our responsibility to make those wrongs right. The Bill will go a long way to addressing that hole by again recognising the ability of animals to feel pain, excitement, joy and comfort, but the decision by the Government to not include a proactive animal sentience strategy, which Labour calls for in new clause 1, was incredibly disappointing. Compelling the Government to publish an animal sentience strategy would ensure that the Bill did not fall short of its aim to properly underpin animal welfare. Without it, the Bill in its current form risks being weaker than the European legislation it seeks to replace.
Let me be clear: animal welfare should be a priority for us all. I am pleased to say that, in Wales, the fantastic Welsh Labour Government are again ahead of the curve. The Welsh Government published their own animal welfare plan in November last year, and again it is disappointing to see the UK Government refuse to adopt their own in the Bill. After all, let us not forget that it was a Labour Government who introduced the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That is because we recognised that issues relating to animal welfare are issues that we must all be concerned by. Hope Rescue, to which I referred earlier, is one such charity that has been leading the way on animal welfare issues for some years and its sheer dedication to improving the lives of abandoned dogs is to be applauded. In partnership with other groups, such as Justice for Reggie, campaigning groups are plugging the gaps where UK Government legislation has failed.
Animal welfare is a complex, emotive issue that spans many policy areas. I am pleased to see this legislation reach its final stages in this place, but I urge the Government to be more ambitious in their approach to animal welfare more widely. I will continue to push that point wherever possible, particularly in my capacity as a shadow Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister.
As the Government seek to finally tighten up the online space, my final plea to the Minister is to work with her colleagues across Departments on animal welfare issues specific to digital spaces, such as the sale of pets online. Now is the time to get that right. Only by working collaboratively can we truly tackle the root cause of those issues once and for all.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. It has been interesting to listen to hon. Members on both sides. I would argue that the Government have probably got the Bill about right, for the simple reason that Opposition Members are saying that it does not go far enough and Conservative Members are perhaps saying that it goes plenty far enough.
This legislation is better than the previous version because it will not be taken to judicial review. In about 2018, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at the Bill as it was then and rightly decided, having taken legal advice and advice from others, that many of the actions that could take place could be judicial-reviewed and land up in the courts. There could have been a situation where much of our animal welfare was judged in the courts, rather than here in Parliament. Instead, it creates a committee that is put in place by the Secretary of State and then has to present a report to them. He or she will then make a decision about which route the Government will take on animal welfare. I believe that that is the right situation.
I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). We have argued many times in this Chamber, and I even argued in the European Parliament, that European legislation often had no flexibility about it. On this occasion, of course, it did have flexibility when bringing animal welfare legislation forward. As we brought legislation over as a result of Brexit, however, we did not include those clauses, which is why we are in this predicament. I have real sympathy for the Minister because she is dealing with an interesting situation: she is trying to balance the needs of animal welfare with the perceived needs of animal rights. That is the issue.
It is interesting that, in tonight’s debate, we have talked all about DEFRA. Much of it is about DEFRA, but we must remember that the Animal Sentience Committee will deal with the whole of Government. So when someone is building a bypass or building houses, the effect of all those issues on sentience will be considered. I admit that I am still interested to know how the committee will deal with all that. How will the Secretary of State for Transport or the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities deal with it? It will have a big job to do.
If the committee is set up in the right way with the right people on it, so that they can make a judgment about what is right in practical terms for animal welfare, it can work, but it is very much about how it is set up, who the chair is and who the members are. We must ensure that we have a balance of opinions so that, with the right methods of building, we can build our roads and our homes and we can carry on farming in our traditional ways.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
To the point that my hon. Friend has rightly made about the cross-cutting nature of the Bill across Government Departments, I quite like that. For example, the Department for Education might educate people on how to look after pets properly. There are many useful areas where the Bill could have a role.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We now have charities that take dogs into schools to ensure that people can look after a dog or their pets properly. Most families do so, but unfortunately there are families who do not. That is where it is absolutely necessary and that is why I am not negative about the Bill. I do not think we ever needed to get to this place, but, as they say, we are where we are. That is why we have this Bill. A lot relies on the Secretary of State to get it right. I believe that it can be made to work across Government, but I am still intrigued as to how all those Departments will take notice of this powerful Animal Sentience Committee.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
At the opening of my hon. Friend’s remarks, he indicated that he thought the Bill was pretty good as it was and that he feels, as I do, that if the Opposition are criticising it and some Conservative Back Benchers are criticising it, it is probably about right. Does he agree that there is not a single amendment tabled by the Opposition or Conservative Back Benchers that would improve the Bill one iota? We ought to leave it exactly as it is.
Neil Parish
I would probably make an exception for amendment 2, but my hon. Friend makes a good point that amending legislation sometimes does not work in exactly the way we want it to work. I do not often give much praise to the Government, but on this occasion they have probably worked hard on the Bill to get it where it is. It is in a much better place than it was.
I will also talk briefly about new clause 5, which is an interesting amendment about water companies and pollution. The key to the water companies and pollution in our rivers is that we are about to have a new chair of Ofwat. The Secretary of State is looking at candidates and the EFRA Committee is about to look at whoever he or she might be. The new chair has a very big job to do, because—let us be blunt—the water companies have paid their shareholders and directors too much and have not put enough into infrastructure.
At one time, a previous Secretary of State was keen to bring forward legislation to ensure that more pressure was put on the water companies to deliver, because it is not just about putting up bills to get more infrastructure to stop pollution; it is about ensuring that water companies invest in building the infrastructure. I would not go as far as the Opposition parties want and nationalise the water companies, but I would apply some thumbscrews to them—only metaphorically—so that they really make a difference on the investment that they make. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know well that water companies should not be discharging into rivers when there is an overflow from treatment plants, many of which have not had the investment that they should have done over the years.
In fairness to the water companies—I do not like being fair to them—we should remember that, after going through education, health and all the other sectors, when they were nationalised they had not necessarily had the amount of investment that they had needed over the years. Since they were privatised, therefore, there has been a lot of investment by those companies, but it has not been enough, which is why we now have an opportunity to get it right. I am not sure, however, that the Bill is the right place for such a provision. I think we should be beefing up Ofwat and taking on the water companies directly.
The Opposition are saying that we are not creating greater biodiversity, but I do not accept that. I believe that we are and that all our policies are destined to do that, but we have to get the balance right. We see Putin and his dreadful regime inflicting this horrendous situation in Ukraine, murdering innocent people. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe and, in many respects, of the world. Therefore, as we move towards greater biodiversity, we must also ensure that we have good food production, with enough food being produced. We have to get that balance right.
I may have journeyed slightly away from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, but we have to be concerned about getting enough food. Food and energy security—these basics of life—are so important to us now. Let us get the Bill through and ensure that we set up the right committee, with the right chair, to ensure that proper animal welfare is considered, that there are practical ways of dealing with this issue across Government, so that it does not end up in the courts, and that the committee makes sensible decisions that are passed to Parliament, through the Secretary of State, to make sure that the Bill works in practice.
I support amendment 2 and I will support the Bill, but I think we have probably made very heavy work of getting here.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is quite right that we have made heavy work of getting here. We have probably at times shared the view that we would not get here, so I welcome the fact that we have done so. I am not sure why some Government Back Benchers are so upset about the Bill, because it is pretty weak, although the test will be who is on the animal sentience committee once it is up and running, and what decisions they make and are allowed to make, so we reserve judgment on that.
I will speak briefly in support of new clause 1. It was rejected by the Government in Committee, although I am not sure why. It would require the preparation of an animal sentience strategy and annual statements on progress towards that. That would lead to a more proactive approach to sentience from Ministers. One of the amendments I tabled in Committee would have removed the word “adverse.” The new animal sentience committee’s job is to look at the “adverse effects” of policy. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said that it would be able to look at kids learning in school about how to be nice to pets, but that is not the purpose of this committee. Its purpose is to look at negative things, but I think it would help if it could also look at the positive side of things.
Having an animal sentience strategy in place would force the Government to set out how they would respond to relevant reports, assessments and research, and it would be more proactive. Improving animal welfare should not just be about protecting where we are; it ought to be a constant, iterative process, because where we are simply is not good enough, whether because the laws are not strong enough or because enforcement does not happen.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree with me that although the Bill is a step forward, it is unusual to have a committee of this type without its having a strategy? As Government Members have pointed out, the committee needs to be making sensible decisions and recommendations. How can it do that without a strategy? I am sure the public would expect it to have a strategy, because the public expect us to be focused on animal welfare.
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, particularly as we have a Government who cannot be trusted to keep their promises, as we have seen recently on imports of hunting trophies, fur and foie gas, for example. We need a mechanism that keeps the Government on track and creates that forward momentum, and new clause 1 would provide that.
It is clear from the Government rowing back on their promises to legislate on those imports that the Government are scared of some of their more unreconstructed Back Benchers—actually, some of the current Cabinet are pretty unreconstructed too, if the press are to be believed. On Second Reading it was noticeable how many Conservative Back Benchers stood up to criticise the Bill. The lack of enthusiasm for it—even the fear of it—was palpable, and we have read about efforts behind the scenes to neuter it, and I think that is what amendment 7 is about.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) wrote a rather amusing article for ConservativeHome recently, saying that he had rumbled my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and me and sussed us out—I paraphrase. After close scrutiny of our comments in Committee, he had worked out that we had a hidden agenda: we were against fox hunting. That was remarkably clever of him; it was like when Scooby Doo suddenly unmasks the villains at the end. If there is anyone with a hidden agenda, it is he and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, and I think he ought to be clear as to what amendments 6 and 7 are about.
Why would we want to exclude anyone with past or present commitment to animal welfare issues from serving on the animal sentience committee? Amendment 7 says that anyone who is an
“employee, former employee, or is a consultant or former consultant to, a charity”—
that could be the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which are pretty benign organisations—
“or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, or is or has been in receipt of any payments or funding from such a charity or organisation, whether directly or indirectly”
should not be allowed to serve on the animal sentience committee. I do not understand why we would want to exclude people who have shown commitment, interest, knowledge or expertise in animal welfare from the animal sentience committee, unless the aim was to try to ensure that it was as weak on welfare and soft on sentience as possible.
Sir Roger Gale
According to the hon. Lady’s analysis, would that also mean that any member of the Countryside Alliance would have to be excluded?
Kerry McCarthy
I was actually just coming to that point. I was going to say that if the hon. Member for Buckingham thinks that nobody who has aligned themselves to a particular cause can be impartial, then that also ought to cover his friends in the Countryside Alliance and the rest of the hunting and shooting lobby. When he refers to extremists, I would say, certainly having been on the receiving end of it, that there are extremists on that side too. For example, Chris Packham has been subjected to a huge amount of abuse just for speaking out about the persecution of hen harriers, so there are clearly unpalatable elements on that side as well.
Amendment 7 would mean that someone such as the eminent zoologist Michael Balls CBE—father of Ed—who served as an adviser to the Government on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and was a founding member of the Animal Procedures Committee, which advised the Home Secretary on all matters related to animal experimentation, would not be allowed to serve on the animal sentience committee, despite that expertise, because he had been a trustee of FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. He also, alongside the Prime Minister’s own father, came to Parliament to campaign against a huge new puppy farm in Yorkshire, where beagles were being bred specifically for purposes of animal experimentation. He is now an emeritus professor and might no longer wish to serve on Government committees, but surely someone with that sort of background would be absolutely perfect for this committee. That is not to say that we cannot also have a balance, with people who have other views.
I think it is nonsense to suggest that such experts, who are drawn to campaign on animal welfare precisely because of their in-depth understanding of the science behind animal sentience—it is because of their expertise that they are concerned about animal sentience and animal welfare—should not be allowed to serve.
Finally, turning to amendment 2, I think the same thing is actually going on. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds was very brief in speaking to his amendment, but he happens to be chair of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. It is somewhat ironic that some of those who were so vocally supportive of leaving the EU, apparently to take advantage of new freedoms, are now arguing that they want to carry over the Lisbon treaty wording, chapter and verse. I think one of the reasons why this provision was in the Lisbon treaty was to protect things such as bull fighting, which I would hope we all think should not be protected in the name of culture and tradition.
I do not have a huge problem with the amendment being made to the Bill, because I have argued from the start, going back to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill debates, that the Lisbon treaty provision should be carried over. However, having heard what the hon. Member said on Second Reading, I think what he is really trying to do, by the back door, is to turn back the clock on the hunting ban or to create legal uncertainty around its enforcement by saying—this was the old argument we had when the Labour Government banned hunting—that it is all part of our tradition and of rural culture. The fact is that, for most people, as polling shows, it is a tradition they want confined to the history books, along with bear baiting, cock fighting, sending children up chimneys and so on. The hon. Member has to accept that times have changed, and that there is no place for fox hunting in a civilised world.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I rise in support of this Bill, and I declare a strong personal and professional interest in animal health, welfare and sentience as a veterinary surgeon. I welcome the Bill, and I think it is so important that we recognise sentience in legislation, and I welcome the inclusion of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans.
As I said on Second Reading, I still think we need to be clearer on the specifics of the Bill, albeit that it is a brief and general Bill. I am disappointed, coming back from Committee, that the recommendations to put a definition of sentience into the Bill were cast aside. I draw attention to the definition put forward by the Global Animal Law Project, as adopted also by the British Veterinary Association:
“Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of conscious awareness.”
I do understand the reservations about putting this into primary legislation, but as I have said before, I think this could be tackled by putting it into secondary legislation. I am aware that the science will evolve and definitions may evolve, and that could be tackled in secondary legislation.
I welcome the formation of the future Animal Sentience Committee. It must have the right breadth of expertise and talent, but I want it to have some teeth and power. As has been mentioned, it has the ability to roam across Departments, and I welcome that. Clause 2 talks about how, in relation to reports from the committee, the Government will have
“all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) that it is a shame the Bill still talks purely about the adverse effects. If we could put in the positive effects, that would go along with the United Kingdom being a beacon of standards on animal health and welfare. We could still consider putting that forward.
I firmly believe that animal welfare needs to be joined up across Government, and I think this Bill actually starts to do that. We need to look at Government policy across different Departments, and the Bill can reinforce that. However, there are some things that I firmly believe that we, as a Parliament and as a Government, need to act on quickly. I again urge Ministers to keep doing that, and I will quickly whip through some of the things that I think we really need to crack on with.
On pet theft, we are bringing it into law, but I want it very much expanded from dogs to include cats, but also horses and farm animals, which are being stolen as we speak. We still need to close the loophole in the Government buying standards for domestic food procurement. The loophole allows public sector bodies to buy things at lower animal welfare standards on the ground of cost, and I think that loophole needs closing now.
International trade has been mentioned, and we need to show the rest of the world that we are a beacon on animal health and welfare. Again, putting sentience into legislation confirms that, but I firmly believe we have missed an opportunity by not placing core standards into the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. We should just draw a line, and say there are certain red line products that we find unacceptable in this country and that we will not accept them. We should say firmly that we will not undermine our fantastic British farmers, who farm to the highest animal health and welfare standards. In my constituency of Penrith and The Border, the Cumbrian farmers are right up there among the best of our British farmers, and we must not undermine those farmers in these trade deals. The Bill will help with that, and we need to put pressure on the Department for International Trade in future trade deals, as well as with the current trade deals that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the International Trade Committees are scrutinising.
Sir Roger Gale
Does my hon. Friend recall that when we left the European Union, one of the advantages that we were told would arise from that was that we would be able to maintain our own high animal welfare standards, and not import goods that were produced to a lower standard?
Dr Hudson
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is important that we have the highest standards. I note there is an animal welfare chapter in the Australian trade deal, which I welcome, but in that chapter there are non-regression clauses, and all those do is say that neither partner will get worse. I think we can do better than that. I believe we must uphold our own animal welfare standards, and drive up animal health and welfare standards around the world.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has been looking at the movement of animals. The Government have looked at some our recommendations, but the standard response, again, is that they are “consulting” or “will consult.” Let us stop consulting on a lot of these matters, and just crack on with it. On puppy smuggling, let us raise the age of the dogs coming in to a minimum of six months. Let us ban heavily pregnant dogs and cats from being moved into the country. Let us ban the import of cropped-eared dogs.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman is a vociferous campaigner on animal welfare and he makes some excellent points. On that final point, does he share my concern that at Crufts this weekend, the “best in breed” was a British bulldog? There is concern about the breeding of those brachycephalic dogs and the impact it has on them. Does he share my concern that the Government need to do more to protect them, as well as concerns about puppy smuggling and puppy breeding of such dogs in the future?
Dr Hudson
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She is a proud champion for animal welfare on the Labour Benches. We must look at that issue closely. Brachycephalic dogs, and dogs that have had horrific mutilations—I touched on the point about cropped ears—are being popularised in culture, with celebrities having those dogs, unwittingly endorsing such procedures. We must be careful about publicly endorsing dogs and animals that have had some of those procedures, as well as some of the breeding procedures that make those animals struggle in later life. Owners take on some of these dogs in good faith, and have no idea of some of the unintended consequences of such breeding patterns.
I mentioned ear cropping in dogs. The RSPCA has reported that in the past year, the incidence and reports of such dogs has gone up by about 86%. We do not need to wait for a law to come in or for primary legislation; we can crack on with secondary legislation and ban the import of dogs that have had their ears cropped, and potentially of cats that have had their claws removed. Instead of consulting, with secondary legislation we can crack on with some of the important health checks. If animals are being moved into this country, we should be doing checks on those dogs for things such as brucella canis. We should be reinstituting the rabies titer checks. We can reverse the change that the European Union made when it removed the need for mandatory tick treatment for small animals coming into this country. We can reverse that in secondary legislation to protect the health and welfare of those dogs and animals being brought into the country and, importantly, to protect the health and welfare of animals in this country. This is about biosecurity, and health and welfare needs to be thought about in the round.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has had some thoughts and comments for the Government about sorting out the digital identification of horses. Again, I welcome that the Government are consulting on that, but we need to crack on. If we can identify those animals, we will stamp out the illegal movement of animals to the European Union for slaughter.
Neil Parish
We have a system up and running with which we can electronically identify the horses. We have to roll that out here and get it recognised by the European Union. There is a good animal welfare reason, as well as a good movement reason for it, and I urge DEFRA Ministers to move—dare I say it?—a little faster.
Dr Hudson
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I urge Ministers to move quickly on this. We must identify horses so that we know why they are moving and can stamp out the illegal movement of hundreds, potentially thousands, of those animals that are moved for slaughter. That is important. Much as I am keen on making decisions from an evidence base, there comes a time when we do not need to keep consulting. The evidence is out there. Let us act; let us do it now.
I have raised this point with Ministers many times, as have Government and Opposition Members: if we are bringing in animal sentience legislation, let us have joined-up animal health and welfare legislation in practice now. For instance, as we speak, pig farms in the United Kingdom are still in crisis with more than 40,000 pigs having been culled on farms and not gone into the food supply chain. That is horrific. It is incredibly upsetting for the farmers, the vets, the slaughter workers and everyone concerned. It is an awful thing to do. Again, I firmly push the Government on that. I know that the Minister has been convening summits and working well with the sector, but we need action to put pressure on the food processors as well as work with the Home Office to sort out the visa situation to mitigate the crisis.
Many of those are workforce issues that have been exacerbated by Brexit and covid, but they are now having implications for our food security, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). They may also become an animal health and welfare problem. Let me give an example from the veterinary sector from a professional viewpoint. Since Brexit, the number of EU vets registering in the United Kingdom has reduced by a factor of about two thirds, and about 90% to 95% of vets working in the meat hygiene sector come from the European Union, so that reduction is producing a real crisis. We are short of not just workers but vets in the slaughter sector. In parallel, in the veterinary sector there is a huge increase in the time and demands on veterinary surgeons. Throughout lockdown, people have been taking in pets—we had the puppy boom—so the pressure on small animal veterinarians has gone through the roof, and, with Brexit, the pressures from export and import certification have also gone up. We therefore have a real crisis in the sector; it is a perfect storm that we really need to address.
On the EFRA Committee, we have made recommendations about keeping an eye on veterinary workforce issues and, again, that goes cross-departmental. For instance, I have been calling for an EU-UK veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which would smooth the movement of animal and plant produce between the UK and the EU. That would help with trade and help solve many of the issues we face between GB and Northern Ireland. I ask the Government to work across Government and with our European colleagues, because, if we could secure such agreements, that would take pressure off some of our workforce issues. That would also be of huge benefit to the country’s biosecurity.
Finally, I urge the Government not to lose their nerve on some of the welfare promises we made in our manifesto and in policy. I sincerely hope that media reports about the Government potentially dropping the ban on imports of farmed fur and foie gras are false and that they will keep going with what they promised. Some in my party have been reported in the media as saying that it is a matter of frippery or of personal choice—they should tell that to the animals farmed for their fur and to the birds with a tube rammed down their throat who are force-fed to make their livers pathologically fatty for some culinary delicacy. I firmly believe that we should hold our nerve in the Chamber and in the Conservative party and forge ahead with our promises, because that is the right and proper thing to do.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. I entirely agree with him on the iniquities of fur and foie gras. Is it not that we deem it cruel enough to have banned its production in this country, so all that we are squabbling about is whether we will outsource that cruelty and allow imports? I think it was the chair of the 1922 committee, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), who talked about having to smuggle foie gras into the country on Eurostar. Surely there is hypocrisy at the heart of it as well.
Dr Hudson
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Those practices and procedures are rightly banned in this country. I firmly believe that we should not import things that we believe are wrong in this country. There has been a lot of discussion about trade deals, hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken. Rightly, those practices are banned in this country. That is one area where I do actually take the Government at their word. They are still banned, so those products will not be imported. I firmly believe we should keep our promises. If we make a promise, we should keep it.
Jim Shannon
It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He set out comprehensively what he hopes the Bill will achieve. He also outlined some things that need to be done, but on which we are perhaps not there yet. I put that on the record. I am pleased, as I always am, to see the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) in her place. I know that both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) will respond to our concerns.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food has responded to a number of debates I have attended on puppy smuggling, an issue I feel incredibly strongly about. The steps the Government are taking tonight will be very helpful in tackling that issue. The intention is clearly to tighten the requirements of the pet travel scheme to tackle this very cruel trade. The hon. Gentleman and others referred to increasing the age at which a puppy can enter the country, as well as banning the importation of dogs with cropped ears and heavily pregnant dogs. Those measures are vital. However, I am aware that the Dogs Trust is calling on the Government and the Minister to introduce visual checks to ensure that that good work will not be in vain, and to put a stop to puppy smuggling once and for all. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the Bill will achieve that. I hope we can achieve that, but if we cannot, what will be done to ensure that it can be stopped and to ensure that the Bill contains the correct protocol for carrying out the law?
In conversations I have had with the Minister, through debates in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber, one of my concerns has been about working alongside the Republic of Ireland and its legislation. Northern Ireland, of course, has a border with the Republic of Ireland, so it is important to get that right in relation to puppy smuggling. In the past, the Minister has reassured me on that point. Perhaps she could confirm that on the record.
Northern Ireland has led the way on microchipping dogs and cats. Indeed, in Northern Ireland we are doing many things on animal sentience. Dogs are more than a cosmetic piece for show, whenever you go somewhere. Dogs have always been incredibly important to me—all my life, I have always had a dog. I see dogs mostly as hunting dogs. I am very pleased to be a fully involved member of the sporting community, as are many Conservative Members. In particular, I commend the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for the hard work he has done with the Minister to deal with some of tonight’s issues. It is good to see that in place.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I use this intervention to inform the House that my constituent has brought 55 different databases to produce one horse database, with all the biological markings of horses on it. He is working—and I am working with him—with senior civil servants in DEFRA to produce a similar database for dogs and cats. As a further refinement, there are some rogues out there who remove microchips from dogs and put in a substitute microchip. I am working with the police to put the DNA that forces like my own collect into the database so that we can see when microchips have been removed and replaced.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he is right in what he says. A lot of dogs have been stolen during the covid period and having microchips in place was one method of trying to find out where they had ended up. He has referred to one methodology to make sure we can improve the system, which is what he is committed to. I hope that tonight we can see more of that improvement happening.
This legislation is mostly UK-based and England-based. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and indeed the Minister, I am keen to see steps in the right direction on water quality. I very much welcome the stance we have taken in this House on fur and foie gras. Like others, I seek the Minister’s assurance that we have a duty to prevent the importation of fur and foie gras. Will she confirm whether that is something that could rightly be achieved in this Bill? If it is not, what forthcoming legislation could address it? I, for one, agree with the comments on this of the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), among others. I am probably a plain eater, but the general public out there are probably very much opposed to those two things.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred to the issue of food quality, and it is important to have that in place.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made a powerful point on the standards that we adopt here in the UK. My hon. Friend will know that our Northern Ireland farmers lead the way on animal welfare standards. Does he agree that it is vital that this Government ensure in any future trade deals that our markets are not flooded with cheap, substandard products that do not adhere to the high welfare standards that we have in this country?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that the Minister agrees with it, and I know that what we have tonight is a commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland can retain its standards, and that the deals with Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere will not have an adverse impact on the great sector we have in Northern Ireland and indeed in the whole UK. For us in Northern Ireland it is so important to have these standards in place, because we export 80% of our product.
I have one more point to make, and I make it as an animal lover. It relates to the protection of our pets and animals, which is a passion of mine. Since I was a wee boy in Ballywalter, which was not yesterday but back in the 1960s, I have always had a dog. After I met my wife, we always seemed to have a cat. My mailbag has been replicated throughout the whole constituency of Strangford, and again I seek some reassurance that we are in the last stages of getting this right. We are making vast steps in the right direction, but there is a balance between animal welfare and our obligations to the farming community. I declare an interest, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which is the sister body of the National Farmers Union here on the mainland. This delicate balance must be kept, even in these last stages of amending and pushing through this legislation. Again, I am pleased to work with and support the Government on what they are bringing forward. Others have also made magnificent contributions to help get the legislation to where we want it to be.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We heard again, in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), that ours is a nation of animal-lovers, and that view has been reflected in contributions from Members on both sides of the House tonight. I have considerable sympathy with the observation made by many—particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—that if we are to remain a nation which fulfils that ambition, we must update our legislation from time to time. The UK is a country known throughout the world for what is often a very good process for identifying effective and proportionate regulation. That is reflected in the Bill, which is why I support it so strongly.
My constituency is unashamedly suburban in character. Given that past debates of this kind have been characterised as pitting town against country, it is enormously helpful for me to be here as the representative of a constituency where there are more than 80 farms and where fishing and fishing-associated businesses are very much present, but which also contains a significant number of members of animal welfare and, indeed, animal rights organisations. Throughout the Bill’s progress, I have been struck by the messages that have emerged and have shown how strongly people feel about the need for us to ensure that the update in the Bill is turned into practical reality. We sometimes have lengthy debates in the House and pass laws that appear to be stringent, but then fail to ensure that they are reflected in the experience of the people or, as in this context, the animals that they are designed to protect.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), although like many others I am not sure whether this Bill is the right place for his new clause, because in my constituency the River Colne has been hugely affected by sewage discharges. That has in turn affected fishing lakes and businesses involved in, for instance, water sports. We need to ensure that the measures outlined in the House during the passage of the Environment Act 2021 find their way into rigorous enforcement so that our constituents see cleaner, safer water, both for livestock and for human use, as part of their day-to-day lives.
I am a greater fan of the EU lawmaking process than, perhaps, many other Members. My experience has been mainly on the education side, but I think that ensuring that every stakeholder has the opportunity to contribute so we can ensure that the laws that emerge from their contribution reflect the widest possible range of concerns and are as effective as possible is a very worthwhile process. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) expressed concerns in this regard. In the spirit of trying to create legislation that constitutes an effective compromise and will make the difference to animal welfare that we want to see, I wholly endorse amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I hope that the Government will adopt it enthusiastically tonight.
Both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke of the need to ensure that we make a real difference. Whether we are talking about dogs or horses, animals kept as pets, animals that are part of our food industry, animals in our farms, animals in our rivers or animals that may be bred for sport, we must not just refer sentimentally to the highest possible standards, but ensure that our laws are in step with those in other countries, especially when it comes to trade deals. The food businesses in my constituency need to see high standards in the United Kingdom that reflect the high standards they expect to find in the markets with which we trade, and we need to ensure that those markets can trade freely with us on the basis of a high degree of parity.
Sir Roger Gale
My hon. Friend has been extremely generous in his comments about my own remarks. The briefing from the Countryside Alliance on amendment 2 indicates that this would reintroduce the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which was designed to protect bullfighting, and by implication would also protect foxhunting.
David Simmonds
That is no doubt a valid concern in the context of the Lisbon treaty, but when it comes to protecting events that are part of our heritage, those events need to be already taking place and legal in the country to which the rules apply.
An element that was designed to protect bullfighting in Spain, which has never been present in the United Kingdom, would not fall to be protected within that legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made some extremely clear and effective remarks. He made a valid point about the need to ensure that in the composition of any committee, we exclude not those with connections to interest groups but those who have expressed a view that would prejudge their position on a matter where they were required to be independent. That is an essential consideration. We make that same requirement for those who sit on juries or deal with court cases. For example, we require magistrates to declare any reason for excluding themselves from sitting in judgment on a case. The same applies to local authority councillors dealing with a planning application when they have a direct stake in the process. My hon. Friend has raised a valid point there, and in the light of other comments from across the House, there is clearly an opportunity to develop that a little further to take into account the widest possible audience of stakeholders. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet about the Countryside Alliance was also valid, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has taken that on board.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to speak to new clauses 2 and 3. Many Members will be aware of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which was established by the Scottish Government in 2020. The commission’s evidence-based and expert-driven approach offers a good model for the English Animal Sentience Committee, and I would urge those who have expressed misgivings about how the committee will be constructed to look to Scotland to see that it is working and that recommendations are regularly made to Ministers who then act on them. However, although animal welfare is devolved, some issues still fall under reserved areas, and the SNP new clauses focus on those issues.
Of course we support the Bill, because it will enable the setting up of a committee similar to our own, but it could be strengthened to recognise the rights of sentient animals undergoing scientific testing and military experiments used by the Ministry of Defence. Last month, this House debated a petition calling for legislation to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is unacceptable that, in this nation of professed animal lovers, laboratory animals are not protected from unnecessary suffering under that legislation. Instead, the current rules on animals used in research are set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home Office is responsible for regulating and enforcing that law. However, much of what goes on behind closed doors at animal testing sites in the UK is hidden from view and shrouded in secrecy, as the law blocks access to information about the animals’ treatment during experiments. Section 24 of the 1986 Act makes it a criminal offence for that information to be disclosed.
A requirement for the Animal Sentience Committee to provide assessments to the Government on such tests would help to ensure that the sentience of those animals was equally recognised and accounted for. New clause 2 therefore requires the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the use of sentient animals in scientific experiments and military exercises by the MOD and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Between 2009 and 2020, the MOD carried out over 60,000 experimental procedures on mice, rabbits, primates, pigs and other animals. Similarly, new clause 3 requires the committee to produce a report on the use of sentient animals in tests relating to medicine, cosmetics and weapons in Government policy. As I said on Second Reading, although those specific issues are still reserved to Westminster, polling of Scottish and Welsh residents shows that a majority want to see deadlines for phasing out animal testing. Those surveyed expressed a very strong aversion to testing on dogs, cats and monkeys. Despite these public concerns, the UK remains one of Europe’s top users of primates and dogs in experiments.
We do not believe the general public are aware of the extent and nature of these experiments, or of which animals are used in them. Statistics for 2020 reveal that more than 4,000 procedures were carried out on dogs, almost all of them beagles, which are chosen for experimentation because of their size, docility and submissiveness. Most drug testing sees dogs repeatedly force-fed or forced to inhale substances for between 28 and 90 days to measure the effects of repeat exposure on the liver, kidneys, lungs, heart and nervous system.
There is enough evidence to show there are better, more accurate and more humane methods than resorting to testing on animals. Recent developments in evolutionary biology, developmental biology and genetics have significantly increased our understanding of why animals have no predictive value for human responses to drugs or the pathophysiology of human diseases. Nevertheless, the Home Office says it has no current plans to review the use of animals in science. Meanwhile, the EU is moving away from cruel experiments on animals and towards cutting-edge replacements. The European Parliament recently voted in favour of developing an action plan to phase animals out of EU science and regulation.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made an excellent contribution. Although I support new clause 1, which makes worthwhile, reasonable suggestions on the details of the Animal Sentience Committee and its responsibilities, on which Ministers have been rather sketchy, and I urge the UK Government to take new clause 1 into consideration, the Bill is almost entirely concentrated on setting up an Animal Sentience Committee—largely based on our Scottish Animal Welfare Commission set up in 2020—in England, and therefore we will not be joining Her Majesty’s Opposition in the Lobby.
The hon. Lady expressed considerable concern about amendments 2 and 7, and it is equally tempting to vote against those amendments. Amendment 2 is a Trojan horse to cover up the enthusiastic support of Conservative Back Benchers for continuing what are euphemistically referred to as “country pursuits” exactly as they have been practised for centuries. Amendment 7 is a disgracefully blatant attempt to carve out those who have a very strong interest in the protection of animals from membership of the Animal Sentience Committee. I found it hard to read that amendment, let alone to contemplate the Government accepting it.
The willingness of the Scottish Government to act on the guidance of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s advice demonstrates their commitment to maintaining or exceeding the high EU animal welfare standards before Brexit. However, as long as animals are used in testing and military experiments and are denied full recognition of their sentience, Scotland and the rest of the UK will fail to keep pace. I urge hon. Members to vote to maintain the UK’s proud history of supporting animal welfare by backing new clause 3.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
As a starting point, we all agree not only that the issue of animal welfare and sentience is extremely important in this House, but that it has great resonance across the country. I say very gently, because our debate has been extremely wide-ranging, that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) put it most succinctly: this is a simple six-clause Bill, and all it seeks to do is direct that a committee be set up and that a Minister come forward with a report from across Government. If hon. Members are worried that it will not reach all parts of the Government, I would like to assure them that it will.
I will take the amendments in order and then address other comments from right hon. and hon. Members. New clause 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), would compel the Government to make an animal sentience strategy. The action plan for animal welfare already sets out the Government’s current and future work on animal welfare and conversation. The Government’s plan is clear, and there is no need to mandate it in statute. I very gently point out that the reason we are here today is to bring forward one of the points in the action plan; as hon. Members have said, sentience has been a while coming, but we are all here tonight to make sure that we deliver on the promises.
New clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 would mandate that the Animal Sentience Committee to produce reports on specific areas. It is important that we do not dictate the committee’s work plan. Its members are the experts, not us, and are best placed to know where they can add value. The very first thing that the committee in Scotland did, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said, was set out its own definition of sentience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) pointed out, the understanding of sentience is always evolving, so we want to leave it to experts from the world of science and so on—I am sure he can name them much better than I could—to define it. We are not saying that sentience should not be defined; we are asking those who have the skills to do that work. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is in good faith where we are trying to go.
I would like to clarify the Government’s position on some areas raised during the debate. I say gently to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that the committee is best placed to decide which topics to focus on.
It is worth noting that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory does not use animals in developing offensive weapons. To go further, let me reassure hon. Members that within that capacity, military working animals play an essential role, often in life-saving operations. They are looked after within the military by military vets and are much-loved members of the team.
I have been clear that we do not want the committee to duplicate work that is already taking place across government. That is why its terms of reference make it clear that it should not go over the same ground as the specialist Animals in Science Committee.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, the Environment Act 2021 was passed last year, on 9 November. The Animal Sentience Committee is not there to make value judgments and weigh up policy issues; neither is it there to monitor business activities, which is very much the thrust of what he is asking for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned Ofwat and said that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale might be better placed if he directed his comments elsewhere. In that spirit, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause. Parliament’s scrutiny of trade deals is already informed by the expert input on animal welfare that is provided by the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
Deidre Brock
In reference to the reports that we requested in new clauses 2 and 3, can the Minister describe to me by what mechanism the Scottish Government or other devolved nations could express their concerns about the areas that we have raised here on animal testing, cosmetic testing and the use of animal experimentation in the Ministry of Defence? What mechanism could they use to raise those concerns with the committee and eventually encourage it potentially to produce reports on those issues?
Jo Churchill
I would make two points. First, the hon. Member is presupposing that there will not be members of those devolved authorities on the committee. If people hold the most appropriate expertise, they may be there as a full member, or they may be co-opted in to look at a particular area of reference. There are other mechanisms that we always use in this place to hold the Minister to account. The Minister is bound to report to this place within three months of parliamentary sitting time. All the mechanisms will be in place, as well as those behind the scenes where we talk to devolved Ministers and so on, to make sure that things are raised in the appropriate way.
Amendment 2, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), would require the committee’s recommendations to respect religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage. We have heard the strength of feeling on this matter both here and in the other place, and I assure him that we have listened and decided to support the amendment.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for her careful consideration of my amendment. I think it is a sensible, proportionate amendment that will allow a committee with limited resources to focus on those really egregious areas where animal sentience is being abused, and not run into some of the less important areas. I thank her for accepting the amendment, and I thank all my hon. Friends who supported and signed it.
Mr Djanogly
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I take this opportunity to thank her and the Secretary of State for having met colleagues on multiple occasions and listened. Many communities are fearful of the implications of this and, while I have not fallen in love with the Bill, the fact that amendment 2 will be made to it means that there will be a balance that was otherwise lacking. I congratulate her on listening.
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend. As many people who contributed to this debate have said, what we are seeking here is that balance.
Turning lastly to amendment 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), we do not want to clog up parliamentary time with automatic debates on committee reports. We went over that in the Bill Committee. Hon. Members have parliamentary questions, Westminster Hall debates and the Backbench Business Committee, should they wish to use them.
In short, the Bill has been carefully drafted to create a targeted, proportionate and timely accountability mechanism on animal welfare. It is designed to support the House’s scrutiny of Government, and I look forward to all those in the House making good use of it.
Jim McMahon
This has been an insightful debate and it was good to hear the passion on both sides from hon. Members who really care about this issue. New clause 1 only asks the Government to perform good governance, in that we want them to have a plan, to report on the plan and to be held accountable for the plan. The right place for that to happen is here in Parliament.
I hope the Government have listened to the concerns in the House about support for British farmers. I absolutely believe that they are the best in the world and that we have raised the bar on animal welfare standards and food production alike, but farmers often feel as though they are fighting alone, with a Government who just do not get it and are not on their side. We have seen that through procurement, fair funding, trade deals and more. I ask the Government to listen to those concerns not only on the Opposition side, but across the House, and to ensure that, when we demand so much of British farmers, we are on their side in everything we do.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
New clause 5 has been selected for a separate decision.
New Clause 5
Report on the impact of Government policy on river pollution on sentient animals
“The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report on the impact of government policy on river pollution on sentient animals.
(1) The annual report must include—
(a) the number of sentient animals killed or injured as a result of polluted rivers.
(b) a description of the actions of water companies to guarantee the protection of sentient animals.
(c) an assessment of the effect of government policy on (a) and (b).
(2) The first annual report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient animals.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Jo Churchill
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a privilege to shepherd this Bill through the House. Members in all parts stood on the manifesto—[Interruption,]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Members are being amazingly rude. The Minister is trying to put Third Reading to the House. There are people who have not been here all evening and they are making a noise. Stop it!
Jo Churchill
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure the House that I will be speaking. We all stood on a manifesto commitment to recognise the sentience of animals, and here today we can say that we have delivered on that promise. The Bill creates a timely, targeted and proportionate accountability mechanism in the committee; provides that expert assurance that Ministers are well informed; and gives us greater transparency about policies. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. Members who contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill and everyone who took time to share their views with me, as this has helped to inform the discussion. We have, I hope, reached a clear shared understanding of how this Bill will work and of the fact that it will work.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their rigorous and constructive scrutiny of the Bill. I am also grateful to those who participated in the Public Bill Committee, which was chaired with such efficiency and good humour by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for their engagement. Special thanks are due to my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for the way they have helped steer this Bill through. Proceedings on Bills depend on hard work behind the scenes, and I thank the parliamentary Clerks, the animal sentience top Bill team and my private office for their support and their sense of humour throughout. This Bill will recognise the fact of animal sentience in UK law, and I commend it to the House.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is strictly necessary, but it is good to see so many Government Members so interested in the Third Reading of this Bill. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) noted in his excellent speech on Report, the Government could have tackled this issue head on had they not decided to oppose the recognition of animal sentience, and had they decided to carry over the rules and regulations covered by this legislation alongside the other laws that were carried over in the EU withdrawal Bill.
This Bill is an important one, and the House will know that Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), have at all times sought to be critical friends, and to provide a wise and objective view. The Bill recognises that animals are sentient beings and creates an accountability mechanism that aims to ensure that UK Ministers have due regard to their welfare needs when formulating and implementing Government policy. An appropriate committee will be established to assess and report on the animal welfare impacts of policy decisions that have been taken, or which may be taken, by the Government. The relevant Secretary of State will be required to lay a written statement before Parliament responding to any such report. This is a small Bill, but it is an important one. If the committee is not set up with the correct terms of reference, or if it is not even allowed to establish its correct make-up, it is merely a paper tiger and a waste of time.
I am so grateful to the many animal welfare campaigners—Arthur Thomas and Claire Bass from Humane Society International, Matt Browne from Wildlife and Countryside Link, and James West, Sonul Badiani-Hamment and David Bowles—and all those who have worked with colleagues across the House to make this Bill fit for purpose.
Let me also put in a word for my noble Friend Baroness Hayman. She is a fierce champion of the strongest animal welfare protections, and it has been a pleasure to work with her and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
I want to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of all those involved in taking the Bill through the House, and I wish it well. I thank the staff of the House, the Clerks, the Committee staff and the parliamentary staff in the offices of all the Members involved. I acknowledge all those who sat on the Bill Committee, and give special thanks to our ever-present departmental Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for Easington (Grahame Morris).
I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with Opposition Members in recent days, but I have a word of caution for her: she must take every opportunity to rise up and take on her Back Benchers in the fight to improve animal welfare standards. As we have seen throughout the Bill’s passage, there remain some who are just not willing to get this done. If the Minister and her colleagues show that courage, they will have the co-operation of those on our Benches.
Deidre Brock
I thank the many animal welfare organisations that have been in touch with me, and the many constituents—I am sure this has been the experience of Members on both sides of the House—who have also been in touch because they really care. I thank all the House staff; I thank the Clerks for all their efforts, and for their patience with all of us during the relatively short period for which the Bill has been in the House and in Committee.
I wish the new Animal Sentience Committee well in its deliberations, and I look forward to seeing those deliberations bear fruit in the form of real, positive actions from the Government in the years ahead. We are known throughout these islands for having the greatest regard and love for animals. Let us do our level best by them, and show just how much we care through the regard that the Government show for the committee’s actions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, the motion in the name of Mark Spencer relating to Adjournment of the House (Today) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the motion on the Adjournment of the House. This is not the Question that the House do now adjourn—[Interruption.] I must inform the enthusiastic group sitting on my right that this is in fact the motion entitled “Adjournment of the House (Today)”.
Adjournment of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until
(1) any Messages from the Lords relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill shall have been received and disposed of; and
(2) he shall have notified the Royal Assent to any Act relating to Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) agreed upon by both Houses.— (Mark Spencer.)
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 14 and 15 together.
Ordered,
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS
That Mark Fletcher be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Laura Farris be added.
COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
That Mark Fletcher be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Laura Farris be added.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Under the Order of the House of today, I may not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill have been received and disposed of; and I have notified the Royal Assent to any Act relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, agreed upon by both Houses. The House is accordingly suspended. I will arrange for the Division bells to be sounded a few minutes before the sitting is resumed.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 View all Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Under the Order of the House of 7 March, proceedings on Lords amendments to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour and must be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the Lords amendments.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 64 agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Under the Order of the House of today, I may not adjourn the House until I have notified the Royal Assent to any Act relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, agreed upon by both Houses. We will proceed with the Adjournment debate for no more than 30 minutes. If Royal Assent has not arrived by the end of the Adjournment debate, the sitting will be suspended.
Police Custody: Rights of Minors
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her attendance at this late hour. This debate is motivated by the need to protect minors. Public bodies all have a responsibility to protect minors. Protecting the rights of minors while in police custody is vital, but children across our country have gone overlooked. Some of the most vulnerable in our society are suffering under insufficient safeguards, and reform is desperately needed.
I thank Deborah, my constituent, for being brave enough to share her experience with me. She used to work just around the corner for the civil service, and she is the mum of Jayden, whose story I will be speaking about today. I also welcome Dr Miranda Bevans and Dr Vicky Kemp, both professors of law and experts in this field, who have been invaluable in their conversations with me and in the preparation for this debate, and who are in the Public Gallery.
Jayden is a 15-year-old boy from my constituency. He is currently in the first year of his GCSEs and is described by his mum as,
“bright and sociable, part of a large close-knit family”.
Jayden was in his school uniform and on his way to school when he was arrested. There had been a complaint from a bus driver about a group of boys and the police had been called. By 10 that morning, Jayden found himself sitting in a custody cell made for adults.
Deborah, his mum, was worried when Jayden did not return home from school. She called his friends, their parents and the school. She was scared that her son had been harmed, knowing that too many children and young people have been stabbed and died on our streets, and desperately hoped that her son was not another victim.
At 6.46 pm, Deborah received a call from the station, notifying her of her son’s arrest, nine hours after he was originally detained. He was alone for nine hours, and there was clearly no concern from the police about the level of chronic despair and anxiety he was feeling. By way of explanation for the nine hours, she was told a work shift change had taken place and custody was busy. In my view, there was no justifiable reason given for that level of neglect.
The chance is that Jayden left home at 8 am to go to school, and just under 11 hours later his mum was called. We must ask why he was treated so carelessly and who else that has happened to. Deborah told me that Jayden had asked for a phone call, but had not been permitted to make one. Again, that is stripping someone of their rights. It was as if he was being punished before being been found guilty, and that is simply not good enough.
I remind the House of the law that already exists to protect children while in police custody. The Children Act 2004 places a statutory duty on police,
“to have regard to the safety, welfare, and well-being of children.”
A rights-based, “child first” approach in every encounter with the police is enshrined in the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s national strategy. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or PACE, requires that detention is only authorised when strictly necessary and custody officers should prioritise vulnerable detainees.
Jayden’s mum, as the appropriate adult and person responsible for his welfare, should have been notified “as soon as practicable” under code 3 of the statutory guidance to the 1984 Act. Jayden should have been given a phone call, as it is only under specific circumstances that that right can be denied or delayed.
Simply put, the law as it currently stands failed to protect Jayden, and it probably fails to protect other young people like him. The Minister may respond by saying that she cannot comment on the specifics of an individual case and to follow the pre-existing complaints system, which my constituent is doing. I understand that, but the reality is that this should never have occurred in the first place, and it is far from an isolated incident.
This means that something is fundamentally wrong.
There are countless similar stories, many of which go formally unreported. Here are just a few from in and around my constituency and across the country. One child spent 34 hours in custody, including 10 hours post charge, with an appropriate adult only arriving after 16 and a half hours of the detention. A 16-year-old boy was kept in a holding cell with adults for three and a half hours without his mother or solicitors being notified. In 2019, a 10-year-old child was detained for 23 hours, from 7 pm on Wednesday to 6 pm on Thursday. Imagine that—a 10-year-old child being detained in a police cell for 23 hours.
We all know that not all young people, parents and carers complain. They do not complain for a number of reasons. Just one incident coming to the public’s attention means that there are likely to be many more similar cases—probably more than we can imagine. In my recent conversations with Miranda and Vicky, I have heard of many more situations where it is entirely inappropriate for young children to be kept in a police cell. The law is simply not properly protecting children while they are in police custody. The overall number of children held in police custody has decreased over recent years, which is a welcome development. However, children are often detained for a long time, mirroring adult stays in a police cell and that, again, is not acceptable. Also substantial racial disparities exist in the overnight detention of children.
It is important to make this point: most custody officers up and down our country are trying their best to look after children who arrive in their custody. Being in custody is a risky environment for children and self-harm is shockingly prevalent in these cases. The legislation is not strong enough to prevent this. The procedure needs to be fleshed out, and a stronger and more serious stance needs to be taken. In accordance with PACE, whereby detention is used as a “measure of last resort” and for the “shortest possible time”, will the Minister consider and commit to halving the amount of time that children can be held in custody from 24 to 12 hours? Will she also carry out a review looking at self-harm and mental health following young people’s interaction with custody and the overnight detention of children in police custody?
In our system, the appropriate adult, often the parent, carries responsibility for oversight of due process—a role that they are unprepared for. What parent could ever envisage being the appropriate adult for their child in custody? What parent would ever even know what to do? Therefore, education is key to make sure that appropriate adults can fulfil this vital oversight role. In 1991, the royal commission on criminal justice recommended the use of educational video resources to address that gap. Dr Miranda Bevan, in association with the National Appropriate Adult Network, recently produced a short animation educating appropriate adults about their role. It has received good early feedback. Will the Minister talk to the police powers unit and lead the Home Office to adopt it?
As well as reforming the system for the future, we need to deal with the ramifications of this issue here and now. Stays in custody are often the only interaction that children have with the criminal justice system. Police custody cells are designed for adults suspected of criminal activity and not for children. That environment can be deeply harmful for a child. As the House has heard, there are traumatised children walking around in my constituency inevitably shaken by their experience in custody. It shapes their perspective on the police force and sets in train fear and dread towards those who have been tasked with the mission to serve and protect. The unfair treatment of minors while in custody will have an impact on communities, so this situation really does need to be put right.
Deborah recently said: “I am constantly worried about my children coming into contact with the police that are here to serve and to protect our streets.” She recently told me that because of his experience Jayden is now afraid of the police, when in fact he should feel that the police are there to help those in trouble. Where and who can people like Jayden go to when they need help if those that help him also oppress him? This breakdown in trust is an unnecessary and avoidable situation that also lessens the morale of the overburdened police force. The Conservatives claim they are a party of law and order, but surely a condition of law and order in our country is a healthy relationship between its people and their police service. Will the Minister increase and update the training to aid cross-cultural communication? Will she commit to greater funding for conduit organisations that act as a bridge between ethnic and poorer communities and the police?
One of the primary roles of Government is to protect vulnerable people and vulnerable children involved in the youth criminal justice system. Will the Minister work with me to make sure they are properly protected while in police custody?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for bringing these matters to the House, despite the lateness of the hour, and I acknowledge the importance of the topic in front of us this evening. I thank her constituent Deborah, who I understand is here, and I very much thank the hon. Lady for telling the story of her constituent and her son Jayden. I also acknowledge that we have Dr Miranda Bevan with us and I will speak about her contribution later in my remarks.
Custody is a core element of the criminal justice system and is critical for maintaining public confidence, obtaining intelligence, bringing offenders to justice and keeping the public safe. However, children should only be detained in custody when absolutely necessary. Where there are opportunities to divert children away, these must be considered. It is right and proper that children are acknowledged as a protected group with specific needs. Their treatment in detention is governed not only by domestic legislation, but by the UN convention on the rights of the child, which the UK has signed and ratified.
Everyone who works with children has a responsibility to keep them safe. Specific safeguards apply to children detained in custody, including a legal requirement for an appropriate adult to be present for interviews and strip-searches, if they take place, to ensure their rights are protected. Officers must take into consideration a child’s age when deciding whether it is necessary to arrest them and determining the time at which an arrest takes place.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 places a legal limit of 24 hours on how long an individual can be detained in custody by the police before they must be charged with an offence or released. It can be extended by an officer of superintendent rank or above under certain circumstances, and further by a court up to a total of 96 hours. These legal limits apply to both children and adults. Police officers must follow those requirements when detaining children in custody. The hon. Lady has referred to a case where she is stating that that did not take place, and I know that she is raising that complaint with the specific force—I think in her case that is the Met police—or with the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
It is right that these procedures and requirements are subject to scrutiny and oversight. That is why Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services regularly inspects police custody suites. Via its inspection programmes of approximately nine forces a year, it monitors the treatment and welfare of children in custody and makes recommendations for police forces and partners in maintaining and where necessary raising service delivery. We expect forces to respond to those recommendations and take action when concerns are raised.
The hon. Lady has raised an excellent point about the opportunity of a custody period for the police to engage with those young people who might be involved in crime and pursue possible diversionary activity to prevent them from becoming further involved in the criminal justice system. We recognise that this is a perfect moment for that to take place. Several London custody suites have youth workers physically present to support detained children and engage with them and their parents.
The hon. Lady spoke about training for police forces and she is right to recognise that. The police uplift introduced by the Conservative Government is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to increase the diversity of the police. Attracting a broad range of talent, cultures and backgrounds to policing is a core ambition in our drive to recruit 20,000 additional police officers, and we are working really hard to deliver the diverse police workforce that our communities need by co-ordinating efforts between Government and policing not only to attract more diverse candidates into policing, but to ensure it is a career where all recruits can thrive. We have recruited more than 11,000 additional officers as part of that programme.
I am pleased to say that the police officer workforce is more representative than ever. The latest data shows the highest proportion of minority ethnic and female officers since records began. There are now more than 10,000 black, Asian and minority ethnic officers across the police workforce. The Met police are our most diverse force, with 5,479 officers from minority ethnic backgrounds as of 31 December 2021 and some 21.4% of its joiners since April 2020 coming from those communities, but of course we must keep going further.
The hon. Lady is right that it is not simply about numbers; the training and cultural competence that officers possess is critical to successful policing. The College of Policing’s foundation training for all those entering the service includes substantial coverage of police ethics and self-understanding, including the effects of personal conscious and unconscious bias. The initial training undertaken by all officers also covers hate crimes, ethics and equalities, and policing without bias.
Further training is then provided in specialist areas throughout an officer’s career. For example, training for police investigators includes a specific focus on bias, policing fairly and the practical effects of those fundamentals on the investigation process. Training for those involved in public protection includes methods to raise officers’ self-awareness of their own views, stereotypes and biases. We agree with the hon. Lady that it is vital that all police officers have the right competences and values, and an understanding, especially when dealing with the most vulnerable in our society.
The hon. Lady mentioned the important work carried out by Dr Miranda Bevan of the London School of Economics looking at and working with the National Appropriate Adult Network. Together they have recently developed video guidance for family members acting as appropriate adults to ensure that they can effectively support their children while detained. We are grateful for that work, which is groundbreaking and provides easily accessible information in what is often the most difficult of circumstances. The Home Office has been deeply involved in the development of that innovative project and will be working to raise its profile through as wide a dissemination as possible. We agree with the hon. Lady that it is an incredibly helpful piece of work.
Home Office officials are also engaged with research funded by the Nuffield Foundation to examine the impact of PACE on the detention and questioning of children and to explore the merits of a more child-centred approach to the police custody experience. We look forward to the findings of that research and will consider its recommendations carefully.
This is a vital issue and I repeat my earlier thanks to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I am clear that, although it is vital for public safety that the police should have the required legislative powers to detain people in custody, they must use them judiciously, appropriately and within the law. Police custody suites must be safe places for everyone and that of course applies to children.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I may not adjourn the House until I have notified the Royal Assent to any Act relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, agreed upon by both Houses. The House is accordingly suspended. I will arrange for the Division bells to be sounded a few minutes before the sitting is resumed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2022
National Insurance Contributions Act 2022
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022.
Draft Commissioner for Patient Safety (Appointment and Operation) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Commissioner for Patient Safety (Appointment and Operation) (England) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Patient safety remains a top priority for the Government, and we continue to place enormous emphasis on making our NHS as safe as possible for patients. Although we have made good progress, we know that more work needs to be done. In July last year, the Government published their formal response to the recommendations in the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, setting out an ambitious programme for change. That included our acceptance of the recommendation to appoint a patient safety commissioner with a remit covering medicines and medical devices.
We are making good progress towards fulfilling that important commitment. We included provisions in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 to establish the commissioner and set out their core duties. We also held a public consultation between June and August last year on the details of the commissioner’s appointment and operation, and in January we started the process to recruit the very first patient safety commissioner. The job advert closed on 1 February and we hope to make an appointment by the spring. This statutory instrument will allow the Government to make legislative provisions about the appointment and the operation of the role.
Our public consultation covered details such as term of office, reappointment arrangements and remuneration, and we are grateful to all those who took the time to engage with our proposals and share their views. I am pleased to report that each proposal was supported by more than half of those who responded, with 59% to 91% of respondents being in agreement. Having considered all the responses carefully, we have laid before the House a draft statutory instrument that will implement the proposals put forward in our consultation. The instrument will enable the patient safety commissioner to function effectively by providing a clear legislative framework within which they can operate. I am aware that some respondents were concerned that the appointment time would be too short a period for the commissioner to establish themselves; however, the draft regulations also allow for the commissioner to be reappointed for an additional three years, in effect giving them up to six years in office.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify that point? Paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The Commissioner for Patient Safety will be eligible for reappointment”.
Does that mean just one reappointment or multiple reappointments?
Maria Caulfield
At the moment, my understanding is that it is for an additional three years, and there is not room in the draft regulations to expand that further. I am happy to clarify that for my right hon. Friend, if he is happy with that explanation.
The draft regulations set out a range of other details relating to the operation of the patient safety commissioner. In summary, the commissioner will produce a business plan covering their key priority areas, receiving funding from the Government, keep proper accounts each financial year, receive remuneration, publish an annual report to be laid before Parliament, and have staff who may exercise any of the commissioner’s functions so far as they have been authorised to do so by the commissioner.
The draft regulations also require the commissioner to appoint an advisory panel to provide advice and assistance to the commissioner. The Government believe that the patient’s voice must be central to everything that the healthcare system does. The patient safety commissioner will play a vital role in promoting the safety of patients in relation to the safety of medicines and medical devices. We believe that the draft regulations provide a sensible set of arrangements that will enable the commissioner to function and operate effectively once appointed. As ever, I welcome the scrutiny of Parliament and Members’ valuable contributions. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Although the Labour party welcomes the provision that the statutory instrument makes for a patient safety commissioner, and we will support it, we have a number of concerns. Keeping people safe should always be the first priority of any Government, and healthcare is no different. When people, often at their most vulnerable, put their trust in the hands of healthcare professionals, they rightly do so with the expectation that their safety will be of paramount concern. Sadly, on far too many occasions that has not been the case. Not only has patient safety been an afterthought, too often, where incidents have occurred patients have been made to jump through hoop after hoop in their fight for justice. Too many people are still having to take up that fight for justice, and it is for them we must speak out.
I know that there are many champions of this issue here and in the other place. I pay particular tribute to the passionate and determined work of Baroness Cumberlege. Her report has been a landmark in the fight to improve patient safety, and thanks to her vital work we have made the progress that brings us here today. I also praise the work of a number of campaign groups in this area that I have had the pleasure of meeting in recent months. Whether it be on sodium valproate, Primodos or surgical mesh, they have stood up on behalf of thousands who have suffered because patient safety has not been taken seriously enough. Their unwavering determination is truly admirable, and I look forward to working with them as they continue their fight to ensure that patient safety is not treated as an afterthought.
Despite the fight of so many to improve patient safety, the Government continue to lag far behind where we can and must be. The Cumberlege review has given hope to thousands who have gone through decades of pain and suffering; however, it cannot remain as another review that sits gathering dust on the desks of Ministers. While we support the steps taken today, where is the progress on the remaining recommendations of the Cumberlege review? The Government cannot take a pick-and-mix approach to patient safety. Unless reform is viewed as a whole package, patients will not see the speed and breadth of progress that is urgently needed.
An independent patient safety commissioner will take steps to ensure that patient safety is a top priority and will act as a voice for all those who have suffered for far too long. It will be a crucial step in ensuring that the entire health care sector is responsive to the steps that need to be taken and listens properly to the voice of patients; however, there remain a number of questions for the Government to answer on the function of the role, and how it will deliver the change that we need. The role cannot simply be a token gesture to those campaigners who have given so much; it must be a fierce champion of patients, willing to speak truth to power.
A particular concern raised by Baroness Cumberlege is the tenure of the commissioner being three years, as the Minister and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned, rather than five years as for similar roles such as the Children’s Commissioner. As it is a new role, and we have to get an organisation up and running, I share the concerns that such a short period is setting the commissioner up to fail. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how the decision on length of tenure was reached and what further provisions will be made to avoid a revolving door of commissioners. She mentioned an additional three years, but I would like to hear more about that.
We welcome the obligation on the commissioner to lay an annual report before each House of Parliament; however, the additional obligation for the commissioner to publish a business plan at the start of each year is not mentioned within the obligation to publish an annual report. What would be the purpose of the commissioner providing a business plan if they were not held accountable for its contents? Can the Minister therefore outline what accountability functions will exist to ensure that the commissioner delivers on the plans that they will set out? I would also like to hear what opportunities will be available for Parliament to scrutinise the contents of the report when published.
Lastly, I will focus on the provision for the advisory panel, which will
“provide the Commissioner with advice and assistance...and encourage good practice in involvement with patients.”
The SI goes on to state:
“The advisory panel must consist of persons who…represent a broad range of interests which are relevant to the Commissioner’s functions.”
In this instance, the clue is in the name: the patient safety commissioner. For statutory patient representation not to be embedded within the advisory board is simply not good enough. It is the lack of patients’ voices that has led to many of the scandals that we have seen, and the breakdown of trust for many.
For patients’ voices to have been an afterthought once again for the Government does not bode well for the future, so what reassurances can the Minister give to patients that the role will do what it says on the tin, and be a commissioner for patients? Although the SI has our support, the Government must not see this as the end of the road. Patients will continue to make their voices heard, and I will not stand for anything less than a commissioner who will put them and their safety at the forefront of the Government’s approach to healthcare.
Maria Caulfield
I thank the hon. Member for Enfield North for the Opposition’s support in establishing this crucial role. I reassure her that Baroness Cumberlege is part of the recruitment process, and will be part of the interview panel that takes the process forward. I put my thanks to her on the record; without her work in this area, we would not be here today. I also reassure the hon. Lady that it is patients’ voices having been heard loud and clear that has established the role. It was a key recommendation, and one that we are taking up as quickly as we can.
This is not the only area within patient safety on which we are making progress. In the Health and Care Bill, which is currently going through the other place, we are changing the Healthcare Safety Investigations Branch into a slightly different body that will look not just at NHS care but at the independent sector. It will be more robust in dealing with patient safety, and patients will have a strong voice in that. On what we are doing in maternity, the early notification scheme has already resulted in an improvement in outcomes for mothers and babies, and is being used as a tool not just to identify problems and find solutions but to learn from processes that have gone wrong in the past. I point the hon. Lady to that amazing work.
Specifically on the patient safety commissioner, there is provision in draft regulation 3 for the term of office, which is initially for three years, with a review process. Because it is a new post, it is important to review how the first three years have gone, but the patient safety commissioner can be reappointed for a further three years, making six in total, which is roughly in line with the term of office for many other commissioners. On the annual report, a copy will be sent to the Secretary of State and put before both Houses of Parliament. Many Members may seek to debate the report and pull out some of its findings. It will be right and proper that the report receives parliamentary scrutiny.
The advisory panel is for the patient safety commissioner to set up. The commissioner has a wide remit, ranging from issues such as maternity to medical devices. It is right and proper that they have a panel of experts, including patients, to look at whichever aspect of patient of safety they are looking at. It will really be for the commissioner to appoint that advisory panel, as set out in the statutory instrument. This is a new role, and we have a break period after the third year to ensure that it is doing the things that we need it to, and that patient safety is the No. 1 priority in healthcare.
Question put and agreed to.
Customs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Customs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 109).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
The regulations consist of two measures that are being introduced following a review of customs enforcement rules. The measures make minor changes to legislation that will not have significant implications for traders or place additional burdens on them. None the less, the regulations will help to ensure that trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain can continue smoothly and that traders in GB have appropriate safeguards where customs enforcement rules are applied by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
The first measure makes a number of changes relating to vehicles and goods travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. First, it will ensure that HMRC can collect information about goods—for example, alcohol or tobacco—that are imported to the UK on Royal Navy ships from Northern Ireland. That rule already applies to vessels more broadly. The measure makes no change to the way in which the Royal Navy supplies that information to HMRC.
Secondly, that measure will give HMRC new powers to prevent fraudsters from exploiting the rules, for example, by putting goods shipped into Great Britain via Northern Ireland into the British market without paying the right duty. Thirdly, the measure will remove an unused and outdated requirement for information about goods being transported by ship from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Again, let me stress that those are all minor changes that will place no extra burden on traders.
The second measure is also made up of several parts. The first relates to HMRC’s right to request a security as a condition of releasing imported goods from customs control. That might happen where a customs declaration form cannot be verified immediately, for example, in cases of suspected undervaluation fraud. Our customs officials rightly take a rigorous approach to their work. That means that, in some circumstances, the verification process might take a significant amount of time which, in turn, might mean that goods become commercially worthless to traders and cause storage problems for HMRC. As a result, it is in both parties’ interest to allow the goods to be released from customs control, as long as a trader can provide a security to cover any additional duty owed.
When the UK was in the European Union, traders who disagreed with HMRC’s decision to require a financial security could request a review or appeal to an independent tribunal. Those rights were also supported in domestic legislation. Since the end of the transition period, HMRC has the right to continue to require financial security from importers under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. That legislation, however, is not currently linked to statutory rights to request a review or to appeal to an independent tribunal. The regulations will therefore reinstate those rights and give businesses the same right of appeal as under EU legislation.
The final parts of the measure update the 1979 Act so that it reflects terminology used elsewhere in domestic customs legislation. The measure also omits previous amendments to the Act that have not yet come into force and that would have removed HMRC’s ability to require traders to provide a security.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I would like my right hon. and learned Friend’s assessment of whether the arrangements are proceeding as per the spirit of the EU protocol, given that when the trade arrangements were being negotiated, the feeling was that if there were no disruption to trade elsewhere in the EU, there would be a light-touch approach to the trading relationship between Northern Ireland and the mainland. In effect, however, that has not taken place. What is her assessment of that?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend and many Members of the House—on both the Government and Opposition Benches—are very concerned about the implications of the Northern Ireland protocol. For that reason, through the Foreign Secretary, who is leading the negotiations, we are trying to change the arrangements for Northern Ireland. It is important that we do so, because they are having an effect on trade and on societal difficulties in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a number of easements on Northern Ireland that ease the requirements that were first put into the protocol. We support them, because they ease trade.
Let me be clear that the regulations do not in any way make it harder for traders to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. In fact, they take away redundant provisions, tidy up the legislation and provide an easier and simpler route by way of the provision of a security. I understand the overall concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay and I share the concern that we need to get the right approach in Northern Ireland, but I do not think that the statutory instrument should aggravate or concern him unduly as regards Northern Ireland.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma.
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. Although they are technical in nature, this is clearly an important area and I have a number of questions. As she set out, the regulations will make changes to customs legislation applying to goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Opposition recognise the significant challenges that businesses in Northern Ireland face when importing goods from Great Britain and, conversely, the challenges that businesses in Great Britain face when selling into Northern Ireland.
We have urged the Government to negotiate properly with the EU to ensure that the protocol works for the people of Northern Ireland and people across the UK. Although progress has been made recently, a number of issues remain. For example, businesses and political parties in Northern Ireland have been urging the Government for months to negotiate a veterinary agreement that lowers barriers and brings long-term benefits to the people of Northern Ireland. People’s jobs and livelihoods depend on the Government solving such problems as soon as possible.
Let me turn to the specific measures. I recognise that most of the amendments to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 largely tidy up the legislation to ensure that it reflects current customs processes. I also note that the explanatory memorandum states that the changes do not impact on the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods that move to the rest of the UK. To double check, will the Minister confirm that businesses importing into Northern Ireland will not face any further trade barriers as a result of the changes?
The provision in paragraph (3) of regulation 2 allows HMRC to require a security and a guarantee in order to release imported goods in certain circumstances. It is sensible that goods can be released pending a future customs declaration, to prevent them from piling up in warehouses or, in the case of perishable goods, becoming entirely unusable. But why is that change being introduced now? Why has that procedure not been possible until this point? Have businesses suffered because of a failure to bring in the necessary legislative changes until now, given that is more than two years since the end of the transition period? Have the Government consulted with relevant businesses about the impact of the policy? If so, will the Minister tell us whether businesses expressed any concerns about the operation of the securities process?
It will be useful to hear from the Minister how long, on average, importers will have to wait until HMRC has calculated the right amount of duty to be paid. Finally, will the Minister say a little more about the new review and appeal procedure in relation to a HMRC decision to require a security? What will be the process for businesses if they wish to appeal?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
The fact that the regulations are a technical amendment has been laid out. I do not intend to ask any questions on the detail further to those that have already been asked. It would be wrong, however, to let the opportunity pass without commenting on the process.
More than a year on from the signing of the Brexit UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, the House is still finding and amending existing legislation to implement Brexit changes. What an absolute bùrach this is. It is messy and time consuming. It has been a drawn-out process, rather than an event. Brexit, it should be noted, has served absolutely no benefits to Scotland—quite the reverse—and yet the time of MPs is taken up with these issues, rather than with passing meaningful legislation to tackle the vital issues such as the cost of living crisis or the energy crisis. That does not shine a good light on this House or on the decisions that have been made on this issue.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The statutory instrument substitutes “Great Britain” where “United Kingdom” can be found. It does so repeatedly and explicitly. I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to her explanation that it is technical, but here is the problem. According to article 4 of the protocol:
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom”.
That was an absolutely crucial concession by the European Union in the course of negotiations.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that trade will continue smoothly, but she subsequently acknowledged that there are real problems. I have just come back from Belfast, and I can tell her that temperatures there are running very high in the Unionist community. GB suppliers of note are not shipping to Northern Ireland—they are simply refusing to supply products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—and other goods arrive in Northern Ireland from Great Britain with customs declarations attached.
People are forgetting that the Belfast agreement operates east-west as well as north-south. This is a matter of the most profound concern to the Unionist community. The statutory instrument, by substituting “Great Britain” where “United Kingdom” should be found, appears to run up the white flag and say that we are not negotiating on the protocol, that we will not use facilities in the treaty that were foreseen.
The protocol was always unfinished business. That is why some of us, when we backed it, said that it was a tolerable path to a great future. The Prime Minister became Prime Minister on the assurance given repeatedly to Eurosceptics:
“The withdrawal agreement is dead”—
his words. We asked him, “You won’t just remove the backstop, replace it with something else and change the destination, will you?” No, the withdrawal agreement is dead. He then went on to do just what he told us he would not do. Now, in a statutory instrument that replaces “United Kingdom” with “Great Britain”, we find that he appears to be doubling down on not fixing the protocol.
Surely we all now agree that the protocol is not doing what it promised. It is dividing the two communities, it has destroyed political confidence, it has ended power sharing and it has caused trade diversion. Those things are incontrovertible. They are good reasons for change. Not only that, they are reasons for change that were foreseen in the protocol itself. It is especially galling that the Government are not using article 16, which is of course limited in what it can do, when during the worst of the pandemic, the EU itself used article 16 to try to deprive the UK of vaccines—an extraordinary and aggressive act.
We must now save the Belfast agreement—I mean, save it—by recognising that it applies east-west. We must take steps to restore power sharing by doing what is necessary to bring Northern Ireland back into the UK single market. That is the problem with this SI: it seems to further entrench—it is very explicit in the regulations—the substitution of “Great Britain” where “United Kingdom” should be found.
We need to use article 16 safeguards immediately, before the Stormont elections. Any suggestion that devolved purdah prevents our national Government from doing what is in the interests of the whole country is entirely risible. Any suggestion that Putin has vetoed action to restore our constitutional settlement is outrageous. Brexiteers would be rightly shamed into silence if we attempted that ludicrous argument in reverse. Violence does not have a veto—neither Putin’s in Ukraine nor any closer to home. It has been reprehensible how many supporters of the protocol have prayed in aid violence, the risk of violence and threats of violence to support their cause. That is not how we do things, and we should never surrender to threats of violence.
In any event, the question of a trade war that plagues us has been asked and answered. There are those saying that the EU would start a trade war if we did what was necessary to alleviate the problems of the protocol, but the public told us to get Brexit done, and they gave the Government an enormous—surprisingly large—majority to do it. The nation overall was willing to do what was necessary to get Brexit done, including possibly risking a trade war. The question was asked and answered, yet still we seem to be too reticent—too nervous—to do what the country instructed us to do.
I will begin to conclude my opening remarks. If the Government do not resolve the problem of the protocol, they will find themselves going into the next election saying, “Actually, Brexit’s not quite done.” Quite a large number of Members of Parliament in certain seats will not be able to put it on their leaflets and will have to say, “I’m afraid Brexit’s not quite done.” I expected that by now we would have resolved the problems of the protocol by using the facilities in it to improve and replace it. That has not happened. At the moment, the Foreign Office’s approach is strategic patience, I understand. Strategic patience will not do for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not fair and reasonable to Unionists, under the east-west provisions of the Belfast agreement, to continue as we are.
The cover of the Ukraine conflict has enabled the Prime Minister to avoid confronting the problem of the protocol, but I say to the Government that when the Ukraine conflict comes to an end, if it appears to Eurosceptics, and indeed to Members of Parliament recently elected on the promise that Brexit would be done, that Brexit is not quite done, and if Brexiteers lose confidence in the Prime Minister and his ability to deliver change on the protocol, what on earth do Ministers, Whips and party members think that they will do? It seems to me that the answer is obvious.
I know that this will amuse some Opposition Members, but I say to the Scottish National party spokesman that he will be left comically eating his words if he ever gets his way. He just spouted such nonsense about Brexit. Imagine that Scotland had had its independence from the UK. My goodness—the time and effort that they would all spend trying to untangle our Union would eclipse the problems that we have. I am grateful to you, Mr Sharma, for allowing those extended remarks.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Perhaps the Minister could explain the benefits of the regulations? I understand that they are technical, and I am sure that the intention is to solve the mischief of the back-door route via the Republic into Northern Ireland and GB, but I will read what it says in the Northern Ireland protocol. In the preamble it is pretty clear that
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and will benefit from participation in the United Kingdom’s independent trade policy”.
Article 4 says very clearly:
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”
I am sure it comes as no surprise to the Minister that when we see a statutory instrument of this type, which highlights a difference of approach in customs arrangements under section 63 of the CEMA—I have looked it up—then that raises alarm bells when a part of the United Kingdom, accepted in the protocol as fully and absolutely within the customs union of the United Kingdom, is treated separately from the UK as a whole.
Those are my concerns. If the Minister could lay them to rest, I might be in a different situation. However, as things stand, the SI almost exemplifies the difference that we need to be solve, not expand. Such SIs seem to expand and highlight that difference, particularly in the light of the recent court judgment in Northern Ireland and the fact that the Act of Union highlighted a long, long time ago—200 years ago or thereabouts—that there were complete and absolute freedoms to conduct business between any part of our Union, with no differences in tariffs, arrangements or anything else.
However, it would seem that the protocol, with its flaws, is being shown up as rewriting parts of that ancient Act of Union, with which we are all very familiar. Changes to the Act of Union seem to have crept through the back door, and that was not the promise that was given. Such statutory instruments make alarm bells ring in my head that we are not terribly serious about getting a proper solution to the protocol. Instead, we are giving into the inevitable and simply have to lump it, and I say to my respected right hon. and learned Friend that I really do not want to lump it. I have grave concerns about the statutory instrument and the direction in which things are going.
Mr Baron
Having served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s, one still has friends and contacts there, if not through the Army then through the civilian population. I reinforce the concern expressed so far about the sense of unease in the Province, particularly in the Unionist community. I think the Minister understands that, but perhaps she needs to go to the Province more frequently and to talk to the Unionists, because passions are running very high.
The spirit of the Northern Ireland protocol—I hope that both sides entered the negotiations in this manner—was that provided it did not distort trade between Northern Ireland and the mainland and did not distort trade in any part of the EU, a light touch could be applied. However, that is not what has transpired. Despite no evidence whatsoever of trade being distorted within the EU in any other market, a hard touch has now been applied to the protocol. I recently heard an example of a Christmas card sent between Northern Ireland and the mainland that attracted a £3 custom charge—that is farcical. If we are not careful, that situation threatens not just trade between Northern Ireland and the mainland, but the Act of Union itself.
I hear loose talk that by invoking article 16 we are somehow reneging on an international treaty, but that is not true, because article 16 is part of the arrangements of the Northern Ireland protocol. It did not stop the EU, as highlighted previously, threatening article 16 when it came to the vaccination programme. I gently suggest to the SNP spokesperson that had we been a member of the EU, we would not have vaccinated as quickly as we did, because it was courtesy of us not being in the European Medicines Agency and under the directive that we were able to roll vaccines out much faster, and a lot of citizens benefited from that. I cite that as one example of the benefits of Brexit, but there are many others, including many more trade deals than the sceptics thought.
Putting that to one side, let me address my comments to the Minister about the SI. It worries me that we seem to be substituting “Great Britain” for “United Kingdom” in the terminology, confusing the issue. That again goes back to the core Act of Union many centuries ago, so I am not happy with the SI. I worry about its implications, about how it will be read in the Province, in particular by the Unionist community, and about the effect it will have on real trade between Northern Ireland, the Province, and the rest of the UK.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, because I know that that concern runs deep in Government. I have spoken to the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I have shared my concerns and given what insight and reflections I can. Feelings are running raw in the Province, and it comes down to this approach to the Northern Ireland protocol at a time when there is no evidence whatever that a light-touch approach could not be reinstated.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
There are strong feelings about the protocol and the nature of the Brexit that we had. Today is not the day for those, frankly. This is a technical statutory instrument, which is there to achieve a specific purpose that, it seemed to me, the Minister set out well. Sensible points were made by the shadow Minister, which I am sure that the Minister will deal with, but we all agree that it is necessary to have the measure in place. At the end of the day, it is manifestly in the interests of business that goods should be able to be released from customs control and that there should be a means thereby of doing that through the receipt of a security. That is what the regulations do.
There may be broader concerns, and we might well have sympathy with them, but this is not a debate about that. I therefore submit that the sensible thing is to have those debates in the right place—that is not here—and to pass the regulations, which are necessary to ensure better business continuity and are to the advantage economically of people in Northern Ireland. The bigger picture is that that debate is not for now, on a technical statutory instrument.
Ordered, That the debate 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
Ukrainian Refugees
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 609530, relating to arrangements for Ukrainian refugees to enter the UK.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This e-petition calls on the Government to waive visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees. I thank Phillip Jolliffe, who I believe is here today, for bringing the petition to the House, and the more than 240,000 petitioners who have signed it and related petitions since it was tabled just over a week ago.
On 24 February, the day on which Russia invaded Ukraine, the Prime Minister said:
“I say to the Ukrainians in this moment of agony, we are with you. We are praying for you and your families, and we are on your side.”
Many of us believe that being on Ukraine’s side must mean, at the very least, allowing Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s bombs and tanks to come to the UK for sanctuary, but the shameful reality is that we have put up barriers at every step of the way and we have turned away desperate, frightened people in their hour of greatest need.
We should have been prepared for this: we had known for months that Russian troops were massing at the Ukrainian border; and with his record of atrocities in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and Ukraine itself, we had no illusions as to what President Putin was capable of. Indeed, on 20 February, the Prime Minister told the BBC:
“The plan that we are seeing is for something that could be really the biggest war in Europe since 1945”.
The next day, the US ambassador to the United Nations said that
“we will see a devastating loss of life. Unimaginable suffering. Millions of displaced people will create a refugee crisis across Europe.”
Just three days later, the Russian invasion began and so did the long-predicted refugee crisis. According to the UN, about 2.8 million refugees have already fled Ukraine. As President Putin’s hopes of a quick victory have evaporated in the face of fierce Ukrainian resistance, the fighting has only intensified, and however bad the conflict looks from the comfort of watching it on our television and computer screens, humanitarian workers and journalists have been very clear that it is 10 times worse on the ground. Families are struggling to seek safety. Hundreds of thousands have been left without food, water and electricity and with no access to medical care. Elderly people have been left trapped, unable to move. Last week, we will all have seen the horrible images of the maternity and children’s ward in the city of Mariupol destroyed in a Russian airstrike and the reports of children buried under rubble. Authorities were digging a mass grave because the morgues were overflowing. Ukrainians have prepared to escape through humanitarian corridors but have had to turn back, because Russian forces have continued their assault. Which one of us would not want to flee such a nightmare?
We know that Poland has already welcomed about 1.2 million people fleeing that hell across the border. Moldova has accepted 83,000 Ukrainians, which equates to 3% of its own population. Although most refugees will no doubt want to remain in countries close to Ukraine, some are travelling further afield to western Europe. Faced with the continent’s worst humanitarian crisis in living memory, the EU swiftly announced and introduced an emergency plan, the temporary protection directive, to allow Ukrainians to live and work in the bloc for three years. As of Tuesday, about 10,000 Ukrainians had arrived in France and 30,000 in Italy; Germany, which is closer to Ukraine, has more than 120,000. The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, said:
“All those fleeing Putin’s bombs are welcome in Europe.”
It was a warm, open-hearted message that so many Ukrainians desperately needed to hear. Of course, the UK is no longer part of the EU and has its own approach, based on two significantly less generous schemes.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making a passionate and well-informed speech. I wanted to briefly mention a constituent of mine, who has a friend from Ukraine who fled to Calais with her seven-year-old son. They were turned away and told they needed appointments at a UK visa centre. She finally managed to get herself an appointment in Brussels on 24 March; however, she was told that her son would not be allowed into the visa centre without an appointment of his own, even though he is seven years old, and there was no availability until the following week. Does my hon. Friend agree it is unacceptable to stop parents bringing their children into visa centres? Will she urge the Minister to take action to ensure dependants can share appointments and provide clarity to refugees about the necessity of these appointments, now that the UK Government have finally said that those with Ukrainian passports can apply fully online?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would go further than it being unacceptable: it is completely heartbreaking to hear these stories and see the way in which many families and people in the most desperate of situations have been treated. We have seen heartbreaking images, so I am more than happy to put that question to the Minister, and expect to hear an answer when he responds.
Going back to the processes that are available, the first is the Ukraine family scheme visa, which allows Ukrainians with select family members in the UK to remain for three years, assuming they can get here.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I have just come off the phone to my caseworker. Today, we have been contacted by a constituent whose father has managed to flee Ukraine over the Polish border. He went to a UK visa centre, and has successfully passed all his checks and been granted a visa, but he has now been told that he has to travel 300 km to Warsaw to pick it up. He is in his 70s and has two bags of belongings; he is not in a position to do that. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is beyond ridiculous, and that people need to be issued with their visas on site if we are not going to waive the visa requirement?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely agree; the hon. Lady’s point is very well made. I have no doubt that every Member contributing today will have heard such stories from our constituents about their family members who they are desperately trying to help. They have come to their MP for help, but so many people do not have that support available, and that my heart breaks for people who are encountering these challenges and do not know where to turn for help.
Speaking to the Home Affairs Committee last week, the Ukrainian ambassador himself seemed genuinely surprised to hear that the current scheme only applies if a relative has settled status, and that this had not been extended to all Ukrainians living here legally. The Home Secretary said on Thursday that she is looking at broadening that eligibility to include Ukrainians on time-limited work or study visas, so I hope the Minister can give some reassurances and further detail on that point today, to put minds at rest that that hurdle, at least, has been addressed by the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Might I be helpful? I appreciate that the hon. Lady would not have heard this statement before coming into Westminster Hall, but it has just been announced in the main Chamber that those with limited immigration leave will also be able to act as sponsors provided that they have six months’ leave to be here in the UK, given the six-month minimum for providing housing.
Catherine McKinnell
Okay. The second route, the “homes for Ukraine” programme, has been announced in the Chamber today. As I understand it—I am happy to be corrected, because we have only just received the details—this route allows charities and individuals to sponsor Ukrainians to come here even when they have no family ties, and to stay with members of the public for at least six months and remain in the UK for three years. My understanding is that people will be paid £350 a month during the period of sponsorship, and local authorities will receive around £10,000 for refugees using this route. In practice, this scheme is likely to be extended mainly to Ukrainians already known to people in the UK.
As Members are aware, a statement on this matter is currently ongoing in the main Chamber. We will need to look at the details more fully, but what we do know is that these initiatives are still quite limited: they cover only selected people, those lucky enough to have family members here or to be chosen for sponsorship. They do not offer all Ukrainians fleeing violence the opportunity to come to our country as refugees. It should come as no surprise that in stark contrast to many of our European allies, the UK had issued just 4,000 visas as of Sunday afternoon, according to the Home Office.
The Home Secretary repeatedly raises security as a justification for the Government’s approach. Security is by no means a trivial issue, but it is difficult to see what security has to do with the Government’s decision to mostly restrict access to selected family members of people settled in the UK. People arrive in the UK with all kinds of challenges, and we deal with them. Are the hugely restrictive schemes not just a policy choice that the Government have made for whatever reason, rather than a response to a specific security threat? If security concerns underpin the Government’s approach, how does that fit with the suggestion made by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that the public could find people to sponsor on social media? Is that really the safest way to go about that, if security is the main concern? It is telling that Germany, France and Spain, which no doubt share concerns about security within their borders, have not used that same rationale. I am afraid to say that it looks like the Government are searching for reasons for the highly limited and restrictive approach they have taken throughout the crisis. The Minister may give a response that explains and clarifies that for Members, but the public are struggling to understand.
Even the distinctly ungenerous design of those two schemes have been surpassed by the chaos and the confusion over how desperate Ukrainians are supposed to even access them, which has seen Ministers at times openly contradicting one another. The list of requirements that Ukrainians have faced is dizzying. First, they must create an online account on the Home Office website, and fill in a detailed application form in English. They must then upload proof that their family member has residence in the UK; they must prove that they were living in the UK prior to 1 January 2022. Evidence must then be provided of the link to the family member in the UK, and if they do not have that, they must provide an explanation why. If that documentation then needs to be translated from Ukrainian or Russian into English, the applicant is responsible for ensuring that happens. Before tomorrow’s changes, even those with full documentation had to book and attend appointments to give biometrics, including fingerprints, in person at UK visa application centres. Those without passports will still have to. As Ukraine’s ambassador told the Home Affairs Committee last week, most people do not have their passports with them—their homes were burned.
Many people who braved the journey to Calais found only a handful of Home Office officials, handing out crisps and chocolate bars before telling them that no visas would be issued there. Ukrainians were advised to call a UK number, visit a website or travel elsewhere—not the easiest thing to do when they have just arrived from a war zone. Disturbing news reports show children bursting into tears after hours of queuing outside UK visa application centres in sub-zero temperatures.
Many constituents who have contacted me have come to their own view on this: that the bureaucratic complexity and apparent indifference to the suffering of Ukrainian refugees is entirely consistent with the Government’s overarching migration and asylum policy, under which anyone hoping to enter the UK is met with a system that is grudging, inefficient and designed to keep them out no matter what the costs on the other side of the ledger. One constituent contacted me seeking support to bring his family to the UK. After many anxious hours and days, his family managed to progress the case. He sent me a message saying,
“I am ashamed at the way this current government is treating Ukrainian refugees”,
and that while they eventually managed to obtain support,
“there will be many who don’t have the ability to receive that help”.
Another constituent added,
“I weep when I see elderly people queuing in sub-zero temperatures outside well-heated offices that they have had to travel extra distance to after their exhausting flight from bombs and war.”
A further constituent stated,
“I am hugely disappointed by our Government’s slowness to provide a safe haven for Ukrainian people.”
Others have described the response as “woeful”, “inhumane” and “overly bureaucratic”.
Too many times over the last few years, such as with Syria and Afghanistan, our Government have been too slow and too bureaucratic to respond in times of crisis. Ukrainians are just the latest victims. The Home Office must urgently co-ordinate the systems and staff necessary to run a humane and efficient admissions process—one that recognises that people fleeing a war zone are not necessarily going to have all their papers in order.
Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister some specific questions. First, there is no doubt that the scale of the crisis is immense, with over 2.8 million already fleeing Ukraine and millions more to come. It is a disaster on a scale our continent has not seen since the mid-20th century. It is a huge challenge for the UK and its allies to deal with. It was also predictable. The Government have had intelligence that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was likely for some time. Presumably, Ministers also received advice on the unimaginable scale of the refugee crisis and the options available to help manage it, yet, clearly a decision was taken to help only a very small number of Ukrainians reach the UK. When the Minister responds, can he explain how and why the Government arrived at this decision and why, when we have known that this may happen for some time, the humanitarian sponsorship route has only been revealed today?
Secondly, the economic fallout of this war will not be confined to Russia and Ukraine. In the UK, we already know that the sanctions imposed on Russian oil exports will heighten pre-existing pressures on household finances. Humanitarian agencies have warned that the devastating effects will be felt especially by the world’s poorest. In Lebanon, for example, a reliance on imports from Ukraine and Russia has led to acute shortages in wheat, grain and cooking oil and skyrocketing food and fuel prices. Can the Minister confirm that, from now on, the Government will respond with the long-term vision that is required and that we will provide the support, while ensuring that it does not take away from the budgets we have already committed to help the humanitarian consequences of this crisis elsewhere?
There are Ukrainians already in the UK, including students sponsored by universities who are coming to the end of their course and whose leave to remain will come to an end soon. Understandably, many of them will not be able to return to Ukraine. Instead of granting concessions, as it has done with HGV drivers, pork butchers and seasonal workers, the Home Office appears to have the policy of making every single individual contact the Home Office separately. There is a risk that the Home Office will force them to make human rights or asylum applications, which will add a further administrative burden to the system.
My constituency office is still working to support people who arrived from conflict zones four or five years ago. Some were unaccompanied children, and they are still waiting for decisions on their cases. It makes no sense to force Ukrainians legally present in the UK to compete with Syrians and Afghans for the attention of over-stretched Home Office officials. Will the Government look at a way to automate this process for Ukrainians already in the UK?
As I understand it, same-sex marriage is not recognised in Ukraine. LGBT people might find it harder to prove their relationships to sponsors and their families. What are the Government doing to ensure that LGBT relatives and partners can get out of Ukraine safely without facing discriminatory barriers? On the sponsorship route, how many refugees do the Government anticipate will come via this route, given that it is likely to be restricted to people who are already known to people in the UK? Can the Minister confirm which families will have access to universal credit once the sponsorship ends? How will we deal with the obvious safeguarding concerns around the placing of vulnerable people—mostly women and children?
The Home Affairs Committee heard evidence that some staff working at TLScontact are taking what would be seen as an opportunistic approach to people attending visa application centres, recommending to vulnerable groups that they pay extra money to get an early appointment. Are the Government aware of this commercial, predatory approach that is being taken to a humanitarian disaster, and are they taking steps to deal with it? In November, the Home Secretary was warned by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration that customers at visa application centres often felt “forced to pay” due to a lack of free appointments and difficulties uploading documents. What action has been taken in response to that warning? Can the Minister also confirm that the Home Office is not offering its own paid services to expedite applications?
The Prime Minister has said that,
“The UK is way out in front in our willingness to help.”
Willingness is one thing—I would hate to think what unwillingness might look like, when our Home Secretary has gone so far as to imply that the Irish Government’s welcoming policy has put UK security at risk.
The petition calls on the Government to join the EU in waiving visa requirements for Ukrainian passport holders arriving in the UK. Everything we have seen so far suggests that the Government intend to respond by merely tweaking existing managed migration routes. However, the crisis will not go away any time soon. It will only get worse as President Putin targets more Ukrainian cities in his destructive war on civilians. Future waves of refugees are likely to be even more vulnerable, as those with fewer resources and connections will be the last to escape.
The petition’s creator, Phillip Jolliffe, contacted me in advance of this debate and said,
“I have been lucky to work with several Ukrainian engineers over the years. I have been in contact with some, and I fear the safety of others. I have heard back from one friend, he has already volunteered and deployed with his unit. It is hard for me to fathom the idea of men I worked with having to pick up arms and wave goodbye to their children. Last I heard, his wife and child remained in Kyiv. I feel great shame and frustration that they cannot come to the UK and receive shelter and aid—it is here waiting for them.”
Across Europe, the response to the Ukrainian invasion—even in some countries that have generally been quite hostile to refugees—has served only to highlight the UK’s shameful policy. It is time for the Government to change course. If 27 European countries can do their bit, so should we.
The public response to this crisis—including this petition, which surpassed the 100,000-signature threshold for debate in such a short space of time—has shown that the British public have big hearts and open arms. They clearly do not want us to offer half-hearted, begrudging support, with painfully difficult conditions attached, to fleeing Ukrainians. The Government do not have to allow unlimited numbers of people to stay in the UK indefinitely, but they must treat this situation as what it is: a humanitarian crisis.
This country has offered sanctuary to those fleeing war on the European continent in generations past. Ukrainians who came here after the second world war have become an integral part of many local communities up and down the country, and many are doing what they can to help their fellow Ukrainians in this moment of unprecedented crisis. As we look to be entering a new era in world politics, exemplified by President Zelensky’s historic address to this House, it is time for us to genuinely and open-heartedly offer that sanctuary again.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for opening the debate on this petition.
The response of the British people has been overwhelming. They have shown extraordinary generosity, which stands in stark contrast to the response of this Government. I can genuinely say that this is a time that I feel incredibly proud of our country, but I feel ashamed of this Government, whose response has been shambolic and shameful. I wish to outline some examples of my constituents and their families to highlight how the absurd and crushing misery of Home Office bureaucracy has impacted people fleeing Ukraine.
One of my constituents has a 74-year-old mother who is frail and in poor health. She has escaped Russian invasion for the second time. She applied for a UK visa on 5 March, when she was in Kraków; she was told to travel to Rzeszów to get her biometrics. On 7 March, this 74-year-old woman queued for seven hours in the freezing cold just to get to her appointment. She was then told that she would receive confirmation within 72 hours, but she was also told that she had to travel back to Warsaw, where she would get her passport stamped so that she could make her way, with her daughter, to the UK. It is now one week on and her daughter—my constituent—is stuck in a hotel while they wait for the email.
I raised this matter with the urgent inquiries line at the Home Office but I have had no reply. This morning, my caseworker went to talk to people at the caseworker desk in Portcullis House and they said, “Oh yes, it’s been approved—it was approved last Thursday—but we haven’t told her yet.” We then rang my constituent and her mother. They had gone to the embassy anyway, on the off-chance. They had just been told, within the same 10 minutes, that the application had been approved, but the embassy was not sure if it could print the sticker today—and if it could not, they would have to come back tomorrow. This woman is traumatised, she is exhausted, and her daughter is spending money on food, hotels and flights that they simply cannot afford.
To summarise, a 70-year-old woman applying to come to the UK has been asked to travel 855 miles over nine days, and she is waiting for a sticker to be printed. Will the Minister apologise to her and to everybody else like her who has been put through such an awful ordeal?
Another constituent of mine and his family have been lucky, because they have now gone through the process and are in a position where they can book their flights to come here. But they wrote to me last night and asked if I could share with the Minister details of the stark contrast between the support they had received in Poland and the bureaucratic nightmare of being processed by the UK authorities. They told me that in Poland, checks at the border take “a matter of minutes”, and that they were
“made to feel welcomed and…safe”.
They said that the UK’s process had been a nightmare.
The family fled Kyiv for Poland on 5 March. On 9 March, they finally managed to get their biometrics done in Warsaw, after completing forms that took hours to fill in on a mobile phone. Two days later, on 11 March, they received an email saying that the decisions were ready, but the Home Office would not tell them what the decisions actually were, so, the next day, they had to go back to the visa application centre to have their passports stamped. However, while the mother-in-law’s visa was stamped, her partner’s was not. They were told, “There just isn’t enough time today to get it printed. Come back tomorrow.”
Finally, all the paperwork is in place and the family have managed to book flights to come back tomorrow, but it has taken them 10 days. My constituent’s sister wrote to me:
“They were already exhausted and traumatised when they arrived in Warsaw. British bureaucracy added to their misery. Their very modest savings have been seriously depleted by the eight-day hotel stay. At least my family had my brother, a British citizen, to help them navigate the red tape. It must be doubly difficult for those who don’t have that advantage and who don’t speak good English. The Government must do much, much more, and quickly turn this convoluted system into something that is user-friendly for Ukrainians.”
On top of those cases, I have other constituents who are affected, and many of them have said that they are confused. They are confused about whether they now need to attend appointments that they have secured in the coming weeks, given the rule changes that apparently are coming into place tomorrow, such that biometrics can be completed in the UK. They have asked the visa application centres whether they still have to attend those appointments, but they have not had an answer. I have asked the Home Office’s MP hotline and I have not had an answer. And my caseworker went to the casework hub at 3.40 pm—just over an hour ago—and it still did not have an answer. Can the Minister give us an answer to that question today?
It is abundantly clear from these examples that it is time to waive the visa requirement before people come here. It is cruel to impose these layers of bureaucracy on traumatised refugees who are trying to escape war and join their families. Like so many other Members, I have dozens of constituents who are willing to offer spare rooms—and, in lucky cases, spare homes—to Ukrainian families. I have one constituent who is the owner of a hotel chain. He says that he can offer work and accommodation to Ukrainian refugees immediately, but he cannot get hold of any information on how to do it. Refugee Action has indicated that there are refugee and asylum charities with a wealth of experience that say they have not been consulted by the Home Secretary. Why not?
Mr Dowd, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak this afternoon. From the examples of my constituents and those of many other Members, it is abundantly clear that Home Office bureaucracy is causing untold misery, on top of the existing misery of those who are fleeing war. Please, can the Home Office just sort this out?
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I want to use this opportunity to put on the record the experiences of my constituents in Lewisham East, and to press the Government to act and to listen.
There are 530 Ukrainians living in Lewisham, and many have family and friends in Ukraine. They have told me what they are going through and how the Ukraine family scheme is full of bureaucratic obstacles. There are no visa application centres currently operating in Ukraine, and those operating in other European countries are overwhelmed with the workload, as we have heard. My constituent’s mother-in-law is in the middle of a two-week wait for the next available appointment at the nearest visa application centre in Poland. The situation at other visa application centres throughout Europe is no better, with reports of waiting times of up to two to three weeks. It is ridiculous, very painful and very traumatising for Ukrainian people.
Another constituent told me that their friend’s daughter, who began her application 10 days ago, is still trapped in Poland due to the Home Office’s bureaucratic red tape and delays to processing her visa. That is simply not good enough. Recent Government announcements on biometric data collection are welcome, but the Home Office should have done that weeks ago. Furthermore, the changes still will not tackle all the long delays that families are facing, and they will not include many of the people fleeing the invasion.
The Government often quote Scripture, so I will too. Matthew 25:35-40 says:
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in”.
Those words strike me, because that is what the Home Office needs to be doing for Ukrainian refugees. Instead, it is making it too hard for refugees to come to our country. The Home Office is making it difficult for refugees to receive food, drink and warmth. I hope this is the result of incompetence rather than a desire to create a hostile environment for refugees, although I fear it may be both. I will end by asking the Home Office to commit to introducing emergency protection visas for those fleeing Ukraine who want to reach the UK.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to address the petition—although it is really quite disgraceful that, several weeks on from the start of the war, we should find ourselves still in a position whereby the United Kingdom Government, for reasons that escape me, are unable to emulate the generosity of our European Union neighbours.
Hundreds of my constituents in Edinburgh South West have signed the petition, and rarely have I received as many emails on a topic as I have on the issue of what the UK Government should be doing to help Ukrainians refugees. Like other hon. Members, many of my constituents have made practical suggestions. The sponsorship scheme update was announced in the main Chamber this afternoon—I managed to be there for the statement—but it seems to me that it does nothing to address the urgency of the situation.
What my constituents know but the UK Government do not seem to realise is that we have a moral obligation to help these people. We also have legal obligations under the refugee convention, but the Government are in the midst of passing a Bill that breaches those obligations. Surely, this huge crisis on our doorstep in Europe—the biggest crisis in Europe since the second world war—should be a signal that the UK Government need to revisit their policy on refugees and asylum seekers.
Last week, when I spoke in the main Chamber in the International Women’s Day debate, I emphasised the plight of women in Ukraine and their children. Of course, women are particularly vulnerable in wartime because of the risk of sex-based violence. Sadly, we know that at least some of the Russian forces on the ground are committing war crimes in Ukraine as we speak. The imperative to send a signal that there is a safe route for these women and their children to come to the United Kingdom is very strong. We know from the United Nations that the majority of the now millions of refugees fleeing the country are women and children. Put bluntly, what these people need to know now is that they can have visa-free access to the United Kingdom with their children. We must match the European Union on that—no ifs, no buts. We really just need to get on with it.
The very helpful House of Commons Library briefing for this debate tells us that it would be perfectly possible, if Ukrainians had the same visa-free access as they have elsewhere in Europe, for security and biometric checks to be undertaken after they had got here. As I have said already, our European allies can afford visa-free refuge safely and securely, so why can the Home Office not?
On TV, we have seen queues of upset and exhausted people—including old people and small children, as hon. Members have said—waiting in freezing conditions outside British visa application centres. I have heard from Scots trying to assist people that desperate families have been thrown out of visa centres after waiting for hours, so that staff could close for lunch. If it was not so tragic, it would be almost comic. It is ludicrous. The Home Office needs to get its act together. This is not rocket science; other countries—considerably less wealthy countries than the United Kingdom’s Union of nations—are managing to do a better job than us. The Government really need to up their game.
As other hon. Members have said, the other European countries have been able to offer visa-free access by adopting a decision to implement the European Union’s temporary protection directive with immediate effect. That directive establishes minimum EU-wide standards of protection for people displaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including rights of access to suitable accommodation, medical care, social welfare payments, and employment. The temporary protection can be granted for one year, up to a maximum of three years. As we know, the directive allows member states to provide more generous protection if they want to. If we had remained in the European Union, as my country voted to do, we would have been part of that scheme. However, there is no reason why we cannot emulate it.
The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has said that lifting the visa requirement would be
“the single most effective step that the government can and should take to ensure the efficient evacuation and resettlement of refugees fleeing the invasion of Ukraine.”
ILPA has also emphasised that removing the visa requirement would not prevent security checks from being made. It stated:
“Biometric enrolment can occur at the border as it happens for non-visa nationals arriving as visitors. Border checks can identify persons of legitimate concern without forcing ordinary civilians to take risks under gunfire to lodge visa applications.”
I know that the current Government might find it hard to admit that the European Union has got things right and they have got them wrong, but it might help them to listen to the advice of Lord Peter Ricketts, our former National Security Adviser. Last week, in a debate in the other place, he said that
“the wholly inadequate arrangements that have been made”
by the UK Government “in and around Calais” for receiving Ukrainian refugees are actually threatening our safety in the United Kingdom, rather than assisting it, because they are undermining the
“close co-operation we need with our”
EU
“neighbours to keep our own citizens safe”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2022; Vol. 819, c. 1663.]
Lord Ricketts elaborated on those thoughts in an interview with Mark D’Arcy for the Friday night broadcast of BBC Radio 4’s “Today in Parliament”. Drawing on his expertise, he said:
“Security is always a matter of risk management—there is never zero risk”.
However, because the refugees are largely women and children, they do not, in his opinion, pose a security risk. That is the opinion of a highly respected former national security adviser, who has widely reported on these matters in the past. He went on to say that the United Kingdom Government need to take a
“a much more humane and open approach…and should not be requiring visas”
and security checks until people are here.
I ask the Minister why, if Lord Peter Ricketts thinks that we can do that safely, the European Union can do it safely and our near neighbours the Republic of Ireland can do it safely, the United Kingdom cannot get its act together and do away with visas to get these refugees into the country safely and quickly? I suggest that it is a matter of political will, and of a degree of hubris on the Government’s part, because they would have to abandon the political dogma of the Nationality and Borders Bill on refugees and asylum seekers. It is not just this crisis that has shown the deep-seated flaws in the Nationality and Borders Bill. Following the fiasco in Afghanistan last summer, many of the people who were supposedly warmly welcomed to our country are still in substandard hotels. Crises across the world show that the British Government’s approach on these matters is completely wrong.
I am not a big fan of the other place, and that is not because I do not think it is good to have a revising Chamber—it is important, and I very much hope that, when Scotland becomes an independent country, we will have a revising Chamber as part of the checks and balances on Executive power—but the problem with the one here is that it is not elected. Having said that, it has some pretty sharp operators and people who know their stuff, including Lord Peter Ricketts, and they have realised that big changes are needed to the Nationality and Borders Bill. Over the last fortnight, in a string of defeats for the Government, the Lords removed some of the most egregious parts of the Bill, including the criminalisation of asylum seekers and the plans for offshore processing. It is particularly shocking that if the UK Government got their way, any Ukrainians who, having made it to our border with France and across the channel, tried to claim asylum here would be criminalised. How can that be right?
It is disappointing that no Tory Back Benchers are here to speak in this petitions debate. I am sure that they, like us, have constituents who are upset and concerned about the situation. This is not a party political matter but a concern shared across the nations of these islands and across political parties. Part of the reason for that is that in the past a moral panic has been created about the number of asylum seekers crossing the channel to come to the United Kingdom. I suggest to Tory Back Benchers that they, as well as their Government, have a responsibility to quell that moral panic by basing their policy making on evidence rather than scaremongering.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am deputy Chair, heard evidence about people crossing the channel last year. Greece, Italy and Spain have all received many more arrivals in recent years than the United Kingdom. The United Nations reports, for example, that in 2020 Italy received around 34,000 sea arrivals, Spain around 40,000 and Greece 10,000, compared with the United Kingdom’s 8,500. Putting the law to one side, whether we are Christian—as I am—Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or another faith, this is a moral problem.
We are one of the richest countries in western Europe, and the Government keep telling us how fast our economy is growing, although there is a bit of a question mark over the figures they pray in aid of that. If we are one of the richest countries in western Europe and have a fast-growing economy, why can we not afford to help more of these people?
This the biggest humanitarian crisis in Europe since the second world war. It should challenge all of our thinking about our policy towards our fellow men and women, particularly people right on our doorsteps in continental Europe. There has never been a better time for the Government to revisit their policy toward refugees and asylum seekers. Let us start with visa-free access for Ukrainian refugees. Then let us follow up with some humble pie by accepting the Lords amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill. That is what my constituents and millions of people across the nations of the United Kingdom want.
The European Union can do it. One of our most senior former security advisers says we can do it without compromising national security. Indeed, he says that to continue to operate in such a shambolic fashion will actually compromise our national security, because it will undermine the chances of good co-operation with our European neighbours. Minister, let us hear this afternoon why we cannot do it when the EU can, why we cannot do it when the Republic of Ireland can, and what is wrong with Lord Ricketts’s analysis.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I thank every single petitioner for using their power to act on this matter, and I thank people across our nation who have stood with refugees over these last few days, as millions of people have crossed borders and millions more have been internally displaced—no doubt soon to cross themselves into an unknown future.
Until 17 days after this most brutal of conflicts commenced, the UK showed no recognition of this reality nor of its responsibility, legal or moral, to give proper sanctuary. The powerful testimony of families welcoming complete strangers from across Europe to form new families has shamed this Government. These families asked for no checks, and they asked no questions. They have just shown compassion.
The hostile dogma of the Home Office says that women, children and old people fleeing war and terror must first collect a visa, as if going on holiday, or should opt to pick vegetables from our fields to enter the UK. What a disgrace. They face more risk themselves than they pose any risk to anyone else. While the U-turn was welcome on Thursday, the impact will be minimal, as family members will stick together until all have the required the documentation that the UK, unlike other countries, demands.
As with all passengers, and as goes for any of us, border security checks will screen for immediate safety. Once people arrive in the UK, with their whole lives packed into a single bag, families should then receive any emergency protection visa or documentation and the warmest of welcomes at our ports, airports or Eurostar. There is no need to process visas in centres across Europe. That can happen on arrival here and with no added so-called risk. A friend of a constituent sought to get a visa. They went and made inquiries and were told they should go to a place called Kyiv. For the Minister’s information, Kyiv is in the middle of a war zone. That shows the shambolic mess operating in the Home Office.
At the same time, support should be given to people for all of their travel. They should get free travel through Europe and across the UK as they arrive and are placed with families. The Home Secretary seems to have confused and conflated security with sanctuary, and she has displayed her prejudice. Other nations have put our Government to shame. I was glad to see some movement over the weekend. To home a refugee and their family would be a privilege. While safeguarding is important, bureaucratic hoops must be removed, because it is what people across my constituency want and it is what I want.
We heard today about the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but it raises more questions than it answers. What happens after six months? What happens if a placement breaks down? Who will then safeguard the interests of that family? What about school places? What about access to our NHS? What about access to mental health services? They are already under immense pressure and yet specialist trauma services will be required. How are families matched? It seems that refugees somehow have to advertise that they are in need of a home and somehow families offering their homes have to find that match. Processes need to be in place and systems need to be adopted. I believe that today’s statement only asked questions, but we desperately need answers, and we need those answers now.
The same should be true for the thousands of Afghan refugees who have been imprisoned in bridging hotels for the last seven months. They must not be forgotten, as they too have fled terror, and as they are locked away, their mental health is deteriorating and they are feeling abandoned by this Government. We need Homes for Afghans, too, and homes for all who flee. We must be generous as a country, as our constituents are demanding. This Government have too often been on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of humanity. Let not perfection be the enemy of good. If homes are checked and safeguarding is agreed, let people come to our constituencies and the homes of our constituents, and to where there is spare capacity in other buildings. I keep raising the issue of the 7,230 empty homes leased by Annington Homes to the Ministry of Defence; let them be occupied. In York, let the empty care homes be converted and empty hospitals be transition points. All must play their part. No more excuses. I trust that from this point, all our actions will restore our nation’s reputation as a place of sanctuary for all.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for opening the debate, and the almost 200,000 members of the public who have signed e-petition 609530.
I have seen an incredible response to the crisis in Ukraine from my constituents. The compassion and generosity being shown are commendable, but not surprising. The UK has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. The disappointment arising from the Government’s reluctance to open their arms wide to those fleeing Ukraine is being vocalised across the UK. I hope that the Government will now begin moving at pace to reflect in policy making the generosity of their citizens.
The Government’s initial response to the refugee crisis was underwhelming. Although they may have expanded that initial commitment somewhat, it is not enough, and the details, including the numbers of refugees who will be eligible for the various routes, remain unclear. This is not the first refugee crisis that this Government have needed to grapple with, and unfortunately it will not be the last. The lessons are not being learned and are not informing policy making, because Ministers have been unwilling to pull back from decisions unpopular with the British public. The Government need to be able to react swiftly and proportionately. Our international allies have shown their ability to do just that, so there is no excuse for us not doing the same.
Reacting rather than proactively planning for these events is not sustainable. Creating bespoke visa processes weeks after a refugee crisis is already under way is inadequate. The Government must immediately provide surge resources to ensure that their officials can deal with this crisis effectively and without undue stress or strain on staff. The visa centre in Brussels is struggling to cope with the levels of demand. The Government will be allowing Ukrainians to make their applications online, to address the problem. Applications will still need to be processed and decisions made—just behind the scenes.
Although the Housing Secretary’s statement today is welcome, it falls just short of being as helpful as it could be. People are desperate to help in any way they can, but for that to be meaningful, they need help to organise and mobilise. The Minister knows that I have a constituent who has offered one of his properties to house a family fleeing Ukraine. Today’s statement gives him a little more information, but he is expected to identify refugees himself, if my understanding is correct. If Ukrainians must still go through the visa process, why can the Government not provide that support to match applicants with sponsors? They should be directing resource to the places where it is needed to facilitate that support. Leaving it to the public means only that it will take longer for Ukrainians to access support that already exists out there.
Throughout the crisis—from the early threat of Russian invasion right up until this very moment—the love that the Ukrainian people have for their country has been apparent. They do not want to leave their homes, their friends and their families. We need only look at how many civilians have decided to join the conflict and fight for their homes and for the future of their country, Ukraine. The vast majority are looking for a temporary sanctuary until it is safe to go home. We should do all we can to provide it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for introducing the debate, as well as all those who signed the petition.
The situation in Ukraine is heartbreaking. Scenes of devastation and loss have been beamed on to our screens every hour of every day since the launch of President Putin’s illegal and illogical invasion. Many of us suffer just watching it, let alone understanding what must really be happening to the people who face attacks day in, day out.
I was pleased to join a number of my constituents outside Hornsey Church tower for a simple vigil with the Songworks choir and the Crouch End Festival Chorus, and to hear some children read their poems and share their thoughts about the importance of peace, of pushing for a peaceful resolution, and of President Putin waking up and stopping what he is doing. At the end of the event, I was delighted to meet Marta, the mother of a constituent, who came to the UK on Saturday. I am sure that the Minister is relieved to hear that there is at least one happy story in this difficult debate. I will briefly relay what that family went through.
Marta was one of the lucky ones. She managed to flee to Romania after the Russian invasion, but when she tried to reach the UK to be reunited with her daughter and grandchildren, she entered a Home Office bureaucratic nightmare that went on for 10 days. There was no information on how to apply on the Government’s website, and a different website crashed continuously. At one point, the demand for appointments was so high that people were told there were no appointments until May.
Ten days of sleepless nights and incredible stress followed for the family, all to bring over the wonderful Marta, who, when I met her last night, was in floods of tears, having seen the solidarity of local people who met her and heard what she had been through. It is ludicrous that families are going through that experience at such a difficult time. Marta’s daughter told me:
“Currently, the attitude from the Home Office appears to be that this is an immigration process. It is not. These people are refugees fleeing war. That even the Ukrainians with family here are being denied a swift passage to come shames our country.”
I want to put on record the first-rate work of my parliamentary staff, who rushed down to Portcullis House to meet the Home Office staff who were there last week—that casework ended up in a result. I wonder what the Minister thinks about all the other people who are as desperate as Marta but who, for one reason or another, do not have a contact here or the help of a hard-working constituency team in an MP’s office, and who have no way of telling us what a terrible situation they are in.
In response to the brutal military campaign, Ukrainians have fled their homes and their country for safety elsewhere, in a movement of people not seen in Europe since the dark days of 1945. So many women and children have fled—as always, they are the worst affected by war. In response to the grave humanitarian challenge, many Europeans have opened their borders to provide much-needed safe refuge to those in need. Poland is hosting the bulk of those who are fleeing the devastation, but countries as far afield as Ireland are opening their doors in Ukraine’s time of need. Ireland is a country of a little over 5 million people, but it has offered to take 100,000 refugees. We have a greater population and a larger economy. If we had a more efficient Government, we would have more money to manage the needs of all and to encourage people to share. I welcome what was announced in the Chamber in the last hour. We can all get behind that offer and encourage our constituents who have a spare room and who can step up to meet the extraordinary challenge to show that generosity of spirit.
Labour colleagues and I have applauded many decisions, such as the one announced today, but the failings of the Home Office need to be reviewed. I encourage the Minister, once the immediate crisis is over, to learn from the situation and from what happened with Afghanistan, which was an embarrassment, and not just for the Foreign Office. I know that the shadow Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), is well placed to help with any review in the future because he led on the Afghanistan work from a Foreign Office point of view and so can comment on both schemes and how they are getting on. I welcome the appointment of a refugee champion, Lord Harrington. It would be useful to have a joint meeting shortly to thrash out the issues we deeply care about as MPs and to help the Home Office and Foreign Office to deal with such crises in a much more effective way.
Russia’s military were massing on Ukraine’s borders many months before the invasion. The Ministry of Defence and intelligence from the US were giving cast-iron warnings of an imminent invasion for much of the first part of 2022. The idea that this just happened 10 days ago is ridiculous. The Minister has first-hand briefings from the security services and will know that these events have been going on since well before Christmas. We needed to think through our actions. We know that the President of Russia lies and does so frequently, so we should have recognised that as a pattern from before, designed some risk assessments and put staff in place to deal with it.
This weekend, there has been what is called a surge of Home Office staff and I feel that once again we are lurching from crisis to crisis, which is typical of a Government who have no strategy. When a crisis comes, they fall down again, whereas if they had a strategy and could learn from their mistakes, we would not be here yet again. We all know that any invasion or military action inherently causes refugee flow, but yet again we are behind the curve and woefully out of step with both our European allies and the rest of Whitehall. That is a pattern of behaviour that we must tackle so that the next time there is such an event we can learn from the mistakes.
Every day I receive dozens, if not hundreds, of emails from my constituents in Hornsey and Wood Green who are keen to open their homes to those in need, willing to offer employment to Ukrainians and taken aback by the poor approach to date. We cannot continue to fail those in need and I urge the Minister to listen to the many calls today and to get a grip. The Ukrainian people have been added to the many Afghans seeking support. We owe it to those people in desperate need to live up to our moral responsibilities. Minister, fix the mess. This will not be the final refugee crisis and we simply cannot accept this shambolic reaction as the norm each and every time.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I thank everyone who has spoken so movingly.
I want to reiterate a point I have made in the Chamber: I have a UK national constituent with a Ukrainian wife with two daughters. They started applying to come here on 12 February in Dnipro. Since then, my constituent’s wife and her daughters have had to cross Ukraine and now they are all in Warsaw. I will not go into any more detail than that.
I want to quote the latest email I have. I thank the staff in the hub in Portcullis House and I thank the Minister, too, because I have been pushing, shouting and screaming—doing everything I can—to get this man’s wife and daughters back to Wishaw. The email from the Home Office hub says:
“I have just checked and the families visas were issued yesterday and manifested to Warsaw today. We will be in touch shortly regarding collection, please advise Mr Yardley not to travel to the VAC until we contact him.
As Mr Yardley’s family have already made applications and given biometrics they will have to wait for a decision before travel. I appreciate this is frustrating however, as the family have provided biometrics they have been granted 3 years leave outside the rules.”
It is frustrating, but I am pleased that we can almost see the end of the road.
Should it have taken that long? No, of course not, and my constituent is a UK national. I want to weep when I think of Ukrainians without passports and who do not have a UK national to help them. What are we doing as a country? I do not understand why this is happening. I will rephrase that—I know why it is happening, but it should not be.
As of last week, the Home Office advice for Ukrainian refugees had been updated nine times and the Home Secretary’s jumbled comments in recent days have only added to the confusion. It is also really concerning to hear of private firms who are cashing in. Can we please get that stopped, Minister? That is obscene and I think that the Minister himself would agree.
It is really heartbreaking that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, this country is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees, and the UK has international obligations to recognise refugees who are in the UK and to offer them the protection they need. Get on with it—this is ridiculous.
I could not be in the main Chamber today, but I have seen the update on the Ukrainian sponsorship scheme statement from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. It is six pages with what looks like triple-spacing and very large print—I used to teach word processing—but I cannot find anything in here that I can give to my constituents that is of any use. This is happening continually.
Catherine West
Does the hon. Member agree that this is a classic case of this Government’s government by press release, rather than having a strategy, a plan or a discussion with local government about how to implement things—that is, doing things properly?
Marion Fellows
I could not agree more. I also agree that we are dealing with refugees here and not immigrants. This Government need to get a grip.
One of the new schemes states that Ukrainian refugees will be able to apply online—hooray. Someone is in a war zone and is fleeing for their life. Do they have internet access? Perhaps, but even if they do, my constituent’s application was lost three times in the TLScontact system. They had to reapply three times and they had to fly from Wishaw to Warsaw and then to somewhere else in the south of Poland to try to help get things done. Three times they had to fill out the forms and they could not even make appointments, because the system had gone down as well.
This is not going to work for people. We need, as the First Minister has said, to
“let people in and do the paperwork afterwards.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 8 March 2022; c. 11.]
Common humanity demands that. Other countries have done it, so why can we not? I thought that this was supposed to be global Britain and that we were all on the front foot, trying to help. Minister, please take this on board. Waive the visas. That is what has to happen to get these poor refugees—I repeat that they are refugees—into the UK.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank all my constituents who have lent their names to this important petition and the countless others who have contacted me, either to urge me to speak up for Ukrainians fleeing from this devastating conflict or with offers to open their homes to families in need of sanctuary.
The British people have responded to this crisis with characteristic generosity, empathy and hospitality; not so their elected Government. As countries across Europe have thrown open their doors to the millions of Ukrainians forced from their homes, the UK alone has refused to lift visa requirements. Last week, we learned that while Poland has welcomed more than 1 million Ukrainians since the conflict began, the Home Office has approved visas for just 300. Ireland, a country with a population that is a fraction of the size of ours, has already accepted more than 5,000 Ukrainians. The Government are now promising major improvements in the numbers of people being admitted to the UK and the speed with which applications are being processed. Given the recent and unforgivable betrayal of Afghan nationals who risked their lives to support British forces in Afghanistan, that is a promise in which we can place very little confidence, and it is simply not good enough.
Let us be clear: desperate Ukrainians are no more migrants than the thousands of Yemenis, Afghans and Iraqis who this Government have left stranded in Calais. They are refugees and none of them has the luxury of time. As such, I wholeheartedly endorse the petition’s objectives. The time has come to waive all visa requirements for people fleeing the conflict in Ukraine and establish safe and legal routes into Britain. History will not judge kindly a Government that fail the Ukrainian people in their time of greatest need, but sadly, I have little confidence in the Home Office to do the right thing. There is surely no politician in recent memory whose career has been defined by such cruelty, indifference to suffering and gross incompetence as this Home Secretary, and I am afraid that the rot runs deep.
When the Minister was challenged on the gross inadequacy of the support available to people fleeing Putin’s war on Ukraine, he had the audacity to say that refugees could apply for seasonal worker visas so that they could come to the UK to pick fruit. In any other Government, such an appalling statement would undoubtedly result in a letter of resignation being handed to the Prime Minister, but this Minister could not even bring himself to apologise—shame, shame, shame. I hope that instead of parroting the same tired lines we have heard too often from the Dispatch Box, the Minister takes this opportunity to reflect on what has been said today, recognises how badly his Department has misjudged the mood of the public and mistreated innocent victims, and returns to his colleagues in Government with a loud, unequivocal message that refugees are welcome here.
I hope that the response to this crisis begins with a step change in how we treat all those displaced by war, persecution and climate breakdown. For far too long, the Conservatives have thrown up walls to those in desperate need of a safe place and whipped up hatred in the media for their own political advantage. Even now, when confronted by images of human suffering that none of us ever thought to see again in Europe, the Home Secretary persists in her efforts to turn Great Britain into fortress Britain, including her shameful attempts to deploy the Royal Navy to stop crossings in the English channel. However, it is not too late for Ministers to recognise the error of their ways. It is not too late for the Government to finally begin to honour their moral obligations and lead the way in humanitarianism, instead of callousness and cruelty, and it is not too late to tear up the Nationality and Borders Bill before it becomes law, which will inflict such immense suffering on those who are in greatest need.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee in such a strong way. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have received help from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project for my work in this area.
I will start by saying a couple of things about the Homes for Ukraine scheme that is being announced in the Chamber at the moment. I have a number of concerns about this scheme. I welcome it and I am glad that the Government have taken the opportunity to recognise the generosity of the people of this country, but I share the concerns of the Refugee Council. Enver Solomon is quoted in The Guardian as saying, effectively, that this is a managed migration route that is not a suitable response to a humanitarian crisis. Another comment was that this sounds a bit like fostering without a social worker, so I want to hear from the Minister that adequate support for every family who comes through the scheme will be given to the local authorities and partner organisations that will have to support those people through a critical, traumatic time. It is also right that we should state very clearly that every family with a child should have a safeguarding assessment before they are placed. [Interruption.] The Minister nods his head, but that is not commonplace for other Home Office schemes, and it is really important that we recognise that. We need to go back to the fact that this scheme is not as broad as it could be. It will not provide the opportunity for a right to work and access to benefits, and it does not grant an emergency protection visa.
As a city of sanctuary, Sheffield has a proud history of supporting refugees and asylum seekers, and we are keen to do whatever we can. Hundreds of my constituents have signed the petition and many more will be involved in the solidarity efforts in other ways, whether that is through donating money to emergency services, organising collections such as that of Crookes social club or writing to me to express their concerns about the Government’s approach. There has been a huge outpouring of support for Ukrainians in my city.
The other great thing about my city is our universities, which are offering support to their students and staff alike, but more needs to be done to allow family reunion for those individuals. It is not right that a nurse in the UK cannot bring over their family if they are on the wrong type of visa, and more needs to be done on that. There is also more that universities could do to help to change the lives of thousands of young people in Ukraine who have had their university teaching cut short, so I hope the Minister is talking to the Minister for Higher and Further Education about potential avenues of support for students in Ukraine.
Last week, the Home Secretary announced her plans to allow Ukrainians with passports to apply for visas online. Of course, I welcome any steps to make it easier for people to come here, but the UK response remains inadequate compared with that of our European partners. I have several concerns about the family scheme, many of which have been raised by hon. Members. I particularly want to highlight the fact that the new online application will be accessible only to those with the right type of passport, yet some of the most vulnerable people are least likely to own one. How can we expect people who have never travelled outside Ukraine to complete such applications, especially as they are in English? My heart goes out to those families. There have been 4,000 births in bomb shelters. Caesareans have been done in the dark, for fear of bombing. These are very vulnerable people and we should be making it as easy as possible for people who are going through the worst ordeal to get here.
Ministers have also acknowledged that most Ukrainians do not have a passport, making most potential applicants ineligible to apply online. That is why it is hard to square this with the Government’s claim that the scheme will free up appointments in visa centres for the most vulnerable people and the most complex cases. I asked last week what assessment has been done to understand who will benefit from the online move. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) mentioned, we do not even know whether people should keep their appointments or free up those appointments, and it is unclear from those who are providing information what people should do.
Much more must be done to remove barriers that prevent people from getting here safely, and we should think about the long term, too. We cannot forget the cruel Nationality and Borders Bill, which will see the UK abandon its obligations not only to Ukrainians, but to all refugees. The latest polling by British Future shows that three in four people agree with the principle that those fleeing war and persecution should be able to take refuge in other countries, including the UK. That clearly shows that the Government are misjudging the public’s desire to help and the public mood. It is time that Ministers caught up with the public mood and stretched every sinew to help those fleeing the violence in Ukraine and provide the support that they and all refugees urgently need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for introducing the debate. She always does these things with the detail and information that helps to set the scene so well. It is probably fairly easy to set the scene, because our minds are full of it each day as we watch TV in the morning and at night. Each and every one of us is eternally frustrated by where we are.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) made a straightforward request and I absolutely agree with her. When I see the suffering, pain, chaos and need, I say to myself, “Get them here.” Let us get them here and process them. I say that with great respect to the Minister. I am not being critical—I know that he wants to help—but I feel so frustrated with a system that seems to be bogged down.
There are 185,000 people who signed the petition; there are other petitions as well. The large volume of emails urging our Government to take action is reflected in the number of letters in my mailbag, and everyone else’s mailbag here. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) gave examples—nothing illustrates this better than examples. We were not in the main Chamber to hear about the homes for Ukrainians scheme because we were here, but the Minister has informed us of what happened. I am thankful that the Home Office has decided to heed the calls for an easier form of visa, and to allow Ukrainians to provide biometrics details when they get here. I think that is what the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw wants—and it is certainly what I want. We should widen that scheme; if we can do it for those people, we can do it for more.
The homes for Ukrainians scheme is exactly what we need. It allows individuals, charities, community groups and businesses across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to offer a room or a home, rent-free, to Ukrainians escaping the war, regardless of whether they have ties to the country. That enables a link to be established with many people who would like to offer a home but do not know how to go about doing it. One lady, who I know very well, rang my office this morning; her generosity is reflected in her daily life. She has a four-bed house in Newtownards on the North Road that is available. She wants to offer that house to a family. That is replicated elsewhere; each and every one of us will have lots of examples. A company has offered two properties in the Westlands in Newtownards; other people have offered rooms to sponsor families. I see lots of good happening right now. I have said to the Minister that if all those people are offering all those things, we should be doing our darnedest to make sure that we get the refugees here and housed as soon as possible.
One of my constituents is married to a Ukrainian. He came to see me on Saturday morning. His stepdaughter has a two-year visitor visa, which means that she can come here because the paperwork is there for her. She told Gary that when she went to Warsaw to get a plane home with the paperwork she had, which was okay, there were dozens of Ukrainians at Warsaw airport; they wanted to get here, but they did not have the paperwork. I see those people as being in a dire situation; they are a priority case and they need to move right away.
The scheme that has been announced will give £350 per week to families who can help, house and assist Ukrainian families. I understand that £10,000 will be offered for each citizen, to ensure that they can get healthcare, jobs and education. The system on the UK mainland is very different from what we have in Northern Ireland, where councils do not have a direct responsibility for education or health. How can councils in Northern Ireland access that money? It is simply and directly accessed on the mainland, but for us in Northern Ireland, the process will be slightly different. I want to make sure that we are all over the process and how to make that happen.
There is a Christian charity in Newtownards called Faith in Action that has been doing great work in Ukraine for 21 years. They have Ukrainians who are ready to come here. I hope that the scheme that the Government have announced—and that the Minister will be all over—will enable those people to come right now to the accommodation that Faith in Action has for them. There are some 100 family groups who can bring in individuals and families. Last Friday, I visited Willowbrook Foods in Newtownards, which is offering 100 jobs to people—there are 100 vacancies in the company, by the way.
We can get people into Newtownards; we can get them into accommodation, and get them the jobs that they want. All these things are waiting for this scheme to be put in place. I want to make sure that that happens. The local charity shop, Elim Relief Association, has offered to furnish and supply clothing. People’s generosity is incredible. Another of my constituents, John McNaught, is going to run a charity event that he holds every year. He goes around Northern Ireland collecting donations for charity, whether it be physical goods or money. He will be setting off at 10 o’clock next Monday.
Local churches have indicated their willingness to provide lunches and dinners in their halls until refugees are settled or the meals are no longer needed. A multitude of people in Strangford want to help—I have the most wonderful people in my constituency, as do others who have spoken about their constituencies. People are waiting anxiously to help.
I know that this generosity will be replicated throughout Northern Ireland. Indeed, employers who are having difficulty hiring staff—other companies have contacted me, as well—are saying that they can give employment to those able to work, so that they can provide. All the parts of the puzzle are there. We need to connect the dots and put in place the support system that is needed to get these people to safety, until it is safe to return to their homeland and start rebuilding, as they very much hope to be able to.
I am so thankful to the Home Office for allowing us to show our British hospitality and mentality of mucking in. I look forward to understanding the full and finer details of the Ukrainian scheme that the Government have announced, so that people in my community can do what they have been asking to do every day since the invasion: be of help to these poor people.
A charity called Hope for Youth has been on our news back home—I suspect it may be on the main news, as well—for organising 25 container loads of all sorts of necessary goods, such as medicines, clothing and food. Montgomery Transport is paying for lorries to Poland, where lorries from Ukraine will meet them, and take the goods across the border. Groups of individuals are making a magnificent effort. However, we need our Government to simplify the position and the scheme, so that we can move forward.
I am thankful to those who have donated goods and hygiene packs, those who have travelled in containers to provide goods and food to refugees on the border, and those brave souls who take food in their cars to Ukraine, to the thousands of people trapped in towns and cities with no food or medicine. We need to do more to secure routes to get essential food and medicine into all areas of Ukraine. Faith in Action works in south-east Ukraine, in the Donetsk region. It is under incredible attack from Russia at the moment.
Again, I urge the Minister to make the process streamlined and easy, so that those with homes can connect with the families who need them. I am a simple person; I like things to be nice and simple, so that I can tell people just how simple they are. I ask the Minister to issue step-by-step guidance to each Member of this House; I am sure many other Members are in the same position, and have constituents who want to help but do not know what the process really is. I say that with great respect. We just want to understand better so that we can help.
To conclude, we need to make the path clear and straightforward and, above all, get these women and children to safety. The priority is to get them here, where people are willing to help. The need is now. I prayed for Ukraine in the days leading up to the inevitable invasion by Russia, as did many others present. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) referred to the Bible; as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, it is so important that we Christians come together. However, lots of other religious groups want to help just as much.
A combination of religious groups and family members are coming together in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Along with prayers, we need to give practical help. I urge the Minister to make the way simpler at a time when only one thing really matters: the safety of those little lives and the vulnerable people who need our help right now.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here from the start of the debate, Mr Gray. I thank colleagues for their forbearance.
My small London borough is one of the top 20 in the country for the number of Ukrainian-born residents. It is an extremely diverse borough. I will not pretend that we yet have as many Ukrainian refugees as we did Afghan refugees last year; we had several hundred of those. However, it is a significant number and it is growing; one of the reasons why it is growing is that the Home Office is not dealing with the problem. The circumstances are very different, but the one thing those groups have in common is that they are victims of Home Office bureaucracy.
I have families in Ukraine, Poland and France. I have families who have had to split up because some could get further than others. Some have even got to the UK in this grotesque game of snakes and ladders, where the aim is to get to the next stage without going backwards. Some UK nationals have spouses or other relatives who are Ukrainian and are finding that visa centres are closed. I have constituents in the UK whose visas are expiring or have expired. Some have even been so delayed in applying for them that they are worried about being sent back or being sent out of the country. I hope the Minister will reassure us that there is at least no intention to exclude anybody in that way.
I asked my caseworker for an update today on all the cases, and almost every one ends with the line: “We have had no responses from the Home Office to any of our inquiries,” or “We have made urgent inquiries to the Home Office but have had no response yet.” We are seeing a repetition of what happened with Afghanistan last year, I am afraid. The system simply is not working. Every case turns on its own facts, but I will, with your indulgence, Mr Gray, read an e-mail I have received that highlights a lot of the problems. It is from a constituent two or three days ago. The circumstances may have changed, but I do not think they have.
“My wife’s daughter-in-law along with her 12-year-old son fled Ukraine and are now in Warsaw Poland. In the last four days they have both been ill, probably due to cold, exhaustion and stress. They are now safely in a flat of friends of friends but she does not speak Polish or English. Because of this we have been trying to get them an appointment at the Visa Application Centre in Warsaw. This has involved us getting texts and images from Poland and Ukraine together with copies of documents we have in the UK. I have filled out their application forms, amassed all the evidence I can, and emailed it to the friends for them to print. ahead of an appointment. I am erudite but even I have struggled with some of the English on the websites. So it would be almost impossible to do this in Poland, with no knowledge of English and with no access to a computer.”
He goes on to say,
“Firstly the application form, which is 8 pages long, has to be completed in English. Once the application is submitted on line the GOV.UK website directs you to a commercial partner’s website called TLS. There you can download a 7 page checklist which has to be completed in English. But then the website is not allowing you to download your completed checklist and accompanying documents. On the website you can also book at appointment—only you can’t because the website is not allowing you to do that either. Even when we can secure an appointment some of the evidence is in Ukrainian and so probably will not be accepted by the VAC”—
The visa application centre.
“Also because they fled in a hurry they do not have all the documentary evidence required. Once they have attended an appointment there is no indication of how long they may have to wait to hear if their applications are successful.”
He ends by saying this:
“They are our family, we own our own home in Shepherd’s Bush, have room to accommodate them and money to cover all their expenses. But the red tape is not allowing them to come here. I hope you are your colleagues can put pressure on the Home Office to relax the rules immediately.”
I am not going to mention the name of the family, even though I do not think they would mind if I did. The Home Office has all those details. It has had them for some days. We have not had a response, and that is true for almost every case. Yes, every case will have different facts, but I hope the Minister can see that there is a common thread here.
I do not know whether this is wilful or negligent, or whether it is a matter of happenstance and the Government are trying to correct things, but the net effect is that the Government’s actions are the opposite of what they are saying. They are saying “We want to help,” “We will help,” and “We will help significantly—hundreds of thousands of people,” yet every case I see says that that is not true. Every case is stalled at some hurdle, geographical or bureaucratic, because of the way that the Home Office behaves. I ask the Minister: first, can he please reply to my emails? I do not think that that is too much to ask, given the urgency. Secondly, can he please look at this in the round, and at our duty, as a compassionate country that wants to take in refugees? I believe that the Government genuinely want to help, but let us see some proof, shall we?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. Today’s debate was opened by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). Her speech demonstrated that she not only is knowledgeable about what is happening in this crisis, but cares deeply. In fact, I not only heard, but felt, that everyone who has spoken today cares. I would not say that it is not often that we feel that here, but I have never felt it to the extent that I have today. Everybody cares, and we must get something done as soon as possible.
The fault for what is happening to the people in Ukraine lies solely with Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime—not with the Russian people, any of us, any of the Governments that make up the UK or Europe, and certainly not with the people of Ukraine—the blame lies, fairly and squarely, with Vladimir Putin and his regime. It is important to acknowledge that. However, the fact that we did not cause the situation is irrelevant when it comes to offering our support.
Along with my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), I have been heavily involved in scrutinising the Nationality and Borders Bill, so when Russia so cruelly invaded and started bombing Ukraine, and Government Ministers started to remind us of Britain’s benevolent history, I worried a lot. I worried because I know that when the refugee sector named it the anti-refugee Bill, it was no exaggeration but an accurate description. I worried because a Government does not bring forward a Bill like that if they have any desire to protect people fleeing war, violence and terror. The Nationality and Borders Bill is clearly trying to send a signal that benevolent Britain is no more: “Don’t come here, because you will not be welcome.”
Of course, I know that the Bill has not yet been enacted; today, it reaches Report stage in the Lords. While I knew that those Ukrainians fleeing now, before that legislation is enacted, would be subject to the existing laws and rules, I was also very aware of how dreadful the current system is, and acutely aware of the attitude from this Government towards people in desperate need. That is why I was worried.
However, I hoped that the suddenness, the intensity, the urgency and, yes, sadly, the fact that they were European—which apparently makes a difference, although it should not—would kick-start the Government into action. I hoped that they would treat it as an emergency—a humanitarian catastrophe, where we simply had to help first and sort out the details later. That is what other countries have done, including Poland, Germany, France, and Italy. As per usual, they have taken far more people, proportionately, than we have or ever will—of that I am sure.
The Government keep telling whoever will listen that the UK takes in more people than other EU country, but that is not true. Last week at Prime Minister’s Questions, the Prime Minister said that the UK had done more to resettle vulnerable people than any other European country since 2015. However, it is not true.
When looking at the numbers per head of population, which is the only fair way to do it, for every 100,000 people, Sweden takes in 1,619; Germany takes in 1,274; Austria takes in 1,134; and Switzerland takes in 955. Does the Minister want me to tell him—I do not know if he knows this—how many we take in? For every 100,000 people, we take in 121. That makes the UK 17th—sometimes 18th—in the rankings in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, that is shocking. No European country can top the global list, because it is the developing countries—those most in need themselves—that take in the most people. Yes, that is right: those with the least are giving the most. More than 80% of the world’s displaced people are living in developing countries.
As we have heard, the Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into providing the level of support now being offered to Ukrainians, which still does not match other comparable countries or poorer countries. One day, the Government will offer refuge only to those who have a family connection, and that can only be a very narrow definition of “family”. The next day, they change it so that other family members can come over, but they still need a visa and a passport; then some of them do not need a visa, but others do; and those who do not have a passport still have to apply from Ukraine or wherever they have fled to, but there are no appointments.
Jim Shannon
It is always very easy to ask, “Have you got a passport?” but when the bombs are falling and the bullets are flying, there are buildings falling and people are in fear for their lives, the last thing they go for is their passport or their identification: they get out and they move. Many people do not have that passport or identification, not because they do not have it, but because they do not have it with them: it is lying in their wrecked house, back where they came from.
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely agree. Many people have never had a passport because they have never had the money to go anywhere where they would require one, or they cannot afford one. As the hon. Member said, lots of people do not know where their passports are; I do not know where mine is, because I am not planning to go anywhere soon. I am not planning to be in the middle of a warzone and to need to know where my passport is.
When appointments are available, the appointment might be in a fortnight’s time. As we heard from the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), a person might get through everything, jump through all the hoops and pass the test, and then be told to travel 350 miles to pick up their paperwork—it is ridiculous. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) told us, they might get to their appointment only to be told to discard their seven-year-old child who is not allowed to come in. I accept that that cannot be Home Office policy, and I saw the Minister frantically messaging to find out what had happened there, but what kind of person would do that? Is that the kind of person we would want in that job? I am absolutely certain that nobody thinks that person is suitable to be in that job. It is chaos: the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) likened it to a game of snakes and ladders, and he is not wrong. If it is confusing for hon. Members and their teams trying to keep up with the advice we can give people, how much more confusing is it for someone in a state of heightened anxiety who does not necessarily speak English? It is almost as if this Government do not want Ukrainians to come here.
Other Members have made important points today. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said it was a disgrace that, several weeks on, this scheme has still not been properly set up. I share that feeling, but I imagine that neither of us is surprised, because we both have ongoing contact with Afghans who are stuck in Afghanistan, begging us to help all these months on, and we still have no advice for them. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, there are people ready to help Ukrainians. We are getting emails daily from people who want to help, but do not know how. Obviously, I have not seen the statement in the Chamber, but I have not heard that much clarity is coming forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and others have pointed out, if a person is in a warzone, how are they supposed to apply online? Sometimes the internet is bad enough in Parliament, where we are not in a warzone; how is someone in a warzone supposed to be able to get internet? I could hear the exhaustion in my hon. Friend’s voice as she spoke so movingly about her constituent and his struggle to get his family into fortress Britain. He would still be battling if she had not fought tooth and nail for him, but what about all those who do not have that support?
Why are the experts in the field not being consulted—Refugee Action, or the Refugee Councils of England, Wales or Scotland? Positive Action in Housing is an organisation in Glasgow that has a long-running project through which people can host refugees. I would want to know that anyone generous enough to offer to do so is being properly checked, because the dangers are obvious. Perhaps the Government could speak to groups such as Positive Action in Housing. I would also want to know that every single person taken into someone’s home has the knowledge, the confidence and the means to reach out for help, should it be necessary.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the main Chamber. I therefore suspend the sitting for 15 minutes if it is one vote, or 25 minutes if it is two votes, after which we will probably move on to the Labour Front Bench.
Anne McLaughlin
I know that the Minister is going to say that these things all take time. They do, but is he really saying that we cannot not keep up with other comparable European countries? If we are so much more bountiful in our approach to refugees, surely we therefore have more experience and should at least be able to equal the speed of other European countries.
The Minister will also no doubt repeat the trope that we cannot dispense with visas for security reasons, but the Government really need to stop pretending that what we are asking for is anything unusual. Thousands of people enter the UK every day without visas. Anyone coming from South Korea, Australia, Mexico, the US, Costa Rica and many other countries is not required to have a visa. If we are to believe that allowing Ukrainians to do that poses a threat to our safety, the Government must surely believe that the thousands arriving from those countries today, yesterday and tomorrow pose an equal threat to our safety—or are they seriously arguing that Ukrainians are uniquely likely to be infiltrated and pose a threat? As we have heard, a security expert whom the Government previously trusted does not share their apparent fears. I will repeat the question posed to the Minister by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West: what was wrong about what Lord Ricketts had to say? Remember that the two Russians who caused such turmoil in Salisbury did not sneak in by pretending to be another nationality. They came in on visas, so a visa alone is not a safeguard.
I congratulate the petitioner, Phillip Jolliffe, on the efforts he went to in order to get so many people to sign the petition—some 184,949 people have signed it. I will end by saying what I think is the most alarming part of the way we are treating Ukrainian refugees: as confusing, chaotic and cold as their treatment has been so far, we are treating Ukrainian refugees better than we treat refugees fleeing other countries, and we are treating them a million times better than we will treat anyone, including other Ukrainians, who dares to ask for our protection once the Nationality and Borders Bill is enacted. If people are ashamed right now—I suspect that those who signed the petition are—they should prepare themselves to feel a whole new level of shame once that comes in.
James Gray (in the Chair)
I call Neil Kinnock. I beg your pardon; I mean Stephen Kinnock. I am so sorry.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
As I said to Mr Speaker the other day, I have been having that since I was 13 years old. You are not the first, Mr Gray, and I am sure you will not be the last. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, and I thank the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this important debate. I also thank the thousands and thousands of petitioners, who I hope have all made their voices heard through us.
I begin my remarks by paying tribute to the Ukrainian people, whose bravery, fortitude and eventual victory will never be forgotten. President Zelensky is the leader of the free world, and he and his compatriots are fighting not only for Ukraine’s freedom and democracy, but for the values that we all hold dear. They are showing tremendous courage, dignity and defiance in the face of Russia’s barbaric assault. What a contrast, I am afraid to say, with the failure of the Home Office to rise to the challenge. From the Windrush scandal to the small boats crisis, and from the Nationality and Borders Bill to the response to Putin’s barbaric assault on Ukraine, we are witnessing a Department whose approach is defined by a toxic combination of incompetence and indifference.
Let us turn for a moment to the broader context of this refugee crisis. We know that the vast majority of the Ukrainians who are leaving their country want to stay as close as possible to it. They are passionately patriotic and as such they will want to get back to their homes once the invaders have been defeated and Ukraine is once again able to rebuild as a vibrant, prosperous and democratic country.
However, it is also the case that some people will want to come to the UK and it is crystal clear that we should welcome them with open arms. Britain has a proud history of acting as a safe sanctuary for those fleeing war and persecution. For example, during world war two the Kindertransport saved the lives of almost 10,000 children.
Since the invasion of Ukraine started on 24 February, over 2 million people have fled the country, and neighbouring countries such as Poland, Romania and Hungary have each taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees. For the reasons that I have already outlined, that is to be expected. However, it is not only countries on the borders of Ukraine that have shown great humanitarian spirit. Just look at Ireland; it has a population of only 4 million, yet it has already accepted 5,500 Ukrainians.
Now let us turn to the dismal performance of the UK Government. This country has 66 million people, but we have given visas to only 4,000 Ukrainians, set against 17,100 applications received. The Home Office is currently offering two schemes, as we have heard today. The first is the family reunion route. For those Ukrainians already resident in Britain, it allows entry to some—not all—of their relatives. The Opposition finally shamed the Government into widening the family reunion route to include extended family, but it still fell far short of where it needed to be. For example, a nurse on a healthcare visa was not allowed to bring his or her family into the UK because he or she did not have indefinite leave to remain. That was beyond unacceptable.
We welcome the U-turn that was secured today, but I ask the Minister why it took so long. Why do we appear to be having U-turns on an almost daily basis? It sends a signal that the Government have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing; it does not reflect well on the Government; and I am afraid to say that it leaves a stain on our international reputation.
The second programme is the community sponsorship scheme. It supposedly allows charities and individuals to sponsor Ukrainians even if there are no family ties. A pressing concern is that the community sponsorship scheme will become mired in bureaucracy and red tape. The Minister will no doubt be aware of a recent report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that states that the application to arrival timescale of current similar schemes ranges from 73 to 398 days. I am sure that the Minister does not think that it could take up to 73 days for these desperate Ukrainians to be given access to our country and I hope that he will reassure us today that that will not be the case.
The processes are burdened with excessive red tape and bureaucracy, but there is also an issue around the institutional performance. The location of the visa centre that is supposedly being set up in northern France to assist refugees will not be made public and the centre will not offer appointments or walk-in access. The Home Secretary claims that a visa office in Calais will pose too much of a security threat and yet the Prime Minister overruled our security services to insist that Evgeny Lebedev be given a peerage. I think that tells us all we need to know about the priorities of this Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, said last week, we are
“making vulnerable people push from pillar to post in their hour of need”.
It is immoral to create this sense of confusion when all people need is a place to feel safe and secure. It does not have to be this way; it could be so much simpler.
Labour believes in putting people before paperwork, which is why we are calling for an emergency protection visa. It would be so much simpler than the community sponsorship scheme that was announced today. Our emergency visa would be based on the necessary biometric and security checks, but it would dispense with all the bureaucracy and red tape that the Government propose, and it would end the bottlenecks and queues by efficiently facilitating quick and easy access to our country in these dark times for the Ukrainian people.
In light of the chaotic and heartbreaking situation that so many hon. Friends and hon. Members have described so eloquently in their contributions today, I have the following questions for the Minister. First, last week in Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister claimed that his Government have
“done more to resettle vulnerable people than any other European country”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 318.]
Since 2015, the UK has accepted 92,000 refugees, while Germany, for example, has accepted more than 1 million. The Prime Minister has again played fast and loose with the facts, so will the Minister encourage his right hon. Friend to correct the record?
On the issue of the community sponsorship route, can the Minister provide an indication of the application-to-arrival timescale that the Government expect? It would clearly be completely and utterly unacceptable if Ukrainian applicants were expected to wait 73 days, and potentially up to 300 days, for their applications under this scheme to be approved. Finally, why will the Government not take our advice and implement Labour’s emergency protection visa so that any Ukrainian can come to our country to seek refuge?
I have to be honest and say that the Home Office failures on this do not surprise me in the slightest. This Government have consistently and systematically failed refugees since 2010. We have only to look at their response to Afghans fleeing the horrors of the Taliban, with thousands of Afghans still stuck in hotels in our country; at the bureaucratic quagmire that was created for those who wanted to house those seeking refuge from the horrors of the Syrian war; or at the response to those seeking to cross the English channel, looking for sanctuary. To add insult to injury, the Government are using the Nationality and Borders Bill as a tool to criminalise those who seek sanctuary in our country.
If the Government wish to improve that record, they have to start showing some empathy and some efficiency, and that has to start right now with the way in which they are treating those who are fleeing Putin’s bombs and bullets. They can do it by ending the bureaucratic and hostile environment that they have created. We therefore urge the Minister to remove the bottlenecks and to simplify the process. Our message to him, to the Home Secretary and to the Prime Minister is clear: please get a grip and please start putting people before paperwork.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for opening the debate, and colleagues for their insightful contributions on a vital issue, although, given some of the comments in the debate about attendance, I do note that the clash with the statement in the main Chamber meant that people who may well have wished to participate in this debate decided to attend that instead. Some of the points being raised here were obviously literally being answered in the Chamber as we were sitting here, deliberating on this petition.
Putin’s war on Ukraine is monstrous and unjustified, and this country stands shoulder to shoulder with the brave Ukrainian people against his unprovoked aggression. We have stepped up with our response, which includes giving Ukraine the means not only to defend itself but, ultimately, to drive the invader from its lands.
A number of points were raised during the debate, and I will briefly cover and go through them. A number of colleagues asked about passports, and one reason why we moved to the idea of the route without biometrics and based on passports was what we saw in looking at the analysis of those who had presented themselves, wanting to apply. In something like the first 2,000 people who presented themselves, fewer than 100 did not have a valid Ukrainian passport. Let me be clear that we are talking about a valid Ukrainian passport; we are not detailing the type of Ukrainian passport—those familiar with Ukraine’s passport will know that it started issuing a new type of passport seven years ago—provided that it is valid. The vast majority have brought their passport with them.
On the question of whether we are offering paid priority services, I think we would all agree that it would be, frankly, immoral to offer a paid priority service in the family scheme, and I can certainly say to colleagues today that we are looking to suspend, across UK Visas and Immigration, our super priority and priority visa services. We will still prioritise people in the wider system who have compelling and compassionate circumstances—for example, someone seeking to travel to the UK for a funeral or perhaps someone who needs urgently to take up a role in the NHS. But we will look to suspend the general priority service—again, to free up UKVI resource. I think we all realise that it is actually right that at this time as many of our decision makers as possible are prioritised to this particular route rather than our normal type of priority visa services. Certainly, people should not be being charged at a VAC when they are looking to make applications to this route, and that is something that we are clear on. Also, suspending the wider priority visa services clears up any confusion if people inquire about the wider migration system while at that particular visa application centre.
I hope that colleagues will appreciate why it would not be particularly sensible to go into exact details on what safeguarding checks will be done on those who offer to sponsor people coming to the UK, but yes, safeguarding checks will be performed, as in the devolved Administrations. I think hon. Members will understand why it would not be sensible for me to start reading out the list of exactly what we will do and what we will check. Safeguarding checks on people who offer to be sponsors will be in place, because we are conscious that many of those being sponsored will be vulnerable, whether they are adults or children.
Anne McLaughlin
As well as asking for that, I asked about the people who are then placed with a family or with somebody who has a spare room. How will we ensure that they have the knowledge, the means and the confidence to reach out for help? Somebody who is taken in will be extremely grateful because they no longer have bombs raining down on them, but they may feel uncomfortable, or something may go wrong, and they may not want to report it. How can we ensure that people in that situation—primarily women and children—are able to do so?
Kevin Foster
That is a good point. Some funding is being offered to local communities. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the slightly different structure in Northern Ireland, as we saw with the national transfer scheme for unaccompanied children, reflecting the devolved structure there. We are providing a funding package to local councils; I appreciate that hon. Members taking part in the debate will not have heard the statement in the main Chamber, but that is something we are working on.
I think it is safe to say that I and the Scottish Government have not always got on particularly well, but on a serious note, I welcome their genuinely constructive offers. I have had brief conversations with Neil Gray—he is co-ordinating for the Scottish Government, as Lord Harrington is for the UK Government—about what work they can do on those points. As colleagues have said, speed and getting people in are becoming essential. How can we do that?
My own community does not have the experience of Glasgow, for example, in welcoming communities of asylum seekers. That should not become a delaying factor across large parts of the UK, and balances need to be struck. There are funding packages to try to create that support. I also recognise that there are wider debates around how we can ensure that support is provided. That is what colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be working on closely.
Andy Slaughter
If families do manage to reach the UK and do not have immediate offers of accommodation, which is happening—I gave the example of a family who could accommodate people, but others, perhaps in overcrowded social housing, will get relatives who they will not be able to accommodate—where should they go? Is the Minister saying that they should go to the local authority, which will say, “Yes, we have funding from the Government,” or is there some other solution?
Kevin Foster
There is a slightly different position for those who are already in the UK. The hon. Gentleman made a point earlier about people who are fearful of being asked to leave, and I reassure him that there is no prospect of removals to Ukraine. I will not, and clearly cannot, put a timeframe on that, but at this moment, any removals action has been suspended. That includes our voluntary returns; again, that would clearly be quite a bizarre thing to encourage at the moment. There is no prospect of someone from Ukraine who is ordinarily resident in Ukraine—there is a slight difference from Ukrainian nationals—being asked to return. We have already automatically extended a number of visas for those who are already here with temporary status as a skilled worker or student. There is no need, at this stage, for them to apply for anything. Of course, if someone’s status is due to expire, they can certainly get in contact.
There is no intention that people will need to leave this country, and even if that were the case, there is in reality no practical returns route anyway. To be very clear, Ukrainian nationals who are here lawfully do not need to leave, and we will make further announcements and confirmations over the next few weeks about the position looking forward. I think most of us would accept that the priority at this stage needs to be those who are in Ukraine and looking to make preparations in case they need to leave. We are particularly aware that there are large numbers of people in western Ukraine who, depending on what happens in the coming weeks with the military campaign, may move into Poland, Slovakia or Hungary if Russian forces come closer. Of course, we hope that that does not happen; we see the defence of Kyiv being mounted, and I think we can be confident that Ukraine is halting what was a Russian advance in that direction.
As I say, people here in the UK do not need to apply for different statuses, and later this year we will confirm the position on future entitlement to settlement and in other areas. However, I think we would all accept that at the moment there are very few Ukrainians arriving who are particularly focused on a potential indefinite leave to remain application in 2027.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his constructive and positive response. I asked about the £350 per month and the £10,000—the different systems—and he has referred to that in his response. I am happy if he wants to write to me to let me know how the system will work. I gave the example that, in my constituency, we have 100 families who are willing to give accommodation, and we have 100 job vacancies available in one company, right now. Time is of the essence. How can we make that happen?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for his constructive comments. A lot of that will be around the sponsorship route. My understanding is that the £350 will be given to the sponsor—the person providing accommodation. I take on board his point about the payment that will go to local authorities; it is a very different context in Northern Ireland, given the slightly different responsibilities around things such as children’s services, as we recognised in the NTS. It is probably better that I set out in writing the detail of how that will break down.
Another query was about those who have already applied for a visa who get a grant letter but do not have the vignette put in their documents or their passport, which is normally when there is a request to go back to the VAC. As of tomorrow, if someone has the grant letter, that will be enough to travel to the UK with a carrier, in the same way as the permission to travel letter system that we will establish and open from tomorrow. Again, we are looking to minimise the number of people who have to make appointments at VACs and go and collect particular forms of documentation.
Daisy Cooper
Will the Minister confirm whether people who have an appointment booked but do not yet have a form will be able, from tomorrow, to travel to the UK without that form? And what about people who have had their appointment, and who have applied and filled everything in, but are still waiting for the form to come back? There are two different types of people there.
Kevin Foster
Those who have not yet submitted their biometrics will have two options from tomorrow. The first is to make a separate application for permission to travel under the new system. They will get a PDF form emailed to them. Some people have asked whether the letter is posted—no, it will be emailed. By the way, that form can be shown on a phone, or it can be printed out by a friend or colleague. There do not need to be individual smartphones; if a family has one phone, they can show multiple forms on that phone. Again, we want to reassure people that we will not expect everyone to have a phone with the form on it.
If someone has already submitted their biometrics and they get a letter that says they have got their visa—the decision letter—under a normal visa process they would go back to collect the vignette in their passport that allows them to travel. My firm understanding is that, as of tomorrow, they will be able to show that letter saying that they have a decision with their passport and travel to the UK, rather than going back to the VAC to collect the vignette. If they have not yet done their biometrics, they can instead apply through the permission to travel scheme—the new scheme that we are launching tomorrow—and, if they get permission, proceed to the UK and sort out their biometrics up to six months after arrival. We will not be taking biometrics at the border, because we are looking to facilitate travel into the UK. Once people have a decision letter with their passport, they will be able to travel.
Obviously, if someone does not have a valid Ukrainian passport, it is still the process that they need to be documented. In many cases, people do not have any documents. They need to get a document that allows them to board an aircraft regardless of their destination, particularly if they are looking to travel by air from eastern Europe rather than ending up on a relatively gruelling land journey. That probably covers some of the points raised.
People have made comparisons to the Afghan system. Lessons are being learned. A lot of people are still in hotels. We had a great effort to get people out of Kabul, but it is safe to say that, put simply, offers for rehousing have not come forward from communities across the UK. There is certainly a challenge there. I was struck by the comment by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that all must take part. We see communities, such as Glasgow, that always step up. That is our biggest dispersal area and steps up in every refugee resettlement situation. It stepped up for Afghans and for Syrians, and I am sure the community will step up again in this context.
Kevin Foster
In a moment. I then look at other areas, and it is perhaps a tale of two cities. Edinburgh, which is not that far away, does not take part in the dispersal area system for asylum seekers. I am regularly struck by the arguments that all must take part. That is certainly another item that we will be looking at closely.
Kevin Foster
I will take an intervention first from the Labour shadow Minister, and then I will come back to the hon. Lady.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for giving way. On the point about who is stepping up, I am sure he will be aware that, based on the current figures, councils that are led by Labour are taking between six and seven times more refugees than councils that are led by the Conservative party.
Kevin Foster
I am keen to encourage all to take part. I think there are only five councils that have not offered in principle to take part in the Afghan resettlement scheme. The hon. Gentleman will note what we recently did with the national transfer scheme, where every council in the UK—I acknowledge that it is done slightly differently in Northern Ireland—is now mandated to take part in the process around unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. He will also note the references I have just made to dispersal accommodation in relation to asylum seekers.
I am struck that there are communities that step up every single time, including in places such as Stoke-on-Trent with Conservative-led councils. In other areas I hear demands that people do things for asylum seekers, yet when we approach them about becoming a dispersal area, they seem strangely quiet.
Anne McLaughlin
COSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, has told the Minister and his colleagues—as have I—that every one of the 32 Scottish local authorities, in addition to taking in refugees under the Syrian resettlement scheme, would be happy, if it were appropriate in terms of wraparound services and if there were any support, to take part in the asylum dispersal scheme. The problem is that the Government expect the councils to carry all the costs associated with that. There is no excuse; if the Minister is going to start supporting the councils, they will start chipping in with the scheme as well as with the refugees.
Kevin Foster
What I find interesting is that I regularly hear how it is about moral duties and that people should be taking part, but I have to contrast that with the situation that the hon. Lady has alluded to in Scotland, where 31 out of 32 local authorities are not dispersal areas, including the city of Edinburgh. The only place in Scotland that is a dispersal area is the city of Glasgow.
Kevin Foster
I will take an intervention in a moment. The only dispersal area in Scotland is Glasgow—I am certainly happy to confirm that to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). However, we have taken on board representations from local government, and we are engaging with local councils about how we alter the funding system. Still, it is a fair point that there are plenty of communities across the country that have made huge efforts to support the current dispersal system and there are others that have refused. With that, I give way to the Member for Edinburgh.
Joanna Cherry
I am not the Member for Edinburgh; I am the Member for Edinburgh South West. It is quite a big city with several MPs. The Home Office’s own figures on section 95 asylum support show that, thanks to the efforts of Glasgow City Council, the percentage located in Scotland under that scheme is more than Scotland’s population share and higher than any council in the United Kingdom. We are taking more per capita in Scotland than our population share.
In relation to Edinburgh, would the Minister care to apologise to Edinburgh City Council, which has made one of the most successful and generous contributions towards the resettlement of refugees? I have worked very closely with the council on that. He has made his point about asylum; would he like to acknowledge Edinburgh’s world-renowned contribution to the resettlement of refugees?
Kevin Foster
Again, the hon. and learned Lady has highlighted how well Glasgow is doing. Earlier in my speech, I cited how Glasgow steps up every time, but the fact is still absolutely the same: Edinburgh is not a dispersal area. Thirty-one of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas are not dispersal areas—that is a straight fact.
Joanna Cherry
I did not ask the Minister about asylum; I asked him about resettlement of refugees. I am sure he must understand that there is a difference. He has had his wee go at Edinburgh about asylum. Now I am asking him, in fairness, to recognise Edinburgh City Council’s sterling contribution towards the resettlement of refugees. As he knows, Scotland has taken more Syrian refugees per capita than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and that is largely due to Edinburgh. Will he have the generosity to acknowledge that?
Kevin Foster
I am happy to acknowledge all the generosity that there has been across Scotland in terms of the resettlement schemes, but the point still stands. It is rather odd to say, “There’s a lot being done on dispersal accommodation in Scotland because of one council down the road, yet the place I represent doesn’t need to take part in that.” As I say, we will be looking to reform the scheme, but it is perfectly fair to point out that plenty of communities across the United Kingdom step up for refugees and are part of our dispersal accommodation system, no matter how people try to argue it.
Catherine West
I will try to help the Minister with a different point. He has mentioned the Syrian scheme and the two Afghanistan schemes, and now there are at least two schemes for the Ukrainian conflict. Broadly, off the top of his head, where are we with the Afghanistan scheme? Obviously, we do not know how many more applicants to the Ukraine scheme there will be, because Ukraine is currently 18 days into the most dreadful war. Broadly speaking, we think we know what happened with the Syrian scheme, but could he tell us about the Afghanistan scheme?
Kevin Foster
As the hon. Lady will appreciate, the situation in Afghanistan presents some unique difficulties. Of course, we cannot—
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Foster
I will come to colleagues, but I will deal with the hon. Lady’s intervention first. We are still helping people get out of Afghanistan. I hope she appreciates why it would not be sensible for me to go into some of the routes and methods that they use to exit Afghanistan at this time, but we have certainly made strong progress. There is a challenge now, and my colleague Minister Harrington will be looking at how we can move people on from hotels. As I say, one of the points that we have learned from the scheme is about trying to pair up the accommodation and give more people an opportunity to take part. However, our cohort from Afghanistan is slightly more difficult, given that we brought out mostly larger families. In the case of Ukraine, it is mostly single women with children, given that men between 18 and 60 are required by Ukrainian law to stay and fight.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford and then I will make some progress.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for the Afghan scheme. We in Northern Ireland have been very active in responding to that. In my neighbouring constituency of North Down, which has become the central point for bringing people from Afghanistan, people have been in the Marine Court hotel for seven months. We are very keen and anxious to get them into the jobs and accommodation that we have spoken about in the past. Can the Minister give us an update on when he hopes to see those people filtering out into the constituency?
Kevin Foster
In terms of Ukraine, we hope to set things forward very quickly. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in the House earlier.
I am conscious of the time and that votes are due again. Given the petition’s call, I want to be clear that, as stated by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, we do not believe that a blanket visa waiver is the right way forward—a position that appears to have been endorsed by the Opposition, given their call for visas rather than waivers, with biometric checks included. Normally, security and biometric checks are a fundamental part of our visa process, in order to keep people in this country safe and ensure that we can identify those entering our country. That is consistent with our approach to the evacuation of Afghanistan.
Although it is easy to dismiss, it is vital to keep British citizens safe and to ensure that we are helping those in genuine need. Sadly, we are already seeing people presenting false documents, claiming to be Ukrainian and seeking to enter the UK, including some whom Border Force has subsequently identified as being of other nationalities and having no links to Ukraine. This should not detract from our work creating safe and legal routes for Ukrainian nationals to come to the UK.
Marion Fellows
I congratulate the Minister on dancing on the head of a pin so well. Could I also point out to him that my own area, North Lanarkshire, has taken refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syria and is taking refugees from Afghanistan? We have a long history of taking refugees without UK Government intervention, going right back to 1919.
Kevin Foster
We look forward to that area signing up to be a dispersal area as well then. I will be very pleased to take that forward.
Using a visa process means that processing can be controlled and vital security checks carried out, including ensuring that the people coming are actually Ukrainian, meet our eligibility criteria and do not present a risk.
Kevin Foster
I have given way quite a lot; I need to make some progress.
We have announced our bespoke Ukraine family scheme. That scheme significantly expands the ability of British nationals, people settled in the UK and others to bring family members to the UK, extending eligibility to adult parents, grandparents, children over 18, siblings, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins and in-laws, and all of their immediate family members. We have ensured that the scheme is easily accessible, fee-free and does not include any salary or language requirements.
We recognise though—again, as has been said today—that we need to speed things up. Therefore, as announced by the Home Secretary last week, in order to further support the Ukrainian people, from tomorrow, holders of Ukrainian passports who are outside the UK will no longer be required to provide their biometric information when making applications under the Ukraine family scheme. Once applications have been processed, individuals will receive a permission letter sent electronically enabling them to travel to the UK, and will not be required to collect a vignette in their passport. They can either print that letter or show it on any smart device, including a family member’s smartphone or device if they do not have one of their own. Those granted status under this scheme will be able to come to the UK for three years, with the right to work and access benefits. Applicants who hold identity cards and do not have a valid passport will still need to attend a visa application centre in person and provide their biometric information, but this new system will mean that our VAC capacity can focus on those who need it.
The Prime Minister has also announced plans for a scheme to introduce a new sponsor group to enable Ukrainians with no ties to the UK to come here, with more details having been announced in the main Chamber this afternoon. That scheme is completely uncapped, and to help colleagues, a “frequently asked questions” section has just gone live on gov.uk.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could he say how long it will take for a family with no family connection in the UK coming through the Homes for Ukraine scheme to be placed with a family here? [Interruption.]
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the main Chamber, and I therefore suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. We will recommence at 7.22 pm.
James Gray (in the Chair)
The Minister was on his feet when we were interrupted.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Mr Gray. I have not forgotten the intervention, and I have had an unusually long time to think about it. In terms of the timescale, from today individuals and organisations can register their interest in becoming sponsors. Applications will be open for individual sponsors and named beneficiaries from Friday. We aim to expedite decisions quickly. Again, some of that will slightly depend on how many we have come forward. But we are certainly keen that, very quickly after Friday, the first people will be able to arrive under the sponsorship scheme. As we say, there will be safeguarding checks—there will be checks on the individuals—but the approach will be around ensuring that we can expedite decision making as much as possible. I would reassure Members that we will be working with the devolved Administrations and others where appropriate on the type of checks—again, where possible, with a view to the speed. I would also make the point that there is no limit on the sponsorship scheme; there is no set amount—we could think of other schemes where we have set a particular ceiling or quota, but there is no limit, except in terms of the offers that come forward.
Making the scheme a success will require the whole of society to come forward and show our heartfelt concern and solidarity, as we did as a society 80 years ago, when many communities across this nation welcomed evacuees from the industrial cities and the potential landing grounds for an armed invasion of this country. Many formed lifelong friendships afterwards. This country has a history of being generous, and the scheme will facilitate that.
We do want the wider diaspora in the UK. I also take on board the point that people have made: ultimately, the goal is not to evacuate Ukrainians from Ukraine, to serve Vladimir Putin’s purpose but, in the long run, to ensure that people who have had sanctuary here and in other European countries can return to a free and democratic Ukraine, with the invaders driven from their country. That is our ultimate goal, but we will ensure that people are able to come and take advantage of the generous offers that people are making.
We are in unique times. We have brought forward two major schemes at rapid speed. We recognise that colleagues want us to go faster, and we will. As I am speaking, more visas are being granted and, from tomorrow, permissions to travel via the new simplified procedure will be introduced.
We believe that this is a country that wants to stand beside the people of Ukraine and to demonstrate solidarity by making offers to provide housing into which we can welcome them. We can all contrast this generosity, this solidarity, with the vicious campaign that Russia has unleashed on innocent civilians, bombing maternity hospital and shelling residential areas—a type of barbarity that we hoped we had seen the end of in Europe 80 years ago, and which our grandparents fought to end at that time, making such sacrifices.
We think of the sacrifice that the Soviet people made to defeat Adolf Hitler. Over 20 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in that conflict. To see what is being done in the name of the Russian people by their own Government is absolutely tragic, but the hope that we can take from 80 years ago is that despots and dictators who thought that they could conquer Europe soon found themselves in the annals of history, having been defeated by free and democratic peoples who united to defeat them. That is what we are doing against Putin’s Russia, and soon that will be the victory that is secured by the Ukrainian people.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for his response, because it feels as if we are finally getting on the same page, both across the House, and in terms of where the British public are when it comes to the response that we want to see from us a country, which we rely on the Government to deliver—[Interruption.]
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the main Chamber. Rather than come back after voting, may I put the Question? Would that be agreeable? I am very sorry; I hope the hon. Lady does not mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 609530, relating to arrangements for Ukrainian refugees to enter the UK.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after a few minutes.
Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, we are here this afternoon to debate two important statutory instruments which will amend provisions in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and support our work to ensure continued access to critical vaccines and medicines across the country. The first SI will maintain vital arrangements which have underpinned our vaccination campaigns against flu and Covid-19. The second SI will support our ambitions to ensure that patients with unmet clinical needs can access the innovative treatments they need. I am grateful to be able to debate such important provisions today.
The purpose of the provisions I have laid in the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations—which I will refer to as “the regulations”—is to amend the temporary provisions that cease to have effect on 1 April this year. They support the continued deployment of safe and effective Covid-19 and flu vaccinations at the pace and scale required both now and in the future as part of the pandemic response. This SI amends provisions in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, SI 2012/1916, originally amended by the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1125, and the Human Medicines (Coronavirus) (Further Amendments) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1594, either to make permanent or extend by a further two years these key regulatory flexibilities.
There are five provisions before us today, three of which we are seeking to make permanent. The first will enable injectable prescription-only medicines, which includes vaccines, to be given under a patient group direction commissioned by the NHS or a local authority, which effectively expands the workforce of vaccinators. The second will enable pharmacy-led Covid and flu vaccination services to operate outside their registered premises. This has enabled, for example, “pop-up” vaccination clinics to be run by pharmacists at convenient locations for patients, and these have been very successful. The third will add several additional groups of healthcare professionals to those who can administer vaccines under occupational health schemes, thereby expanding the workforce to vaccinate health and care staff. The final two provisions relate to a further temporary extension of easements to licensing requirements for assembly and preparation of vaccines prior to use and sharing of vaccines between sites.
Why do we need this SI? The success of the mass vaccination rollout on the scale and pace that has been possible to date will not continue if the SI is not approved, and the Covid-19 and flu vaccination programmes will not be able to continue running as they currently do. Nor would they be able to be re-established at the pace and scale which has been so vital to our success—for example, in response to the emergence of a new variant, leading to recommendations for an urgent booster campaign.
Approval has been sought and agreed both in the other place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I will now provide the rationale in support of these important provisions in this place. We are debating these provisions today against a completely different backdrop to that which was in place when the key regulatory flexibilities were first made in late 2020. We are now in a position that we should welcome, but we should also be aware that vaccines remain our best line of defence against the virus and to help us to live with Covid. This is the very reason why it is vital to make permanent or temporarily extend these provisions.
The provisions have already proved invaluable by enabling mass vaccination against both Covid-19 and flu to be done as quickly as possible while safeguarding patients and limiting disruption to other NHS services. Patient safety has to be at the heart of any vaccination programme, and it is at the forefront of these provisions.
To improve uptake in areas with low vaccination uptake we have used places of worship as vaccination centres, with many more acting as pop-up venues; provided £22.5 million to fund the community vaccine champions scheme, targeting the 60 local authorities with the lowest vaccine uptake and using local networks to promote accurate health advice; established an army of vaccine ambassadors, speaking 33 languages between them, promoting uptake across the country; and taken the vaccines into the hearts of local communities through initiatives such as vaccination buses and taxis. It is vital that we continue to protect and vaccinate those in our society who are hard to reach and it is really important that we continue to reduce health inequality in vaccine uptake. Making these provisions permanent will enable us to achieve this goal. Indeed, the National Audit Office’s recent report on the rollout of the vaccination programme in England highlighted the balance between central command and control structures and wider empowerment locally. It saw this as a success factor in achieving more than 139 million vaccinations in the 15 months since the programme began.
I turn to the second instrument before us today. We are committed to making sure that individuals suffering from life-threatening or serious debilitating conditions and facing unmet clinical need are able to access the therapies they need. The early access to medicines scheme is a vital tool in supporting such patients to receive innovative new medicines. EAMS, as it is commonly referred to, provides a route for patients to be prescribed medicines that either do not yet have a marketing authorisation or licence, or do not have a marketing authorisation for the medicine to be used for that particular illness. Since 2014, the scheme has benefited hundreds of patients across the country. In England alone, over 1,600 patients have received EAMS medicines since the scheme launched. Their lives have been transformed by the chance to receive vital therapeutics for conditions ranging from cancer to sickle cell disease or severe dermatitis. Putting the scheme on a statutory footing allows us to maximise the benefits it offers to patients, as well as supporting the early development of medicines by innovative manufacturers in the UK.
The provisions we are debating today will deliver three key benefits. First, they will reaffirm in legislation the importance of patient safety within the scheme, putting specific provisions on safety monitoring and risk management on a statutory footing. Secondly, they will reduce the regulatory burden on manufacturers supplying EAMS medicines, making the scheme more visible and easier to use. Thirdly, they will help ensure that information on the real-world use of EAMS medicines can be collected. This will help provide more evidence and more data that can support future decisions about patient access to novel medicines. To summarise, we have the opportunity before us to deliver greater access to safe medicines, as well as supporting the innovation of our life sciences industry for the benefits of patients.
I am bringing forward the first instruments using the powers in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, allowing us to use effective regulation to provide patients and the public with timely access to critical medicines and vaccines. The provisions in these instruments are incredibly important. They will be in force if mass vaccination campaigns against Covid-19 and flu are necessary again to protect the public and our freedoms. They will also ensure that patients with serious conditions and unmet clinical needs can be offered new, life-changing treatment options.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of contributing to this debate. If I may, I shall say something about each of the two regulations we are looking at. Before I go down that path, I should declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vulnerable Groups to Pandemics.
The first regulation is, in a sense, the product of success: we have made a great step forward in the vaccination programme. For the very first time, I tested positive for Covid 10 or 11 days ago—I am negative now, I promise—but it was not remotely worrying and had no serious impact on my health because I had had two vaccinations and a booster. The process in this country, not least the use of pop-up locations, has been rightly envied in many countries around the world. I got my second vaccination in Poets Corner in Westminster Abbey, a particularly pleasant experience.
The point is, however, that we have now arrived at a position where we are living with Covid, which is a tricky thing to do because the numbers of cases are not small. I was just one of them last week, and not in the least bit surprised when the Office for National Statistics said that there was an increasing number of cases because so many people who I knew of were going down with a case of it. Living with Covid is going to be tricky and I suspect we will, from time to time, find ourselves having to resort to a booster programme—perhaps not for everybody, but certainly among the most vulnerable.
The point I make to the Committee today is that, as we move into this very significant new phase of living with Covid, I do not want us to leave behind—or leave out—the small proportion of people who, by reason of being severely immunocompromised, cannot live with Covid. They cannot access or tolerate the vaccines, as they cannot produce the necessary antibodies. If we do nothing about that we will end up with a very small but significant number of people, maybe somewhere between 100,000 or 150,000, for whom the severity of their lack of immune system means that they literally cannot go out and expose themselves to Covid.
I have been asking questions of my noble friend the Minister and I fear there is a bit of confusion here. The Government are in the process of promoting clinical trials for post-exposure prophylaxis as treatments so that, if somebody has the symptoms of Covid, there are antiviral treatments available for them which have significant efficacy. But the trials are all on the basis that their symptoms are detected within three to five days; if they are not, there is a serious risk of severe harm, hospitalisation or even death for this small group of people.
The case I want to put is that the Government should, as other Governments are doing, look at the emergency-use authorisation of pre-exposure prophylaxis. In this instance, it is a drug with the brand name Evusheld. This is an AstraZeneca combination of monoclonal antibodies, the purpose of which is to give protection to people who are severely immunocompromised. I hope it will be apparent to noble Lords that there is the world of difference between pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylactic treatments. The difference is that a sense of confidence is created in the people to whom the pre-exposure prophylaxis has been provided, such that they too stand some chance of living with Covid and of no longer being subject to the isolation and shielding which has otherwise been their unfortunate experience now for two years.
In the data presently available, the efficacy of Evusheld results in an 83% reduced risk of symptomatic disease over a six-month period. That is a very good potential level of efficacy. If we do not do this in the position we are in, many of these people will not feel confident about leaving isolation and not being shielded. They will not rely on the assumption that they would get access to treatments within the time required.
I am hoping that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is just about to produce a positive, emergency-use authorisation assessment for Evusheld. If my noble friend has any information, that would be very welcome. While I entirely accept that the Government need to have that in place, why are they not negotiating with AstraZeneca to get access to it in a contract that depends, of course, on the availability of the authorisation?
Many countries are doing this. For example, the United States has ordered 1.7 million doses. The French have around 150,000, which is broadly comparable to us and the number we would expect to need; indeed, in France, they have administered 15,000 doses of Evusheld. I notice other countries entering into these contracts almost every day. On Friday, it was Switzerland. As we move into living with Covid, which these regulations support, can we have some confidence that we can supply Evusheld and pre-exposure prophylaxis for this very vulnerable group? That is my first point.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
Am I allowed to ask a question before the Minister replies? I notice that one of the SIs has an impact assessment attached to it and the other, related to early access to medicines, does not. When I looked at the explanation, it said that it does not reach the threshold required to undertake a full impact assessment. What is the threshold above which you are required to provide a full impact assessment?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak about some the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in relation to the current levels of Covid, when we discuss later on the third of the SIs before us today. I welcome the two sets of regulations that we are discussing in this first section. The first, the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, modifies and extends regulations with a large number of measures relating to vaccinations for both Covid and influenza. The previous regulations were due to expire on 1 April. I want to put on record our thanks to Ministers and officials for the fact that, this time, we are considering a Covid SI before it comes into force. I hope that this will become routine again from now on.
This SI makes permanent changes to what medicines a range of registered healthcare professionals can administer to NHS and local authority staff. It could be transformational for the NHS if carefully assessed and if the wider group of staff have training and support built into their professional training. It is important that this is extended. The ability to deliver vaccines for coronavirus, influenza and—heaven help us—any other pandemic without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence to be in place, and for the final stages of coronavirus vaccine preparation to be completed without those extra licences, is important. It is part of a complex legislative framework. I am glad that we do not need to discuss that today but, arising out of it, perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions.
There has been discussion in public in the past few days about the expansion of the fourth booster for certain groups. Can the Minister explain when, if a person has already had their fourth booster, as the severely clinically extremely vulnerable have already had, they would next expect a booster, which would in fact be their fifth? What is the timescale for those who are expecting a fourth booster, having had their third one in the autumn or more recently?
What are the Government doing to keep reaching out to hard-to-reach groups who are not yet fully vaccinated? On the case numbers going up at the moment, I think we all know that those in hospital with coronavirus are predominantly those who have not had any vaccines or their full vaccinations.
What progress is being made towards the development of nasal spray vaccines for Covid, such as the Fluenz Tetra nasal vaccines for influenza for children? Obviously, delivering nasal vaccines needs considerably less training for staff than do injections, although I note that the current flu nasal spray vaccine is live and therefore not suitable for the immunocompromised or immunosuppressed.
What are the Government doing to encourage pregnant and breastfeeding women to get vaccinated, given the confusion that there was last year and the delay before the JVCI said that they should be vaccinated?
As we lift restrictions, it is very much the unvaccinated who are at risk of serious illness, so what socioeconomic and ethnic divisions are there between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated? What has been the most recent clinical assessment of vaccine uptake for the severely clinically extremely vulnerable or, if the Minister prefers to call them this week, the immunocompromised and the immunosuppressed? That is a slightly naughty question because I know the answer, as does the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We know that some will never make any antibodies at all, while others will make some but they will wane extremely fast.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, discussing post-exposure prophylaxis trials, which are important. I note that, back in June and July last year, the Minister’s predecessor was telling us that pre-exposure prophylaxis treatment would be available very shortly, but in the last two or three meetings that I have been at with scientists and experts, they have said that it is much further away. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right and that it is not far off. Can the Minister say whether it is going to happen? There is still a problem for the immunocompromised and the immunosuppressed in making sure that they get access to these antivirals and monoclonal antibody treatments.
I turn now to the human medicines amendments relating to the early access to medicines scheme. The review into EAMS in 2016 highlighted that, often, a medicine will be available to a patient under EAMS but, when it makes the transition to being fully available and is going through the final stages of approval, there can be a lull when patients are not able to access it. This is a very particular problem for those who were on it in the trial and for whom it is making their lives a lot more bearable and their health condition much more under control. Suddenly there is a period when they cannot access that medication. Is it proposed that this arrangement changes so that, if you are on a trial, you can continue on it until it definitely will not be approved, rather than having to wait? How will this legislation make that transition smoother? How are the Government prioritising pharmaceutical innovation for the clinically extremely vulnerable?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as we know, the Covid-19 pandemic has been the most serious domestic challenge that we have had to face in the post-war era. We know that more than 150,000 people have been lost and we know about the impact on our lives and liberties. It felt to me, having been on these Benches in this position from right at the beginning of it all, that we might never get to this point. A lot has changed in the last few months, however. Thanks to our NHS, our incredible scientists and the British public who have been vaccinated in their millions, we now have several highly effective Covid-19 vaccines and the entire population has been offered the third booster jab. While the virus is still with us—we will discuss that in our next debate—we are without a doubt in a much stronger position than we were back in March 2020. The impact of the vaccination programme cannot be overstated. It has allowed us to reclaim liberties that we were forced to forfeit in 2020, driven down hospitalisations and saved lives.
This statutory instrument continues this good work. It will surprise no one that we do not find it contentious; in fact, it is wholly necessary that the amendments made the human medicines regulations are continued. This SI enables us to continue with mass vaccination campaigns for Covid-19 and influenza, and extends the temporary provisions relating to the manufacturing licences and marketing authorisation. It permanently broadens the healthcare groups that are entitled to administer parenteral vaccines in an NHS or local authority, and enables community pharmacists to deliver flu and Covid vaccines outside their normal premises. These changes are sensible and will ensure that, in any future mass-vaccination rollout, the resources will be available to administer those vaccines.
As I said, Covid has not disappeared. We need to be prepared and ensure that the population remains protected against rising case numbers and possible mutations. We know that one of the issues and challenges we face is how to reduce the health inequalities of vaccine uptake. The under-30s, some of our BAME communities and pregnant women disproportionately make up the 8.5%, I think, of the adult population who remain unvaccinated. I do not think that we can be complacent. I would therefore like the Minister to say what further action the department will take to reduce the inequalities in vaccine uptake, as well as how extending these provisions will enable his department to better tackle vaccine hesitancy. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we cannot pass by without reference to the clinically vulnerable, clinically extremely vulnerable and immunosuppressed. They continue to seek clarity on vaccination in this extremely concerning time.
We have discussed these issues in the House on several occasions and continue to do so, because those who come into these categories need access to the full weight of what our science can deliver for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. However, they also continue to need access to free tests and appropriate treatment. So facilitating continued access to vaccination is a key pillar of Labour’s “living well with Covid” plan, but we oppose the short-sighted sell-off of our Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline any further discussions that have taken place with his colleagues on VMIC and whether our vaccine manufacturing capability will be impeded by the ongoing negotiations. However, the message from this side of the Committee is that vaccines are safe and effective, and we must continue to ensure that they are widely and freely available. Only by doing so can we continue to build a world beyond Covid.
Turning to the second statutory instrument in this group, the early access to medicines scheme, managed by the MHRA, has been in place for almost eight years. As we know, it aims to provide patients who have life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions with access to medicines that are not authorised generally or for the specific clinical use proposed. It provides the necessary regulatory flexibility for medicines that can often be a matter of life and death. As the Minister said, more than 100 medicines have been granted promising innovative medicine status; more than 40 scientific opinions have been awarded in areas with unmet patient need; and 1,600 patients have benefited from EAMS medicine since the scheme’s initial implementation. So we on these Benches absolutely support this SI.
Some pharmaceutical companies have raised the concern that EAMS is not delivering an attractive proposition for industry or the scale of early patient access originally envisaged. Furthermore, concerns have been expressed about a lack of clarity on how to apply for EAMS and how it works in practice. These areas for improvement are outlined in the EAMS independent review, which was published in 2016; I think at least one or two noble Lords have already mentioned it. Although the statutory instrument addresses some of those concerns, there are still a few areas on which we need to seek clarification from the Minister in due course. Placing the scheme on a statutory footing will give pharmaceutical companies and patients the necessary legal clarity. It is good that this SI is clear about the need to continue to protect patient safety and aims to simplify EAMS requirements where feasible. Most notably, this legislation will support the collection of real-world data, which will no doubt incentivise medical innovation. It is also important that the SI makes it clear that patient consent to data collection is not a condition of EAMS supply.
My Labour colleagues in the Commons have been engaging with various charities regarding the antiviral drug Evusheld, which is a preventive antibody treatment for the benefit of people with compromised immune systems who cannot get sufficient antibody boost from vaccines. There seems to have been an awful lot of dither and delay regarding this medication, which has left the previously mentioned CV, CEV and immunocompromised people feeling ignored and very anxious. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify this issue, if not now then perhaps in writing. I would also be grateful if he could set out what further actions the DHSC will take to improve knowledge of EAMS within both the health sector and the pharmaceutical industry.
Additionally, there is the wider issue of a complex research to clinical care pathway that the Government need to address. We need to ensure that we remove unnecessary barriers in research and medical innovation. I completely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he talked about Orbis. He and I are veterans of the Brexit discussions of the past five years, which focused on the importance of having the right kind of access to patients, in the right numbers, to develop genetic and other medicine. I would be grateful if the Minister could talk about that.
I also echo the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which she called a “lull”; I have called it a “black hole”. It has been reported that for some pharmaceutical companies there is a black hole in the system once marketing authorisation is granted and EAMS designation falls away, which can leave a gap of several months when no further patients can access a drug as it goes through the NICE financial assessment. Again, this was recognised in the independent review and by pharmaceutical companies and charities, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide his assessment of this issue and whether the department is considering means to ensure a smoother transition from EAMS to full HTC and NICE approval.
EAMS is a great illustration of the work that can be done when industry works alongside healthcare agencies with patient interests at heart, but we must not take our foot off the pedal. We need to keep working to ensure that cutting-edge research is properly supported and puts the needs of patients first.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I begin by thanking all noble Lords who took part in the discussions today for their detailed questions. I will try to answer as many as I can, but I hope noble Lords will understand that I will write to them if I do not have the answer to hand.
To start with a few of the general remarks made, I thank all noble Lords for welcoming these SIs as well as some of the innovation that we have seen throughout the pandemic and how we have seen the NHS work closely with the department and industry to make sure that we develop suitable vaccines and therapeutics as quickly as possible. My noble friend Lord Lansley was absolutely right to refer to the living with Covid strategy. The reason we have that is to make sure that we are not complacent: it is to remind people that the pandemic is not over. Sometimes people say that we have returned to life before the pandemic, but it is still there and, as noble Lords have rightly expressed, there are new variants that we are keeping an eye on, such as the BA.2 and deltacron variants. The important thing to note is that, compared with the beginning of the pandemic, we have weakened the links between infection and hospitalisation and between hospitalisation and death. Indeed, a number of noble Lords are testament to this fact: they have survived testing positive for coronavirus.
I will try to address some of the specific issues. My noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, brought up the issue of Evusheld; they are right that it is not currently authorised for use in the United Kingdom. As noble Lords have said, it has been developed as a potential preventive treatment, with AstraZeneca announcing positive interim trial data. However, worldwide, omicron is still the dominant variant, and this trial took place before it emerged, so the therapeutics task force is engaging with AstraZeneca on emerging data and its impact on omicron. This work is ongoing.
A number of people identified previously as clinically extremely vulnerable are well protected after receiving their primary and booster vaccination doses. I am not sure that I have an answer about the fifth dose, but I will find that out and write to noble Lords. Most people who were considered CEV are no longer at substantially greater risk than the general population and are advised to follow the same guidance. In previous meetings that I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I have asked for her to be in direct contact with my officials and others, and I hope that those discussions are helpful. If they are not, I hope that the noble Baroness will let me know so I can intervene to see what more can be done. There remains a small number of people whose immune systems mean that they are at higher risk of serious illness from Covid-19, and enhanced protections, such as those offered by some of these treatments, are being looked at.
My noble friend Lord Lansley also asked about other schemes. As he will be aware, we have the innovative medicines fund and the cancer drugs fund—these are other paths we are looking at. NHS England, NHS Improvement and NICE recently consulted on proposals for the innovative medicines fund and we hope to have an announcement soon. On the Accelerated Access Review and the Accelerated Access Collaborative, we are committed to supporting patient access to these drugs. We created it for this reason and we remain committed to it. In fact, it was part of the Life Sciences Vision that we published in July 2021, and we see it as a crucial part. I understand that some medicine products are expensive to manufacture, and this may limit the schemes’ accessibility in some areas. If my noble friend has specific examples, I am very happy to have further discussions.
Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to the Early Access to Medicines Scheme) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to the Early Access to Medicines Scheme) Regulations 2022.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, over the course of this pandemic, we have had to put in place curbs on our liberties. Many of those curbs would at one time have seemed intolerable, but they were part of our national effort to slow the spread of the virus. We have now reached the position that we have been waiting for ever since this national effort began: a time when we can roll back some of the rules that have governed our lives over the past two years.
We are able to take this step because of the incredible progress that we have made; I thank noble Lords for alluding to that in the previous debate. When this virus first arrived, we knew very little about it. People were dying. There was no vaccine. We had to make tough decisions to protect our loved ones, our healthcare staff and the British people while we built up the defences to make us safe.
Since then, our vaccination programme has put more than 140 million doses in arms. That has included a booster programme where we were the first major European nation to boost half our population. It has resulted in more than 70% of adults in England receiving the booster, including 93% of those aged 70 and over. Vaccines have given us greater protection and slowed down the advance of the virus. They have allowed us cautiously to open up the country and attempt some return to normal life. The scientific protection that we have built up, together with our greater understanding of the virus, has shifted the odds.
We must be quite clear that our fight against the virus is not over, but we are now able to take a different approach, moving away from legal curbs towards an approach based on personal responsibility and public health guidance, where we trust people to make the right decision for themselves, for their loved ones and for those around them. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me while I talk through each measure in turn.
First, the legal requirements around self-isolation are being revoked. This includes the duty to self-isolate if you test positive, the duty to provide NHS Test and Trace with details of contacts, the duty to notify an employer that you are self-isolating and the legal duty on employers not knowingly to allow someone who is self-isolating to attend work.
Rather than relying on legal restrictions, we are encouraging people to act responsibly and to follow the guidance that has been set out. If you experience any of the main symptoms of Covid-19, you should take a test. These symptoms are a new continuous cough, a high temperature and a loss of or change in your normal sense of taste or smell. People who test positive should still stay at home and avoid contact with others for at least five full days. They may choose to follow this advice until they have received two negative test results on consecutive days.
Household contacts are also advised to work from home if they can and to avoid contact with individuals who are at greater risk from Covid-19. They should also limit close contact with other people outside their household and wear a well-fitting face covering in enclosed spaces. Following this advice for 10 days after the case’s symptoms started, or the day their test was taken if they did not have symptoms, can help to protect others. Specific guidance for staff, in particular those in vulnerable settings, such as adult social care, healthcare and prisons, is being kept under review and regularly updated.
The other regulations being revoked today are the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020. These gave local authorities powers to issue directions to close, prohibit and restrict premises, events or outdoor places. They also gave the Secretary of State powers to require a local authority to issue a direction for closure. These regulations were vital for a local response to the crisis, allowing us to act with speed in response to local outbreaks, but these powers have not been used since July last year and we are now seeing fewer outbreaks, meaning that they are no longer proportionate or necessary. With these regulations revoked, outbreaks will be managed by local authorities through local planning and pre-existing public health powers, as they would be with other infectious diseases.
Although we are able to take these steps, we must remember that this pandemic is not over. There are simple actions we can all take to limit the spread of Covid-19 to protect those around us: get vaccinated, ventilate shared spaces, wear a face covering in crowded or enclosed spaces, get tested if you have Covid-19 symptoms and stay at home if you are positive. It is important that those who test positive for Covid-19 follow the public health advice to stay at home and avoid contact with others for at least five days.
We are taking additional steps to protect the most vulnerable with targeted vaccines and treatments, including offering spring boosters as we announced and the protection offered by antivirals, of which we have a greater supply per head than any other country in Europe.
In our surveillance to build up our resilience to manage and respond to new variants, we will continue to rely on the world-leading ONS survey, allowing us to track the virus in granular detail. We will make sure that we still have the ability to ramp up testing should we need to and will help countries across the world to develop their own capability for surveillance. These defences will be our first port of call in the future, rather than relying on legal restrictions, while we maintain our vigilance.
The regulations we are debating today restore some freedoms to our nation, but we have to make sure we maintain our vigilance and continue to rely on a scientific evidence approach to keep us safe. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, both for his Answer to my Question earlier, which I would like to pursue in more depth here, and for moving the regulations today. I also pay tribute to the work that he, the ministerial team and the department have done. They have worked exceptionally hard in challenging circumstances. I declare my interest as an adviser to the board of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association.
I understand, as my noble friend said in response to my Question earlier, that the department and the Government are reaching a balance in living with Covid. The context of these regulations must be set against that background. My concern is that we are still relying on the vaccination programme. I pause and say how welcome the vaccination and booster programme has been. I particularly welcome the fourth jab being rolled out to the most vulnerable. It seems slightly patchy: we heard earlier that some in London have a date for their vaccination, but hearsay and anecdotal evidence are that people are being told that they will have a vaccination but have no date yet.
My main concern is simply this. The Secretary of State has said publicly, and my noble friend has repeated it in the House and in Committee today, that the Government hope to respond and keep the development of the pandemic under review. I welcome that but my concern is very simple: that we are removing all the tools to enable the Government to do so.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I have another brief question for the Minister. I preface it by paying tribute to the wonderful work of the NHS, the department and the Minister, and in particular to the scientists who have been involved in producing the vaccines, on whom we all depend.
This little debate is part of the business of living with Covid. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has recovered from his brief infection. That is a hopeful lesson for us all, as a number of members of my family, despite being vaccinated, have also recently got it, including my pregnant daughter-in-law, so we hope all turns out well.
As the Explanatory Memorandum to the statutory instrument says:
“The Self-Isolation Regulations played a vital and necessary role in breaking the chains of transmission.”
How will this SI be translated into the official advice on travel to and from the UK? I know that it is not his department; nevertheless, I presume that the regulations will change the nature of the advice given by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, just before the Grand Committee started, I heard a bit of a discussion about why this Motion was in Grand Committee today while I had a regret Motion tabled for the Chamber on Thursday. I had wanted to do just the regret Motion in the Chamber, but the Government Whips’ Office said that was not possible given the timing, so the only offer available was, essentially, for this statutory instrument to be heard twice. I apologise for that, but unfortunately it was the only possibility.
The lifting of the self-isolation regulations in England at the end of this month seems extraordinary and way too early. Only a couple of days ago, the World Health Organization reminded nations like the United Kingdom that, even when a virus becomes endemic, it needs managing, including by testing, self-isolation and mask wearing. Even if they are not required by regulation and law, the World Health Organization said that the message and communications from a Government are vital in ensuring that people take personal care in what they do.
We are still learning about the long-term effects of Covid. Recent research studies, published in the last two or three weeks, into long Covid are showing cardiac, respiratory and neurological problems that are already having consequences. In the future, it will be absolutely vital to watch for the currently not visible long-term consequences of Covid-19. There is an excellent book by Laura Spinney called Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How it Changed the World, which has a good chapter near the end on the early deaths of Spanish flu survivors in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic. Such early deaths went on for two to three decades—interestingly, often with heart, stroke and respiratory problems. Without surveillance and self-isolation, we risk living with Covid at a very high level, and the consequences for the population may become apparent only when it is too late.
The problem with the living with Covid plan, which was announced on 24 February, was that the Prime Minister called it yet another freedom day and public behaviour has already changed. One doctor said on Twitter today that they are abused on the Tube for wearing a mask on their way to work. That is because there is not a strong clear message to people that living with Covid means that we still have to be careful about it. Can I ask the Minister—as I have asked him on many occasions before—whether the Government plan to have a strong communications message about these changes and about people taking personal care?
I would also like briefly to return to the question that I asked the Minister as a supplementary to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, earlier today. Given that members of SAGE are now confirming publicly that Ministers did not ask for any modelling to be done for the living with Covid plan, how does that square with his answer to me that Ministers have to take modelling into account along with the wider needs of society? Everyone understands that dilemma for Ministers, but that was not my question. If Ministers did not ask for modelling, how on earth can they balance that risk? The Minister referred to the BA.2 variant, saying that they were watching it, but it is now the dominant variant. The one that we are watching is deltacron, and there may be others in the future.
I am grateful for the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the worries that those who are immunocompromised face. The Minister knows that I am one of those severely immunosuppressed people; I have had my fourth vaccination, although I have been warned that, because of my medication, it is probably already waning. There are people with blood cancer, for example, who cannot make antibodies or for whom the vaccine is contraindicated. Lifting self-isolation for them is a real risk. Under the current guidance to the clinically vulnerable—a number of people somewhere between 500,000 and 3.7 million—they will have to risk assess what they want to do. They are keen to do that, but they need the data.
The NHS daily dashboard used to be a good starting point for the public alongside the ONS data and the ZOE study, but the dashboard is now unreliable and the ZOE study is about to lose its funding along with others. That means that the vulnerable and their families, friends and work colleagues cannot see where Covid is. They will have to pay for tests—and let us be clear: offering free tests only to a small number of the most severely clinically extremely vulnerable is not helpful; it is the people who visit them and work with them who need to test before they see them. Many of the surveillance projects are, as I have said, also under risk. The REACT study is ending at the end of March and funding has been withdrawn—remarkably—from the ZOE study, the SIREN and VIVALDI studies and the CoMix social contacts survey. How do the Government plan to monitor the ongoing management of the pandemic—as WHO says they should—and assess the impact of ending restrictions with our vital surveillance systems down?
On what scientific and clinical evidence was the decision made to recommend that the CEV
“follow the same general guidance as everyone else”
in the living with covid plan? That is, frankly, a fantasy and has condemned the millions of CEV to self-imposed lockdown with no support. It is, by the way, also completely contradicted by the advice to them on the specific guidance page for the clinically extremely vulnerable and the NHS page on what to do if you have Covid, where people are told that if they have a positive test for Covid they should stay at home.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has raised very many relevant questions, as did the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Those questions come from the anxiety that people are feeling about what the future of living with Covid means, with what looks like not having all the instruments to identify it or the recommendations about what to do if you have it. There is also the support that people may or may not be able to get from their workplace; and the support that may or may not be available to local authorities, for example, which are going to pick up some responsibility for this.
Almost exactly two years ago, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I faced the Minister and his Whip, two Liberal Democrat colleagues, a couple of people who were chairing the sessions and a skeleton staff as we put on to the statute book the restrictions we are lifting today. Everybody else had already gone into lockdown; we put the legislation on to the statute book about three days after the rest of the country had gone into lockdown. It was a bizarre experience and actually felt quite risky. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will not mind me saying that he went home and told us the day after that he had got Covid. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I were absolutely convinced that we were going to get it, because we had been sat very close together, but neither of us did at that point.
In a way, I am very pleased to see that we are rescinding these restrictions now, but the Minister needs to put some answers to what has already been put to him on the record. The first thing I want to ask about is the support for local government. If local government and public health authorities are to be picking up how to identify what to do about the pandemic if things get worse, I would like to know whether support is available to them to do that.
The second thing I want to raise is to do with monitoring and research. I excuse the Minister for not answering my question in the Chamber earlier, because it is quite hard to answer such questions in detail in the 30 seconds that might be available, but I will repeat the fact that the ZOE Covid study app is no longer going to receive its funding. The app was launched in March 2020, having been developed by King’s College London and the technology company ZOE to help discover new symptoms of Covid. It reported on the effects of vaccines and has provided up-to-date predictions about the spread of the pandemic. It has 4.7 million users, of which I declare myself as one, and 850,000 people contribute daily to its recording of more than 480 million health reports. The app was part of one of the largest studies of its kind in the world and has led to 40 peer-reviewed scientific papers, based on its findings.
Many noble Lords will have heard of Professor Spector. He has been doing weekly YouTube broadcasts that I have watched from time to time as part of my information gathering to do my job from these Benches more effectively. He has developed the study further to look at things such as heart disease, cancer and dementia. It is extremely disappointing and very short-sighted that the UK Health Security Agency is going to withdraw its funding for this programme. It has been an important tool in protecting the UK and could protect the UK from the next pandemic.
I want to hear from the Minister what he and the Government are going to do to replace the kind of surveillance that the ZOE app has provided to this country in a very cost-effective way. The Minister’s earlier answer to me in the Chamber said this and that, but he did not specify. We need to know why the Government have allowed this to happen and what they are going to do to replace this effective surveillance and reporting.
Thirdly, I would like the Minister’s view on the BA.2 variant. His honourable friend said that it is of no significance but that is not what the chief executive of the UKHSA said. She acknowledged it and said that we do not yet know whether it is significant. How do the Government propose to monitor this?
Finally, I want to talk about the problem of inequality that the Government’s withdrawal of free testing brings. I think it will mean us having two tiers of Covid in this country. Those of us who can afford to will continue to test because we believe that it is important to protect other people, particularly the vulnerable, when we go out and about. I do not want to come into the House of Lords without having a test in the morning because I would hate to bring an infection into the workplace, because of the young people and pregnant colleagues who are here. That would be irresponsible. But there will be those who cannot afford to buy tests; what do they do? Our part-time staff here, for example, might not be able to afford to test. The Minister needs to address the problem of the inequalities that the Government’s policy will bring about for those who may get Covid but cannot afford to test.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their questions today. I will try to answer as many as possible but, if I do not answer some, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write to them in more detail.
I start with some of the questions from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. We have taken this step because of the success of the vaccination programme but the guidance states that, if you have Covid, you should stay at home and avoid contact with other people. On 21 February, we will continue to make tests available for a small number of at-risk groups. We are considering which groups will be eligible for tests after provision for the general public ends. We have also sent out 1.3 million PCR tests to clinically extremely vulnerable individuals. This will allow them to take an immediate PCR test, should they develop symptoms, and give priority to them to be prescribed antivirals.
UKHSA will continue to maintain what it calls critical surveillance capabilities. That includes the Covid-19 infection population-level survey, genomic sequencing and additional data. These will continue to be augmented by the SARS-CoV-2 immunity and reinfection evaluation, SIREN, along with the continuation of the VIVALDI studies. As for the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the VIVALDI studies are coming to an end, I do not have that information—I am, in fact, informed that they are continuing. So, the UK Health Security Agency still has a number of tools available, including surveillance. Positive cases should stay at home, as we said, and avoid contact with other people for at least five full days. They should continue to follow this advice until they have received two negative test results on consecutive days.
A number of noble Lords expressed concerns about the communication of this guidance. If they will allow me, I will go back to the department and ask more questions about the comms strategy to make sure that the public are clearly informed. As for the cost of LFTs, the Government are looking at how to make them freely available in particular settings, such as health settings, and for social care staff.
We are also looking very hard, as noble Lords have rightly said, at potential inequalities. These are issues that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I believe very strongly in—we have actually asked questions on this issue. How do we make sure that we do not end up with a two-tier system? How do we target this more effectively? Are there proxies, for example, to allow people to be given free tests? We are also looking at engaging with retailers to develop a strong private market for tests and make sure, I hope, that they are affordable. At the same time, we are in discussions with employers, et cetera. Some have said they will make testing available for their staff and we are looking at a number of different programmes. We are very aware of the inequalities issue and the Secretary of State and I have been asking questions about that.
On the number of cases, as indicated by the ONS infections survey and reported case rates, they have started rising after a period of sustained falls throughout February. Evidence indicates that the link between Covid-19 infections and progression to severe disease is substantially weaker than in earlier phases of the pandemic but, as I said, we are continuing to keep an eye on all the variants of concern with the tools that I explained.
People who are severely immunosuppressed are eligible, as many noble Lords will know, for a third dose of the Covid vaccine as part of their primary course and a booster fourth dose. I am also very aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me about a potential fifth dose and I promise to write to her. The NHS is now offering new antibody and antiviral treatments to people with Covid-19 who are at the highest risk of becoming ill.
I was asked about local authorities. Local authorities will now be required to manage outbreaks through their local planning and pre-existing public health powers, such as those under the public health Act of 1984, as they would with any other infectious disease. The Department of Health and Social Care is also conducting work looking at the health powers framework for the future. We see that local authorities still have an important role in supporting businesses and public spaces to be Covid-safe—for example, by improving knowledge of infection prevention and control, ensuring that spaces are well ventilated and explaining the relevant best practice guidance.
A number of noble Lords wondered whether movement from mandating to guidance is sufficient. When I was travelling in today, for example, I noticed that some transport companies are still asking their passengers to wear masks in crowded places. Noble Lords made fair points about the communication of this guidance. As I said, I will find out from the comms team what we are proposing to do. The Government will retain the capability to stand up a national trace response if it is needed. Local health teams will also continue to use contact tracing and provide context-specific advice where they assess this to be necessary as part of their role in managing local outbreaks of Covid-19, as they do with other infectious diseases.
A number of noble Lords asked about the number of people who have yet to be vaccinated. Was that the previous debate? I am sorry; they kind of flow into one another at the moment. However, we are spending £22.5 million on a community vaccine champions scheme, following a £23 million investment in the initial scheme. We will continue to encourage people to get vaccinated.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for repeating the responsibilities of the local authorities. Were they allocated special funds to do this or are they just relying on their existing public health budgets? In other words, are they not getting any new money for this role?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I do not have a detailed answer, and I do not want to give an inaccurate one. I think I know the answer but I just want to double-check it. I will write to all noble Lords, as more than one Member raised that issue.
We see the importance of continuing to be vigilant, and of surveillance. We continue to monitor the virus and want to make sure that we have informed decisions and that everything is data-led. A number of noble Lords mentioned the ZOE app. Again, I will have to go back to the department to find out more information, if noble Lords will allow me.
In closing the debate, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I apologise for the questions I have not answered; I will check Hansard and write to noble Lords. We should also thank the scientists, the health and social care workers, the volunteers, the life sciences industry, the postal, courier and transport workers and everyone who has helped us to get to this point. They have helped us to get through what has been a very difficult period in our lives.
We believe that the regulations before the Committee mark an essential step on our journey to living with Covid, away from legal restrictions and towards guidance and personal responsibility. Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising their concerns, some of which I will have to go back to the department and check on, especially concerning the guidance and its communication. I have taken that point on board.
Throughout the pandemic we have sought to strike the right balance between the safety of the public and keeping the country open. We saw restrictions as a vital weapon in the armoury, but now we have the defences of the vaccination programme and the antivirals, along with a better scientific understanding of the virus, and can take a different approach. However, I repeat: we will keep monitoring the data, drawing on the latest scientific advice, and protecting the country through the defences we have built.
It is important that we follow public health advice should we display Covid-19 symptoms or receive a positive test result. We can all help each other in limiting the spread of the virus by getting vaccinated, ventilating shared spaces, wearing a face covering in crowded or enclosed spaces, getting tested if we have Covid-19 symptoms and staying at home if positive. Lifting these restrictions does not mean that we are ignoring the virus; it means managing the virus through the best possible guidance, as we do for other infectious diseases. I urge noble Lords to agree to these historic measures and commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Broadcasting White Paper
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the forthcoming broadcasting White Paper will make proposals about prominence in relation to (1) online radio services, and (2) smart speakers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to ensuring that listeners continue to have free-to-air access to UK radio services when listening via connected audio devices and that radio services are not discriminated against by large tech platforms which carry audio over internet protocols. The digital radio and audio review considered these issues in its report of last October. The Government’s response to that report will be published shortly and will set out our position in this area in more detail.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister for his positive reply. Prominence rules were put in place over 15 years ago for TV broadcasters and are set to be updated, I believe, but there are none at all for radio. The pandemic and now events in Ukraine have reinforced the importance of PSB radio, but as audiences increasingly access radio and audio services on demand, online and through new devices, this valuable service is at risk and at the mercy of the global tech companies which control distribution of content on these platforms. Reform is urgently required. I am glad that the Minister agrees—I think—that there is a pressing need to address this issue in the broadcasting White Paper and the media Bill. Can he tell us when that is likely to come?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that there has been rapid change in the last five years. Smart speakers have become widely available and are now owned or accessed by a third of all adults, so the Government recognise the urgency of the issue. We are very conscious that connected audio devices are starting to represent a significant and growing share of radio listening. They have opened new routes for listeners and new avenues for content creators, but they also carry a risk of listener access to radio services being disrupted or limited. We fully recognise those concerns and are committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure continued free-to-air and unintermediated access to UK radio. As for future legislation, that will be set out in the normal way.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the withdrawing of funding for Creative Skillset in 2016 has left a gap in audio-only skills training. BBC Sounds Audio Lab and Global Radio’s academy have filled some of that gap, but does the Minister agree that there is a role for the Government to help develop and deliver high-quality audio skills training for a new generation of talent?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I agree with the noble Viscount. As I say, as the review noted, these devices have opened up new avenues for content creators to reach audiences with podcasts and other audio output. There are very exciting job opportunities for people in this area and part of the work we are leading through DCMS is to make sure that people have the opportunity to work in our vastly expanding creative industries.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, tech platforms and smart speakers have now become gatekeepers to the UK radio broadcasters, with access to all their valuable audience data. Will the Government ensure that the long-delayed new statutory competition framework for the Competition and Markets Authority’s Digital Markets Unit becomes a priority, levels the playing field between broadcasters and online platforms and addresses the significant current risk to media plurality and radio broadcasters?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We recognise that good arguments have been made for taking action to protect radio’s long-term position and ensure the continuation of the huge public value which radio provides. However, that will not be straightforward; any significant intervention in this area will need to be considered in the wider context of other work we are carrying out, particularly in relation to digital markets and data protection reform.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred a short while ago to what I think he called our “rapidly expanding creative industries”. Is he confident that his colleagues in the Department for Education are fully aware of the opportunities those industries offer and are constructing the national curriculum in a way that makes it possible for people to access them?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I have regular meetings with colleagues in the Department for Education and across government. I have had them in the past and have more coming up imminently. We are discussing these issues across departments so that we can make sure that everybody, whatever their age—whether they are school leavers or people who are changing career—has the opportunity to move into these exciting areas.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the old-fashioned shortwave transmission systems are much more difficult to interfere with than the more modern systems? Therefore, can the BBC be persuaded to concentrate on that system when broadcasting to Ukraine and thereabouts?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As well as availing themselves of the opportunities which the new media and new technology allow, we recognise that many people still rely on analogue radio services. That is why we have said that it would be wrong to switch those off before 2030, at the earliest. Both the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and DCMS are working with the BBC to maintain the very important work that the World Service is currently doing in Ukraine.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, in the same way that the online safety Bill has been drafted to have a degree of flexibility as the internet develops, will the Minister look at making prominence regulations technology neutral in the same way? To avoid duplication of regulation for TV, radio and online, has an assessment been made of the potential for a one-stop shop for prominence rules?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The review which I mentioned was commissioned by the Government as part of the wider look at the broadcasting sphere. We are conducting that strategic review of public service broadcasting and will set out our response to it in due course. I cannot anticipate what it will say but I can assure the noble Baroness that we are looking at all these issues in the round. As I say, this is an area where the technology is moving rapidly, so it is right to review it carefully.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why Russia Today was allowed to broadcast for as long as it did, sending out its propaganda on a daily basis? Surely there is a need for balance, and should not the regulator have taken action far beyond what it did before? It has cancelled it now but why did it have to wait for something like this to happen? Should it not have taken action before?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, one of the things that sets us and the rest of the world apart from countries such as Russia is our commitment to free and fair broadcasting. We are very pleased that RT has been removed from Sky Freeview and Freesat in the UK, which means that Vladimir Putin cannot push out his propaganda on UK networks. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to the major platforms asking them to do everything they can to prevent access to RT online in the UK, as they have done in Europe, and we are very pleased that Meta and YouTube have taken action and removed RT from their platforms. Therefore we have acted in this area while recognising our commitment to free speech and broadcasting.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Your Lordships have become very used to listening to answers from the Dispatch Box opposite which sound as though they are lobbing the question into the long grass. The Minister said that technology is moving very rapidly in these areas. Are the Government?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
This is an area in which only five years ago smart speakers were not available and now they are now widely available in people’s houses. The Government are keeping pace with that very rapid change, conducting thorough reviews with stakeholders and considering it carefully. A five-year timeframe for technology that did not previously exist shows that we are acting swiftly in this area.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the Minister has to be careful with the language that he uses. He politely referred to President Putin’s propaganda. The right word is not “propaganda”, as that might contain an element of truth; surely it should be President Putin’s “lies”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I would be happy to say that lies are being disseminated from the Kremlin about what is going on in Ukraine. That is why we have taken action to stop the poisonous propaganda that RT has been propagating on Vladimir Putin’s behalf.
Building and Fire Safety: Leaseholders
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure leaseholders and others who have building and fire safety issues for which they are not responsible are not excluded from any measures or funding intended to solve such issues.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
Leaseholders living in their own properties in buildings over 11 metres will be protected from all cladding remediation costs. The Building Safety Bill will require developers to pay to fix historical building safety defects in buildings they own above 11 metres. We will legislate to make sure that other building owners who can afford to pay cannot pass historical building safety defect costs on to leaseholders. Leaseholders who are liable to pay for some non-cladding costs will have those capped in a way similar to Florrie’s law.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response and for the progress made, and I accept that good progress has been made. However, the situation remains that there are general building safety issues and some of these leaseholders are still left in appalling situations. Does the noble Lord accept the principle that if you are not responsible for the poor workmanship, you never signed it off as satisfactory and you did not insure it, you cannot be expected to pay for what is now deemed not fit for purpose? If he accepts that, he is the one person who can do something about it. He is the Minister responsible and has the ear of the Prime Minister, so what are we going to do?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for putting me in the hot seat. We have done an awful lot. It is fair to say that through regulation we can ensure that we protect leaseholders, who are very much the victims, from bearing anything apart from, I hope, very minimal costs. Those have been capped at £15,000 over five years in London and £10,000 outside London. That is for the narrowest shoulders, particularly shared owners, who are protected as well. We can always do more, and I appreciate that that campaign reckons that we should take this down to zero. However, we continue to ensure that we protect leaseholders wherever we possibly can.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend just said but I remind him of what the Secretary of State in another place said on 10 January:
“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection … and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 291.]
I welcome the amendments that my noble friend has tabled in Committee but does he recognise that further substantial amendments will be necessary on Report if that commitment is to be honoured?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank my noble friend for stepping in helpfully. Of course, as we approach Report, the Government will bring forward further amendments that will do more to protect leaseholders but will also ensure that the polluters must pay—my noble friend and I share that principle.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the considerable progress he has made and his very collaborative approach as we work through the Building Safety Bill. He will be aware that the definition of a qualifying lease in the Bill is set to exclude many small private landlords. We are not talking about the big commercial set-ups but people who have one, two or possibly three flats which they bought simply to provide themselves with a pension. Do Her Majesty’s Government intend to look at that definition of a qualifying lease again? Many of those people are deeply worried at the moment.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate, who has also been a consistent campaigner. As a Government we are very much aware of the impact this has on, say, pensioners, where property is their primary pension asset and the annuity from those properties effectively pays for their pensions. As I say, I ask the right reverend Prelate please to wait until we bring forward further amendments on Report, but we are very alive to this issue.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Minister reminds us that the Government propose that leaseholders should pay no more than £15,000—in London. Does he accept that, if you live in London and are facing very heavy costs, including rapidly rising energy bills, for many people who will be faced with a bill of £15,000, that is not nothing or little—it is a crippling amount? Does he accept that limiting it to £15,000 does not relieve the pressure on many people who simply cannot afford £15,000?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there is no doubt that £15,000, paid over five years, is a substantial sum, but the reality is that some poor leaseholders who are victims have paid far more than that on interim measures before a single bit of remediation has been done. Having a cap on leaseholder costs ensures that they are no longer fleeced through Section 20 notices to pay for mistakes for which they are not responsible. That is what that protection achieved and, through regulation, we can broaden the impact to protect those with the very narrowest of shoulders.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we have a problem going forward, because cladding, if it is put in properly, can be an option to make older houses thermally efficient. Have the Government thought about reassurance measures so that cladding remains an option for, for example, all the thousands of pre-1930s buildings?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
That is a very good point: cladding per se is not necessarily a bad thing. What we cannot do is wrap our buildings up in cladding where the effect on the spread of fire is a bit as if it had been coated in petrol. Cladding provides the warm homes that many people enjoy. If you carry out remediation in an insensitive way, it removes the protection for leaseholders in the insulation required to make the home liveable. Therefore, remediation needs to be done in a sensible and thoughtful manner with people who are living in their homes. Of course, we need to ensure that we promote good cladding systems and remove the bad.
Covid-19: Restrictions
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they made of any available scientific advice when implementing or removing COVID-19 restrictions in England.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I refer to my work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Throughout the pandemic, the Government’s approach has been informed by a wide range of scientific and medical advice and the latest data, as well as by economic, social and deliverability considerations. Ministers have always had regard to the scientific advice when taking decisions to implement or remove restrictions, but have balanced them against other considerations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Given that the level of infections is now running at 220,000 new infections per day, and given the fact that the Government are planning to remove free testing from 1 April and have already removed the legal obligation to self-isolate, having already removed the support payments for self-isolation, how do the Government intend to protect the most vulnerable in society and NHS staff, given the Government’s new policy provisions of Living with Covid-19?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those questions and will try to answer them as best I can. We are now transitioning to a stage where we are able to live with Covid, and we have just announced our living with Covid strategy. At the same time, we are looking at the best way to help those who are particularly vulnerable medically or economically, who should still be entitled to free tests, for example, and issues such as affordability. We continue to monitor the new variants, the BA2 and the deltacron, and we will also continue to have the ONS surveys.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, given the fact referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the reversal of what was a very welcome decline in numbers, has any advice been given to the Government by the bodies to which the Minister referred about a further, fourth jab—another booster jab—for the elderly population? I suppose I should declare an interest.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for declaring an interest. We are reviewing all scientific advice and looking at the spread and potential of new variants. Advice has been given on an additional booster, particularly for those over 75. I will not ask the noble Lord his age, but I commit to write to him.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, one thing that some of the most vulnerable have been able to do is make a risk assessment about going out. If testing is not happening and local scientific data on cases not available, that risk assessment cannot be made—isolating the vulnerable even more. Will the Government reflect on that?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government have reflected on that and, in line with the public sector equality duty, have considered the impact of those decisions on the wider population but also on those who were previously classified as extremely vulnerable or clinically extremely vulnerable. For example, we are looking at whether it is appropriate to continue to give them free tests, and how they can get in touch with clinicians and others to ensure that they are more protected.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we will have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the publicly streamed evidence session of the All-Party Coronavirus Group on 1 March, we asked some members of SAGE to outline SAGE modelling for the lifting of restrictions in the living with Covid plan. They replied to us that they had not been asked to model any such plans by Ministers. Given that cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, are now 221,000 a day, with active cases of more than 2 million and hospital admissions rising across England, exactly what modelling advice did the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care take?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We constantly have meetings with the UKHSA and a number of different scientists join us for the calls when we have them, but we have always balanced things up. I shall give an example of a conversation I was having just before Christmas with some of the modellers. I asked them “What is your advice?”, and they said “Minister, before we give you the advice, you have to bear in mind that we are only considering the variant at the moment. It is for you to consider the wider medical balancing issues, and also the economic and social costs as well, and we recognise that you have to balance all those up.”
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and declaring a similar interest, I ask my noble friend not just to write to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, but to make a general announcement, so that we know when these fourth jabs will be administered.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I can see that that may well be a reasonable request, so why do I not discuss what is relevant and perhaps write to all noble Lords?
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that there is a link between the recent upsurge in cases and the decision to stop wearing masks on 1 March?
Lord Kamall (Con)
It is interesting that, when I was talking to some of the modellers and scientists about this, they said that whenever they look at models of changes in behaviour, they count in or consider that there will be some uptick because of people relaxing measures. Even though we are moving from a position where it was legal to where it is guidance, they reckon that number in, but they still felt that it was not significant enough not to go forward with the change in strategy.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Cormack, I have already received a summons for my fourth jab. My impression is that, in west London, the programme has been set up and will be working quite satisfactorily. I will be having my fourth jab tomorrow week.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Well, there we are: there is a result already—please never accuse me of working too slowly. In that case, it is quite clear that there is a programme, and I shall find out more details.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, three matters have emerged in the past few days: first, there is a new variant; secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, Covid cases have risen by 55% in the past week; and, thirdly, the UK Health Security Agency intends to stop funding the fantastically successful and important ZOE COVID Study app. I appreciate that this Government have an aversion to counting in general, but this app has been vital in tracking and understanding Covid-19, so how will the Government maintain their capacity to monitor this virus, which has not gone away?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding noble Lords that the virus has not gone away. That is one of the reasons why we laid out the Living with Covid-19 strategy. The UKHSA, the Office for National Statistics, and a number of academics, will continue to monitor it. Noble Lords who have read all the articles during the pandemic will be aware of how many scientists are also producing data. We continue to monitor all that data and balance it up when making decisions. We are also prepared to stand up rapidly should there be any variants of concern.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has announced that at some stage there will be a major inquiry into Covid. Can the Minister assure the House that when it takes place, all scientific advice that has been received by the Government will be published? Can he also tell us whether he is aware of any scientific advice which has not yet been published?
Lord Kamall (Con)
If I was aware of any scientific advice that had not yet been published, I am not sure whether I would be unaware of it. I will try to find out. The Government have laid out the terms of the inquiry; only last week I sent the link to some people, which I am very happy to send to the noble Viscount, for the points that should be considered by the inquiry. During the pandemic, and even now, we continue to receive a wide range of scientific advice. The wonderful thing about scientists is that they continue to debate with and contest each other. Some say that we should never have had these measures, some that we lifted them too early, and some that you can never get the timing right, whatever you do.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, as we enter an economic war, are the Government not absolutely right to balance the scientific advice with the economic consequences, and that by pursuing the policies which they have since before Christmas, they have put the economy in a strong position which guarantees that we can do as much as we can to help the most vulnerable people in our country?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for making that point. It is incredibly important, not only within the medical community, where we were asked, for example, to lift some restrictions so that we could start tackling the backlog. We were asked `by mental health experts to ensure that people were getting access to mental health care who had been unable to because of the pandemic. We have also balanced this against economic and social considerations—sometimes these things affect each other. Being unable to work and facing uncertainty can be one of the most destabilising things and can affect people’s mental health. My noble friend is right that we have had to balance a number of issues in the round.
Electric Vehicles: Charging Points
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government and industry have supported the installation of over 29,500 publicly available charging devices, including over 5,400 rapid devices. The Government have also supported the installation of over 300,000 charge points in homes and businesses and have announced over £1.3 billion to further accelerate the rollout of charging infrastructure.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that information. However, do the Government accept that if the target of switching to electric cars is to be met, at least two things must happen? When an electrically powered car driver goes any long distance, he or she is nervous that they cannot charge to come back. Even more importantly, even in areas where there are plenty of charging points, they are nearly always taken up by cars that are not charging. That is a complaint from electric car drivers. The charging points are there in parts of London, but they cannot get to them because other people are using them as parking spaces. Can we do something about that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I recognise the point raised by the noble Lord; there has been some media coverage about that recently and we are looking at what we can do. However, people are never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charger on the strategic road network, which is particularly good for long distance journeys. The Government have done an enormous amount of consultation over the past year on how we can mandate for new standards and for reliability, ensure that consumers can access support if they have trouble charging, make it easier for consumers to find the right charging point and its availability by publishing open data, and ensure that the costs are published as well, so that consumers can compare the costs of different chargers.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as we might be working late, I decided to drive in today. The first three public EV chargers were broken. I finally found a free and available fourth. Does the Minister understand that many people who have bought EV cars are now starting to regret it, and can she step away from this market-driven approach to rolling out infrastructure which at present is random, unreliable, and desperately inadequate?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I cannot agree that it is unreliable and desperately inadequate. We cannot control from Whitehall where EV chargers are—that would be utterly mad. We must work with the local delivery partners—the local authorities—and the private sector. At the end of the day, it will be the private sector which puts these charges in place. It will not be Whitehall, so we must ensure that the local authorities have the skills to figure out where their communities need their chargers. We are particularly concerned about those who do not have access to off-street parking, and we will be asking local authorities to focus on those people.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as a Westminster resident I enjoy access to a fast-growing network of relatively inexpensive and efficient chargers fitted into existing lamp-posts, in a partnership between the city council and ubitricity. How many towns and cities benefit from this very practical approach? What can the Government do to incentivise these partnerships between local authorities and commercial providers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: there are some excellent interventions. That is why we must upskill the local authorities and increase their knowledge of what is going on. The Department for Transport has funded the Energy Saving Trust. It runs a local government support programme and provides free impartial advice. There are webinars on best practice, particularly in rural areas, and we are about to publish the EV infrastructure guide, a technical guide which will cover the sorts of things which the noble Baroness talks about. It will enable local authorities to find the right solution for their area.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, how many charging points are to be found within the Palace of Westminster and available to noble Lords and noble Baronesses?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Sadly there are not enough. I understand that there are some available in the car park for another place. As I have said previously, it is not for the Government to install charging points in the Palace of Westminster, although I encourage the authorities to do so.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, about a third of households have no access to off-street parking or a personal garage and miss out on lower costs from charging cars using cheaper overnight electricity. While 76% of the richest households have access to off-street parking, the same is true for only just over half of the poorest fifth of households. Put another way, only 51% of private renters, 38% of housing association tenants, and 26% of local authority renters, have access to off-street parking, compared with 81% of homeowners. What do the Government intend to do, and by when, to address this charging divide which works against the less well off, and to reduce the disparity in prices across the charging network? We have heard a glowing picture from the Government just now about what is happening. They say that they have spent a lot of money. It seems to have been a lot of money that has created a charging divide, and from what the Minister has said, it is largely the fault of local authorities. I think that it is the fault of the Government.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government have already taken action—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
One moment; the EV home-charge scheme, which the noble Lord will know was previously focused on single-unit owner-occupied households, is now being closed to those households and is focusing entirely on those people who are in rented or leasehold accommodation, specifically without their own designated parking. We are switching that very important source of funding to ensure that those who do not have the luxury of off-street parking and home ownership can get a charger.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister please confirm that users of the new charging points will be paying for the electricity they consume? I was surprised to learn from one London borough that initially, the electricity was provided free when they installed charging points.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would have thought that the users would be paying for the electricity that they consume, but if people want to offer electricity for free, they are perfectly at liberty to do so.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the reliability of the charging points, particularly on the motorway network, is a real problem? Has she had a chance to consider the idea that I put forward a couple of months back about increasing the penalties on providers, so that they are properly punished and incentivised to provide a decent service to EV motorists?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
This links into the measures that we announced in December 2021, when we said we were looking at a mandate for new standards for reliability. Obviously, if there are new standards for reliability, there will have to be penalties if companies do not meet those standards.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the increasing number of charging points for electric vehicles and the demand for heating homes through heat pumps will add quite a lot of extra demand on the national grid, which is currently ill equipped to meet it. What urgent attention is being paid to managing demand—for example, by increasing insulation in homes and perhaps by reducing speed limits?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that there will be an increased demand on energy infrastructure, both overall and particularly during peak periods. We are confident that the existing operators will be able to meet that demand, but of course we are working with the sector to ensure that it is efficient and sustainable. One of the things we are doing, for example, is looking at V2X technology, which is when you export energy from a vehicle back into the grid when it is not being used. Indeed, we have invested £30 million of funding in V2G projects—from the vehicle to the grid—and that is one of the ways in which we will ensure that our energy networks can cope.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the aforementioned electricity lamp post system is of course excellent when there is not another car parked there that is not charging. The reason it is excellent is that every model of car can use the lamp post. Are the Government considering legislation such that there is complete compatibility in the charging stations, so that every model of car can use every charging station, which is not the case at the moment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government take the issue of interoperability of charging points very seriously. We are seeing the market moving towards a smaller number of varying charges, and we will consider how we take that forward.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I am just old enough, as the House was reminded earlier, to remember us being told by my Government what a great idea it was to move to diesel. My question to the Minister is about electricity consumption. Given the commitment to all-electric cars by the middle of the 2030s, plus cryptocurrency, plus the exponential growth of smart technology, plus 5G—I could go on but I will not—can the Minister assure us that a very solid impact assessment has been made of the aggregate demand of these technological developments on the requirement for electricity generation in 15 years’ time? Can she tell us where it is going to come from?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Unfortunately, the noble Lord’s question goes a little bit beyond my brief today, and indeed beyond my department. However, I will be very happy to speak to my colleagues in BEIS, who have responsibility for energy demand in the future, and ask them to write to him to set out exactly how the forecasts are being made and how they will be met.
Saudi Arabia: Mass Execution
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the mass execution of 81 people in Saudi Arabia on Saturday 12 March, and whether they will make representations over the planned execution of children.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned by the execution of 81 individuals on 12 March. The United Kingdom strongly opposes the death penalty in all countries and in all circumstances as a matter of principle. The UK ambassador has already raised the UK’s strong concerns with the Saudi national security adviser and its Deputy Foreign Minister. Her Majesty’s Government regularly raise concerns with Saudi authorities regarding juvenile death penalty applications. The British Embassy in Riyadh closely monitors all juvenile death penalty cases, and routinely attempts to attend trials.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Saturday’s massacre is the largest execution in Saudi Arabia’s history. The Ministry of Interior, in explaining, said that it
“will not hesitate to deter anyone who threatens security or disrupts public life”,
demonstrating just how low the bar is for execution in that country. Child defendants remain on death row, despite the Saudis’ promises to end the death penalty for minors. Abdullah al-Howaiti, a child defendant, is at particular risk. I understand that the public prosecutor continues to seek the death penalty for him. It is reported that the Prime Minister will meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week. If that is the case, will the noble Earl confirm that the Prime Minister will put the United Kingdom’s commitment to human rights above any trade deal premised on acquiescence to bloodshed?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raises the issue of the juvenile death penalty. As I said in my earlier Answer, the British embassy at Riyadh closely monitors all juvenile death penalty defendants and regularly attempts to attend their trials. In April 2020, the Saudi Human Rights Commission announced a moratorium on death penalty sentences for individuals who committed discretionary crimes of violence. The noble Lord also mentioned our engagement with the Saudi Arabian Government, and I can say that engagement carries on, at all levels and at every opportunity. At every opportunity in the future, we will continue to raise issues relating to the use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s last human rights report highlighted what they considered to be real progress by Saudi Arabia on the use of the death penalty, but that has now been horrifically reversed. Indeed, the Government’s own human rights report singled out that Saudi Arabia does not allow external witnesses to its trials. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and officials were offering Saudi Arabia greater market access to our aerospace industry and now we are in negotiations to offer it preferential access to the City of London. Will the Government give an indication that they are not just concerned about this but will remove preferential market access for Saudi Arabia in the UK economy for grievous and horrific human rights abuses?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in how he has described these abuses, and I was personally shocked to read the news over the weekend about the execution of 81 individuals. The noble Lord also mentioned human rights: yes, we are particularly concerned over a variety of human rights issues relating to arrest and the continued detention of individuals, and my noble friend Lord Ahmad raises this on all levels. All these issues are always under review. We have a very close relationship with Saudi Arabia and this enables us to have full and frank discussions over these issues.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister able to say in which areas of concern the Government have been successful in exerting their influence?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of areas where there has been successful engagement with Saudi Arabia—for example, in relation to women’s rights. The UK has consistently called for women in Saudi Arabia to be able to participate fully in society. Since 2018, women’s rights and empowerment have improved significantly.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that the Government seem to be running away from trade deals with our European partners, who share our love of democracy and freedom, and are rushing into trade deals with bloodthirsty dictators?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is important to have trade deals throughout the international community. At the moment, with the issues relating to insecure energy supplies, it is particularly important that we keep talking to our close allies across the world.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I accept what my noble friend just said. He told us that the ambassador in Riyadh had seen Saudi Ministers, but has the Saudi ambassador in London been summoned to the Foreign Office?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am unsure about the answer to that question; I will get further information to my noble friend. The engagement that we continue to have with the Saudi Government is extensive. Over the last six months, my noble friend Lord Ahmad has visited Saudi and has also had a meeting with Saudi Ministers here in London. Those continual engagements enable us to have these serious conversations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, do not these executions—there were 67 in 2021, 27 in 2020 and now these 81—demonstrate a horrific and rather brutal pattern? Sometimes these executions are carried out using the sword, and crucifixion has even been used. The mortal remains of those who have been executed are put on public display. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, even children have been involved. Will the noble Earl undertake to speak to his colleagues in the Foreign Office about engaging scholars at Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo to see whether we can engage people who are academics and have a firm belief in civilised values, so that we can hear Muslim voices being raised against this barbarism?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the point he makes. I will of course pass it on to my noble friend Lord Ahmad, and his office will no doubt investigate it further.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Earl give us a specific undertaking that the Prime Minister, if he sees Mohammad bin Salman in the coming days, will raise this topic and these concerns with him? We all recognise the importance of oil and energy in the present global crisis over Ukraine, but that cannot be a reason for failing to raise these very grave abuses with the man with the greatest authority in that country.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an excellent point, as the whole issue of these executions is at the forefront of our minds, and we continually raise the use of the death penalty at any meetings that take place. We will certainly do so at any meetings in the near or immediate future.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, has the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate-general in Istanbul been explained, and have those responsible been held accountable to the satisfaction of Her Majesty’s Government?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has always been clear that Khashoggi’s murder was a terrible crime. We condemn his killing in the strongest possible terms, which is why we have sanctioned 20 Saudi nationals involved in the murder under the global human rights regime. The former Foreign Secretary raised the issue during his visit to Riyadh in March 2020. We have consistently set out our grave concerns, both publicly and privately.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, on human rights in general, and the rights of children in Saudi Arabia, can the noble Earl assure us that the rights of children are being explored? I do not think that I am the only one in the House who feels that this was very cynically undertaken this weekend, as there was a hope that it would be hidden away.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question and bringing to our attention the issue of juveniles. However, I find it difficult to believe that, even with what is happening around the world, anybody would be able to hide what has happened over the weekend.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, would it be totally inaccurate to characterise the Government’s attitude as, “These executions are unfortunate, but other considerations transcend them”? I am afraid the Minister has been very disappointing this afternoon. Surely we can be more effective; we can push the Government of Saudi a bit harder. Would we perhaps be more effective if we worked in conjunction with our European friends and had an agreed approach to Saudi? Are the Government thinking of doing that?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is inaccurate. If he had had only three-quarters of an hour to prepare for this, he might have the same difficulty with it. It is quite clear that we engage very strongly. I know that noble Lords will think, “Oh, he is repeating the same line again”, but the fact is that we do have very strong relationships with and are a strong ally of Saudi Arabia. The fact that we are in that position means that we can have these full and frank discussions.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether his Government are considering sanctions against those who have been involved in the execution of children?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we always keep the issues relating to sanctions under review, and I would not want to pre-empt anything that could happen in the future.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that it is not very reassuring to be told frequently, as we have been in his replies today, that there are ongoing and close discussions with the Saudis on these issues, and that it is the relationship we have with the Saudi Government that enables us to have these endless full and frank discussions on human rights issues? Is it not a disturbing fact that these full and frank discussions seem to have had no effect at all on the behaviour of the Saudi Government?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that the situation is indeed dire, in so far as 81 people have been executed over the weekend—as I said, I was personally shocked—and it is a matter that we are following up at the highest level.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl has twice failed to answer direct questions from my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Liddle. Will the Prime Minister raise these issues in his discussions? If the noble Earl does not know the answer, will he say whether he would do so himself were he in the Prime Minister’s position?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
Luckily, I am not in his position, but I think I did answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I said to him that, if such meetings happen in the future—I am sure there will be some in the immediate future—these issues will be raised at the highest level.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, will the Government publish a full report on the judicial and security assistance that the UK provides to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and can the Minister assure us now that none of that assistance played any role in the imposition or execution of these death penalties?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a very important question. I do not have any detail relating to that, so I will write to her.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it seems to me that the Government need to look for levers to reinforce to the Saudi Administration that this sort of activity and behaviour is simply unacceptable to this country. Maybe if in future we did not allow sports-washing to make a regime sound legitimate, helpful and interested in our culture, the Saudis would learn the lessons. What is happening at Chelsea might be brought home to them, so that they understand that there are consequences for how they behave that will be played out here so that our culture is not subverted in that way.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
The noble Baroness makes some really good points as far as sport is concerned and how important it is. She might have been referring to the purchase of Newcastle United. As she is aware, the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund is a significant investor there; it operates across a wide sector. We welcome the PIF’s purchase of Newcastle United, but we never had a role at any point in the club’s prospective takeover. This has been a commercial matter for the Premier League, but the noble Baroness makes some good points relating to culture.
Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2022
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 17 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, I beg to move the Motions standing in her name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 January be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 24 January be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House long on this matter. I should declare my interest as a member of Cumbria County Council. I would like to put on record a couple of points. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for the care and attention he paid in the debate we had in Grand Committee on these issues last week. I think that he listened.
Secondly, I put on record my view that the decision we are implementing today, which was taken last summer by Robert Jenrick—late lamented in his role as Secretary of State—to split Cumbria into two unitary authorities is unsustainable, possibly in the short term and certainly in the medium term. In the short term, it involves splitting services that are vital yet fragile, such as social care and child protection, in the space of 12 months. I fear the consequences for the most vulnerable in our society as a result. On longer-term sustainability, the Government are imposing unnatural communities on Cumbria. I cannot believe that these new authorities will sustain public support in the longer term.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we debated this at some length in Grand Committee. The noble Lord made those points very eloquently. Since then, I have agreed to meet with him and the current county council leader. In fact, I also disclosed and put on record that I have never been to Cumbria and I hope to put that right.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
It is a great shame; I am hearing “shame” from my own Benches. I want to make sure that I remedy that fact and get up to Cumbria. It is clearly a very nice place.
It does not need to be the case that councils split the commissioning of adult social care and social services. Even though they are split into two county councils, they can commission together. As a local authority leader I did that myself, as part of the late lamented tri-borough arrangements, whereby the commissioning of adult social care and elements of children’s social care happened collaboratively with neighbouring London boroughs. I am sure that could happen in Cumbria as well. So where there is a will, there is a way and I am sure the leaders of the two new local authorities will seek to build bridges rather than erect walls.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and Pubs Code etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 November 2021 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2022 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (11 Mar 2022)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, before we move on, I will make some remarks about devolution and this Bill. I begin by placing on record my thanks to the devolved Administrations for their engagement at both official and ministerial level.
The majority of the Bill’s provisions apply across the UK. Some clauses extend only to England and Wales because the relevant policy areas relate to matters that are devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are: civil legal services; arrangements for prisoners who are liable to removal from the United Kingdom; and some specific measures relating to support for potential victims of modern slavery.
I want to be clear that, in the view of the UK Government, the provisions of the Bill that have UK-wide application relate strictly to reserved matters. This means that none of the Bill’s provisions engage the legislative consent process. We have therefore not sought legislative consent from the devolved legislatures.
I advise your Lordships’ House that the Scottish Parliament has approved a Motion, lodged by the Scottish Government, to withhold legislative consent in respect of specific measures relating to age assessment and modern slavery. But it is the view of the UK Government that these measures relate strictly to reserved matters and therefore did not engage the legislative consent Motion process and do not require legislative consent.
The Senedd Cymru has also approved a Motion, lodged by the Welsh Government, to withhold legislative consent in respect of specific measures relating to age assessment and to powers to make consequential provisions. Again, in the view of the UK Government, these measures relate to reserved matters and therefore did not engage the legislative consent Motion process and do not require legislative consent.
For the sake of completeness, I will say that the Northern Ireland Executive has not lodged a Motion relating to the Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We look forward to continued engagement with the devolved Administrations as we move to operationalise the Bill and the wider new plan for immigration.
Clause 44: Illegal entry and similar offences
Amendment 1
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I apologise—the House will have to put up with me rather than my noble friend Lord Coaker. I note what the Minister said about reserved matters and the approach and feelings of the devolved Administrations. One only hopes that these matters can be resolved in a satisfactory way acceptable to all parties.
I will speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Coaker. All the amendments in this group are tidying-up amendments, and most are consequential on changes this House saw fit to make to the Bill on Report. We on these Benches are content with all the amendments proposed today.
Amendments 1 to 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker make minor, technical changes to what is now Clause 44 of the Bill. On Report this was Clause 39, and your Lordships’ House voted to remove a subsection that provided for a new offence of arrival into the UK. These amendments are consequential on that change.
Amendment 8, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, is consequential on the decision of this House to remove Clause 58 from the Bill on Report. Clause 58 would have provided for the credibility of trafficking victims to be damaged by late compliance with an appropriate trafficking notice. This tidying-up amendment removes a now-defunct reference to Clause 58, which is no longer part of the Bill.
Amendment 10, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, removes a subsection from Clause 70 on child victims of modern slavery. This clause was added to the Bill on Report as an amendment led by my noble friend Lord Coaker. The subsection being removed disapplied what was then Clause 64 to child victims. However, Clause 64 was then removed and replaced by a subsequent amendment. Amendment 10 removes the reference to Clause 64, which no longer exists in its original form.
I have also been asked to introduce Amendment 9 as the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, is unable to be here; he sends his sincere apologies to the House. As a result of the number of votes on Part 5 of the Bill, the noble Lord has tabled this amendment to ensure that there is consistency across the Bill. Like other amendments, Amendment 9 is a tidying-up amendment and does not introduce new issues of principle. It simply removes the previous definition of “public order”, which is no longer used due to changes made to Clause 67 agreed by your Lordships on Report. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has asked me to put on record his thanks to all those who last week supported his amendment to give support and leave to remain to confirmed victims of modern slavery. He also made the point, with which I and others strongly agree, that we regret Part 5 being included in the Bill at all, but the Bill still leaves this House with significant improvements, which we hope the other place will support.
Finally, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for her amendments, which are consequential on amendments that these Benches supported on Report. I also welcome Amendment 11 from the Minister, which reflects the decision of this House to remove Clause 9 from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I can be fairly brief. I support the amendments put forward to your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. In particular, I refer to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I think we would all want to extend to him a speedy return to his place and thank him for all the work he does on behalf of victims of modern-day slavery. I mention my own interest as a trustee of a charity, the Arise Foundation, that deals with modern slavery and human trafficking.
It has been a pleasure to have co-signed amendments to Part 5 of the Bill in the noble Lord’s name but, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I would have preferred that Part 5 was not here at all. I hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will be able to give us some indication about the cart-before-the-horse point that was made frequently during discussions on Part 5—in other words, when the new legislation on modern slavery will be laid before your Lordships’ House. I realise that she cannot give us an exact date, but is there some rough estimation of when we might expect to see that? After all, all these issues will be back on the table and open to amendment at that time.
I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in commending the noble Lord’s perseverance and persistence in the cause of improving the support and outcomes for victims of modern slavery over many years. I support his tidying up of Amendment 9 and trust that noble Lords will do the same. We have had the opportunity to improve the Bill for victims of modern slavery, and I am proud of what the House has done in undertaking that. There are still areas of concern, and the Government will know that the outcomes of the Bill will be monitored closely by those who work with victims of human trafficking.
In concluding, I ask the Minister whether the Government will publish the statutory guidance cited in Part 5, in Clause 64, before ping-pong is completed. If not, will it be published during the current Session of Parliament?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we support the amendments, but I ask the Minister to go back to the—to me quite worrying—announcement she made at the beginning of this debate, regarding the legislative consent Motions or otherwise. The fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments do not support the Bill—I assume that is the political and, if you like, philosophical reality behind their stance—seems to raise not just political but practical and procedural issues and matters of enforcement.
I will refer to one issue in the Bill: the arrival or entry into the UK. If asylum seekers arrive at the coasts of Scotland or Wales rather than England, what is to happen? I understand that the Minister’s tone had to be quite neutral and not alarmist, but there are very serious issues related to this. I think the House would be grateful if the Minister were able to flesh out the position a little more.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
We have greatly improved Part 2 of the Bill, because it no longer flies in the face of the 1951 refugee convention as understood by our courts, all the other parties to the convention and UNHCR, the institution given the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the convention. I really hope the Minister will ensure that her colleagues in the other place understand that many in this House feel very strongly about this and would be unlikely to change our view if we were again asked to consider the introduction, contrary to the convention, of a first safe country rule.
There is never a good time for a unilateral reinterpretation of international obligations, but there could not be a worse time than when there are 2.7 million refugees in continental Europe and the Russians are trampling on the 1949 Geneva conventions. We really need to hang on to our reputation for believing in a rules-based system and the rule of law.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support all the amendments because they all seem to make complete sense in terms of tidying up, including those in the Government’s name. I too was disturbed by the announcement about the devolved legislatures—it expresses the deep unease about the Bill out in the country as a whole. I ask the Minister to take away from this House a real concern that this is not the right time to press ahead and that Ukraine has raised questions about the Bill and whether some kind of pause ought to be considered.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for outlining his points. I will start with the government amendments, which are two tidying-up amendments for consideration by your Lordships’ House. The first is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 47, which relates to working in United Kingdom waters. The amendment removes a definition of the term “United Kingdom waters” from the clause. This definition is superfluous as the term is not actually used in the Bill. The amendment therefore helps to clarify Clause 47, so I commend it to your Lordships’ House.
The second amendment is necessary to resolve a problem that has arisen in connection with Schedule 2 to the Bill. This schedule relates to deprivation of citizenship. Its inclusion in the Bill was agreed when noble Lords voted to accept amendments on this topic moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The problem obviously arises because after agreeing the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, your Lordships’ House then voted to remove the substantive deprivation of citizenship clause from the Bill. In consequence, the noble Lord’s amendments were also removed and the schedule was left as an orphan, with no clause to establish it as part of the Bill. I have therefore given notice of my intention to oppose the question that Schedule 2 be the second schedule to the Bill, to ensure that the Bill is consistent.
I also note the 11 tidying-up amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friends Lord McColl of Dulwich and Lady Stroud. The Government will not oppose these amendments, but we will doubtless return to consider both them and the substantive clauses they amend at ping-pong. May I just say something about my noble friend Lord McColl? I had noticed that he did not seem very well recently, and I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about a modern slavery Bill, I say: as soon as parliamentary time allows. I cannot give an exact date to the noble Lord. As for guidance being available before ping-pong, I will certainly let him know the intended timetable for the guidance.
On the point about the LCM for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the provisions of the Bill that have Ukraine-wide application are strictly reserved matters but I say to noble Lords that officials will continue to engage on the specifics of operationalisation.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting amendment to remove a definition of a term not used in inserted section 11B of the Immigration Act 1971.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 66 at report stage which left out a Clause.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a tidying-up amendment.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a tidying up amendment. This subsection disapplied a Clause of the bill (Clause 64 at Lords Report Stage) to children. However that Clause was then removed and replaced by a subsequent amendment. This amendment corrects this Clause for the updated version of the bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
Schedule 2 was inserted by amendment at Report Stage, but was introduced by what was then Clause 9, which was then removed from the Bill. The Schedule now has nothing in the Bill to introduce it, and the provisions in it are wholly dependent on the amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981 that were made by Clause 9: it does not make sense on its own.
Baroness Stroud
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 4 to the Bill, which would amend section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending). It is consequential to Amendment 35 at Report Stage which was agreed on division.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 4. It is consequential to Amendment 35 at Report Stage which was agreed on division.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will just detain the House a little longer to mark the end of this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. It has been very wide-ranging. It has had five thorough days in Committee and three days on Report. During this time, in response to the terrible situation in Ukraine, we have added important measures to the Bill which introduce new visa penalty provisions for countries posing a risk to international peace and security. I was very pleased to see support for these measures across the House.
I was not so pleased, though, by the removal of some important measures, the aim of which was to find a long-term solution to long-term problems in our asylum and illegal migration systems which successive Governments have faced over decades. Those amendments will now be considered in the other place and no doubt we will debate them soon.
Notwithstanding that, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the contributions of those who have supported me in steering the Bill through the House. In particular, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and my commendable noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom for sharing the load from the Front Bench.
I also express my thanks to all noble Lords who stayed up very late on a number of occasions and thank Members on the Front Bench opposite for their engagement on the Bill, accepting that there have been some areas of disagreement between us. I thank in particular—because I cannot thank everyone—the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Rosser, Lord Paddick and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I also extend my thanks to officials at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, as well as lawyers and analysts, not only in those two departments but across government. On my behalf and my ministerial colleagues’, I extend our thanks and appreciation to all of them for their professionalism over the past months. I also thank the teams in our respective private offices.
There should be no doubt about the merits of the Bill’s ultimate objectives, namely to increase the fairness and efficacy of our system, to deter illegal entry into the UK and to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. That is what the British people voted for, it is what the British people expect and it is what the Government are trying and determined to deliver. In view of the crises now confronting our world, it is surely now more important than ever that the Bill moves swiftly to become law. On that note, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will not detain the House for long but I think that I ought to say a few words; first, to thank the Minister, in particular, for the number of meetings that I know she has held—I suspect that she has lost count—and her willingness to respond in writing and in some detail on issues that have been raised, which is certainly appreciated. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I will not comment too much about people who stayed late since I probably fell rather short in that regard myself. Some of us made sure we left in time to get last trains, but not everybody did.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, following the invasion of Ukraine, it has been interesting to note how the arguments of some noble Lords have acquired a hollow ring. We were implored to listen to public opinion to restrict immigration, but this Bill is not about restricting the over 90% of immigration to the UK that is nothing to do with refugees. This Bill is targeted at asylum seekers like those fleeing Ukraine, who, in recent years, accounted for about 4% of immigration to the UK, and it is aimed at victims of modern slavery: people being trafficked and exploited by ruthless people smugglers as well as many being exploited in this country who were born in the UK.
Public opinion shows that British people welcome refugees; this Bill shuns them. It is consistent with the Government making another grave mistake in using the new-found freedom from the European Union to place barriers in the way of Ukrainian refugees instead of waiving visas as the rest of the EU has done. To paraphrase the Irish Prime Minister yesterday, we can deal with any security issues once they are here—the priority is humanity.
I thank my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, without whose support I would not have made it through this ordeal, as well as the Labour Front Bench and Back Benches, our respective support staff, Elizabeth Plummer and Grace Wright, and all those organisations and individuals who have supported us in opposing this truly dreadful Bill, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
I thank the tripod of Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton—for supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who has striven uncomplainingly through unreasonably long sittings due to the mismanagement of the timetabling and the deliberately unco-operative attitude of the Government. This House should not have been debating issues of this gravity at 3 o’clock in the morning or voting on them after midnight.
The elected House passed this Bill and, therefore, sadly, so must we. Hopefully, we have taken some of the sting out of it. In the light of Ukraine, simply because it graphically illustrates the barbaric nature of this Bill, we now ask the other place to think again and to leave in place the improvements that we have made. We on these Benches earnestly hope that it will.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. She has heard a lot of complaints about the things that Members of your Lordships’ House disagree with, and I associate myself with some of those complaints, but this Bill has been something of an endurance test. At a quarter to one in the morning last week, as we debated citizenship fees, I thought that maybe this was not the way to conduct parliamentary business. However, I was particularly pleased that, during the course of our proceedings, the noble Baroness was specifically recognised and raised to the Privy Council; it was a just reward for the way in which she serves your Lordships’ House.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, has been listening in the Chamber this afternoon. He spoke in our debate last week about the position of young Hong Kongers. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble Baroness was incredibly helpful in incorporating into this Bill something that will really benefit young people in Hong Kong who, born after 1997, were not part of the BNO scheme that their parents had been part of. I have already seen emails from people in Hong Kong expressing their thanks to your Lordships’ House.
Finally, I extend my thanks to Members from all sides who supported my amendment on providing safe and secure routes out of genocide in various parts of the world. I hope that that will not be lost in the maelstrom as we now proceed to ping-pong but will be given serious thought, and that maybe further discussion can take place as this Bill now proceeds to another place.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his comments about my noble friend the Minister, on her effective stewardship of this Bill and the recognition that she has recently received in becoming a member of the Privy Council.
I would like to add a slightly different perspective from that of some noble Lords who have spoken in this stage of the legislation. I support this Bill. I have not contributed to a great extent during its passage, but noble Lords may have noticed that I have spent a lot of time listening to the debates during its period in your Lordships’ House. Although I support the Bill, I do not do so blindly. I am a great believer in the parliamentary process, and I have always taken the view that the process of scrutiny always improves legislation. The Bill leaves this House to return to the other place stronger than when it arrived. I commend many noble lords who have worked to achieve that, including my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues on the Front Bench.
However, I will make a couple of other observations. One of the things that I have found a bit concerning in listening to some of the debates during this Bill’s period with us is the way in which some noble Lords in bringing forward their amendments, or those who have supported their amendments, have sought to suggest that people who are kind are people who will support them—in a way, trying to define those who oppose the Bill as the only people who speak for those who are kind and generous when it comes to those who come to our country in their time of need. As the Minister said earlier, it is important for us to recognise that the need and desire for stronger immigration controls, and the generosity of spirit of the British people to refugees and to asylum seekers, are not mutually exclusive. Actually, a lot of people feel strongly that it is because of stronger controls that people feel able to be that much more generous in the way they feel they want to be to those in need.
So, whatever happens when the other place considers the amendments that have been made in your Lordships’ House and sends the Bill back to us, I hope that when we get to that stage in the passage of this legislation we will all refrain from trying to monopolise or reserve for ourselves a definition of kindness that is not embracing of those who also want to see stronger immigration controls.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly tough Bill, not only because of the stamina necessary to take us through the very long hours—and sometimes the very long speeches—but because it has sometimes been emotionally draining. It was almost worse than the policing Bill, which I really thought was the worst Bill. On the other hand, we have had some great speeches.
I thank everyone who has thanked us. We have put quite a lot of energy into this, and at the same time we are well aware that it is the whole House that has made a real difference.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 View all National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (11 Mar 2022)
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this small but important Bill that has returned to this House—I hope for the final time. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who have previously contributed to an engaging debate on these important issues.
Two amendments have returned for our consideration today. Both relate to amendments previously narrowly passed in this House. They have returned to the House after being carefully considered by the other place and having been convincingly rejected, with financial privilege cited as the reason. I will summarise both.
The first amendment that the Commons have rejected would have added an additional condition to Clause 2 of the Bill whereby the freeport NICs relief would be available only if the freeport governance body maintained a public record of beneficial ownership of businesses operating in the freeport tax site. The House of Commons has considered the issue and decided that the amendment made in your Lordships’ House is subject to the financial privilege of the House of Commons and should not be accepted. However, I will mention what the Government are doing to ensure that firm and co-ordinated action is taken to crack down on economic crime, as I know that this House has kept the issue very much at the forefront of its mind, given the unfolding events in eastern Europe, and contributed vastly to furthering this particular debate.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief because we have a heavy agenda today, and we are going to be talking about the Economic Crime Bill, which is not unrelated to the issue I want to raise, which is that of freeports. The amendment this House introduced would have made that register of beneficial ownership of businesses in freeports public. There may have been a mistaken impression sometimes—I am sure the Minister did not intend this—that that information would be available to people, either through the properties register or through the revised Companies House register. But that is not the case except in the very rare circumstances where the business in the freeport would be a headquarters for the entity and therefore its legal address, or where the entity had sought to purchase property. Those are mistakes that no criminal organisation or kleptocrat would make. They would take advantage of the lack of disclosure that otherwise frames freeports.
I found the reasons the House of Commons gave quite extraordinary. It said this amendment was rejected:
“Because it affects a charge on the public revenue.”
If there is to be a register of beneficial ownership of businesses in a freeport, uploading that to a public website rather than the internal site essentially has no cost difference. So, public revenue cannot possibly be the reason that this is an issue. So, where could public revenue come in? It is because the additional transparency that allows civil groups, activists, journalists and others to look at what is happening in the freeports would, in effect, deny to criminals, money launderers, kleptocrats and others of similar ilk the ability to claim exemptions in national insurance contributions. In other words, it would have reduced the demand on the public purse; it would have reduced the demand for public spending. Yet that seems to be the reason being given for overturning this particular arrangement. So I would just be curious to know, if the Minister speaks again—but we can deal with this in relation to other cases—why denying to criminals and money launderers various tax exemptions and reductions in national insurance payments is considered to be an issue of public revenue and therefore a reason for not including this particular measure. I am exceedingly confused.
On other matters, I supported the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I am sure he will speak to them. But I do regret that both these measures have been overturned.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we need to move quickly to today’s main business, so I will be brief. During Prime Minister’s Questions on 9 February, the Conservative MP Stuart Anderson asked
“whether veterans will always be at the heart of this Government’s strategy and whether everything will be done to see that they always get what they need.”
The Prime Minister responded that
“we ensure that veterans receive particular support and encouragement in employment, and we encourage employers to take on veterans as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/22; col. 940.]
The Minister knows that we welcome the new NICs relief for employers of veterans. Our amendment did not compel the Government to do anything. It merely gave Ministers the option of extending the 12-month relief, if that would have had a beneficial impact on veterans’ employment and retention. I struggle to understand why both the Prime Minister and Mr Anderson voted against that proposition, given their stated support for veterans. However, in a phrase I have heard throughout my career, we are where we are. Your Lordships’ House has fulfilled its role and, having done so, should now let this Bill pass.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I have some very brief return remarks to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their remarks. Of course, I listened carefully to the disappointment expressed by them both in terms of the outcome. However, perhaps I can give a little chink of light: I think we can look forward to continuing to debate some of the themes raised, perhaps more appropriately, as I mentioned earlier, during the course of the economic crime Bill. But with that, I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B, and I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the next business is Committee on the Economic Crime Bill, and it might be helpful for the House if I outline the plan for the rest of the day. As the House decided last Wednesday, the House will, we hope, complete all the remaining stages of the Bill today. To allow this to happen, at the end of Committee, if the Bill is unamended, Members will have 30 minutes to table any amendments they wish the House to consider on Report. The deadline will be displayed on the annunciator. Amendments are tabled with the Public Bill Office in the normal way. The Public Bill Office will be happy to advise on amendments before the conclusion of Committee. Depending on the progress of the Bill, I will make further announcements during the course of the day about arrangements for further stages of the Bill.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 View all Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an application for registration as an overseas entity to include the information and statement required by subsection (2A) (information about trusts).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, we start with a group of government amendments to collect more information about trusts and overseas trust-like arrangements. These amendments address both the concerns raised in the other place by noble Lords on Second Reading in this House. I pay particular tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, Lord Faulks and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, all of whom drew attention to this important issue in their speeches.
As highlighted by those noble Lords, there is a particular difficulty with the availability of information about some trusts, including so-called discretionary trusts. This is where the assets are held in trusts to be used at the discretion of the trustees, because the beneficiaries can change. So we need to have some further information captured on trusts in this register, over and above what Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs already captures on the TRS—trust registration service.
Both Houses can rest assured that this issue was not overlooked by the Government. Officials had already been working on amendments to the Bill, but it was important to table amendments only when we were sure that proposals were workable in practice and that the drafting fully achieved the policy intent. I have had a number of discussions with noble Lords, so I think everybody appreciates this is a complicated technical area.
These amendments set out that where a trustee of a trust—or of an equivalent arrangement that under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom is of a similar character to a trust—is a registrable beneficial owner, the overseas entity must give them an information notice. That notice requires the recipient to provide information about the settlor, beneficiaries and other persons who have rights to appoint or remove trustees or rights over the exercise of the trustees’ functions—sometimes referred to as protectors.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 17. I am delighted that it has also been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. This would extend the definition of a registerable beneficial owner of an overseas entity to include anyone who is the beneficial owner of land or property held by the entity.
Why does this matter? Let me give an example. Mr X wants to buy a house in London and sets up an overseas company to own the land. In this scenario, he meets the conditions for being a beneficial owner of a company; the Bill works as intended. However, assume our Mr X rather likes his anonymity, so he approaches a Panama law firm which, after a payment, buys the house for him using its general nominee company which holds legal title to many such properties all beneficially owned by different people. The nominee company issues a declaration to Mr X that it is holding the land as his nominee and that he is the beneficial owner of the property.
In this scenario, the nominee company is the overseas entity owning the property and its beneficial owner is the law firm which set it up. Depending on its ownership structure, the partners at the law firm may or may not appear on the register. However, that is not the point. They may be the beneficial owners of the nominee company but are not the beneficial owners of any of the properties owned by the company. Mr X and the other beneficial owners of the properties held by the nominee company do not tick any of the boxes for being a beneficial owner of that company. The declaration issued by the nominee company is private, so in this scenario they remain anonymous.
Is this what the Government intend? Opening the Second Reading debate last week, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said that the Bill would
“require anonymous foreign owners of UK property to reveal their real identity, ensuring that they can no longer hide behind secretive chains of shell companies.”—[Official Report, 9/3/22; col. 1484.]
That suggests that this is not what the Government intended, and this is where Amendment 17 comes in. By extending the definition of a beneficial owner of an overseas entity holding UK property to include anyone who is the beneficial owner of land or property held by the entity, we would be giving this Bill the scope the Government appear to intend for it.
Responding to last week’s debate in the other House, the Minister there said that if nominee companies were “directed by someone else”—the beneficial owner of the land—then the person doing the directing would be “caught by condition 4” in the definition of a beneficial owner: significant influence or control. But that would only be the case if a separate nominee company is set up for the particular beneficial owner. If a general nominee company is used and this acts for hundreds of different clients, then it is difficult to see that any one of them exercises significant influence or control over the nominee company. That is why Amendment 17 is needed.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I support the theme of what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, just said, which is the general weakness of the definition of beneficial ownership in this Bill. It is very striking that in other jurisdictions within the British Isles that hold registers of beneficial ownership and have done for some years, the beneficial owner is always defined as an individual and never as a firm or a trust. An individual who ultimately owns or controls the entity must be identified. The Bill as currently constructed has significant weaknesses, which will prevent the identification of individual beneficial owners in the way that the Government apparently intend but have not as yet achieved.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we find ourselves in an unusual position. Normally, this House is trying to knock the edges off overzealous legislation and limit the powers the Government have a tendency to give themselves. In this Bill, we are trying to achieve the exact opposite: to strengthen the powers and close the loopholes so that the powers are as effective as possible.
We are trying to move quickly because of the awful situation in Ukraine. As the Minister said at the outset, the overseas entity register is not an emergency measure—although it will be useful in this situation. In normal times, it would be subject to much more detailed scrutiny, and we would not normally debate such wide groups as we are today. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister to confirm that the follow-up economic crime Bill would be sufficiently wide in scope to allow the matters we are covering now to be considered further, if necessary, as part of that Bill. While the Minister nodded vigorously at the time, he did not give that confirmation in his response. The House clearly accepts the need to move fast, and matters which would normally be voted on will not be pushed to a vote. I hope that the Government will reciprocate that flexibility. Speaking for myself, it would be much easier to accept the flaws and gaps in this Bill, if it were clear that there will be the opportunity to give the more detailed scrutiny which these important issues deserve in due course. Will the Minister please provide that confirmation today?
We all welcome the additional clauses that the Government are proposing on trusts, one of the more common methods to obscure ultimate ownership. Of course, trusts can be—and, as the Minister said, they usually are—perfectly legitimate. However, they can be misused. As such, I commend the Government for introducing these new clauses. That said, and in addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there is still one area where an important gap remains: the classic way of camouflaging the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner is by the use of discretionary trusts. These will often have a stated beneficiary, such as a charity, but, because they are discretionary, the benefit can be passed to others who are not identified. That might be under a formal agreement, but it is often something less formal or traceable. In such situations, it can be difficult to ascertain who the real beneficiary is. The identity of “the settlor or guarantor” is one clue— government Amendment 15 rightly requires those to be identified.
The Minister kindly wrote to me yesterday afternoon—I apologise for spoiling his weekend. He said that HMRC already has access to information about beneficiaries through new data-sharing gateways and existing exchange of notes mechanisms. However, this is true only for UK resident taxpayers and for situations where money actually flows. It does not cover all jurisdictions, so the gap remains. Many of the ultimate property owners are not UK residents, and value can pass in different ways—for example, the simple right to use the property rent-free would not be picked-up by HMRC.
One other way of trying to see through such discretionary trusts is to identify who has benefited in the past, including those who have had the use of the underlying property at less than market rent. It would be relatively easy to add a subsection to the Government’s Amendment 15 to cover that, and it would not be difficult information for innocent parties to provide. Is this something which the Government could consider, even if it is in later regulation?
As a general theme, we should not be allowing overseas entities to register unless they are fully transparent. To be honest, the Government’s apparent reluctance to accept clauses which would improve that transparency is somewhat concerning. On that theme, I also wholeheartedly support Amendment 17. It seems rather pointless to have information on the overseas entity, if that still fails to show us who owns the property. I urge the Minister to look at that seriously.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his Amendment 17. I recognise that the Government have made big strides in the last few days to listen to the concerns which are so widely held. However, given all this effort, and given that the Bill has sat almost ready for four or five years, I feel that we could go further today and do the job properly.
There is no point in legislating for a Bill that leaves huge gaps for more anonymity. I am really sceptical about the need for endless anonymity. The people who strive to have anonymity do not always have it for the right motives. We need to recognise that. I said to the Minister before we came to the Chamber that we spend our lives being entirely reasonable in this country while trying to deal with very unreasonable people. Of course, we must stick to the law, but we need to have the levers in the law which enable us to tackle these bad actors. This is why, in my own slightly layman attempt with Amendment 23, I have tried to bring more focus on the promoters of these organisations. This is to ensure that there is much more responsibility taken by directors who promote organisations, and that they help to provide proper due diligence when working with the sorts of people they are busily defending anonymity for.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with his officials to try to address some of the concerns which have been raised.
I will also pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about something which concerns all noble Lords about this Bill: it is going through on an emergency process because we face an emergency, yet not all of it concerns emergency legislation. Of course, the sanctions part is, but many of the other parts of the Bill about overseas entities have been on the stocks for years—as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said. Yet the Government have failed to act before now and it is only in the face of this emergency that they have done so. While that is to be welcomed, in some respects, it affects many of the things on which we would want to vote and would want to discuss in great detail, and many of the amendments which your Lordships have quite rightly brought forward which would improve the Bill. On the basis of not tying up this House or preventing this legislation from passing, in the face of the current national emergency, the Bill will go forward in a way which is not as good as it could be. I think that this is a feeling which is generally held across the House. It is certainly how we feel. Of course, we will support the Government in putting this legislation through—but that is not to say that we do not have very serious concerns about aspects of it.
Many noble Lords on Labour Benches and other Benches have raised these issues. Therefore, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the Government need to recognise that the amendments being put forward—even though most, if not all, of them will be withdrawn—seek to do so from a position of needing to strengthen this Bill; it is about time we got hold of a problem which has been identified by many different reports over a number of years. As the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, transparency is everything. As we go through parts of this legislation and we see exemptions, and parts of the Bill where full disclosure is not to be statutory or guaranteed, one wonders whether it goes as far as it could.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Agnew of Oulton and Lord Clement-Jones, deal with related issues around nominees. We hope that the Minister can offer a full response to the points made by both noble Lords, because they are really important. A lay person reading this would be concerned about the fact that it provides a way to circumvent the regulations.
I thank the Minister for the clarification he made around government Amendments 45 and 47. I am sorry to detain noble Lords, but I briefly remind the House that this is a public document. What if you are not an accountant or someone trained in financial matters? This is the Government’s explanatory statement on government Amendment 45. The Minister has clarified it for me, but many people would think that there is something concerning about the amendment when it says:
“This amendment means that the required information about trusts will be unavailable for inspection on the public register.”
That is the Government’s only explanation of an amendment which they are passing. The Minister has just outlined this.
Similarly, government Amendment 46 states:
“This amendment excludes information about trusts from the definition of ‘protected’ date of birth and residential address information.”
I am sure that there are proper explanations for that. However, sometimes Governments need to be careful. I know the amendment was drafted in haste, but there must have been a better way of doing it.
I accept that there will be many valid reasons for excluding certain trusts from the public register—for example, if one has been established to benefit a child later in life. However, if we had proper time to debate this, an amendment surely could have been brought forward—I would have brought one forward—saying that the exemption could be tied to a specific criterion, rather than being drawn in such a general nature, as it has been. This is another example of the sorts of ways many of us would wish to see this legislation tightened.
We will not stand in the way of these amendments but, as we go forward, I hope that the Minister can give further thought to the very real concerns which have been raised by noble Lords.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will just underline one point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made. At Second Reading we got the impression that there was quite a limited list of items that were going to go into the second economic crime Bill. Can we have an assurance at this opening stage from the Minister that he will remain open-minded as to the shopping list of items—if I may use the phrase—which will need to be included, some of which may be revisiting what we have done today but others of which will be entirely new? Can he assure us that it is not a short shopping list?
Lord Cormack (Con)
I just make a very brief point to my noble friend. Because of migraine, I was unable to take part in Second Reading; I had to go home. I was going to make the point then that, if ever a Bill needed continuous post-legislative scrutiny, it is this one. Can my noble friend give an assurance that he will try to set up a special sort of post-legislative scrutiny to look continuously at how the Bill comes into force, what effect it has and where it fails?
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I do not disagree with the sentiments of a lot of what has been said. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that I absolutely appreciate the points that he has made. This is a very complicated and technical area of law, and I assure noble Lords that we have gone into it in great detail. This morning, I met my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is a trusts expert, to go through the provisions, and I have examined them closely with Treasury and BEIS officials.
We are doing this to close potential loopholes in trusts; the Government have no other agenda here. This is a difficult area. HMRC has recently established a trusts register for UK trusts, and we want to try to make sure that the same visibility exists for overseas trusts. If an overseas trust buys UK property, its interest is clearly covered and will need to be declared, but there is a potential problem with an overseas entity holding a property, and then that being owned by a trust. It is an attempt to control and close those particular loopholes in this complicated area of law, and what I totally accept are complicated amendments have been worked on at great pace to try to do that. So there is no difficulty and no difference between any of us in what we are trying to achieve with this legislation.
I also happily concede that we may not have got every last dot and comma absolutely accurate and right. One point that my noble friend made to me this morning was that we are if not the first then possibly the second in the world to attempt to do something like this, and it will be an iterative process—it is fair to accept that. A lot of international lawyers and others will be carefully studying this legislation and trying to find ways around it. I can certainly say that, if there are loopholes and if something is presented that we think needs closing, we will absolutely do that, if necessary, in the next Bill—although the full extent of the legislation may not be visible at that stage. But we are committed to doing this, providing that information and giving law enforcement the opportunity carefully to scrutinise many of these arrangements.
In particular, I give the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and possibly my noble friend Lord Cormack, were looking for: the further economic crime Bill, which the Government intend to introduce in the next Session, will be broad. We will, of course, carefully examine and consider any amendments proposed in either House that serve to strengthen our framework for tackling economic crime. I know from my long experience in this House that noble Lords will not be shy in coming forward where they can see improvements that could be made to legislation and where they identify any potential loopholes. There are some fine minds in this House and I am sure that they, along with some of our excellent officials, will turn their attention to doing just that.
I agree with the sentiments; there is no difference between us and what we want to try to achieve, and I am grateful in particular to the opposition parties’ Front Benches, with whom I have had extensive discussions, for their forbearance. I will happily concede that this is not necessarily emergency legislation; we have been trying to introduce this register for a while but until now it has not managed to get the prominence in the public sphere and sufficient priority in the legislative programme to allow it to be brought before this House. As the Minister responsible for it in the House and in my department, I am grateful that we have now managed finally to bring it forward. It will be a useful tool of transparency and of benefit to, first of all, the public, and then to the law enforcement community in attempting to target the small minority of overseas entities that hold property in the UK. Something like 59,000 overseas entities hold property, and the vast majority do so for perfectly legitimate, lawful and legal reasons—but within that there is, of course, a tiny minority we all want to target, and this is our transparency contribution to an attempt to do just that.
I move on to look at the amendments in detail. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Agnew, for their Amendment 17. I am grateful for the meeting that I was able to have with my noble friend Lord Agnew earlier to talk about this issue. As I said, I can see the good intent behind this amendment, but it would be ineffective as tabled—and I shall explain why.
It does not fit within the legislative scheme of the Bill. For example, the Bill provides five conditions for “beneficial owner” in Part 2 of Schedule 2. These five conditions, in general terms, relate to shareholdings, rights or control over legal entities, or other arrangements. Amendment 17 seeks to apply the term “beneficial owner” in the context of a qualifying estate—that is, the land itself—which would not work. Further, the amendment fails to empower overseas entities to obtain the information required which, for the most part, remains undefined.
To be clear, this Bill was designed specifically to capture the beneficial owners of overseas entities. This is because, if the land is held in the name of an overseas entity registered in a jurisdiction with poor levels of corporate transparency, law enforcement agencies here may struggle when investigating the affairs of someone of interest. If they cannot obtain information about the entity itself, they will almost certainly never be able to identify any ultimate economic beneficiary of the land. This register aims to ensure that investigators can find out about the overseas entity to further their investigations. There may be a wider policy debate to be had about capturing ultimate economic beneficiaries of land, but this register, focused as it is on overseas entities and not on land held by individuals or UK companies, would not be the appropriate vehicle.
The government amendments provide robust provisions to ensure that overseas entities provide information about beneficiaries, settlors and other persons who can appoint or remove trustees or have rights over the exercise of trustees’ functions, which some may refer to as protectors, where there is a trustee who is a registrable beneficial owner. These amendments go one step further and also apply where there are overseas arrangements with similar characteristics to a trust and those arrangements’ trustee equivalents are registrable beneficial owners.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that nominees will be used to hide true beneficial owners of property. I point out to the noble Lord that there are regulation-making powers within the Bill allowing for amendments to prevent such abuse, if that is needed. I therefore hope that, with the information that I have provided, the noble Lord and his supporters will feel able not to press Amendment 17.
I turn to Amendments 1A, 22A and 29A, which seek to require a director who is acting as a nominee to provide a statement that they are satisfied by the legitimacy of the financial affairs of the beneficial owner and that the nominee will cease to act if information validating legitimacy is not forthcoming on a timely basis. I appreciate the intent of my noble friend Lord Agnew in tabling these amendments, and I understand that his intention is to further verify the legitimacy of the beneficial owner, to create an obligation for a nominee director to have regard to the financial affairs of those they are acting for, and to validate this legitimacy on a timely basis.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I think that everybody in this House, as was the case last week, is on the same page, and we do not want to be seen to be arguing amongst ourselves until the early hours of the morning about something that is so significant. But can I ask the Minister if he and his colleagues in his department will keep a rolling review of this going, even if the gap between this legislation and the next piece of legislation is comparatively short? The last thing we would want is to see some oligarch on the front page of a national newspaper smirking that he or she had circumvented and found some way of actually getting around the will of Parliament and humiliating us. It would be seen, I think, as a failure of policy. I am sure that the Minister is very conscious of that, but it would be helpful if he could tell us that his department will monitor this on an ongoing basis, and not deal with this as a one-off and just leave it to the next piece of legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could just add to what the noble Lord has just said. The Minister mentioned the regulations which are possible post the passing of the Bill. Will he undertake to review some of the points made during the passage of this Bill and consider whether or not regulations might be needed to fill certain gaps?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed, I am happy to provide the reassurances that both noble Lords have asked for—in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in terms of the regulations, and in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that we see this as an iterative process. As I mentioned, this is fairly unique legislation in the world; we are aware of only one other country, possibly, that has attempted to do something similar. When we introduced the provisions on PSCs—persons with significant control—in relation to UK companies, we had to make some iterative changes to that, as it became evident over time that aspects were not working as effectively as we had hoped. I hope that we have thought of everything on this one, and I hope that we have all of the details correct, but a lot of it—some of it anyway—has been drafted in haste and it is possible that we will have missed one or two complicated international devices. But, the noble Lord can be assured that we will keep it regularly under review, and if there are—I hesitate to use the word “loopholes”, although it is probably appropriate—devices that clever lawyers, of which there are several in this House, find to get around the provisions, we will not hesitate to close them if we need to.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
“(3A) The registrar may request further information to be provided in a timely manner where there appear to be material omissions or suspected false statements.(3B) An application may not be accepted unless the registrar is satisfied that any request for further information has been adequately addressed.”
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I really want to carry on in a similar vein to earlier comments, and what my Amendment 3 is trying to do is to give more levers to government and enforcement agencies to force out information when we are worried that the information is not clear. My noble friend made the point that the Explanatory Notes say that this will be subject to regulations, but those regulations will be subject to a negative resolution. Could my noble friend confirm that we could be involved in the drafting of those regulations, rather than being faced with a fait accompli at the last minute, because I think there is a lot more to be done here? This perhaps plays to my noble friend’s point about the iterative improvements this Bill is going to need over the next few years, because it is fiendishly complicated.
The other piece to this jigsaw is the likelihood of prosecution of bad actors. Having been in business many years, I am afraid that the phrase that has often been offered to me when one is trying to get things done is “It’s the cost of doing business.” If the fines are so weak and the enforcement so inconsistent, it sends a message to those bad actors to continue, because—let us be realistic—is the NCA or Companies House, or any of these other people, going to take an action against a promoter in the British Virgin Islands for £10,000 of unpaid fees? It is just not going to happen, unless we are very clear that there is a mechanism for that to happen and that the fines very quickly get to a level that makes it worth while for litigators, acting on behalf of the taxpayer and the Government, to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments in my name in this group—there are eight of them—and I will be fairly brief.
First, Amendments 5 and 13 basically ask the beneficial owners and various other parties to provide their former names. In Part 4 of Schedule 1, the Bill requires managing officers who are managing the beneficial owner’s interest to provide their former names. But the same is somehow not required for registerable beneficial owners where they are persons other than individuals—which could be companies that are forever changing their names, or other parties. What I am seeking to do through Amendments 5 and 13 is to, as it were, align the various provisions in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be agreeable to that.
Amendments 8, 12 and 14 require the beneficial owners, or their managing agents et cetera, to provide a list of any criminal convictions and sanctions against them. At the moment, the Bill does not ask for that kind of information, so it is perfectly possible for somebody to look at this proposed register of property ownership and not know that the ultimate beneficiaries have various convictions, which may well be abroad. It really exerts pressure on them to either come clean or to avoid the UK altogether—which perhaps would be more preferable. Again, it is a fairly straight forward suggestion asking the Government to act upon that.
The meatier part of my eight amendments relate to Amendments 18, 19 and 20, which take issue with the Government’s provision of the definition of registrable beneficial interest, generally taken to be 25% of the shares or voting rights, or somebody having significant influence or control. As it is now defined it is too wide. Indeed, the provision of any number is too wide. If you say it is 25%, it is not inconceivable that half a dozen people will get together and make sure that nobody gets to 25%. If you specify 20%, that will be exactly the same. So four, five or six drug traffickers can get together and own a fraction of a company, and through that they can invest their proceeds in a property. Under this kind of approach, none of them would be identified as a beneficial owner or count as a person of significant control, because they do not meet the thresholds specified in the Bill.
The Bill as presently drafted leaves open the possibility that companies holding UK property would continue to hide the identity of true owners by claiming that there was no beneficial owner. This is already a major problem at Companies House for the companies already registered in the UK. That has been identified by a number of whistleblowers and a number of leaks that we have had. However, rather than tackling the issue, the Government have imported these problems into the Bill, and it is quite likely that the Bill will not achieve its assumed objectives.
So I suggest that there should be no numerical specification of the beneficial interest definition; rather, any interest should be disclosable. It is not every day that ordinary individuals want to buy UK property through opaque offshore companies. They have a reason why they want to do this, so we must make sure that absolutely no door is open to them. By leaving this definition, the danger is that the Bill simply will not achieve its objectives. I therefore recommend my amendments to the Government in the hope that this will help to end the abuses.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I support most of the amendments in the group, including the government amendments, which are generally very helpful.
I will speak to Amendment 24 in my name and to the similar Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, both of which are intended to address the possibility of there being a very long period between a change in the ownership of the entity and that change being reported in the annual update. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his support in this. Amendment 23 would require an update to be filed within 14 days of when a person has become or has ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner. My Amendment 24 is slightly wider, requiring any changes in registered information to be reported within 14 days. However, both amendments seek to bring the overseas entity regime into line with the persons of significant control regime that UK companies must follow. To be honest, I would be content either way.
As the Bill is currently drafted, an overseas entity could register and then immediately change its beneficial ownership and we would not get to know about that for a full year, during which time any number of actions could take place, including the sale of the property to an innocent third party who unwittingly might find themselves enriching a criminal or someone subject to sanctions.
The Bill rightly puts restrictions on the disposition and registration of property, but it does nothing to deal with the more likely scenario of the overseas entity itself, or indeed an entity further up the ownership chain, being sold; indeed, this 12-month grace period almost wilfully ignores that. It seems rather perverse that the overseas entity regime should be more benign than the regime that applies to persons of significant control for UK companies.
In his helpful all-Peers letter of Friday, the Minister explained that the reason they have done it this way is to protect innocent third-party buyers from not being able to register the purchase of a property if the overseas entity turns out to be in breach of the requirement to report a change. That is obviously extremely important. However, a very simple solution is already built into the Bill. The overseas entity has the ability, under Clause 7(8), to shorten the update period and file an update immediately before it sells. Any innocent buyer would simply insist that this happens before the sale is completed, and that would deal with the problem that the Minister explained. Accordingly, I see no reason why one of Amendments 23 or 24 should not be accepted, so that overseas entities would have the same reporting requirements as UK companies have. The whole point of the overseas entity register is that we should know who beneficially owns UK properties. Allowing that information to be potentially up to 12 months out of date cannot make sense. I cannot think of any other corporate register that would allow such a long period to notify changes.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a couple of observations on the amendments put forward by my noble friends Lord Sikka and Lady Chapman, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Agnew. These observations are based on my experience as chairman of the Jersey Financial Services Commission. The Bill as drafted is significantly weaker than the requirements for registration in Jersey. For example, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Sikka, under the Control of Borrowing (Jersey) Order, any interest can be required to be registered without one of these numerical levels.
Secondly, with respect to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Chapman and others, in Jersey, the requirement is that a change of beneficial ownership be registered within 21 days. This 12-month period is really foolish. It provides an open door to misbehaviour.
I support my noble friends Lord Sikka and Lady Chapman and friends in the amendments they have put forward. We should be able to achieve at least the level of seriousness achieved in Jersey.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, there is clearly a great deal we can learn from Jersey and I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
I will speak to Amendment 24, to which I have added my name, and will also make a couple of comments on Amendment 53—there may be a slight sense of déjà vu, as my noble friend Lord Vaux has done the same.
In relation to Amendment 24, on page 3 of his very helpful all-Peers letter of 11 March, the Minister explains that Companies House would not know if a legal entity registered abroad was compliant with the 14-day rule. Likewise, this would not be visible to a third party, whereas that third party could be confident that, if an annual date had passed, the register would be up to date.
I am not convinced that that is so clear-cut or indeed helpful. This approach means that, for up to 12 months, an entity could keep hidden its change in ownership structure. Only at that point would it be in breach if it had not disclosed the change—or possibly multiple changes. Assuming—which may be a bold assumption given some of the entities—that the entity indeed complied with a 12-month date to reveal changes, this would still leave the third party in the dark for up to 12 months and the entity under no obligation to register the changes and having that as a defence. In short, it is possible for entities to game the system by carefully timing their changes. Twelve months, or even one month, can be a long time in business.
This also makes it possible for an entity to waste the time and resources of the acquirer and the regulatory and enforcement agencies if, for example, it becomes subject to sanctions based on its ownership but can claim, at a time to suit itself, that the affected owner or owners actually no longer own it. A 14-day limit greatly tightens the ability of both the registrar and any third party to see, at least in the case of compliant entities, any registered changes in as close to real time as is practicable.
Where entities are not compliant and fail to declare changes in this timely way, should this emerge in due course, it should give the third-party acquirer grounds for withdrawal and the authorities grounds for pursuit. This does leave an obligation on the registrar to ensure that entries are kept up to date, but that is a technological and resourcing issue perhaps better addressed in other amendments. For these reasons, I added my name to Amendment 24 and support it. I urge the Minister to rethink the 14-day requirement.
I shall now make a few comments on Amendment 53. In paragraph 4 on page 2 of the same letter, in relation to the purpose of the Bill, the Minister acknowledges that there will be those who seek to exploit opportunities to avoid it—he also referred to this earlier today. I raised at Second Reading the issue that there are enablers whose approach to reporting suspicions is light-touch or simply to turn a blind eye. I also advocated the idea put forward very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Vaux a few moments ago of having a named senior official on the hook. Simply saying that existing regulations cover this is to deny the evidence that there are entities and enablers in the area addressed by this Bill that have been skirting round existing regulations too easily by claiming ignorance or that suspicion was only mild. I think this may be more specifically reflected in the reference in paragraph 5 on page 5 of the Minister’s letter of 11 March, which says in relation to verification of information that:
“We expect that this will include a role for professionals regulated in the UK by the Money Laundering Regulations.”
This amendment, by including suspicion rather than certain knowledge, covers the loophole by which enablers can claim not to have had certain knowledge even if they should have had reasonable suspicion. This makes it considerably more difficult for enablers and others to look the other way and strengthens the hand of those seeking to hold them better to account. I support this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 53. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Vaux, for their support, although I understand that they would like to see this tweaked to go further. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his supportive comments.
The Bill needs to be comprehensively amended to close the loopholes that currently allow professional enablers to undermine the effectiveness of, and even circumvent, the checks aimed at detecting, disrupting and deterring economic crime. One of the key ways this can be done is by imposing a positive duty on professional enablers to disclose knowledge or reasonable suspicion that misleading, false or deceptive information has been provided to the registrar of overseas entities.
As I set out on Second Reading, professional enablers, such as lawyers, accountants and bankers, are the gatekeepers of economic crime and the Government need to adopt a comprehensive strategy towards them. Given the nature of their work, there is an inherently high risk that these professionals may unwittingly enable economic crime, but there are also enablers that specialise in services aimed at concealing the source of wealth or ownership so as to frustrate the objectives of the law.
This poses a particularly acute challenge in the context of the Bill’s attempt to tighten the checks around the beneficial ownership of property by overseas entities. The UK’s 2017 national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing revealed that 50% of suspicious activity reports related to the legal sector in 2016 were linked to the property market, illustrating that real estate transactions are especially susceptible to money laundering.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, very eloquently deconstructed, the Minister prayed in aid regulation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales on Second Reading. Does the Minister really believe that these regulators are the way to tackle these professional enablers? The current model for supervising professional enablers is fragmented and weak. In the legal and accountancy sectors alone, there are 22 different professional body supervisors, or PBSs. In its 2021 report, the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision found that the vast majority—some 81%—of these legal and accounting PBSs do not implement an effective risk-based approach to supervising their members as required by the money laundering regulations. Where is the evidence that they can do the kind of job needed to root out corrupt behaviour in sanctions avoidance or as envisaged by this Bill?
In summary, it is critical that the Bill addresses the heightened risk that professional enablers, particularly conveyancers and lawyers, will frustrate the objectives of the register of overseas entities. Beyond this modest amendment, urgent reform is needed—I hope it will take place in the second Bill—to ensure that there is effective, comprehensive supervision of professional enablers. This should be fully addressed when we come to the second economic crime Bill.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak today. I came to learn and listen to the experts on areas I do not know much about. But listening to the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Clement-Jones, I am reminded of an example. I know this would not be classed as money laundering, but the well-known spiv, Aaron Banks, was responsible for what is, I think, the biggest political donation in British history—I think it was £8 million—during the Brexit referendum period. When it came to investigation by the Electoral Commission, which had the responsibility for doing this, he was not an unwitting enabler. His conclusion was, “We’re cleverer than the regulator.” The Minister does not want to be faced with that during the passage of this Bill and its actions, so he would be very wise to accept the spirit of some of these amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I think it is obvious that the Minister will accept a lot of these amendments, because they are from people who are much cleverer than most of us in this Chamber.
I support most of the amendments—even all the government amendments, because they are quite helpful, particularly those that require the disclosure of whether any beneficial owners of property are subject to sanctions, and the strengthening of the criminal offences for false declarations. However, it is obvious from the speeches of other noble Lords that the Government are still falling short and that the Bill needs to be tougher. For example, Amendments 23, 24, 57 and 58 all need to be inserted into the Bill.
All beneficial interests should be registered, not just those acquired on or after 1 January 1999. That is a completely arbitrary date and should be removed. The Minister shakes his head; I guess he will argue that it is a very important date. I disagree.
This legislation is being rushed through as an emergency, but the Government are content to wait another year, following initial registration, before any changes in beneficial ownership take place. I cannot see the logic in that and I think most people will not either. It makes much more sense to update the register within 14 days of any changes.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken today. I will make a couple of points from the Front Bench that reflect on the other groups as we debate them.
We on these Benches share the hopes of the Government and, indeed, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to get this Bill on to the statute book as quickly as we can. For that to happen, the Government seem to be moving on a number of issues, which will be helpful. For our part, we have had to suspend the level of scrutiny that this Bill would normally attract. That has been difficult for us because, as we heard at Second Reading and have already heard in debate on the first group, much could be done to improve and extend the Bill.
As such, and as we have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Vaux, Lord Cromwell, Lord Cormack and Lord Empey, there are a number of solid assurances that the Minister can give us—he hinted without necessarily assuring in his response to the previous group. We would appreciate an undertaking from the Minister that, when we return to this topic on the second part of this Bill, or ECB 2 as we now have to know it, there will be a frank assessment from the Government as to the operations of ECB 1, and a chance to debate and modify ECB 1 in the light of that frank assessment.
Further, the four planned elements of ECB 2 were set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, at Second Reading. They indicate a fairly narrow—indeed, dangerously narrow—focus for that Bill. A commitment from the Government that they will enable that Bill to be broadened, and that some of the issues we have already heard and some more that we will hear later will be added to the curriculum of that Bill, will be very important.
This is a large group of amendments; noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not take them one by one and summarise them all. There are a number of amendments from the Government, which we welcome, but I will briefly highlight Amendment 24 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cromwell. We have heard from them so I will not reiterate their speeches. We believe that this important issue is possible and do not see why it is not something the Government could easily incorporate in the current form of the Bill.
I will primarily speak on my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Amendment 53, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and I have added our names. We have heard today and at Second Reading that this is the issue that hits at the heart of the problem we face, and the scale of the infiltration of stolen wealth that has come into the United Kingdom. It is why the kleptocrats have been so comfortable here: they have been feather-bedded by a welcoming committee of enablers, anxious to claim new clients and get some of the money. For some so-called enablers—indeed, most of them—that temptation was outweighed by their moral and practical concerns. We should note that clearly. Unfortunately, for others, such as the sorts that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, identified, the temptation has been too great. A significant minority of practitioners have taken the “ask no questions and tell me no lies” philosophy to doing business.
This amendment would really do no more than reinforce what should be happening already, but it restates it in a different way. Within each of these enabler services, there needs to be a senior partner or director who signs off on the due diligence and is accountable to the law for doing so.
In closing, I note a briefing from the Law Society that arrived in my inbox this morning. It expressed concern about this amendment. The pressure group said that the amendment appears to extend a duty of due diligence to all stages of client take-on and transactional/advisory work. Its concern was that it would
“create a significant burden on professional services such as law firms that would be difficult for them to meet”.
In other words, this due diligence would be too hard to do. That tells us that there is work to be done in this area.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is yet another group of amendments with contributions from across the Chamber that signifies some of the problems we have in fast-tracking this part of the Bill. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sikka, have put forward sensible amendments that would improve the Bill, but we cannot accept them because we are in a rush to get it through. They are common-sense amendments. I take very much the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made: if we are not careful we will have a situation where we pass the Bill and, in a week or a couple of months’ time, there will be an oligarch, a kleptocrat or whatever you want to call them—somebody living off dirty money—on the front pages of the papers parading themselves as having got round what the Government have only just passed.
Of course, that is the whole purpose of the amendments that so many noble Lords have put forward: to say to the Government that they have to address some of this. If they cannot address it in this Bill, which clearly they will not be able to do because it is emergency legislation—we all accept the crisis in front of us—let us have a cast-iron guarantee that the second economic crime Bill will come quickly to address these various issues and that we will be able to come back to them. Those are the reassurances that so many of us are looking for from the Government. I do not think that is too much to ask.
As my noble friend Lord Rooker pointed out, with his normal passionate use of the English language, we do not want a situation where people—I cannot remember who he referred to—parade around saying, “Look, we’re cleverer than the regulator.” That undermines democracy and Parliament. It undermines all of us. That is how serious it is when people flaunt their ability to circumvent the law. That is not in our interest, whatever the crisis we face. I know that the Minister would accept that.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group, which cover a variety of non-trust provisions relating to the register of overseas entities. I should give my noble friend Lady Chapman’s apologies. She cannot participate in proceedings for personal reasons, but she tabled Amendment 23, which, like Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, seeks to accelerate the reporting of changes in beneficial ownership, for reasons ably supported by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. Again, this seems absolutely common sense; it does not seem to be a point of argument.
The Government are keen to stress that the vast majority of entities that apply to join the register will be entirely above board. We accept much of that. However, under the current provisions, a shell company could be registered under certain ownership on day 1, with new appointments to the board made on days 2 and 3, but it would be required to report that only 12 months later. That is clearly not acceptable or sensible. As my noble friends Lord Sikka and Lord Eatwell, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and others said, something should be done about that. The Government should see what changes they can make.
There are legitimate questions about enforcement, but do the Government agree that there should be a general principle that entities need to be proactive in reporting changes? The Minister should accept Amendment 23, or indeed Amendment 24, but if not, he should commit to giving this further thought as the Government begin to draft the next piece of legislation.
We are also sympathetic to other amendments in the group, including Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and Amendment 53 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported by my noble friend Lady Chapman and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which tries to start to deal with enablers. On so-called enablers, it would be helpful to understand what steps, if any, the Government have taken since Russia invaded Ukraine. As this is an emergency piece of legislation, what emergency action have the Government taken with respect to enablers? There have long been stories of lawyers and estate agents who purposely avoid asking their clients probing questions because they know that the answers would preclude them from doing business with them. It is time to say, “Enough is enough and we will seek you out and do something about it.”
We know that some individuals have sought to urgently offload their UK-based interests and, if they are seeking to rush sales through, we would hope that estate agents and others were already querying the reasons for that. In addition to any steps that might have already been taken, what steps do the Government plan to take over the coming days and weeks to deal with that problem? This series of amendments asks various questions, but ultimately seeks to tighten up a Bill that is in all our interests.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Before I address the amendments tabled, I reiterate the point I made earlier. This will be almost the first register of its kind in the world. We should accept that we are leading on this. I completely accept that we may not have everything perfect, but we will learn as we go—just as we did, in the example I cited, when we implemented the people with significant control requirements for domestic companies. We had to learn and iterate that, and now many other countries have followed our lead. That is a good thing. I re-emphasise that we will be perfectly willing to revisit these measures if it transpires that we have not got everything quite right.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
Just thinking off the top of my head, I can think of four registers of this ilk which exist already.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would be happy to debate with the noble Lord. When I queried this, my information was that Germany potentially has something similar, but nobody else. I am happy to exchange letters with him about numbers, but that is not the information I have.
Before I move on, perhaps I may correct something I said on the first grouping—which will teach me to pluck numbers from memory rather than consulting my notes. The correct figure is that there are 30,000 overseas entities registered in the UK owning approximately 95,000 properties. I think I may have said that the other way round. I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. The vast majority of those are perfectly legitimate entities. We are an open trading environment and welcome investment from all over the world. International companies owning headquarters in the UK do so perfectly legitimately. The vast majority of these entities are legitimate. A small minority are not, and they are the ones we seek to catch in this register, but we must be fair to the vast majority which are perfectly legal, above board and just seeking to use the UK to do business, which we encourage.
Let me also pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Although I am grateful that she is supporting the government amendments—I will write that down for posterity, because I am not sure it will happen again—we did not just pluck the dates of 1999 for England and Wales and 2014 for Scotland out of thin air. We did not just sit there and think what date we would make it retrospective to. Those were the dates of incorporation when that was required by the Land Registry, so it is appropriate to go back to them. Northern Ireland has never required this, so it is impossible to retrospectively apply the provisions there. I hope she will accept that we did not just make these dates up; they are put in place for a reason.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I refer the Minister to an entity called Business Bank Italy Ltd. It was owned by a convicted Mafia person from Italy, who registered this bank here and it had a website inviting wealth management. At Companies House, there was absolutely no declaration of any criminal convictions. Previously, the same person registered as secretary and director of another company, where the same person provided information in Italian. When it was translated into English, it read, “My name is the Chicken Thief, my occupation is a fraudster”, and the address was “Street of 40 Thieves, town of Ali Baba in Italy.” There is no information on whether there was any criminal conviction or anything else. The Minister just said that there are robust checks at Companies House. Where are these robust checks? I could pick out that example. Companies House did not carry any out; neither did any government department. As he knows, I have been filing a lot of Written Questions of late drawing Ministers’ attention to all kinds of strange goings-on in companies. It seems to me that, by rejecting the idea that somebody has to provide their former names and a record of criminal convictions and sanctions, the Government are opening the door for these people to misbehave.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are not opening the door. I assume that the companies the noble Lord is referring to are existing UK-registered companies; I know he has asked me a number of Written Questions about companies registered on the UK database, and I totally accept his point. He is pointing out an issue we are well aware of: that the existing UK companies register is a dumb register. The registrar is obliged under existing law to accept the information tabled to her. The noble Lord has raised a number of examples and tabled Written Questions to me about some patently ridiculous information that has been supplied. I get regular correspondence from noble Lords and from constituency Members of Parliament where false information is given and false companies registered at people’s addresses, unknown to them, and they then receive correspondence.
The difficulty at the moment is that the registrar does not have the legal power to query the information registered to her. If the noble Lord will be patient and wait for economic crime Bill part 2, which is coming, he will find that it will deal with this precise point. It will give the registrar the ability to query that information and provide that people must give identity details, passport information, et cetera, when they register. This is a massive change to the operation of Companies House—the biggest change for something like 170 years to the register database. It will give the registrar the power to query that information and people will have to provide evidence of their identity, addresses, et cetera. The noble Lord is right—there are a number of ridiculous examples—but we will deal with that. I am aware of it, and it will be in the next Bill.
In addition, information regarding designated persons who are listed on the UK sanctions list is already published for free via GOV.UK by colleagues in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation.
Finally, the verification mechanisms of the register, which will be provided for under Clause 16, will ensure as far as possible that the information provided is highly accurate. This register will provide vital information and in turn give enforcement agencies even greater information to take actions and carry out their own investigations. Therefore, on balance and taking into account the reasoning we have set out, we are unable to accept these amendments.
However, I am in agreement with the noble Lord on the particular importance of ensuring that there is clear information for users of the register about whether individuals identified as beneficial owners of the overseas entities are subject to UK sanctions. It is in the public interest for users of the register of overseas entities to be able easily to see whether a registrable beneficial owner is a designated person listed on the UK sanctions list.
The Government have therefore tabled their own Amendments 7, 9 and 11, which would mean that the required information about a registrable beneficial owner will include information about whether they are designated by virtue of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. These three amendments would require overseas entities to confirm whether any of their registrable beneficial owners are designated persons listed on the UK sanctions list. It would be an offence not to do so. This information would be displayed publicly on the register. This will ensure that this information is then more easily accessible to the average user of the register. That fulfils a requirement raised by a number of noble Lords, and by Members of the other place when they debated this legislation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, will appreciate that these three amendments will deliver a good deal, if perhaps not all, of the intention of his amendments and those proposed in the other place.
I move on to Amendments 18, 19 and 20, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which relate to the level of shareholding that would define a “beneficial owner”. His amendments seek to remove the 25% level altogether, to capture any person who holds any shares in the overseas entity in scope.
The 25% threshold contained in the Bill is in line with global norms with regards to beneficial ownership. The Financial Action Task Force, which sets global anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing standards, has found that this threshold is acceptable as an example of how to determine beneficial ownership. As a result, 25%—or more than 25%—is used in many jurisdictions, such as in the US and in the European Union’s recent anti-money laundering directives. The 25% threshold also follows the UK’s PSC—person with significant control—regime, which similarly requires beneficial ownership information of UK-registered companies. When the PSC regime was in development—
Lord Burnett (LD)
Does the 25% limit cater for class rights in the definition of control? In other words, you can have 10% and 90% but the 10% have all the voting rights.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think it refers to rights of control—the actual percentage shareholding of the company—but if I am incorrect on that, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
When the PSC regime was in development, significant analysis, including consultation, considered the question of thresholds. The threshold of more than 25% reflects the level of control a person needs in voting rights, under UK company law, to be able to block special resolutions of a company. It was considered that 25% represented the optimum opportunity to understand who is in a position to exert significant influence and control over a company. Collecting information on legal ownership below that threshold would be much less likely to do this. Removing the threshold altogether would have the effect of essentially creating a register of shareholders rather than a register of beneficial ownership, which—I hope noble Lords will agree—is not appropriate for the purposes of the Bill and the transparency involved in this register. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, likes going through thousands of register entries, but I am not sure it would be helpful to most people.
For entirely legitimate entities, there could be hundreds or thousands of shareholders. For instance, think of a large foreign company that owns property in the UK. I am really not sure whether it would be tremendously helpful to have literally thousands of individual shareholders on the list of a property’s beneficial owners. For example, in the case of public limited companies with highly dispersed ownership, where shares can be bought and sold frequently and instantly, removing the 25% threshold would make the requirements of the register disproportionately difficult to comply with, as entities must first send a notice to those that they believe are their beneficial owners, and then allow time for potential beneficial owners to respond.
We are mindful of the risk that an individual wishing to disguise their beneficial ownership might, for example, deliberately reduce their shareholding. We have considered this, and so have made provision that means that anyone, regardless of their shareholding or voting rights, who exerts or has the right to exert significant influence or control over an entity is captured within the meaning of “beneficial owner”. This includes anyone who holds the right to appoint or remove a majority of the board’s directors. Perhaps that takes account of the point the noble Lord made earlier.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, cannot be with us today. I thank her and other noble Lords for Amendments 23 and 24. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his engagement and for the points he has made. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss these matters further.
These amendments would require overseas entities to update the register not just annually but when there has been a change in beneficial ownership. I know this matter has been exercising a number of noble Lords. It was also raised in 2018, during pre-legislative scrutiny of the then draft registration of overseas entities Bill. At the time, the scrutiny committee accepted fully in its report that this requirement would be difficult to enforce without active investigation. This would also create great uncertainty for third parties transacting with the overseas entities. This is the key reason why we have adopted the 12-month threshold.
A change in beneficial ownership is not necessarily foreseeable and would not be knowable to any third parties, including Companies House, without detailed investigation. As I said, there are about 30,000 of these overseas entities. As such, a requirement for an overseas entity to update its information when there is such a change means that, at any point in time, it could be compliant one moment and then not compliant the next. Our problem is that we think this creates significant legal uncertainty for any third parties engaging with the entity and seeking to purchase the property from it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Can the Minister help me and explain why they would be non-compliant if they had two weeks within which to register it? As long as they did it within two weeks, they would be fine.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, but they would have to be tabling notices to any potential beneficial owners in order to update the register. We think that if we have a yearly update, any third party transacting with that entity would then have sufficient legal certainty to be able to proceed. The point is not that the entity might not register the change of ownership but that the third party, and indeed Companies House, have no way of knowing whether it has. Therefore, a third party could engage in a transaction thinking that the original entity is compliant and then discover afterwards that it has not updated its register and is non-compliant, and therefore potentially lose its money and be unable to proceed with the transaction because it cannot register the property. On balance, we think the better option is to have a yearly update cycle, but I realise that this is a point of debate and I am happy to discuss it further. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is engaged in this.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister has not addressed the point that this can easily be dealt with by bringing forward the annual update, which a company has the ability to do under—I think, from memory—Clause 7. If that were done as part of the property transaction, that solves the problem completely. Does the Minister disagree with that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I do not disagree with that. It is, of course, perfectly possible—
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, on the same point, would it not be helpful for a third party to know who it is actually dealing with? Under the Minister’s proposal for 12 months, it could rely on the register and find out that it is dealing with someone it had not expected at all.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed it would be helpful, and that is why we have the transparency of the register in the first place. Returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, it would indeed be possible for them to update it, and it is of course perfectly possible that the advisers of the third party buying that property would wish to say to the entity that they wanted it to update the register in terms of formal ownership before they could advise their clients to proceed with the transaction, which is a point that the noble Lord made to me. That is different in terms of due diligence of the third party’s financial legal advisers, but in terms of the legal requirements, we think that it is best to leave it at 12 months. However, maybe we could have further discussions on this before we get to the second Bill.
To summarise, a change in beneficial ownership is not necessarily foreseeable and would not be knowable to any third parties, including Companies House, without detailed investigation. As such, a requirement for an overseas entity to update its information when there is such a change means that it could be compliant one moment and non-compliant the next, at any point in time. Our point is that this would create significant legal uncertainty for any third parties engaged with the entity.
I remind noble Lords that the key sanction for non-compliance with the new register—apart from the criminal penalties for non-compliance—which interferes with existing property rights is effectively to make it impossible for the buyer to then register title, if purchasing from a non-compliant entity. Of course, if they have transacted with an overseas company in a different jurisdiction, it might be very difficult for them to then take appropriate legal action to recover any sums that they have paid. This is not about providing a free “get out of jail” card for the overseas entity; it is genuinely about protecting the rights of third parties that wish to transact with them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pointed out, the onus is on the buyer and their agents to ensure that they do not transact with a non-compliant entity. In order to protect the buyer, who is likely to be an innocent third party, it follows that there must be absolute legal certainty in every case as to whether the overseas entity doing the selling is compliant. An annual update with a transparent end date for the update period will give third parties transacting with the overseas entity the certainty that they need. The annual update already requires an overseas entity—
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I do not wish to be argumentative with the Minister—well, perhaps I do—but can he confirm in respect of the third party buying the company that that company will be compliant even if, say, 11.5 months ago, they changed their ownership because they will not have had to register?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, that provides the required legal certainty to the third party that is buying it, at the expense of, perhaps, a certain amount of transparency for that 11.5-month period. So, yes, I accept that.
The annual update already requires an overseas entity to provide information about its current beneficial owners, as well as any changes since its last update. This latter information was added as a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, providing a complete picture of an overseas entity’s beneficial owners. For these reasons we do not believe a change in the updating period is necessary or desirable, and I therefore encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Turning to government Amendments 49, 50, 51 and 52, the Government have listened to the concerns raised about the need to deal effectively with anyone seeking to file false or misleading information or those who know or suspect that they may be filing false information, and we have taken on board those concerns. I thank all noble Lords who raised these concerns with me. They made the point that the evidential threshold to prove intent or recklessness is too high in the clauses as drafted. I have therefore tabled these government amendments to ensure that those who provide false or misleading information “without reasonable excuse”—in other words, a lower legal barrier—can be prosecuted and are subject on conviction to an unlimited fine. This will catch those who seek to facilitate and enable money launderers and the corrupt.
Furthermore, we have amended the threshold for what, under our amendments, constitutes an aggravated offence. This removes the reference to the word “recklessly”, which caused a lot of concern in the other place and to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others in this place. It also retains the potential for imprisonment and an unlimited fine if convicted of the aggravated offence of knowingly filing false, misleading or deceptive information. I hope this addresses the concerns.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 53, which would create a criminal offence of failing to disclose to the registrar certain information when a professional knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that misleading, false, or otherwise deceptive information was provided to them in their professional capacity. Again, I understand the noble Lord’s motive for proposing this new clause, but I hope that he will agree that his aims can be met by the existing provisions in the legislation regarding offences for the provision of false information, as developed in the way I have just set out by the Government’s amendments to lower the threshold needed for prosecution. We are confident that this will ensure that enforcement agencies have sufficient capacity to tackle those who seek to subvert the integrity of the register through the provision of misleading information.
I also take this opportunity to reassure the noble Lord—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the Minister; I am amazed that he thought that I would. The Government need a strategy to catch these enablers in the way that they currently operate. What strategy do the Government have? The Minister was just about to pass on to other things. He has prayed in aid the professional regulators, such as the SRA and the ICAEW, and he has more or less said that the legislation is absolutely fine: it will catch the enablers properly. But does the Government not need a proper strategy for dealing with enablers? They cannot gloss this over. Is the Minister prepared to look at this carefully before the next Bill?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, we are constantly looking at these matters. The Treasury is implicitly engaged in pursuing crackdowns on the so-called enablers that the noble Lord has mentioned, and the anti-money laundering regulations exist. This register, which is a transparency measure, is designed to provide information to the public, HMRC and other law enforcement agencies that can then take the appropriate action under the other provisions. However—before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, gets up—I totally agree with the noble Lord that we need to look again at whether the anti-money laundering statutes are appropriate. It is not for this legislation, but I am sure it is something we will want to look at in detail before we get to the next Bill, because it is a complicated area of law. If we do not, I am sure the noble Lord will wish to table his amendments again then.
Lord Fox (LD)
Each time the Minister speaks on this, I do not hear him acknowledge that there is a problem. In order for there to be a solution, there has to be an acknowledgement that there is a problem. So, does the Minister agree with me that there is a problem with unscrupulous enablers currently operating in the City and the United Kingdom? Unless the Minister agrees, I do not think that we can have much hope of a solution.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to agree with the noble Lord. If there is one firm of accountants or one legal practice that is turning a blind eye to these provisions, there is a problem with which we need to deal. Nobody wants to see that; we want to give the UK a reputation as the best place in the world to do business and to crack down on the small minority of the legal profession that are abusing their position and facilities—of course we would want to do that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and slow the proceedings but, on that point, the Minister began to move, gradually, towards thinking about the enablers, and mentioned anti-money laundering legislation. But it is wider than that: it is about sanctions, economic crime in general and the provisions of this Bill. Is the Minister prepared to undertake to look more broadly across the piece?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes. Obviously, a number of different government departments would be involved in doing this, but a number have been involved in putting the provisions into this Bill, and a number will be involved in the provisions of the next economic crime Bill. Of course, we want to take action against lawyers and accountants who abuse their positions to benefit some of these oligarchs and others. We have all seen the press reports and we all know the people that we are concerned about. I would not seek to defend them in the slightest, and I hope that we will be able to put the appropriate sanctions in place to deal with them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend think it would be a good idea to set up a Committee of your Lordships’ House immediately after the Bill has gone on to the statute book, like these special Select Committees that are set up for specific purposes, so that you have a number of knowledgeable Members of your Lordships’ House, among whom I do not include myself, who will be able to provide expert examination of this Bill on a continuous basis?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord often suggests setting up special Committees of this House. He will know that it is way above my pay grade to dictate to the House authorities what committees they wish to set up for examining particular Bills. I know from appearances that there are some extremely good and effective committees already in this House examining all parts of the Government’s legislative agenda and all departments—but, if the noble Lord can forgive me, I will not get into instructing the House authorities on what committees to set up to future scrutinise our work.
Relevant firms, including financial institutions, law firms, accountancy firms and estate agents, under the anti-money laundering framework, must inform Her Majesty’s Treasury as soon as practicable if they know, or have reasonable cause to suspect while carrying out their business, that they have encountered a person subject to financial sanctions, or a person who has committed a financial sanctions offence. They must state the information on which the knowledge or suspicion is based, and any information they hold about the person by which they can be identified. It is already an offence to fail to comply with this reporting obligation. I understand that the noble Lord does not think that the legislation is applied properly—perhaps we can look at that—but there is already an offence on the statute book.
Activity which seeks to evade these new beneficial ownership reporting obligations should be taken into account in the course of these firms taking a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering, and any suspicions of sanctions evasion should be reported in accordance with their legal obligations. I am pleased to say that Treasury Ministers will be writing to the anti-money-laundering supervisors of the relevant professional enablers on this matter, highlighting that the Government will be expecting everyone in these sectors to be particularly vigilant.
I hope that, with the reassurances that I have provided on this important issue, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister was kind enough to offer to meet with me about my Amendment 24. I actually asked about meeting regarding the verification regulations in Clause 16. Is he prepared to do that, probably with others, as it is very important that these regulations get the input of all these highly intelligent people around the Committee before they are issues, rather than afterwards?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, I am happy to meet with the noble Lord and his colleagues to discuss that matter.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I advise the Committee that if Amendment 33 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 34 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 33
Lord Callanan
“(i) is entered, on or after 8 December 2014, as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for a plot of land that is registered in the Land Register of Scotland,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the scope of circumstances where an overseas entity is registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in land for the purpose of Clause 9 (to include, for example, Keeper-induced registration) by removing the requirement for there to have been an application for registration.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I start this grouping by speaking to the government amendments, which I have tabled. They are Amendments 33, 75 and 76; 35, 36 and 37; 63 and 77; 65, 66, 69, 70 and 72; 68 and 71; and 73 and 81. I hope that everybody is taking careful note, because there will be a check later.
These are technical amendments relating to land registration in Scotland, tidying up some of the drafting in the Bill. If it would be of assistance to noble Lords, I am happy to speak in more detail on any of these, but meanwhile, in the interests of time, I will move on to the more substantive government amendments in this group.
Amendments 73 and 74 make small but important technical changes to the Bill to ensure that Schedule 4 operates effectively in line with the land registration law of Scotland. These amendments add to existing provisions when an application must be rejected by Registers of Scotland because of the implications for who will be shown in the Land Register of Scotland as the owner of a plot of land. These amendments ensure consistency and clarity in setting out the circumstances in which a prescriptive claim application might result in a prescriptive claimant being provisionally entered as the owner of a plot in Scotland.
I am mindful that several noble Lords and Baronesses, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sikka, have tabled amendments to shorten the transition period proposed. To inform that debate, I thought it might be helpful to set out several government amendments that we hope will help to ease concerns about the length of the transition period for registering retrospective property ownership and the perceived risk of people moving illicit assets in the meantime—a concern that has been raised with me by several noble Lords.
Amendment 86 requires overseas entities when registering, who have disposed of certain land between 28 February 2022—the date that the Bill was published—and the date of their application to register, to submit a statement with their application setting out details of what has been sold and the beneficial ownership of the entity immediately before that transfer of title. The land in scope is that which otherwise would be caught by the transition period: that is, land that was registered after 1 January 1999 in England and Wales and after 8 December 2014 in Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, now knows why we have selected those dates.
This is an anti-avoidance measure. It would mean that any overseas entity disposing of any of their property in the period from 28 February and the date of their application to register on the register of overseas entities must provide information about the entity’s beneficial ownership immediately before the disposal. They must provide that information by the end of the transition period. This will mean that law enforcement will therefore have access to a record of the beneficial ownership to aid the enforcement of historic cases, and the seller would no longer be able to avoid being under a legal duty to provide beneficial ownership information by disposing of a property in advance of registering—something that I know was a significant concern for many noble Lords. This new disclosure requirement should significantly strengthen law enforcement’s abilities to investigate and prosecute both buyer and seller, and all involved in the transaction, should the criminal law have been broken.
Crucially, it addresses the concerns that have been raised with me in both Houses that corrupt people must not be allowed to sell up and escape the transparency that the register will bring. It is my submission that this measure will be more effective than any further reduction in the transition period, which risks opening up the provisions of the register to legal challenge, something that would no doubt be exploited by those wishing to avoid it.
Amendments 55, 60, 64, 79 and 82 align the transitional periods under Schedules 3 and 4 with the period in the new clause inserted by Amendment 86.
Amendment 87 supplements Amendment 86 by making it an offence for certain overseas entities who do not apply for registration during the transitional period, and every officer in default, to fail to provide information equivalent to that required by Amendment 86. That means information about relevant dispositions in land made on or after 28 February 2022 and the end of the transitional period. In the case of continued contravention, an offence is also committed by every officer of the overseas entity who did not commit an offence in relation to the initial contravention. A person guilty of an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine and a daily default fine of up to £2,500 a day in England and Wales.
Amendment 88 makes further supplementary provisions, including a power to make regulations in connection with the new clause inserted by Amendment 86.
Amendment 59 reflects the revised transitional period of six months. It requires the Chief Land Registrar to act as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event before the end of the transitional period, to enter a restriction in relation to an estate in land owned by an overseas entity that became the registered proprietor of that estate following an application made before commencement of the Bill.
Amendments 66, 69, 70 and 72 are technical amendments relating to land registration in Scotland. In the interests of time, I propose to move on to other substantive amendments, but am more than happy to speak on these amendments in more detail if required. I beg to move.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise; I am not sure if it is my turn or someone else’s. I have four amendments in this group. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about Amendment 86. The real problem is that you can have an overseas entity that can be used to buy a property in the UK. When that property is sold, money is laundered, but before the six-month period is over the overseas entity is liquidated so there is no information of any kind to file. By giving anyone more than 14 days—this is a theme referred to earlier by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Vaux—the Government are inviting these kinds of cat-and-mouse games.
I recommend that no one should have more than 14 days. After all, that is what we give at the moment to UK companies to file information about persons with significant interest as per Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006, which says that the PSC’s details must first be recorded in the company’s internal register within 14 days of the change and Companies House must be notified within a further 14 days, which is the maximum permitted. So why are overseas entities to be given a longer period? We seem to be creating an opportunity here, a window, for these entities to misbehave, and at the end no declaration of any kind can be made. Fourteen days is not too demanding in the era of electronic filing. We must close all opportunities for anyone to circumvent the filing requirements and thereby get away with basically laundering their proceeds.
My second two amendments are Amendments 58 and 67, which, as has been referred to, are about the amnesty that is built into the Bill. The Bill grants amnesty from disclosures to those who acquired property in Scotland before 8 December 2014 and before 1 January 1999 in England and Wales. That is completely contrary to the Bill’s claim of adding transparency and providing no hiding place for dirty money. The amnesty will mean that large swathes of UK property are owned by overseas companies without any public knowledge of their true owners; people will simply not know who owns them.
I shall give some examples of Scottish property that is owned by anonymous offshore companies purchased before 8 December 2014 where people do not know who the true owners are: Strathfillan Forest, owned by Thar Enterprises in Jersey, registered at the Land Register in June 1999; Ardfin Estate, on the Isle of Jura, owned by Ardfin Lodge Ltd, again in Jersey, registered in November 2010; Glenogle Estate, owned by Glenogle Estate Ltd in the Isle of Man, registered in May 1999; most of Charlotte Square in Edinburgh, owned by Fordell Estates Ltd in the British Virgin Islands, registered in the Land Registry in 2010; Glenborrodale deer forest, owned by Luna Ltd in the Bahamas, registered at the Land Register in July 2000; and the Pitmain Estate, owned by Ranita Management SA in Panama. Even if these properties are acquired with clean money, people have a right to know who their neighbours are and who owns a large part of their locality. Are these people actually socially responsible? The Government are legally creating an amnesty, and that is really unacceptable.
This opacity is not just an issue in Scotland: it is an issue for the whole of the UK. Close to 250,000 residential properties in the UK are registered to individuals based overseas. UK property worth more than £170 billion is estimated to be held overseas, much of it anonymously. Last October, the Pandora papers leak revealed that Heads of Government, oligarchs, business tycoons, ruling families and Middle-Eastern monarchs were among the anonymous owners of at least £4 billion of property, held through offshore shell companies. When did they acquire that? We do not quite know: it might well have been before the dates specified in the Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Sikka, who again comes forward with a number of amendments that are common sense and seek to shine a light on what is actually going on, and would deliver the transparency that so many of us seek in the Bill. We come to the transition period and the retrospective application, which is the subject of one of the most important groups, if not the most important group, of amendments this evening. It relates to the speed at which the register is implemented, as well as new measures that will apply during a proposed six-month transition period.
My noble friend Lady Chapman, along with the noble Lord, Lord Fox—we are grateful for his support—tabled Amendments 56, 61, 80 and 83. They seek to accelerate the implementation of the register of overseas entities, requiring initial registration within 28 days of commencement—again, seeking to avoid a situation where individuals or entities simply circumvent the law. This is not just a view held by us: the ICAEW, an accountants’ body, in the briefing that it sent your Lordships, also supported three months as a new transition period, with the ability to extend it for a further three months, were there a need to do so.
It is also worth noting that the sanction provisions—Part 1 of the Bill—will not commence on Royal Assent. Rather, they will require a commencement order laid by the Secretary of State. We understand that various steps need to be taken before that order can be laid. Can the Minister indicate how many steps there might be and roughly how long that will take? Is the upcoming Prorogation of Parliament, for example, likely to delay the introduction of any of the enabling regulations? When the Government moved from 18 months to six months in the other place, that left many thinking that the register would be active before the year end. Could it not actually be longer, given the need to implement various IT changes, inform people of the new requirements and so on? The House requires some reassurance about the commencement: in other words, when do the six months actually start? It could be six months now before the six months start: that would be a year for the implementation period. That is of real concern to us all, given the concerns that there are about the six months; so while we welcome the measures outlined in government Amendments 86 and 87, they do not prevent land being sold, gifted or transferred, and neither do they further reduce the current six-month implementation window. As many noble Lords said at Second Reading, a register of overseas entities has been promised for a number of years, and we certainly do not want any further delay, but there are serious questions to be asked.
Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we also tabled Amendment 92. This is an evolution of the David Davis amendment considered in the other place. We accept that one very high-profile person of interest was Roman Abramovich. He is now subject to sanctions, and he plans to leave Chelsea under whatever arrangements he manages to make—or not, given the sanctions on him. However, one of the concerns around his case was that the Home Office was actually studying his affairs, but had no powers to take interim action while that assessment was being carried out. Is there therefore not a great deal of merit in our amendment, which seeks to freeze assets on an interim basis where there is good reason for doing so? In other words, if we are looking to sanctioning somebody, surely we would want to freeze their assets to prevent them from getting rid of them before a full order is put in place. At the moment, as I understand it, that cannot happen. I am not sure that under the Bill it would able to take place either, without this amendment. The Government might wish to look at the interim freezing of assets.
It might be, for example, that a person of interest hails from Belarus, which continues to enable the actions of Russia’s armed forces. What can be done about that? Does the legislation cover people in that situation as well? Again, we pose these questions to be helpful to the Government and raise serious concerns. We want the initiatives to succeed, but it is only with scrutiny—and the Government reacting and responding to the scrutiny, and acting on the various amendments that noble Lords have put forward from across this House—that we can have confidence in them. There might be only a few bad individuals among the applicants to the new register but the truth is, as my noble friend Lord Sikka and others have said, that we simply will not know what the case is unless there is maximum transparency. That transparency cannot come quickly enough.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my colleagues are doing all the heavy lifting from these Benches, and I am incredibly grateful to them. I have signed Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I think found itself in drifting into the wrong group: it is actually part of group 3. One of the reasons why I signed it is this frustration, which I know the Government share, that, before a sanction is actually put in place, the individual who is likely to be sanctioned has, in a sense, plenty of warning signs and can use that opportunity to move various resources to a safe haven.
Much of the conversation around this Bill has been on fixed assets that are difficult to liquidate—property or complex companies—and I can understand why they might be less concerned about people knowing they are about to be sanctioned having the opportunity to move those. However, those same individuals tend to have very large investments in far more easily transportable assets—cash equivalents. I know that the Government are going to be looking at cryptocurrencies, which I have been very concerned about, when they get to the second phase of this Bill. It would, however, also be wrong to ignore such assets as jewellery and art. That is not just a tale from an Agatha Christie novel. I was a banker for many years in the mid-west, and most of my clients were exemplary people, but we certainly had one scoundrel who made the slight mistake of trying to impress a very charming young woman with an English accent and, as a consequence and with the aid of specialists, I was able to seize something worth close to half a billion dollars in artwork and jewellery against an attempt to defraud the bank. I ask therefore that the Minister think about these liquid assets, which play a part of the picture, but have been very little part of the discussion.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I think that is a story for the noble Baroness’s memoirs, and I look forward to reading it.
There are lots of good amendments in this group but I want to speak to Amendments 56, 57, 61 and 62 about the implementation period. For me, the six-month implementation period makes absolutely no sense. We are trying to rush this through—we here are going to sit until I do not know what time tonight or tomorrow morning to make this emergency legislation happen, but we are still giving people six months to do this. The Government are taking so long that activists are going into oligarchs’ mansions and seizing them in London and Paris to house refugees, if we ever get any refugees here. I cannot blame this Government for the Paris seizure, but it suggests that people are getting very tired of the fact that they are being so slow about this. Why would anyone need six months? If they have been honest about paying their taxes, declaring profits and detailing the origin of their money, why do they need six months? Surely, any decent accountant—I am sure that there are several in your Lordships’ House—could sort this out within 14 days or, at the worst, 28 days. I think there is no reason for the Government not to support one of these two pairs of amendments that shorten the implementation period.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak about Amendment 92 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which would introduce a new clause headed:
“Asset freezing in respect of individuals considered for sanctions”.
Before I address that amendment, I need to give a fuller description of my interests—or, more accurately, my non-interests—than I would normally give. The reason for that is because in the House of Commons last week during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, Mr Matt Hancock complained that the 2018 Act contained amendments that
“came from those who are acting for oligarchs and then legislating for loopholes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/22; col. 31.]
The Home Secretary responded that she “wholeheartedly” agreed with Mr Hancock.
The position is this: with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who I see is in his place, I tabled amendments to what became the 2018 Act. They were designed to ensure a fair procedure and compliance with the rule of law. On Report, on 15 January 2018, the Government brought forward at column 442 amendments of their own on these subjects which were supported by me and, much more importantly, by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. The House of Commons was content with the provisions approved by your Lordships’ House.
It is correct that in 2017 and 2018 I did not mention that I have advised and represented one client on sanctions matters in the last 10 years. I mention it today for the avoidance of any doubt. It was President Putin’s close associate Arkady Rotenberg. I represented him in 2014 and 2015 in the Court of Appeal on a sanctions issue in family law proceedings. I also advised him in relation to his claim in the General Court of the EU in mid-2015 challenging the sanctions against him, although I did not represent him at the hearing of his case in Luxembourg in 2016.
Of course, I did not put forward amendments to the sanctions Bill in late 2017 and early 2018 to legislate for loopholes. I put forward amendments with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as I have done on so many other Bills, because I am concerned about the width of ministerial powers and the need for fair procedures.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I am glad that he had the opportunity to say what he had to say; I was surprised that he did not speak on Second Reading, for that very reason, so I am glad he has now had a chance—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I had an unavoidable other professional commitment, and the Second Reading took place at very short notice.
Lord Fox (LD)
It did indeed, and I am glad that the noble Lord has had the opportunity to speak.
Once again, we have a huge number of varied amendments lumped into the same group, which I think is a side-effect of the process we are travelling through. I am going to focus on two themes. I am not going to interpose myself between lawyers on the subject of Amendment 92, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Kramer.
I will turn to Amendments 56, 61, 80 and 83 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and signed by myself. I will be brief because I do not think we have to speak for very long on this. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been eloquent in this vein already in the unfortunate absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman.
During Second Reading we heard a chorus of disapproval on the six-month transition period, and there is a good reason for that. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was clear on those reasons, as were other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We have to focus on what the Government are seeking to achieve and how they are going to achieve it. While that number is very important, the second number, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, may be even more important, and it is the one covered by Amendment 97 in my name. It seeks to bring commencement forward to the First Reading of this Bill in the Commons. When I tabled that amendment, I was thinking of the National Security and Investment Act, which did just that.
In one of the meetings that the Minister kindly invited me to, he set out a number of reasons why that commencement date is, in Government’s view, not popular. The longer the Minister’s explanations were, the more alarmed I became, because it is clear now that the commencement date is subject to the pace of the slowest moving IT project. That is a matter of great concern, and certainly should be to your Lordships’ House.
In looking at the six-month transition period, we cannot isolate it from the commencement period, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, wisely stated. What the Minister has to think about and convince your Lordships of is how these two times work together. Can they be concurrent? Indeed, can commencement start without the whole system being in place? In other words, can there be some flexibility in how parts of the Bill come in? That would be controlled through statutory instruments, which the Government have control over.
Commencement is one thing, statutory instruments are another and the transition period is a third. They all add up to either a long time or a medium amount of time. The Minister needs to explain the formula the Government have in mind, because at the moment it seems to be a blank number. We do not really know when the terms of this Bill will be in place.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am mindful that several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sikka, have tabled a number of amendments in this group. I will start with Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who I see is not in his place. I will speak to it alongside Amendments 58 and 67 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, as they cover the same subject of retrospectivity and the subject the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised earlier.
These amendments seek to extend the scope of the definition of overseas entities registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in land by removing the registration dates currently stated in the Bill. This has obviously been an area of interest in both Houses. The Government, of course, agree that the register should be as comprehensive as possible. However, there is no benefit to be gained from removing the dates as suggested, as I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, earlier. Doing so would instead create legal uncertainty. Due to the way information was collected prior to those dates, the land registries would have no way of reliably and consistently identifying properties owned by overseas entities and those that are not. It was not compulsory in England and Wales, for example, to register the jurisdiction of ownership before 1 January 1999. As such, the Land Registry would have this information only where the overseas entity had voluntarily supplied the information itself.
The amendment would result in inconsistent application, as the information needed to enter restrictions on disposition on to relevant titles is not readily available before these dates. They were not just dreamt up arbitrarily; these dates are put in for good reason. The result of removing the reference to the registration dates would be that only those entities that could be identified as being overseas entities could be brought properly into scope. Others that could not be so identified would not be.
This situation would also introduce significant uncertainty for buyers. There would be no way of providing absolute legal certainty as to whether an entity should or should not be in scope for those properties registered before 1999 in England and Wales, and before 2014 in Scotland. Third parties who were in the process of or considering purchasing a piece of land in the UK registered before those dates could not be sure whether they were engaging with an overseas entity that was in scope of the Bill, and which could become non-compliant at any time. The existing clauses are therefore essential for the register to be effective and operable, and to provide certainty as to which overseas entities are actually in scope of the requirement to register once the register goes live.
Finally, I remind the House that the agents who support property transactions are, as we have said earlier, all covered by the provisions of the anti-money laundering regulations. If there are properties with titles held by overseas entities going back further in time, when those entities next come to sell or lease those properties, the agents involved will be obliged to conduct appropriate checks for money laundering.
I turn now to Amendments 56, 57, 61, 62, 80 and 83 on the transition period. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sikka, for their amendments to shorten the transition period as proposed. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just said, I am aware that speed of implementation of the register and of the transition period has been the focus of much debate in both Houses so far. The Government have already reduced the transition period from the initially proposed 18 months to six months.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He talks, understandably, about a transition period and the need for everybody to adjust to the new provisions. However, while Ukraine may have come as a surprise, the existence, or likely existence, of this register cannot fall into that category. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that anybody who had owned property would have had years to prepare themselves since it was first mentioned in 2016. It was mentioned in the Criminal Finances Act and again in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. Why is there so much need for further transition, when anybody would have been aware of these provisions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will know from his time in Government that the law officers provide confidential legal advice to Ministers. I can only say to him that I am personally satisfied that this six-month period is appropriate. We are taking a severe step with this legislation; we are retrospectively interfering with property rights. Whether the legislation has been flagged in advance—I think David Cameron first promised it in 2015—does not, as I understand it, alter the legal case that somebody who wished to purchase expensive legal help to challenge the legislation would be able to do so under the Human Rights Act. I can do no more than assure the noble Lord that the officials and I are acting under the legal advice that we have received about the appropriate period. I can assure him that I wish to bring this in as quickly as I can. He will be aware that the Government originally proposed a period of 18 months. Following fairly significant political pressure, we have taken further advice and have managed to reduce it to six months. I am seriously concerned that, if we reduced it further, we could be subject to legal challenge. I am happy to speak to him outside the House.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has had the answer he required. To come back to implementation and commencement, it is not clear what the trigger for commencement would be. Can the Minister be clear on what the trigger for commencement will be and, having stated that, can he perhaps undertake to maintain a dialogue with your Lordships’ House on how reaching that trigger is getting along and when we might expect the commencement of this Bill?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally understand the point the noble Lord is making. I cannot give him a precise date; all I can say is that I am keen to commence this legislation as quickly as possible, but there are number of steps that we need to take. We need to publish and implement a number of statutory instruments on the back of this. Companies House needs to put the systems in place; it has already been given the funding for that. The computer systems need to be set up and the register needs to be activated. I am very happy to maintain a dialogue and keep the House informed, but the ultimate answer to the question of when the legislation will be commenced is: as soon as we possibly can.
Lord Fox (LD)
Given that your Lordships’ House has demonstrated that it can process statutory instruments at an insatiable rate, my point that the rate-determining step is an IT system in Companies House is entirely correct. Would the Minister confirm that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is a number of different things. There are administrative procedures to be put in place; the IT system is of course important—I am hesitant to give assurances on when a government IT system might operate. It is not a hugely complicated system, but it needs to be done and to be put in place. Of course, we also need to go on to the next step, namely the economic crime Bill which will follow this one and will give Companies House the right to query the information that has been provided, as I outlined to noble Lords earlier. However, I am very happy to keep the House informed as to commencement dates. I am sure a lot of people will be writing to me about it and will be using the devices of the House to table Questions to ensure that my feet are held to the fire on this one.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am sorry, but I had not quite got an answer. I absolutely appreciate the Minister’s sincerity in wanting to get this register ready. My point was that the transition would come as no surprise. His answer—as I understood it—was that the Government are concerned about possible legal action, which is not quite the same thing, because I think he is talking about a possible challenge under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European convention. I respectfully suggest to him that lawyers are being extremely cautious about this because, in the circumstances, it would be quite a brave court that would decide that the time allowed for transition was so short that they would be allowed to retain possessions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his legal advice; I should not let my prejudices against lawyers get in the way here, but no doubt there are others who one might want to employ who might give a different opinion. All I can say is that we are acting under the advice that we have received. I am told that while people may have had an idea in advance that we would be introduce such legislation, the fact of Parliament actually passing it will, I suspect, be the legal test for when the register starts and when the requirements come into force—whether or not it had been flagged up in advance. However, that would be my opinion as a mere engineer, not a lawyer; I am sure that other opinions are no doubt available.
I turn now to Amendment 92—
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise that I was not here for Second Reading. I went down with a very bad cold and I wrote to the Convener’s office to say that I could not be here, so I apologise.
Can the Minister explain why the Government had gone for 18 months instead of six? Was the legal advice for 18 months that someone could challenge, so a longer transitional period was needed? Yes, there could be cases that come up, but if the intention is quite obvious and very clear why the decision is being taken, could he tell us why—no matter the number of days that you give for the transition—a very rich oligarch could not still bring a case regardless? I cannot understand why we have gone from 18 to six months, and now the Government are saying to stick at six because there will be a legal case. As a legislator, I just do not understand that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to explain it to the noble and right reverend Lord. This is a severe piece of legislation retrospectively interfering with someone’s property rights going back—in the case of England and Wales—to 1999. Somebody could not have known when they entered into that transaction that we would wish to retrospectively legislate for that. There is a section in the Human Rights Act—I think it is the section quoted by my noble friend—about enjoyment of property and we are interfering with that. Bearing in mind that these are overseas entities for which contact details are sometimes not available, my advice is that we need a reasonable period for the entity concerned to become aware of their legal obligations. The rich oligarch mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord may wish to bring a challenge against us on the basis that we had not allowed a reasonable period. What a “reasonable period” is then becomes a matter of legal definition and argument, for which there are obviously a variety of views. That is probably the best summation I can give of the case. I hope that satisfies the noble and right reverend Lord.
Moving on to the famous Amendment 92, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his innovative suggestion for a wide-ranging power for the Secretary of State aimed at preventing asset flight before the formal imposition of sanctions. I hope the measures we have added in the other House go a significant way towards dealing with the kinds of situations the noble Lord may have in mind. The sanctions measures in the Bill are designed to ensure that we are able to respond even more effectively to world events using those sanctions. While, of course, we are living in unprecedented times, I am concerned that his proposals would give huge amounts of power not just to the Secretary of State in relation to Putin’s regime but to future Secretaries of State with regard to people who are not yet the subject of sanctions regimes. Much as I hate to admit it, I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—for a change—on this one. We need to tread carefully on such matters. Indeed, this amendment would provide an open-ended power to freeze assets for an unspecified period prior to sanctions being imposed and includes custodial penalties for those who breach it.
I think we have led the world in sanctioning Putin and his cronies. In some areas we have gone further than the EU; for example, we have banned all 3 million-plus Russian companies from getting loans in the UK or from listing. The Government strongly support measures to ensure that sanctions are effective and will continue to keep under consideration all steps necessary to achieve that. In light of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment, but this is on the understanding and with the commitment that the Government will continue to keep under review how we ensure that we have all the tools at our disposal to ensure that sanctions are as effective as possible.
In conclusion, I am aware of the strength of feeling in the House on this issue of the transition period. It has been made clear to me in meetings, in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I have listened carefully to the points made in this debate, particularly the powerful remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I am grateful for the constructive approach that the Opposition in particular have adopted on this matter. I will, of course, continue discussions with the noble Lord, and I am sure we will continue to talk these matters through before we commence Report on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(1A) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of this section coming into force, by regulations, establish within the office of the registrar a whistleblower office to receive whistleblowing reports on the accuracy of information provided under sections 12 and 13 and to provide confidentiality and protection from retaliation for any such whistleblowers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish a whistleblower office within the office of the registrar to receive whistleblowing reports on the accuracy of information provided under sections 12 and 13 and to provide confidentiality and protection from retaliation.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will try to be brief on this issue. Amendments 40 and 41 both refer to whistleblowers and protection for them. Whistleblowers will be absolutely crucial if the register proposed in this legislation is to be accurate, but they will also be crucial for unexplained wealth orders and sanctions to be fully effective. Where those whistleblowers expose kleptocrats, hidden assets, money-washing schemes and individuals linked with owning, hiding and laundering, they will be taking really serious risks, both for themselves and for their families.
Confidential disclosure to a regulator or an enforcement agency only sometimes provides anonymity. It may be obvious who the whistleblower is because the information is held by so few people, or, as we have seen in many instances, it may be that the less scrupulous—whom we are going after—hire investigators in order to expose the identity of whoever spoke out.
At the very least, we need to be sure that there are genuine safe disclosure channels, and they need to be communicated in a very powerful way to everyone who might have information. The risk is not just physical harm by criminals, although that comes to mind when we think of the particular pool of individuals that this legislation is aimed at; it is also retaliation by enablers—the banks, the legal firms, the accounting firms and others. I fear that they have an unfortunate track record of quite devastating retaliation. Some obviously are very much better than others, but I anticipate that the kinds of entities that are sufficiently lax internally that they are willing to provide support to those engaged in money laundering and whose money has come through kleptocracy will be among the sternest in using retaliation against a whistleblower.
Individuals who lose their job or their contract are informally but effectively blacklisted—that probably is the least of their problems. Those who lose their jobs turn to employment tribunals. I know that the Government often pray in aid employment tribunals, but I suspect that many people are not aware of how costly an employment tribunal is for the individual seeking to make their case: we are talking about thousands of pounds and it can easily reach £100,000 or more. The entity they are up against can obviously afford the best lawyers and the most significant QCs. It is also very possible for an employer to string out an employment tribunal through various legal tools. Three years is not at all unusual, and seven years is not unknown, even for a successful whistleblower. During that time, the whistleblower has no income and must pay the high legal costs, with all the consequences for their family and their friends, from whom they borrow. This inequality of arms and the general stress of the whole process force many whistleblowers to settle and to sign agreements that prohibit disclosure.
The Government will say, “They can always make disclosures to regulators and enforcement agencies”, but it is certainly true that many whistleblowers become so afraid after they have been through the grinder of this process that they do not even dare to do that. This is part and parcel of how legal firms and others try to shut down anyone exposing wrongdoing by the powerful. We discussed SLAPPs at Second Reading, when my noble friend Lord Thomas went through some of the kinds of strategic lawsuits against public participation that have been levied against authors and journalists who have exposed kleptocrats. Imagine that same energy and attention turned on someone who is seen as an insider or an employee—it would be an even more bitter and devastating reaction.
The United States knows the value of whistleblowers in a way that is, frankly, ignored in this country. It is why we have a history of so many fewer prosecutions and convictions. Indeed, most financial scandals are exposed first by the Americans. You can almost go through a list—if there is any American connection, you can pretty much guarantee that it was a US agency that first exposed the problem. US prosecutors, and I have talked to many, will tell you that at least half of the convictions for financial crime in the US depend fundamentally on whistleblower evidence. Whistleblower evidence also assists in many more cases. In this country, if you ask the regulators and enforcement agencies, they will say that whistleblowers make only minor contributions. That may explain why prosecution in this country is, frankly, quite rare.
Last year, the United States, in anticipation of the issues we are facing now, passed the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Act with extraterritorial reach, both as an incentive to whistleblowers and to compensate them for what are recognised to be career-ending and, in these particular instances, potentially life-threatening disclosures. There is a very interesting preamble to the legislation that makes clear the depth of concern that Congress had. At this moment, I would have to say to any potential whistleblower in a case where there is the slightest US connection, “Go to the Americans, your information will be taken seriously, you and your family will be protected and you will not end up ruined”. I cannot say the same thing to any potential whistleblower here in the UK and I think that has to change, and quickly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to make my first contribution in Committee on these two very important amendments. Both were very comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
As a former journalist, I reflect on how protecting your sources is something that is drummed into you from a very early stage in your career. However, one thing I have observed over 20-plus years as a journalist is how much more complex this has become. Having been an editor at the Guardian Media Group, I know what difficulties there are in trying to protect sources these days. That is on the technical side of things. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, there is also the issue of how torrid a time some people have had even when whistleblowing about what you might describe as ordinary and mainstream companies. We have seen that with people who have exposed safety and financial issues. With some of the people we are looking to target here, it is crucial that there is the security of knowing that, if information comes out and others seek to prosecute, uncover and expose them, there will be a group looking after the whistleblower. The noble Baroness has made a very important point.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I accept that it is unlikely to go into this Bill, but I very much hope that it will go into mark 2.
I do not share the somewhat Panglossian view of my noble friend the Minister that this whole crime issue is a tiny issue. There is a wall of bad money out there trying to get in, and we have been far too complacent. The Transparency International report of 2018 looked at the BVI and found over 1,100 companies involved in 200 major frauds to the value of tens of billions of pounds. This was just one territory.
Whistleblowers are a vital source of information and intelligence. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right in saying that we do not recognise them nearly enough in this country. I will not go on further, save to ask the Minister replying that she will take back this issue and ensure that it is plumbed into the next Bill.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I rise briefly, in part to support this whistleblower amendment. I have asked questions on this in the House before. They are very poorly treated—this is just a fact. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we need to do better, but I also agree with her that it probably does not fit into this Bill. The noble Baroness has been a tireless advocate for an office for the whistleblower, and such a facility needs to be brought forward rather than permanently left to wither on the vine, as has been the case.
When I asked a question about whistleblowers before, a Member of the House, who was sitting behind me and is no longer with us, said, “Don’t you mean snitches?”. That is exactly the kind of culture we face. I hope that the Government, broader than this Bill, will look seriously at an office for whistleblowers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in some ways, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—she has done the House a service in tabling them—go to the heart of some of the issues that we have with the Bill as a House. It is that tension between recognising that the Bill is inadequate in many ways and recognising its necessity and why we are passing it today.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, because her speech tonight was very powerful in setting out the reasons why such measures are essential. From what she was saying and in listening to the Minister earlier, and given the impact that these measures could have on the implementation of the measures in the Bill, it seems to me important that the Government look at this as a matter of urgency. There are huge merits to her arguments and it would be useful to know what the Minister can say on behalf of the Government.
It has been clear over a number of years that there is a multitude of undesirable activities that have come to light only because of the bravery of whistleblowers. The process started by this Bill—to be continued, as we have heard, by the second economic crime Bill—will, we hope, result in a lot more information coming forward. If that is the case, we should recognise that those who bring forward information of wrongdoing are performing a public service, and we rely on them to do that. No one should be in the position that they fear giving evidence because of reprisals or because they think no one is going to take them seriously and nothing will be done about it. Both are equally bad.
We accept not only that the registrar’s office should have a mechanism for receiving and processing the information but, on the point the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised, the importance of doing everything possible to protect the individuals who have raised concerns. Without that protection, we are not going to get the people we need coming forward or they will do so at huge detriment to themselves. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what the Government are doing on this. We have heard previously that this is something they are looking at and that something will come forward, but we need something a little more concrete, given the importance of this to this Bill.
The noble Lord the Minister spoke earlier about the measures that will be in the second economic crime Bill. I think we really needed a commitment not only that something like this will be considered for that Bill—we are happy to have discussions about how that could be done—but that it will come forward not just in the next Session but early in the next Session. To delay anything undermines the very purpose of being here tonight, to see through legislation which is now an emergency but need not have been an emergency. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned earlier, many of these things have been known about and talked about, but they have not come to fruition. Tonight there is an opportunity to say that we recognise the inadequacy of the Bill but also the necessity of it. I hope we will hear a very positive response from the Minister that there will be something to address this in the next Bill and that this will come very early in the next Session.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for this amendment. I acknowledge that she has a very impressive record of championing the whistleblowers’ cause. Indeed, as a number of noble Lords have said, this is clearly a common cause in the House.
Amendment 40 seeks to establish a whistleblowers’ office within the office of the registrar to receive whistleblowing reports on the accuracy of information and provide confidentiality and protection from retaliation. This amendment would do so by conferring an obligation on the Secretary of State to create the office within six months of Part 1 of this Bill coming into force.
This amendment would make changes to Clause 14, a supplementary clause that relates specifically to Clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 sets out that an overseas entity must take reasonable steps to identify registerable beneficial owners and obtain the required information. The steps that must be taken in this regard include giving an information notice to any person that it knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a registrable beneficial owner. It also gives the person who is thought by the entity to be a beneficial owner an opportunity to correct inaccurate information where necessary.
Clause 13 builds on what is presented in Clause 12 by providing an overseas entity with additional powers to obtain information in order to identify beneficial owners if necessary. It provides that an information notice can be presented to a person who is thought to be able to assist with providing beneficial ownership information. This clause allows for entities to take extra steps in ensuring they have taken all reasonable steps to identify the beneficial owners. The Government believe that the provisions in Clauses 12 and 13 will help in making sure that the correct beneficial owners are identified and registered.
Companies House already offers an anonymous “report it now” function for anyone to raise concerns about the accuracy of information it holds. We will ensure that this functionality is extended to the new register of overseas entities. It is also worth noting that Companies House will be provided with expanded and stronger powers to challenge and pursue suspicious filings in the forthcoming second part of the economic crime Bill, as set out in our recent White Paper. This will include a new power for the registrar to query information, including in light of concerns raised by third parties. Those concerns might be raised through the “report it now” function or through other mechanisms, including duties on the regulated sectors. We will take care to ensure that those third parties are suitably protected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned the American scheme. There are different opinions on the impact of providing financial incentives to whistleblowers, reflecting local legal, political and social norms. However, organisations representing UK whistleblowers, such as Protect, do not recommend the introduction of financial rewards or incentives. The FCA and the PRA undertook research considering an incentive scheme for whistleblowers and published their conclusions in July 2014. They concluded then that providing financial incentives to whistleblowers would not encourage whistleblowing or significantly increase the integrity and transparency of financial markets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked what the Government had done to improve the whistleblowing framework. This work is ongoing, but we have already increased the scope of those protected by our whistleblowing laws by extending protection to groups previously not included. This greater transparency around the work of prescribed persons aims to increase confidence among whistleblowers that their disclosures are taken seriously and to improve consistency across different bodies in the way they respond to disclosures.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I asked not what the Government had done but what they were going to do.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Sorry; I misunderstood.
It is right and proper that the Government review the whistleblowing framework once we have had sufficient time to build the necessary evidence of the impact of the most recent reforms. We acknowledge that an effective whistleblowing framework is an important part of the UK’s ability to tackle corruption and all forms of economic crime and illicit finance. These acts are, by their nature, often covert. The Government are committed to ensuring that individuals are able to speak up about the behaviour of bad actors.
In recent years the Government have continued to improve the whistleblowing framework, and we will continue to do so in future. It is important that whistleblowing disclosures are dealt with properly and by the right body. This is why BEIS maintains and regularly updates the prescribed persons order. Officials work closely with other government departments, the devolved Administrations and regulators to ensure the list is up to date. I can assure noble Lords that this work is ongoing, and we will continue to improve the whistleblowing framework in the near future.
With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Obviously, I am very disappointed with the answer and the ongoing complacency that undermines the legislation we are passing, but at this point in time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell
“(A1) All information delivered to the registrar for the purposes of sections 4(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 9(1)(e) must be verified by the registrar.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a statutory responsibility on the Registrar to secure the verification of the relevant information in the register.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I explained at Second Reading that lack of data verification at Companies House has been a fundamental factor in enabling—indeed, encouraging—the flow of dirty money to London. Lack of data verification has played a major part in securing London’s position as the money laundering capital of the world. As I argued last week:
“Companies House is a library in which any shameful book can be deposited”—[Official Report, 9/3/22; col. 1496.]
and accepted without fear of exposure or retribution. Indeed, just earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, described Companies House procedures as “dumb”.
This afternoon, we have been debating amendments to the Bill that will define more accurately and more widely the sort of information that will, as a result of the Bill, be required to be offered to the registrar. However, nothing we have discussed so far will guarantee that the information is accurate. If it is not accurate, it is useless or indeed worse than useless.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said. It is very much along the lines of the recommendations of the Joint Committee which I had the privilege of chairing. I quote just one paragraph:
“It is regrettable that, as currently conceived, the proposed Register of Overseas Entities will have insufficient verification checks to deter criminals who wish to submit false information. It therefore seriously risks failing in its central policy aim: to provide a reliable and transparent record of the beneficial ownership information of overseas entities investing in the UK property market.”
We discussed a number of the points that the noble Lord made so eloquently at Second Reading and today, including placing a greater burden on professionals to verify information. It is clearly fundamental; without verification, the Bill will not be as successful as it should be.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this issue, because I am very much of the opinion, as are many in the Committee, that a combination of both a public register—so that civil society groups, journalists, activists and people in different countries will have access to different kinds of information—and vigorous verification is the kind of safeguard we need if we are to end the history of the London laundromat and prevent London remaining a magnet for a great deal of dirty money that is floating around the globe.
Like many people, when I heard that there would be a register of beneficial owners of property that would have a verification component and that verification would be introduced at Companies House, I was elated. Then I actually read the language in the Bill and it seemed, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, so light touch that there might be something vigorous, but on an exceptional basis and not as a matter of routine. As there is little in the Bill to strengthen the responsibilities of the enablers, I am worried that we will end up with the worst of all worlds—a headline that makes it looks as though we are taking significant and serious action, but implementation that completely misses the mark.
I know the Minister has sometimes said that we have plenty of legislation to deal with enablers, and which has been strengthened somewhat, but if we had adequate legislation to deal with enablers we would not have a single instance of money laundering in this country, because nobody bringing in dirty money is able to buy a single piece of property, take control of a company or engage in any other activities without using an enabler. You need the lawyers, accountants and property developers. We clearly cannot choke off that particular avenue to sustain the London laundromat. All these things come together. I hope the Minister will look again at verification. It will partly be a matter of resources—those absolutely matter—but it also has to be standard practice that a very high level of verification is embedded to deal with every item in the register.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I share the concerns expressed about the need for rigorous verification. I note that Clause 16 confers a broad power on the Secretary of State to make regulations in this field. Is the Minister able to assure the Committee that those regulations will impose a rigorous form of verification and requirements along the lines of those that have been proposed?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Before the Minister tries to answer that, we need to recognise delivering what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, wants would be absolutely transformative to Companies House. There is no tinkering at the edges here; this would be a massive transformational change and, unless we get that, this amendment will not deliver what is being asked of it.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I will quickly add to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Clause 16 sets out the regulations must
“make provision … about the information that must be verified … about the person by whom the information must be verified … requiring a statement, evidence or other information to be delivered to the registrar for the purposes of sections”
et cetera. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to what he has in mind there.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Eatwell for moving Amendment 42. As we all know, he has a huge amount of experience in this field, having overseen many of these matters in another jurisdiction. He has long pressed the Government to introduce a register of this kind, but Amendment 42 calls for proper data verification. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cromwell, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others—it is essential to the credibility of this Bill to ensure that any data is verified and accurate, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell put it.
The Government moved a little on this topic when the Bill was in the House of Commons, passing what was then Amendment 49, as we heard from other noble Lords, requiring the Secretary of State to lay regulations outlining the verification process before the register goes live. We welcome that move as it provides greater certainty, but as we have already heard, it prompts a number of supplementary questions and, in our view, does not go far enough. That is what Amendment 42, which we support, seeks to address.
When will we see the regulations? Will the process be based on previous consultations or require a separate engagement exercise? What if they are brought forward and the envisaged process is deemed inadequate? What if we end up getting the Bill before the SI has been laid? As with the earlier group on the transition period, we need greater clarity on process and timescales. Surely, accurate, verified data as required by my noble friend Lord Eatwell’s Amendment 42 is essential; without it, the Bill simply will not succeed.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for tabling Amendment 42 and for his thoughtful contribution at Second Reading on the same subject. He is, of course, absolutely right: I agree wholeheartedly that ensuring the public can be confident that the data on the register is reliable is of the utmost importance. That is why, as has been referred to, the Bill already provides for the making of regulations to create a robust and effective verification mechanism.
Clause 16 sets out that:
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring the verification of information”,
which must be in place before an overseas entity can undertake certain actions. These actions include applying for registration to, or removal from, the register. Clause 16 sets out that these regulations can include provisions about
“the information that must be verified … the person by whom the information must be verified … requiring a statement, evidence or other information to be delivered to the registrar for the purposes”
of registration, updating of information and removal from the register.
This amendment seeks to add a statutory responsibility on the registrar to ensure the verification of any information provided to the registrar in accordance with the regulations made under Clause 16. The amendment would place responsibility for ensuring that information is verified on to the registrar, which means that the registrar would have to be satisfied that the information provided at the application stage is verified. We believe that such an addition would be nugatory to the already robust verification process that will be set out in regulations attached to this Bill once it has passed through Parliament.
The regulations that will be made under Clause 16 include the ability to specify the types of statements and evidence that the registrar can require in order to be satisfied that the information submitted to the register is appropriately verified. We expect that UK professionals regulated under the money laundering regulations will have a role to play in the verification process. We are, of course, aware of concerns raised in this House about enablers who might seek to undermine our systems. The verification process that will be set out in regulations will ensure that, whatever process is used, it cannot be undermined by enablers of unlawful activity. To support this, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we have also put forward an amendment that would ensure that, where anyone submits information that is false or misleading without reasonable excuse, they can be held to account for that.
I would also direct noble Lords’ attention to the amendment tabled by the Government in the other place, which committed to bringing regulations made under Clause 16 into force before any applications for registration may be made under Section 4(1). Therefore, creating a specific statutory requirement for the registrar to secure verification, as the amendment proposes, is in my opinion not necessary. The verification mechanism already contained in the Bill will ensure that those engaging with the regime have confidence in the information held on the register. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I always think that the government defence of “not necessary” is the weakest we ever hear in this House. My amendment calls for a clear statutory requirement for verification. Just think of the contrary, which the noble Lord is supporting: that there will not be final statutory verification, and that information will be provided by professionals, enablers. He says that we can ensure that this will not “undermine the process”. If he believes that, he will believe anything. How can he ensure that it will not undermine the process, unless there is a means of checking that it is not undermining the process?
We are dealing with very sophisticated crooks with the best legal advice that money can buy and the Minister is leaving the Bill naked, with the key protection lacking that is necessary to sustain confidence in financial markets in this country. This is a sad day for the probity of those markets. Having said that, regrettably, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability of the Secretary of State to exempt an individual from the requirements to register their overseas entities on the grounds of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 43 is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. During Second Reading, I spoke at length on this issue, so noble Lords will be pleased to know that that allows me to be brief in Committee. The amendment is clear, but I shall briefly explain its purpose. Frankly, it is one of the simpler amendments we have before us.
Clause 18 deals with exemptions. Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State the power to write to a person to exempt them from this part of the Bill if said Secretary of State is satisfied that one of three conditions is fulfilled:
“(a) in the interests of national security … (c) for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime”—
I do not think any of your Lordships would find that an unacceptable condition—but
“(b) in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom”.
First, what does that mean, and secondly, why is it there?
The Minister heard not just my words but the compelling words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, my noble friend Lady Kramer and others who explained—and I hope the Minister understood—why Clause 18(1)(b) is the wrong message to be sending, particularly at this time. I explained this issue to some members of the general public—people who do not actively engage in the sport of politics—and asked them what they thought. Their reply was, “Isn’t that the approach that got us into this trouble in the first place?” Quite. That is the message that the clause is sending.
This part of the Bill is designed to deliver transparent information that can be used by authorities, potential business partners and others to avoid trading with kleptocrats, thieves and money launderers. Hiding that information unnecessarily cannot be good for the economy. Why would a Secretary of State want to do that in these conditions? Amendment 43 removes that power from the Bill, and I beg to move.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it might be helpful for the Committee, before it debates this amendment, if I set out that of course I am aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and am very grateful for the engagement with the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, and others on it over the weekend and the past few days.
As I indicated earlier, we are keen to progress this vital legislation collaboratively and swiftly, and I again pay tribute to the Opposition for helping us to do that. Therefore, if I tell the House that the Government are prepared to accept Amendment 43 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Coaker, should they wish to re-table it on Report, perhaps that would enable a more speedy consideration of this group.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, in view of that, I will not press my Amendment 44.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It would be appropriate to thank the Minister for agreeing to accept the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, so I put that on the record, and we will come back to it on Report.
Lord Fox (LD)
I said it would be swift, but I had not calculated that it would be quite this swift, so I thank the Minister for meeting us in this way and making this move; it is much appreciated. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43. I will bring it back on Report.
Lord Callanan
“(5A) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland before making regulations under subsection (4).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult a Northern Ireland department before making regulations under Clause 32(4).
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 54 and 84 require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations before making regulations on devolved land matters. It is appropriate when the Secretary of State is legislating on devolved matters in this space to consult the responsible devolved Ministers. This approach is supported by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and in the Scottish Government.
The Bill seeks to make amendments to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to capture properties in Northern Ireland within the register of overseas entities by adding a new Schedule 8A. Clause 32 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to amend by regulation the new Schedule 8A measures on Northern Ireland land provisions and the register of overseas entities.
It is, of course, convention that Westminster shall legislate only with the consent and support of devolved Ministers on devolved matters. The support of Northern Ireland Ministers has been secured for the provisions of the Bill but, should the measures be amended in the future, it is justified that the Secretary of State ought to consult with the Department of Finance before laying regulations. It is for this reason that Amendment 54 is being made. It will ensure that devolved Ministers continue to contribute on devolved matters.
The Bill also makes amendments to the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 and the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012, including adding new Schedule 1A to the 2012 Act to include Scottish properties bought on or after 8 December 2014 within the scope of the register of overseas entities. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make further provisions for the purpose of requiring or encouraging an overseas entity owning land in Scotland to submit to the register of overseas entities.
As with Northern Ireland, Scotland has devolved competence for land provisions. I am pleased to say that the Bill has secured a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament, but this amendment would ensure that Scottish Ministers are consulted before regulations are laid, which will further impact those devolved matters. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, as someone who takes a close interest in devolution matters, I am delighted with these amendments. I have quite often moved amendments in similar terms and not been successful. It is a pleasure to see the Minister produce amendments in the very terms that I would have liked to have seen in the Bill. I very much welcome them both.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
As a fellow member of the Constitution Committee, I endorse what the noble and learned Lord said. This is one of the points that we as a committee regularly make: it is one thing to have the Sewel convention in primary legislation; it is another to have it in subordinate legislation. We very much welcome this as a matter of practice.
Lord Fox (LD)
Never has the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, received such glowing praise, in my experience, and here am I to heap more of it on. These amendments are very welcome, as is the legislative consent from the Scottish Government. I have one point that I am sure the Minister will be able to confirm: I hope the Government will be able to continue the level of consultation the Minister could show through the regulation-making process and the statutory instruments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I can add to the Minister’s embarrassment. We are pleased to see these amendments brought forward. I have two questions. I think I understand why it is different, but it might be helpful if the Minister could put on record why one amendment refers to the Department of Finance in relation to Northern Ireland yet in the other, for Scotland, it is Scottish Ministers. It seems slightly odd. Secondly, has formal engagement begun already and, if not, when will that start? Overwhelmingly, we thank the Minister and hope that this is a sign of things to come.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I should quit while I am ahead on this one. I am not sure this will continue with other Bills, but let us welcome it when it happens.
I thank noble Lords for their brief comments. I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that engagement has already started. I have spoken to Scottish Ministers. I think I spoke to Welsh Ministers, but if not some of my colleagues have. I definitely also spoke to Ministers from Northern Ireland. I will get back to her with the precise reasons why it is the Department of Finance. I suspect the problem is that we have not been able to get a formal consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly because it is not sitting, but we do have written confirmation from the Ministers that if the Assembly had been sitting they would have recommended that a legislative consent Motion be granted. I suspect that is why the Department of Finance is mentioned, rather than the Northern Ireland Assembly.
After moving the amendment, I now ask that it be withdrawn so that I can retable it and the other amendments on Report.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Civil recovery: costs of proceedings
After section 316 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 insert—“Civil recovery: costs of proceedings<strong>316A </strong> Costs orders(1) This section applies to proceedings brought by an enforcement authority under part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.(2) The court may not make an order that any costs of proceedings relating to a case to which this section applies (including appeal proceedings) are payable by an enforcement authority to a respondent or a specified responsible officer in respect of the involvement of the respondent or the officer in those proceedings, unless—(a) the authority acted unreasonably in making or opposing the application to which the proceedings relate, or in supporting or opposing the making of the order to which the proceedings relate, or(b) the authority acted dishonestly or improperly in the course of the proceedings.””
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
This amendment would provide limits on costs orders in relation to all civil recovery proceedings brought by an enforcement authority under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which enables law enforcement authorities to recover property obtained through unlawful conduct without the evidentiary difficulties of securing a criminal conviction. The effective exercise of these powers is essential if civil recovery is to fulfil its purpose of deterring criminals who are as concerned, if not more concerned, with losing their assets than they are with losing their liberty.
The current costs regime for civil recovery is fragmented, with different rules applicable in different courts. I am very well aware that on the other side of the aisle are some of the experts in this area. Civil Procedure Rules apply in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and county courts. Rule 44.2 of the CPR sets out the general principles in civil proceedings that costs follow the result—that is, the winner pays the loser’s costs, but the court retains discretion to make a different order and determine the amount of costs to be paid. The principles relevant to the exercise of judicial discretion to award costs in civil proceedings in the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts have evolved over time through case law.
In civil proceedings brought by public authorities in the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts, the approach to costs is reflected in the so-called Perinpanathan principle. This includes civil recovery proceedings brought under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In the Perinpanathan case, the Court of Appeal held that, where a public authority is unsuccessful in bringing an application, the default position or starting point is that no order for costs is made. However, a successful private party may be awarded costs if the conduct of the public authority justifies it. As a result, enforcement authorities will rarely have to pay costs when pursuing civil recovery in the magistrates’ court, but are exposed to significant costs in High Court proceedings, where the general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the legal costs of the successful party.
Clauses 47 and 48 reflect a recognition that significant and deterring costs have made enforcement authorities reluctant to utilise unexplained wealth orders in their current iteration. Only nine UWOs, relating to four cases, have been obtained by the National Crime Agency since this investigative tool was introduced in January 2018. The unsuccessful UWO application in the Aliyev case, which I mentioned at Second Reading, left the NCA facing £1.5 million in legal costs.
Limiting the liability of enforcement authorities to pay costs in UWO proceedings is a welcome step, but it is a piecemeal intervention which does not address the chilling effect of adverse costs orders in civil recovery proceedings more broadly. This proposed amendment seeks to ensure consistency of approach in civil recovery proceedings so that adequate cost protections encourage enforcement authorities to put their economic crime-fighting tools to effective use. At present, the prospect of prohibitively expensive legal costs effectively renders certain assets out of the reach of underresourced law enforcement agencies. We need a new, consistent cost protection regime for law enforcement agencies and regulators under the Proceeds of Crime Act as a whole.
I am very grateful to Spotlight on Corruption for raising this issue and laying the grounds for this amendment. The starting point should be that a law enforcement body or regulator should not be ordered to pay costs where it is unsuccessful in bringing or defending civil proceedings. This would have the effect of each party bearing its own costs. However, the court should retain discretion to depart from this default rule in cases where there is good reason. This could include where the law enforcement body or regulator has acted unreasonably in bringing or defending proceedings and where the interests of justice and fairness would be offended, including where substantial financial hardship is likely to be suffered by the successful party if a costs order is not made.
I very much hope that the Government see the merits of Amendment 90 and of applying it in the same way to Scotland—the notice to oppose the Question that Clause 48 stand part of the Bill would have exactly that effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I have listened very careful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my understanding is that the Government are seeking to protect the enforcement bodies, such as the National Crime Agency, from the costs of legal action. Clearly, it is important to provide these agencies with an element of cover from being pursued for costs, as they must be free to investigate activities as they see fit and not fear the potential costs of bringing what they believe to be a legitimate case. As we have heard already tonight, the resources available to those being investigated is often hugely significant.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is proposing a much broader approach on this than in the government clauses, applying the principle to all civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, not just to unexplained wealth orders. The Bill is quite narrow in scope, and the Government may not see fit to put this into this legislation, but I hope that there is an opportunity to debate this further. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something not just on whether it fits into this Bill but on the Government’s general approach to the issue.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points on this amendment. The Government are as one with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that agencies must not be limited in their efforts to investigate wrongdoing and protect the public from harm. He has tabled an amendment which touches on this very concern.
The noble Lord will be aware of the significance of the amendments that the Government have introduced to reform the cost rules as applied to UWO cases. Protection from costs mean that the court only has discretion to award costs against an enforcement agency, as he knows, if it acted dishonestly, unreasonably, improperly, or not on grounds that appear to be reasonably sound. The UWO procedure is an investigative tool and is not determinative of civil rights or obligations. It is used to obtain information about the ownership of certain property that may not otherwise be available to an enforcement agency.
Existing case law—as the noble Lord has pointed out, in magistrates’ courts through Part 5 applications—enables them to routinely adopt a position that they will not order costs against law enforcement where the agency has acted honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound. However, this does not occur in High Court cases, where the costs involved are often much higher and for which protection is now given in the Bill in relation to UWO cases. The Government will ensure we are doing everything appropriate to ensure law enforcement agencies are equipped to take on corrupt elites, and their costs liabilities are appropriately mitigated. I hope that gives the noble Lord the comfort that he needs.
Lord Fox (LD)
I just have a question. In the context of this Bill, the choice of UWOs was regarded by many as curious because it was a niche activity until such time as it was plunged centre stage by this Bill. There is a whole range of other things. In choosing to deal with cost protection for one element, there seems to be an imbalance. My noble friend used the words cost protection regime. Would the Minister acknowledge that there is scope for going away and spending time on a review of the overall cost protection landscape and coming back with something that is joined up rather than piecemeal—which is what we have got here?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Yes, I think I was clear in my opening remarks that I am not at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, at all. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right that, in the longer term, we should look across the whole cost landscape. What I am trying to say is that, in protecting agencies incurring costs in Part 5, it unintentionally removes the current clauses relating to Part 8. I am trying to differentiate between Part 8 and Part 5 of POCA. It is utterly unintentional, I am sure, but I hope that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is speaking the language I understand now—if it is technically flawed, then of course it is ripe for withdrawal. I welcome what the Minister said about getting consistency across the landscape, because that is clearly important. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be across the whole of the proceeds of crime landscape.
Perhaps I can squeeze a commitment out of the Minister. We managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to commit to looking at certain aspects of enablers in the second economic crime Bill—I think we need to call it the ECB 2 now. If the Minister could give us a commitment that the Government will look at this question of the cost landscape as part of the second round, when we can consider these issues in much greater detail and at greater length, then I would be entirely satisfied.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am very happy to explore the cost landscape after this Bill because, as I said, I am principally not at odds with the noble Lord at all.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I was somewhat concerned by the lack of response to what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about UWOs being a niche activity. I hope the Minister can reassure the Committee that one of the effects of the change in the Bill will be that they will very much not be a niche activity. Certainly the original intention—I understand, having read the legislation that brought them in—was that there would be 20 per year. Can we have some reassurance that there are going to be a great deal more and it will not be a niche activity?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I share the sentiment of my noble friend that they will not be a niche activity. The measures in this Bill, particularly in terms of costs, will make it far easier for our law enforcement agencies to not be stymied by costs in bringing these things forward.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her responses. As she understands, one of my main motives is to bring pleasure to the Treasury. Given that the NCA’s budget—we talked about its budget—for crime prevention is, I think, something like £4 million and there was £1.5 million in costs in the Aliyev case, we would clearly all be winners if this review takes place. I thank the Minister for that commitment and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2A) In section 1, after subsection (10) insert—“(11) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay an impact assessment before Parliament.(12) The Secretary of State must specify a date on which regulations made under this section cease to have effect.””Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment and is intended to seek confirmation that an impact assessment will be prepared before such regulations are laid. It also provides for appropriate sunset Clauses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as we move on to the final group, I rise to move my Amendments 91 and 96. I was sorry that the short notice prevented me speaking at Second Reading, and as the Bill may have implications for trade and investment, I declare my interest as the chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council.
Today we are rightly focused on Russia, and are full of sympathy and horror for all that is happening in Ukraine. This Bill has been accelerated and we all want to speed it on its way. I am well known for taking a contrarian view to try to tease out important issues as part of the vital role of scrutiny by the House of Lords. For example, on the Covid legislation, I emphasised the importance of perverse effects and cost benefit, and I think I was right to worry about the adverse impact on health problems other than Covid, such as cancer, and the harm to children’s education, and on the social agonies of the pandemic. Happily, that is behind us thanks to the Government’s brilliant record on vaccination.
As my noble friends the two Ministers said in their very helpful recent letter, the economic crime Bill is novel, particularly in relation to property rights, and largely unprecedented in other countries. In most respects, it will also apply very widely and way beyond Russia, as the Minister made clear. It is concern about that which is behind my amendments.
There are three aspects. First, while a good deal is on the face of the Bill, there are also wide-ranging regulation-making powers, so I propose that any such regulations should be subject to an impact assessment before being laid. The object of this is to ensure that they are properly thought through and to minimise red tape, bearing in mind that the Bill extends beyond the current crisis. I am very grateful for the three impact assessments that have been produced by BEIS, the Home Office and HM Treasury. Helpfully, the BEIS impact assessment discusses on page 36 a Malaysian investment—Battersea power station. Fortunately, it concludes—presumably with its knowledge and agreement—that the new rules would not have resulted in new information being made available or any substantive compliance costs relative to the value of the investment.
However, with my practical mien and business experience, I know how easy it is to get the detail wrong in legislation and regulation of the kind we are debating. The money laundering regulations are a good example. The compliance costs on the honest, including, but not confined to, the rules on politically exposed persons—such as affect some noble Lords—are often burdensome. The bureaucracy involved is also bad for the UK economy without, apparently as we have heard, actually catching the bad guys. So I believe we must stick to the discipline of impact assessments which requires us to balance these matters and do our best to get the rules right, simple and clear across the wide areas covered by this Bill. We also need proper enforcement, probably by investment in tough public sector experts, not external lawyers.
Secondly, I am seeking assurances on the use of sunset clauses. To those noble Lords who are remainers, I refer them to some good practise by the EU—the five-year reviews in single market legislation. These reviews were uncomfortable for incumbents, both the civil servants or the large or dominant external players, but they were good for new thinking and for new entrants. My amendment asks for a specific end date to regulations. But, of course, it is possible to vary the timescale and provide for extensions, as was done with the Covid regulations.
My final area of concern, articulated in Amendment 96, is that there should be a review of all the provisions we are putting so rapidly into law in this Bill and the regulations and guidance made under it. That would take place a year after its passage or at some other suitable period, allowing for the economic crime Bill part 2. It would cover, first, its effectiveness in achieving the objectives set out in the Explanatory Notes; secondly, its impact on parties involved, including small business, whose investments in the UK might dry up needlessly; and, finally, enforcement, especially enforcement by Companies House. I share the concerns expressed by others on the need for accuracy, resourcing and effective enforcement, and I look forward very much to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton.
I have no wish to delay the Bill. Indeed, I am proud to have played a part as the Minister responsible for the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which contained the domestic provisions on beneficial ownership discussed here in this very House. I also worked on the groundwork for David Cameron’s commitment to a register for foreign companies which own or buy property in the UK. The importance of getting this on to the statute book quickly has been underlined today by Ukraine’s tragic circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I recognise that we are on the home straight. On Amendment 91, the House needs to be clear whether we are having a sunset clause or not. My understanding from the outset from talking to Ministers is that we are not, and that this is going to be a permanent piece of legislation. In fact, throughout the two days we have debated this, we have been talking up having ECB 2—something I coined, which I am glad everyone has adopted—to fill in the gaps and be the unspecified bag at Christmas in which we are all going to find our favourite toys, but we shall see.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Just for clarification, my proposal is for sunset regulation within the regulations, not within the Bill itself—which will, of course, be entirely permanent.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My mistake; I struggle with joined-up writing.
Since I get only bite of the cherry and have an amendment coming up in my name, I will tackle both Amendments 93 and 95 on resources. It is widely acknowledged and was highlighted emphatically by speakers at Second Reading that the resourcing of those responsible for the difficult work of identifying, investigating and prosecuting those covered by the Bill are currently inadequate. In the Minister’s letter of 11 March, which I referred to earlier, page 6 refers to an overall package of £400 million and the creation of a kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency and says that the NCA has “surged additional officers”. I am aware that the NCA has obtained fewer than five prosecutions for economic crime offences in the last five years and has seen its budget cut, despite calls for increases. The number of investigators at the proceeds of crime centre has declined, despite Parliament raising concerns. I simply do not know whether the resourcing now referred to is sufficient, but I am told that a figure of £1.7 billion is a more realistic amount to get this job done.
Amendment 95, to which I have added my name, calls for an annual review of the suitability of funding arrangements for enforcement agencies. A theme of our debates has been the need to revisit what we have discussed and agreed to here. It is pure vanity to pass legislation that cannot be enforced and resourced effectively. This amendment will be useful in making sure that a proper focus on resourcing is maintained. I therefore support Amendment 95 or, if it is preferred, Amendment 93, which has much the same effect.
Turning finally to Amendment 94 in my name, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for adding his name to it. We have heard an awful lot about enablers during our debate, which draws a pantomime hiss that used to be reserved for lawyers, accountants and bankers—but, unfortunately, we all fall into that category of enablers now.
A number of speakers, myself included, raised the issue of SLAPPs, or lawfare, at Second Reading. As is appropriate at this stage, I do not propose to rehearse in detail what was said then. Nevertheless, it is a well-established fact that UK law firms and others—some, anyway—undertake deliberate intimidation tactics known as lawfare to prevent journalists and others bringing matters of public interest to light.
It is further well known that this has ensured that information in the public interest is regularly neutered or hidden. The rule of law requires equality before the law, but this behaviour goes well beyond any reasonable approach to a defence of reputation. It is the dark side of our legal system, where inequality of arms means that the wealthy can—at times, using ill-gotten gains—out-resource those on whom we as a society rely to find out the truth and shine a light into dark places.
The Defamation Act 2013 sought to introduce some protective measures, but this is a complex area of law that not only is costly but carries the risk of liability for the other party’s costs. It is this prospect of bankruptcy or insolvency that is primarily used to intimidate journalists and other organisations. Furthermore, such a defendant against a claim may be unable even to obtain a legal representative willing to take on the risk of cost recovery from the other side. Even what are known as “trials of preliminary issue” regularly run up costs of £25,000 or more, and a full trial will often cost well above £500,000. Even if successful, the defendant will be faced with the irrecoverable portion of their costs, which can also be very substantial—and we should remember that this does not take into account all the work, time, disturbance and anxiety before a court action even arises.
We must not allow the Bill’s purpose—tackling dirty money and illicit practices of the sort that it covers—to be undermined by allowing the wealthy to abuse our legal system in order to intimidate and muzzle the free press in this way. Amendment 94 would require the Government to assess how the Bill might be frustrated, have its impact blunted and its implementation thwarted by such conduct, and it would require the Government to share their findings with Parliament.
The Bill is operating in a very compressed timeline, and I am grateful to the Minister for his email exchange with me over the weekend on this issue. I note that the Deputy Prime Minister announced on Friday the launch of an urgent call for evidence in this area, and I have the Minister’s assurance that this call for evidence will not be just a listening exercise but that:
“Where action is needed, we will take it quickly and effectively”.
The origin of the Bill’s arrival here is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An immediate step by the Putin regime has been to shut down the channels of free communication and free media within Russia. Surely we must ensure that we do not allow the same regime to do the same in the UK. I therefore invite the Minister to confirm on the record the Government’s commitment to this, not just as a one-off inquiry but on a regular basis, as foreseen in Amendment 94. I also ask him to confirm that the action he has referred to will include specific provision for it in ECB 2. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
It is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I spoke at length on this matter last Wednesday and I do not propose to speak on it again. Three things have happened since then. The Lord Chancellor has called for evidence, as the noble Lord pointed out. My Private Member’s Bill, which I referred to, seems to have reached its final form, and I hope it will be progressed quickly. I very much hope that this problem is properly dealt with in a very short time, and I await the Minister’s response.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of my amendment, which seeks to achieve two things: an annual review of the funding adequacy of our crime-fighting agencies in this area, and a report within three months of the Bill, and annually thereafter, to set out how well we are managing this whole area.
I know we will hear warm words from the Minister about various sums of money—£400 million and so on—but the brutal reality is that this whole thing has been abysmally funded; that is the only way we can describe it. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is right that the NCA’s own funding has fallen by some 4% in real terms at a time when international crime has been soaring.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, given the hour, I will be concise and crack on in support of the need for sufficient human and financial resources being made available, given the global implications.
Despite high-level government commitments on fighting economic crime, the Government have hitherto failed to invest sufficient resources to ensure that enforcement is effective. Reinforcing the case is paramount. We should double key law enforcement annual budgets from £852 million to £1.7 billion. A £2.7 billion increase in funding for national and local agencies to tackle serious and organised crime and to improve the system’s capabilities across digital, forensics, covert surveillance and financial investigations, to match the increasing technological sophistication of the serious and organised crime groups operating in the UK, is necessary, with budgets to invest in structures, skills, capabilities and technologies across the system.
We should double the budget for sanctions enforcement. In the past three years, the NCA has conducted only three criminal investigations into sanctions breaches, with no resulting prosecutions. It has just 40 employees.
We should create a central economic crime-fighting fund out of the money generated by law enforcement’s economic crime activity. If the proceeds had been reinvested into the agencies, on top of their core budgets, overall enforcement spending could have been provisionally increased by an additional £748 million a year—an increase of approximately 93% on current funding levels. This would allow investment in state-of-the-art IT infrastructure and data analysis capabilities. This central fund would replace the system for redistributing the proceeds of asset recovery—the asset recovery incentivisation scheme—which is broken.
Working with the judiciary to ensure better judicial management of cases to strike out abusive litigation tactics is key, in addition to working with industry to develop an enforceable model litigant code for lawyers, to prevent the use of stalling and spurious tactics that waste court time and drain public resources, and allowing law enforcement bodies to raise salaries within their budgets, so that they can be more competitive in the salaries they provide to attract the best and brightest.
I will bring my remarks to a close. We must allow law enforcement to spend more on legal fees to get the best legal advice; prosecuting and investigating bodies cannot compete. We need specialist economic crime judges; enforcement bodies face a UK court system with few judges specialised in economic crime or confiscation. Finally, we must raise Companies House fees to £100. Current fees of just £12 for an incorporated company are too low, allowing considerable abuse of the system. Companies House needs to become a key digital data hub to help law enforcement and provide a service for the whole of the UK about suspicious corporate behaviour, rather than its current state as a passive receiver of false or inaccurate information.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. Over the years, one has seen concentrations move as to what parts of the criminal justice or investigation system matter. It is important to appreciate that this will be expensive, but we must have a system that, as regards the resources we give to justice, is open and transparent. There is no way this can be done without a proper annual report. Too often have I heard, “Oh, we can have an efficiency here or an efficiency there; we’ll do a little bit less of that or find incentives somewhere else”. No, that is not good enough for the task that faces us, and our nation, in ensuring the reputation of the City of London. I therefore warmly support the view that we should have a proper economic and financial analysis of the tools needed.
Lord Fox (LD)
We are in danger of reaching the end of this in unanimous agreement, so I shall introduce a little rancour in responding to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. When she read the Hansard report of the Second Reading, she will have seen a strand going through a number of speeches that said the purpose of the Bill must be permanent rather than a “here today, gone tomorrow” sort of purpose—a fashion. Her notion of sunset clauses hits counter to that. She is right that regulation has to be fit for purpose and that there should be reviews, and I welcome her joining the chorus for reviews that has been going throughout both the Second Reading and the Committee stage. I think the first opportunity for a review of the performance of ECB 1 and the regulations that make it work will probably be when we get to ECB 2. Thereafter, an annual review is a good idea.
We have heard from many noble Lords about progress on the subject of strategic litigation. I hope the Minister is able to confirm that this small amount of momentum will be able to pick up over the next few months as we go forward, perhaps focusing on my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill.
A few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, whether UWOs were going to be a minority sport or something pursued in number. She has left, leaving the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to explain how it will be paid for. Unless there is money to pay for it, it will remain a minority sport. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, clearly encapsulated the point that none of this can happen unless the investigating and prosecuting forces are both skilled and resourced to deliver it. That is why I was pleased to co-sign Amendment 95 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how much money will be forthcoming and when.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this seems an appropriate group on which to end Committee. It seems almost as if we have gone full circle, as there has been a similar theme throughout the debates at Second Reading and in Committee.
This group of amendments brings two things to the debate. When I spoke first today I made the point about the tension between us recognising the inadequacies of the Bill, with the comments made about ECB 2—which has now become part of the common language of your Lordships’ House—alongside acknowledging the necessity of the legislation. However, it also shows the determination—I am distracted by someone talking—of your Lordships’ House to make sure that the legislation is effective.
The only way we can do that is through the kinds of reviews that have been talked about, to ensure that, when we come to ECB 2, we will use the information—both the positives and the negatives as regards whether this legislation is working—to ensure that we can plug the gaps and take on other issues. I hope to see Companies House issues in the next legislation as well. On the issues we have been talking about—the resources needed, the commitment needed and the reports to Parliament—unless we have those reviews and assessments in place, we will not be able to do what needs to be done in ECB 2 or to plug any gaps we find here. Some kind of assessment, perhaps on the timescales envisaged in the amendment—an annual review to Parliament seems a very sensible way forward—are absolutely essential.
The only thing I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on is the importance of getting regulations as quickly as possible. I hope that, alongside those regulations, we will see some kind of impact assessment. Unless the Government know at least in part the impact that the regulations will have, there is no point in tabling them. We would not want to delay essential regulations in waiting for that but it is important that we have more information at all times.
I will flag up something that I raised in an earlier debate and which the Whip who was answering for the Government did not respond to. We hope that, when we come back on Report, we will have a commitment that we will see ECB 2 in the next Session of Parliament. We also want an assurance that that will be early in that Session. We have seen already that there is huge expertise in your Lordships’ House and that, when we have proper time for debate, we have better legislation. One of the saddest things about this Session of Parliament is that we have only just had the Second Reading of the Elections Bill. We have weeks to go and we are trying to cram a quart into a pint pot, and, having been here at two and three o’clock in the morning, I do not think that is a great way to make laws. I hope that we will see something of this importance very early on in the next Session of Parliament, which will enable this House to use its expertise to have proper debates and make a proper contribution.
All that remains to be said is that we want to have reviews in whatever form they take. These reviews and assessments will be absolutely essential if we are in any way serious about making this work.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for these amendments. I must admit that, as we reach the end of Committee, I find myself in a somewhat novel position as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Minister to your Lordships’ House, talking to some amendments which have been raised in other departments. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have engaged directly with my noble friend Lord Callanan, my noble friend Lady Williams and me on various issues.
I thank all Front-Benchers for their direct engagement. It was an intense weekend of toing and froing for many people, but again, it shows the best of your Lordships’ House when we come together on such an important issue. Talking more broadly as the Sanctions Minister and the FCDO Minister, everyone understands the importance of getting the Bill through at the earliest opportunity, and I am grateful for noble Lords’ engagement in Committee.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Before the Minister sits down, while progress has been made on providing funding for the investigatory bodies, given that we expect imminent and immediate impact on investigations from the passage of the Bill, what assurance can he give the Committee that personnel with the necessary qualifications and experience will be available in the very short term, even though the funding may be following them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, within the agencies, particularly the NCA, of course we have great expertise and insights. I cannot provide the noble Lord with specific numbers but, as I said earlier, the Government very much stand by the principle that in introducing these regulations and these new powers, and when it comes to the implementation of our sanctions policy, we need to ensure that we are fully and appropriately resourced so that those people who are sanctioned can be acted upon.
Lord Burnett (LD)
Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has the Minister consulted the Inland Revenue, which deals with anti-avoidance matters on a daily basis and has considerable expertise in these matters, and in the artificial transactions that often occur and come under its scrutiny?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I stray into the work of other departments—both the Home Office and the Treasury—but I can assure noble Lords that this is an all-of-government approach, ensuring that not only are we acting appropriately in whatever department we need to act, but of course that there is appropriate funding and support for the actions we are taking.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. My probing amendment applied to Part 4 of the Bill, of course—so, to all regulations made under it—but I understand exactly where he was coming from on the sanctions provisions.
As we are short of time, I will dispense with the customary summary of the excellent points that have been made this evening, except to emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that I am as keen as anyone else to avoid delay. I was glad that she also saw value in impact assessments appropriately tabled.
I think there is a measure of agreement across the Committee on the need for adequate enforcement of the provisions in the Bill and on the need to provide the necessary resources. I will return to this matter, to the idea of effectiveness reviews and indeed to the various regulations, in due course. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that the House has worked well on this Bill to get it through Committee in such a short time—but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 5 to 32, Schedules 3 to 5, Clauses 33 to 65, Title.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we have now concluded Committee on the Bill. As I hope my noble friend the Chief Whip explained earlier, Members now have until 9.45 pm to table their amendments. The time for Report stage to start will be advertised on the annunciators.
Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument before us today seeks to use existing powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to simplify the process of research and development in plants that have been produced by genetic technologies such as gene editing, where the resulting genetic changes could have been developed using traditional breeding methods.
Over the past 30 years advancements in genetic technologies have been rapid and have led to the development of a range of beneficial outcomes such as disease resistance. But the regulation has not kept pace with our better understanding of the risks and is now seen by scientists as restrictive and outdated. Genetic technologies such as gene editing include a range of breakthrough approaches that provide a precise way of introducing genetic changes such as disease resistance, making the whole breeding process more efficient and responsive. Field trials do currently take place; however, uptake has been low, with estimates suggesting that no more than two field trials for plants happen in England each year. Leaving the EU has provided us with the opportunity to adopt a new, science-based, proportionate regulatory approach.
This instrument, in practice, will remove certain technical barriers for research and development such as processing applications, advertising and post-trial monitoring of genetically modified plants that could have been produced by traditional breeding. It will simplify the need for the Secretary of State to give consent on an individual basis before propagating plant material is placed into the soil.
I hope it will be useful to provide noble Lords with an example of how gene editing could be used. Virus yellows are a group of viruses spread by aphids affecting major crops such as sugar beet. These viruses can cause yield losses of up to 50%. They are currently controlled using a range of pesticides. Over the past four years, a study funded by UK Research and Innovation has identified several promising sources of genetic resistance against virus yellows. Using gene editing to give resistance to virus yellows would reduce the need for pesticides and help protect crops against the virus, helping to protect the environment, increase food production and reduce costs to farmers.
Last year, we ran a consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies and received nearly 6,500 responses. We considered all the consultation responses carefully and sought advice from the independent scientific experts, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which concluded that gene-edited organisms do not pose any greater risk than organisms produced through traditional breeding methods.
In the government response to the consultation, we set out how we will clear a path for genetic technologies such as gene editing through the implementation of a step-by-step approach on how we govern the use of organisms developed using genetic technologies. This SI is the first small and proportionate step in our approach, unlocking science and innovation in an area which holds great potential to help improve the sustainability and productivity of agricultural systems.
Our approach with this SI follows international practice. Other countries, including some of our major trading partners, have already begun delineating regulations between organisms produced by genetic modification and those of genetic editing. For example, the United States passed the SECURE rule in 2020. This means that any GM crop that could have been developed through traditional breeding and which has a history of safe plant-pest use is exempt from the need for regulatory approval.
Across the world, other countries are moving forward in their take-up of gene editing. We are internationally renowned for our scientific excellence in genetics and genomics, yet we cannot fully explore what this technology has to offer. This instrument will help us adopt a more proportionate approach, based on science, to the regulation of gene editing, allowing our bioscience sector to test the benefits and safety of new products by simplifying the current system while ensuring checks and balances are still in place.
Turning to enforcement and monitoring of the SI, I would like to reassure the House that this instrument is for non-marketing, research and development purposes only. The checks and balances I am referring to are existing, robust regulatory frameworks on GMOs and field trials. Any commercial cultivation of these plants will still need to be regulated in accordance with existing GMO rules. In addition, our established GM Inspectorate, run by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, will continue to act as an inspecting body of GM field trials, including those enabled in this SI. I want to be clear that the gene-edited organisms captured by the SI will not contain functional DNA from different species but will have targeted changes to their existing DNA.
We are pursuing this change with secondary legislation as there are existing powers conferred on the Secretary of State, through the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which enable him to remove certain requirements on GM plants in particular circumstances. This amendment is limited in its scope, revising only the regulatory burden for non-marketing purposes of a small category of GM plants. It does not change the GM status of these plants, as the definition of a GMO is not changed by the SI.
We are committed to pursuing these changes in an open and transparent way. As part of this, guidance is being written by ACRE that will allow developers to determine whether a plant could have occurred naturally or been produced by traditional breeding techniques. It will also cover the process by which notifications must be made to Defra concerning non-marketing uses of “qualifying higher plants”. The territorial application of the SI is England only. Collaboration between researchers in different parts of the UK is unlikely to be affected by the change introduced by this SI.
In conclusion, gene editing has the potential to help improve the sustainability and productivity of agricultural systems by helping farmers to grow plants that are more nutritious, more resilient to climate change and less reliant on pesticides or fertilisers. We are committed to proportionate, science-based regulation that protects people, animals and the environment. Together with other innovation approaches, this instrument will help us adapt to the impacts of climate change, reduce emissions and meet our ambitions in the Government’s 25-year environment plan. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
Leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this amendment asks the House to decline to approve this statutory instrument—for total clarity, what is generally known as a fatal amendment. I thank the Minister for his very clear introduction to some of the scientific aspects of the SI and for clearly setting out the differences between gene editing and older forms of GMO technology. I thank all noble Lords who have joined us at this late hour. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, commented earlier, we so often do very important things very late at night. I am sorry about that, but that is not my choice—nor indeed that of most Members of your Lordships’ House, I think.
The Green Party’s position against genetically modified crops and animals is clear, but I will not make any arguments about that tonight. The argument I am making is that this statutory instrument is scientifically muddle-headed, unclear and most likely to create a legal tangle. The fact is, though, that noble Lords do not have to listen to me on that; they can listen to your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have to give great thanks for the tremendous work it does slogging through so much material. Its concerns about this statutory instrument shine through very clearly from the length and detail of its report. In the earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think put scare quotes around the term “technically flawed” and suggested that that was a particularly grave insult in your Lordships’ House. I am afraid that I think this statutory instrument is technically flawed.
The basis of the statutory instrument is that plants that could have been produced naturally or by traditional breeding methods could be planted out in field trials without the current requirement to produce a risk assessment or to seek government approval for non-marketing purposes, as the Minister said. But there is as yet no guidance as to what scientific or regulatory criteria will be used to determine what fits the definition of “could be naturally occurring” or “by traditional methods”, which produces what is referred to as a “qualifying higher plant”.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s language is typically measured and calm, as noble Lords would expect, but the committee “regret”—a very strong word in its terminology—the fact that there is no guidance to explain what this means. I thank the Minister for arranging a meeting with him, his officials, experts and a number of NGOs with which I have been working on this, during which it was asked when the guidance would be produced. The answer was “in a few months’ time”. We are being asked to vote on something when we have no idea what it actually means. I do not know whether the Minister can provide me with any updates on that.
It is very clear from the consultation responses that this term is not recognised in any existing markets or certified sectors such as organic. It is interesting that the Minister talked about how the US and other places are loosening regulation of gene editing, but they are doing so by changing their regulation of the method; they are not focused on the outcomes. No other place is working in the way we are by referring to traditional breeding or natural methods.
In response to the consultation, the Wildlife and Countryside Link said that there is “no conclusive evidence” that organisms created by gene editing
“could be achieved through traditional breeding.”
The Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation found that there was no basis for Defra’s claims, bluntly noting:
“The entire purpose of expanding the use of gene editing … is to create animals that do not occur naturally”—
or, in this case, plants. The Organic Research Centre said that Defra’s premise is
“unproven in theory and should not be the basis for changing regulations or removing protections.”
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and I can assert that the committee is supportive of the purposes of this statutory instrument. However, the committee has been critical of the presentation of the instrument, as indeed it has been of the presentation of a large number of instruments. I find the objections of the anti-GM lobby to this statutory instrument to be wide of the mark. Its specific objections to the instrument may be disposed of readily as can its wider objections to genetically modified crops.
The main objection that has been raised against the instrument is that it gives no justification for the claim that a genetic modification effected by gene editing could have occurred naturally. In fact, the statement has a very precise meaning. It means that nothing is introduced into the genome by editing it. Only the genes already present in the organism—or crops, which we are actually talking about—will be subject to the editing. The crops will have at least two copies of the gene and, in many cases, there may be more copies. Wheat, for example, has three copies of its genome. Some of the genes may be of a wild variety and others may be of a cultivated variety. The purpose of gene editing would be to ensure the plant has a homogeneous genetic endowment of the cultivated variety. The presumption is that this will lead to a more fruitful crop.
A project aimed at homogenising the genome via selective breeding might take many years and is liable to be time-consuming and expensive. It bears repeating that the process of gene editing will not introduce any alien material into the plant. This fact serves to negate one of the wilder alarms of the anti-GM lobby, which warns that alien genetic material will be introduced into other plants by inadvertent pollination. There are, in fact, no such alien genes to be guarded against.
Another false alarm of the lobby is that genetically modified crops might propagate rampantly, thereby despoiling the natural environment. The truth of the matter is that cultivated crops are largely incapable of self-propagation. This is surely true of cereal crops, which require threshing to release their seeds. Other crops, if they do succeed at reproducing without human intervention, are liable to die out after one or two generations. I believe that we can confidently dispose of the objections to this instrument. It proposes the alleviation of some burdensome restrictions, which have been impeding research programmes in plant science and agricultural science.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, in part to echo the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in his introduction and, as has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, the key point was that gene editing involves no introduction of novel genes into the genome. In so far as it involves no introduction of novel genes, it is surely in principle something that could arise by natural reproduction—in the normal process of breeding that takes place in agricultural crops and animals. So I do not buy the argument that the definition is unclear; I thought that the Minister was very clear.
The only other point I want to make is on the question of whether something “occurs naturally”. That is quite a risky approach to take since nothing in any agricultural crop or any livestock is natural. These are things that have been produced over the last 10,000 years by selective breeding. If we are trying to create some prelapsarian nirvana where things are natural, we will have to turn the clock back 10,000 years and forget about all the things that we survive on today. So, although I regret having to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on this occasion I do so.
I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to one point raised by the noble Baroness about the problem of different parts of the United Kingdom when crops drift across from one side of the boundary with Wales or Scotland to the other. I would think of it more in terms of the retail of the products. Let us suppose that a blight-resistant potato is developed by gene editing, as seems quite likely, and it is on sale in the shops in England. What will the retailers do about stocking the shelves in Wales and Scotland if their product is not allowed there? I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.
My basic point, however, is that I totally support this statutory instrument and, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I do not think that the arguments against it are at all compelling.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or SLSC, which is an easier mouthful to get through. Also like him, I believe that our report has been misunderstood in some quarters. It was not seeking to comment on the purpose of these draft regulations but acknowledged that there were shortcomings in how they had been laid. The shortcomings did not add up to the summary that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used—that we saw them as technically flawed—but none the less we set out in the report where we saw shortcomings. We felt, for instance, that there should have been more detail in the Explanatory Memorandum, we could have done with more clarity regarding the qualifying criteria, and we felt that the relevant guidance should have been available to the SLSC at the same time as our scrutiny of the draft regulations.
The concerns we set out in our report are not at all unusual and I regret, I think on behalf of the whole committee, that this is the case. Too often at the moment we find that the parliamentary scrutiny of proposed SIs is hampered by the accompanying information being short on detail, obscure or indeed missing altogether, such as with impact assessments that are due but have not been produced on time. As a committee, we raised some of these systemic concerns in our recent report Government by Diktat: A Call to Return Power to Parliament, which I hope the House will have an opportunity to debate in due course.
My second, indeed main, point is about the purpose of these regulations, which I strongly support. I welcome the prospect of controlled field trial research involving plants produced by genetic technologies such as gene editing, where the resulting genetic changes are the same as those that could have been developed using traditional plant-breeding methods. Gene editing is a potentially transformative research tool, and plant-breeding techniques are much more precise, effective and rapid than the traditional breeding methods can ever hope to deliver.
My noble friend the Minister made a very relevant point: current regulations in this area are outdated; they were enacted more than 30 years ago, before these techniques were even conceived of, let alone developed and applied. We need to reform and update these regulations, particularly in relation to gene-editing techniques. Indeed, this is also recognised at an EU level. The SI marks a relatively modest but very important step towards aligning our regulatory approach with the approach already adopted in other parts of the world. The other reasons I support the SI have been well articulated by the Minister, so I will not repeat them, given the hour.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, but I start by declaring an interest as the owner of a farm. I am a newcomer to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but there is a danger here that those reading our reports could confuse our criticism of the Government’s process, which is our legitimate purpose, with criticism of the policy, which is neither our purpose nor our duty.
Unfortunately, much of the developing world has been misled into a suspicion of GM technology by a misapprehension that the EU has operated under a blanket ban on GM crops for many years. The reality is different: in fact, the EU has a long-standing regulatory process designed specifically for GM crop approval. In practice, however, polarised views across the EU member states have meant that the scientific evidence has often been ignored, crops have remained stuck in the system, and it was therefore difficult to make progress. However, views seem now to be changing in the EU.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the point of regulation is to balance the benefits and any potential harms of a given process. This SI changes the regulation from a precautionary principle to an American proof of harm, a fundamental change enabled only because we have now left the European Union and are no longer subject to its positions on the precautionary principle. While we had many debates in this House on the then Agriculture Bill and the fact that the Government were maintaining the precautionary principle, we are going to have many debates where the use is very much qualified by the term “proportionate”. This is the first example where we are seeing just how proportionate everyone’s commitment to the precautionary principle is going to be. We can only worry what the Prime Minister’s promised Brexit freedoms Bill will deliver, when we see this being the first instance of what the precautionary principle actually means.
The question is whether the evidence is so overwhelming that it is right that the regulatory framework should be changed. While the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others point to benefits, of which I am sure there are some, there are also harms. The question therefore is whether the balance is right. In the justification that the Government have given in the Explanatory Memorandum, they cite only ACRE principally as the scientific body. I am not sure that I would go so far as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in questioning the motives and links of some of the people in ACRE, but it is but one body, and it is clear from the consultation itself that there is not unanimity among that scientific body.
We are signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is brought together by biological and scientific experts around the world, and they say that, with regard to synthetic biology, nations should take a precautionary approach. The Convention on Biological Diversity says we should take a precautionary approach, yet the Government are saying that we will move to the American model of proof of harm. I notice that the Minister very carefully referred to the Americans but not to the European Union. While some may claim that the Europeans are looking to move, they have not moved yet. They are still fixed on not allowing this form of gene editing and, given that our biggest agricultural market is the European Union, it raises the question of where we are actually going to market these products in the long term.
But I do not want to repeat points that have already been made. I want to make two points. The first is that there is no public mandate for this. The Explanatory Memorandum, which gives figures for how many people respond to the government consultation, makes it absolutely clear that the public are overwhelmingly opposed and businesses are overwhelmingly opposed. The Government are setting off down a track where there is no market in the UK at present—and, as I just said, our biggest agricultural trading partner, if we were to go down this route in the future, does not allow it. So, the Government have a fundamental question to answer: where is their mandate for this?
Equally, if the Government say, as I suspect the Minister will, that they will be consulting with the public on this in the future, it seems odd to me to bring forward the regulatory framework without setting out first how to consult the public. It is as important, if not more important, at this opening stage in this salvo, that the Government are committed to labelling these products, if they are going to end up on the food markets in the future. You should not set off down a track without making a firm commitment to those members of the public who do not want this technology—and, as I said, the majority of people say they do not—that you are going to label this in the future. I would hope the Minister will be able to say in summing up that the Government are committed—if they are prepared to be open to this by changing the regulation today—to labelling. So my first point is around: where is the mandate for this?
My second point is, for me, a really powerful one. In this country, we are committed to environmental justice. We are signatories to the Aarhus convention, which gives members of the public the right to challenge decisions that have gone ahead at all stages in the future. In a democracy, things happen that people do not like, and that is fine. But, in order to be able to undertake that job of challenge, members of the public have to be able to have the information about trials and initiatives. Yet, going through the SI, looking at the prescribed information, I see we are getting away from all this information that used to be provided to the public. All we are going to be asking these companies to provide is the name, address, telephone number and email address of the person with overall responsibility for the project—nothing about the locale or location.
If I was doing my gardening on my allotment—after this SI goes through, as I am sure it will—I might want to find out why some of my crops might be changing their genetic formulation. Forgive me, I did my degree in theology, so my awareness of scientific terms is limited. But the basic point is that if you want to make a challenge, you need to know where it is. Yet under this SI, in the prescribed information, members of the public are not able to know where these are taking place. That seems contrary to our commitments under the Aarhus convention and, more importantly than that, our commitment to allow people to have environmental justice.
If this Government want this to go ahead, they should at least have the decency to allow people who oppose it in the future to have the information at their disposal to make their complaints. The wording in this SI does not give me confidence that people have the right to environmental justice that I think they should have in this country. It is for that reason, principally—although other matters are important too—that this SI fails to give people environmental justice, that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I must begin by declaring my interests as a farmer and also by saying to your Lordships that I have some knowledge of the science, in that I have a degree in agriculture. In its final comment, the Select Committee said:
“The draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they are politically or legally important and give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.
I agree with that so much. These are very important issues.
Years ago, soon after becoming a Member of your Lordships’ House, I was a member of a Select Committee chaired by that admirable chairman, the late Lord Reay. We did a study, which lasted for quite some time, on genetic modification. At the end of it, we shone a green light on continued development of the production of genetically modified crops and animals. But we also raised a very strong caveat that we had to be very careful not to go hell-bent on developing this science, because there were so many imponderables in it. The point of our committee’s report was that we ought to do everything we could to encourage the science to find out what was sensible to develop and what was dangerous to develop. One issue that I remember was over salmon, which had not been handled very well and which was dangerous. However, we acknowledged that the importance of genetic modification was something that one had to take very seriously.
Somebody made the point that I have often made, which is that, although some say that genetic modification is just a development of normal breeding, hybrid breeding and so on, it is not. Somebody—I forget who—made the point that this is the first time that we have been able as scientists to cross an elephant with an oak tree, putting it to its extremes. This is the first time that one could think of doing that, and so it is very important. Genetic modification could be crucial in dealing with some of the horrors which could lie ahead of us, of increasing world population, and of water shortage and climate change causing difficulties in food production. We are back to Malthus here. Genetic modification could become a very important tool in combating the possibilities—not the probabilities—of world starvation in the future.
I remember very well that, when I first became Minister of Agriculture, years ago in the 1980s, a very distinguished scientist told me that one of the great breakthroughs would be the possibility, through genetic engineering, of being able to amalgamate wheat with the capabilities of legume crops, which as we know extract nitrogen from the air, like clovers and other plants. The wheat itself could then extract nitrogen from the air. That was a possibility. It has not worked, but it is an example of what might have worked and might possibly work in the future. It is only science that will take us this way, and that is why these regulations are important and helpful. As my noble friend the Minister said, this encourages the scientists to develop these possibilities.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his excellent introduction, and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on her introduction to the amendment to the Motion. The use of genetically modified crops and plants is an issue which divides people, both those growing crops and the public at large. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is knowledgeable on this subject, having gained an honours degree in agricultural science.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have looked at this SI and found it wanting, as demonstrated by its report. In its response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Defra has claimed that this SI enables
“the bioscience sector to test the benefits and safety of relevant new products ‘without the burden of unnecessary regulatory processes’”.
I am in favour of reducing bureaucratic burden but would expect this to be an open and transparent process. My noble friend Lady Parminter has covered this aspect in detail. The resulting field trials taking place from this SI are not transparent. No one will know where they are taking place. This could be next to a local authority allotment site in a rural area or next to an organic farm where wind-blown seed transference could have a devastating effect on the organic farmer. Given that we have the lowest uptake of organic farming in Europe, this is extremely worrying. We should be encouraging organics, not jeopardising them with secret GM field trials.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to upcoming wider reform but provides no information on what the government plans are for this wider reform. Nor does it provide any guidance which is alleged to come from ACRE shortly. As we have no idea of what the government interpretation of “shortly” is, can the Minister give any indication of when this guidance will be available?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has indicated that ACRE is not an independent body. The consultation carried out by Defra indicates that the scientific bodies are not overwhelmingly in favour of gene editing. During the passage of the Environment Act, there was discussion on the importance of adopting the precautionary principle. The path we are about to embark on will throw this out of the window and replace the precautionary principle with an ethos of a proof of harm scenario, which is a very different kettle of fish.
Plants grown as a result of this SI are for non-marketing purposes and cannot be marketed without the consent of the Secretary of State. This does not in any way curtail the ability of a Secretary of State to give his or her permission for marketing without any further debate in Parliament. This is a direct bypass of the democratic process which Parliament should carry out.
Defra has indicated that it will move to a self-declaration system following advice from ACRE. Again, this is a concern to organic farmers. Defra says it will be the responsibility of researchers to abide by the law and gain authorisation for GM plants if this material gets into commercial products. Since the sites of trials and subsequent self-declaration systems are unknown, how will organic farmers be able to protect their crops and produce if they do not know where such field trials are taking place? It could be close to their land.
I turn briefly to the devolved Administrations, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have made it clear that they do not wish to pursue equivalent changes in Scotland or Wales. Is this not going to cause confusion across the country as a whole? Perhaps the Minister can comment.
I could go on but, given the hour, I will draw my remarks to a close. During the consultation, 88% of the individuals and 64% of the businesses responding were opposed to this change in the regulations. Given that there are very conflicting views on the efficacy of the science, I am not able to support this SI.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I state my position as a remainer, but there are two things I welcome in coming out of the Common Market. One is the CAP, and this particular—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sorry, but the noble Lord was fast asleep for the entire duration of the Minister’s speech. He really should not participate in this debate, having failed to take advantage of the opportunity to listen to it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I had to send a note via the doorkeeper to wake up the noble Lord.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in my involvement at Rothamsted, as set out in the register.
I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for raising considerable concerns about the impact this SI might have on the environment. We know that these concerns have resonance among the public at large, and it is right that they are taken seriously and seen to be addressed. I am also grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its forensic dissection of the proposals. Again, it is raising serious concerns that must be addressed.
I accept that this SI, in its current form, makes only minor changes to the regulation of GM research, which occurs only in highly regulated and respected research establishments. It is not about releasing GM food into the food chain. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the history of GM development, which was not properly regulated in the past and created a public backlash we are still living with today. The public rightly want to be assured, on both public health and environmental grounds, that the existence of artificially modified organisms in the land and air, and ultimately in their food, is safe. If we are to persuade them that this is the case, we need to proceed with the best independent scientific evidence and the utmost transparency. These principles need to be applied both to determining the fate of this SI and to the more radical proposals that we understand this Government are now developing.
We recognise the potential advantages that scientific progress can make to the agritech sector. Many of these were flagged up in our consideration of the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act. Our knowledge of the importance of biodiversity and the adverse impact of intensive farming comes from some of the latest scientific research. We now understand the huge advantages of eco-friendly farming, harnessing the power of nature to farm in a productive and sustainable way. Again, we learn a lot of that from the scientific community. Using fewer artificial fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides can rebuild the health of our land for the long term. This goes hand in hand with the development of crops that can provide natural resistance to disease and destruction. Science and innovation will continue to have a key role to play in our food systems of the future.
However, one thing that has come to light in considering this SI is that scientists themselves are not all agreed on the approach being taken by the Government. I am grateful to my shadow Defra colleague in the Commons, Daniel Zeichner, for painstakingly reading through all the submissions and highlighting some of the discrepancies among scientists in the Commons debate on this SI. As has been said, this SI attempts to delineate between genetically modified organisms whose modifications could have occurred naturally and GMOs where an external unrelated gene has been introduced. The Government have chosen to define these naturally modified plants as “qualifying higher plants” but this definition has proved contentious among scientists. As Daniel Zeichner said:
“The Roslin Institute says: ‘it is exceptionally challenging to define which changes to the genome could have been produced by “traditional” breeding.’ The Royal Society says: ‘this question is problematic as there is a difference between what could be produced by traditional breeding in theory and in practice’. The Royal Society of Biology says: ‘No clear criteria can be described that would determine whether an organism produced by genome editing or other genetic technologies could have been produced by traditional breeding. This means no clarity can be achieved using this principle, and it is not appropriate as the basis of regulation.’”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 2/3/22; col. 7.]
These are hugely worrying critiques if the Government are planning to base the whole of the future reforms of GMO on this distinction.
Of course, the Government have quoted the advice of ACRE, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, in support of their proposal. However, that brings me on to the second concern, about transparency; this point was made by other noble Lords. It turns out that six of the seven scientists on the board of ACRE have links to commercial companies, and three of them quote Syngenta as an interest. So, although I am sure that these scientists are experts in their field, it does not appear that they have the independence to make a purely scientific judgment on this issue. This is precisely the sort of concern that will fuel public anxiety and objection if it becomes known. Can the Minister provide some assurance that the definition of “qualifying higher plants” will be revisited, given the existing doubts about whether that is the right phraseology to go forward? Can he assure the House that the propriety of ACRE to rule on these issue can be, and will be, reassessed?
I turn to the submission from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised a number of critical concerns about the proposals set out in this SI. It reiterated the concerns about the definition of a “qualifying higher plant”, to which I just referred. In response, the Government advised that they are in the process of developing guidance, which will be available shortly. When are we likely to see that guidance? The committee also raised concerns about the researchers creating GMOs having to self-declare whether their product is in this category, and about the fact that the new notification measures do not give details of the location or scale of the research; again, this issue was raised by other noble Lords. It points out that this is a major concern to the organic growers who want reassurance that their products will not be contaminated, putting their organic status at risk. I would be grateful if the Minister could address these concerns in his response.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also raised concerns about the devolution aspects of these proposals, given that they are England-only, and the Welsh and Scottish Governments have no intention of following suit; again, noble Lords raised this issue. Although this particular SI is focused only on research, does the Minister agree that it would any future commercialisation of products extremely difficult unless there was alignment in the internal market and with the outcome of the review of the EU’s GMO regulations that is currently taking place? It is interesting that even the majority of businesses that responded to the consultation opposed the proposal, so there clearly is no demand for GMO products to enter the food chain on the current basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked, how will that work if it is England-only, and how will those products potentially be marketed across borders? Businesses are obviously concerned about that as well.
Finally, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regretted that we have no further information about the Government’s wider plan for reform. We share that concern, and I hope that the Minister is able to provide more information today.
We are not going to oppose this SI today, given the relatively small changes to research controls which it introduces. However, we will not be supporting the noble Baroness’s fatal Motion, as it is not our practice to do so, except in exceptional circumstances. None the less, I hope that the Minister is hearing the message that any future proposals will need to be underpinned by much more rigorous regulation. We need to have much greater transparency. It will need to be overseen by a truly independent and trusted scientific committee if it is to have any hope of gaining the public support—and the support of this side of the House—which it will need going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to your Lordships for a very good debate. I have that difficult balance to achieve of recognising the lateness of the hour and the business to which we must attend, while also answering the very many important questions which have been asked. I will respond to them in no particular order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for giving us this opportunity to address some of the concerns which she has raised. I am not sure that I am going to win her round, but I always live in hope.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of different views from different scientific organisations. In the consultation, we received scientific evidence from a range of scientific and research institutes, such as the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Biology, the Roslin Institute, the John Innes Centre and many others. Many responses were nuanced, with some discussing the complexity in defining gene-edited organisms, suggesting that regulation should follow a product or characteristic-based approach where the end product determines the level of risk, rather than the process used. However, in their responses, many institutions pointed to the various benefits which gene editing can provide and supported the Government’s direction to regulate gene-edited organisms differently to GMOs. For example, the Royal Society of Biology said:
“Genome editing is a tool which holds promise and, if appropriately managed, offers a route to achieving many potential and much needed benefits to society … Creating a regulatory framework in which products of genome editing are not regulated in the way that GMOs currently are, is key to realising these benefits.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and a number of others, also raised issues of the credentials of ACRE members. This is the one area of this debate by which I have been disappointed. Ministers in Defra appoint the committee members for ACRE, together with Ministers in the devolved Administrations and in accordance with the requirements of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In ACRE’s framework agreement, their commitments on openness and transparency are outlined, including recording any actual or potential conflicts of interest arising in meetings, and the action taken to handle them, as per the Nolan principles. If we want to get the best people in this field, it is very likely that, at some point, they have done a piece of work for an academic institution or company—it is very hard to find someone who has not. Frankly, I would want people with real expertise and who are governed by very strict rules, as the outlined by the Nolan principles.
A number of noble Lords and Baronesses raised the issue of divergence with the devolved Administrations. The regulation of GMOs is a devolved matter. We wrote to devolved Administration Ministers after the release of the Government’s response, stating our intention to bring forward an SI on gene-editing plant research and development.
To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the devolved Assemblies will not be making an equivalent regulatory change in their jurisdictions, as he said. Consequently, the territorial application of this SI is England only. This means that for any field trials being conducted in Scotland and Wales, scientists will have to continue risk assessments and seek formal consent before trials can commence. That regulatory divergence should not cause any issues for researchers, developers or the public. However, we are aware of leading research on gene editing that is being conducted in devolved Administrations, such as at the Roslin Institute and the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. We are aware that the NFU is supportive, including NFU Scotland.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the EU is moving in the same direction as us, although not quite as fast as we are. Scotland has legislation that says that where possible it will mirror changes in policy in this area in the EU, so it could be that Scotland will pursue a similar route in time. That is up to Scotland. Our English institutions will work closely with the institutions that I listed because there is enormous interest north of the border and in Wales in getting this right.
The issue of guidance was raised, rightly. ACRE is in the process of developing guidance that will help developers wishing to undertake field trials with plants made using genetic technologies such as gene editing, and it will be finalised before Easter. If I may give a hint, developers will need to know whether their plants are exempt from GMO restrictions on the basis that they meet the criteria of a “qualifying higher plant”, which is defined in the SI. The guidance makes it clear that notification is required in all cases and that it is not necessary to seek formal confirmation from Defra regarding its qualifying status. The guidance demonstrates which types of genetic changes can result in a qualifying higher plant, and highlights examples to illustrate how key criteria relating to natural processes and traditional methods and selection might be applied. Further detail is provided for cases that do not fit these precise descriptions, and we make clear that developers can always seek a view from Defra if they are unsure. As I say, that will be available in detail before Easter.
Reflecting some of the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, there has been a question about why this is being done as secondary legislation. We believe that the SI is limited in its scope—that is reflected in points made by the noble Baroness who leads for the Labour Party—revising only the regulatory burden for non-marketing purposes. On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about retail, there will be no retail; any produce from these trials will be destroyed. However, I think her point is wider than that, and if it then goes on to be licensed then of course transparency and labelling are issues that will be debated vigorously at that time. We have existing powers through the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that enable the Secretary of State to remove certain requirements on GM plants in particular circumstances, and that is why we think this is the right mechanism for bringing this to your Lordships.
A number of people have asked about off-target effects and the issue relating to organics. A number of noble Lords have referred to their entries on the register of interests. I did not. I am a farmer—I used to be an organic farmer. I did not think I had to declare an interest because this is nothing to do with farming; it is simply about trials. However, I am happy to declare my interest on the record. The advantage of gene editing over traditional breeding methods is that the genetic changes that it makes are more targeted, which makes the breeding process more efficient and responsive. Using gene-editing techniques means that off-target effects become more noticeable and in some cases predictable, allowing us to manage and control those off-target effects.
Points were also raised about the safeguards and containment measures of the plant field trials, including the risk, as I say, of the cross-pollination of the organic sector. I make this very clear: some of the information put out by campaign groups in their advice as to how to respond to our consultation wrongly hinted that this was some sort of deregulatory splurge that the Government were undergoing. I can assure noble Lords that that is not the context at all. This is a small, proportionate, science-based change to allow the right sort of research to take place. We are not deregulating.
We have more than 30 years’ experience of GM field trials in England which have not caused environmental damage. There has been no evidence thus far that pollen seed or other plant material capable of reproduction from GM field trials has affected businesses in the organic sector in the UK. The off-target effects occurrence rate can be below 0.01% in some cases and techniques such as CRISPR, which some noble Lords will be aware of, mean that we can detect and control them efficiently. Of course, the GM Inspectorate, run by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, will be monitoring this very closely.
This SI amends only the regulatory requirements for non-marketing purposes—a point I made earlier. The commercial cultivation of these plants and any food products derived from them will still need to be authorised in accordance with existing GM rules.
Another issue raised was public perceptions of this. Our social scientists undertook a detailed analysis according to established approaches which took account of all the responses and aimed to transparently report the findings of the consultation. We also consulted the independent scientific experts, ACRE, which concluded that gene-edited organisms do not pose any greater risks. After taking all responses and evidence into account, we decided to adopt a step-by-step approach to the regulation of gene-edited organisms that is science-based and proportionate. On the comments about public perception, other sources of public insight give a different, rather more informed view, I believe, of this type of technology, with 57% of participants not at all or not very concerned about it. A BEIS survey from 2019 found that 63% of participants supported the use of this kind of technology for disease-resistant crops, 65% supported it for crops resistant to adverse weather and 56% supported it for increasing the health benefits of fruit and veg.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised the Aarhus convention. The Government consider that the approach being taken through this SI, further to the recent consultation exercise, is consistent with the UK’s international obligations. On public access to environmental information, under these regulations, researchers intending to release a qualifying higher plant for the purposes of a field trial must provide information about the project and this must be published on the register, which will be housed on GOV.UK.
I am conscious of time so I will rattle through two or three more quick points. The precautionary principle is key. The qualifying GM plants covered by this SI do not pose a greater risk to human health or the environment than their traditionally bred counterparts. Therefore, this is not a move away from the precautionary principle. We are committed to proportionate, science-based regulation that protects people, animals and the environment. I have read the EU Commission’s guidance on the precautionary principle, but that is a debate for another day. It is quite clear that we have veered away from the original intentions of the precautionary principle and that can very often be damaging.
I want to thank other noble Lords for raising a number of different points. We benefit from the wisdom and experience of my noble friend Lord Jopling, which goes back many decades. He is right to point out the wider benefits of this type of technology. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was right to plead the case for an open and transparent process, and I hope we have that.
I conclude by reminding noble Lords that, on almost anything I have ever dealt with at Defra, you can find science which supports a contrary view. I believe that the weight of scientific opinion on this is clear that this is a proportionate approach that will benefit society and allow this country to remain at the forefront of this kind of technological research. I commend the instrument to the House.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has taken part in this very interesting and comprehensive debate. Like the Minister, I am somewhat on the horns of a dilemma because I am aware of the number of people waiting for the next important business.
I will try to respond to the Minister’s comments. It is interesting that a lot of this debate has focused on the views of scientific institutions. He acknowledged that there is complexity in their response and that they are saying that this is a complex area—the problem of defining what could be like naturally occurring or through traditional breeding. It is interesting that in his introduction he said that we were aiming for simplicity here. However, what has been achieved is not simplicity but complexity, which is reflected in the fact that no other country is taking the direction that we are here of focusing on the outputs rather than on the processes.
I will pick up the Minister’s point about ACRE and its composition. Of course, it is not just the case that people may be unduly or unreasonably influenced by their professional interests. There is also the problem of groupthink, where you get a group of people from a similar background, with similar professional lives, all thinking the same way without someone asking critical questions. We really need to look at that in terms of the composition of that body.
The Minister stressed that this SI was limited in scope, and on one level I agree. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter—I thank her very much for her extremely informative and thoughtful contribution to this debate—pointed out that this is a shift away from the precautionary principle to the American principle of proof of harm. That is not limited in scope but a 180-degree shift in legislative approach. The Minister rightly said, as have others, that we are not talking about retail sales of the product here. However, as the noble Baroness said, surely the aim is eventually to produce things for retail, otherwise what is the point? That is where we are headed with this.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pointing out the concerns of organic farmers. That is an area where there has been a great deal of concern. Again, the Minister was perhaps slightly self-contradictory in saying, “We haven’t had any problems with what we’ve done thus far”, while saying in his introduction, “There have been very few trials and very little has been happening because of the current regulations.” If we have had very few trials, perhaps it is not surprising that we have not seen results.
I will pick up a couple more points very quickly. Several people focused on the issue of the need to feed the world. I have to point out the fact that a third of British arable and half of American arable is used either to grow food for animals or to produce fuel crops. If we stopped factory farming, a lot of that food could feed humans, which would be a great deal healthier.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made an argument about GM crops. That is not the argument that I am making; I am making an argument about this SI. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, because it is obvious that I did not make it clear enough in my introduction that I was not claiming that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was commenting on the content of this; it was commenting on the form and the system. When I was addressing your Lordships’ House I thought that everyone in this Chamber knew that, but perhaps I should have made it clearer for people listening outside. I acknowledge that. However, he said, “These faults in procedure, as identified by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, happen all the time.” That is not an argument for voting against my call to stop this SI. Surely at some point, with the huge systematic problems that the committee has identified in its report, your Lordships’ House has to say, “Enough—we cannot proceed with this way forward.”
I want to pick up finally on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She made important points that we are not talking here about being against the science. The science has changed and developed enormously. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred to the many complexities he saw decades ago, essentially the unknown unknowns and the known unknowns. We are gradually starting to uncover a great deal more about how genetics relate to the phenotype of plants, the behaviour of plants and the way organisms work. I point any noble Lords who really want to inform themselves about this to a great podcast called “Big Biology” that is all about the cutting edge of science. This science is changing at enormous speed, and an understanding of how genes work is very different from what was thought 10 or 20 years ago.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, also pointed out how we are seeing huge advances in agroecology, of working with nature and incredibly complex natural systems—the billion organisms that should be in a healthy teaspoon of soil—and that we can work with those collectively. It is not a case of treating nature like a machine and changing one cog.
I am aware that there is a lot of pressure not to do this but I feel that the issue is crucial, so I do not feel at this point I can do anything but ask to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for a short period during pleasure to await the resumption of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill. Noble Lords should watch the annunciator; it will say when the House will resume.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 View all Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an application for registration as an overseas entity to include the information and statement required by subsection (2A) (information about trusts).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to a lively and interesting Committee. I will move these government amendments on trusts. The Government seek to make amendments that address concerns raised in this House and the other place about trusts. These amendments set out that, where a trustee of a trust or equivalent arrangement is a registrable beneficial owner, the overseas entity must give them formal notice to provide their personal information and information about the trust. This information will be disclosed to HMRC, law enforcement agencies and other specified persons with a public function for the purposes of taking action with any offences they commit. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for bringing these amendments forward following the wide-ranging discussions we had earlier, when we had a full exploration of all the issues.
Lord Callanan
“(2A) Where an application includes information that a registrable beneficial owner is a trustee (see paragraphs 3(1)(f) and 5(1)(h) of Schedule 1), the application must also include—(a) the required information about the trust or so much of that information as the overseas entity has been able to obtain, and(b) a statement as to whether the entity has any reasonable cause to believe that there is required information about the trust that it has not been able to obtain.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that where an application for registration as an overseas entity discloses that a registrable beneficial owner is a trustee, it must include additional information about the trust.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to clauses 4, 7 and 9.
“(f) whether the individual meets that condition by virtue of being a trustee.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the required information about a registrable beneficial owner who is an individual includes information about whether the individual is a trustee.
“(g) whether the individual is a designated person (within the meaning of section 9(2) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018), where that information is publicly available.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the required information about a registrable beneficial owner who is an individual includes information about whether the individual is designated by virtue of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
Lord Callanan
“(g) whether the entity is a designated person (within the meaning of section 9(2) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018), where that information is publicly available.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the required information about a registrable beneficial owner which is a government or public authority includes information about whether the entity is designated by virtue of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Government have put forward a number of amendments to the register of overseas entities provisions. These amendments will address a number of the concerns of Members of this House. The amendments expand the information requirements for registrable beneficial owners to include information about whether they are designated by virtue of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
The amendments also provide a revised threshold for the offence of providing false statements. These no longer have to have been submitted knowingly or recklessly. Rather, it will be an offence when the statement is merely misleading, false or deceptive and the person has no reasonable excuse for supplying such a misleading statement, with an additional aggravated offence carrying a higher penalty where it can be proved that a false statement was made knowingly.
The Government seek to make amendments to require the Secretary of State to consult with Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers before making regulations to amend parts of the Bill that legislate on devolved land law matters. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
“(h) whether the entity meets that condition by virtue of being a trustee.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the required information about a registrable beneficial owner who is a legal entity includes information about whether the entity is a trustee.
“(i) whether the entity is a designated person (within the meaning of section 9(2) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018), where that information is publicly available.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the required information about a registrable beneficial owner which is a legal entity includes information about whether the entity is designated by virtue of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
“PART 4A TRUSTS7A_(1) The required information about a trust is—(a) the name of the trust or, if it does not have a name, a description by which it may be identified;(b) the date on which the trust was created;(c) in relation to each person who has at any time been a registrable beneficial owner in relation to the overseas entity by virtue of being a trustee of the trust—(i) the person’s name,(ii) the date on which the person became a registrable beneficial owner in that capacity, and(iii) if relevant, the date on which the person ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner in that capacity;(d) in relation to each beneficiary under the trust, the information that would be required under paragraph 3(1)(a) to (c) or 5(1)(a) to (e) if the beneficiary were a registrable beneficial owner in relation to the overseas entity;(e) in relation to each settlor or grantor, the information that would be required under paragraph 3(1)(a) to (c) or 5(1)(a) to (e) if the settlor or grantor were a registrable beneficial owner in relation to the overseas entity;(f) in relation to any interested person (see sub-paragraph (3))—(i) the information that would be required under paragraph 3(1)(a) to (c) or 5(1)(a) to (e) if the interested person were a registrable beneficial owner in relation to the overseas entity, and(ii) the date on which the person became an interested person.(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) “name”, in relation to an individual, has the meaning given by paragraph 3(2).(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(f) “interested person”, in relation to a trust, means any person who, under the terms of the trust, has rights in respect of—(a) the appointment or removal of trustees, or(b) the exercise by the trustees of their functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the required information about a trust for the purposes of the amendments to clauses 4, 7 and 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the power to make further provision about the information required by the Schedule so that the power extends to the new paragraph 7A.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an overseas entity when complying with the updating duty to include the information and statement mentioned in subsection (2A) (information about trusts).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an overseas entity when complying with the updating duty to include the information and statement mentioned in subsection (2B) (information about trusts).
“(2A) Where information provided under subsection (1)(a) includes information that a registrable beneficial owner is a trustee (see paragraphs 3(1)(f) and 5(1)(h) of Schedule 1), the overseas entity is also required by subsection (1)(a) to provide—(a) the required information about the trust or so much of that information as the overseas entity has been able to obtain, and(b) a statement as to whether the entity has any reasonable cause to believe that there is required information about the trust that it has not been able to obtain.(2B) Where information provided under subsection (1)(b) includes information that a person who became or ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner was a trustee (see paragraphs 3(1)(f) and 5(1)(h) of Schedule 1), the overseas entity is also required by subsection (1)(b) to provide—(a) the required information about the trust or so much of that information as the overseas entity has been able to obtain, and(b) a statement as to whether the entity has any reasonable cause to believe that there is required information about the trust that it has not been able to obtain.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an overseas entity, when complying with its updating duty, to provide additional information and statements about trusts, where relevant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to clause 7(1)(a) and (b).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 7(1)(b).
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an overseas entity when applying for removal from the register to provide the information and statement mentioned in subsection (2A) (information about trusts).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an overseas entity when applying for removal from the register to provide the information and statement mentioned in subsection (2B) (information about trusts).
“(2A) Where information provided under subsection (1)(b) includes information that a registrable beneficial owner is a trustee (see paragraphs 3(1)(f) and 5(1)(h) of Schedule 1), the overseas entity is also required by subsection (1)(b) to provide—(a) the required information about the trust or so much of that information as the overseas entity has been able to obtain, and(b) a statement as to whether the entity has any reasonable cause to believe that there is required information about the trust that it has not been able to obtain.(2B) Where information provided under subsection (1)(c) includes information that a person who became or ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner was a trustee (see paragraphs 3(1)(f) and 5(1)(h) of Schedule 1), the overseas entity is also required by subsection (1)(c) to provide—(a) the required information about the trust or so much of that information as the overseas entity has been able to obtain, and(b) a statement as to whether the entity has any reasonable cause to believe that there is required information about the trust that it has not been able to obtain.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an overseas entity, when applying for removal from the register, to provide additional information and statements about trusts, where relevant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to clause 9(1)(b) and (c).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 9(1)(c) about trusts information.
Lord Callanan
“(i) is entered, on or after 8 December 2014, as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for a plot of land that is registered in the Land Register of Scotland,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the scope of circumstances where an overseas entity is registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in land for the purpose of clause 9 (to include, for example, Keeper-induced registration) by removing the requirement for there to have been an application for registration.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Government are putting forward a group of technical amendments on land registration and transactions in Scotland, in addition to some further substantive amendments. These amendments include obligations on overseas entities that disposed of land between 28 February 2022 and the end of the transitional period to outline the details of the beneficial ownership of the entity at the time of the transfer. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few things about this group of amendments, and in particular to speak to my Amendment 62. As the Minister knows, we are generally supportive of the amendments in this group. The Government, to be fair, have moved in several areas, and that is to their credit. Once again, I thank the Minister and his ministerial colleagues for their engagement over the course of these last few days with respect to this Bill. It has been most helpful.
Earlier today, the Minister outlined several reasons for opposing a reduction in the transition period from six months to 28 days. In the spirit of compromise, we therefore tabled an alternative provision of 90 days for the transition period, and that is the subject of my Amendment 62. He will also know that this amendment is supported by the body representing accountants, which has said that it believes three months is a reasonable figure for the transition period. I shall not go over all the arguments on the length of the transition period that we have had today and at Second Reading, as the Minister will be very well aware of them. Noble Lords are worried that this will allow people to avoid the new rules and regulations and be able to circumvent them.
Furthermore, given the potential lengthy process that needs to be followedbefore Part 1 of the Bill can be formally commenced, we believe that there is also a case for accelerating the registration period. As I again said to the Minister, the commencement period is subject to the Secretary of State’s decision for Part 1, so there is no clarity as to when that will actually start. If there is a six-month transition period and six months until it is commenced, that will be a year. Therefore, we seek clarity from the Minister, even at this late stage, about the implementation of the measures in the Bill, not only with respect to the commencement date, but to some of the other issues. Can the Minister say anything further?
We would, of course, be delighted if the Minister were able to accept the amendment, but if he is to hold firm, would he be able to make certain commitments so that we would be clear on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure Parliament is appraised of the progress between this Bill receiving Royal Assent and the next, more substantial piece of legislation to be introduced—namely the Bill that has become known as economic crime Bill 2? We want to know something about the effectiveness of the measures within this Bill and the way forward to the next Bill.
Can the Minister confirm the scope of the next Bill? Will that be broad, and will there be an opportunity to amend some of the measures in this Bill as we move forward to the next Bill? As we know, many noble Lords have raised the issues within this Bill of the fact that there has not been proper scrutiny. It may well be that many of the points that noble Lords have raised will actually come to fruition, but we need some assessment of that from the Government so that we can then inform our deliberations with respect to the economic crime Bill 2.
Also, as I say, there is a general belief that, although we are allowing the Bill to pass because of the emergency we face, there are still significant weaknesses and omissions within it. There is, therefore, a need for the next Bill to be brought as soon as possible—that is absolutely crucial—rather than at some time in the future. Can the Minister give any assurances to the House as to when he expects the next economic crime Bill to come before your Lordships in order to discuss that? There are a number of questions for the Minister, and I look forward to hearing the answers to them to determine whether we wish to test the opinion of the House or not.
Lord Fox (LD)
Very briefly, my Lords, we thank the noble Lord and congratulate him on tabling this amendment. We on these Benches still remain concerned about the cumulative delay of transition and commencement—or the potential cumulative delay—so we are pleased that the Minister has another chance to respond to that particular concern. We also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the speed with which ECB 2 arrives in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, for their extremely constructive engagement over the course of the weekend and over the course of a number of meetings and chats today. I really am very grateful for their constructive attitude and for their willingness to be open to the arguments that we have deployed in why we genuinely do not think that reducing the transition period further is a runner, for a whole variety of reasons we have discussed—I will not go into detail now. But I am grateful—I want to put that on record—for the support of the Opposition parties in accepting this as emergency legislation that we want to get through as swiftly as possible and passed down to the other place.
I also note their interest in seeing a rapid introduction of the measures of this Bill and their focus on ensuring its effective implementation—and also their interest in a wider range of issues that can be covered in the Bill. The forthcoming legislation on economic crime will, as I have said previously, provide for significant reform of the powers of the Companies House registrar. These will directly interact with the provisions of this Bill, enhancing further its effectiveness—for instance, by providing greater powers to query and act on the information on the register. I would be happy, therefore, to commit the Government that this House will have the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the current legislation in that wider context of our discussion on the new powers. I am also committed to the rapid implementation of the measures in this Bill, and I would also be happy to commit to updating the House on the Government’s progress on this within six weeks of this measure achieving Royal Assent.
I can reassure noble Lords that the further economic crime Bill that the Government intend to introduce in the next Session will be a broad one. We will, of course, consider and carefully examine any amendments put forward in either House which serve to strengthen our frameworks for tackling economic crime. As my honourable friend the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets—who I am pleased to see at the Bar of the House—said in the other place last week, we are committed to bringing forward the next economic crime Bill early in the next Session.
I hope that has provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Lord and that, therefore, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much for that reply. It does show that the parliamentary process works, because the Government have moved in a significant way to meet the concerns not only of myself and other noble Lords on this side but, indeed, noble Lords across the Chamber. These concerns are not resolved, but the Minister has given us a way forward, in particular by reviewing the effectiveness of the current legislation. That is an important concession from the Government, which will allow us to see whether the concerns raised about the Bill come to fruition or whether the Government are right to say that we are worrying about things that will not come to pass.
An update on progress within six weeks of Royal Assent is a significant step forward and another important concession from the Government. As my noble friend Lady Smith has raised on a number of occasions, we are particularly pleased about the Government’s commitment to an economic crime Bill No. 2 early in the next Session. I think the word “early” is significant for all of us because we believe that there are things that will need to be changed, and this means we will have the opportunity to do so. I thank the Minister once again for that.
Given the concessions that the Government have made and the demonstration of the way that the parliamentary process has worked within this context, I will not press Amendment 62.
Lord Callanan
“(iii) is the tenant under a lease that was registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after that date, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment rephrases clause 9(8)(b)(iii) to ensure consistency with the language used at paragraphs 10(1) and 11(1) of Schedule 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting a new subsection (10) into clause 9.
“(10) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b)(i)—(a) the reference to an overseas entity’s being entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of a title sheet is a reference to the name of the entity being so entered, and(b) the date on which an overseas entity is entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of a title sheet is, where the entry is made by virtue of an application for registration, the date of registration as determined under section 37 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 (date and time of registration).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies terminology used in the Land Registration etc.(Scotland) Act 2012 to clause 9(8)(b)(i) to ensure consistency between the two legislative schemes.
Lord Callanan
(i) the required information about each registrable beneficial owner, and(ii) in respect of any registrable beneficial owner who is a trustee, the required information about the trust.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an overseas entity to take reasonable steps to obtain information about trusts, where relevant.
(c) if the person is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of being a trustee, to confirm or correct any of the required information about the trust that is specified in the notice and to supply any of the required information about the trust that the notice states the overseas entity does not already have.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an information notice under clause 12 to deal with information about trusts, where relevant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability of the Secretary of State to exempt an individual from the requirements to register their overseas entities on the grounds of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the arguments have all been made in the previous stage, when the Minister stood up and said that the Government were prepared to accept what was then Amendment 43; I was delighted. It is now Amendment 27, which I beg to move.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to confirm and accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which was originally Amendment 43. It removes an exemption from reporting where this is in the interests of the economic well-being for the UK. As I said in Committee, I have listened carefully and we have engaged on this. In reflection of this and, as has been said, in the interests of working together to progress this vital legislation collaboratively and swiftly, the Government are happy to support this amendment.
Lord Callanan
“(ba) any required information about a trust delivered to the registrar by virtue of section 4(2A), 7(2A) or (2B) or 9(2A) or (2B) (required information about trusts),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that the required information about trusts will be unavailable for inspection on the public register.
“(a) it relates to a registrable beneficial owner or managing officer in relation to an overseas entity,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that date of birth and residential address information is protected even if it relates to a person who has ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner.
(d) it is not information about a trust delivered to the registrar by virtue of section 4(2A), 7(2A) or (2B) or 9(2A) or (2B).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment excludes information about trusts from the definition of “protected” date of birth and residential address information. This is because other amendments create different provisions governing the disclosure etc of information about trusts.
Lord Callanan
“Disclosure of information about trusts
(1) This section applies to information delivered to the registrar by virtue of section 4(2A), 7(2A) or (2B) or 9(2A) or (2B) (required information about trusts).(2) The registrar may not disclose the information unless—(a) the same information is made available by the registrar for public inspection otherwise than by virtue of being delivered to the registrar by virtue of a provision mentioned in subsection (1), or(b) the disclosure is permitted by subsection (3).(3) The registrar may disclose the information to—(a) the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or(b) any other person who—(i) has functions of a public nature, and(ii) is specified for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause generally prevents the registrar from disclosing the required information about trusts. But it also includes a new power to disclose information to HMRC or other specified persons with public functions.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new clause about disclosure of information about trusts.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the mental element for the offence under clause 31 and introduces a reasonable excuse defence instead (for example to cater for cases where an overseas entity reasonably relies on information provided by others which turns out to be untrue).
“(1A) An offence under this section is aggravated if, when the document or statement is delivered, the person knows that it is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an offence under clause 31 is aggravated if it is committed by a person who knew that the document or statement provided is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular. A later amendment imposes a higher penalty for an aggravated offence.
“(1B) A person guilty of an offence under this section, other than an aggravated offence, is liable —(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the penalty for an offence under clause 31 other than an aggravated offence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the current penalty under clause 31 to apply only where the offence is an aggravated offence (because of the defendant’s knowledge).
Lord Callanan
“(5A) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland before making regulations under subsection (4).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult a Northern Ireland department before making regulations under clause 32(4).
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and related amendments align the transitional periods under Schedule 3 with the period in new clause (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Chief Land Registrar to act as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event before the end of the transitional period, to enter a restriction in relation to an estate in land owned by an overseas entity since before the Bill comes into force.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and related amendments align the transitional periods under Schedule 3 with the period in new clause (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the definition of “the commencement date” in Schedule 3 so that it is the same as the date from which the transitional period (as amended) would run.
““the transitional period” has the meaning given by section (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions)(10).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “the transitional period” for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to have the same meaning as in new clause (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions).
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with paragraph 7 of Schedule 4, which prohibits the delivery of a qualifying registrable deed in specified circumstances.
“(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply where—(a) the application is made by a person other than the overseas entity referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b)(i), and(b) the deed in respect of which the application is made is a lease or an assignation of a lease the subjects of which consist of or form part of an unregistered plot of land of which that overseas entity is the proprietor.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides an exception to the application of sub-paragraph (2) in circumstances where a third party makes an application to register a lease or an assignation of lease, which necessitates the registration of the overseas entity’s title as a result of automatic plot registration.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the point in time at which the overseas entity’s interest must have been registered in order to fall within the scope of this provision.
“(ii) in respect of a transfer of ownership or other event that”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the exception provided for at paragraph 2(2)(a) applies in circumstances where the application for registration is in respect of a transfer of ownership or other event that occurs by operation of law.
“(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply where—(a) the application is made by a person other than the overseas entity referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b)(i), and(b) the deed in respect of which title is being completed is a lease or an assignation of a lease the subjects of which consist of or form part of an unregistered plot of land of which that overseas entity is the proprietor.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides an exception to the application of sub-paragraph (2) where a third party makes an application to complete title in respect of a lease or an assignation of lease, which necessitates the registration of the overseas entity’s title as a result of automatic plot registration.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the point in time at which the overseas entity’s interest must have been registered in order to fall within the scope of this provision.
“(ii) in respect of a transfer of ownership or other event that”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the exception provided for at paragraph 4(2)(a) applies in circumstances where the application for registration is in respect of a transfer of ownership or other event that occurs by operation of law.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the scope of paragraph 5 to include applications made by virtue of section 43(5) of the Land Registration etc.(Scotland) Act 2012, provided such applications meet the other criteria set out in paragraph 5(1).
(ii) that entry would be marked as provisional under section 44(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment narrows the scope of paragraph 5 to ensure that prescriptive claimants who are not overseas entities are not prevented from registering their prescriptive application where the existing title is held by an overseas entity.
“(a) an overseas entity is entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for a plot of land that is registered in the Land Register of Scotland, having been so entered during the pre-commencement period,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 9(8)(b)(i) and clarifies that the entry has to have been made during the pre-commencement period.
“(a) an overseas entity is entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for a plot of land that is registered in the Land Register of Scotland, having been so entered during the pre-commencement period,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 9(8)(b)(i) and clarifies that the entry has to have been made during the pre-commencement period.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the definition of “the commencement date” in Schedule 4 so that it is the same as the date from which the transitional period (as amended) would run.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting a paragraph 12A into new schedule 1A to the Land Registration etc.(Scotland) Act 2012.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aligns the transitional period under Part 2 of Schedule 4 with the period in new clause (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions).
“12A_ For the purposes of paragraphs 10(1)(a) and 11(1)(a)—(a) references to an overseas entity’s being entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of a title sheet are references to the name of the entity being so entered, and(b) the date on which an overseas entity was entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of a title sheet is, where the entry was made by virtue of an application for registration, the date of registration as determined under section 37 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 (date and time of registration).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies terminology used in the Land Registration etc.(Scotland) Act 2012 to paragraphs 10(1)(a) and 11(1)(a) of new schedule 1A to ensure consistency between the two legislative schemes.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aligns the period mentioned in paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 with the transitional period in new clause (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions).
“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under this paragraph that contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 that contain provision within devolved legislative competence.
Lord Callanan
“Sharing of information by HMRC Sharing of information by HMRC
(1) The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may disclose information to the Secretary of State or the registrar for the purpose of the taking of action in connection with an offence under this Part.(2) For the purposes of this section, the taking of action in connection with an offence under this Part includes any of the following—(a) investigating whether an offence has been committed;(b) prosecuting an offence;(c) imposing financial penalties for conduct amounting to an offence.(3) A person who receives information as a result of this section—(a) may not use the information other than for the purpose of the taking of action in connection with an offence under this Part;(b) may not further disclose the information unless the disclosure is necessary for the taking of action in connection with an offence under this Part.(4) It is an offence for a person to disclose, in contravention of subsection (3)(b), any revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity—(a) is specified in the disclosure, or(b) can be deduced from it.(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to prove that the person reasonably believed—(a) that the disclosure was lawful, or(b) that the information had already lawfully been made available to the public.(6) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 apply to an offence under subsection (4) as they apply to an offence under that section.(7) In this section “revenue and customs information relating to a person” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (see section 19(2) of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment permits HMRC to disclose information to allow the registrar and the Secretary of State to take action in connection with offences.
Lord Callanan
“Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions
(1) This section applies where an overseas entity makes an application under section 4 for registration before the end of the transitional period.(2) If the entity has not made any relevant dispositions of land during the period—(a) beginning with 28 February 2022, and(b) ending with the making of the application,the application must include a statement to that effect.(3) If the entity has made any relevant dispositions of land during the period mentioned in subsection (2), the application must include—(a) the required information about each relevant disposition of land made during that period (see subsection (5)),(b) in relation to each such disposition, the statements and information mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 4(1) expressed by reference to the state of affairs immediately before the making of the disposition, and(c) a statement that all of the information required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection has been included in the application.(4) In this section “relevant disposition of land”, in relation to an overseas entity, means—(a) a registrable disposition of a qualifying estate within section 27(2)(a), (b)(i) or (f) of the Land Registration Act 2002 other than—(i) a disposition made in pursuance of a statutory obligation or court order, or occurring by operation of law, or(ii) a disposition made by a specified insolvency practitioner in specified circumstances (within the meaning of paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4A to the Land Registration Act 2002, as inserted by Schedule 3 to this Act);(b) the delivery by the entity of a qualifying registrable deed granted by it where the entity’s interest in respect of which the deed was granted was registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after 8 December 2014, unless the deed was granted—(i) in pursuance of a statutory obligation or court order, or(ii) by a specified insolvency practitioner in specified circumstances (within the meaning of paragraph 2(5) of schedule 1A of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012, as inserted by Schedule 4 to this Act).(5) The required information about a relevant disposition of land is—(a) where the relevant disposition of land is within subsection (4)(a)—(i) the date of disposition, and(ii) the registered title number of the qualifying estate;(b) where the relevant disposition of land is within subsection (4)(b)—(i) the date of delivery of the deed, and(ii) the title number of the title sheet in which the entity’s interest is entered.(6) In subsection (4)(a) “qualifying estate” means—(a) a freehold estate in land, or(b) a leasehold estate in land granted for a term of more than seven years from the date of grant,of which the overseas entity became a registered proprietor in pursuance of an application made on or after 1 January 1999.(7) In subsection (6) “registered proprietor”, in relation to an estate, means the person entered as proprietor of the estate in the register of title kept by the Chief Land Registrar.(8) In subsection (4)(b) “qualifying registrable deed” means a registrable deed (within the meaning of the Land Registration etc.(Scotland) Act 2012) which is—(a) a disposition,(b) a standard security,(c) a lease (including a sub-lease), or(d) an assignation of a lease (including a sub-lease).(9) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), a qualifying registrable deed is to be treated, as at the date of delivery, as having been granted even if at that time it has been executed by the overseas entity only.(10) In this section “the transitional period” means the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which section 3(1) comes fully into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires an overseas entity, when making an application within the first 6 months of the commencement of clause 3(1), to provide additional information about relevant dispositions of land on or after 28 February 2022.
Lord Callanan
“Requirement for certain unregistered overseas entities to provide information
(1) An overseas entity, and every officer of the entity who is in default, commits an offence if—(a) at any time during the period beginning with 28 February 2022 and ending with the end of the transitional period, the entity has made a relevant disposition of land,(b) at the end of the transitional period the entity—(i) is not registered as an overseas entity,(ii) has not made an application for registration as an overseas entity that is pending, and(iii) is not an exempt overseas entity, and(c) the entity has not, after making the relevant disposition of land and before the end of the transitional period, delivered to the registrar—(i) statements and information of the kind mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 4(1), expressed by reference to the state of affairs immediately before the making of the relevant disposition of land, and(ii) the required information about the relevant disposition of land (within the meaning of section (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions) (5)).(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales to a fine and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding the greater of £2,500 and one half of level 4 on the standard scale;(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one half of level 5 on the standard scale.(3) The contravention continues until such time as the overseas entity has delivered the statements and information mentioned in subsection (1)(c).(4) In the case of continued contravention, an offence is also committed by every officer of the overseas entity who did not commit an offence under subsection (1) in relation to the initial contravention but who is in default in relation to the continued contravention.(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to a fine not exceeding the greater of £2,500 and one half of level 4 on the standard scale for each day on which the contravention continues and the person is in default;(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding one half of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the contravention continues and the person is in default.(6) In this section—“exempt overseas entity” means an entity of a description specified in regulations under section 33(6);“relevant disposition of land” has the meaning given by section (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions) (4);“transitional period” has the meaning given by section (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions) (10).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes it an offence for certain unregistered overseas entities to fail to provide information about relevant dispositions of land made on or after 28 February.
“Section (Requirement for certain unregistered overseas entities to provide information): supplementary
(1) Section 12 has effect as if—(a) subsection (1) included a reference to an overseas entity being under a duty to comply with that section before delivering statements and information under section (Requirement for certain unregistered overseas entities to provide information)(1)(c)(i);(b) subsection (2) included a reference to obtaining information for the purposes of section (Requirement for certain unregistered overseas entities to provide information)(1)(c)(i).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with—(a) the provision of information under section (Requirement for certain unregistered overseas entities to provide information)(1)(c),(b) the verification of that information, or(c) the processing of that information by the registrar,including provision modifying any provision made by or under this Part or applying any provision made by or under this Part with modifications.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes further provision in connection with new clause (Requirement for certain unregistered overseas entities to provide information).
Lord Callanan
“(2) A reference in section 12 or 13 to a person who is a registrable beneficial owner of an overseas entity includes, in connection with the obtaining of information required by section 7(1)(b), 9(1)(c), (Applications in the transitional period: information about land transactions)(3)(b) or (Requirement for certain unregistered overseas entities to provide information)(1)(c)(i), a reference to a person who has ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner.(3) A reference in this Part to a trust includes arrangements, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, that are of a similar character to a trust, and any related expressions are to be read accordingly.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision specifying descriptions of arrangements that are, or are not, to be treated as being of a similar character to a trust for the purposes of subsection (3).(5) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes further interpretive provision, including provision extending the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill in relation to trusts so that they apply to arrangements of a similar character outside the UK.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 View all Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to thank all those who have supported the progress of the Bill. First, I thank the House of Lords Public Bill Office, the House clerks and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their support and extremely hard work in ensuring that the Bill could be expedited through the House. In particular, I thank our new star of social media, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield—we shall all have to be very careful and make sure that we are paying attention when she is in the House in future—and my noble friends Lady Williams and Lord Ahmad, who have ably assisted me in getting this cross-cutting legislation through the House.
I also give particular thanks to my private office and the whole of the Bill team in both BEIS and the Home Office. All the civil servants working there are a credit to their profession. I can tell the House that they were working evenings and weekends. People were texting me at 10 pm last night, on a Sunday evening, on the details—so they have really assisted us by working hard. That is in addition to all the officials across government, in BEIS, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, who have all contributed by working tirelessly to get the Bill to this point. I also want to remember the late Nick Skates, a dedicated civil servant who spent many years working on these issues, tackling economic crime, who is very sadly not with us today to see the fruits of his labour.
I also give particular tribute to the Opposition spokesmen, the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, and all their colleagues—the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and others—for their constructive challenge and continued support for the Bill. I am grateful to Members across the House for their valuable engagement and contributions to our debates on the Bill; it has been immeasurably improved by the work that they have put in in such speedy and short order. I also thank them for the support that they have already expressed for the upcoming second economic crime Bill, which the Government will introduce in the coming months, in the next parliamentary Session. I also pay tribute to the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which, a few years ago, helped ensure that this legislation was in a good place prior to its introduction.
I express my gratitude and thanks to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland for their support for the Bill. We are delighted that a legislative consent Motion has been agreed with Scotland.
I also thank the Northern Ireland Executive’s Department of Justice, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance for their support. In the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, a legislative consent Motion cannot be secured from the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, given the active support of Northern Ireland Ministers, the Government have agreed to proceed with legislating on behalf of Northern Ireland. Ministers in Northern Ireland have, of course, been made aware of this. Both my department and the Home Office will continue to engage with Northern Ireland executive officials on devolved matters as the Bill is implemented.
The Bill will target sources of illicit wealth and their permeation through our economy. We will cut off these funds. We will send a message that the United Kingdom will not stand idly by when this exploitation is taking place. We will show the Kremlin that the United Kingdom will not facilitate or accept any aspect of aggression against any democratic nation. We will do so united, cross party and working together to bring these matters to fruition. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I start by thanking various people—including my family, who put up with me being on the telephone most of the weekend, often to the Minister. It was worth it in the end, as they say.
On a serious note, I thank everyone. This is a fast-tracked Bill, and that puts pressure on everybody. It is important to thank people at this time; it is a courtesy of the House but an important one to thank the staff, the clerks, the officers of the House and everybody who has enabled us to function in the way that we have and to put this extremely important legislation through the House. We are passing legislation which impacts on millions of people’s lives in this country, across Europe and beyond, and in thanking each other for doing that, we all ought to reflect perhaps a little more than we sometimes do on the enormity of the work that we do and the responsibility that we have. The people we are thanking should realise that they have made things possible in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that is something to remind ourselves of.
I also thank my colleagues: my noble friend Lady Chapman—who as we know has had to give her apologies for personal reasons today, and we wish her well—my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Smith, and Dan Stevens in our office, who has worked tirelessly to keep us informed about the importance of different parts of the legislation.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others, for the work that they have done with us; and the many noble Lords across the Cross Benches who have taken the trouble to send me information, talk to me and give me the benefit of their expertise and knowledge. I have been very grateful for that; I hope that it has improved the contributions that we have all made to the House and in the end will improve the legislation that we take forward.
I thank the Minister again, as I did earlier, and his colleagues on the Front Bench for the co-operation that they have given us. Obviously there have been debates and discussions, but we have all had at the forefront of our minds the need to get the legislation through, and this has been a template for how to do that. I ask him to pass that on to all his colleagues. This is something important for our country.
This economic crime Bill 1—as we are calling it—needs to be improved, but we should remind ourselves that the bit that needs improving is not the emergency part. We should remind ourselves that we have passed an emergency Bill that allows us to do what we all want: to take effective action against dirty money within London—perhaps it should have been done before, but at least we are doing it now—and send a message to President Putin that he cannot act with impunity on the invasion of Ukraine. We stand united to try to deal with that. On the sanctions part—the real emergency part of the Bill—we all remain united. The message should go out clearly from this House of Lords back to the House of Commons and from us to the people of Ukraine, and to Russia itself.
As the Minister said, we will be moving from this economic crime Bill to an economic crime Bill 2. I am very grateful for the concessions he made. He will know the disquiet in the House about certain measures in the existing Bill, but he said that he would take that on board and reflect on the opinions expressed. It will allow us to take forward economic crime Bill 2 early in the next Session and build on the work we have done by putting improvements into it. Looking at various Cross-Benchers and around the House, I know that we will end up with a big economic crime Bill 2, which in the end will deliver the sort of legislation we all want to tackle the dirty money in our country.
I thank everyone again. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to be involved with this and I thank the Minister again for that.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us, this is an emergency Bill. Your Lordships’ House has expedited it swiftly. In that regard, we should be pleased with how much scrutiny we have been able to pack into such a short time. The fact that there were 62 government amendments and two other amendments on Report indicates that quite a lot of work has been done, not necessarily all by us. I commend everybody who has participated in this, on Opposition Benches and the Benches opposite, towards a process where—I hope—Ministers believe that this is a better Bill than the one we received.
Looking forward, much hope is vested in the subsequent Bill. It is clear that the Government should expect that, when it comes, the level of scrutiny will be much higher and normal service will be resumed in the amount of time we expect to be available to give a quality look at it. In the meantime, we await the statutory instruments needed to drive this Bill and look forward to the six-week review on how commencement is moving forward.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in thanking the Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Callanan—and their various Whips who have been here at different times. I particularly commend the Bill team. It is quite clear they must have lost an awful lot of sleep and weekends to get where we did; now all they have are a couple of dozen statutory instruments to sort out—so no pressure. I thank them very much for their hard work and thank the private offices of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and others.
I also thank the Opposition Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and her able sub the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Of course, I give particular props to the home team of my noble friends Lady Kramer, Lord Thomas and Lord Clement-Jones, and of course Sarah Pughe, our legislation adviser, without whom everything would be incoherent.
In sending the Bill back to the Commons, we should remember that it is not an anti-Russian Bill. It is an anti-oligarch Bill and an anti-kleptocrat Bill. Of course, some of those criminals come from Russia. We should also turn the fire of this legislation on kleptocrats from Belarus and other such places and, in due course, on criminals from all around the world. This is against not the people of Russia but the criminals who have robbed the people of Russia, and we should remind ourselves of that. We look forward to the next phases of legislation in this area.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn during pleasure until 12.45 am to await Royal Assent.
Royal Assent
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, in begging to move that the House do now adjourn, I say a big thank you on our behalf to all the staff of the House for remaining so late.