House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we start today’s business, I want to say something about the article in The Mail on Sunday yesterday about the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I said to the House last week, in response to a point of order about a different article, that I took the issue of media freedom very seriously. It is one of the building blocks of our democracy. However, I share the view expressed by a wide range of Members—including, I believe, the Prime Minister—that yesterday’s article, which reported unsubstantiated claims, was misogynistic and offensive. That is what we believe.
I express my sympathy to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for being subjected to this type of comment, which, in being demeaning and offensive to women in Parliament, can only deter women who might be considering standing for election, to the detriment of us all. That is why I am arranging a meeting with the chair of the press lobby and the editor of The Mail on Sunday to discuss this issue affecting our parliamentary community. I am also arranging a separate meeting—I believe we now have a time this evening—with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement.
The Government have introduced two new safe and legal routes for Ukrainian nationals: the Ukraine family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. As of 21 April, more than 71,000 visas had been issued under both schemes. Under the schemes, neither route is capped, and the Ukraine extension scheme permits Ukrainians who are already in the UK to extend their stay.
Dr Whitford
Members from throughout the House have called on the Government to make it easier for people from Ukraine to seek sanctuary in the UK. Will the Home Secretary explain why the schemes for those who try to flee the Taliban are so limited and why, according to her own Department, the Nationality and Borders Bill does not establish safe and legal routes for those fleeing war, conflict or persecution?
Priti Patel
First, the new plan for immigration spells out absolutely the Government’s approach to safe and legal routes. As I have said many times in the House, every safe and legal route needs to be bespoke, based on the crisis that we are seeking to address.
Secondly, in response to the hon. Lady’s question about Afghanistan, she will know that under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme we will welcome up to 20,000 at-risk people who have been affected by the most appalling events in Afghanistan. That scheme was announced last year and will include women and girls and members of minority groups, given their vulnerability.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
A family who are still in Ukraine have been reporting back to their Homes for Ukraine sponsors in Halifax that they have been able to hear the bombs getting closer every day of their 29-days-and-counting wait for a visa. The family in Ukraine have twins under the age of 10 who have, remarkably, had their visas processed at different speeds. A Home Office whistleblower has described the scheme as “designed to fail”. Government figures show that 40,000 visas have been issued under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, yet just 6,600 Ukrainians have actually arrived in the UK, because families who need to travel together cannot do so because the visa of just one family member, often a child, is delayed. Will the Home Secretary explain why, if 40,000 visas have been issued, so few Ukrainians have arrived in the UK? What is she doing to correct the situation?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Lady for her question because she makes an important point. There are a number of points to make in response.
First, on the reason why low numbers have come to the UK, as I have already said, more than 71,000 visas for both schemes have been granted. The Minister for Refugees, Lord Harrington, went to the region just 10 days ago to find out why and what more could be done to bring over families who have been granted their visas to come over. First and foremost, as we have heard repeatedly from the Ukrainian Government and from Governments in the region—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady like to stand up and respond? First of all, those families want to stay in region. That is a fact and that is exactly why we are working with the various Governments in region.
The hon. Lady made an important point about families and younger children. Much of that is down to the checks, because they are not always travelling with parents. Safeguarding checks are being undertaken to ensure that they are all linked members of families. They are important checks that have to take place.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Less than half of 1% of Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war have so far found shelter in the United Kingdom. There are currently more sheltered in Ireland than are sheltered here, despite our neighbours being 13 times smaller in terms of population. The real reason for this situation is the unnecessary, inappropriate and shambolic visa system that the Home Secretary has decided to impose. Approximately 140 other countries allow visa-free access. Surely, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary must lift visa requirements for all, or at least some, Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war and get things moving.
Priti Patel
I have repeated many times the reason why we have checks and visas. I appreciate the political difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman’s party, but we are not members of the EU; we do not have open borders. I acknowledge that he has a fundamentally different point of view when it comes to open borders and not having checks on those who come to our country but, in this case, security checks are vital.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
There is a whole of Government effort to counter these dangerous and unnecessary crossings. That effort is reflected in the recent changes that the Government have made to operational primacy. We continue to work closely with the French to prevent crossing attempts, guiding vulnerable migrants in France towards support there, and tackling the vile criminal gangs that profit from them.
Craig Tracey
I have raised small boat crossings with the Department on a number of occasions, and I am grateful for the continued efforts to bring the crossings to an end and to ensure that we control illegal immigration. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we use every single power we have to prevent these illegal crossings, which continually put lives in danger; to clamp down on the gangs that facilitate them; and to continue to provide the legal routes by which so many people have already made safe crossings?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the distinction between illegal entry into this country and people coming via safe and legal routes. I know that his constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth feel very strongly that the Nationality and Borders Bill needs to pass into law. We need its comprehensive measures to build on our existing powers, to get to grips with this issue, and to tackle it fairly but robustly. I am sure that he will join me in encouraging the other place to get on and pass the Bill this week.
Jonathan Gullis
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are delighted with this groundbreaking economic and development partnership with Rwanda, which will help to break the business model of vile people smugglers once and for all. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that of my constituents that the Labour woke warriors are quite happy to stick with the status quo, meaning that more people are going to leave safe mainland France, risking their lives and putting thousands of pounds in the hands of smuggling gangs, which will mean more death in the channel and illegal economic migrants continuing to enter the United Kingdom?
Tom Pursglove
One thing we absolutely know is that my hon. Friend’s constituents are very perceptive. They will recognise that the Labour party has no credible alternative that recognises the scale of the challenge and all its complexities. We need the measures in the Bill; we need the Rwanda model to come to fruition. We are getting on and delivering on that priority.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
To avoid desperate Ukrainians being added to those trying to cross the channel, the Government’s schemes for Ukrainians need to work. Can the Minister explain why the very helpful Members’ hub in Portcullis House has been stopped from issuing permission-to-travel letters to MPs? I dealt with a family last week. For two of the family members, the letters were sent to me and I could let the family and their host family here know, and they were all happy about it. For the third family member, the system was stopped at the end of the last week, and officials are saying that they are now no longer allowed to issue MPs with those permission-to-travel letters. It is a complete shambles. Will he sort it out?
Tom Pursglove
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for the refugee scheme, but I will gladly ensure that his feedback is heard by my noble Friend Lord Harrington. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to share details of those specific cases, we will gladly look at them at pace.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Despite this Government continually patting themselves on the back, there remain far too many cracks in the Homes for Ukraine scheme. In a recent article published by The Guardian, an anonymous whistleblower has revealed that he dealt with numerous cases in which UK visas had been issued for an entire family apart from just one child, effectively stopping the family from travelling to safety. Over the past few weeks, I have been in contact with a constituent who has been doing all she can to help a family from Ukraine who are in that exact scenario, but she is getting nowhere. What is the Minister doing to plug those gaps and to ensure that entire families, not just individuals, can reach the UK safely?
Tom Pursglove
If the hon. Lady can provide the specifics of that case, I will happily ensure that that is looked at quickly. It is also fair to say that the number of caseworkers dedicated to this work has been increased, and we try to ensure that cases are grouped so that families are processed consistently together, which makes sense, but I would be delighted to look at the specifics of this case.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The deeply misjudged Nationality and Borders Bill and the Rwanda offloading plan will not only make cracking down on criminal people traffickers much more difficult, but make the cost to the British taxpayer criminally expensive. The British people deserve to know how their taxes are being spent, not least because the failed Australian model ended up costing £1 million per refugee. I ask the Home Secretary how many refugees she expects to send to Rwanda each year. The Prime Minister says it is tens of thousands; is that correct? How many can they house in the detention centres? What will the cost per single refugee be? What will the £120 million be spent on? Finally, given that her most senior civil servant refused to sign off on the plan, when will the Home Secretary publish a comprehensive cost forecast of her unworkable, extortionate and profoundly un-British Rwanda offloading agreement?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman clearly did not pay much attention to the statement last week and the responses given. The British people deserve to know what his alternative is. I would politely suggest there is none.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary, the Minister and all her team for bringing about the so-called Rwanda plan. I know the whole of Dudley is behind her, as is the rest of the country—unlike the Labour party, which has no plan. I ask the Home Secretary and her team to continue with the same steely resolve that I know she must have applied to get here as they move on to delivery and implementation.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the policies we are bringing forward. He recognises the gravity and importance of the issues we are dealing with. We will not rest while people continue to put their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs, whose only concern is to take a profit from those individuals. They do not care whether people get here safely. That has to stop, we have a plan to stop it and we are going to get on and deliver it.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister claimed that the Rwanda scheme will be a way of diminishing the small boats crossing the channel, but he will be aware that at least one Member of this House does not support his scheme: the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not only a former Prime Minister, but a former Home Secretary. Can he explain to the House why he disagrees with his colleague, and what makes him so sure that his scheme will not fall in the courts?
Tom Pursglove
I have huge respect and admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). The bottom line here is that there is no single intervention that will resolve the issue, but we must strain every sinew. We believe this is an important policy intervention that will shift the dynamic and help to preserve lives. That is a fundamental imperative and we cannot put a cost on it. I am convinced that this policy will deliver, along with the wider package of measures we are introducing. I encourage the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) to be in the right Division Lobby this week and to pass the Nationality and Borders Bill into law.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government. Since publishing our cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy last July, we have launched a communications campaign to challenge perpetrators and to drive rejection of these awful crimes. We have supported the introduction of a new national policing lead and provided more than £27.5 million for 79 local projects to improve women’s safety in public spaces.
Alexander Stafford
Violence against women and girls is both horrific and, unfortunately, endemic. It must be stopped. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming our plans such as the tackling domestic abuse plan, which, alongside the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, will play a vital role in stamping out these horrific crimes?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for his astute observations and strongly agree that that Bill is absolutely vital as part of our package of measures to respond to violence against women and girls. The House will like to be reminded, no doubt, that it contains measures to ensure that serious criminals, including sex offenders, will be punished more harshly and spend longer in prison. It strengthens management of sex offenders, introduces more electronic tagging, and ends the automatic halfway release from prison for serious and violent sex offenders. It is therefore a shame that Labour Members persist in voting against the Bill. I very much hope they will change their stance at the next opportunity.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee recently published its report on rape investigations and prosecutions. We very much welcome the Government’s making male violence against women and girls a strategic policing requirement. However—following on from the news today about sexual offences taking record times to get to court—we also recommended that all police forces should have specialist rape and sexual assault units, as there is clear evidence that they investigate better, make better decisions and, very importantly, communicate with complainants far more effectively. When will the Government make sure that all police forces have specialist RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—units within their constabulary?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the right hon. Lady for all the work that she is doing, across the piece, on tackling violence against women and girls. She is right to say that this is a huge priority for the Government. On training for police forces, she will know of the work that we are doing in the end-to-end rape review. We are taking a forensic look across the whole system, including through the work of Operation Soteria across all the police forces. That includes a strategic and comprehensive approach to training police officers. We want to go further than ever before in training and equipping our fantastic policemen and women to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of these crimes.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
In the Home Office’s violence against women and girls consultation last year, viewing violent pornography was linked to aggressive attitudes towards women. What action is my hon. Friend taking to address that really worrying issue, particularly given the Online Safety Bill that is currently going through the House?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my right hon. Friend for her continuous involvement in and advocacy on these issues. She will know that the Online Safety Bill includes a range of measures to make the internet much safer for everybody. Everybody should have a right to view the internet without coming across this disgusting material. In addition, our domestic abuse plan and our tackling violence against women and girls strategy include significant funding for tackling the perpetrators and deterring them from entering into these forms of behaviour in the first place.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Shocking new figures today show that sexual offence victims face the longest ever wait for their day in court, with some rape victims waiting four years. The Conservatives seem to have given up on law and order and given up on victims. That is because their leader has given up on obeying the law. Of the 300 rapes committed today, fewer than three perpetrators will make it to the inside of a courtroom, let alone the inside of a prison cell. Is it not the case that under the Tories dangerous perpetrators are being let off and vulnerable victims of this awful crime are being terribly let down?
Rachel Maclean
This is exactly why we have introduced to the House the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. If the hon. Lady was listening to my earlier remarks, she would have heard me setting out the stronger sentences, the increase in electronic tagging for these perpetrators and the raft of protections to keep women and girls safer. She will also know through the many exchanges that we have had in this House of the work that we are doing on the end-to-end rape review across Government. This is a cross-Government effort bearing down on the very challenging issue of rape prosecutions. We are determined to return those prosecutions to a much better rate and we are working across Government to do that.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
Fraudsters should have no space to operate, and later this year we will publish our renewed strategy on how we protect the public and businesses, reduce the impact on victims, and increase the disruption and prosecution of fraudsters.
Sarah Green
The Minister knows that fraud accounts for more than a third of all crime. Last year, Thames Valley police in Chiltern and South Bucks, which covers my constituency, had 194 Action Fraud victim care reports. One constituent told me, with great distress, that they had stopped reporting scams, because they think that Action Fraud has become a crime reporting agency and is no longer a crime investigation agency. We need a new service dedicated to effectively tackling online fraud, not just recording it. Will the Minister commit to establishing a new online crime agency to do just that?
Damian Hinds
I can confirm to the hon. Lady that we are making constant improvements to Action Fraud through the City of London police, and are also investing in a wholly new Action Fraud system for 2024. In the meantime, I encourage her constituent and all our constituents to report fraud. One particularly striking statistic is that more than 76,000 scams have been automatically taken down as a direct result of our constituents forwarding scam emails to the suspicious email reporting service.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
In 2021, fraud and computer misuse increased by 47%. In 2020, an estimated 99.99% of total cyber-crime went unpunished. Just weeks ago, academics at the University of Oxford estimated that during covid alone, £37 billion—or one third of the total NHS annual budget, and twice the annual budget for policing—is likely to have been lost to fraud. When working families are facing rising energy costs and a cost of living crisis, and are paying more and more taxes and more for services, can the Minister tell me why, under this Tory Government, gangs of criminals are getting a free run at the public purse?
Damian Hinds
Gangs of criminals certainly do not get a free run, and we will be investing and doing more than ever before to bear down on fraud. During the covid era—the trend had started already, but it accelerated then—while other forms of crime got depressed, there was a boost to some of this distanced crime that people do over their computers. Crime overall across the world is changing, and our response must change in a way that is commensurate to that. We must ensure that we take the most effective action. Part of that is the spending review commitment that has just been made; there is also the new economic crime levy, which represents an additional £400 million over this spending review period.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
In advance of the recent irresponsible and self-defeating protests, there has been regular engagement with the police, local authorities and industry to ensure that these protests can be managed effectively, and that there is no risk to fuel supply. All fuel supply points are fully operational, and we will continue to work closely with the police and industry to ensure that supplies are maintained.
Andrew Selous
Does the Minister agree that while the right to protest is a fundamental liberty, this type of behaviour just infuriates the public, whom we need to get on side with our net zero campaign? It is particularly unfair to the self-employed. If they cannot get fuel for their vehicles, they cannot get to work and they do not get paid. Will he ensure that the police and the law stay on the side of the law-abiding, so that everyone can earn an income?
Kit Malthouse
I certainly will ensure that, and my hon. Friend is right to point out the impact, particularly on those who rely on their vehicles for their work, of these irresponsible and self-defeating protests, many of which have been extremely dangerous. It is worth also reflecting on the other impact, which is that hundreds of police officers are pulled away from policing neighbourhoods across the UK, because forces provide each other with mutual aid. We have brought police from as far away as Scotland, the south-west and Wales to help deal with these protests, and that has a direct impact on crime in all our constituencies. We are all committed environmentalists and want less use of fossil fuels, but this is not the way to achieve it.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
Easter saw Border Force maintain a secure and effective border, with minor inbound border control disruption, in a period with one of the highest levels of international travel in the past two years. Before Easter, in February and March 2022, more than 85% of queue measurements were under 45 minutes for non-EU passengers.
Julie Elliott
I thank the Minister for that response. I recently wrote to him regarding the experience that my constituents, the Collins family, had at Newcastle airport when returning from holiday at a quarter to 11 at night a week or two ago. The father is a British-born citizen, and the mother has settled status and is of German origin. The children are both British and German citizens. They describe Border Force, which was not allowing the little boy, Nico, who is five years old, into the country, as being “hostile” and “unpleasant”, and as having an “unsympathetic manner”. That is not the way that anyone should be treated by Border Force, certainly not a five-year-old child. The child had his German passport; his British passport was waiting at home. When the family showed Border Force an email that they had received saying that, they were eventually allowed in—a five-year-old child, who is a British citizen, was eventually allowed into his home. What has the Minister to say? I think an urgent investigation and an unreserved apology to the Collins family are required.
Damian Hinds
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that experience to the Floor of the House of Commons. I am, of course, sorry that any such distress was caused to a family, and particularly to a child so young. She will understand that it is difficult for me to talk about a particular case at the Dispatch Box without having all the facts available, but I will be happy to follow up with her separately.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
It appears that travellers are experiencing severe delays not only at passport control, but with processing passport applications and renewals. Although I fully understand that the Minister has set out the pressures that staff are facing, can he reassure me that backlogs will be addressed and airport issues will be sorted out before my constituents go on their summer holidays?
Damian Hinds
I reassure my hon. Friend that, in spite of the fact that there has been a surge in demand, as she would expect considering the patterns that we have seen in the past couple of years and the fact that international travel is now returning, that is absolutely something that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who leads on passport issuing, is across to ensure that the necessary capacity is there.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Passport delays are affecting our constituents’ ability to take holidays and take up jobs abroad. There are ever-lengthening queues at passport control, and generous constituents who signed up for the Homes for Ukraine scheme are having their first experience of the Home Office’s chaos. When will the Home Secretary realise the impact that her Department’s appalling record on managing the gateways into and out of our country is having on the UK’s reputation, here and across the world?
Damian Hinds
I take extremely seriously the experience of passengers coming through British airports and seaports. There is a distinction between outbound and inbound—
Damian Hinds
No, there really is. When we talk about Border Force and passport control, that is about inbound. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), there are times when queues grow, and I do not like to see that happen. Sometimes it is because of factors beyond our control, such as so-called flight bunching when lots of flights arrive together or when flights are late. Border Force is working extremely hard to try to project demand as best it can to ensure that the staffing is there, and it is taking considerable measures to match up to that demand.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Border Force officers work tirelessly, not just to secure our borders but on all sorts of security work to safeguard our borders, and to intercept illicit and counterfeit goods at airports and at sea. That work covers more than 140 major sea and airports across the UK. I have commissioned an independent review of Border Force to identify ways in which its operation can be improved.
Virginia Crosbie
My Ynys Môn constituents are concerned about illegal immigration. Will my right hon. Friend thank Border Force—its staff in Holyhead have increased from 20 to 60—for its work? Can she reassure people across Anglesey that the Government remain committed to giving refuge to all those who need it, while acting compassionately and swiftly to remove those who do not?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I, too, have seen the work under way and what the teams do at Holyhead, which is incredible on many fronts; there is not only passenger work, but commercial work. She is right to highlight the issue of illegal migration and the work that Border Force does on that. The House has discussed some of that today. Holyhead is the second busiest port in the UK, and as a result of Brexit the team has expanded—she will know that; she has met them, as have I—from 20 to 60, meaning more skilled local jobs for her constituents.
Andrew Rosindell
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that as the Government rightly help those most in need from Ukraine, they will continue to make the security of the British public a priority through the use of biometrics and other security checks for refugees entering the United Kingdom?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First and foremost, we have security checks for very good reasons to do with the domestic safety of our homeland. At the same time, work is under way, as he will be aware, on the digitalisation of our borders, which is part of the post-Brexit global Britain work that is taking place. In fact, all Ministers from not just the Home Office but the Cabinet Office are heavily involved in that work.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
The Government take this issue extremely seriously. We are taking a range of actions, including reclassifying GHB and related substances from class C to class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. These are the so-called date rape drugs that have been used in drug-facilitated crime, and we are of course considering the case for a specific criminal offence to target spiking, should it be required.
Duncan Baker
A constituent who has got in touch with me has had the dreadful problem of having her drink spiked. It has been a dreadfully traumatic experience, but on top of that, she can no longer go out and socialise with her friends because of the anxiety it has caused. What tougher sentencing we can introduce, and what preventive measures can we take to stop this dreadful crime ever happening again?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is right that drink spiking and needle spiking have a very serious impact. I fully understand the anxiety of his constituent, and of course all our hearts go out to her. I very much hope that she will take some reassurance from the funding that the Government have provided to the Norfolk police and crime commissioner. He has been granted £427,000 for a range of practical initiatives designed to keep women safe on the streets at night, including drink spiking kits, taxi marshals, street pastors and more. I am sure his constituent will be pleased to know that there is already a range of offences under which people can be imprisoned, and some of those offences attract a life sentence.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
During the pandemic period, over 5 million people delayed applying for a British passport. This has led to unprecedented passport demand. To meet this, we have increased output to unprecedented levels. Since April 2021, HMPO has introduced a range of contingency measures, including technical improvements and a bolstering of its resources. This has helped to deliver record output, with over 1 million applications processed last month alone.
Grahame Morris
My experience cannot be unique; I think it is echoed by other Members in the House. This Easter, families and children in my constituency lost holidays due to the Passport Office failing to meet its service standard times. In telephone communications with the Passport Office, my staff and I have been misadvised and hung up on, and have received a series of broken promises. MPs once had valuable and effective links with passport offices to resolve complaints. Notwithstanding the contribution of the Home Office Parliamentary Private Secretaries—I thank them for their interventions—why can I not deal with my excellent local Durham passport office to resolve complaints, instead of waiting for hours, and failing to make progress, on so-called bespoke MP hotlines?
Kevin Foster
I would just point out that between January and March, over 90% of cases were completed within six weeks, but we advise people to allow up to 10 weeks for their application. Again, we are getting through this, but I recognise the point that the hon. Member makes about MPs’ contacts. That is certainly a point we will pick up; we need to make improvements there.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) is certainly not alone: all our constituents are having to cancel holidays, miss funerals and rearrange visits, with even the new 10-week target routinely being missed. What will be done to avoid that predictable mess getting worse? Can we be assured that the 10-week target will not be lengthened further as we approach the summer?
Kevin Foster
I go back to the fact that we dealt with 1 million passport applications last month alone. To put that in context, we usually deal with 7 million in a whole year. Where there are compelling and compassionate circumstances, such as a funeral, applications can be expedited. For some time we have advised people to allow up to 10 weeks for an application to be processed. Last year we sent 4.7 million texts reminding people whose passports had expired to renew them. We have no intention of further extending the standard. We are processing most passports well within that time, but this is a virtually unprecedented surge in demand, and if people are planning to travel this summer, we advise them to get their application in as soon as possible.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
“Unprecedented” might be true, but the surge should absolutely have been foreseeable. I hear what the Minister says; my constituents tell me that in their experience, the process has been either very good or an absolute shambles. I agree with what the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said: there needs to be a better interface between Members of Parliament and the Passport Office. Constituents going abroad for a family funeral, for a holiday or for business reasons are not getting through to the office, and are lied to by officials when they do. Something needs to be done to arrest that, and quickly.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Early in January, we were processing about 60,000 passports a week, and by mid-March we had nearly trebled or even quadrupled the output of the service. I agree that we must review the performance of the hotline for MPs, particularly for instances where there are compelling or compassionate reasons for expediting an application.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Part 2 of the Nationality and Borders Bill defines the key provisions of the refugee convention. In developing this policy we have considered factors such as the law in other jurisdictions, case law and academic works. All provisions of the Bill, as well as our asylum policy framework, are a good-faith, effective interpretation of the refugee convention and are compatible with it.
Carol Monaghan
The Nationality and Borders Bill as it stands does not comply with the 1951 refugee convention. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Brown has said of the Bill that
“several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1882.]
Lord Brown has tabled an amendment to ensure compliance with the convention. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will support Lord Brown’s amendment?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. Under the Vienna convention, it is for Parliament to interpret our international obligations. We will always act in accordance with our international obligations; we have made that consistently clear. The Bill has been through appropriate due diligence, and we will get on and deliver it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
Tackling economic crime is a key Government priority. We have expedited legislation—the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022—to crack down on Russian dirty money and corrupt elites in the UK. We have also set up a new dedicated kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to target sanctions evasion and corrupt assets hidden in the UK.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the Minister for that answer. GPT Special Project Management was fined roughly £28 million by Southwark Crown Court last year for bribery offences. The key whistleblower in that case was my constituent, Ian Foxley. He has had 11 years without a single penny in income because he blew that whistle, as nobody will employ him now, of course. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we want to crack economic crime, we must incentivise whistleblowers to come forward, and protect them when they do? Will he listen carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) says tomorrow in introducing her 10-minute rule Bill, when she will set out the case for whistleblower reform?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right about the value of whistleblowers, who should be able to come forward without fear of recrimination. We have continued to improve the whistleblowing framework, including by extending eligibility for protections and introducing a reporting requirement for prescribed persons—the bodies to whom people can make a whistleblowing disclosure. My hon. Friend has campaigned consistently on this matter and is expert in it, and I am keen to meet him to discuss his points further.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We continue to support those who were evacuated under Operation Pitting—the UK’s largest evacuation operation in some decades—in particular with the search for permanent accommodation, based on working with local councils to identify that.
Jamie Stone
Operation Pitting has evacuated some 15,000 Afghanis. Altogether, refugees and asylum seekers are costing the UK a surprising £4.7 million a day in hotel accommodation, of which £1.2 million is spent on Afghan refugees, but hotels are clearly not the best option for education and schooling of children. We would like to have those refugees in the north of Scotland and the highlands, and they would like to come to the highlands. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can expedite that?
Kevin Foster
I am delighted to hear that housing is available in the highlands to support these people. We would be keen for them to make their new home in the highlands, which is a fantastic part of our United Kingdom. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member to discuss how we can get those families on the way to a permanent home in a welcoming community.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Operation Pitting was a remarkable success in evacuating Afghans, but also remarkable is the number of Afghan women seeking refuge who have been left behind and are now on the Taliban hit list. I have been trying to chase updates on a number of Afghan women but have been unable to get any response from the Home Office. It has been made clear to those women that the Taliban will kill them unless they can escape Afghanistan. Will the Minister meet me to try to help me to progress their cases?
Kevin Foster
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those women’s cases. Of course, through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme we are working with groups such as the UNHCR to identify those who would be particularly affected by Taliban rule.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Our world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda will be a major boost to Rwanda and allow us to focus our efforts on people in need, not those who have the ability to pay people smugglers to make dangerous, illegal journeys from safe countries such as France.
Bambos Charalambous
The policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is unworkable and unethical, and it will either cost billions or result in so few people being sent to Rwanda that it will not act as a deterrent to all the evil people smugglers. Will the Home Secretary tell me how much the policy will cost per person, or what her maximum budget is?
Priti Patel
We have discussed this several times in the House in the last week. The UK is providing an initial investment of £120 million of support for the partnership as part of the new economic transformation and integration fund. I heard what the hon. Member’s party said—Labour Front Bench Members were chuntering about this last week—in calling the policy extortionate and unworkable. Of course, that is completely illogical because if it is not workable, it will not cost the British taxpayer money.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Home Secretary deserves immense credit for her plan and her robust approach to deterring illegal immigration. The fact that we have not seen any small boat crossings in the last three days is evidence that some of the pull factors are being removed. Does she agree that if that trend continues, the cost of the policy will take care of itself?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and comments. First, Labour is still trying to work out that doing nothing is not an option at all, because people have died. Secondly, the policy is exactly that: it is all about deterrence as well as ensuring that we can provide the right safe and humane approach for people who need our asylum system while cracking down on people smuggling gangs.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The Nationality and Borders Bill is the vehicle for the new plan for immigration. That is how we will address the challenge of illegal migration for the first time in over two decades through comprehensive reform of our asylum system. Illegal migration is facilitated by evil people smugglers, and the British public despise those people smugglers and want their Government to act to remove foreign criminals as well as deal with the whole issue of illegal migration. The Bill will mean that we can better protect and support those in need of asylum, deter illegal and dangerous routes of entry to the UK and, of course, remove more easily those with no right to be here. The Bill has already been strongly endorsed by the elected House, and it is vital that the other place now works to ensure that it becomes law.
Cat Smith
Last week, I met directors of the Lancaster business improvement district to discuss antisocial behaviour in our city centre. Will the Home Secretary accept my invitation to come to Lancaster to meet the directors of Lancaster BID and hear about the work they are doing to fund a BID warden to support police in Lancaster city centre to reduce antisocial behaviour?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. If I may, I would like to pay tribute to both her police force and the police and crime commissioner, Andrew Snowden. I was in Lancaster recently, about a month ago. I would be delighted to visit again, I really would. I want to emphasise the power of business improvement districts in dealing with issues such as antisocial behaviour, giving businesses the confidence they need and ensuring they have police support so they can carry on investing in their businesses and creating jobs locally.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a point to reflect on the United Kingdom’s contribution to the Ukraine effort. As well as the long-standing aid and military support, the Government’s commitment and the Prime Minister’s leadership, over 70,000 visas have been granted, and rightly so, to people who are fleeing war and persecution. And, of course, our schemes are completely uncapped.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I have been contacted about a pensioner who found nothing was done about serious harassment by her neighbours; shop owners who said nothing was done about someone who repeatedly smashed their windows; a burglary victim given nothing more than a crime number, and a rape victim who found herself being investigated rather than the rapist until the case was dropped—victims who are all being badly let down. Under the Conservatives, even though more crimes are being reported to the police, arrests and prosecutions have gone down sharply. Why is the Home Secretary letting so many more criminals off?
Priti Patel
On the contrary, the right hon. Lady may want to back our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill when it comes to police, crime, courts and sentencing. She will also reflect on the fact that when the statistics for crime in England and Wales for year ending September 2021 were published, neighbourhood crime was 33% lower than the previous year, burglary offences were lower than the previous year, and other offences including robbery, vehicle offences and theft from the person were also down. This is a Government who have invested record sums in policing and training. Look at the work we are doing with police and crime commissioners across the country. There are a few other points that, if I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to make to the right hon. Lady. When it comes to courts—
Mr Speaker
Order. Home Secretary, I have to get through these topicals. I want to help you, so you need to help me.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary is out of touch with what is happening in communities across the country. Overall crime is up by 14%. Right across the country, fewer rapists, fewer thieves and fewer burglars are being sentenced because they are not being arrested or taken to court in the first place. Since 2015, arrests by the police are down by a third, charge rate is down by nearly two-thirds, and cautions and community penalties have more than halved. It does not matter what her rhetoric is, the reality is much more bleak. This is the equivalent of hundreds of thousands more criminals getting away with their crimes.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to both parties that we really do want you to have good questions, but when with more substantial questions like that please ask them earlier and do not try to force them into topicals. All you are doing is stopping me calling the Back Benchers who did not get in earlier. So please, let us work to help each other.
Priti Patel
When it comes to backing the police and sorting out the criminal justice system, if the right hon. Lady’s party was at all serious she would back the Bill, back the police and the back reforms to the criminal justice system.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Priti Patel
I commend my hon. Friend on the initiative that she has shown through this twinning arrangement. It is incredibly important, and the House should pay tribute to our friends in Poland, and the Polish Government in particular, for everything that they have been doing to support Ukrainians.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes very important points. I am happy to pick that up directly with him. I do not have time to give him a full answer now, but I will happily speak to him about it.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Priti Patel
I would be delighted to come to his constituency to do exactly that. Perhaps we can have a conservation about the safer streets fund, which will certainly assist with that issue.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Mr Speaker
Order. The question is meant to be to Ministers, not Back Benchers.
Anne McLaughlin
The main response to this issue should be safe and legal routes. The Government keep saying that they have them. I submitted a written question asking for the detail of all the routes available, and the detail of those routes fits on half a page, because there are practically none for the entire world.
Priti Patel
If the hon. Lady has read the new plan for immigration—I hope she has—she will be very clear about the Government’s policy on safe and legal routes. I have outlined today a number of safe and legal routes to which the Government have committed, including two routes for Ukrainian nationals and the two routes for those who fled Afghanistan last year.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although Opposition Members yell about the lack of support, I will come back to a number of points. First, doing nothing is not an option. We have to do everything that we possibly can to break up these evil people smugglers, who are unhinged and will stop at nothing to exploit individuals. Secondly, through the new plan for immigration and our wider work through the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is coming back to the House tomorrow, we want to bring our plan together and deliver for the British people.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On 31 March, Lord Harrington had to apologise for inadvertently misleading the other place when he said that a drop-down arrow was available on the form for Ukrainian refugees in the Ukrainian language. When he apologised, he said that that was “in train”. Will the Home Secretary ‘fess up and confirm that it is Home Office policy not to have a translated version of the form, or if it is, where is Lord Harrington’s severely delayed train?
Priti Patel
For Home Office officials who work on the scheme, there is guidance about dealing with different languages in the applications, but I am very happy to pick the matter up directly with the hon. Gentleman.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Work is under way to ensure that we can bring more Ukrainian nationals through our two routes to Scotland. I am very happy to meet him and the Minister to discuss the matter further.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Today, my constituent Graham Hughes is doing his latest humanitarian run to Poland. He hopes to return with a Ukrainian refugee and her 11-year-old daughter, who recently managed to escape the horrors of Mariupol shortly before the evacuation routes closed but are now waiting anxiously in Lviv. Despite Graham and his partner having applied to sponsor them nearly a month ago, they have yet to be granted passage to the UK. Graham and Katherine are ready to bring these people to safety in Durham. Will the Home Secretary do everything possible to expedite that?
Priti Patel
Through the hon. Lady, I would like to pass on our thanks to her constituent who is now travelling to Poland. I will need the details, if I may take them from her, to ensure that the visa side and the sponsorship side match up, and then we can pick this up.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Nottinghamshire police on hitting their recruitment uplift target a year ahead of schedule, so we now have more police officers in Nottinghamshire than at any time in the past 10 years? Can she commit to a date when the long-promised police funding formula review will start?
Priti Patel
I commend Nottinghamshire police and their outstanding chief constable for all the work that the team have been doing. They have been really focusing on driving down crime through recruitment and the training of new officers. My hon. Friend rightly asks about the police funding formula, which is under way through the Minister for Crime and Policing. It is deeply complicated, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, but we are happy to report back on it.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
One mother from Barnsley submitted her daughter’s passport application in January, five months in advance of their holiday next week, but she is yet to receive it. My office has had to wait two hours to speak to someone at the Home Office today. What is the Home Secretary doing to address the unacceptable delays in passport applications?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will have heard the comments from the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), about work at the Passport Office. The hon. Lady said that her constituent submitted her passport application in January. If we can have the details, we will pick the case up, but that is a very unusual delay—there must be a problem.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then: the world-class Rwanda plan has been welcomed by anybody who actually lives in the real world, because it saves lives in the channel. Unfortunately, that lot opposite do not live in the real world. Does the Home Secretary agree that the Labour party now has a chance to either back the plan or back the criminals?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend, as ever, is very clear. It is world-class and a world first, and we are proud of it. It is a partnership that our partners in Rwanda are proud of as well; they have an exceptional history of resettlement of refugees. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the British people want change—they absolutely do. We say to everyone today, “Back the plan, but also back the Nationality and Borders Bill.”
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I am extremely concerned about the safeguarding of our young people at outdoor music festivals, which attract more than 7.1 million people, many of whom are under 18. There is currently more licensing provision for the recycling of a plastic cup than for our young people, who have suffered serious sexual assault, including rape, by spiking. Will the Minister work with me and others to create a gold standard of licensing for these events in order to protect our young people?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
I am very happy to work with the hon. Lady—we have already spoken about the issue, and I am grateful for her interest in it. As the country gets back to festivals this summer, we all want young women and girls—and all young people—to enjoy themselves safely, so I will work with the hon. Lady across Government to take forward the asks that she has presented to us.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I have been alarmed to hear of large-scale and dangerous hare coursing in my constituency. Heavily armed people are coming on to farmers’ land and then livestreaming the chases to China, where they are the subject of heavy betting. Will my right hon. Friend support Thames Valley police in their efforts to tackle this appalling offence, and reassure farmers in Buckinghamshire that rural crime will always be taken seriously by this Government?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. He knows of the strength of feeling about it among Front Benchers and others on our side of the House, which is why we have the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—we are urging all Members to back it. I commend Thames Valley police in particular for all that they are doing on this.
Ukraine Update
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
It is 61 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, and 74 days since my Russian counterpart assured me that the Russian army would not be invading. As the invasion approaches its ninth week, I want to update the House on the current situation and the steps that we are taking to further our support for the Ukrainian people.
It is our assessment that approximately 15,000 Russian personnel have been killed during their offensive. Alongside the death toll are the equipment losses. A number of sources suggest that, to date, over 2,000 armoured vehicles have been destroyed or captured. That includes at least 530 tanks, 530 armoured personnel carriers, and 560 infantry fighting vehicles. Russia has also lost more than 60 helicopters and fighter jets. The offensive that was supposed to take a maximum of a week has now taken weeks. Last week Russia admitted that the Slava-class cruiser Moskva had sunk. That is the second key naval asset that the Russians have lost since invading, and its loss has significantly weakened their ability to bring their maritime assets to bear from the Black sea.
As I said in my last statement, Russia has so far failed in nearly every one of its objectives. In recognition of that failure, the Russian high command has regrouped, reinforced and changed its focus to securing the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. A failure of the Russia Ministry of Defence command and control at all levels has meant that it has now appointed one overall commander, General Dvornikov. At the start of this conflict, Russia had committed more than 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65% of its entire ground combat strength. According to our current assessment, about 25% of those have been rendered not combat-effective.
Ukraine is an inspiration to us all. Its brave people have never stopped fighting for their lands. They have endured indiscriminate bombardment, war crimes and overwhelming military aggression, but they have stood firm, galvanised the international community, and beaten back the army of Russia in the north and the north-east.
We anticipate that this next phase of the invasion will be an attempt by Russia to occupy further the Donbas and connect with Crimea via Mariupol. It is therefore urgent that we in the international community ensure that Ukraine gets the aid and weapons that it needs so much.
As Defence Secretary, I have ensured that at each step of the way the UK’s support is tailored to the anticipated actions of Russia. To date we have provided more than 5,000 anti-tank missiles, five air defence systems with more than 100 missiles, 1,360 anti-structure munitions, and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosive. On 9 March, in response to indiscriminate bombing from the air and escalation by President Putin’s forces, I announced that the UK would supply Starstreak high-velocity and low-velocity anti-air missiles. I am now able to report that these have been in theatre for more than three weeks, and have been deployed and used by Ukrainian forces to defend themselves and their territory.
Over the recess, my ministerial team hosted a Ukrainian Government delegation at Salisbury plain training area to explore further equipment options. That was quickly followed by the Prime Minister’s announcement of a further £100 million-worth of high-grade military equipment, 120 armoured vehicles, sourcing anti-ship missile systems, and high-tech loitering munitions for precision strikes.
However, as we can see from Ukrainian requests, more still needs to be done. For that reason, I can now announce to the House that we shall be gifting a small number of armoured vehicles fitted with launchers for those anti-air missiles. Those Stormer vehicles will give Ukrainian forces enhanced short-range anti-air capabilities, day and night. Since my last statement, more countries have answered the call and more have stepped up to support. The Czech Republic has supplied T-72 tanks and BMP fighting vehicles, and Poland has also pledged T-72 tanks.
The quickest route to help Ukraine is with equipment and ammunition similar to what they already use. The UK Government obviously do not hold Russian equipment, but in order to help where we do not have such stock, we have enabled others to donate. Alongside Canada and Poland, the Royal Air Force has been busy moving equipment from donor countries to Ukraine. At the same time, if no donor can be found, we are purchasing equipment from the open market. On 31 March, I held my second international donor conference, with an increase in the number of countries involved to 35, including representatives from the European Union and NATO. So far these efforts have yielded some 2.5 million items of equipment, worth more than £1.5 billion.
The next three weeks are key. Ukraine needs more long-range artillery and ammunition, and both Russian and NATO calibre types to accompany them. It also seeks anti-ship missiles to counter Russian ships that are able to bombard Ukrainian cities. It is therefore important to say that, if possible, the UK will seek to enable or supply such weapons. I shall keep the House and Members on each Front Bench up to date as we proceed.
The MOD is working day and night, alongside the US, Canada and the EU, to support continued logistical supplies, but not all the aid is lethal. We have also sent significant quantities of non-lethal equipment to Ukraine. To date, we have sent more than 90,000 ration packs, more than 10 pallets of medical equipment, more than 3,000 pieces of body armour, nearly 77,000 helmets, 3,000 pairs of boots and much more, including communications equipment and ear defence.
On top of our military aid to Ukraine, we contribute to strengthening NATO’s collective security, both for the immediate challenge and for the long term. We have temporarily doubled the number of defensive personnel in Estonia. We have sent military personnel to support Lithuanian intelligence, resilience and reconnaissance efforts. We have deployed hundreds of Royal Marines to Poland, and sent offshore vessels and Navy destroyers to the eastern Mediterranean. We have also increased our presence in the skies over south-eastern Europe with four additional Typhoons based in Romania. That means that we now have a full squadron of RAF fighter jets in southern Europe, ready to support NATO tasking. As the Prime Minister announced on Friday, we are also offering a deployment of British Challenger 2 tanks to Poland, to bridge the gap between Poland donating tanks to Ukraine and their replacements arriving from a third country.
Looking further ahead, NATO is reassessing its posture and the UK is leading conversations at NATO about how best the alliance can deter and defend against threats. My NATO colleagues and I tasked the alliance to report to leaders at the summit in June with proposals for concrete, long-term and sustainable changes. Some of us in this House knew that, behind the mask, the Kremlin was not the international statesman it pretended to be. With this invasion of Ukraine, all of Europe can now see the true face of President Putin and his inner circle. His intention is only to destroy, crush and rub out the free peoples of Ukraine. He does not want to preserve. He must not be allowed to prevail. Ukrainians are fighting for their very lives and for our freedoms. The President of Ukraine himself said as much: if Russia stops fighting, there will be peace; if Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no more Ukraine.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. His presence is welcomed this afternoon by the whole House. We know that it is not entirely his fault, but it is nearly seven weeks since he was last able to give us a statement on the situation in Ukraine. That was the day after President Zelensky addressed this House. The Secretary of State said then, as he did this afternoon, that he would keep the House up to date. May I say, on behalf of the public, that we would welcome more regular statements as the Russian war on Ukraine continues?
Like the Secretary of State, we salute the bravery of the Ukrainian people, military and civilians alike. That bravery is led by President Zelensky personally, but it is typified by the military last stand of the troops at the Azovstal steel plant and by the people’s resistance in Russian-occupied Kherson. We also renew our total condemnation of this brutal Russian invasion of a sovereign country and our determination to see that all those responsible for the mass graves in Mariupol, for the crimes, rapes and assassinations in Bucha and for the civilian bombings in almost every town and city across Ukraine are pursued to the end for their war crimes.
We welcome the role that the UK is playing and the further UK military assistance to Ukraine that the Secretary of State has outlined today, which has Labour’s full support. He says the UK has provided 5,000 anti-tank missiles and 100 anti-air missiles, but these direct donations are a fraction of the total. Can he tell us the total of such weapons provided so far by western allies? Has the MOD yet signed contracts and started production of replacement next-generation light anti-tank weapons and Starstreak missiles?
This is the first day of the third month of Putin’s invasion, and it is a new phase, as the Defence Secretary said. What is needed now is no longer old, spare weapons from the Soviet era but the new NATO weapons that Ukraine will need for Putin’s next offensive against Odessa or Kyiv. We need to shift from crisis management in response to the current conflict to delivering the medium-term military support that Ukraine will need. What is he doing to ensure this step change in support?
Given that 5 million refugees have now left Ukraine, what is the Secretary of State doing to offer the 700 personnel still held at high readiness in the UK for humanitarian help? Is it still the case that the MOD has offered only 140 armed forces personnel to help sort out the shameful shambles of the Home Office’s visa and refugee systems?
I just got off the tube after visiting NATO’s Allied Maritime Command in Northwood. They took my phone off me, so I did not realise we were having this statement, which is why I am using handwritten notes this afternoon. This is a proud, professional, British-led multinational command, and I pay tribute to it for the work it is doing, day in and day out, to keep us all safe.
NATO has proved to be such a powerful security alliance because it pools multinational military capacity, capability and cash, with an annual budget of more than $1 trillion, to protect 1 billion people, but Ukraine reminds us that the greatest threat to UK security lies in Europe, the north Atlantic and the Arctic, not in the Indo-Pacific. This reinforces NATO as the UK’s primary security obligation, but the Secretary of State gave us only a paragraph on NATO.
Our leadership in NATO could be at risk as Britain falls behind our allies in responding to this invasion of Ukraine. More than a dozen European countries are now rebooting security plans and defence spending, but the UK has not yet done either. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to revisit the integrated review, to review defence spending, to reform military procurement and to rethink his Army cuts. We will be dealing with the consequences of Putin’s war for many years to come, and now is the time for longer-term thinking about how the strategy for European security must change.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We spoke last week about the timing of this statement, which I had hoped to make tomorrow, but the United States has called a 40-nation meeting in Germany and I will therefore not be here. I took the opportunity to make this statement when I could. I am sorry if he has cut short his trip, and I would be delighted to arrange with the Navy for him to return to the headquarters, without his phone, for longer in custody.
As I said, I promised to keep the House updated, and I have not only briefed a number of colleagues from this House, from across parties, on a number of occasions, but given Members access to our intelligence officials and senior generals in order that they can get the latest throughout. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has responded to two debates and answered one urgent question—I will not take the credit for the UQ; Governments get asked UQs, but they provide an opportunity. We will continue to update all Members, and I am happy to have another cross-House dial-in for all Members on the subject—it is incredibly important that we do so. Just as it is important that we calibrate our response to Russia, it is important that the Government calibrate their response within the House, so that we make sure that everything is not a surprise to Members and that we consult as we go along.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about NLAWs and Starstreaks. We have an ongoing relationship with the industry, and we will be replacing them or are replacing them. Not surprisingly, there is now a lot of interest in those British-made products, but it is very important that we replenish our stocks. Obviously, we are in that line to do so. The Treasury has agreed to fund the new-for-old replacement of those, but it is very important, given the state of the Russian Government, that we make sure we replenish as soon as we can. There is a daily relationship with our industry; the Minister for Defence Procurement speaks to those in the industry at least once a week, and the Prime Minister will soon convene a meeting with all the leads to make sure that we are doing everything we can, not just for ourselves but for Ukraine and others. Sometimes there is a bit of juggling whereby I release something that we do not yet need, so that another country can have it first or it goes to where the threat is more pressing, or we persuade a friendly country to divert its order so that it can come to us or to Ukraine. We are often involved in that basic defence diplomacy, whereby we know a country is buying something such as an NLAW, it does not need it right now and we see whether we can take it off its hands and it then delays its order. We try to make sure we do that as much as possible.
I am delighted to place in the House the international update on how much has been donated. Obviously, some countries are more open than others about what they have done, so I will place in the Library a table showing those things. It is not for me to let another country’s identity be known if it wishes to keep that secret, but what we can publish, we shall.
I can inform the House that in the past week alone we have supplied 1,000 anti-tank weapons, 14 Wolfhound armoured vehicles and 4,000 night-vision goggles. I can update further that to date we have also supplied 5,361 NLAWs—up from the original 2,000; more than 200 Javelins; and 104 high-velocity and low-velocity anti-air missiles—this will grow to more than 250. Obviously, if we supply any more new weapon types, I will inform the House as we do so.
On NATO, one of the discussions we will have on the sidelines tomorrow is, obviously, the future for NATO. A few weeks ago in Brussels, NATO Defence Ministers tasked NATO to go away and come back with its long-term plans. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are in crisis management and the short-term response, but we need a long-term plan. We need to know what NATO will look like and how western Europe—or Europe, including many of its new members—will contain Putin after all this has passed. We are dealing with a man who has clearly been involved in an illegal invasion of a country and war crimes against the Ukrainian people. We need to know how we are going to live with that neighbour in Europe, should he still remain. That is an important consideration for all of us and it goes to the heart of defence reform and our spending. Of course, as I have always said, as the threat changes, so must our defence posture, which includes funding. As I have said publicly, in the here and now we are getting the spending we need, but he is right to raise the issue of medium-term and long-term funding, which we will definitely be looking at.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about how we are now “the only country”, but that is because we were the first country; when we had our £24 billion settlement, no one else in NATO had yet gone there. Sweden had gone there but it was not in NATO, and so had Australia. So his comments are slightly punishing Britain for being the first, because we did this way before the invasion of Ukraine and a lot of the increases he is talking about have been afterwards. That is not to say that we should not look at what more we can all do and how that knocks into other areas.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
You heard it here first, Mr Speaker: there was a request for more urgent questions that I am happy to oblige.
I very much welcome the statement, which focused on the operational. However, the reality is now dawning not only that this conflict could last for months—indeed, years—but, more widely, that Europe has entered a new and dangerous era of insecurity. I therefore pose two fundamental questions to the Secretary of State. First, what does success in Ukraine look like? Are we doing enough to prevent Ukraine from losing but not enough to make sure that it wins? What is our strategy? Is it to push Russia back to the pre-February lines or, indeed, to liberate the entire Donbas region? If it is in Europe’s wider security interest to see Putin humiliated in Ukraine, the entire mainland must be liberated. That must be our strategic aim.
The second fundamental issue, on which the Secretary of State touched, is our defence posture. Threats are increasing, but pressures on our armed forces and equipment are growing. Is it not now time to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for spending 3% and I consider him my long-range artillery when it comes to the lobbying in the long term, whatever we see as a result of the situation in Ukraine. Our strategic aim is twofold: first, Putin must fail in Ukraine—he must fail in his invasion—and I think he is on course to do that; and he must fail in his occupation of Ukraine, and I think he has definitely failed to achieve that. The fine tuning of that is as much a matter of Ukraine’s choice as it is anybody else’s. Ukraine gets to choose where it wishes to settle for peace. We will do everything we can to support it.
For my part, I want Putin not only beyond the pre-February boundaries; he invaded Crimea illegally and Donetsk illegally, and he should comply with international law and, in the long run, leave Ukraine. Overall, Putin needs to wear the cost and the consequence of what he has done on his shoulders.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We on the SNP Benches welcome the additional measures that the United Kingdom is taking to support Ukraine, and we also welcome the Secretary of State’s engagement with the SNP leadership in this place.
The statement highlighted the bravery of Ukraine’s defence forces, but I am sure the Secretary of State also acknowledges that alongside that bravery is an exceptional tactical efficacy, in stark contrast to the Russian invaders. I am sure he would have no hesitation in agreeing with that observation.
The Secretary of State highlighted in his statement Russia’s apparently reduced ambition to consolidate in the east of Ukraine, around Donbas, and to try to secure a land bridge to Crimea through Mariupol. Will he reassure the House that enduring economic pressure and further military support will continue to frustrate Russian ambition and aggression?
It was a great pleasure for me to meet in Warsaw earlier this month the Royal Marine commandos from 45 Commando in Arbroath. What more can NATO allies do to ensure that our partners on NATO’s eastern flank are further reassured of NATO’s determination to stand firm against any and all aggression towards our allies?
Finally, I welcome the details of the £100 million for higher-grade equipment, including anti-ship missiles, but the Secretary of State will be all too well aware that we cannot get an awful lot of higher-grade equipment for £100 million. I would welcome any further advice he can give the House on that. On the anti-ship role specifically, will the Secretary of State confirm that Brimstone missiles will have no role in that application? If possible, will he discuss with us what role the UK’s Harpoon missiles will have in that application? If we are not donating UK stocks of Harpoon missiles, is that because we do not have enough ourselves?
Mr Wallace
On the Harpoon missiles, we are not currently providing them. Our Harpoon missiles are launched from ships, and very few nations launch Harpoon missiles from land—I do not think any do nowadays. There is a lot of media around this invasion and not a day goes by on which I do not have to counter stories that have somehow appeared. I think some of them are made up. The AS-90s going to Ukraine was another story—it appeared in the Express this weekend—but no, they are not. I do not know where that story came from, but it is not true.
On Brimstone missiles, we made a commitment 18 months or two years ago, when we were selling a fast-attack patrol boat to Ukraine, that we would sell it armed with maritime Brimstone missiles. Those ships are not yet in the country; they have not yet been purchased or delivered. However, if we decide to provide Brimstones in whatever guise, I will inform Members of this House when we do so. I will not close that off as an opportunity; it is a perfectly legitimate thing. There are different sophistications between block 1, which is just land Brimstone, and the at-sea developments that we have never bought. They have a range of capabilities. First and foremost, if we do provide Brimstone, we will look to provide it for the land, using stock that we already hold, but not as yet for the sea.
What more can we do for our eastern colleagues? I always advise colleagues of the Joint Expeditionary Force—many Members present already know about it—which is a tremendous group of the 10 Nordic countries. I recently asked colleagues from around the House to the dinner when we had the JEF summit here in the UK. The JEF is composed of the Scandinavian and Baltic states, the United Kingdom and Iceland. It is a tremendous grouping of people. Some people describe them as the beer-drinking nations; I am less charitable and describe them as the nations with probably the worst weather in Europe—that is what uniquely binds us together. We are the doers in Europe; we get on and do, we share, and we exercise and train together. The JEF also involves Finland and Sweden. I think it is a very good group.
As for 45 Commando in Arbroath, they have done and are doing an excellent job in Poland, as the hon. Gentleman said. They are incredibly professional, and there is more work for them to do.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is clear that the supply and use of missiles has turned military assets such as ships, aircraft and tanks into costly losses and liabilities. The one gap appears to be artillery. I know the Secretary of State said that we are supplying some artillery, but as earlier episodes show, the counter to a weapons system is not necessarily the same weapons system but a missile to destroy it. What can be done to prevent Russia from using artillery to raze cities to the ground without engaging Ukrainian forces properly, which is the one area in which it still seems to be succeeding?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend has put his finger right on the heart of the current race. The race is on to equip the Ukrainians with the same long-range capabilities that Russia has, so that they are not outranged and pinned down. That is why we started first and foremost by sourcing 152 mm around the world—Soviet calibre—so they can keep going with that.
In parallel, we and a number of nations are exploring providing either 105 mm, which is our main lightweight gun, and the 155 mm in more mobile versions than the big armoured AS90s. One thing that this modern battlefield is showing is that people had better move quickly once they have fired their guns, because they can be very quickly found by pretty cheap off-the-shelf unmanned aerial vehicles. Exactly as my right hon. Friend said, there is a race on in parallel. We have now seen a number of eastern countries providing 155 mm howitzers; that unlocks NATO ammunition. We will play our part and make sure it gets to them.
In addition, the intelligence around artillery has to be improved, so we are exploring counter-battery radar, so that as soon as Russia fires a shell at you, you know exactly where it came from, and you can return the favour.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State may have heard that I have been calling for a more regular performance. I am a great admirer of his, but I have been starved of his company. I am very pleased that he has made the statement—many of us are encouraged by the information he has given—but is he aware that the people of Mariupol have been dying of starvation and lack of water? We have a Navy; has it not been possible to supply food, water and that sort of stuff by sea? I may not be a logistics or military expert, but it seems strange that those people have been starving and we have not sent food.
Mr Wallace
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s deep sense of frustration—not at listening to me, but regarding the people of Mariupol. The nations of the Black sea govern the Black sea through the Montreux convention, a very old piece of law, and at times of war they can shut the Black sea to any nation other than Black sea nations. Turkey did that at the very beginning, which disadvantages Russia more than anyone else, and therefore we could not go in even if we wished. I have already spoken to the Turks and the Romanians about minesweeping capability, because it is clear that this summer a lot of the grain will not go out through Ukraine, but it might go out through neighbouring countries such as Romania. That is very important. At the moment, however, it is not possible for us to put ships into the Black sea and, while Russia will not be able to replace its ships, that gives it another sense of strength in trying to control the area. That is why the Ukrainians need anti-ship missiles to ensure they get at least some access to their coastline.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
As Russia flounders on the battlefields of Ukraine due to the bravery of the Ukrainians, President Putin has raised the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government and our allies do everything they can to deter President Putin from taking that disastrous step?
Mr Wallace
We have all seen with concern the playing in of nuclear weapons by Putin, either in earlier statements or recent test fires. I remind colleagues that NATO is a nuclear alliance; Britain, America and France are in possession of nuclear weapons, and that is first and foremost a strong deterrent to him. He can invest in many other different missiles, but fundamentally some are out there right now under the sea; our brave men and women of the Royal Navy, silent and able to deliver a nuclear effect if they had to in defence of this kingdom or in defence of NATO. It is important that Putin does not forget that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend his leadership and that of his team throughout this crisis. He has already outlined an impressive list of equipment that we, our NATO allies and our EU allies have provided for Ukraine. Some of what we provide is legacy equipment and some is from inventory. Can he assure me that the cost of that is coming from the Treasury’s central reserve and not the Defence budget?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Yes, to date we have gifted in aid £200 million to Ukraine, which we propose will grow to £500 million, and the Treasury has agreed to old for new in funding that replacement.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I wrote to the Secretary of State last week about a few issues; I hope he will have a chance to look at the letter today, which comes with a present from some Ukrainian soldiers. Returning to the issue of 155 spec, which is a potential game-changer, is he saying that we are leaving that up to other countries because we do not have the field guns ourselves? Will he look at supplying AS90 or has he ruled AS90 out altogether? Secondly, there are some specific naval supplies mentioned in the letter, but more generally, from Odesa to Zaporizhzhia, there is still a lack of body armour and medical kits. What reassurance can he give me on that?
Mr Wallace
We will be flowing more body armour to Ukraine next week. The United States is sending 200,000 155 shells and, I think, two battalions-worth of 155 tubes—I am not a gunner, but apparently that is the term—and at the same time we will scour whatever we can. The Ukrainians are also interested in our 105 guns and we will look to provide those. The AS90 is a very old 155 armoured vehicle, as my hon. Friend knows; it is over 40 tonnes, and one of the challenges is to get it from one side of Ukraine to the other, with low loaders and big logistics. If we can help to source 155s that are more mobile and modern, that is the better way to proceed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I too put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for his co-operative attitude towards me as an Opposition spokesperson for defence. At a recent meeting of the Servant of the People party, which incidentally is a sister party to my own party, an impassioned plea was made: as the Russians have retreated from parts of Ukraine, they have left a ghastly and deadly legacy in the shape of landmines. The Ukrainians are doing their very best to get rid of this hideous calling card, but already a number of Ukrainians have been killed in their efforts to get rid of the landmines. We in the UK possess the equipment and skills to help to rid Ukraine of landmines, so may I ask the Secretary of State to look kindly on that request from Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
Yes, of course we will look at that issue. It has not appeared yet in the shopping list from the Ukrainians to me, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I visited Mariupol and places in other countries a few years ago and saw the minefields left behind after 2014, when the Russians destroyed everything and then left minefields across acres of farmland to impoverish the people there and leave their mark.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement that there will be a deployment of British Challenger 2 tanks to Poland to allow our Polish allies to send the Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine, but, to my knowledge, there has not been an agreement within NATO to facilitate Polish MiG fighter jets being sent to Ukraine. As this war continues, we are very much aware of the need for the Ukrainians to have additional air capability to take on the Russians. Will he use his good auspices in the coming NATO meetings to press our American allies on this issue?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is really about bilateral enabling rather than NATO, as an organisation, but he is right. In fact, the Ukrainians are after ground attack aircraft more than air-to-air ones, and so, rather than the MiG-29s, the Su-30s and those sorts of aeroplanes. I will certainly raise it tomorrow with my US counterpart when I see him. It is important, but at the moment we are focused on the deep long-range artillery.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
While taking nothing away from the incredible performance of the Ukrainian army in defending its country, we all cannot help but be struck by how completely useless the Russian forces seem to be and how inefficient in organising themselves in this campaign. Having said that, there are increasing reports of mercenaries being used by the Russians. To what degree are they involved in this conflict, and is there any way to prevent them from getting into positions where they can participate?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the Russians’ woeful performance. I do not celebrate the loss of anyone’s life, and when I see the huge casualty rates of Russian soldiers, I think, as a former soldier, that it is a disgrace and a betrayal of those young men. It is hard to have sympathy when clearly it is not just the generals who are engaged in the war crime and butchery that we have seen, but mothers and wives in Russia are left behind because the arrogance of generals, poor performance and corruption has led many of those young men to their deaths.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about mercenaries, yes, we see evidence of the Wagner Group now being actively deployed in Ukraine. We have seen some free Syrian fighters. We have seen media reports around Chechnya volunteers. The Wagner Group is a pain and a pest globally used—deniably, apparently, but it is not really that deniable—as an arm of the Kremlin. We have seen it in Africa. We see it in Mali now. We have seen it in Libya and elsewhere. The international community needs to come together to deal with the Wagner Group because whatever happens in Ukraine—its members are not getting very good kit and they are being some of the first to die, so it is not a great recruiting advert for it—it is going to be a problem that we have to deal with.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for the actions he has taken to help Ukraine. In history, this will be seen not just as war crimes but as a genocide. Will he work with me to persuade the Foreign Office that, although obviously different from the Holodomor in the 1930s, this will be seen as a genocide in the same way?
Mr Wallace
What is really important on the accusation of both genocide and war crimes is that it does not need a politician to make that allegation. We are lucky in this part of the world to have the International Criminal Court, courts in the Hague and independent investigators who are right now collecting evidence and will be able to point a finger without any favour or political agenda. That is a really important difference between us and them. The Russians would love politicians in the west to be standing up and pointing fingers because then they can say, “You would say that, wouldn’t you?” I want to see our respected judiciary and our law enforcement agencies gathering the evidence and then putting it to the people who politically we all think are clearly responsible for many of the problems in Ukraine.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State not only for his statement today, but for his diligence and commitment over the past number of months. He may recall that I suggested during a previous statement that NATO being publicly so explicit that there would be no troops on the ground was a vulnerability for Ukraine. As we see, the Russians are becoming more desperate and diabolical in the tactics that they use, from rape to war crimes, genocide, the threat of chemical attack and potential technical and tactical nuclear attack. How sustainable does he believe it will be for the international community to give support, but stay far removed?
Mr Wallace
When NATO says, “NATO deployment”, what it is referring to is NATO deployment. It is perfectly possible around the world for Britain, France and others to deploy unilaterally. We deployed into Poland recently. We are doing that not as a NATO country, but as Britain supporting one of our oldest allies. When this phase finishes, and let us hope it does soon—we had Op Orbital in Ukraine, we had British trainers on the ground right up until pretty much the last and we sent the Ranger regiment to train people on NLAWs just before the invasion—we will inevitably wish to go back to help Ukraine in its long-term planning. It is important that we help them move out of crisis to a long-term plan and a long-term ability to defend themselves, and Britain will always offer that opportunity with our training of troops. When we start doing that is open to debate, but I do not rule anything out.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his leadership and work, and the work of his colleagues, in ensuring that our friends, the Ukrainians, are able to defend themselves. I was recently in Lithuania. The Lithuanians made it clear to me that the Baltic states are deeply worried by some of the behaviour of one or two members of NATO. They commended the UK for its leadership against any kind of attempted settlement. There was the slow behaviour of the Germans at the time, until the UK pushed them to do more on the banking system, SWIFT and so on.
One of the things the Lithuanians were questioning me about was whether NATO looks strategically. My right hon. Friend said just a few minutes ago that each individual country looks at these arms trades and transfers separately, but does NATO now see that, once Ukraine has succeeded in defending itself from defeat, it must move on to the next bit of the posture, which is to be able to move on to the offensive? Does NATO therefore look at all these arms, including aircraft, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), as a way for Ukraine to take the fight back to the Russians?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend probably served in northern Germany, like me, where permanent presence was used as one of the most important deterrents to the then Soviet Union. We were not just there for the short term; we were there for a very long time. When we are asking NATO to come up with a long-term plan, it has to involve such things as the long-term containment of Russia. He is correct that the best defence is offence. Showing that we are well-equipped, capable, ready, deployable and deployed is one of the best ways of making President Putin cease what he is doing. I do not think that means NATO deploying outside of its borders, but it does mean ensuring that we are very quick to respond and are overmatching Russia in everything it wishes to explore, so that Putin does not dare do it.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
As this war has intensified, the distinction between providing defensive, as opposed to offensive weapons has largely disappeared, as increasingly heavy equipment is being transferred. The Secretary of State said previously to the House that he would support the provision of suitable aircraft to the Ukrainian air force. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), what is the Secretary of State’s current assessment of the appetite of countries to provide to Ukraine suitable aircraft that could be used in this new phase of the conflict?
Mr Wallace
There are some that have an appetite; there are not many. Some of the equipment is quite old—a lot of the MiG-29s in the east come from the fall of the Berlin wall, so hon. Members can gauge their age. There are some useful ground attack aircraft in Europe and, as I say, I would defend any one of those nations’ options of deploying them. One of the ways that we could help to support them is by backfilling by supplying our Typhoons to patrol their skies and so on. The hunt is still on. If anyone comes forward, I am happy to support them. Sometimes they have been updated with third countries’ equipment, which gives those countries a veto, and I will work to persuade those third countries to release any holds on them as well.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Russia has clearly suffered serious logistical issues in the first phase of the conflict. What other lessons have we learned from the first phase and to what extent can we use those lessons as we enter what seems to be a new phase?
Mr Wallace
The first lesson, “Don’t take Russia at its word; take it on its action”, is the most important lesson for many in the international community. We gave up on that a long time ago, but that is the first thing. There will be a lot of lessons. I would not rush into that, because we also need to learn from the Ukrainians, who are rightly focused on fighting rather than on a feedback loop to us, which will be essential in understanding it.
The big lesson is that we must prove to the world that ripping up international law and being more brutal than an adversary still does not get someone to win. One calculation that President Putin and his generals have is, “We don’t care about human life; we don’t care about international law; and if we just maintain that, somehow, we’ll achieve victory—irrespective of the cost and the human suffering.” The international community has to be totally unified in demonstrating that as folly.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update on the deployment of UK personnel along NATO’s eastern flank. Can he detail what role they are playing in the humanitarian response, including supporting the processing of visas for Ukrainian refugees? Alongside all the military equipment, is the UK looking at delivering potassium iodide to civilians in Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
On medical supplies, my right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary has provided significant amounts of health stocks, but I am happy to look at that further for the hon. Lady. On the issue of visas, we have offered and we have fulfilled any request from the Home Office. If it asks for more, it will get more, if that is what is required to speed up the process.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I pay tribute to our brave Ukrainian friends and I commend the Secretary of State for his steadfast support for them. Stevenage is home to MBDA, which manufactures Brimstone. Can he clarify whether we will be making Brimstone available? What can we do to upgrade the Ukrainians’ advanced cyber capabilities to disrupt Russian communication command and control?
Mr Wallace
On the latter, I cannot really comment on those operational issues. All I will say is that Britain and Ukraine had a long-held cyber relationship many years before the invasion and we continue to understand its cyber needs.
MBDA has done an amazing job with the multinational consortium, including BAE and others, in the making of the weapons systems that are being used right now. As I have said, I do not have any objection in principle to some of the Brimstone variants being deployed into Ukraine. In principle, we agreed to sell Brimstone anti-sea some months ago—18 months or two years ago. If we decide to put Brimstone in, we will of course ensure that the Chair of the Select Committee and the Front-Bench teams are notified. They are still a short-range missile—the block 1s have a range of about 7 km—and they are not strategic. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked about defensive and offensive, but we now need to move to tactical versus strategic. We are still not in a strategic place. With its range, Brimstone would be a tactical weapons system but nevertheless very efficient and capable.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will have seen the recent Defence Committee report that was very critical of the Government’s decision to deploy the Royal Navy in basically taking over Border Force and dealing with the small boats issue. It defined that policy as “ill-defined” and “prematurely announced”. What assessment has he made of the risk that Operation Isotrope could lead to the diversion of scarce Royal Navy resources at this time, when the focus surely has to be on our national security and on deterring Vladimir Putin’s aggression?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that there is no such risk. The P2000 patrol boats were not going anywhere other than UK shores. Nor indeed were inshore vehicles, or the batch 1 offshore patrol vessels; they were not going to go anywhere else. The rest of it has really been about bringing a military command and control mindset, and the ability to mass and mash together intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to the better command and control umbrella over the whole thing. That is what we are trying to do, that is what we are starting to deliver, and it is as much about a cultural change as anything else.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
On a recent visit to Georgia with the all-party parliamentary group on Georgia, we saw joint working between Georgian troops and NATO personnel, largely from the countries that the Secretary of State referred to earlier. Could he say a little more about the joint working that we are doing with Ukrainian forces to enable them to use to maximum effect the very valuable military equipment that the UK is providing?
Mr Wallace
Georgia is a very important partner for us around the Black sea. It obviously knows itself what it is like to be on the wrong end of a Russian invasion, and it is very important that we help Georgia’s resilience to that. It is also important that we recognise what Russia, having consolidated, then tries to do in countries such as Georgia, which is divide, corrupt and continue to manipulate. That is why it is very important that Britain’s relationship with Georgia is a long and enduring relationship to help it with its own resilience.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Delivering the defensive equipment that has been so vital to Ukraine’s success in resisting the Russian invasion has been really instrumental, and I think the Government deserve all credit for their work in that respect. But could the Secretary of State state what the UK’s current overarching aims in this conflict are, and confirm that support for Ukraine will continue long term irrespective of who occupies No. 10?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful and thank the hon. Member for his comments. Our objective is to push, or help Ukraine push back Russia from both its actions since February, and if Ukraine takes the choice to continue to try to push Russia out of its illegally occupied territories, then of course the west and the international community will stand by it in doing that. I think, in its simplest form, Britain wants to help Ukraine be free to choose. What it chooses is slightly secondary to the fact that it has the freedom to choose in the first place as a sovereign state. That is what we are all trying to work for, and the only country that does not want to do that is Russia.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
One of the main lessons from this conflict seems to be that, alongside the courageous resistance of the Ukrainian people and the military, one of the reasons it has not gone to plan for Russia is the failure of its logistics in seemingly running out of food, fuel and other supplies. Could my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the lessons we will learn and the whole world should learn from this is that top-quality logistics, such as the UK armed forces have, is even more essential perhaps than military manpower?
Mr Wallace
It is really important. We see, from photographs, Russian soldiers going to war with not much equipment, poor equipment, rations that are years out of date, not just a few days or weeks, and all of that has a horrendous effect on morale. We see them at war with cheap handheld radios—not their own radios, because they do not work—and we see them badly prepared. Bad battle preparation leads to defeat often and that is often the mess they are in. We saw that some very expensive equipment got stuck in the mud because they used cheap tyres from somewhere else. Those things matter. It is also an important lesson for our defence that sometimes the less sexy things are actually the things we should invest in. They are often the things first cut when the Treasury comes calling and you pay for it in the end.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State concerned that, if Putin is allowed to retain the territories in the south and east that he has invaded, he will claim that and be able to claim that to some extent as a kind of victory? In that context, what does he think of the comments of retired General Philip Breedlove, the former NATO commander in Europe, today, who said that now might be the time for NATO or a coalition of the willing to at least consider having troops on the ground in the north and west of Ukraine, so that more Ukrainian resources are freed up to fight in the south and east?
Mr Wallace
It is definitely a valid suggestion. If we were to fast-forward to a frozen conflict in which 80% of Ukraine was still sovereign, it would be entirely up to Ukraine to decide who it wanted to invite on to its territory, and for what purposes, just as it invited us there for Operation Orbital. People seem to forget that until this invasion, Ukraine was a sovereign country with two occupied parts. Ukraine had British, Swedish and Canadian soldiers on its territory, and we went exercising with 5 Airborne Brigade last year; that is all possible. If Putin decides to hunker down for some form of frozen conflict, we should remember two things: first, he will be back for more, because that is what he did in 2014; and secondly, he still does not control Ukraine.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Today is Anzac Day, when we commemorate the sacrifice of Australians and New Zealanders in conflict. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those who lost their lives at Gallipoli, and since then? Does he agree that Australia and New Zealand are important partners in supporting Ukraine, not least with New Zealand’s Hercules aircraft and crew, which recently arrived in the UK?
Mr Wallace
Yes, it is really important to remember the sacrifice made by New Zealand and Australia in a theatre of a war so far away. It is also important to recognise their solidarity with us on this conflict. Australia has given the United Kingdom funds to help purchase equipment for Ukraine. Australia and New Zealand recognise that this is a war of values, and a battle to show that the despot cannot and must not be allowed to win. They are doing everything they can to stand by us. We should not forget that, and we should also be very grateful for it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
How much Ministry of Defence spending in Ukraine is being counted as official development assistance? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that ODA spending by other Departments is not at the expense of other situations around the world where there is a desperate need for aid?
Mr Wallace
I understand the furrow that the hon. Gentleman is trying to plough, and I will send him a letter. I do not think any of the spending is being counted in that way, from what I can tell. It certainly does not appear, in my submission, that this is a diversion; the question is simply, “How can we help the Ukrainians? How much does it cost? Can we afford to take the risk with our own supplies? If not, can we buy the supplies from somewhere else, and will the Treasury reimburse us?” It is really simple.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right to salute the bravery of the heroic Ukrainian forces and highlight the failures of the Russians, but that should not in any way allow us to become complacent about the threat that Russia continues to pose. I hear what he said about the Ukrainians deciding where we go from here, but does he agree that there can be no return to normality in our relationship with Russia until it has got out of all the areas that it has invaded in this invasion?
Mr Wallace
There can be no return to normality for President Putin and his inner circle. What they have done, despite international warnings from presidents and prime ministers who endlessly asked them not to do it, is build their own cage—and they are living in it. From my point of view, they need to remain in it.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We have already seen that the war in Ukraine will not be brief, and Vladimir Putin’s intentions will not be limited. With that in mind, are the Government beginning to look strategically, long-term, at the implications of the situation in Ukraine and the ambitions of Vladimir Putin?
Mr Wallace
There are two parts to that. The first is the need for some form of commission or get-together to plan Ukraine’s long-term defence, its posture and how it will equip itself, because just like any other army, it will become exhausted and worn out. Also, it is important that we—not just Britain or the EU, but the international community—do not forget that when all this is over, we have to help Ukraine to rebuild over the long term. Russia is destroying things—one need only look at the photographs—and they will not be rebuilt in a few weeks. If the international community is serious about sending a message to Putin, it should do so, but not just militarily, now; this is also about long-term development, and access to economic freedoms and prosperity. That will demonstrate the difference between Russia and Ukraine.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In the very near future, it is extremely likely that Sweden and Finland will apply to join NATO. What commitments has our country given to stand by Finland and Sweden, should they face Russian aggression?
Mr Wallace
I talked earlier about the joint expeditionary force. Irrespective of whether those countries joined NATO, it would be incomprehensible to me if Britain did not, for example, go the aid of Sweden should it be attacked or invaded. It is a fellow European country with huge links to our country, the same values and so on. One of the reasons why the JEF—Finland and Sweden, plus eight NATO countries—is such an important grouping of nations is that we totally share the same values, and have the same professionalism in our armed forces and the same capabilities. Britain signed a memorandum of understanding with Sweden—originally, I think, in 2014—to further our defensive co-operation, and we are working to see what more we can do in the near future.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Ukraine is facing a financial crisis, with the Financial Times reporting that revenues are at around half of pre-war levels, and the fiscal gap for this month alone is projected to be $7 billion. The International Monetary Fund has approved an administered account for countries to make donations through a secure vehicle. Has the UK made a contribution to the account? What efforts are being made, together with partners, to provide Ukraine with hard cash?
Mr Wallace
We have given, I think, more than £100 million in aid, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details about the IMF fund. He is right that we need to focus on that as much as on military aid. The United States announced a significant amount of funding for Ukraine only over the weekend.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced that it will undertake a mission to Chernobyl, after gunfire in the area raised concerns about the potential for a major radiation leak. Will the Secretary of State say what discussions he has had with the IAEA, and what it expects to find?
Mr Wallace
If I am not mistaken, the IAEA’s relationship is with the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. However, I will happily find out the answer for the hon. Member. Of course, we are concerned about activity around Chernobyl and other things. I do not think that Russia did what it did around Chernobyl by accident.
Football Governance
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the fan-led review of football governance, I must put on record my disappointment that the Government have apparently already trailed their response extensively to the media. It seems to me that we have a courteous Minister, but somehow Downing Street seems to ignore him and decides to put everything that the House should hear first out to the media. It is not satisfactory. It is discourteous, not only to the House but to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has put in so much work in this area. It is very disappointing that anybody could believe that she should be cut out. When she catches my eye, she will be given more time to put her case about all the hard work that she has done.
This might just be a lesson for the Government to stop being discourteous. Think about the people who get elected—those on both sides of the House. I do not blame the Minister, as I know that Downing Street loves getting these messages out on a Sunday night, but why has it not recognised that even the Prime Minister is a Member of this House? It might be good for us all to hear things first. As I say, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford would not normally be given extra time, but I reassure her and the House that more time will be given to her.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
First, I accept your comments, Mr Speaker—I certainly mean no discourtesy to this House—and I will have discussions about them with colleagues. With permission, I would like to make a statement setting out the Government’s response to the independent fan-led review of football governance. This is further to my written statement issued earlier today. The Government’s response has been provided in hard copy to the Vote Office, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for all her hard work, and indeed I thank the entire panel for their diligence on the review. I also thank colleagues from across the House and all stakeholders who have debated these matters at length—in many cases for a number of years. Most importantly, I want to thank the dozens of clubs and thousands of football fans from across the country who contributed to the review. They sit at the heart of the review and our response to it.
Football is a defining part of our national identity and has been a central part of British life for over a century. English football has had some extraordinary success. Our premier league has grown to become the most watched sports league in the world. However, good governance of our clubs has not kept pace with that expansion and development. The football pyramid has come under threat in recent times, with clubs risking collapse. Many fans have felt alienated from their clubs. It is obvious that reform is needed to keep our national game alive and thriving.
The Government have already taken strong action to support the reform of football. This includes financial support to help clubs through the pandemic, and amendments to competition law to provide financial stability to English football. We also committed to undertaking a review of football governance in our manifesto—a review led by fans, for fans, to protect the future of professional football in this country. In late November, the independent fan-led review of football governance published its report. I am today pleased to announce the publication of the Government’s response to that report. Our response acknowledges the clear case for reform and sets out our approach to moving forward. It marks a significant step in protecting our national game. Today, I am confirming that the Government will introduce an independent regulator for football, in law, as part of a wider plan for reform. An independent regulator is just one of 10 strategic recommendations set out in the report. I am pleased to say that the Government will endorse all of the review’s strategic recommendations. Some are for the Government to implement, and some are for the football authorities to take forward. We expect them to take action, too.
As well as surveying thousands of fans directly, the review benefited from over 100 hours of engagement, involving representatives of over 130 clubs. This all built a clear picture of the challenges in the game. The review, and our response, are for the fans who make our national game what it is, and without whom football would be nothing. To coincide with the response, we are also publishing the findings of a Government-commissioned study by academics and football finance experts Kieran Maguire and Christina Philippou. Their analysis confirms that there is a widespread issue of fragile finances across English football clubs, and that action is needed to secure the sustainability of the game.
The sum total of our plans amounts to significant reform. In our response, we are committing to publishing a White Paper in the summer, which will set out further details of the implementation of this reform. Through a new financial regulation regime, the regulator will usher in a new era of financial competency and sustainability for our clubs. We also recognise that who runs our football clubs goes hand in hand with how they are run, so the regulator will establish a new owners and directors test, replacing the three existing tests, in order to ensure that only good custodians and qualified directors can run these vital community assets. The strengthened test will include a new integrity test. Recent events have shown the importance of our having confidence in the custodians of our football clubs.
Fans have a crucial role to play in the future of football in this country, and for that reason we believe that fans should be properly consulted by their clubs on key decisions. The regulator will therefore set a licence condition that sets out a minimum level of fan engagement to ensure that clubs are meaningfully engaging fans. We also acknowledge the crucial role that football clubs play in the identity of this country, particularly in the communities that are so intrinsically linked with their local team. The stadium, colours and badge are an integral part of that. We therefore believe that they should have additional protections. That includes a mechanism requiring fans to consent before any changes are made to those key items.
Our manifesto commitment was instigated by the financial jeopardy that so many clubs were being pushed into. The long-term health of professional football in this country is dependent on fairer distributions throughout the football pyramid. That is why we agree that the Premier League should strengthen its support across the football pyramid. We expect further action from the football authorities on this important recommendation. If they do not come to an agreement on financial flows through the pyramid, we reserve the right for the regulator to have powers in this area.
Football also needs to ensure that there is a clear and supportive pathway for players. That is why we agree with the recommendation that the welfare of players exiting the game needs to be better protected. I have asked the football authorities to act with urgency on that matter.
Taking forward those recommendations and securing the future of football is a key priority of this Government, but that priority stretches beyond Government. The review contains actions specifically for the Football Association, the Premier League, the English Football League and the Professional Footballers’ Association, on which we expect to see action, without waiting for Government legislation.
The majority of the review looked at issues related to the men’s game. Women’s football has gone from strength to strength over the past few years, with a record number of tickets sold for this year’s European women’s championship to be hosted here in England. The Government have shown that we are right behind women’s sport in every aspect, so we will launch a dedicated review of women’s football in this country.
As well as the women’s football review, I am pleased to confirm that the FIFA women’s World cup and UEFA European women’s championship finals will be added to the listed events regime. As a result, the tournaments will continue to be available to free-to-air television broadcasters, hopefully inspiring the next generation of Lucy Bronzes and Ellen Whites.
The changes that we have set out represent a real turning point for football and will have a considerable impact on clubs. It is crucial that we get this right to give confidence to fans and future investors. That is why we will set out further details on how reforms will be implemented in a White Paper in the summer, and we are committed to legislating to make football reform a reality. We will implement the reforms as soon as possible.
We are paving the way for a more sustainable, accountable and responsible future for football—one that ensures that fans are front and centre of our national game. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I also thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and all those who contributed to her excellent and timely review of our national game.
I welcome the confirmation that the Government are supporting the strategic recommendations of the fan-led review. Labour has been calling for the plans to be fully implemented ever since the review was published and, in particular, for the independent regulator for English football, which is key to reform. But however the Government try to spin it, today’s announcement of a White Paper and further delay will come as a disappointment to fans.
The fan-led review was a rigorous and wide-ranging piece of work, based on engagement with every possible interest group alongside more than 20,000 individual fan responses to a survey, and supported by an expert advisory panel from the world of football. As the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), rightly said when doing the media rounds this morning,
“there has been huge input from fans up and down the country”.
Eleven years after the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report, three years after the collapse of Bury, a year after the disastrous European super league proposal and five months after the publication of the fan-led review, we do not need further consultation or a road map. We need a clear timetable and new legislation to be included in the Queen’s Speech in 15 days’ time.
The need for urgent action is clear. Oldham Athletic were relegated from the English football league on Saturday after years of mismanagement ending in fan protests. Derby County are in ongoing crisis and were relegated from the championship this week—not because the players are not good enough, but because of bad owner management and governance. Those two historic clubs, founding members of the premier and football leagues respectively, have been hit hard because of reckless owners.
In the wake of the Ukraine war and sanctions, Chelsea are in limbo. Many supporters want the review recommendations to be incorporated in the club’s sale. The Government are missing an opportunity to embed fan representation, as recommended in the review, and give supporters a say on changes to the heritage assets of their club.
The Minister’s statement, although welcome, left some questions unanswered. The Minister could not rule out to the Select Committee recently that a regulator might be located within the FA. Can he do so now? We believe that it is vital for the regulator to be truly independent.
The statement confirmed that the Government are accepting all 10 of the strategic recommendations. That is good, but can the Minister confirm that the Government support the 47 detailed recommendations in the report? Perhaps more importantly, are there any that they do not support?
The announcement today will do nothing to break the impasse on the redistribution of funding. The fan-led review gave the Premier League and the EFL until the end of 2021 to work it out between them, but that has not happened: the bodies have not been able to come to an agreement for months. If they fail, the review proposes action from the regulator, but on the current timescale—unless the Minister can tell me otherwise—a regulator will not be in place until at least 2024. At what point will he intervene urgently to get the Premier League and the EFL to an agreement?
The dedicated review of women’s football, which was an important recommendation in the review, is really welcome. Can the Minister give any more detail on who will chair it, what timescale it might follow and how its recommendations will be taken forward in due course?
The Government have said all along, quite rightly, that they accept in principle the proposals in the review, so let us get on with it. We are already too late for Bury, Derby and Oldham. If further clubs go under or suffer because of delays to the implementation of the review, responsibility will rest partly on the Government’s shoulders. The Labour party is happy to work with the Government to find space for legislation sooner rather than later. The right result is already clear; we do not need extra time. For the future of our national game, let us see legislation in the Queen’s Speech and action as quickly as possible.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. May I put on record my thanks and gratitude for the genuinely positive and constructive tone that we have had from him, from the Opposition DCMS team and from Members across the House?
There is a clear cross-party intent to move forward. I can say definitely to the hon. Gentleman that there is no intent to delay: we want to move forward as soon as possible. A White Paper is not an unusual step to take in bringing legislation to the House. It will also give others the opportunity to make additional comments as we move to the final stages of what is one of the most fundamental transformations in English football.
It is important that we get this right. It is incredibly complex: we will be bringing in incredible rigour and discipline, particularly financial discipline, for clubs, which has not happened before. If we were expected to bring in regulation tomorrow, it could cause considerable difficulty for clubs that may not currently be in a position to prove the level of discipline and rigour in their finances that we would seek in a new world with more financial regulation. We have to do it at the right time and give adequate notice. That being said, we want to move at speed, and the team at DDCMS are all working on many of the aspects that the hon. Gentleman raises.
On many of the hon. Gentleman’s points, further details will be coming in the White Paper. In the next few weeks, we will also announce further details on the review of the women’s game; the game has some similar issues but many different issues, so it is right that there is a separate review. We will continue to put pressure on the Premier League and others to move forward in the many areas that the hon. Gentleman identified that do not require regulation. For example, we expect many entities to move forward in the areas of financial distribution, fan engagement and heritage assets. Football entities can continue to move those matters forward, and I am sure that the whole House will continue to bring pressure on them to do so. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuinely constructive comments and welcome the overall support that we are hearing from the Opposition.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for his comments at the start of the statement. I appreciate that with Chorley in the play-offs, he has a deep interest in the future of football.
With great community clubs such as Buckhurst Hill and Epping Town in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you share the concerns and thoughts of many colleagues. I will not test your patience; I will take just a minute or so, because I recognise that hon. Members have a lot to say and I know that I will be having a meeting with the Minister to go through some of the detail of the report.
Regardless of any result on the pitch over the weekend, today is a good day for football fans. There has long been concern about the regulation and governance of football clubs throughout the English football pyramid, much of which has come on the back of various crises that in some cases have seen the disintegration of clubs as a result of financial mismanagement. That led to the fan-led review of football, which I was privileged to chair.
I am enormously pleased that the Government have accepted, or support, all 10 strategic recommendations set out in the review, including the fundamental proposal to establish an independent regulator free from the vested and conflicted interests that currently govern the game. It is perfectly possible to celebrate the global success of English football while at the same time having deep concerns about the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. The implementation of better regulation, stronger governance and more involvement for fans will not threaten the success of our game, but will make it stronger than ever.
All that said, I am concerned about the timeframe for implementation, and—with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—seek clarity on a few points.
Will the Minister confirm that the White Paper will be published this side of the summer recess? “Summer” can mean a lot of things in Government parlance, including, quite often, what we, the public, think of as autumn. Will the Minister rule out the housing of the independent regulator in the FA? Can he clarify whether the owners’ and directors’ test will be split into two, as recommended in the review? Does he share my disappointment that there has been no progress in respect of discussions between the football authorities on redistribution and parachute payments? Will he outline his position on the transfer solidarity levy? Finally, the review was clear about the fact that fans should have a right of consent as part of the golden share on heritage items, but the Government’s response was less clear in that regard. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a veto for fans on heritage matters?
There is much in today’s announcement on which to congratulate the Government, and I pay particular tribute to the officials who have worked so hard on this response. Momentum is on the side of reform, but, like most football fans, I am always fearful of two things: one-nil score lines with time to play, and games that head into extra time. Given that both football and politics can be volatile and vulnerable to sudden change, I urge the Government to nail the win for millions of fans across the pyramid, and deliver the reforms as quickly as possible.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work, not just her work on the recent review but the passion for football that she has shown ever since she came into Parliament—and, indeed, before. I also thank her for acknowledging the hard work of the officials who, in many cases, have been working on this for a number of years.
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the complexities involved. I completely understand the potential frustration over the timing of implementation, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), this is a complex process. However, we will be producing a White Paper, and we will be outlining further details shortly. I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the definition of “summer”, and I will put the pressure on in order to bring back further information as soon as possible.
I think that in her report my hon. Friend left open the possibility of the FA’s being a home for the regulator at some time in the future. We explicitly did not rule in or out any individual entity, but there will clearly be requirements in terms of the scope, responsibilities, duties and purpose of the regulator, and it is therefore highly likely that some entities will be eligible and others will not. I shall be able to comment on that in due course, in particular to the Select Committee. Many members of that Committee, and indeed many Members of the House, have expressly said that they would not like the FA to take on those responsibilities, although it will obviously continue to have other responsibilities.
My hon. Friend referred to financial redistributions. The Secretary of State and I had meetings with Rick Parry of the English Football League and Richard Masters of the Premier League just last week, when we reiterated the need for them to reach some agreement as a matter of urgency. As per my hon. Friend’s recommendation, if they do not do so we will act, and we expect to see action before the White Paper is released in the summer. We are hoping to see movement, but if there is no movement, dealing with that will be another role for the regulator.
There will indeed be licensing conditions in these areas, including conditions relating to fan engagement and to heritage assets. The precise nature of those will be determined, and could vary depending on the league and the level in the club. We do not want to be too prescriptive at this point.
I look forward to engaging with my hon. Friend on many occasions in the coming weeks.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I really do not understand what the Minister expects to find out from a White Paper that the fan-led review did not find out. What is it that he is seeking to eke out from whoever did not respond to or support the fan-led review? He says that finances are fragile. He has been in the room with the Premier League and the EFL together, as he has just said, so he knows that they are miles apart on the issue of parachute payments. They are distorting the football league and that needs to end. The Government need to make a decision about parachute payments and not keep kicking the can down the road and relying on an agreement between the Premier League and the football league.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passion for all things football, but I would not want to underestimate the complexity of what we are trying to do here. The need for a White Paper is not an unusual part of the parliamentary process. In fact, I suspect that if we had not proposed a White Paper, I would now be accused by the Opposition of not bringing one in. It is an important part of the process. We can announce the regulator and the scope of the regulator, but we then come to the complexities of its scale, where is it located, what its roles and responsibilities are and what the sanctioning regime and appeals process should be. All those things still need to be thought out, and we have to ensure that we do it carefully because we have one chance to get this right.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for a fantastic piece of work. I know that football fans across the country will be thrilled today. I am thinking about Leek Town, in the eighth tier of the pyramid, which will be very pleased to see the pyramid being strengthened by this work. I want to ask a question about the regulator. In my experience, regulators do not always deliver what Government Ministers want them to deliver. Given that this is an issue of finance, may I urge the Minister to look at successful financial regulation and perhaps base the regulator model on that?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments; I know that she has deep expertise and interest in this area. She is absolutely right, and we will be looking at models as we develop the regulator role. We have seen the Financial Conduct Authority, for example, and its role with the integrity test. There are a lot of things out there that we will genuinely try to learn from, so that we do not have to start from scratch. We will leverage expertise—there is considerable expertise at DCMS and throughout Government on establishing regulators—but we will also learn the lessons of the past.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I speak here perhaps less as a Scottish MP and more as probably the sole Glasgow East member of Fleetwood Town supporters club. I want to draw attention to pages five and six of the statement, in which the Minister talks about financial distribution through the pyramid. The fact that he has not given that power to the regulator is something that would alarm a lot of people, and would he agree that this is not so much a parachute payment as a trampoline payment?
Nigel Huddleston
As I outlined, and as the review recommends, we should let football try to find a solution wherever possible. If it cannot find a solution, there will be a backstop. That is what we are proposing.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister, particularly on his wisdom in recognising that when faced with a series of suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), it is easier and quicker just to say yes straightaway. I am a fan of a team in the championship, Reading, that is delighted—and quite relieved—to be in the championship next season as well. What all fans of teams at every level want is a greater voice for fans, better management, better tests for people who take over clubs, and also to maintain the standards of the premier league as the genuinely world-class competition that it has become since it was created. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that at all levels of the game, including at the top, there will be benefits from the new system of governance?
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend makes some pertinent and wise points, including his first point. He is absolutely right that football is a British success story, and the premier league in particular is something we should all be proud of. It is incredibly successful around the world and brings in a lot of money for the UK economy. Establishing greater stability and sustainability across the whole of the football pyramid is good for football overall, including the premier league. The premier league does distribute money, and we are grateful for that, but we would like to see it do a little bit more.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I have repeatedly raised with the Minister the impact on Newcastle United fans of the Premier League’s arrogance and lack of accountability, so I welcome his recognition of the need for reform. Will he confirm whether this further delay is at the behest of the Premier League? Does he agree that it is unacceptable for the Premier League to stand in the way of football fans, and that it is particularly distasteful given its policy director’s recent fine for partying while football fans, and indeed the rest of the country, were in lockdown?
Nigel Huddleston
I am afraid the hon. Lady is misinterpreting what I have outlined today. We are pursuing a process, and we have not announced delays; we have announced a route forward. A White Paper is a perfectly reasonable step that we have to take because these are complex issues. We will move forward on all these important areas.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
If football clubs were already trading within the rules of their competitions, as my hon. Friend knows, many of them would not get into difficulty. Will he confirm the key points of principle that the regulator will have the power to access real-time financial information from the clubs to see whether they are trading within the rules and that the owners and directors test will not only apply at the point of purchase? He has spoken of licensing conditions several times. Can he confirm that, from the outset, the regulator will be issuing licences that can be rescinded if the clubs do not comply?
Nigel Huddleston
I can confirm each of those points, particularly the last one. A licensing regime is exactly that: a person must abide by the conditions in order to get a licence. My hon. Friend’s other points are similarly accurate, including on the principle of an owners and directors test. One problem is that there is an owners and directors test only when a club is sold. We will be looking at greater frequency, for the reasons he outlined.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating Warrington Rylands, who won promotion over the weekend as champions of northern premier league west, and in sending best wishes to Warrington Town, who are in the play-offs tomorrow for promotion from the northern premier league.
Both teams aspire to become league clubs, which would be absolutely huge for football in Warrington, but media reports suggest that the Government plan to leave the redistribution of wealth throughout the football pyramid to the football authorities, rather than implementing the review’s recommendation for a solidarity transfer levy. Given that, after months, the Premier League and the EFL have not been able to agree on this recommendation, will the Minister personally intervene to secure a solution rather than waiting for action from a regulator that does not yet exist?
Nigel Huddleston
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the Warrington teams—there is obviously something in the water up there.
I repeat that the Secretary of State and I have already had conversations with the Premier League and the EFL, and we have requested that they work together to try to find a solution on redistribution. If they do not come to a conclusion, we reserve the right for that to be part of the regulator’s responsibilities. I make it clear that there will be changes to financial distribution. It is a matter of when and exactly how, but it will happen.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I join the praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her incredible work for football. As she says, this is a good day for football fans.
I also extend my congratulations to Forest Green Rovers, who were promoted to League One this weekend. There are some very happy local fans, and fan engagement has been crucial to getting to this point and to influencing the review’s recommendations. Will football fans be able to comment further and be heard ahead of the legislation coming before the House?
Nigel Huddleston
I congratulate Forest Green Rovers, too. My hon. Friend makes the important point that we are all here because fans were at the heart of the review. I will continue to engage with both fans and clubs, which is one of the advantages of a White Paper. As we get closer to the final details just before legislation, there will be an opportunity for fans to comment, which is good.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I also thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters, the secretariat of which is provided by the Football Supporters Federation.
The review was published in November, and we welcome the announcement of an independent regulator, but the list of failures, points deductions and relegations grows. The English Football League’s clubs are laden with debt and outspending receipts on players’ wages, and the FA is in hock to the Premier League and is paralysed by self-interest and sectional interests. Why the delay? The fans of many clubs want to know. When we say “act now”, we mean: bring forward a Bill that can be discussed in Parliament in the next Session. The review included significant consultation, so why delay any further? Such a delay has the potential to allow more horses to bolt and again it might be too late to close stable doors. Let me add that Gateshead play away to Chorley next Monday, hoping to clinch the national league north title.
Nigel Huddleston
I fear we may be playing club bingo in the Chamber today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention is to move forward as soon and as fast as possible, but I would not want to underplay the complexity of what we are doing or the scale of the changes we are proposing today—that requires that we get this right.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I join right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford on doing a fantastic job and having a real influence in the future direction of the game. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a regular, but very frustrated this season, Manchester United supporter. However, my focus today is very much on the small non-league clubs and even the mini leagues in the areas such as the one I represent, which drive the football pyramid. Their role is crucial in encouraging young people to get involved in playing football and involved in the sport. As the Minister puts together his White Paper, may I ask him to make sure that he has that in mind? We need to protect small clubs and the role they play in their communities and in encouraging a new generation into sport.
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend is making some important points. Of course we do not forget the importance of the grassroots and the non-league games, and the Government are investing in the grassroots, with new facilities right across the country. He makes a point about the viability of the overall pyramid and therefore the trickle down, including through schemes such as the Football Foundation. That is vital, which is why financial sustainability and success at the top is expected to help the entire pyramid.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am a Scot and a highlander, so those in the Chamber will not be surprised to learn that I support Ross County. Ross County very nearly won a Scottish cup final but we were pipped to the post by Dundee United. It was 15 May 2010 and I remain deeply traumatised by the result; I was there and I was greatly saddened. My point is this: from little acorns mighty oaks can grow. It was not always thus with Ross County, as I can remember them being thrashed by Rangers in the 1960s—
Jamie Stone
That is quite enough from the hon. Gentleman seated behind me. I accept what the Minister is saying about the Government’s good intention on this front, but I seek reassurance that the clubs in the lower divisions are being consulted to the maximum point they can be, because they are vital to this equation being solved.
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, I assure the hon. Gentleman about that. More than 20,000 people responded to the review, and 120 clubs were also consulted. I travel up and down the country to consult clubs on an ongoing basis, as indeed pretty much everybody in the Chamber does. That always feeds back; the fans’ views really matter to us here. He is also alluding to the point that success at the top absolutely needs to trickle down. It is vital that that works and we want all levels of football to excel.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I very much welcome these announcements. Our local clubs in Stoke-on-Trent, both Stoke City and Port Vale, are generally very well run and do huge amounts for our communities across the city. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is important that we see this good practice and the investment that goes into our communities rolled out across all clubs, that clubs lead by example and that they take from those fantastic examples we see in Stoke-on-Trent?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is right that football clubs play a pivotal role in our communities, and not only in terms of the sport—we saw during the pandemic the role that they played. I recently had the privilege of going to some EFL awards, where it was communicated to me that more than 4 million hours of volunteering have been provided by just those 72 football clubs in the past year. What an incredible contribution that is, and long may it continue.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Lancashire is home to many great football clubs, but we often have great rivalries. Last week, I received a letter from Andy Higgins, the chairperson of Blackpool Supporters Trust, and the week before that I met Steve Curwood, the chief exec at Fleetwood Town football club. The one thing they agree on is that the financial pyramid is not working. With the Premier League and EFL in an absolute logjam, is the Minister perhaps naively optimistic in thinking that the football authorities will be able to resolve this issue internally?
Nigel Huddleston
I am definitely usually a “glass half full” rather than “glass half empty” person, which I think is a good way to go through life. I do not think I can be accused of being naively optimistic, but I do believe that the football authorities have a responsibility and an obligation to put their house in order and take action. If they do not, action will be taken against them.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
AFC Wimbledon is a living example of a football club that has been rebuilt by fans and the community after its heritage was taken away. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for all her work. In her contribution, she mentioned how the Government’s definition of “summer” is sometimes moveable; the Government’s definition of “engagement” is also sometimes moveable. Will the Minister be clear that when the White Paper comes out, there will be a condition to set out clearly what fans should expect from their engagement?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that engagement could mean different things to different people. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we set a minimum level, and that will be the condition. We will look at licensing conditions, and fan engagement for, say, a top-end premier league club might be different from that for a club further down the pyramid. Indeed, expectations of engagement might also change. We will set some minimal conditions and, although one model may not fit all, there will definitely be changes.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
May I say well done to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)? My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) would have liked to be here—he has done a lot with fans and supporters—but he is at a Select Committee hearing.
For all of us who want to see fan engagement embedded in the game, there will be real concern about the Government’s delay. Will the Minister reassure fans that in the time we are waiting for legislation, vested interests will not have Ministers’ ears, and that we will see the implementation of all the recommendations in the fan-led review?
Nigel Huddleston
The very fact that we are making the announcements we are making today, which are fundamental to and transformative for English football, shows that vested interests have not had a huge say. The review was led by fans and what was in their best interests, and that will continue.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I am a very happy Huddersfield Town season ticket holder as we get ready for the championship play-offs. I am also delighted as a Golcar United non-league season ticket holder, because the village was promoted from the north-west counties league division one this season. However, I am aware of the misery suffered by the fans of other clubs, such as Derby, Bury and, as we saw at the weekend, Oldham Athletic. I welcome the clear commitment to fairer funding among the leagues and to the introduction of an independent regulator, but will the Minister say how the review and the proposals will ensure that the fans of local clubs do not have to suffer again the poor governance that has put their clubs under threat and even seen them go out of existence?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes valid points. That is at the heart of what we are doing. The role of the regulator is to be there not in and of itself but for a purpose, which is to make sure that football is sustainable in the long run. Many elements, including financial regulation, governance, engagement with fans and the treatment of heritage assets, will be fundamental to the licensing condition, and there will, of course, be a new owners and directors test. All that together should ensure there is much less chance of clubs getting into difficulty, whether financial or related to their treatment of the fanbase. Our package should achieve the very things my hon. Friend is looking for.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I too pay tribute to my friend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for all the work that she has done. Unfortunately, as we have already heard, Oldham Athletic is the first founding member of the Premier League to drop out of the football league. It has hit many of the town’s fans hard.
I share the concerns about the delay, but I also have a question to ask on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). Can the Minister be more specific about how long it will take to reverse the position of wealth sitting at the top of football and failing to be redistributed down to the lower leagues, and of allowing rogue owners to use clubs as their personal playthings?
Nigel Huddleston
I have a great deal of sympathy for Oldham fans. The hon. Lady makes some important points. Many of the proposals we have outlined should help to ensure that that kind of situation does not happen in future. As I have said repeatedly today, what I am announcing is progress and how we are moving forward. I have to push back against the narrative of delay; this is about how we are moving forward.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I too pay tribute to my fellow Panini football sticker collector, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for the fantastic work that she has done and for the fact that there is general consensus on the majority of the recommendations. We must not lose sight of the fact that the premier league is the most successful football league in the world, while the championship is the fourth-biggest league. If MPs are the answer, that fills me with trepidation. There is a reason why we are not all football managers and pundits. Does the Minister agree that the Premier League, the EFL and the FA need to read the room and crack on pretty quickly?
Nigel Huddleston
I agree with my hon. Friend, and we have sent that message. I am not sure I agree that there are no football pundits in this House, however; I think there are quite a few sitting just a few feet from me.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am very happy Huddersfield Town fan today, following our latest victory, but I hope the Minister will join me in also congratulating Liversedge football club in my constituency, who were crowned league champions at the weekend. It is a fine example of a community club doing lots of good things in the constituency.
Having recently joined the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on the pitch against the Afghan women’s football team, may I say what a great team player she is, and praise her for her excellent report? I support the report’s call for a new code for football club governance. Will the Minister ensure that such a code will apply to all clubs and include additional minimum requirements relating to directors, equality and diversity, fan engagement, welfare, and stewardship?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady raises many points. I also had the pleasure of meeting the Afghan team the other day, and I am glad to hear her highlight the importance of clubs in our communities. Further details on the White Paper are coming. I am glad that she mentioned equality, diversity and inclusion, because they were part of the report, and we will look at ensuring that EDI plans are in place. More information is coming; look out for it in the White Paper.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that Grimsby Town, the club I have supported for 60 years, play in Cleethorpes. We have talked a lot about different tiers, and the one thing I fear is that we might have too many tiers of regulation. Clearly, the FA and other bodies will play a part in regulating the sport, and the report talks about somebody ensuring that the regulator uses its powers proportionately, so who will regulate the regulator?
Nigel Huddleston
The points raised by my hon. Friend are exactly why we are doing the right thing by providing further details in the White Paper, so that we can see exactly what the regulator’s remit and responsibilities will be. He also raises the important point that there other entities and bodies in football and we need to be clear where the roles and responsibilities lie. We have a pretty good picture of that now, and over the next few weeks and months I am sure it will become even clearer, hence the White Paper.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Bristol City are key to both the culture and the economy of south Bristol. I recently met the chief executive, who is keen on the work done by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and wants to see it progress. Rivalry in the city is intense, but will the Minister join me in supporting the work of Caz May and Lucy Ford, who are fans of Bristol Rovers and the founders of Her Game Too? May I press the Minister for details of the review of women’s football? I hope that the work of Her Game Too, and all the women and girls involved in grassroots football, are included in that review.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady. She is right that ensuring a proper review of women’s football is of pivotal importance, and I know that has the support of the whole House. We will announce more information within the next few weeks. The scope will be different from the review of the men’s game, because the issues are slightly different. Football finance is always there, but there are other things, particularly sponsorship visibility and so on, that are pivotally important. I ask her to be patient a little bit longer and we will provide more information in due course.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The proud and historic Derby County football club has had a torrid time over the past seven months. It has a named buyer now, but it is not out of the woods. I ask the Minister: is this the black and the white, and can he therefore guarantee that these proposals will ensure that no club will close in the future?
Nigel Huddleston
I have had many conversations with my hon. Friend about the situation at Derby County and I know how passionate she and several other colleagues are about the situation there. We are very confident that, with the new regime and the independent regulator looking particularly at financial regulation, the chances of clubs going into administration again and getting into that difficulty would be considerably reduced because there would be much closer scrutiny of the finances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) mentioned earlier, ongoing, real-time scrutiny of the finances will be pivotal. However, circumstances can change and emergencies can happen both domestically and internationally. Can we guarantee that these measures will ensure that no club will ever go under? No, we cannot, but they will be massively impactful in significantly reducing the chances of that happening.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Since the Glazer family became the owners of Manchester United, they have taken more than £1 billion out of the club, much of it to service debts they incurred buying the club in the first place, which they subsequently loaded on to the club. I do not think that kind of toxic business model has any place in football or any other business, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that that kind of arrangement will be banned altogether under the new regulator.
Nigel Huddleston
As I have said, financial regulation, looking in detail at the finances and sustainability of clubs and at how they are spending their money, will be at the heart of the independent regulator’s role.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Minister recently visited Blackpool FC, a club that he will know has suffered more than most at the hands of an irresponsible owner. I am pleased to see the Government endorsing the key recommendations of the fan-led review, including the owners and directors test. However, he will know that financial circumstances, views and attitudes can change over time, including for the owners of clubs. Does he agree that the test should be applied periodically, rather than merely when a club is bought and sold?
Nigel Huddleston
I very much enjoyed visiting both my hon. Friend’s constituency and the club. He is absolutely right. As was highlighted in the report, we need to ensure that the owners and directors test is not just static, happening when a club is sold, but is regularly reviewed, because as he outlined, circumstances change. We will look at that. I think the report suggested every three years, and that sounds sensible to me, but we will provide more information in the White Paper.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The only thing better than working on this fan-led review of football with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is being on the football pitch with her. She has been brilliant, as I am sure we all agree.
I know you will be concerned, Madam Deputy Speaker, given historical injustices in the world of football, that women should not be made to wait a moment longer than necessary. Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), will the Minister please explain why the chair and terms of reference for the women’s football review have not been announced? Can he correct that situation now at the Dispatch Box and tell us who the chair will be and when we will have in our hands the terms of reference? Women who care about football in this country do not want to wait any longer.
Nigel Huddleston
I can assure the hon. Lady that women in sport is one of my top priorities. When I became Sports Minister, one of the first things I did was to set up a women in sport working group, which is making considerable progress, and I am very proud and very appreciative of all the people involved in it. She will have to be a little bit patient, as I cannot announce now, at the Dispatch Box, the chair and the scope, although she will understand that that information will be released very soon. However, that does not mean that this is not a priority; it absolutely is.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the register.
A few years ago I was lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was in the Minister’s position answering, and we talked about the success of the premier league—the 100,000 jobs that are directly held through it, the £7.6 billion it delivers to the UK economy, and the £3.6 billion it delivers to the Exchequer. There is nothing of that nature in the Government’s response. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in this response will harm and undermine the great export that is the premier league?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for that. In fact, I think I was PPS-ing that very debate, so I remember it well. He is absolutely right. As I have said many times at the Dispatch Box today, the premier league is an incredible British success story that we need to celebrate and applaud, and make sure that it continues to be successful. Nothing that we are proposing today should jeopardise that. We are asking for some changes. We have been asking for reform in football for a very long time. Unfortunately the reason we have had to intervene, and are doing so, is that the Premier League has signally failed to act at the speed that we needed. The Premier League has an obligation and a responsibility to continue to make changes, including with financial flows. However, I do not believe that anything we are announcing today would jeopardise what is an incredible success story, and the premier league will continue to thrive—I am very confident of that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Anyone who has spoken to directors and owners of either Chesterfield football club or Staveley Miners Welfare football club will be very much aware that while there may be monstrous profits in the premier league, at every level below that there is huge indebtedness, and football as a sport requires benefactors to be constantly writing another cheque. That model is broken. I fear that what we have heard today is that this is being kicked into the next Parliament. I suspect that the premier league clubs listening to this will be reassured that they still have quite a bit of time before they are going to have their feet held to the fire. Can the Minister assure us that before this Parliament is over, in 2024 or whenever that may be, we will actually see reform on the statute book, and this will not just rely on the manifestos of parties at the next election, because it should be dealt with during this Parliament?
Nigel Huddleston
Both the Secretary of State and I have said previously that the intention is to bring this in before the end of this Parliament. As I say, we are working at speed on it. The hon. Gentleman’s point about indebtedness is an important one. Many clubs are currently in a pretty precarious financial state. The financial regulation that we will bring in will require much more stability and sustainability, and proof of that sustainability. That is precisely why saying, “Let’s bring this in tomorrow”, could end up having the absolute opposite impact of what we intend.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s response to the fan-led review undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I thank her for recently visiting Accrington Stanley and its supporters, and, in particular, its fantastic chairman, Andy Holt, who people know is quite a vocal supporter of the fan-led review. There are concerns about the timing of this, as the Minister has set out, but while we are waiting for the White Paper, will he make sure that we can continue to have discussions on the redistribution of finances?
Nigel Huddleston
It would not be a debate in Parliament about football without mentioning Accrington Stanley, so I am glad that that bingo item has been ticked off. My hon. Friend is right. As I said, we are continuing to put pressure on the Premier League to continue this dialogue and these conversations because we would like to see movement before the White Paper is released.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I am proud that Luton Town in my constituency has been at the forefront of calls for fan-led reform, particularly through campaigns such as Fair Game. As a Lutonian, and like many other fans, I have everything crossed that we will not just be in the play-offs but in the premier league this season. The Minister mentioned exiting the game. Many have the experience of devoting their lives to football—often at the expense of a proper education or other opportunities—only for that footballing career to end abruptly or to never really get started. That can lead often to severe mental health issues and shocking life outcomes. Can the Minister give further clarity over the expected White Paper’s plans to better protect the welfare of players exiting the game, in particular those leaving football academies at a young age?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady will be aware that I fought Luton South in the 2010 election, and Luton South fought back, as they say. I still have a great passion for Luton, which has gone up and down the leagues over many years. She is making an important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) highlighted in her report and that I referenced in my statement. This is one of the areas that is primarily the responsibility of football to sort out, but we are keeping a very close eye on it. The welfare of players is paramount, and we have seen too many failures in the past.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In the heart of the mother town sits Port Vale FC, which is situated within Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. This review is so important, because we had a former owner, Norman Smurthwaite, who was a complete disaster and almost brought down this fantastic asset. It is thanks to Kevin and Carol Shanahan, who came in and bought the club, that we are now sitting in fourth place, one point off the automatic promotion spots in league two. As Carol says, we are simply a championship club that happens to be in league two at this moment. What is important, and what Carol wanted me to reiterate, is that we surely should be looking at the TV rights. Rather than having the EFL and the Premier League competing against each other, we should get them to join up and have a 70:30 split.
Nigel Huddleston
It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and the club. He is making an important point, and as I have said repeatedly, financial distribution is something we are looking at. We want and require the Premier League to work with others on this, and if it does not act, we will look at alternative measures.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I would also like to thank our friend, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for such excellent work on the review. Players give their lives for football. My constituent, the former captain of Leeds United, Brian Deane, was woefully let down by the footballing authorities. Will player welfare be central to the new regulator? We have areas, such as the PFA, where there have been recent failings. Will the regulator take on board such issues as whether agents are fit and proper and whether the people who financially advise players are proper to do their work? Those issues are of importance to players playing the game.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Member is raising a variety of points. Some of those are likely to be the responsibility of the regulator, but many, such as player welfare, will continue to be the responsibility of other institutions within football.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Football is integral to Loughborough, whether that is throughout the town clubs, among students and in our exemplary Leicester City, which has its training ground in my constituency. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be very happy about that, I am sure. Today is indeed a good day for football fans. Will football fans at all levels be able to comment further on the proposals before the legislation is introduced, and if so, how?
Nigel Huddleston
The view of fans is pivotal. It has been so far, and it will continue to be as we develop the proposals. We will find ways to make sure that fans continue to be engaged in the conversations and discussions, and we will be announcing more information with the White Paper.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I have spoken before about the importance of ensuring a genuinely fair and equitable distribution of wealth throughout English football. The fan-led review rightly suggests that the Premier League should be doing more to support lower league and grassroots football, so that clubs, such as Tranmere Rovers in my constituency, can continue to nurture the next generation of home-grown talent. While the report’s recommendation of a solidarity transfer levy is welcome, more needs to be done. Can the Minister inform the House what additional steps the Government will be taking to guarantee that clubs like Tranmere, which are so often the beating heart of their communities, see more of the wealth flowing down from the top of the football pyramid?
Nigel Huddleston
This is a common appeal we have heard today. Financial distribution in football is not as it should be at the moment. We are appealing to the Premier League to do more. If it does not—if it cannot come to some agreement— we will look at what the responsibilities of the regulator may be to take further action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Points of Order
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 28 March, the House considered and agreed a motion in my name:
“That this House believes that the current process for claiming War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation payments is not fit for purpose and urges the Government to launch an independent inquiry into the system’s failings.”
Following the debate, I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister last week to seek clarity on what steps the Government are taking to establish the agreed inquiry. This morning, I received a written answer from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans that stated:
“There are no plans for an inquiry into the process for War Pensions or Armed Forces Compensation payments.”
The answer goes on to claim that the process
“remains effective, fit for purpose, and functioning satisfactorily.”
If what we heard in the debate is anything to go by, however, the Government’s definition of satisfactory is far removed from mine.
Paragraph 20.96 of “Erskine May” tells us that,
“Every question, if agreed to, becomes either an order or a resolution of the House, and is recorded as such in the Journal of the House.”
On that basis, may I seek clarity that the outcome of the debate on 28 March is indeed recorded as a resolution of the House and seek your guidance on how to see that resolution translated into action?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. As he will know, I am not responsible for ministerial answers. Although he has said that the resolution is the opinion of the House, that was a non-binding resolution. Again, taking that a step further, I am also not responsible for how Ministers respond to non-binding motions of the House. However, the Treasury Bench and the Whips will have heard what he has to say and I am sure that they will feed back his concerns.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the start of the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I was able to pay tribute to Mr Speaker’s team Chorley and their promotion efforts and likewise to the community clubs in the constituency of Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing). Could you give me some advice about how I can get on to the record your support for the Doncaster Rovers supporters club? I know that you have met it and allayed its concerns and desires for reform in football.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her point of order. I would also like to put on record how pleased I was to have discussions with her about points that have been made to me about Doncaster Rovers, not only from the directors but from the club’s supporters. I am grateful to her for that point of order and for all the work that she has done in that area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), having participated in that debate on the armed forces compensation scheme, there was certainly an indication and a flavour of intent from the Minister to correspond and respond positively to what the hon. Gentleman said. My concern is that I conveyed the flavour and intent from the debate in Hansard to my constituents, who will now feel grieved that what was shown and discussed that night cannot now be delivered. What can I do to highlight that matter and ensure that my constituents know that when this House says something, it actually means it?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point of order. Again, I stress that the reality is that it was a non-binding motion, but he has put on record his concerns regarding the matter. If he went to the Table Office, I am sure that the Clerks could give him advice on other ways that he might be able to raise it, such as at the next appropriate oral questions or at the business statement. I am afraid that I cannot add much more to what was said previously.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 25 April 2022 - (25 Apr 2022)
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the items in the Lords message relating to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Clause 55
Imposing conditions on public processions
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords in their Amendment 73, insists on its Amendment 73C to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that Amendment, insists on its Amendment 74A to Lords Amendment 74, disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 74B to that Amendment in lieu, disagrees with the Lords in their consequential Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 87, insists on its Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E, 87F and 87H to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that Amendment but proposes Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendment 73 and additional Amendment (b) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 87.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 80, insists on its Amendments 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E, 80F and 80H to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with that Amendment, disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 80J instead of the words left out by that Amendment but proposes additional Amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 80.
Kit Malthouse
I rise to speak to the motions in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, including the associated amendments in lieu. We return yet again, I have to say with a smidgin of ennui and irritation, to the issue of police powers to attach conditions to protests. It is disappointing that the debate on these provisions continues to be characterised by misinformation about what the Bill actually does and irrationality.
I shall start with the issue of noise. As I said in round 2 of ping-pong, at the Opposition’s behest, we have added provisions to the Bill that can be used to limit noise and disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. I am therefore at a loss to understand why they would not agree to these provisions outside, say, a convent, a hospital, an animal sanctuary or, God forbid, a factory. What happened to the workers’ rights?
It cannot be that a protest can inflict any amount of noise on those living or working in the vicinity for prolonged periods of time, day or night. I agree that it would not be necessary or proportionate, for example, to attach conditions relating to the generation of noise to a procession that will pass a particular location within a matter of hours, but the same cannot be said of an ongoing raucous protest, perhaps encamped in a residential area, which includes the banging of drums and the use of loudhailers. It is intolerable that local residents should have to endure that day and night, and it is right that in those circumstances, the police should have the power to act. I do not understand why those residents’ rights are so lightly set aside by the Opposition. When the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) rises to address the motions, I hope she will answer that question.
I can, however, assure the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—they questioned me on this in the last round—that there are no new powers here to restrict what is said and, for that matter, sung. These provisions are simply about the harm caused by excessive noise; the content is irrelevant. Of course, the existing criminal law relating to hate or intimidatory speech will continue to apply.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have a real concern about Lords amendment 80. I am not sure that my concern, or the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have been dispelled. Can the Minister give me an assurance in this House today, on the record in Hansard, that open-air or other events will not be affected? The letter of the law does not give that protection; sadly—this has been done in this country already—officers have the power to arrest those preaching the word of God. I seek an assurance from the Minister that on no occasion and under no circumstances will the opportunity to preach the gospel in the streets of this kingdom be in any way thwarted, reduced or restricted.
Kit Malthouse
As I have already explained, what is said is irrelevant for the purposes of this legislation. The Bill merely covers the distress that may be caused by the volume or persistence of the noise. The existing criminal law already covers content. If the content—obviously, not in this case—is intimidating, somehow hateful or incites some kind of violence, there are already provisions against that kind of speech. The hon. Gentleman describes somebody simply preaching the gospel; if they are not causing alarm or distress through the level or persistence of the noise, I cannot see why that would be offensive to anybody, or that the police would use these powers.
I turn to the other provisions in clause 56, enabling the police to attach any condition to a public assembly where such conditions are necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation. I welcome the belated acceptance by the other place that existing powers in section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 are insufficient, but I am afraid Lords amendment 87J is not up to the task. The police have told us that the distinction drawn in that Act between processions and assemblies is outdated, and it does not reflect current-day challenges of policing dynamic protests that can morph from a procession to an assembly and back again. The current situation prompts all sorts of questions. For example, how slowly would a procession have to move before it becomes static? If protesters walk in a 200 metre circle, is that a procession or a static protest?
It will continue to be the case that any conditions must be proportionate, and necessary to prevent serious disorder and the other serious harms set out in the Bill. None of that, however, is to say that we have not listened to and reflected on the views expressed by the other place. In the last round, we raised the threshold for the exercise of noise-related powers by removing the “serious unease” trigger, and we have tabled an amendment in lieu that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the operation of the relevant provisions in clauses 55, 56 and 61 within two years of their commencement. In one of our earlier debates, my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), stressed the need for a post-legislative review of those provisions, and the amendments would enshrine that in law.
We have reached a stage of the legislative process where the issue at stake is no longer simply the merits or otherwise of the measures that we are debating. A more fundamental issue is at stake: the primacy of this elected House in our constitutional arrangements. This House has already debated and expressly approved the noise-related provisions on no less than three occasions: on Report last July; on consideration of Lords amendments at the end of February; and again at the end of March. That is not to mention the separate votes on Second and Third Reading of the Bill. I hope and expect that hon. Members will endorse the provisions for a fourth time when we come to the Division. The other place, composed as it is of hereditary and appointed Members without any democratic mandate, has done its duty in asking this House to reconsider this issue. We have now done so and made our position abundantly clear. We should send the provisions back to the Lords again, with a clear and unequivocal message that they should now let them, and the Bill, proceed.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I am sorry that the Minister finds himself bored by the democratic process, but this is the process, and sadly he has to come to the Dispatch Box to engage in this debate. There is one—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady is giving a speech. Carry on, Sarah Jones.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not mind how noisy the Minister is; I do not want to curtail his right to be as noisy as he likes.
We are debating one topic: the right to protest and make noise. We have indeed debated it several times. Members from across the House have spoken passionately about why this issue matters, and why the Government have got this so wrong. One might think that, with crime up 14%, the arrest rate having halved since 2010, and prosecution rates at an all-time low, the Government might spend their time on the bread-and-butter issues of law and order, such as fighting criminals. Instead, they seem intent on criminalising singing at peaceful protests. That suggests that the Government are tired, out of ideas and have no plan, and are searching round for anything eye-catching to distract from their years of failure.
The Lords responded to the Minister’s defence of his policy by voting against it again. Lords amendments 73 and 87 remove the Government’s proposed noise trigger, which would allow the police to put conditions on marches or one-person protests that are “too noisy”. Labour agrees with the Lords, and we support Lords amendment 80, which removes clause 56 from the Bill altogether. As with most Government policies thought up on the hoof, there are many questions about how the proposed powers would work.
Kit Malthouse
This is a genuine question. For many years, I was a councillor in central London and a London Assembly member. I am conscious that central London is particularly targeted by protests, which happen pretty much every weekend and often every day of the week. Central London is characterised by a quite dense residential population. Where is the balance between the rights of those residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes, and the rights of protesters to protest throughout the night, which the hon. Lady seems intent on preserving? Will she please explain why residents do not deserve some kind of protection from noise?
Sarah Jones
I ask the Minister back: where is the evidence that residents have asked for this change in legislation? [Interruption.] I see no evidence that anybody has asked for this change in the law, not least the police—
Sarah Jones
My inbox—I do not know about the Minister’s—is full of emails asking us to vote against the Government’s provisions today. I have not had a single one asking me to vote in favour.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I may be able to enlighten the Minister as to why there is no need for the provisions on noise. The Minister for Social Justice in Wales, Jane Hutt, has been quoted as saying that the current legal framework already provides sufficient scope, and that
“this means there is no requirement or need to include a new, far more draconian measure”.
We have sufficient laws in place, and there is no need for these provisions. The Bill rides roughshod over the devolution settlement.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right. I am proud to have campaigned with Jane Hutt. She knows what she is talking about, and she delivers results—something that this Government could learn from.
Recently published guidance on this bizarre change to the law gives us the helpful tip that
“a noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold”
in the Bill. The guidance is seriously asking the police to base their consideration of whether a protest is too noisy on how many buildings around it have double-glazed windows. How on earth will the police know? Is it fair to our police if the law is so peculiar that they could interpret it in a million different ways, and would stand accused of bias whatever they did? I urge Ministers to bear in mind the consequences of these provisions on the police officers trying to put them into practice.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, if only so that I can, hopefully, enliven our proceedings slightly. I am a bit confused; the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) seemed to imply that the Minister in the Welsh Government says that there is plenty of legislation to deal with this problem. Is she therefore content for legislation to be used in Wales to control protest noise?
Sarah Jones
The point we are trying to make is that there is a balance to be struck between what is reasonable in protests and what is not. We believe that the right to protest is not an absolute right; there have to be provisions in place to ensure that protests are reasonable, and do not put out the public too much. These provisions on noise are almost impossible to interpret—they are really unclear—and the police and the public have not asked for them. There are existing rules to ensure that reasonable, peaceful protest can take place, and the Bill rides roughshod over those genuine rights.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some good points, particularly around interpretation. In Wirral West, we had a successful campaign against underground coal gasification after the coalition Government granted a licence for drilling in the Dee estuary underneath Hilbre island. People were very concerned about that, and we had a mass demonstration on the beach. When people go to a demonstration, they do not know who else will be there. I am concerned that people will feel intimidated by this law, and will perhaps feel that they should not attend a protest that they want to go on because of concerns that they will not be in control of the noise volume.
Sarah Jones
That is an interesting point. Thank goodness for those protests and for our right to protest in that way. It is not fair and not right to force the police to make political decisions about how much is too much noise. Imagine a scenario where two sides of a public debate are protesting, with one group on a street where there is lots of double glazing and the other on a street where there are old houses and no double glazing. Are we really saying that the police, who might close one protest for being too noisy and not the other, would not find themselves in a difficult political situation, with criticism from the public?
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I will not detain the House for long, because that is what the other Chamber is doing. The House has voted with huge majorities to put the legislation through, and actually the need for it is found in most of our constituency surgeries. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) listens for five minutes, she might hear my argument. It is fine to disagree with me, but chuntering is probably not the answer.
One of the biggest things that upsets my constituents is noisy neighbours, whether the noise comes from music or hard floors upstairs. At my surgeries, people often ask, “How can we control this? Can the council make recordings?” The council works hard to try to address these disputes, which are small in scale but mean a lot to the individuals who are having their lives blighted by noise.
As a trade unionist, I am more than happy to have legal demonstrations. They are part and parcel of the process—[Interruption.] I was in the Fire Brigades Union when we were thrown out of the Labour party, so I have a bit of a track record here. However, we are talking about people having their lives blighted continually because of a right being exercised near their homes or offices day in, day out. To be fair, we are talking not about a demonstration on a beach but about one right outside where people live.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Member brings a lot of experience to the House, and I listen to him carefully. I agree with him about noisy neighbours, which are a distressing part of my case load because we often struggle hard to do something about it. However, the Bill does not do anything on that; it is about protests. We need to be clear that those are two completely different things. There are rules on antisocial behaviour and neighbours, and local authorities and the police have powers to deal with that—sadly, often those cases do not get dealt with—but that is not what we are arguing about.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I give a little reminder that interventions should be quite brief?
Sir Mike Penning
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, you made my point exactly. With respect to the shadow Minister, they are different, and I agree that the Bill has nothing to do with noisy neighbours, but noisy demonstrations blight people’s lives in exactly the same way, and that is why the legislation is trying to do something about them.
We may disagree, and that is probably right and proper—this place is about debating and not just agreeing with each other all the time—but the principle must be that this House, with huge majorities, has voted for these measures. I respect many of the people on both sides of the other House—they bring huge amounts of experience—but they are not elected. They should listen to this House and consider the size of the majority. If it had been tiny, we could argue about the principle, but it was not, and the measures have been voted through. On that, I completely agree with the Minister, who is in the position where I used to be.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Throughout the proceedings on this woefully drafted Bill, I have maintained that, although it is largely reserved to England and Wales, part 3 on protest will severely restrict anyone from Scotland, or indeed anyone across these islands, from exercising their fundamental and democratic right to protest. None of us can sit back and allow that to happen. What happens here in the coming days will outlive this Government, so the Scottish National party will vote against the Government motions to disagree with the Lords, who have worked tirelessly to help restore some balance to the Bill. I am seriously concerned about what will happen when the Bill is forced through the Lobby, and I know that that worries some Conservative Back Benchers who have been lobbying Members of the other place to allow the Commons the opportunity to think again on protest measures. We are back here to consider part 3 on protest, and rightly so.
The protest measures in the Bill have been the headline grabbers—the clauses most briefed on, tweeted on, reported and debated—and, most importantly, they are the clauses that people are concerned about, because they are a threat to our long-held right to have our voices heard. My office also receives hundreds of emails on a daily basis asking me to stand up and act against the threat to those rights. People are worried not just because of this Bill in particular—although it is terrifying—but because of the context in which it is being pushed through this place.
This week, we will debate the Elections Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, each carrying its own threat to our fundamental rights. People know how this works: they know that the Government have seemingly unfettered powers to make any law that they want. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb put it best when she said:
“Because they have a huge majority…they can afford not to care about how the Bills are written or about their content.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1707.]
The Bill is badly written. No well written legislation would require so many amendments—it borders on the ridiculous. When we are forced to create a database for amendments just to keep track, we know that fundamentally something has gone wrong at the front end. However, it is our job to amend, correct and stop badly drafted legislation and, whatever the Minister says, it is the second House’s job to have its say on that.
I will speak briefly on specific amendments, but I would like to make a general point: all the amendments under discussion clean up ambiguous and badly worded clauses that will, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), said, only force the police into making quasi-political decisions on the spot. Former police chiefs and senior officers have warned against the
“political pressure the Bill will place on frontline officers.”
It has become apparent through these debates that it is not more legislation or laws that the police need or want.
Lords Amendment 73 would remove sections of the Bill that allow the police to intervene and limit processions based on the criterion of noise. We have heard a lot about that today. The Government have got this wrong—they simply have. They have tried to make assurances that powers to act on noise will be used only in the most extreme circumstances, but it is all just too vague. As the shadow Minister said, what kind of law would ask a frontline police officer to assess the thickness of walls in an office or the kind of glazing in a building prior to intervening on a protest? Seriously! It is in the guidance, if Government Members opposite want to check it. Here is a quote from the guidance:
“A noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold”.
It is not just the way a building is constructed that frontline officers might have to contend with, but the duration of the noise and the type of noise. The list goes on. This is ill-conceived and ill-defined. It will load pressure on to already pressurised police forces and simply will not work. And that is before we get to the crux of the matter: our right to protest is our democratic right. It is not for this Government or any successive Governments to take that away.
We continue to oppose the Government’s apparent concession to remove the term “serious unease” for the simple fact that it is nestled in badly drafted sections and has the unintentional—or possibly intentional—effect of lowering the threshold for police intervention. Removing the term would lower the threshold of “serious alarm or distress” to “alarm or distress”. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) eloquently made that point in a previous debate, and I stand by his remarks.
We supported Lords amendment 80, to remove clause 56 on public assemblies, and we continue to support it. This is yet another clause rife with hidden dangers, attempting to replace public order legislation that is operating perfectly well. The Public Order Act was careful to delineate and differentiate the conditions that could be imposed on static demonstrations, as opposed to a march or a moving protest, and that was sensible. That reflected the relative ease by which a static demonstration can be policed.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I am afraid I disagree with it. In Scottish jurisprudence, Scotland has an advantage over England in that it has a well-expressed and commonly used offence of nuisance. Would she support the use of this legislation in controlling nuisance emanating from a protest?
Anne McLaughlin
So many of us have already answered that on so many occasions. There already exists legislation and the powers for the police to control demonstrations that are not peaceful and out of control, but we are not talking about that. The proposed legislation allows the police to make decisions according to very spurious guidance. The removal of the distinction regarding statics demonstration could hand the police unfettered discretion to impose further conditions on static protests, such as the words and slogans that can be used on placards. That is ridiculous. Sometimes they are the best bits! I really wish I had the time to read out some of my favourite words and slogans that I have seen recently, but I do not think the Government would be too pleased about that.
Finally, I want to touch on Lords amendment 87, on one-person protests. The amendment removes the ability of the police to impose conditions on a one-person protest. That was rejected in the last round of ping-pong and the Lords have rightly asked for it to be reconsidered. I have twice now heard the Minister talk in derisory terms about the House of Lords because some of them are hereditary and none of them are elected. The SNP is opposed to the House of Lords on that basis, but his party is not and it puts people in there all the time. If that is the system he supports, he cannot really complain when they do the job they are asked to do. Are we really going to see a law passed today that will allow the might of the state to bear down on a single, individual protester? It is ridiculous, disproportionate and nothing short of bullying. And be careful anyone who even stops to chat to a protester, because they could be snared by the clause, too. How many times have we all stopped to chat to the wonderful array of protesters outside this place, whether we agree with them or not? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, doing so could soon see you committing a criminal offence.
We are not impressed with the Government’s amendments to lay reports before the House with regard to changes to the Public Order Act. They are lip service posing as concessions. They are better than nothing, but they are not much better.
I understand that time is short, so I will finish with this: we support the Lords in their amendments and fundamentally disagree with the undemocratic way the Government are throwing their weight around. If the Government are intent on dissuading protest, they are intent on silencing voices. From the huffing and puffing coming from the Minister today it is clear he is no fan of democracy, so I am sure he will not mind if I tell him the Bill is undemocratic, unworkable and unfair.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
A noise annoys. That was a common reproof from my mother in my early days, and indeed to her grandchildren today. I think we all recognise, in the course of the debates we have had in this House, that there are occasions when noise is a part of the democratic process that helps the atmosphere and the challenge, and there are times when it becomes extremely disruptive to the democratic process and begins to get in the way. I rise to support the Minister and the Government on that point. I would like to set out briefly the particular reasons why I take that position.
Like the Minister and a number of colleagues across the House, I have spent a lot of time in local government. I am very aware that one of the most common complaints to local authorities is about disruption caused by noise. This element of the Bill deals with a very specific subset of noise where it is caused by protest, and I agree with what the Minister and the Government have said. It probably depends where in the country someone is and what their experience has been. Certainly for local authorities in places such as my area—I speak with experience of a local authority where Heathrow has occasioned many protests over the years—where relatively low levels of noise carry on 24 hours a day, sometimes for days on end, or where extremely loud noises are generated by the kind of portable amplification technology that has become available even to lone protestors, such things can cause enormous disruption.
That disruption is not just to residents who live in those places—I appreciate that for central London Members of Parliament it is certainly a very big factor—but to businesses. I have many constituents who either work or have business interests in central London. Hoteliers may struggle to sell their hotel rooms in a location where there is constant disruption caused by noisy protest, which means that people cannot sleep and the normal business of an office is disrupted.
In my view, given the development of tactics used by some protests that aim specifically to make persistent noisy protests that do not cross the thresholds set out in existing legislation, it is right that we update the law. We have heard a lot that existing powers are available, in particular to local authorities, to address concerns about noise. I have heard that argument made at the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have heard it in a number of debates on a lot of different aspects of the Bill.
However, it seems clear to me that there are occasions when the role of this House is not simply to respond to what the police are asking for, but to recognise when constituents, businesses and residents have concerns and find that the powers available, for example to local authorities, are not sufficient to remedy the problems they are experiencing. It is then the duty of the House to consider how we increase the penalties and powers available, so that those problems can be properly addressed. For example, as the Bill contains provisions to deal with trespass that crosses a criminal threshold and powers to increase sentencing, in my view it is right that it also increases the powers of the police to deal with persistent and noisy protests.
For people experiencing disruption to their sleep, disruption to their family life and disruption to their business—disruption to normal lawful activity that these types of protest can cause—waiting for the processes available to a local authority is simply insufficient. By law, councils have to go through various processes to gather evidence, which takes a long time. It can be enormously difficult to identify the cause in a way that meets the legal test, whereas the police have powers to act, when an offence is being committed, to deal with those things and ensure that residents and businesses are no longer impacted inappropriately. For those reasons, although it is right that the Government have listened to what has been said in the other place, I think it is right that we push ahead with this.
The powers will be required for a relatively narrow subset of occasions. In my view, however, the disruption that is caused to businesses, my constituents’ business activities and interests in central London, and many other people around the country—in places such as Heathrow, where persistent, long-running protests can cause this kind of disruption—demonstrates that there is a need for an improvement in the powers. I wholly support the Minister in defending them at the Dispatch Box.
Beth Winter
We truly are in a remarkable situation of political crisis for the Government, who seem determined to pursue an assault on the rule of law, democracy, the devolution settlement and human rights. In the week that the Government intend to prorogue the House, multiple Bills are coming before us, following repeated Government defeats in the Lords. The Government are seeking to pursue this assault on democracy just a few days after the Prime Minister was found to have broken the law.
Much of this legislation was not part of the Tory Government’s election manifesto. The Government cannot therefore claim, in pursuing this legislation, that it commands the support of the electorate. That is certainly the case regarding today’s amendments. The mass of public opinion is better demonstrated by the joint coalition of non-governmental organisations opposing the Bill, which stretches from Amnesty International to 38 Degrees, End Violence Against Women and many, many more. The Lords have reflected that civil society concern. I welcome their decision to insist on their amendments to clauses 55 and 61.
My noble Friend Lord Coaker, the former Member of this House for Gedling, spoke plainly when the other place last considered the Bill. As he highlighted, the Government proposals make a bad Bill even worse by lowering the threshold from establishing policing powers in relation to
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
to simply “alarm” or “distress”, making shutdown of protest even more likely. He highlighted that the Government’s fact sheet guidance for the clauses on “too noisy” protests make it clear that this is unworkable and, in reality, makes protest unpoliceable.
If the Government cannot clarify whether a protest would meet the noise threshold under this legislation because of double-glazing, they do not know what they are doing. Therefore, amid the confusion, we can only conclude that the Government are simply creating powers that can be exploited to shut down noisy protest and scrutiny of the Executive.
In referring to the earlier comments about the devolved settlement, I wish to share with the Minister—if he is not already aware of this—the fact that the Welsh Government have withheld legislative consent from the provisions of the Bill that come within their competence, including clauses that relate to the right to protest and noise nuisance. I have the legislative consent memorandum with me today, if he is interested in seeing it. The Welsh Minister for Social Justice, Jane Hutt, stated that the wish was to
“send a united message to the UK Government that this eradication of the fundamental right to have our voices heard cannot and will not be tolerated.”
The Government should and must respect the devolution settlement. The Welsh Government have withheld legislative consent from 17 Bills so far. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Colleagues on the Government side have said that the police want this legislation, but police constables in Wales have expressed significant reservations about the Bill in recent evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Carl Foulkes of North Wales Police said that police officers could choose not to enforce part of the Bill. Jeremy Vaughan of South Wales Police insisted that
“protest…by its very nature, needs to be disruptive”.
He insisted that “most” in the police would be “vociferous and protective” of the public’s right to protest.
Beth Winter
No, I will not.
As with the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, the Elections Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill, which we will discuss later this week, the Government are in chaos, thrashing around to restore order. The Government must accept the Lords amendments, although we would be in a far better position if they dropped the Bill completely.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It was through protest that many of our fundamental rights were won, including the right to vote. Noise is an essential part of protest. What is the point of a demonstration if no one can hear its message? What is it if not a show of strength of feeling? Thousands of people gathered together will inevitably be loud. Make no mistake: the Bill is an assault on our right to protest and our ability to hold the powerful to account. What is to stop a corporation that is being protested against calling the police and claiming that the noise is causing significant disruption in order to shut down the demonstration?
The powers also give huge discretion to police officers. That will make the law on protests completely unpredictable. People will attend protests not knowing whether the noise that they are making is illegal and whether they will go home that evening and have dinner with their family or be thrown in the back of a police van. I have no faith that the police would show restraint with these new powers when other powers have been abused time and again.
In recent weeks Members across the House will have seen the heroic actions of anti-war protesters in Russia and Ukraine. If MPs truly support their right to protest and their ability to make noise, they should vote against these powers. Many Conservative Members also consider themselves great champions of freedom of speech, quick to condemn so-called cancel culture. If they truly believe in freedom of expression, they should vote against the powers.
I would also bet that the majority of Members in this Chamber will at some point have taken part in a protest that could have fallen foul of a noise trigger—thank goodness the Chamber is not subject to these anti-noise laws, because otherwise I expect that would be happening every Wednesday. I urge every Member here to think about those protests, the causes they were championing and the people they were with. If they feel that those protests were legitimate and that they should not have been arrested for making some noise, I urge them to extend the same right to others and to vote down these powers.
Kit Malthouse
Let me deal with the closing point from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) about Prime Minister’s Question Time. She will recall that the Speaker spends quite a lot of his time semi-threatening Members of the House, saying that they should keep quiet so that the voices and rights of Members on both sides of the House can be respected. Control is exercised, as we all make our views known.
As we close this debate, I want to focus broadly on where we agree. We all agree that, in an ancient democracy such as ours, protest is intrinsic to, and a cornerstone of, our rights. The Government are resolute in defending the rights of freedom of speech and of assembly. We should all be able to take to the streets to express our views on the issues of the day. In doing so, it is inevitable that some will be offended, inconvenienced or put out, and we should all accept that as part of the debate.
However, I think we have all accepted, on both sides of the House, that even in a protest situation, controls can and should be mandated and that there is not an unqualified right. As both Opposition Front Benchers—the hon. Members for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin)—have accepted, in Scotland and Wales there is a legal basis for controlling all forms of protest, including noise. All that we are trying to do is give the police the power to do so in challenging and exceptional situations in England as well.
When one person is exercising a right that infringes on the rights of others, whether it involves the use of hate speech, running on to motorways, endangering lives or generating such a cacophony of noise that it causes alarm or distress, the law must be able to step in—as it does, perhaps for a tenant or resident in Croydon. I would be interested in the view of the hon. Member for Croydon Central on this: if the noise that the resident complained about from the neighbours was Bob Dylan protest songs all day and all night in furtherance of a protest in their home, should that just be allowed? [Interruption.] Well, exactly. The point is that we have to be able to qualify these rights and we have to give the police control in exceptional circumstances.
The time has come to say unequivocally to the House of Lords that enough is enough. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said, this elected House has made its views on the measures crystal clear four times. It is time for the other place to acknowledge that, accept the amendments that the Government have put forward in the spirit of accommodation and let the Bill pass.
Question put.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 25 April 2022 - (25 Apr 2022)
19:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 183 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 80, 80P and 80Q. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 35
Report on assessing and meeting workforce needs
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 29B in lieu.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Lords amendments 30B and 108B to words restored to the Bill, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (i) in lieu.
Lords amendment 48B in lieu, Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Government motion to insist on disagreement with Lords amendment 80, insist on Commons amendments 80A to 80N in lieu, and disagree with Lords amendments 80P and 80Q.
Edward Argar
The Lords amendments before the House today relate to the NHS workforce, reconfigurations, modern slavery and the adult social care cap. In respect of amendments 30B and 108B on reconfigurations, I am grateful for the constructive debate on these issue across both Houses. This House has twice voted strongly in favour of the ability for the Secretary of State to call in reconfiguration proposals when needed, and it remains a key principle that decisions on how services are delivered should be subject to ministerial oversight. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have listened carefully to the debates throughout the Bill’s passage, and as a result we have proposed a series of amendments to minimise bureaucracy and ensure transparency.
The first set of changes would mean that the NHS had to notify the Secretary of State only about those reconfiguration proposals that were deemed notifiable, which we will define through regulations. We intend to align that definition with the existing duty on NHS commissioners to consult local authorities where there is a substantial development of variation in the health service. We also propose to remove the requirement for commissioners and providers to inform Ministers of
“circumstances that are likely to result in the need for the reconfiguration of NHS services”.
Taken together, these changes will mean that the NHS will need to notify the Secretary of State only about proposals that are substantive and of great importance to people.
Secondly, we will give local authorities, NHS commissioners and anyone else the Secretary of State considers appropriate a right to make representations to the Secretary of State when he has called in a proposal for reconsideration. We expect this to include any relevant provider. The Secretary of State will be required to publish a summary of the representations he receives, and we will set out in statutory guidance further detail on how local bodies, including providers, will be engaged.
Thirdly, transparency is vital to ensure that these powers are always used by Ministers in the clear interest of the people we all serve. We will therefore require the Secretary of State to provide the reasons for his decisions and directions when he makes them. Finally, we have heard throughout these debates that it is vital that decisions are made expeditiously and expediently in order to give certainty to local bodies so that reconfigurations can be made quickly to improve the quality of services received by patients. We are therefore introducing a requirement that, once a reconfiguration proposal has been called in, the Secretary of State must make any decisions within six months. We believe that this set of changes addresses the key concerns raised in this House and the other place, and I commend it to the House.
I turn to Lords amendment 48B, and the Government’s amendment in lieu, on modern slavery. We share the strength of feeling expressed in both Houses on ensuring that the NHS is in no way inadvertently linked with modern slavery and human trafficking through its supply chain. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment in the first round of ping-pong to create a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a thorough review of NHS supply chains. I am pleased to announce today that we are going further. The Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 48B will require the Secretary of State to make regulations with a view to eradicating the use by the NHS in England of goods or services tainted by slavery or human trafficking. The regulations can set out steps the NHS should be taking to assess the level of risk associated with individual suppliers, and the basis on which the NHS should exclude them from a tendering process.
I particularly commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his consistent and vocal campaigning on this issue. I am delighted that he has confirmed his support for the amendment in lieu. I look forward to working further with him and his supporters to bring these measures forward.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister and the Department on taking this extraordinary step. The public may believe that we already do not use slave-made goods, but unfortunately we do. It is remarkable that the Department has taken this step, and it is incredibly important that we look at Xinjiang in particular, where Sir Geoffrey Nice QC determined there has been a genocide, as there was in Bosnia. The sanctioned MPs and all our colleagues in the inter-parliamentary alliance on China will work with the Department to ensure we have no Uyghur slave-made products in our NHS.
Edward Argar
I paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) has also taken a keen interest in this issue. The Secretary of State and I will continue to work closely with others across Government to ensure that our measures to eradicate modern slavery in NHS supply chains are effective and targeted, and reflect best practice.
On Lords amendment 29B, the Government are committed to improving workforce planning and are already taking the steps needed to ensure that we have record numbers of staff working in the NHS. In July 2021, the Department commissioned Health Education England to work with partners on reviewing the long-term strategic trends for the health and regulated social care workforce over the next 15 years. We anticipate the publication of that work in the coming weeks.
Jim Shannon
If the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) were to pursue the matter, my party and I would be minded to support him. Although I understand from the figures in the press today that there are significant numbers of new nurses coming into the NHS, there is still a large shortfall. Will the Minister confirm for Hansard in the Chamber today that every step is being taken to recruit the nurses needed to address the issue of workforce safety?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the work we are already doing, which I will address in a moment, and the number of nurses we have recruited. I believe we have now recruited 29,000 or so en route to our target of 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Edward Argar
I will make a little progress, if I may—a few more paragraphs—as I am very conscious of allowing time for Back-Bench colleagues to speak.
Building on this work, we recently commissioned NHS England to develop a workforce strategy. We will set out the key conclusions of that work in due course. In addition, we have committed ourselves to merging Health Education England with NHS England to bring together responsibility for service, financial and workforce planning in one organisation. We will continue to grow and invest in the workforce. There are record numbers of staff, including nurses, working in the NHS.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will know of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stroke, and he will be aware of the particular concern of the Stroke Association and others about the number of qualified therapists to provide the therapy people need after a stroke. Will he commit himself to that being part of the workforce strategy and to moving swiftly? This is already a pressing problem for stroke survivors who are not getting the care they need.
Edward Argar
I reassure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he wishes the whole health and care workforce landscape to be considered by Health Education England.
The growth in our workforce comes on the back of our record investment in the NHS, which is helping to deliver our manifesto commitments, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), including our commitment to 50,000 more nurses by the end of the Parliament. The spending review settlement will also underpin funding for the biggest ever intake of undergraduate medical students and nurses.
Although I might not be able to say anything sufficient to fully convince my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), I put on record my gratitude to him not only for the insight, expertise and knowledge he has brought to our debates on this issue but for the typical courtesy he has displayed throughout our interactions and conversations. I do not know what he will say in a moment, but I have tried to pre-empt him. I hope that he may be tempted to stick with it.
I hope that the House will recognise that the Government are already doing substantial work to improve workforce planning, and that placing a requirement such as Lords amendment 29B on the statute book is therefore unnecessary.
Edward Argar
Very briefly, but I am sensitive to Madam Deputy Speaker’s instruction to be brief.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the Minister for giving way. More than 100 organisations, including the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association, have expressed their support for Lords amendment 29B. Does he agree that the only way to ensure that we recruit and retain the talented staff that our NHS and social care sector desperately need is through a long-term workforce plan in consultation with the experts in the field, such as health and care employers, unions and integrated care boards?
Edward Argar
That is exactly what we are doing through the work commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is why Lords amendment 29B is unnecessary.
Edward Argar
I fear that I cannot, but my hon. Friend may catch me during my winding-up speech. I want to make progress, as about 10 Back-Bench colleagues wish to speak.
Finally, on the adult social care cap, the Government have announced our plan for a sustainable social care system. It is fair, affordable and designed to end the pain of unpredictable care costs by capping the amount anyone needs to pay at £86,000. Without clause 140 there would be a fundamental unfairness: two people living in different parts of the country, contributing the same amount, would progress towards the cap at different rates based on differences in the amount their local authority is paying. We are committed to levelling up and must ensure that people in different parts of the country are benefiting to the same extent, and our provisions support this. Amendments 80A to 80N also make crucial changes to support the operation of charging reform, as these changes were lost by the removal of clause 140 in the other place.
Lords amendments 80P and 80Q insert a regulation-making power to amend how
“costs accrued in meeting eligible needs”
is determined in section 15 of the Care Act 2014. However, if regulations were made using this power, they would result in anyone entering the care system under the age of 40 receiving free personal care up to that age. As local authority contributions would count towards the cap under these changes, a 35-year-old with average care costs would reach the cap and not have to pay anything towards the cost of their care, yet a person who enters care the day after their 40th birthday would need to contribute towards the £86,000 cap over their lifetime. We believe this is unfair. Our plan already includes a more generous means test that means more people will be eligible for state support towards the cost of care earlier, enabling them to keep more of their income.
The changes introduced in the other place also threaten the affordability of our reforms. Lords amendments 80, 80P and 80Q would clearly affect financial arrangements to be made by this House and, as such, have financial privilege. These new Lords amendments would cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion a year by 2027-28. Ultimately, this would mean we need to make the same level of savings elsewhere, making the system less generous for other users. I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that we believe our approach is still the right one, and I ask the House to disagree with the other place’s amendments.
Finally, I put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and the noble Baroness Morgan of Cotes for their constructive and positive engagement during the Bill’s passage on ways to strengthen co-operation between the UK Government, the UK Statistics Authority, the Office for National Statistics and the devolved Administrations, and for their passion for strengthening the Union. I am pleased we are taking forward that work, albeit outside this Bill. I am stimulated by their important work.
We have sought throughout the passage of the Bill to be pragmatic and to listen to this House and the other place in either accepting their amendments or addressing them in lieu. I hope the House recognises that this approach continues to characterise our work, save where we sadly cannot agree with the other place in respect of its amendments on both the workforce and social care caps.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The problem we have is that this debate has to finish at 7.55 pm. This means that, after the shadow Minister has spoken, I will have to impose a time limit to get in a lot of Back Benchers. The time limit will start at four minutes.
I call the shadow Minister, Karin Smyth.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill has been significantly improved. It delivers changes to the 2012 legalisation the NHS called for. Some other issues have been addressed by ministerial assurances and many valuable new clauses have been added. I am pleased that much of what we argued for in the six weeks of the Bill Committee has finally been accepted. On two issues—the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfiguration, and procurement and modern slavery—the Lords have wrestled important concessions that we support. As a former senior NHS manager, I know that reconfiguration is necessary, important and often difficult; it is often wrongly associated purely with cuts and taking something away. We are interested in improving outcomes for people, and that sometimes requires difficult change. For two decades, a comprehensive process has existed, which includes local people, is informed by expert assessments and operates pretty well. Throughout Committee, and during numerous debates, I have heard no sound argument to change it, but the Government seemed hellbent on doing so, and it is only at the eleventh hour that they have finally agreed to some changes.
If I listened to the Minister correctly, he says that now the NHS will have to notify the Secretary of State when there is something notifiable. That is going to be as clear as mud for everybody, isn’t it? We look forward to the regulations. The point is that the Government’s initial plan inhibits improvement. If NHS managers and, in particular, clinical leaders know that the Secretary of State is hovering, they will be less likely to promote changes that may be clinically necessary but politically difficult. It appears now that the Secretary of State finally agrees and does not want this big pile on his desk, and although the amendment is far from perfect, it does enough for now. On the procurement issue, I commend the work of many people from across both these Houses and the excellent case that has been put forward. Labour has been pushing for measures such as these for many months, and I think the intentions of the Government appear to be aligned to a shared view of what is required.
However, there remain two substantial issues, workforce and the care cap, where I hope the Government, even at this late hour, will listen to reason. Many experts have spoken, and many ideas, alternatives and suggestions have been put forward, but we have had very little engagement from the Government. On these two matters, we speak for the stakeholders, experts and Members from all parties, who are united in opposing the Government’s proposals. Workforce planning is a huge issue in its own right, but it is also fundamental and cuts through everything we are talking about on health and social care. Chiefly, the problem is that unless we face up to the scale of the workforce challenge, the Government will not deliver the shorter waiting times that patients need. Until this Government break out of their straitjacket—unless somebody can make the Chancellor see reason—nothing is going to change for all our constituents. The Government should start today—otherwise patients will be left wondering why they are paying more and more in taxes but waiting longer for care.
Time precludes my repeating all the arguments. I could simply repeat what the Chair of the Select Committee said last time or I could offer the wise words of the previous chief executive of the NHS and more—who can add to the variety and strength of the evidence? The logic of this approach escapes me. Every MP knows that our family, friends and constituents are now in a cycle of long waits in pain and discomfort, with worry. All that is asked for in this Lords amendment is a proper report that sets out the system to address the likely staffing requirements—that is so obviously necessary. If this amendment falls, we, as legislators, have failed. If the Secretary of State will not show leadership, NHS England must step up and produce its own requirements and projections. Additionally, the Local Government Association could commission work across the country, in every local authority, on the needs for social care and public health staff. I suggest that every MP asks their own integrated care system and local authority what workforce requirements and projections they have, and how credible these plans are. Unless we do that, how can anyone have confidence in the delivery for the people we are elected to represent?
Finally, we come to the proposed changes to the care cap calculations. Those were snuck in at the last moment and were not subject to any scrutiny in our six weeks in the Bill Committee. They have not been discussed in any detail at all. The proposals are a less generous version of what was in the Care Act 2014 and this is a massive step backwards. Once again, I could read out a ring binder full of analysis and evidence provided by the legion of stakeholders, none of it complimentary. We hear the repeated claim, “This solves the problem of social care. It is fixed.” It simply is not. Let us leave aside the deeply insulting attitude that the care and support of people in need, who could live better more fulfilled lives, is a “problem” to solve; we should be celebrating the fact that people can live better, for many years longer, with multiple conditions, with decent support and care. We all know that to be true.
The proposals the Government have put forward do not deliver any more care; they just change who pays for it. Money will go to those with assets, and the less you have, the more they will take. The proposals will have no real impact for years, but we all know that people need help now. They will not improve the quality of care by anything like what is needed and will not stop those 15-minute visits. The proposals do nothing to assist working-age adults who have a disability. They do not stabilise the collapsing market for care home place provision. They do not shorten any wait for care or reduce any waiting list. They will have no impact on improving access to care for hundreds of thousands of people currently excluded. They do not address the issues around a care workforce with many vacancies and poor terms and conditions. They do nothing to address the catastrophe of the past decade of cuts to local government. This is not a solution to social care. This ill-thought-out idea should not have been pasted into the Bill. Some more informed Conservative Members have also recognised the unfair impact on the poorest, especially those in parts of the north; levelling up this certainly is not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Jeremy Hunt.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 29B. Even though I believe the Government will reject it today and this may be the last time this House can debate it, I will try to make my comments with the customary courtesy that the Minister for Health attributed to me just now, with his customary courtesy. He said that this amendment was unnecessary, but I wish to ask the House: what precisely is unnecessary about an amendment that simply requires independent, regular estimates of the numbers of doctors and nurses we should be training? What could drive the Government to want to vote down such a harmless amendment, not once, not twice, but, including today, three times? I will tell the House why the Government are going to vote this amendment down. They will do so because they know that any such independent estimate would conclude that we need to be training more doctors and nurses. Why on earth would we not want to train more doctors and nurses, if we looked objectively at the challenges facing the NHS today? We last debated this on the day the Ockenden report was published in Parliament. That report talked about more than 200 babies’ lives that would probably have been saved with better care. The key recommendation in that report was for 2,000 more midwives and 500 more obstetricians, and that would not have been necessary had this amendment been in place. We can put this right.
I immensely respect the work done by the Minister for Health and the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for their engagement, but I say to them, from the bottom of my heart, that not training enough doctors and nurses is a false economy. It costs patients’ lives, it costs taxpayers’ money, it demoralises the workforce and it lets down the people who are waiting for their NHS operation. The Health Minister’s argument is that we will have 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament and we are training more doctors than ever, but today’s report by the King’s Fund shows that that is a hollow claim, because even though we are on track for our 50,000 nurses, the number of vacancies is still not going down. In other words, more nurses does not mean enough nurses, and we can never know what enough is unless we are honest enough to ask ourselves the hard questions.
The lesson of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Southern Health and Telford is that the first step in dealing with poor care is to be honest about the issue. We now have in the NHS a workforce issue of enormous proportions, which is why Lords amendment 29 is supported by every NHS leader, every royal college, every health think-tank, every union and more than 100 NHS organisations in total. I am afraid that, by voting down a simple request for independent estimates of the number of doctors and nurses we should be training, the Government are actively choosing to sweep the problem under the carpet. I say to Ministers, who have listened to my arguments genuinely and in good faith, that NHS and care staff deserve better after two years of the pandemic, and the people waiting for their NHS operations deserve better, too.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Operational procurement is a devolved matter but, given our interest in trade policies, we welcome the progress on procurement to ensure that healthcare supply chains are not linked to modern slavery and human trafficking. We support UK Government amendment 48A in lieu of Lords amendment 48, and we also support Lords amendment 48B in lieu. It is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that in Scotland half of all PPE is now produced locally and that the overall costs of pandemic procurement were a third less than those of the UK. Such measures can, then, be cost-effective and help to safeguard against global supply chain issues.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to support the compromise measure on reconfigurations and to ask the Government to take forward the work on UK-wide statistics with vigour and gusto.
First, on reconfigurations, it is right and reasonable that the largest organisation in the country, which is funded by taxpayers through the taxes that every single citizen pays, should be accountable to Ministers who are in turn accountable to this House. Although that principle has been accepted in the Bill across the board and in general terms, the other place has decided that it should not apply in the specific circumstances of reconfigurations. It is vital that when a reconfiguration happens, not only the clinical voices but the voice of the local community should be heard. The two need to go together. The best way to make happen any reconfiguration that is needed on clinical grounds is to engage the local community and get it onside. If we are to save lives through a reconfiguration, we can win the argument, but only if we engage and make the argument. In my experience, too often a reconfiguration was put on the table, perhaps for good clinical reasons but without enough local engagement, and in practice the process just ran into the sand.
I welcome the six-month delay—I hope the Secretary of State will work quicker than six months most of the time, but it is a good backstop; I welcome the de minimis threshold, because relatively small reconfigurations happen all the time; and I welcome the removal of some of the bureaucracy in the amendment. To my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a magnificent job on the Bill right from the start, before it even came to this House—I thank all his officials for their service—I say: let us take this compromise but say clearly to the other place, “Thus far and no further.” The principle of democratic responsibility for the NHS and for winning the argument with the public about its local design is at the heart of the Bill and it must stand.
In the final minute I have in which to speak, let me make a point about statistics. Those on the Treasury Bench have decided not to include in the Bill measures on the UK-wide measurement of health services and on the interoperability of data in the four nations of the UK, but I put on the record the importance—I hope the Minister reiterates this—of getting UK-wide measurements. In Wales, it was decided to discontinue the measurement of some aspects, especially in respect of A&E performance. A suspicion was raised—I am sure this could not possibly have been true—that those measurements were discontinued so that unfavourable comparisons with England could no longer be made. If that were true, it would be an outrage. I very much hope that it is not, but we should put it right anyway and measure NHS service delivery throughout the UK on the same basis, so that comparisons can be made, so that we can learn about and improve services across all four nations, and so that accountability can properly apply to the four different Governments who run the four parts of the one NHS, which operates across this United Kingdom.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the Lords amendment on workforce—probably for the dozenth time during the Bill’s passage. I make no apologies for repetition because some things are worth repeating and the importance of our workforce can never be understated. Everything comes back to workforce: the grandest plans, strategy documents, reorganisations, integrations and configurations will all count for very little if the fundamental cog in the machine and the glue that holds the whole thing together—the workforce—is not a central part of those plans. The consistent failure to invest in the workforce and to provide a plan for it so that it is able to meet demand over a sustained period is at the root of many of the challenges that the NHS faces today. We should correct that.
On Friday night, a constituent contacted me as he suspected he had dislocated his hip and had been told that his situation did not warrant an ambulance. Eventually, he managed to get to A&E, but in the end he went home without receiving treatment because it was so busy that people were standing outside the department. That is just one example, but there are countless others like it—the frustrated constituents who can never speak to their GP; the many people left in agony because waiting lists are at record levels; those whose teeth rot away because they cannot get dental treatment; and those who receive no help for their mental health issues because they do not reach the threshold for intervention. Every one of those examples arises because, to a greater or lesser extent—I would say to a greater extent most of the time—there simply are not enough staff to meet the demand.
There is a pattern of disconnection in respect of the action required to meet the Government’s ambitions, let alone getting the NHS to meet its constitutional targets. Unless workforce is addressed in a meaningful way as part of all the plans and strategies issued, the Government are just fooling themselves that their plans are credible and deliverable. Even if the Government wish to fool themselves, they are not fooling anyone else. They are certainly not fooling us Members on the Opposition Benches or the 100 or so health and social care organisations that support what we are trying to achieve with the workforce amendment.
The most recent Department-commissioned NHS workforce strategy, the People Plan, did not include a forecast on staffing numbers. When asked about it, Baroness Harding, who authored the plan, said that the strategy did not include staff numbers not because
“the Government disagreed with the numbers”
but
“because we could not get approval to publish the document with any forecasts in it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2021; Vol. 816, c. 1814.]
Perhaps that means the Government do have figures but just do not want us to see them. If that is right, perhaps the Minister could let us in on the secret when he responds. If that is not right, will he tell us what other organisation with more than a million staff manages to operate successfully without accurate figures on workforce projection?
In addition to the obvious arguments about why we need accurate information on workforce requirements, it is important that we collect such information for existing staff, because they need hope that help is on the way. We need to show that those claps on a Thursday night were not an empty gesture and that there is a determination to do something about the persistent rota gaps that mean staff are both exhausted and demoralised. Just look at some of the challenges we face: 93,000 vacancies; a £6 billion annual spend on agency staff; staff working extra unpaid hours; and some 40% off with work-related stress at some point or other. With all those things conspiring together, it is little wonder that retention is an issue, so we need to give staff hope that we have an answer—that we have a plan. As the Select Committee report on workforce burnout said:
“The way that the NHS does workforce planning is at best opaque and at worst responsible for the unacceptable pressure on the current workforce which existed even before the pandemic.”
With so many challenges currently facing the NHS, why do we want to make it worse by refusing to accept the evidence before our eyes? It is no coincidence that NHS satisfaction ratings are reported to be at a 25-year low at the same time as record numbers of NHS staff say they would not recommend working at their own trust. Those issues are not disconnected in any way, which is why we need to support the workforce amendment.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will speak briefly to Government amendment 48A, which is in lieu of amendment 48B. Essentially, it requires the health service to ensure that it does not use products made under forced or slave labour anywhere in the world. That is a big statement by the Health Department, and one that I think we all welcome—I have certainly campaigned on this issue for some time.
In the great sweep of this health legislation, on which there are agreements and disagreements across the board, that may not seem to be something that will directly affect our lives, but in truth it will resonate beyond our shores. It is already resonating among the Uyghur, who have found themselves under distinct pressure, with husbands often separated from wives and families broken apart for forced labour thousands of miles away from their homes. This measure will speak to them; it is, in a way, a sign that Governments in the free world are taking up this real cause and recognising that it is intolerable for us to turn a blind eye and buy equipment, clothing and so on simply because it is cheaper and helps our cost balance. I do not believe that it will in the end; the trade-off between cost and the human rights of those who have suffered so much under the heel of those totalitarian states is an abysmal one.
Child labour is used in rare-earth mines; when we use those rare-earth materials for the manufacture of our computers, we turn a blind eye to it. When slave labour is used in the Xinjiang region to produce the cotton and the cloth for our personal protective equipment, making it quicker and easier to get, we turn a blind eye to it. It is not just done there; it is done in many countries around the world because it is easier and cheaper, and we tolerate it. I therefore welcome that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Ministers have tabled the amendment. It will speak volumes to those who are oppressed. It will say to them, “The free world has not forgotten you.” I am certain that in due course the rest of this Government will do the same, and other Governments will then follow suit. I congratulate us for making the right decision.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I will speak to the workforce amendment and the amendment on the social care cap.
The Lords have compromised on the workforce amendment—they have now asked for projections every three years instead of every two, and they no longer require independent verification of the projections—so it is deeply disappointing that the Government have not moved to meet them halfway, especially when outside the Government there is so much cross-party consensus that the amendment is badly needed. I know from my constituency of St Albans, as I am sure many Members know from theirs, that our NHS and care staff are burnt out. They are understaffed and overworked. Those people, who continue to turn up every single day, need to know that the cavalry is coming, and without this workforce amendment, they simply will not.
There have been worrying reports that NHS trusts have been silenced when they have tried to talk about the numbers of staff that they need to recruit, so will the Minister address this question in his response: if the Government will not produce workforce planning numbers, will they at least commit to not interfere with or silence any part of the NHS or care sector that decides that it wants to produce its own workforce projections? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assurances on that point.
When it comes to the social care cap, Ministers have stated time and again that their changes would save the Treasury £900 million a year by 2027-28, but that saving comes at the expense of people with fewer assets and savings, including those who will have been paying five years of increased national insurance contributions, which were put in place partly to fund these care reforms. The Government continue to say that that improves on the current situation, but they conveniently ignore that it is much worse than their original proposal. The social care cap provision does nothing to generate more care; it does nothing to give protections to unpaid carers, who are often on lower incomes but save the Government millions of pounds; and it does nothing to help the social care workforce. I know from my constituency that hospitality, the NHS and social care are all fighting for the same people, and nothing in the Bill will help to improve that situation.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful to have a few minutes to say a few words on the cap on care costs and on workforce planning.
With regard to the care cap, it is important to congratulate the Government on tackling a problem—or attempting to defuse a ticking time bomb—that all their predecessors shied away from. However, there is concern that the proposals are a rushed tag-on to a Bill that was designed for a different purpose: the integration of health and social care and the setting up of integrated care systems. I accept that there is a clear correlation, but the legislation that addresses the problem of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for their care should have been considered and scrutinised separately and carefully, with the objective of putting in place a system that has political consensus and will stand the test of time. That is what the Dilnot proposals and the Care Act 2014 achieved, and they should be the foundation stone on which we build this new system.
My concerns are twofold. First, clause 140 is extremely unfair to those with limited assets and modest incomes. The changes may save the Government hundreds of millions of pounds, but they do so at the expense of those on low incomes and those who live in parts of the country where house values are lower, such as Lowestoft in my constituency. Secondly, there is a worry that working-age adults with disabilities will be unfairly penalised, hence the introduction by the other place of a provision to address it. I acknowledge the Government’s worries about the cost implication of that additional provision, but that iniquity needs to be addressed.
On workforce planning, there is a staffing crisis both in the NHS, where there are 110,000 full-time equivalent vacancies, and in social care, where there are another 100,000 vacancies, high staff turnover and very limited respite for unpaid and family carers. Those deficiencies cascade through the health and care system, creating bed-blocking in hospitals and impeding the efforts made to reduce waiting lists. There is an urgent need for strategic planning to address this crisis. There is concern that framework 15 is not working because of inadequacies in the collection of data, lack of assessment of workforce numbers, and unresponsiveness to societal shifts.
Since we last considered the issue last month, the other place has sought to address the Government’s concerns and, as we have heard, has made reasonable concessions. There is a crisis that must be addressed, and I hope that at this very late stage the Government will accept this reasonable amendment, so that we can get on with this much-needed work.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Amendment 29B goes much further than the Bill’s current provisions on workforce reporting, which are extremely weak. It would require the Government, at least once every three years, to lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of health, social care, and public health services in England. What could be more reasonable? One has to wonder why the Government do not support amendment 29B. Surely any Government who were committed to running the NHS as a public service would see these provisions as crucial.
The Royal College of Physicians has pointed out that clause 35
“will not set out how many health and social care staff are needed to meet demand”
and has stated that, without long-term projections, which amendment 29B would provide, there is no way to assess how changes in workforce trends, such as retirements or working part time, will impact the delivery of healthcare. The Royal College of General Practitioners has spoken of unsustainable pressures driving GPs out of the workforce and threatening to destabilise general practice.
Just a few weeks ago, the Royal College of Nursing said that nursing staff are exhausted and that staff shortages are undermining their efforts to give safe and effective care—a sentiment reflected by a nurse I met on bank holiday Monday. That is hugely concerning. As the RCN has said, there is a clear evidence base showing that staffing levels have a direct impact on the safety and quality of patient care. When I met members of the RCN last year, they made clear to me the increased stress levels that nurses are experiencing as a result of staff shortages and the impact that is having on the care they so desperately want to deliver.
According to the Health Foundation:
“In the next 25 years, the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million”
in England, so demand for social care is increasing and we need to know that there will be enough doctors, nurses and social care workers to meet people’s needs. The “Strength in Numbers” campaign, a coalition of more than 100 health and care organisations, says that we must put
“measures to adopt a sustainable long-term approach to workforce planning on a statutory footing.”
Without credible, up-to-date numbers, the system cannot plan.
I support Lords amendment 29B. I urge the Government to think about those NHS staff who are working so hard and are so stretched by the amount of stress they are under because they do not have enough colleagues around them, and to listen to the clinicians who are calling on the Government in this regard.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor. I welcome the Government’s concessions on modern slavery and procurement and on the reconfiguration of NHS services. However, I remain concerned about two issues: the care cap and independence in the staffing assessment process.
To touch briefly on the issue of the care cap, a number of years ago I took through this House the Care Act 2014, as a Minister in the coalition Government. We based that Act and the care cap on the Dilnot proposals. I continue to be concerned that the current proposals deviate from the Dilnot proposals, in that those with lower or more moderate net assets will be asked to pay disproportionately more than those with greater assets. That is something I find very difficult to accept. It deviates from the principles of the 2014 Act and the Dilnot proposals, and I hope that even at this late hour the Government will reconsider their position on it.
I rise in particular to speak in support of Lords amendment 29B and the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). It is undoubtedly the case that we cannot have safe staffing in the NHS if we do not have the right number of staff. We cannot meet the increasingly complex care needs of patients with not just one, two or three but sometimes four comorbid conditions if we do not have staff with the right skills and in the right numbers to meet those care needs.
We talk often of building new hospitals and of our programme of capital investment in hospitals, but unless we have the right numbers to staff those hospitals, we will not be able to deliver safe care. In every constituency represented in this Chamber, we recognise that there are staff shortages in the local NHS. We recognise particular challenges in the medical workforce among fully qualified GPs—over the past seven years the number of full-time equivalent GPs has fallen. We recognise challenges in the midwifery workforce, which were brought tragically to our attention by the Ockenden report, and we recognise challenges in areas such as intensive care and paediatrics and throughout the health service.
The problem with health workforce planning is that Governments see the NHS in electoral cycles, but workforce is much more complicated than that. From starting medical school to becoming a consultant it takes perhaps 15 years, and to become a fully qualified GP takes about 10 or 11 years. It is important that we have a genuine independence to the process of workforce planning. I have great faith in Health Education England and I am sure it will produce a good report and assessment, but unfortunately it will be doing so with one hand tied behind its back, because it must do so within the confines of the financial envelope in which it is working, and it lacks the genuine independence to say what the NHS really needs.
If we care about patients and about the future of the NHS and its needs, true independence in a report on workforce is required. That is in the best interests of patients, of the health and care workforce and of the future of our health service. I hope the Minister will reconsider.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
When I spoke on workforce issues on this Bill last time, I said I was prepared to support the Government’s position on the basis of what the Minister and the Secretary of State had said. The Whips do not need to worry too much, because that remains the case, but I feel a huge amount of sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and Lords amendment 29B. Fundamentally, if the Government are not prepared to accept what the House of Lords has proposed, they are making their relationship with NHS staff and those associated with the NHS somewhat more difficult.
I ask the Minister to ensure that he doubles down on the commitment he made previously to engage relentlessly, publicly and as extensively as possible with that workforce. If the Government do not do that, there will never be that sense that the cavalry is coming over the hill.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey was Secretary of State, we established a new medical school in Lincoln—a huge achievement of his, and one I continue to try to take as much credit for as possible. However, saying to doctors in my local constituency, who are working so hard at the Pilgrim Hospital in Boston and in Skegness, that we are recruiting more people locally who will be able to make a difference is a challenge, because they do not yet see it on the wards. Part of that, as has been said, is because it takes such a long time to train people and bring them to fruition.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
A number of us have been successfully lobbied by the Royal College of Nursing in our own constituencies, showing us the figures—a shortage of 250 nurses in our A&E at the hospital in Gloucester—and staff surveys showing that morale is not where it should be. Does he agree that those things are influencing why some of us are not happy with the Government’s position?
Matt Warman
I agree that the Government need to continue to address that issue in the way I have described, through more extensive engagement to try to demonstrate some of what is happening.
That brings me to my second point—I will try to stick to the original time limit—which is that these issues are about trust. We need trust with the NHS workforce. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) said, with reconfiguration it is very often the case, as it is in my constituency, that even though the data says we will save lives by moving a service from Boston to Lincoln or vice versa, we need to engage with local communities, because right now they simply do not believe that a service that is further away may yet save lives. That does not ring true, and often the data is not yet there.
I simply appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to deliver on what he said at the Dispatch Box about engaging with the profession, because that is essential to try to improve the morale that the pandemic has damaged so much. I also appeal to him to ensure that local NHS organisations engage with local people, because only that will win public support for the reconfiguration that is so essential for our NHS both locally and nationally.
Edward Argar
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), and indeed to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), with whom we spent many happy hours over many weeks in Bill Committee.
I also put on record my gratitude to the amazing Bill team in the Department, with whom it has been a pleasure and a privilege to work on this piece of legislation. They have done an amazing job.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), under whose leadership we saw the genesis of this Bill, and whom it was a pleasure to work with and work for over a long period of time.
On reconfigurations, and on tackling modern slavery and supply chains, I hope and believe that these measures attract support across the House, and therefore will not reprise the case for them here.
In respect of workforce planning, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and many others who have spoken in highlighting our gratitude to the NHS workforce and our recognition of the pressures they have faced, particularly over the past two to two and a half years, but also more broadly. That is why we have not only put in place the measures I outlined to deliver an assessment through Health Education England of the needs of the workforce and the framework for growing it, but rather than waiting for that, already put in place measures to continue to significantly increase the workforce.
Edward Argar
Yes—it is the only intervention I will take, but I promised my hon. Friend.
Steve Brine
When I visit the elective orthopaedics team at Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester later this week, I suspect that they will not tell me that the workforce is not one of the things on their worry list, so it is regrettable that the Government cannot accept amendment 29B. They are obviously going to get their way and win the vote, but will the Minister and his team reflect on the argument that has been had between the two Houses over the past year and, in that spirit, take this issue forward? It is not going away, I need to have an answer for the team on Friday, and what I am hearing right now is not going to satisfy them.
Edward Argar
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that I always reflect carefully not just on what he says and what my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) says, but on what the other place, and other hon. and right hon. Members on either side of this House, say.
I hope I have provided the majority of colleagues with sufficient reassurance about the steps the Government are already taking and our commitment to ensuring that we have the right number of people working in the NHS, coupled with the increases in staffing that we have already delivered and continue to deliver. I hope that the House will again agree that the substantial work already being undertaken by the Government to improve workforce planning is leading to the improvements we all seek, and I therefore urge hon. Members to reject their lordships’ amendment.
We also ask that amendments 80, 80P and 80Q are rejected and amendments 80A to 80N are accepted in lieu. The cap on care costs clause is key to this Government ending unpredictable care costs for everyone by introducing a universal £86,000 cap. That must stand part of the Bill, alongside the necessary further amendments 80A to 80N, and we encourage hon. Members to back us on this.
This Bill is an important step forward in evolving our health and care system to meet future needs, and it comes from a Government who are clear in both their record and their future plans in their support for our NHS. I hope that the other place will heed the large majorities with which this House has already sent these measures back to it, and I hope that we will do so again this evening. We always listen to the other place, but we believe that this House has, on multiple occasions and hopefully again this evening, expressed a clear view of our position on these matters.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 29B in lieu.
United Kingdom Statistics Authority
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I want to begin by putting on record the Opposition’s endorsement of Sir Robert Chote’s appointment as chair of the UK Statistics Authority, and to echo the sentiment made by members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in wishing him well in his new role. I look forward to observing his continued engagement with the Committee. It is appropriate that I mention that, since being appointed as a shadow Minister, I have yet to be discharged from PACAC, but I can assure the House that I have recused myself.
Nevertheless, there are points about the appointment process and the wider use of statistics by the Government, Secretaries of States and Ministers that I would like to raise with the Minister. The Committee’s report on the appointment of Sir Robert directly states:
“Diversity data relating to the applicants for this role (gender, disability and ethnic background of applicants) was not provided to the Committee.”
While I am aware that the Cabinet Office has attempted to justify this decision, I agree with the Committee that such a decision allows the inference that there was little diversity in the applicant pool for this role, but we just do not know. If the Government’s words on diversity are to amount to more than simply hot air, they need to commit to delivering greater openness in future public appointment processes. It is the only way of measuring whether the Government are making inroads in creating a diverse public sector.
Accurate statistics that properly represent the whole population are crucial to effective policy making, but much of the data on which our public policy is based fails to represent marginalised communities accurately. Statistics such as census data provide a vital tool for public bodies to decide resource allocation and service planning decisions, so I hope the Minister will seek to address the chronic statistical under-reporting of minority communities such as the LGBTQ population, which continues to limit access to vital services given the inaccurate understanding of such communities.
I was pleased to hear Sir Robert’s firm commitment to data transparency in PACAC’s pre-appointment hearing. I know this is of particular concern due to Ministers’ conduct during the pandemic. PACAC’s data transparency and accountability report affirmed:
“Statistics quoted by Ministers have not always been underpinned by published data, which goes against the UKSA Code of Practice.”
Access to data is essential in building public trust in Government decision making. If data is withheld, there is no way to verify the information. As Sir Robert rightly put it, the
“ministerial code says one should be ‘mindful’ of the code of practice. That seems weaker than it ideally would be.”
All of us in this House must have accuracy and honesty at the heart of everything we do. A high degree of openness is key to ensuring the country is being governed with integrity. As we have seen recently with partygate and other infractions in No. 10 and the Conservative party, increasing the expectation placed on Ministers to provide accurate information informed by publicly available statistics has never been more important. I hope the Minister will heed Sir Robert’s thoughtful comments on this during the pre-appointment hearing.
I just want to end my short remarks by reiterating my and the Opposition’s support for the appointment of Sir Robert, and I look forward to his delivering on his agenda.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I should tell the House that I have known Sir Robert Chote as a friend for many years. Not just from that knowledge, but from an appreciation of his career in public service, I think the Government, as the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said, have made an excellent choice in his nomination.
As we saw during the pandemic, accurate, timely and relevant statistics are of crucial importance to public policy, and the Science and Technology Committee, which I chair, has depended on and drawn on them extensively. We are fortunate in this country to count on institutions such as the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Statistics Regulation, and individual statisticians who are world class. Throughout his distinguished career, especially as chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote has also depended on the availability of good statistics and has shown himself to be a fearless guardian of their independence and rigour. He will make a fine chair of the UK Statistics Authority and will strengthen further the UK’s already strong reputation in this vital field.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
On behalf of the Scottish National party, I too congratulate Sir Robert Chote on his appointment. There is absolutely no doubt that he is more than eminently qualified to take up the role of the chair of the UK Statistics Authority. He is highly respected, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), as chair of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in the last year and of course from his tenure as the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility for the best part of—indeed, for a full—decade.
I do share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). She raised some very interesting points about diversity, and I share her support for Sir Robert’s commitment to transparency, which is perhaps more vital now than ever before.
Finally, I pay tribute to the out-going chair, Sir David Norgrove, and thank him for his five years at the UK Statistics Authority. I put on record our best wishes to Sir Robert Chote and wish him every success for his time in office.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I am really disappointed that the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) decided to take the time to make this a political issue, which it really is not. We want to welcome Sir Robert Chote to the new job, and thank the former chair, Sir David Norgrove. It is a superb promotion, the Committee found him completely acceptable and I just want to commend the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Carry-over)
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 12 January 2022 - (12 Jan 2022)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
What a palaver! This is less a carry-over motion and more of a carry on, if I may say so—“Carry On Regardless” being probably the most apt title. Let us call it a year: it is 358 days since the Bill was introduced to the House. Announced in the last Queen’s Speech, the Second Reading was debated nine months ago and the Public Bill Committee concluded its work over seven months ago. Since then, nothing—so is there a problem? The lack of urgency suggests it is really not that important after all. Certainly, the Secretary of State has not mentioned it once in the Chamber since his appointment five months ago, and the legislation would certainly have no effect on cancel culture, according to lawyers, media commentators and the sector itself.
The Government now want another year to resolve their own problem—a problem of their making—which is more time that could be better used to address the immediate and pressing issues faced by the great British public, such as the cost of living crisis, the prospect of 40% of UK households being in energy poverty by the autumn and an economy performing worse than any other G7 country when compared with pre-pandemic levels. We will not vote against this motion, but the public will not forgive this out-of-touch Government, who fail to address their priorities.
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
Let me be crystal clear: the Government remain committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge by strengthening freedom of speech in higher education. We have not changed, and never will change, our position, because we recognise that free speech is the absolute cornerstone of democracy and a liberal society. Our universities should be centres of inquiry and intellectual debate, and places of new and independent thinking from which will grow the knowledge, learning and science that we need to tackle future global challenges. The reintroduction of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill reaffirms our manifesto commitment, yet the Opposition’s position can be described only as perplexing. First they said that if such legislation were needed they would support it, but then they changed their position to say that the issue does not exist and they will not support the Bill. Now their position has become even more confusing.
Once again, the Opposition find themselves entirely out of step with the British people on a matter of fundamental importance. Their unwillingness to acknowledge that this is an issue has shown their contempt for the views of ordinary people, and their unwillingness to support a democratic legislative solution without an alternative plan —something that was very clear throughout Committee —shows that, as always, their cynical party politicking comes ahead of common sense. Even now they try to deflect by a ruse to suggest that our commitment to this issue has waned. This Bill will ensure that lawful free speech is supported to its full extent.
Question put and agreed to.
animal welfare (kept animals) Bill: Carry over
Ordered,
That—
if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session; paragraphs (9) to (14) of Standing Order 80A shall have effect in relation to the Bill as if it had been ordered to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament in pursuance of a carry-over motion under paragraph (1) of that Standing Order, except that paragraph (13) shall have effect as if the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Bill shall lapse is two years from the date of its first reading in this House.—(Victoria Prentis.)
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Carry-over)
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 View all High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Labour party understands the need to carry over this Bill to the next Session of Parliament, and the narrow technical reasons for doing so. I therefore will not detain the House for long on a Bill that has yet even to have its Second Reading. Labour welcomes the much-needed extension of High Speed 2, and has long supported HS2 being built in full, as that will help to address the severe capacity constraints on our rail network, and improve connections between cities in the midlands and the north. Labour looks forward to making its arguments during the passage of the Bill through Parliament about value for money for UK taxpayers, and we will fight to ensure that working people across our country see the benefits from this project in jobs and opportunities. We cannot accept a situation where just one UK-based firm was shortlisted for £2.5 billion-worth of contracts for track and tunnel systems for HS2. We also know that the decision to scrap the eastern leg was a betrayal of promises made to communities, and will leave the north in the slow lane for decades to come. Promises made must be kept, and Labour will stand up for our communities and demand that the Government deliver the northern rail investment that they promised.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Minister knows well my continued opposition to HS2 so this is not unusual, but I have some specific points to make about the phase 2 Bill. It contains proposals for a totally unnecessary railhead and separate infrastructure maintenance base at Ashley, which will cause immense damage to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who is in her place today. She has discussed the merits of the objections to phase 2b of HS2 with my constituents who are injuriously affected. Those facilities, together with another proposed arrangement at the Crewe rolling stock depot, will, I believe, waste an estimated £475 million of taxpayers’ money. With a further £171 million of savings to be made by the use of a Transport and Works Act order on phase 2, the Minister will know that I and parliamentary colleagues are calling for less than half the total of the £650 million saved to be directed towards the reopening of eight miles of the former North Staffordshire railway. Other colleagues come from the vicinity of Stoke-on-Trent and neighbouring constituencies.
Such a move has the potential to transform west-to-east rail connectivity across the north, which so many people are calling for, and provide a massive economic boost to north Staffordshire to achieve our levelling-up objectives. I therefore call on the Minister to amend the phase 2 Bill and remove the proposals for Ashley when it returns to the House. I greatly look forward to further discussions taking place between my constituents, the Minister’s officials and appointed rail experts on how we can make required improvements to the phase 2a proposals as soon as possible.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I rise not to detain the House for any undue period but to place on the record an issue hidden away in the Bill’s detail that will severely affect my constituents’ transport opportunities. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it—I have raised it at Transport questions and believe that we have a meeting scheduled after the local elections to discuss it—but, as we are talking about carrying over the Bill, I want to place it on the record so that the Minister can understand the issue at stake affecting my constituency and, hopefully, it can be resolved before Second Reading. The proposals that I will put to him are not insurmountable, especially when we consider the scale of the High Speed 2 project from Crewe to Manchester and the public expenditure that that will involve.
The Minister will know that there will be a great deal of work outside Manchester Piccadilly station and in its surroundings. The construction work to bring the high-speed rail line into the new station at Piccadilly will massively disrupt the streets and the environment around the current station, and that has an implication for the Manchester Metrolink service from Manchester Piccadilly through my constituency to Ashton-under-Lyme. The line to Ashton—the only Metrolink line that goes through Manchester Piccadilly—will have to be severed for the period of the construction work around Piccadilly station, which will result in the line being mothballed—[Interruption.] I realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am straying on to Second Reading territory, but I want to get the solution on the record before the Bill is read a Second time. That will involve the line being mothballed and a bus replacement service put in place, which is not acceptable to my constituents.
What we need is a depot building on Ashton Moss where the trams can be parked overnight and so that the tram service between Ashton and New Islington can be retained. That is a simple, constructive solution with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) which will keep the tram line running. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to oppose the carry-over motion. This is a highly contentious Bill, particularly for my constituents in Tatton. While I know that you would not allow me to get into why I oppose the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are reasons why it should not be carried over, and I need to put them on the record.
Much has changed since the Bill’s genesis, and two things in particular. First, rail travel between cities has not returned to pre-covid levels or even close. That indicates even to those who agreed with the project in the first place that this expensive white elephant is no longer needed. Secondly, the cost of HS2 had continued to rise at an eye-watering rate, and that was before we saw the current huge rates of inflation, which will put it up further. Those are vital areas of contention where there has been a material change since the Bill started its passage, so it is vital that the House of Commons starts the process of the Bill afresh to see whether the project still commands its support.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you. Does the Minister wish to respond to those bits that related to the carry-over?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I first say that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) continues to be true champion for his constituents? I look forward to visiting his constituency soon. My officials will continue to work with many local campaigners in his area to ensure we find the best possible way forward and the best possible solution for both taxpayers and local residents.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) raises Metrolink. As he will, I am sure, recall, it is an issue I am well aware of because I worked in Droylsden for many years and the Metrolink ran outside my office. I look forward to again meeting him, and continuing to work with him and local campaigners to ensure we get the right solution as the Bill progresses.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) raises many issues relating to the business case and cost of HS2. I am sure they will be debated heavily on Second Reading.
I welcome the continuing support for the Bill by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I will just say that, as he will know, 2,400 UK registered businesses have now won work on the HS2 programme, with over 22,000 people employed. This is a project delivering significant UK jobs.
The Bill is, of course, yet to have its Second Reading. As it is a hybrid Bill, there are procedures that need to be completed before that can happen. I look forward to the debate on the scheme continuing properly at that juncture, but for now it should be carried over. The consultation on the Bill’s environmental statement has just closed. The responses are being assessed by Parliament’s independent assessor, who will provide a report ahead of the Second Reading debate. There is always a longer delay between the First Reading and Second Reading of hybrid Bills to allow that necessary procedure to be completed, but Second Reading is now anticipated for late June or early July.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Malnutrition and the NHS
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you have no idea how pleased I am to be making this speech now, mainly because I originally thought it would be at 12.55 am. Having made the shortest speech of my political career earlier today, I now have the opportunity to perhaps make my longest. But I think I can do it in a normal measure and we can all get away home. I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate and the Minister for attending.
Malnutrition is a word that often conjures up images of undernourished children in developing or war-torn countries; not surprising really, when we consider it is linked to 45% of deaths among under-fives worldwide. That the UK Government have reduced nutrition-specific international aid by 70% is certainly concerning. However, that is not the focus of what I will be discussing today. It is equally concerning that in the UK, the fifth-richest country in the world, malnutrition has tripled since 2010. However, although they are undoubtedly related, neither will I specifically be discussing food insecurity, nor the exponential rise in food poverty, which has been widely argued in this place to be a political choice. Instead, I want to take this opportunity to highlight the direct impact that malnutrition has on our NHS and to ask the Minister to consider some of the ways that the Government could potentially mitigate those negative impacts.
I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate for two main reasons. First, it is an opportunity to draw attention to the most recent survey of malnutrition and nutritional care in adults, which was carried out by the British Association of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, otherwise known as BAPEN. It is relevant to point out that 83% of the individuals who took part in this survey were living in England. BAPEN hopes to include all four UK nations in future surveys, but I am referring to this one as I understand it is the most recently published. Using the malnutrition universal screening tool, the survey demonstrated that 40% of the participants were at medium or high risk of malnutrition, and that disease-related malnutrition at that time affected 1.3 million people over the age of 65. I will refer to further findings of the survey throughout this speech.
The second reason that I am happy to be able to raise the issue of malnutrition and the NHS specifically concerns the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, which, for ease of reference, I will refer to as “the committee”. That scientific advisory committee is responsible for reviewing applications for substances that are specifically formulated by manufacturers to manage medical conditions. Malnutrition is one of these medical conditions and the substances that the committee reviews may be nutritional or dermatological products.
The committee plays a pivotal role in the NHS, as it is also responsible for advising the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the prescribing of borderline substances in NHS primary care. The committee’s advice covers two main areas: borderline substances policy; and the clinical and cost-effectiveness of borderline products.
Before I talk more about those areas, I will give a bit of background about malnutrition and its many implications for the NHS. Being malnourished does not simply mean being underweight; it can also affect overweight people and take many forms. For example, if someone does not consume enough energy and nutrients, perhaps because of social, economic or age-related factors, they become undernourished and consequently suffer from undernutrition. Undernutrition can affect all ages; it is indeed a “cradle to grave” scenario that the NHS was set up to provide healthcare for.
Then there is disease-related malnutrition, whereby a disease creates specific nutritional needs that result in an insufficient intake of energy and nutrients. Examples of disease-related malnutrition include some types of cancer or cardiovascular disease. There is also micronutrient-related malnutrition, which can be either a deficiency or an excess of important vitamins and minerals.
Being malnourished can lead to: poor growth and/or development in children; weaker immune systems and increased risk of infection, and indeed reinfection; muscle and bone weakness, or becoming more frail and likely to fall; poor wound healing; and slower recovery times. It is because of those common effects that, compared with the average well-nourished person, those who are malnourished are twice as likely to visit their GP, have three times the number of hospital admissions and, on average, stay in hospital for three days longer.
Malnutrition affects more than one in 20 people in the UK, which is a similar prevalence rate to well-known, treatable illnesses such as asthma. However, the rate increases to one in 10 people over the age of 65. It is also more prevalent in those with existing illnesses. Outside those two groups, malnutrition is disproportionately concentrated in lower-income regions and households, and undernutrition is more common in children from less well-off backgrounds.
Hon. Members can see how this mounts up to be a significant cost to the NHS that equates to around 15% of the total UK healthcare budget. That is quite a staggering figure. Additionally, those who are malnourished divert scarce healthcare resources unnecessarily, which brings me to the committee’s advice on the cost-effectiveness of borderline products.
Across the UK, the cost of malnutrition to the health service is currently estimated to be a staggering £23.5 billion. As the population ages, the costs of failing to put in place proper systems for the diagnosis and treatment of malnutrition are likely to rise. The cost of treating a malnourished patient is two to three times more than treating a non-malnourished patient. It has been calculated that treating a non-malnourished patient amounts to £2,155, whereas treating a malnourished patient comes to £7,408. That is reported to be driven largely by poorer outcomes leading to increased healthcare needs.
Reducing the prevalence of malnutrition would therefore be a significant way to get the best from our NHS in monetary terms and relieve pressure on the healthcare system and NHS staff. Most importantly, in human terms, it would improve patient outcomes. That point leads me on to the committee’s advice on borderline substances policy.
On 1 April 2016, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 2016 to 2025 as the United Nations decade of action on nutrition. It stated:
“The Decade is an unprecedented opportunity for addressing all forms of malnutrition.”
Led by the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations decade of action on nutrition calls for policy action across six key areas:
“creating sustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets; providing social protection and nutrition-related education for all; aligning health systems to nutrition needs, and providing universal coverage of essential nutrition interventions; ensuring that trade and investment policies improve nutrition; building safe and supportive environments for nutrition at all ages; and strengthening and promoting nutrition governance and accountability, everywhere.”
We are now just three years away from the end of the decade of action on nutrition, yet the most recent survey of malnutrition and nutritional care in adults found that
“disease-related malnutrition continues to be prevalent.”
Indeed, although the findings were similar to those of BAPEN’s survey the previous year, the prevalence of disease-related malnutrition was found to be higher than in surveys carried out in the years before the decade of action on nutrition was declared. That suggests that instead of seizing the opportunity to address all forms of malnutrition, as the UN advocates, the UK has either avoided tackling the problem or failed in its efforts. It also raises the question of the role of the committee’s advice on borderline substances policy in addressing malnutrition.
Last year, the UK Government published an open consultation that outlined proposed changes to the committee’s policy on oral nutritional supplements, which are a key part of management strategies in the treatment and prevention of malnutrition—incidentally, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify when the response to the consultation will be published. The changes proposed in the consultation have a considerable potential impact on clinical practice, but not necessarily a positive one.
In reference to the consultation, the British Specialist Nutrition Association concluded that oral nutritional supplements
“are a clinically and cost-effective way of managing disease-related malnutrition. As clinical experts in nutrition, dietitians should maintain their autonomy in being able to make the best decisions for their patients. The new ACBS consultation on ONS is at risk of limiting dietitian autonomy, impacting patient safety and care, and limiting the ability of industry to innovate.”
That point leads me on to some available ways to tackle malnutrition. I hope that the Minister will agree and will recognise them as opportunities to address malnutrition across the UK in the spirit of co-operation that is intended.
After leaving the EU, the Prime Minister asked some former Ministers to identify how the UK could take advantage of its new-found regulatory freedoms, so the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform was convened. The taskforce reported its recommendations to the Prime Minister on 16 June last year. In relation to nutraceuticals and the consumer health sector, it stated:
“Our traditional silos of regulatory classification (food/medicine/diagnostic/device) are being challenged by the pace of bioscience and technological convergence of biological and digital platforms…science is starting to point the way to a new sector of nutritional products with increasingly explicable and/or verifiable medicinal benefits, which needs to be reflected in our regulatory framework.”
The taskforce report included a headline proposal:
“Create a new regulatory framework for the fast-growing category of novel health enhancing foods and supplements”.
However, that proposal was rejected. I recently received a written parliamentary answer confirming that
“the United Kingdom already has in place the legislation and processes required for the regulation of such products. As such, there are no current plans to implement a new regulatory framework.”
Given the lack of progress on tackling the prevalence rate of malnutrition across the UK, I urge the Minister to revisit the proposal. I am mindful that it would also address one of the key areas that the United Nations decade of action on nutrition calls for:
“ensuring that trade and investment policies improve nutrition.”
Across the UK, one of the basic problems with malnutrition is that it is an underdiagnosed and therefore undertreated condition. For example, the one in 10 of over-65s who are at risk of, or suffering from, malnutrition in Scotland equates to about 103,000 people, but just a fraction of them are identified and offered support or products to treat their condition, and the same clearly applies throughout the rest of these islands.
Screening patients for malnutrition is not currently standard practice across the NHS. If a screening programme were introduced for people being admitted to hospital, patients on wards and those in a social care setting, it would allow for intervention to limit malnutrition in the most vulnerable patients. That simple measure would constitute a policy aligning with several of the key actions called for by the United Nations decade of action on nutrition. Identifying the problem at the earliest opportunity would allow treatment to reduce malnutrition and its associated problems.
Given the UK’s increasingly ageing population, I am sure the Minister will agree that it is important for more resources to be devoted to preventive care, which would reduce pressure on the healthcare system. Reducing malnutrition by improving diets, promoting campaigns to spot the signs of malnutrition and testing through GPs and in care homes could also play an important role in a preventive care model.
Another available way of addressing malnutrition is provided by the health and social care reforms that are currently taking place across the UK. Improving links in the healthcare system between hospital and community or social care is vital. What better opportunity could there be to showcase joined-up healthcare by not only better diagnosing malnutrition, but prescribing products that treat it and then monitoring a patient’s progress in their home, community or social care setting?
I have already mentioned that undernutrition is more common in children from less well-off backgrounds, and the World Health Organisation expands on that eloquently:
“Poverty amplifies the risk of, and risks from, malnutrition. People who are poor are more likely to be affected by different forms of malnutrition. Also, malnutrition increases health care costs, reduces productivity, and slows economic growth, which can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and ill-health.”
This resonates with the regional inequality that the UK Government’s levelling-up agenda aims to address by
“giving everyone the opportunity to flourish. It means people everywhere living longer and more fulfilling lives and benefitting from sustained rises in living standards and well-being.”
Malnutrition does not give anyone the opportunity to flourish and live longer; in fact, the opposite is true. Should it not therefore be a key target for the agenda of the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities to tackle inequalities in health and care?
Concerns have been raised with me about the impact of delays by the committee on patient choice in respect of malnutrition treatment products and additional costs to the NHS. However, I was recently advised that the Department of Health and Social Care had
“made no assessment of the potential impact of application processing delays by the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances…on patient choice for malnutrition products and additional costs to the National Health Service.”
The British Specialist Nutrition Association has noted that
“Unlike most prescribed drugs, palatability and choice of ONS”
—oral nutritional supplement—
“products are critical in meeting different patient preferences and supporting patient compliance and, as such, dietitians require access to a wide range of different product styles, flavours and volumes.”
May I finally urge the Minister to prioritise the treatment of malnutrition and effective management strategies that include better support and facilitation of the medical nutrition sector?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this important debate tonight. As he rightly said, we were expecting to be quite late, so it is good to be able to debate this matter while people might still be watching. I know that he has shown a keen interest in it, especially through his work on the Health and Social Care Committee.
Malnutrition is a common clinical health problem, affecting all ages and all health and care settings. However, it is also a complex issue and its root causes may be clinical, social or economic. I know from personal experience, and from the difficulties of those close to me, how critical it is for disease-related nutritional problems to be identified and treated early. I also appreciate how important it is for healthcare professionals to have a wide range of options available to meet each patient’s unique needs. Supplements can provide a lifeline to those already struggling with debilitating illness. Whether it was the nutritional supplement drink provided to me by a practice nurse when I could not swallow due to chicken pox, those that my mother could drink when severe breathing problems made eating a serious struggle, or the yoghurt-type products that sustained my father after his stroke, these treatments were not just life-saving; they relieved the worry of hunger at some of the most difficult times in the lives of ourselves and our loved ones.
The hon. Member has highlighted the significant cost of malnutrition in the NHS, as cited in the British Association of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition report. The report indicates that malnutrition costs to the health and care system in the UK are estimated to be over £23 billion each year, including £19.6 billion in England, with the majority of those costs—some £15.2 billion—being in NHS secondary care settings, and around £4 billion in social care settings. It is therefore right that we hold the NHS and care services to the highest standards. It is essential that patients receive the right nutritional support to meet their needs.
We expect NHS services to be provided in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence best practice guidelines. NICE has published guidance on “Nutrition support for adults: oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition”, which covers identifying and caring for adults who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition in hospital, in their own home or in a care home. It offers advice on how oral, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition support should be started, administered and stopped. It also aims to support healthcare professionals in identifying malnourished people and to help them to choose the most appropriate form of support. The Care Quality Commission also sets quality standards that the NHS and care settings must meet. Regulation 14 sets the quality standards for meeting nutritional and hydration needs. The standard requires that people must have their nutritional needs assessed, and food must be provided to meet those needs, including where people are prescribed nutritional supplements and/or parenteral nutrition.
We are implementing several initiatives to ensure that the highest nutritional standards are met. The Malnutrition Task Force—a partnership of Age UK, Apetito, BAPEN, Nutricia and the Royal Voluntary Service—has published a series of guides offering expert advice on the prevention of and early intervention in malnutrition in later life. These guides draw together principles of good practice to offer a framework developed to help those in a wide range of health and care settings to make the changes needed to counter malnutrition. This includes a guide for care homes on integrating good nutrition into daily practice.
We have published a comprehensive review of hospital food and are working to implement its recommendations. Every hospital has a responsibility to provide the highest level of care for its patients, and thar includes the quality and nutritional value of the food that is served and eaten. Hospitals must comply with five mandatory food standards, including a requirement to screen patients for malnutrition and covering the nutrition and hydration needs of patients. The Government have invested in primary care networks to ensure that the NHS has the specialist staff it needs to provide in-depth assessments of patients’ nutritional requirements. Through the primary care network direct enhanced service, primary care networks have recruited hundreds of additional health and wellbeing coaches and dieticians since March 2019.
The hon. Member raised concerns about medical nutrition for people who require clinical intervention to treat or address the risk of malnutrition. As he will be aware, foods for special medical purposes are developed to feed patients who are malnourished because of specific medical conditions that make it impossible or very difficult for a patient to satisfy their nutritional needs through the consumption of other foods. These products are developed in close co-operation with healthcare professionals and must be used under medical supervision.
We are working with stakeholders, including industry and the NHS, to update the processes and guidance of the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances to support fairer, more accurate, more consistent and faster decisions. The ACBS works to assess malnutrition products to ensure they are both clinically effective and cost-effective for the NHS. With the ACBS recommending a total of 209 products available through prescription for the management of malnutrition, the current system offers a wide choice to patients and clinicians.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the rise in the number of people diagnosed with malnutrition, the reasons for which are complex. It is likely to be partly due to improved screening and reporting and an ageing population. The issue was probably there before, but we are now identifying it more because of the NICE and CQC guidelines. The evidence also suggests that the rise in malnutrition is worse in older age groups.
The ACBS is independent of the Department of Health and Social Care and has not yet informed the Department of when it will present the outcome of its consultation. I commit to informing the hon. Gentleman as soon as we are informed. The ACBS is also responsible for advising on the prescription of borderline substances, including food for special medical purposes for use in NHS primary care. The ACBS has authorised 209 products listed on the drug tariff for the management of malnutrition, providing plenty of choice for patients.
The CQC standard on nutrition and hydration clearly sets out that people must have their nutritional needs assessed and that food must be provided to meet those needs, including where people are prescribed nutritional supplements and/or parenteral nutrition. The NICE guideline on nutrition support for adults aims to assist healthcare professionals in identifying malnourished people and choosing the most appropriate form of support. If the NHS and care homes follow the CQC and NICE guidelines, they will help to reduce the number of people in this condition and help to reduce the cost to the NHS.
To address the many complex factors around malnutrition, we need effective strategies for managing malnutrition in health and care settings. The NICE and CQC guidelines and standards clearly set out the care pathways that should be in place to ensure that patients receive the best possible nutritional care. I also agree that, where patients require specialist clinical nutritional support, we must ensure they have access to the right treatments. We will continue to work with the medical nutrition sector to ensure that the most efficacious products are available in the NHS without undue delay.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my Department takes malnutrition extremely seriously, and it is an issue that we are determined to continue tackling.
Question put and agreed to.
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 393).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Hosie.
The Government recognise the threat that economic crime poses to the UK and our international partners, and are committed to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Illicit finance causes significant social and economic costs through its links to serious and organised crime. It is a threat to our national security, and risks damaging our international reputation as a fair, open, rules-based economy. It also undermines the integrity and stability of our financial sector, and can reduce opportunities for legitimate business in the UK. That is why we are taking significant action to combat economic crime through the economic crime levy and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, and by progressing the Government’s landmark economic crime plan. We are also working closely with the private sector and our international partners to improve the investigation of economic crime, strengthen international standards on corporate transparency, and crack down on illicit financial flows.
The money laundering regulations support our overall efforts. As the UK’s core legislative framework for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing, they set out various measures that businesses must take to protect the UK from illicit financial flows. Under the regulations, businesses are required to conduct enhanced checks on business relationships and transactions with high-risk third countries, which are countries identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimes that could pose a significant threat to the UK’s financial system.
This statutory instrument amends the money laundering regulations to update the UK’s list of high-risk third countries to mirror lists published by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard-setter for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. The UK’s high-risk third countries list will now include the United Arab Emirates, and will no longer include Zimbabwe. In March 2022, the UAE was listed by the FATF, and Zimbabwe was removed, having completed its FATF action plan to address the key deficiencies in its anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regimes.
As the Financial Action Task Force carries out its periodic reviews and regularly updates its public lists of jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies, we also need to update our own. Updating our list shows that we are responsive to the latest economic crime threats, and ensures that the UK remains at the forefront of global standards on anti-money laundering and terrorist financing. This amendment will enable the money laundering regulations to continue to work as effectively as possible to protect the UK financial system. It is crucial for protecting UK businesses and the financial system from money launderers and terrorist financers. I therefore hope that colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The Labour party is completely committed to supporting the global effort to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The Financial Action Task Force has long warned about the major weaknesses in the United Arab Emirates’ anti-money laundering framework, not least its chaotic approach to registering companies, which makes it near impossible for law enforcement agencies to find out what is behind a suspicious company registered in the country. I will come to the Financial Action Task Force’s decision on Zimbabwe later, but it came as little surprise when that intergovernmental organisation decided—correctly, in my opinion—to add the UAE to the greylist of high-risk countries at its meeting last month. We on the Labour Benches therefore wholeheartedly support the regulations, and welcome the inclusion of the UAE in the UK’s list of high-risk third countries for money laundering.
However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I have a few questions for him. Will he explain how we got here? As Spotlight on Corruption—a campaign group that works to end corruption within the UK and wherever the UK has influence—and others have pointed out, the UK Government are supposedly a key partner of the UAE in tackling illicit finance. The Government must take some responsibility for the UAE’s failure to improve its anti-money laundering controls.
The co-operation between the UK and the UAE dates back to 2019, when the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office appointed an illicit finance policy lead at the British embassy in Abu Dhabi as part of the UK Government’s newly deployed serious and organised crime network, while the 2020-2021 Gulf strategy fund programme committed to improving the UAE and UK’s joint ability to tackle illicit finance and last year’s integrated review vowed to increase the UK’s co-operation with our close partner, the UAE, to tackle global illicit financial flows.
Indeed, last September the Home Secretary went as far as to describe this co-operation as a “new landmark partnership” to
“raise professional standards on countering money laundering.”
Will the Minister set out exactly what went wrong? Why did the UK Government’s so-called “landmark partnership” fail so terribly at improving the UAE’s anti-money laundering controls? As he will know, that failure has had tragic consequences. It has been reported in The Guardian, The New York Times and elsewhere that Russian kleptocrats linked to the Kremlin are now moving their assets to the UAE to avoid western sanctions. As a country, we cannot stand by as Russia exploits the UAE’s lax financial system to fund its bloody war in Ukraine.
I understand that as part of the UK and UAE’s illicit finance partnership, there are annual meetings between the Home Secretary and the UAE Minister of State to ensure progress on money laundering. Will the Minister tell us what work the Government have been doing in the lead-up to that meeting to press the UAE to take the necessary steps to prevent illicit finance from Russia and elsewhere from flowing through its economy? Does the Minister agree that if the UK is to successfully influence the UAE to crack down on money laundering and terrorist financing, his Government must first get its own house in order?
For years, the Government have stood by as dirty money from Russia and elsewhere flooded the UK’s financial services sector. It was only after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February this year that the Government finally passed an economic crime Act. Even then, Ministers had to be dragged through the Lobby to rush through legislation that could have been passed years ago.
The job of closing down the London laundromat of dirty money is only half done. To restore the UK’s international reputation, the Government must fast-track the publication of the much delayed register of overseas beneficial ownership of property in the UK, and urgently implement reform of Companies House to crack down on shell companies hiding cash in Britain. Only then will the UK have the moral authority to exert influence over the UAE and our other international partners in the fight against global money laundering.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister about his Government’s approach to the UK’s autonomous list of high-risk third countries. I am not overly concerned about the removal of Zimbabwe from the list; Zimbabwe is not a major international transit centre for dirty money, and the UK’s financial services sector has limited interaction with companies and individuals linked to its Government. However, I want to hear reassurances and details from the Minister today on how his Government will continue to monitor money laundering and terrorist financing risks linked to Zimbabwe, despite the country’s removal from the list.
Will the Minister explain why Russia is not included on the UK’s list, despite the huge threat that dirty money from Russia poses to our national security? Although we support the Government’s policy of automatically including countries added to the international greylists and blacklists, surely it would be in the UK’s interest to include on our high-risk list certain countries, such as Russia, regardless of whether or not the Financial Action Task Force has decided to omit them.
For all their tough talk on dirty money from Russia, the Government have yet to convince us that they are committed to cracking down on money laundering in the UK and abroad, and that has been demonstrated by their delay on Companies House reform and the failure of their partnership with the UAE to improve that country’s anti-money laundering regime. We welcome the regulations, but ultimately the UK is simply following the lead of the Financial Action Task Force. The Government have to do much better than this if they are serious about ending the UK’s reputation as a safe haven for dirty money. I hope the Minister will answer the questions that I have set out.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I do not want to detain the Committee long, as I very much support the measures before us today, but will the Minister comment on some of the activity by the financial institutions, particularly the high street banks, which has become more of a box-ticking operation than perhaps an intelligence-led investigatory process? Let me give one example from my own experience as a North Yorkshire farmer with a turnover of less than £200,000.
I was telephoned by my bank, HSBC, some years ago to ask whether I had done any business in Iran. It is a little ridiculous to start interrogating farmers, and crofters in Scotland, about their activities. Many small businesses are being asked a load of questions that can only be seen as box-ticking exercises. That same bank was fined £63.9 million in December last year for not monitoring financial transactions—for a period the whole of Wales was not being monitored—and was previously fined £1.2 billion in the USA for not being on top of money laundering associated with the drugs trade.
Another area where the bank seemed to be overly officious is with regard to politically exposed persons. Every Member of Parliament is a politically exposed person, and in many cases it is almost like we are too difficult. I have heard stories from colleagues whose sons and daughters cannot get mortgages, because it seems too difficult to answer the questions about whether we are subject to bribes or other types of illegal financial activity, when in fact the UK is very high on the global index of non-criminal activity among our political classes; we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world.
Will the Minister talk a little about working with the financial institutions in the implementation of the measure to ensure that we target dodgy transactions and do not just tick boxes for North Yorkshire farmers who might be doing some business in Iran, or indeed for Members of this House and other Parliaments around the world who seem to be getting the glare of attention from these institutions, which should perhaps be looking elsewhere for illegal activity?
John Glen
I will endeavour to address the points made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, but I will turn first to the two points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the first of which was on the nature of the regulator’s engagement with small entities—he cited his own in North Yorkshire. The new chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, who was appointed in October 2020, is undertaking a transformation programme at the FCA that is designed to interrogate risks more effectively and to target compliance activity more proportionately. A lot of progress has been made, but clearly there is more to be done. I will be happy to take up any individual examples that my right hon. Friend raises formally.
My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of PEPs—politically exposed persons—and the frustrations that occur when colleagues are prevented from accessing financial services products, as well as the consequences of not resolving that issue. There is a framework for light-touch, proportionate and appropriate interrogation of such risks, although sometimes those processes are not always executed properly. I have taken that up on two occasions over the last few years, and there has been an incremental step change each time, although the situation is not yet perfect. Again, I will be happy to take that up that issue.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised three points—on the UAE, Zimbabwe and Russia—which I will take in turn. On the listing of the UAE, she recognises the history. At the March 2022 FATF plenary, the FATF concluded that the UAE should be added to the list of jurisdictions with significant weaknesses in its counter-illicit finance regimes, but recognised that the UAE had made significant progress. A lot of FATF assessments are not black and white, as many of the countries are on a journey, but in my experience the FATF is pretty rigorous in its assessments and pretty unashamed in intervening, regardless of any lobbying. I am clear that the process is rigorous and thorough.
The UAE expressed its high-level political commitment to making further reforms in a number of areas in order to exit the FATF list. The UK is working closely with the UAE to address those weaknesses in the UK-UAE partnership in order to tackle illicit finance. By aligning the UK’s approach to that of the FATF, the UK is in line with international standards. The identification of countries is underpinned by the FATF’s consistent technical methodology and robust assessment processes. On occasion, other countries’ representatives have challenged those processes, asking me, “Would the UK intervene?”; we do not. As a key, leading member of the FATF—one of its 39 countries—we stand by its methodology.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked a number of questions about the history of the relationship with the UAE, and cited Spotlight on Corruption and other organisations, such as Transparency International. We look carefully at what they have to say. I cannot answer her questions about the specifics of the UAE-UK relationship historically, but I will write to her if I can find any more information.
The hon. Lady made a number of assertions about the FATF and where the UK is. I recognise the politics of the matter, and the movements that the Government have made in this Session and hope to make in future. I draw her attention to the mutual evaluation report of the UK’s system in December 2018, which cited the progress needed on the register of overseas beneficial ownership and Companies House reform. A large amount of money—£63 million—was allocated to work on Companies House reform at the last spending review, and the legislation is coming to make good on that. I do not accept all that the hon. Lady said, but I welcome the steps that have been taken in these difficult times, and that will continue to be taken to accelerate and to meet the conditions set out in that report. Overall, that FATF analysis of the UK was extremely complementary—one of the best reports it has ever done—and we should be proud of our progress.
On Zimbabwe, I acknowledge and am grateful for the hon. Lady’s assent to what I am proposing today. Clearly, there is an ongoing piece of work with every country. Countries move through the journey, from being a cause for concern to not a cause for concern; this measure is the consequence of that. She asked why Russia has not been added to the high-risk third countries list. The UK’s HRTC list mirrors those identified by the FATF in its public documents as having poor anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing controls. I certainly grasp the optics of where Russia is—that it is not on the list—but by aligning our approach FATF we remain in line with international standards. The identification of high-risk countries is underpinned by that consistent, objective methodology and robust assessment process.
It is important not to look at the UK’s list of high-risk jurisdictions in isolation. The money laundering regulations require enhanced scrutiny in a range of situations that present a high risk of money laundering, and Russia will be included in that. Regardless of listing, firms have to make nuanced risk assessments of business relationships and transactions. The UK’s national risk assessment on money laundering and terrorist financing publicly identified Russia as high risk. We will continue to work with our allies, including the FATF, the EU and the US on these matters, ensuring the continuation of a co-ordinated and targeted response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that protects the international financial system as a consequence.
I have addressed the three countries that the hon. Lady mentioned. It is the Government’s view that this amendment will ensure that UK legislation remains up to date and continues to protect the financial system from the threats posed by jurisdictions with inadequate money laundering and terrorist financing systems. The amendment enables the UK to remain in line with international standards on anti-money laundering and terrorist financing, allowing it to continue to play its full part in the fight against economic crime. I hope the Committee has found my observations somewhat illuminating, and supports the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
The platinum jubilee is a momentous milestone and I am sure that many people—perhaps including members of the Committee—will want to raise a glass in recognition of Her Majesty’s enormous contribution to our country. Under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State can make an order relaxing licensing hours to mark occasions of “exceptional national significance”. I think we would all agree that the platinum jubilee is without doubt such an occasion.
The Home Office conducted a public consultation to seek the views of the public, and the majority of responses were in favour of the licensing extension, agreeing with the duration and location put to the Committee. The draft order, therefore, is to extend licensing hours in England and Wales on Thursday 2 June, Friday 3 June and Saturday 4 June, until 1 am the following morning.
The extension will apply to premises licences and club premises certificates in England and Wales, which license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. Those premises will be allowed to remain open without having to notify the licensing authority and police via a temporary event notice. The draft order will permit premises licensed to provide regulated entertainment to open until 1 am on the nights that it covers, even where those premises are not licensed to sell alcohol.
Following from the consultation, however, the Government agreed with the majority of respondents that the draft order should not extend to premises that sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets. Premises that provide “late night refreshment”, which is the supply of hot food or hot drinks to the public between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am, but that do not sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, will not be covered. Such premises will be able to provide late night refreshment until 1 am only if their existing licence already permits that.
I hope that the whole Committee will stand together in support of the extension of licensing hours to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee and ensure that it is the event that it deserves to be. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Dr Huq.
Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. Unusual as this is, I am in full agreement with the Minister on this occasion. The draft order is an amendment to the Licensing Act that will allow licensed premises to continue to sell alcohol, offer entertainment and serve late night refreshment for longer than usual on the extended bank holiday. We are happy to support it, not least in Halifax, where plans for celebrations are well under way right across the borough.
I have had the pleasure of being involved in the celebrations planned for our magnificent Piece Hall, which involve, as part of the jubilee festivities, a special day to give thanks to our emergency services as defenders of the Queen’s peace. I encourage others to consider doing the same in their respective patches. As we all know, however, the main focus of the jubilee weekend is the opportunity to bring communities together to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen becoming the first British monarch to celebrate a platinum jubilee: 70 years of service. She has served this country with humility and understated determination for 70 years.
The proposals will recognise the exceptional national significance of such a milestone and will allow for festivities to continue into the evening a little longer than usual. We must note, of course, that extended licensing hours may lead to more instances of antisocial and disorderly behaviour, and other misdemeanours associated with the consumption of alcohol. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to be alive to that, and to respond positively to any anxieties and requests that the police and local authorities may have in ensuring that all revellers engage in festivities responsibly. In conclusion, however, I am happy to support the Government’s proposals, and wish all Members a wonderful platinum jubilee weekend.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. On behalf of my constituents, I wish to make just a few points to the Minister about this legislation.
I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree that Her Majesty the Queen has an extraordinary history of service to our nation; that is deeply felt by my constituents in Rossendale and Darwen, which is one of the most patriotic constituencies in the whole land. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will talk about other things—rather than just going to the pub—that his Department is doing to support the jubilee, not least given the Queen’s desire to see the Commonwealth green canopy planted.
I am sure the Minister is aware that the Woodland Trust is currently taking orders for the planting season starting in November, so primary schools, or any other organisation, in our constituencies can be part of celebrating this extraordinary achievement by Her Majesty the Queen. I look forward to working with primary schools across Rossendale and Darwen, in villages such as Tockholes, Edgworth, Helmshore, Weir, Whitewell and others, and planting a tree for the jubilee. For our young people, the pubs staying open a little bit longer is not quite as important as it is to their parents.
Will the Minister comment on the Queen’s extraordinary history of service to the Church of England? This jubilee celebrates Her Majesty the Queen becoming not only our Head of State, but the head of our national Church. In Blackburn cathedral, in the constituency adjoining mine, we will have a special service in celebration of that extraordinary achievement. Will the Minister comment, not just about the services in Blackburn cathedral and other churches in my constituency, but about other people marking the jubilee in that way? That is very different from going to the pub. People may well want to do both—go to the church and then to the pub—although perhaps not at one o’clock in the morning. Will the Minister say what provision will be made for those people?
Finally, having visited the Piece Hall in the constituency of the hon. Member for Halifax, I know what an extraordinary building it is, but I will take her Piece Hall and raise her Darwen Tower, which was erected for Queen Victoria’s jubilee and has recently benefited from the Government’s levelling-up fund. Several hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent to ensure that it can be repointed, restored and rebuilt to continue to stand in glory, not just for the jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II, but for many years to come. The people of Rossendale and Darwen—particularly the people of Darwen—will be celebrating that as part of the jubilee.
I fully support what the Government are doing today. I look forward to raising a glass in the Anchor pub in Darwen and the Robin Hood Inn in Helmshore, and I may even go to the Hop on Bank Street in Rawtenstall. I will not be doing a pub crawl, as this will be over several days; the draft order is for 2, 3 and 4 June, so we will have the opportunity to support pubs in our constituencies, which have had such a terrible time during the covid pandemic.
I wish everyone a happy jubilee. I take pleasure in putting on record the thanks of my constituents in Rossendale and Darwen for an extraordinary history of service by Her Majesty the Queen, which all colleagues hope will continue for many years to come.
The Chair
From across the other side of the Pennines, over the Snake Pass, I call Andrew Jones.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I commend the Minister on this initiative. We have had the most exceptional monarch in Her Majesty, and I believe that Brits, including in Harrogate and Knaresborough, will want to celebrate and mark her incredible service to our country. Raising a pint to Her Majesty in a pub is a fitting way to celebrate her remarkable life and toast her exceptional qualities. The extension of the licensing hours proposed today will be very popular. I support the draft order.
The Chair
Does anyone else wish to catch my eye, or are there any killjoys who do not want an extra two hours a day over three days? No one at all. In that case, I call the Minister to conclude the debate.
Kevin Foster
I thank the tourist boards in Halifax, Rossendale and Darwen, and Harrogate and Knaresborough, for their contribution to this debate. While we are on that subject, of course the best place to be over the jubilee weekend will be Torbay, where the Torbay air show will take place along with a free music festival. What could be better than seeing the red, white and blue literally being sprayed across a beautiful piece of south Devon’s coastline, and then—to keep my speech in order—being able to enjoy a beverage, for a couple of hours longer, in a pub in Paignton, Torquay or Brixham?
The comments that we have heard show the wide support for the draft order. On the more serious point raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, the police are conscious of the potential for a small minority to enjoy themselves slightly too much and not responsibly, and their need to work with local authorities to tackle such behaviour.
We expect that the vast majority of licensed premises will use the extra flexibility responsibly. It is not compulsory to stay open until 1am; it will be for each individual premises to decide if they wish to take advantage of the extra hours. Previous occasions of this nature have mostly seen good-hearted and good-natured celebrations, and we look forward to this measure being part of a great national celebration.
Question put and agreed to.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2022
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2022
The Minister for Europe and North America (James Cleverly)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 395).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 452).
James Cleverly
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. The regulations were laid before the House on 30 March and 14 April 2022 respectively under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and they came into effect under the “made affirmative” procedure.
The UK has sanctioned more than 1,500 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime since the invasion of Ukraine. Together with our wider package of measures, these new powers ratchet up the pressure on Vladimir Putin, degrading his war machine and further isolating Russia. I will cover each set of regulations in turn.
The No. 7 regulations cover three separate areas. The first relates to the extension of the financial, trade and shipping sanctions imposed in Crimea to the non-Government controlled territories in Donetsk and Luhansk. These measures prevent British companies and individuals from investing in companies operating in non-Government controlled territories or purchasing land in those regions. They also prohibit the export of infrastructure-related goods and services, as well as the import of goods originating in non-Government controlled territories. The extension of these measures will constrain Russia’s ability to make these areas economically viable, as the equivalent measures in Crimea have done, and it will remain in place until Russia ceases its destabilising activities and withdraws its military from Ukraine.
The second area is designation by description. As the Government sharpen their measures against Putin and his regime, this power enables us to designate groups of individuals and entities. The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 removed some of the constraints around designation by description, which offers the Government maximum flexibility in designating members of political bodies as a group rather than individually, and this legislation implements those powers in respect of the Russia sanctions regime. That will help us to target our actions against members of defined political bodies, such as the Russian Duma and the Federation Council. This is the first time that a “designation by description” power has been included in a UK sanctions regime, and it underlines our commitment to exploring all options.
The third and final power relates to technical assistance in relation to shipping and aviation. We are targeting not only oligarchs’ businesses but their assets and international lifestyles. These new powers stop oligarchs accessing their luxury toys and deprive them of the benefits of the UK’s world-leading aviation and maritime industries and engineers. This new prohibition complements those already imposed on Russia’s shipping and aviation sectors. We are continuing to ramp up the pressure, working in tandem with our international partners and supported by commercial decisions taken by key industry players.
I must also note that, as part of the No. 7 regulations, we have corrected errors made in regulations Nos. 2, 5 and 6, in response to feedback from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Given the context of Russia’s invasion, legislation has been drafted quickly. However, we will continue to deliver further legislation at speed, while working to minimise further errors.
The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2022 cover the trade measures that are designed to constrain the Russian Government by disrupting the oil industry and other advanced industries that are crucial in fuelling the Russian economy and Vladimir Putin’s regime. Through the measures, we have limited access to goods required by the Russian military-industrial complex to maintain and develop its capabilities.
It is important that we demonstrate to those supporting Russia that the UK recognises the role they are playing and will hold them to account. That is why, further to our previous sanctions against oligarchs close to Putin, we have introduced a ban on the export of luxury goods.
These regulations, developed in close co-ordination with our allies, will cut off Russia’s access to strategic supplies critical to key export markets, including in the energy sector, while increasing the economic pressure on Putin’s regime. We will continue our co-ordinated action against Russia in partnership with our allies, and encourage more countries to do likewise.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship today, Ms Elliott. I thank the Minister and the civil servants at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who have worked to bring the sanctions into effect. I know that they are making substantial efforts at the moment, and I hope that they take my questions and criticisms in that spirit.
Stephen Doughty
From the beginning, Labour has wholeheartedly supported the Government in their efforts to sanction the Putin regime for the illegal, unprovoked and murderous attack on Ukraine and its people. That remains true, as we continue to bear witness to acts of heinous aggression and atrocities on a daily basis. The scenes that we have seen in recent days of mass graves, the reports of the atrocities committed north of Kyiv and in Mariupol, and, of course, the indiscriminate and brutal attacks on civilians in Odesa mean that we must act resolutely and in a unified way across the House. We must, therefore, as the Minister said, do all we can, alongside our allies and partners, to bring the Russian economy and its war machine grinding to a halt.
We must seek to match the courage shown by our friends in Ukraine with action. The way to do that is to implement the broadest and deepest regime of sanctions ever levelled at President Putin and those around him. The Government can be assured that, on expanding, deepening and broadening sanctions, they can continue to count on the official Opposition’s support. We will not seek to divide the Committee today.
However, I have a series of questions and concerns. The last time I stood opposite the Minister, when we debated the previous set of sanctions, I made it clear that we could not afford a sanctions gap. Although passing the economic crime Act will hopefully speed up bringing forward and imposing measures, I fear that we are still lagging behind what we could do. In the Minister’s response, will he set out the FCDO’s assessment of the total value of what has been frozen or impacted under the existing sanctions regime to date to give us an idea of the scope and scale of what we have done so far?
We are now at the stage where we need answers to essential questions. Where are we? What has the impact been? How much further do we need to go? The Government should be forthright with those figures here and, indeed, with the wider public, not least given the impact on their lives through energy prices, as well as the impact on many of our allies, some of whom are being hurt much more severely than us as a direct result of the sanctions. We are all united, but we need to understand the impact of the sanctions, that they are working and why they are necessary. As I said, we welcome the regulations and will not divide the Committee, but we have some significant questions.
On the No. 7 regulations, extending the existing sanctions relating to Crimea to the so-called people’s republics in the Donbas is integral to making sure that our sanctions target Russia’s economy effectively and dismantle the capacity to continue waging war. The occupation of non-Government controlled Ukrainian territory cannot become an economic enabler for Putin’s regime, and the Government are right to recognise that and to introduce these measures.
However, Putin took the illegal step of recognising the so-called republics in Donetsk and Luhansk over two months ago, and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), called for specific measures to address these concerns on 22 February, yet they are being brought into effect only now. The Minister has given some reasons for the delay, but I hope he can say a little more about why we did not take this fairly obvious step more quickly. We need to be proactive and not just to react to things, particularly when what Putin was going to do could have been easily predicted, and given that these areas were invaded illegally as far back as 2014. We do not need to see further evidence of the brutality of the Putin regime or its willingness to break international law to justify introducing the very harshest of sanctions.
Similarly, the Opposition welcome the measures in the No. 8 regulations, particularly on a whole range of critical dual-use technologies, energy technologies, iron and steel products, and the luxury goods that the Minister referenced. As we have argued, limiting Russia’s exporting capability and denying oligarchs their luxuries are critical, but we must make sure that President Putin feels every wall closing in on himself and on those who continue to sustain his regime. Again, however, the shadow Foreign Secretary wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 27 February calling specifically for a luxury goods ban and the widening of export and trade controls. The Secretary of State for International Trade announced those measures on 15 March, but they are being implemented only now. There is a danger that the Government are spending time bringing these measures forward, when the people of Ukraine, who are suffering the brunt of this murderous war, do not have time. We are still plugging loopholes and papering over cracks that, frankly, should not exist.
The explanatory notes mention that the regulations have to correct a number of defects. The Minister said that regulations are being prepared at speed, but I have to ask some fundamental questions about resourcing. It is clear that officials are working hard, and I certainly do not want to undermine in any way the work they are doing, but I have asked a number of times for clarity on the resourcing of the FCDO sanctions unit and the implementation units. The latest figures I could find show that just 40 to 49 staff were working in the sanctions unit in December 2021. Has that now been expanded, and have additional resources been brought in so that we do not have to go back and retrospectively correct mistakes, and so that we can move much more quickly? I will make some points about the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in due course, but we have to have the necessary drafting and advisory resources in the FCDO, as well as the necessary advisory resources for those who will have to implement these sanctions. We cannot have a game of catch-up all the time, and the Government have the Opposition’s support in bringing that to an end, but we have to act with conviction and speed.
I want to ask some specific questions about the instruments. Given that they relate to extending existing financial sanctions, what has been done to ensure that those linked to Putin’s regime are not able to transfer through proxies assets that would have been sanctioned? We have raised that issue regularly, not least because earlier this month the Financial Times reported that oligarch Alexei Mordashov had swiftly transferred billions of dollars of stock holdings out of his name, and Alisher Usmanov is reported to be avoiding sanctions through a variety of offshore companies and business associates. Until the Government get a proper grip on the use of proxies, with robust legislation to ensure enforcement, we will be issuing sanctions with one hand tied behind our backs. Could the Minister say what he will do about that issue?
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Looking at the panoply of powers available to the Government, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to do a lot more to ensure that our economic crime agencies are properly resourced? I know that it is a slightly different thing, but there is a connection, because those who bust sanctions need to be reprimanded. However, at the moment we are not funding our economic crime agencies sufficiently, and perhaps we should consider copying the American model, which has a much higher success rate, by sharing the proceeds of their initiatives.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I will come to specific points about that matter in due course. The issue is not just resourcing in the FCDO, which is drafting these measures; crucially, it is about enforcement and about the investigation. That is a much wider question, as the hon. Gentleman says, but it does relate specifically to the measures that we are debating today if they are to have effect, particularly given that some of them are designed to target some of the richest oligarchs and those who are propping up the Putin regime.
As I said, I hope that the Minister can answer the question about proxies, but another loophole that the Opposition have repeatedly expressed concerns about relates to companies owned by sanctioned individuals. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that at present a company that is 49% owned by one sanctioned individual and 49% owned by another sanctioned individual would avoid sanctions, despite being almost entirely controlled by sanctioned individuals. That is not only completely illogical; it leaves us out of step with the US and the EU, which decide whether to sanction a company by assessing the aggregate ownership of companies by sanctioned individuals. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point, because it is crucial that we do not allow people to slip through the gaps in any way at all. As I said, I am happy to be corrected if that is a wrong interpretation, but it is certainly our understanding. If it is a loophole, I hope that the Minister will commit to closing it as urgently as possible.
I have previously raised issues relating to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I am pleased to see that many of them are implementing the measures, often immediately, but they all have different processes, so I hope that the Minister can clarify what is happening there.
To come to the point that was raised a few moments ago, I have asked the Minister before about the resourcing of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Written answers that we received from the Treasury revealed that, apparently, fewer than 40 full-time officials were working in OFSI last year. In comparison, the US has 259 full-time equivalent staff members at the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is the US equivalent. Obviously, I appreciate that the US is a larger economy and has substantially more citizens, but that does raise the question of whether we have enough people in OFSI and whether we are acting robustly enough. For example, in the US in 2022, Congress has supported funding levels of $5.5 million for the Treasury, State and Justice Departments just to implement the global Magnitsky sanctions programme and other related programmes. Therefore, I think that we need to start having some clarity from Ministers here about what resources are being put in.
We know that there have been cuts across Government. We know that there have been cuts in the FCDO and we know that, of course, there have been cuts to the aid budget, but we must not be under-resourcing at such a critical time. Of course, this relates not just to the current crisis that we are seeing in Ukraine and the sanctions that we are implementing on Russia; it applies to the implementation of many of the other sanctions regimes that we have debated regularly in Committees here. It is crucial, because when it comes to enforcement, OFSI has quite a low enforcement rate for breaches of sanctions and, when fines have been imposed, they have generally been low. I think that between 2018-19 and the present, OFSI has issued only seven monetary penalties to six entities. That strikes me as remarkably low, given the number of different sanctions regimes and measures that we are bringing forward. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can perhaps provide some correction; I hope that the number is far more if we look at the recent figures, but we do need to understand how these sanctions are having an impact, both financially and on individuals.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am curious as to why the hon. Gentleman is making the comparison with the US, which is obviously not very appropriate in terms of size of nation, resources and so on. It would be more interesting if he had figures for comparison with other leading European nations. Then we could see whether the accusation that we are under-resourcing holds true. Some people in the FCDO would argue that we have been putting huge additional resource into the whole business of sanctions on Russia, and moving much faster than some of our European partners.
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we seem to be constantly playing catch-up. There is a specific reason for that: part of these instruments is specifically about extending the definition of non-Government controlled areas, which of course moved from just being the Crimea to including areas of Donetsk and Luhansk. It is important to realise that in that situation we are playing catch-up with an ever-changing situation on the ground. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
Stephen Doughty
The point that I would put back to the hon. Gentleman, of course, is that we were one of the ones warning that this was going to happen. We were the ones leading the world in terms of our intelligence, and arguing that others should take seriously the threat of a Russian invasion on this scale.
Therefore I do have to question why it took the FCDO so long to get the regime in place and to get the emergency measures that had to be brought in into the economic crime Act. I am glad that they were brought in, and we supported them, but why did it take so long to get that infrastructure in place when we had been arguing on these issues for many, many years? Committees of this House had argued that action needed to be taken against oligarchs, illicit assets and everything else—we had multiple reports from multiple Committees. I am glad we are getting closer to equality with our allies, and I hope that that continues and that we maintain that crucial unity across the board. At the same time, questions have to be asked about why we did not move quickly enough.
There is a crucial point about the confiscation and repurposing of sanctioned assets. The Minister will be aware that there have been requests from across the House for assets frozen under sanctions to be confiscated and repurposed to support the victims of this conflict. The Foreign Secretary said on 28 February that she would look into that, following a question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and others have made similar proposals. Under the current system, it is quite difficult to confiscate and repurpose assets frozen under sanctions. That means that billions of pounds of assets belonging to corrupt actors, human rights abusers and those facilitating them remain frozen and unable to be used, rather than being used to compensate victims or to support some of the measures we all want to see put in place for those suffering the brunt of this conflict. Could the Minister say a little about how we could use assets that have been confiscated?
The points made about the steel and iron industries are crucial. The Minister will know my interest in the steel industry—I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary on steel and metal related industries, and I have a steel plant on my own patch. I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to procure more steel and sovereign steel production capability here in the UK, and it was welcome to see the support for the UK steel charter in Parliament last week.
On shipping, will the Minister clarify whether the sanctions will forbid crewing companies working with Russian crews? Will they also forbid freight exchanges from working with Russian cargo and prohibit ship engine producers from supplying parts to Russian companies, which could in principle be used for warships? It looks like that is the case, from the detail of the regulations, but it would be helpful to have clarification on that. Crucially, are all state shipping companies now sanctioned, as well as all Russian flagged vessels, those owned by Russian individuals and those operating in Russian ports?
One of the Minister’s last points was about the importance of bringing onboard other allies and countries to support this global sanctions effort and response to Putin’s illegal and murderous war in Ukraine. Can the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister specifically raised the question of joining the sanctions regime with Modi on his visit to India? As I understand it, India and a number of other countries with whom we have strong trading and historical relationships are refusing to take part in the global sanctions regime.
It is crucial that we support those countries that have been harder hit than us. There is a real risk that Putin will seek to undermine some of those countries, because of the impact on their economy. What are we doing for some of our European allies and partners who will be hard hit? I am thinking not just of the Germanys of this world, which have had extensive discussion about their energy issues, but about some of the smaller countries, particularly in the Balkans, south-east Europe and elsewhere, who are in Putin’s crosshairs, and to whom he has issued threats. Can the Minister explain what we are doing to support them? I would also like an answer to my question about whether the issue was raised during the Prime Minister’s visit to India.
We support the regulations. We want to act in the toughest way against Putin’s regime. I hope that the Minister can answer some of my questions about the gaps and potential loopholes and that he can reassure me that they are either not there or are being dealt with.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliot. I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer. I echo the support expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for the regulations, but if the Minister will permit me, I have a couple of questions. I share my hon. Friend’s frustration about how the regulations should have come sooner. We should have put proper sanctions on Russia after the Salisbury attack, but we are where we are and I welcome the proposed regulations.
One of the areas I want the Minister to consider is the sunset provision for the sanctions—when they expire. We have always been absolutely clear that the endgame has to be that Russia recognises the territorial integrity of Ukraine and clears its troops out of all of it. I support that. We have been absolutely clear that what happens internally in Russia is Russia’s business and we will not seek to influence that. It would be dangerous for us to seek to do so, and I think that that is absolutely right.
The one concern I have is that, since we started the sanctions regime, the situation has changed, with the allegations and possible mounting evidence of war crimes and crimes against civilians. If the sanctions were to be successful and were Russia to respect the integrity of Ukraine, I would not want them to fall away while an international crime issue needs to be respected, meaning that, in a sense, Russia gets away with it.
The Minister obviously cannot give me a direct answer now, as it will take a lot more consideration and I have just asked the question, but will he consider whether we need to extend the sanctions regime to maintain pressure on Russia’s leadership until the international authorities—the International Criminal Court or whoever—have had a fair chance to investigate and decide whether there is a case to be answered?
Listening to the Minister and looking at the regulations, I note that a lot of the provisions concern luxury goods. I entirely support the notion that we hit the oligarchs and billionaires and they put pressure on Putin. I have described the Russian mafia state in the past. Putin sits at the top and I am guessing he takes his cut from every deal, as no one becomes a millionaire or billionaire in Russia without paying a consideration to Mr Putin. It is only the classes lower down—the oligarchs, as we call them, Members of the Duma and others—who, perhaps because they think their lifestyle is up, will start to put pressure on President Putin. I absolutely understand that idea, but why are the regulations so specific? That is not a criticism; it is a genuine question. Why is there no presumption against any trade with Russia at this stage? It has started its second big offensive in the Donbas region and does not seem to be responding at the moment. Is there a case for a more general blanket restriction on trade with Russia, or are the Government still understandably focused on the Russian ruling class and on altering their lifestyle so much that they put pressure on Mr Putin? It is a question of whether we are simply focusing on the top end or whether there should be a general presumption against trade with Russia. Can the Minister think of some areas—if he cannot, it does not matter—where trade with Russia is acceptable at the moment? There would obviously need to be a very good reason why that might be the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth talked about proxies—about people hiding their assets and about using third parties to get around the restrictions. He illustrated that very well. Without giving advance notice of such measures, has the Minister given thought to what comes next? Are the Government getting feedback on how the restrictions are working so that we can bring forward new regulations on the hoof to assess the success or otherwise of the current regulations and close the loopholes? If the Minister could respond to some of those questions, I would be very grateful.
James Cleverly
Once again, I am grateful for the tone taken by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth from the Opposition Front Bench and by Opposition Members. I can assure hon. Members that their questions are taken in the spirit in which they were asked. I know that Members are trying to ensure that the sanctions regime is as effective as possible as quickly as possible. Although I do not always agree with their interpretation of events, it is absolutely right that they push the Government to go as far and as fast as we can.
It is of course impossible to give a precise figure on the scale of the sanctions, but it is unprecedented; we are talking about values in the hundreds of billions of pounds. We have seen the effect on Russia’s economy. As I speak, the estimates are of approximately 60% of the value of its foreign currency reserves—something around £275 billion.
Each nation’s sanctions regime is defined by the legislative framework in that country, but we are acting in close co-ordination, and I have regular conversations with other deputy Foreign Ministers, particularly in the Quint—the US, France, Germany, the UK and Italy. More broadly, the co-ordinated value of our sanctions is making a significant difference to the situation in Russia and is applying genuine pressure. There is a reason why the UK is singled out for criticism by Vladimir Putin: our sanctions are hurting him.
I do not accept the criticism that others have gone further or faster than the UK. Each of us has worked differently—as I said, because of the legislative framework in which we operate—but when it came to financial services, in particular, the UK moved very effectively. We led the pack when it came to excluding Russia from the SWIFT banking payments information system, which has had a very significant effect.
As we now bring forward regulations such as these, and work in collaboration and co-ordination with international partners, it becomes increasingly hard for Russian oligarchs to use proxies to squirrel their money away in other forms. I am pleased that one thing that is demonstrably true is that, in response to Vladimir Putin’s unwarranted aggression against Ukraine, the international community has pulled more closely together, rather than being fragmented, as he had hoped.
On that point, I, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers, including the Prime Minister, regularly encourage other countries to distance themselves from Russia, in part through votes at the United Nations. A number of countries have voted differently from previous voting patterns and have voted to criticise Russia at the United Nations. That includes India, and the Prime Minister did raise the issue of isolating Russia in his talks with Prime Minister Modi. I do not have the details, but I can confirm that it was raised.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
On the question of India, we know that Russia has been buying up gold, and 22% of its assets are now held physically in gold. I read an article earlier that said:
“Moscow may need to look east to central banks in nations like India or China to sell gold or secure loans using it”.
The Minister has just mentioned India, and I wondered whether the issue of how Russia will use its gold reserves was raised during the Prime Minister’s visit to India.
James Cleverly
As I say, I do not have that level of detail. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that I have raised the isolation of Russia on the international stage with Indian representatives, and I did that on my last trip to the United Nations. As I said, on his trip the Prime Minister raised the importance of us acting in solidarity against Russia. The details of gold reserves, and where they are expended, is an important one. We will continue to press countries that are not currently sanctioning Russia to look carefully at what is going on and particularly, as the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for City of Chester said, at the appalling images coming out of Bucha and the areas around Kyiv and at the artillery strikes in the south-eastern part of Ukraine. We will continue to push on those issues.
With regard to the loopholes, I do not recognise the scenario that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth put forward. The definition of which individuals and entities we are able to sanction has been broadened quite significantly—I would need to get the precise wording for, but “derived benefit from” gives us quite a significant degree of latitude, and also gives us an opportunity to look into the actions of proxies and individuals who are being used in an attempt to circumvent our sanctions.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Will he write to me to clarify that the specific scenario that I raised cannot be used, and will he point to the relevant legislation? As I say, we are trying to ensure that the regime is as robust as possible and that there are no gaps that anybody can slip through.
James Cleverly
As I say, I will check on that. My understanding—I am not a lawyer—is that it does not sound as though we are limited, but I will double-check that.
On staffing, sanctions law is of course an incredibly important but niche bit of law. Increasing the staffing levels in this area is not easy, but I can assure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that we have tripled the number of people working in enforcement at the FCDO since January. I do not have the figures for other Government Departments, but this area is incredibly important, and the focus and ultimately our resourcing will be directed towards ensuring that our sanctions regime is robust.
Stephen Doughty
Again, I am heartened to hear what the Minister says. To be clear, will he, perhaps in writing, separate the resourcing for the drafting and development of the sanctions packages from the resourcing for the OFSI and other bodies involved in enforcement, because those are two separate things? They are both crucial and we want to see that resourcing has gone up in both.
James Cleverly
I will ensure that those figures, where we have access to them, are made available.
Asset seizures are an incredibly emotive area, and this comes to the broad point that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made about the speed with which sanctions are brought forward. As I say we repaired some errors, and there is a balance to be had between drafting quickly—we are drafting these sanctions more quickly than ever before—and ensuring that they are absolutely robust and watertight. All our actions are put in place with two broad things in mind: first, the ability to ensure that Vladimir Putin does not win in Ukraine and to choke off his ability to fund his war machine, and secondly making sure that the sanctions are legally robust. When it comes to asset seizures, we have looked, and will continue to look, at what is doable, but in all instances we want to make sure that we do not do anything to undermine the legal strength of our sanctions regime. Asset seizures are an area that we have to make sure is legally watertight to ensure that we do not inadvertently create legal pressure that might undermine our sanctions work more broadly.
The hon. Member for City of Chester raised the issue of lifting sanctions. Obviously, our demands of Vladimir Putin are clear, and they are in support of the Ukrainian negotiating teams. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not be in any rush to lift those sanctions. As he says, given the images of what appears, prima facie, to be the direct targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, we will want to ensure that those who should be held to account are held to account, and we will ensure that our sanctions regime supports that wider move towards justice.
Emma Hardy
Just before the Minister concludes, will he address the point that has been raised about the repurposing of assets?
James Cleverly
Yes. It is important to remember that the primary aim of our sanctions regime is to choke off the financial supply to the Russian war machine. Our sanctions deny oligarchs access to money, assets and luxury goods. They apply pressure, as the hon. Member for City of Chester said, to the top end of the regime and prevent money from flowing around the Russian system.
Repurposing would take us towards an asset-seizure scenario, and we would need to ensure that, were we to pursue that, it did not in any way undermine the primary function of the sanctions regime, which is to choke off financing. Our regime is working by limiting the flow of capital to the Russian war machine.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for being generous in taking interventions. I also asked him some specific questions about shipping. I do not expect him to riff off his notes on the detail, but perhaps he could write to me. I am awaiting a letter, so perhaps an omnibus letter covering all the points he has promised to write to me about could be forthcoming. I asked more questions orally today because we are approaching Prorogation, when written questions will fall, so I hope the Minister will be generous in writing back to respond to my specific technical points.
James Cleverly
On that final point, the people in my private office will be pulling the faces that they pull when Ministers make promises. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not use Prorogation as a means of evading his legitimate questions. If they are in his mind, I suspect they are in the minds of others, and I want to ensure that all colleagues from both sides of the House can feel confident that our sanctions are doing what they should do—I will be told off by my team when I get back, I am sure.
Such matters are about working together across the House—I pay tribute to the tone taken by the hon. Gentleman and others—and in collaboration with our friends and partners around the world. Ultimately, this is about supporting the Ukrainian Government and people in their desire to eject Russia from their homeland and to get back to the peace they want and deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 395).
RUSSIA (SANCTIONS) (EU EXIT) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 8) REGULATIONS 2022 (S.I. 2022, NO. 452)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 452).—(James Cleverly).
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
Vehicle Tampering Offences
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 600954, relating to vehicle tampering offences.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. This petition was created by Gareth James, whom I had the pleasure of meeting last week. It is a response to proposed new offences that would cover any individual who tampers with a vehicle that is to be used on the road where the principal effect is
“to bypass, defeat, reduce the effectiveness of or render inoperative a system, part or component”.
I am grateful to be on the Petitions Committee; not always, but very often, it allows me to be made aware of aspects of our society that I might not always see. It allows me to meet the great British public, and to seek the right thing from the Government. This is one of those times. Doing the right thing for the right reasons is a principle I seek to live by, as an individual and as a Member of Parliament. This petition has force behind it, and it needs to be listened to.
I have spoken with many stakeholders during my time on the Petitions Committee, and one concern is that these new offences may affect cars that are used solely on the racetrack. That is a legitimate concern, as that would adversely affect motorsports throughout the country. I believe that is not the case, but I ask the Minister to clarify and confirm that point in her response.
That leads me to the issue of vehicles that will be affected—road-going vehicles that are altered just to be more individual, as well as those that are driven to a track in order to race and/or be shown. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of going to Santa Pod Raceway and meeting stakeholders in the industry, including Dan Melrose, who spent his time showing me around the event, and Santa Pod’s chief executive officer, Keith Bartlett, plus members of the national street rod and street eliminator associations, to name just a few. They told me about not just the economic value of this industry to the country, but the education and joy that it brings to so many people, including many young people—I do remember being young.
The day I attended Santa Pod was apparently a quiet day, as the industry, like many, is still recovering from the covid pandemic—or so I was told. It did not seem very quiet to me. Thousands upon thousands of people were enjoying their day off, getting together and having fun at nobody else’s expense. Many were there closely examining the vehicles on show and comparing myriad improvements to their own vehicles. Every car was unique in its own way, the result of many pounds and many hours spent perfecting it and making it exactly how its owner wanted it to be. It was literally a labour of love.
Like most things in life, we only ever see the end product; we do not see the hours spent in the freezing cold garage in a dimly lit area, taking a car to pieces and successfully putting it back together again. The engineers in this industry probably all started their journey in their garage at home, keeping busy and out of trouble, gaining skills for the future, not hurting anybody and doing what they love. More than anything else, that is what I want to protect; indeed, all of us in this House must protect the freedom to do what we enjoy that hurts nobody. The freedom to do something that causes no harm to others should never be proscribed. I agree that the Government have a duty to keep us safe, but they should do so only in a way that is carefully thought through. If the Government are not careful in this instance, they may just fail to do that.
Gareth, who started this petition, started working on cars in his late teens; a friend’s dad worked for Vauxhall, and they worked on cars together. Many of our engineers started with similar hobbies, which are of paramount importance if the UK is to continue to be the innovative country that it is. This is not a hobby like football or Formula 1 that appears to be pumped full of money at every opportunity; in fact, it is usually the lack of money that gets people started in the first place, fixing cars for themselves rather than taking them to a garage. We must be able to let this industry continue, as to let it fail would be a crying shame and cost us dearly over the coming years. It can never have been the Government’s intention, when drafting these proposals, to cause the demise of the motorsport and classic car industries.
I spoke recently to Motorsport UK, which informed me that the industry is worth £9 billion, with 4,500 companies actively involved and 87% exporting their products and services. It also informed me that the classic car industry supports 113,000 jobs. Those are huge numbers, but the industry understands that we cannot have cars on the road that have been altered to a poor standard and are not fit for purpose. However, it points out that many of the alterations improve the car’s safety, especially in the classic car market. It has asked the Government to look at excluding vehicles involved in motorsport and all classic vehicles. It would like a passport system, under which modifications could be done only by members of accredited organisations, and which would allow vehicles to drive to and from events on a limited number of days each year. That seems fairly sensible to me. Transporting a vehicle on the back of a heavy goods vehicle is expensive and hardly good for the environment.
There are still many people who enjoy improving their vehicles but do not want to race or show them, so joining an association would be a further cost, with what they might think has no benefit at all. I spoke to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which generally agrees with what the Government are trying to do, but it also understands the aftermarket industry’s value, so it believes that a blanket ban might not be the best way forward. We have to ask ourselves what can be done.
We need clarification of what is classed as tampering. Good tampering should not be made an offence. I am a believer in climate change and that we must act to mitigate its worst effects. I therefore start from the premise that tampering with any part of the system that can increase the original vehicle’s emissions is wrong and should be discouraged. That may include the mapping of cars, which can dump fuel to create popping from the exhaust. If a system creates just a little more noise than first intended but does not break current noise regulations, that is fine, but we must have regard to climate change and look after our planet.
Then there are areas that are mainly cosmetic: wheels, spoilers, decals and so on. I see no harm in those, so I hope that that form of tampering continues to be allowed. It hurts nobody and there seems to be no reason why it should be proscribed. Then there are modifications that make the car safer for the track but do not affect any of the main mechanicals that keep the car on the road—items such as roll cages, seating, electrical cut-outs and fire extinguishers. Again, those should be allowed. They hurt nobody and there is no reason why they should be proscribed.
I understand that works on suspension, brakes and the main engine and gearbox ought to be carried out by a trained professional using good aftermarket parts. I know many will disagree with me, but the Government have a duty to keep all road users safe, and a braking system that is not installed correctly, for example, could cause serious harm. A way forward is to make sure that all vehicle manufacturers support the aftermarket industry with specifications for all parts that could be replaced or uprated at a later date so that there are no monopolies on servicing. If the Government insist on stopping tampering, perhaps a compromise could be that any altered vehicle is tested again after each major improvement. The SMMT thought that an extension of the individual vehicle approval scheme might also be a way forward, so I ask the Minister whether that could be explored further.
One final point is the fact that the concerns of the 30,000-plus independent workshops that support UK consumers’ competitive choice and affordable mobility are not explicitly included in the proposals. The UK Alliance for the Freedom of Car Repair stated:
“Great care is needed to avoid discriminating against the aftermarket.”
This is an extremely complex subject. I reiterate that I understand what the Government are trying to achieve, but I also understand the industry’s concerns. A consultation has taken place, and I hope that the Government can now offer the clarification that the industry needs as the legislation moves forward.
I hope that the Government, the industry and the petitioners can see that I have tried to take a pragmatic approach to the subject, and I hope that I have understood the issues in the time I have had to learn what this industry means to so many. It has been wonderful to meet so many enthusiastic people and learn so much, and I thank them all for three things that they have allowed me to see—their obvious joy in what they do, their professionalism, and their understanding when speaking to a layman like me.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for bringing the petition to the House. This is a really important debate, and it is important that I get my views on the record.
In 2021, the Department for Transport started a consultation on modernising vehicle standards and sought views
“on areas of vehicle standards regulation that are outdated, a barrier to innovation or not designed with new technologies and business models in mind.”
Understandably, many people, including classic car enthusiasts who restore old vehicles, have raised concerns about that, hence the petition we are discussing today. There is also great concern that the Government’s proposals could impact cars that have been adapted for racing in motorsport events. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for motorsport, that is of great concern to me and those I represent here in Westminster.
There are some facts worth raising. In 2020—noting the pandemic—approximately 56,000 people participated in motorsport events across the UK. Today, there are 720 registered motorsport clubs in the UK and approximately 5,000 motorsport events are held across the UK annually. There are millions of car owners in the UK and millions of motorsport fans, aside from those who directly compete in and support these events.
What is the Government’s position right now? The consultation proposes the creation of a number of new offences for
“tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on a road.”
The Government say that such measures would enable them
“to address existing gaps in legislation, ensuring cleaner and safer vehicles.”
Of course, that is fine in principle. Reassuringly, the Minister assured the House last year that
“Department for Transport officials have been instructed to ensure that proposals do not prevent activities such as restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to classic cars, or do any damage to the motor sports businesses involved in these activities.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1047.]
We heard earlier just how much money is involved and how many jobs and livelihoods are at stake; the sector is really important to the UK and to our economy.
We know that modified vehicles used on the roads are currently subject to the same MOT testing as any other road vehicles, and therefore adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that these vehicles are roadworthy. That includes emissions testing, which importantly ensures that modified cars do not breach emissions standards. However, my view is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I appreciate the points that the hon. Member is making, but part of the problem in my constituency of Pontypridd and Taff Ely is illegal modifications to cars done by boy racers, who are not motorsport professionals but drag race up and down our dual carriageways, with exhausts going off, sounding like shotguns, causing real antisocial behaviour and nuisance. Those exhausts are removed before the MOT and then put back on, so, sadly, they are missed. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done to try to tackle that problem?
James Sunderland
It is really important that we do this in the right way. In my constituency of Bracknell, we have a problem with boy racers, noisy exhausts and antisocial driving; that is a real issue in my part of the world as well. The devil is in the detail, and I will come on to what I think needs to be done to reconcile the two apparently opposing poles.
My point is that we need clarification from the Government of how these new rules would be implemented. What modifications are classed as legitimate? We should also be acutely aware that these rules must not impact in any way the legitimate classic car and motorsport sectors, which we have spoken about.
The Historic and Classic Vehicles Alliance recently found that the classic vehicles sector alone is worth £18.3 billion to the UK economy. The HCVA contends that cars belong to their owners and the owners have a right to repair them. We know that; it goes for all vehicles of all ages, classic and modern. The proposals may limit access to hardware and software required to maintain and repair these vehicles. Of course, the cars of today cannot become classics in the future if they are forced to rely on services from individual manufacturers that may be withdrawn.
The industry for maintaining historic vehicles and motorsport vehicles is large and globally renowned, employing highly skilled professionals—over 100,000 people, as we have heard. Much of that work, such as engine maintenance, alterations to exhaust systems and changes to engine control units, would cross over into the current definition of tampering. The proposed definition of tampering is far too broad and needs to be nailed down. It could include changing wheels and tyres, altering the body of a car, limiting access to period panels or enhancing safety. It might include lightening a car for period-correct performance or racing improvements. It might involve newer classic cars requiring changes to ECUs as fuel standards change. The definition is really broad. Ultimately, we need to ensure that new cars today that become classics in the future are still maintainable and serviceable.
So what? Having admired the problem for the last few minutes, what do we need to do, and what do I advise the Government? If the Department is determined to go ahead with this kind of anti-tamper legislation, we request, as a minimum, specific exemptions for historic and classic vehicles, as described. The legislation needs to include legal protections for owners of classic vehicles who make modifications to their cars, and for garages, engineers and those involved in the historic and classic industry who do likewise. We need to ensure that owners, engineers and the historic and classic industry have access to the tools they require in perpetuity to maintain roadworthy historic and classic vehicles. The legislation needs to include protections for classic vehicles that have been modified, so that they can still be sold, with protections for dealers, auctioneers, agents and all those involved in the sale of the cars. It must also include protections for individuals and firms who transport and deliver vehicles that have been modified.
To refer to an earlier question, how do we draw the distinction between legitimate activities and those activities that result in antisocial driving? I do not have the answer. I suspect that this may be a wicked problem where lines are difficult to define. Where is the boundary between the two poles that we have discussed? I do not know. It may be that the Department decides to drop these plans altogether. These are really difficult proposals, and they will upset many people—legitimate owners of cars who are proud of what they have in their garage. Alternatively, it may be that the Department works with Motorsport UK, the Historic and Classic Vehicles Alliance, motor manufacturers, those with specialist expertise across the UK, and the all-party parliamentary group for motorsport, to ensure that we do not self-harm. I urge the Minister to make sure that we do not do ourselves real damage.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I want to begin with a confession that, these days, is increasingly socially unacceptable: I enjoy driving. I enjoy riding a motorcycle. I love petrol engine vehicles. I have three reasons for being interested in this debate: a Yamaha MT-10, a KTM 950 Supermoto and a ratty old runabout Vauxhall Corsa that I would get rid of if I had the opportunity to drive properly. I would buy a decent car, but there is no point while I am an MP. A long time ago, before I became an MP, I put some effort into becoming a decent driver, although I would not like to make any particular claims about the quality of my driving, but I did put the effort in. I enjoy my driving and I love vehicles. I like to get in a car, such as a classic 911 Club Sport that I once drove, where I could actually feel what the tyres were doing on the road, because it had mechanical steering.
As we go forward in this life, there seems to be a systematic effort to ruin motoring—to make motorcycles and cars more boring and more of a black box. We now have endless cars with electric steering, and it is impossible to feel a thing that is going on on the road. Somehow, we are losing something about what it is to be a human being who takes responsibility and cares about their relationship with a vehicle. It is an old-fashioned and increasingly unpopular point of view, but I think there is joy to be found in driving a vehicle that does not have an anti-lock braking system or traction control and has carburettors not fuel injection, but has, as is the case with the KTM, very sharp brakes. It is a great joy and pleasure to be united with a vehicle and care about how it is working on the road.
That is why I object to the idea of anti-tampering legislation. It is not because I have a problem with safety. I used to be a professional air-worthiness engineer, so I like safety; I do not like hospital food. I want to be safe and for everybody to be safe. There is no going back if someone injures another person with a vehicle. That is why I want responsible motorists and motorcyclists—people who care about how they operate their vehicle and care about what kind of vehicle they are in. The problem with this so-called anti-tampering legislation is that it will increasingly turn vehicles into black boxes, where we do not have to care. Indeed, it will be so anodyne and boring to drive the thing, and the driver will be so disconnected from the mechanics and the experience, that they will be positively discouraged from caring about the vehicle because there is no point.
In contrast to my amazing KTM 950, with its absence of electronic devices, I recently hired a car in Norway—a Volkswagen ID4. It was a lovely car in many ways. It was all electric and had cruise control and a stupid speed limiter that knows where the car is and so starts to reduce the cruise control as it gets into town. The car steers itself. When I was positioning the car on the road, it decided that it did not want to be there and suddenly jerked the steering wheel in my hand. It cannot be switched off permanently; every time I switched it off it was switched back on when I next got in the car. I would like to switch that nonsense off because I want to drive the car. I do not want the car deciding I should be two feet to the left on the road. I was once in a Tesla—with somebody else driving—that nearly put us in a hedge because it decided it wanted to be two feet to the left. The Volkswagen ID4 was not quite self-driving, but it is clear where we are going here—cars that decide how fast they go and where they are going to be on the road. I do not mind people having self-driving cars. I would not mind having a car that drove itself if it meant that I did not have to drive when it was boring—for example, when commuting to this place—but when I want to drive the car, I want to drive the car.
I am extremely concerned that this future involves a wide range of practical and philosophical problems. I do not want to trust a car to decide where it is. I remember doing 70 mph down the motorway in a Golf that had its lane assistance turned on. I went through a shadow of a tree and the car swerved because it decided it wanted to be in a different place. I was until recently a chartered aerospace engineer—I have just declined to renew my subscription—so I am not a technophobe; aeroplanes often fly themselves. However, I would like not to have to put up with the nonsense of the car deciding it wants to go at a different speed or be in a different place.
I have possibly laboured my point, but I want the Minister, who is listening carefully, to at least see one keen and passionate driver—sorry, guys—who wants to have personal responsibility as a free man. I will say it: I want to be a free man, personally in charge of what the vehicle does. I am offended by the name anti-tampering. I do not doubt that there are some irresponsible people who want to tamper with safety systems, but the point I am trying to put on the record is that even some safety systems can be dangerous—for example, when that Volkswagen Golf swerved across the road because it did not like the shadow on the dual carriageway.
We have talked about racing and custom vehicles. When it comes to minor modifications, I like to think that I do not modify my vehicles, but my MT10 has a different screen, hand guards, and luggage as well as a charging lead that I put on myself to ensure that it is trickle charged. It is modified; it has got a Scottoiler on it, so I can commute without having to constantly lubricate the chain. Many of those accessories were fitted by the dealer because he would do it at no cost, but what if I had decided to fit them? Is that tampering? Surely not—all I have done is convert one kind of Yamaha MT10 into another. People like me are afraid that we are moving into this anodyne world where we cannot even change the screen on our BMW R1200GS—as I did. We do not want to have to check the rules to see whether we can. With great respect, I am not interested in the Minister’s view about what size screen I should have on my motorcycle. I do not want to have to go and check the rules to see whether I can change it—I am now labouring the point.
As Conservatives, we should be wanting to live in a society of free and responsible individuals. We will not create or perpetuate a society of free and responsible individuals if we keep taking away from them, at every chance, the opportunity to exercise freedom responsibly and to enjoy themselves while doing that, because we make life miserable if we say to people, “Before you can fit heated grips on your motorbike, you have to go and check whether you’re allowed to.” It is too boring—it is too boring. We sit in here all the time, doing this technocratic nonsense and going up to the Committee Rooms to pass statutory instruments that most of us in this House do not even read. That is another bugbear of mine on which I have laboured another point. We are taking away people’s freedoms by using statutory instruments that we do not even read and almost never speak to. This is not where we should be going as Conservatives; we should be letting people be free. If they want to have stupid self-driving cars that steer themselves when they should not, let them, but I want to switch that off, and if the manufacturer provided it to me and I was unable to switch it off, I would like to be able to change the software so that I could switch it off and drive the car myself. I rest my case.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate Gareth James on securing 112,000—is that right?—signatures on the petition in order to get this debate. That is no mean feat in itself, so my congratulations go to him, and to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who I think looks very young indeed; he should not disparage himself. In fact, I might check out after the debate what moisturiser he uses. I congratulate him on bringing the petition to us in Parliament today. My congratulations go also to the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) on a very elegant speech. I thank him for all he does for the APPG for motorsport.
We then heard a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I am a big fan of the hon. Member, as he knows. We are both big Cobden fans, for different reasons possibly, but I would never describe the hon. Member as being 2 feet to the left in any situation at all, and perhaps particularly in a car. He made a great defence. As somebody who cycled here today on a Brompton—Brompton is a proud British manufacturer—I may have some different views about how sometimes I am close passed and the possibility that my life may be prolonged by speed limiters. As I canvassed yesterday in a tight marginal seat between Labour and the Conservatives in Brooklands, Trafford, I was sickened by seeing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) pointed out—adjusted cars doing 60 to 80 mph down a road with a 30-mph limit and with modified exhausts banging out. The antisocial behaviour that that brings to our estates is appalling. I remember the Secretary of State going on the record about how he does not like that type of thing, either.
Mr Steve Baker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his compliments. I was once very nearly run down in High Wycombe by somebody doing just what he has suggested: they were in a modified car and going far too fast in town. Such people need prosecuting. In the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, if they are doing 80 mph where there is a 30 mph limit, they should be going to prison. I am very clear about that. I just wanted to ensure that we all understood one another.
Mike Kane
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I love motorsport as well, and I love classic cars. There is nothing better than jumping up on my NorthRoad cycle—those bikes are produced in my constituency—cycling the 10 miles to Tatton Park, the Cheshire County Council and National Trust park, watching a traditional car show there and seeing the pride that people have in those cars. We do not want to see anything that would stop that.
James Sunderland
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his very eloquent and pragmatic speech; it is resonating with me. Does he agree that when it comes to the cars themselves, the issue is not necessarily the cars; it is the way in which they are driven? Therefore, what we need to do is to go after those who are driving irresponsibly, making noise, breaking the law and breaking the rules, rather than going after legitimate vehicle owners, who just want to look after their vehicles.
Mike Kane
We should not be going after legitimate car owners, who take great pride in their cars, but with 40 million vehicle licences on UK roads, this plague of antisocial behaviour with these modified cars is absolutely sickening. With tens of thousands of police cut in this country, and a decimation of community policing, we now cannot police these hooligans driving their cars in the way they do. There is a philosophical debate to be had, but something needs to be done. We need to be tough on these people who are plaguing our communities.
Last year, the Government consulted on modernising vehicle standards, specifically looking at new measures to tackle tampering with vehicles. This petition came about almost immediately, with 112,000 signatures, and it managed to unite motorcyclists, classic car owners and motor racing aficionados with one voice. Despite the DFT stating that it did not intend the proposals to prevent motorsport or people repairing classic cars or motorbikes, it is keen to ensure that no businesses engaged in those pursuits are negatively affected.
The proposals seem to be a broadly positive move from Government to tackle tampering, which we know has impacts on safety and the environment. Of course, we support ensuring that emission standards are met and cannot be worked around. However, we also know that some modifications can negatively affect the safety and health of the vehicle owner, its occupants, other road users and the wider population, and that some tampering activities that prevent a vehicle’s emission system from operating correctly, such as the removal of the diesel particulate filter from a vehicle’s exhaust, can significantly increase harmful pollutant emissions, and sometimes be used as a weapon as these hooligans pass cyclists and let out a load of smoke—gassing, I think it is known as.
However, we know that the motorsport community have concerns about restoration, repairs and legitimate improvements, and their voices must be heard. The Government have said that it is not their intention to target these legitimate improvements, yet there has been no detail about how they would ensure that that will not happen. We know the consultation ended in November 2021—over six months ago—and we have not heard since that time what the Government intend to do.
I have a few questions for the Minister. When will the consultation response be published? When will the Government think about bringing legislation forward? Collectors and businesses in the aftermarket industry are being left in the dark, and we need to shed some light for them. Will changes apply retrospectively? What sort of alterations will be considered tampering? Will it just be ones that impact emissions and noise, or are wider proposals on the cards? How will they work with the motorsport and restoration industry? What steps are the Government taking to engage with stakeholders who have legitimate concerns over the changes? I would welcome answers from the Minister on this important debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, in a debate on a subject for which I have a great deal of personal adoration. This is certainly not the first time I have debated it with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who is co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for motorsport. I pay particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who started the whole thing off but was unable to speak in today’s debate and, most importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). I hope I can reassure hon. Members following what we have heard. I have been pleased to listen to the incredibly valuable and thorough contributions that have been made. It is a privilege to be closing the debate.
Of course, the UK has a very long and proud history of companies and individuals dedicated to the modification and improvement of vehicles, whether in motorsports, professional customisation or enthusiastic owners enjoying their hobby and improving their pride and joy. That was me when I was 18 and purchased my second car, moving up from a Ford Escort 1.3L to a Peugeot 309 GTI, complete with skirts and low-profile tyres. I was partial to a whale tail, but I did not go that far.
I was able to do that because my dad helped me. He was a great engineer and I am quite sure that he learned his craft by starting out with a push-bike, moving up to a BSA Bantam and transitioning through various vehicles to a 1972 Porsche 911T, moving, I believe, from left-hand to right-hand drive. I most definitely grew up with this and I understand that many engineers hone their craft in their garage or, when it comes to motorcycles, their living room.
I agree with a lot of what I have heard today, including on the importance of ensuring that we allow for that continued healthy aftermarket for vehicle modification, and that our plans do not negatively impact on our thriving motorsports. I pay tribute to the Wigton Motor Club in my own area—I was delighted to open its new facility at Moota—and to the Rotating Wheels car show in West Lakeland. I will be adjudicating at that vintage and classic car show again this summer.
The intention behind our proposals is to prevent tampering that can have serious consequences for health and the environment. We have, however, issued a clarification that we do not intend our proposals to prevent legitimate motorsport activities, restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to vehicles such as classic cars and motorbikes. We also do not intend our proposals to impact negatively on businesses involved in such activities.
The consultation received 7,891 responses—a large number. Their particular focus was on concerns that the proposals, as set out in the regulatory review, are too broad and would restrict any modification of vehicles, which would negatively impact on the motorsports industry, the restoration and customisation industry, classic car enthusiasts and motorcycles. We have yet to publish our response to the consultation—I will speak about that in a moment—but Members can absolutely be reassured that the proposals will not prevent all forms of vehicle modification. That is not the intention—it is certainly not my intention. We are carefully considering the scope of the policy, to ensure that it does not prevent legitimate alterations or modification, including repair work.
As the Minister with responsibility for the future of transport, my role is to ensure that we have a regulatory regime that is fit for the future and that will achieve our vision of a better, greener UK. To achieve that, we are conducting a series of regulatory reviews to consider how transport regulations need to change, to make journeys faster, safer, easier and more secure. However, I absolutely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I love driving. I have been driving for 28 years, and I hope to drive for the rest of my safe and capable life. I absolutely understand the desire to be in control of a motor vehicle.
Certain modifications, however, can negatively affect the safety and health of drivers or riders, passengers, other road users and the wider population. One such example is the modification or removal of part of the emissions system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, that can have significant consequences. If it is done because the vehicle’s performance has failed—the system can fail to boost the vehicle’s performance—it can be really serious. Removing a diesel particulate filter from a vehicle’s exhaust can increase harmful pollutant emissions by up to 1,000 times.
The risks associated with air and noise pollution, including from modified exhausts, cannot be understated. In England alone, the annual social cost of urban road noise was estimated to be between £7 billion and £10 billion in 2010.
Mr Steve Baker
I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning road noise. I have annoyed fellow motorcyclists by telling them that they must have lawful end-cans and exhaust systems, because nothing prejudices people against motorcycling more than noisy motorcycles with illegal cans. The problem with noisy motorcycles today is not that the lawful equipment is too noisy, but that people break the law and the law is not enforced. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind me saying that we have to enforce the law on some of these things, instead of constantly tightening up regulations and hoping that compliance will follow, because it does not. We must have reasonable regulations that people want to comply with. That is a very old principle.
Trudy Harrison
The Department is looking right now at understanding how we can better monitor the noise and make it easier for the transport police in particular to do so.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is an important point. As I have previously mentioned, my constituency has been blighted by vehicles with illegally modified exhausts speeding through our communities. Last summer, after discussions with South Wales police, it launched Operation Buena, and in just one night in Llantrisant, it issued 12 motorists with speeding fines and 10 with prohibition notices. That is completely unsustainable, and the police clearly need more resources to get on top of the matter. What conversations has the Minister had with her Home Office colleagues on giving them further resources to deal with the issue?
Trudy Harrison
I refer to my earlier comment on detection and how we use and improve sound-monitoring devices—noise cameras, as they are being called—to monitor those motorists who are, without a doubt, breaking the law. We recognise the health and environmental impacts of noise. They include the risk of heart attacks, strokes and dementia, and while air quality has improved since 2010, air pollution remains the top environmental risk to human health in the UK.
As vehicles increasingly become automated, new safety and security risks will be associated with making alterations to a vehicle’s integral software and sensing technologies. Already, many new vehicles offer advanced driver-assistance systems—I recognise, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe will choose not to use those—which partially automate some of the driving tasks.
With the advent of self-driving vehicles, which will allow the driver to hand over the driving task to the system, if desired, the problem becomes even more acute. These highly sophisticated systems will have taken years to develop. Even a minor modification could significantly affect an automated vehicle’s operation and, if done badly, would have the potential to kill its occupants and other road users.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell referred to the MOT test. The challenge is that we cannot rely on that alone. The MOT test is an important part of ensuring that vehicles on our roads are safe and roadworthy, but there are inevitably limitations to what can be assessed through a relatively simple static inspection of a vehicle. When it comes to automation and self-driving technologies, it becomes even more challenging for sufficient checks to be carried out to guard against dangerous or illegal modifications. I trust that Members can see that it is essential that we have the powers to respond to advances in vehicle construction and operation, to target and prevent dangerous and inappropriate tampering, which could put people’s lives at risk.
James Sunderland
As we know, the devil is in the detail. When are we likely to see the Bill and the wording that will come with it?
Trudy Harrison
I will write to my hon. Friend with more specific details of the timeframe. I can certainly say that we will publish our response to the consultation this summer—it will be a matter of a few months, rather than having to wait any longer. In answer to another of his questions, the changes will not be retrospectively applied.
We have listened carefully to the concerns raised by the e-petition through our consultation on the subject. We recognise the importance of striking an appropriate balance between allowing for legitimate modifications and ensuring that we have the powers to tackle those that are dangerous and inappropriate. We are absolutely not proposing that all modifications be prevented. We recognise that vehicle owners and businesses may have many legitimate reasons to modify a vehicle, and our intention is to ensure that we maintain a thriving aftermarket including motorsports, restoration, repairs and other legitimate improvements and alterations to vehicles.
We are considering all the responses received during the consultation. As I say, we will publish a consultation response, in which we will summarise those responses and set out our next steps, in the summer.
Over the past 60 years, cleaner, safer and more accessible transport has transformed people’s lives for the better. The Government are committed to maximising the benefits and minimising the risks of new technological advances. The broad programme of work we have launched will help us to ensure that our regulatory framework is flexible and forward-looking so that we can foster innovation, safeguard the public and bring the most benefit to transport users and society, while recognising our rich cultural and industrial heritage in motor vehicles, which dates back to the late 1800s. It has been a pleasure to speak in this debate.
Nick Fletcher
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir George. I thank the Minister for her response, as well as everybody who has actively contributed today. It has been an extremely good debate. I thank the petitioner, Gareth, for starting the petition, as well as the 112,000 people who signed it and the 7,891 people who responded to the consultation.
From the Minister’s response, it seems that the Government have actually listened to the petitioners. It is a win for the Petitions Committee and the petitioner, but also for the entire industry and all the people at home who love tampering with cars, as we have called it. It has been a great debate and I thank everyone who has been involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 600954, relating to vehicle tampering offences.
Hunting
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I have been made aware that there are active appeal proceedings relating the subject of one of the e-petitions that will be debated, relating to convictions for being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control. Brief factual references to the existence of those proceedings are permissible in the debate, but Members should be mindful of the sub judice resolution and matters that are still before the courts.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 552017 and 584076, relating to hunting.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) is unable to attend the debate as planned, so I am moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee to ensure that this important debate can take place. As I am not able to stay for the remainder of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has kindly agreed to cover some of the areas that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea would have raised in her speech.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Mundell, for being in the Chair for this important debate. I thank the Petitions Committee and its Chair for ensuring that this matter can be debated in the Chamber. I also thank the hundreds of my constituents in York Central who have signed the petitions before us. They are exceptional at demanding higher protections for animals, not least in respect of foxes savaged by hunts and hare coursing. I have long campaigned to uphold animal welfare standards, and today is no exception. I thank the League Against Cruel Sports and Keep The Ban for their tireless work in exposing this offensive pursuit.
The Hunting Act 2004 should have been the end. Back then, the Labour Government responded to the popular demand to end hunting with hounds. We acted to end this animal cruelty, but the bugles and beagles were not silenced for long. The hunts, of which there were nearly 300 in England and Wales, were not deterred by the penalty system, and it now appears that they were never intended to be. They were soon riding again, under the smokescreen of trail hunting, which was designed to put those investigating the hunts off their scent. The hunts never intended to stop; they said as much when the legislation passed.
The saboteurs and organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports and Keep The Ban have exposed how terriermen were present at 78% of hunts. Those are the people who dig out foxes as they seek refuge. If the fox is not going to be killed, there is no need to dig it out. In 2020, evidence came to light from the leaked Hunting Office report and Masters of Foxhounds Association report of online Zoom webinars, exposing how hunts were making meticulous plans to use the 2004 Act to deflect from this bloodthirsty obsession.
I am glad that some landowners have responded, and I call on all landowners to institute a ban on their land. There has been only one prosecution for permitting a hunt on land that was known to be in breach of the law. While there are temporary suspensions, such as those by Forestry England and the National Trust, they must become bans. The Ministry of Defence has still issued licences. I call on the Minister to ensure that the Government come to one position on this issue. She must ensure that there is a consistent ban on any public land being used for hunts. I hope she will commit to that today in her response.
The 2004 Act has resulted in 448 prosecutions and 228 convictions for crimes involving hunting with dogs, and 47 prosecutions and 16 convictions for hare coursing. However, without a complete ban on hunting, foxes and hares will be targeted. Although Mr Hankinson, a director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, was convicted last October after being found guilty of encouraging and assisting people to evade the ban on foxhunting, the deterrents are insufficient and the law continues to be broken. I also understand that on 6 July Mr Hankinson will be appealing the decision against him.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is my co-conspirator on bringing Great British Railways to York for its headquarters. Does she agree that it is possible—perfectly possible—and reasonable to hunt within the law, using trail hunting, and that therefore, although we condemn a situation in which the law has been broken, it is possible to carry out this activity within the law and indeed the legislation allows for that?
Rachael Maskell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that point forward. I would have said yes in 2004, but trust has been betrayed, which is an issue I will come on to later. Therefore, I would have to say today that the answer is no.
I was speaking about the judgment regarding Mr Hankinson. I appreciate that this matter could be sub judice, but I just want to draw Members’ attention today to what Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram said when he was outlining his conclusions in the initial court case last autumn:
“I am sure that the defendant through his words was giving advice on how to illegally hunt with dogs. In my judgement he was clearly encouraging the mirage of trail laying to act as cover for illegal hunting.”
For that, Mr Hankinson received a fine of £1,000, along with having to make a contribution of £2,500 in legal costs.
As we have seen in other areas of law, penalties for breaches are insufficient for those who are part of the elite. During the cub-hunting autumn season alone, there were 115 reported incidents and 2019-20 saw a total of 485 reports of incidents. These incidents are not rare; they are occurring on an industrial scale.
The Countryside Alliance blames bad law, but the reality is that whether we like the law or not and whether it is good or bad, we have to have to obey it. That message is resounding in the public square at present. Lawbreakers cannot hide behind excuses but must face a penalty, although it is evident that the penalty is too soft, as they continuously and deliberately break the law, for all the weaknesses that may be within it.
Hunts have betrayed the trust placed in them to stay within the spirit and letter of the law and stay away from foxes, so the law must change and a complete ban on trail hunting must ensue. There must be no exemptions, no loopholes and no excuses. The hunts have only themselves to blame for this, having tried to bend and stretch the law.
Sir Robert Goodwill
The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way again. Does she agree that if she had her way, then—given that foxhounds do not make good family pets—thousands of foxhounds up and down the country would have to be destroyed humanely, because the hunts could not afford to keep them if they did not have their participation in the trail hunting?
Rachael Maskell
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying and, as I said previously, we are in this situation because trust has been betrayed. I do not accept that those hounds have to be put down. However, we have to move forward. We are now at the point where people have deliberately obfuscated the law and I think the time has come when we cannot tolerate people—quite frankly—laughing at this place, which has really tried to improve the situation and move forward by giving that scope and flexibility for trail hunting. However, as we see time and again, trail hunting turns into real hunting and therefore I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
With 85% of the population believing that all forms of hunting foxes should be illegal, Parliament cannot stand by when the loopholes in the legislation are being exploited to perpetrate wildlife crime. The Hunting Act 2004 needs amending and those who stand in its way must be brought to account. If Natural Resources Wales has introduced a ban on its land, there is no excuse for the Minister. She needs to ensure that she is leading, not waiting for the hunt lobby to craft more reasons for delay, dither and indecision.
However, this is about not just foxes, but hares. The League Against Cruel Sports found that in 2019-20, there were 102 reports of suspected illegal interference with badger setts, animal worrying—an issue that has been debated of late in Parliament—and even pet interference. The second petition before us today concerns Mini the cat, who was literally hounded to death—chased and killed in a quiet residential area. Poor Mini was mauled outside her home, but the penalty under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was just £1,600. After the kill, the hunt tried to hide their cruelty by slinging little Mini over a fence, but they were caught. This very day, John Sampson, the person responsible for the death of Mini, has had his guilty conviction upheld in the courts in Truro. The nation has taken Mini to their hearts, and are demanding Mini’s law—the public and animal safety Bill—as there has to be a simpler course to justice. Sadly, Mini was not a one-off: on average, another Mini is taken by hunts every fortnight.
People are also endangered. Banning hunts from residential and other public areas is necessary, which is why I believe a blanket ban by Government will increase the consistency of protection. Currently, the Dogs Act 1871 is relied on, but proof needs to come to light that the hounds were out of control, which is no easy thing to evidence. As we bring forward legislation, we need to ensure it is easy to apply, and to provide the necessary evidence. We are coming to the end of this parliamentary Session, after which a new one will begin. Banning trail hunting and hunting on public land and in residential areas would show a commitment to animal wellbeing and protect those most majestic of all animals, foxes. A simple and small amendment to the Hunting Act 2004 is all that is required. We stand ready to bring in this ban and end this barbarism once and for all.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
As the hon. Lady set out, the appeal that I referenced at the beginning of this debate has been concluded, and therefore that case is no longer sub judice for the purpose of the debate. I call Sir Bill Wiggin.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Mundell. I say gently to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who I know has a very kind heart, that if she got what she wanted, anywhere between 9,000 and 18,000 hounds would be put down. I hope she will reconsider her thoughts on that basis.
I remember when the Hunting Act 2004 was passed, which banned intentional hunting of mammals with dogs. I was a teller, and I was in the Chamber when Tony Banks decided to amend Alun Michael’s Bill, which would have licensed hunting. Banks wanted a total ban, and the Secretary of State climbed along the Back Benches to where he was sitting, which was right in the middle of the Chamber. On seeing this, Nicholas Soames called on the Speaker to protect the hon. Gentleman. Banks replied that he could look after himself. As a result, he pressed his amendment, and we got the ban on intentional hunting. That was the conclusion of hundreds of hours of debate, amendments and emotion, and we ended up with an Act that the Government promised not to revisit. Despite not hunting myself, I would like the opportunity to repeal that Act. However, I accept that the Government have promised not to touch it in this Parliament.
Trail hunting or drag hunting is where an artificial scent is laid down for hounds to follow. It is usually a rag dipped in scent, often aniseed, and it is an entirely legal alternative to hunting. It is overwhelmingly practised in this way throughout the country. There are, as I think the hon. Member for York Central mentioned, 300 packs of hounds in this country, some of which are in my constituency. With the owner’s permission, they follow a drag or trail over land and feed their hounds on fallen livestock—calves that are born dead or cows that die—which is a tremendous help to farmers, who face bills for the removal of their fallen stock at a time when margins are tight.
The debate encompasses two separate petitions. The first calls on Forestry England to stop granting licences for fox and hare hunts. Over the most recent hunting season, it is reported that Forestry England granted 34 licences for trail hunts. The tsunami of lawbreaking that the petition suggests does not appear to have taken place. The petition states:
“Despite hunting wild mammals with dogs being illegal, two of the licensed/previously licensed trail hunts have been associated with convictions under the Hunting and Animal Welfare Acts.”
Being “associated with” seems a bit thin. However, there is another issue with that assertion: no fox and hare hunts are licensed by Forestry England. The only hunting that is licensed is trail hunting. Furthermore, no licensed hunt has ever been convicted of a Hunting Act offence while operating on Forestry England’s land. The premise of the petition is therefore misleading. Good people have been encouraged to sign something that is deliberately designed to mislead them.
The petition harks back to the awful, bigoted, hate-filled nature of the debate on hunting, which always comes back to class war. It may be triggered by people feeling that they are being looked down on by people sitting on horses—I do not know. It is constantly fed with inflammatory stories that are designed to upset kind-hearted, generous animal owners so that they fund nasty and sinister groups.
Forestry England is a public body with the freedom to decide what activity takes place on its land. It can rightly suspend or stop events if illegal activity takes place, meaning that decisions are left in the hands of those who can decide the correct course of action on a case-by-case basis, instead of political activists. Once again, we see pressure being brought to bear or bullying. In reality, it is just another attack on rural people.
The second petition relates to Mini’s law. This is a very sad case. Last year, a domestic cat named Mini was killed by dogs in a residential area. Even the most malicious campaigner is not claiming that that was deliberate. It was an accident—deeply regrettable, but an accident. The petition states that such an incident is reported once every two weeks, as the hon. Member for York Central mentioned. However, the anti-hunting group Keep The Ban, which is endorsed by the League Against Cruel Sports, suggests that in 2019, there were actually 29 incidents—not one every two weeks. Once again, good people are being misled in order to feed prejudices and anger, which is bad for everyone.
Happily, there are 12 million domestic cats in this country. Some 27% of households own one. Cats Matter, a feline campaign group, estimates that, sadly, 230,000 cats are killed each year by car alone, as are hundreds of thousands of foxes—not to mention the cats killed each year by dogs. On the premise of the petition, should we also ban cars and dogs? Of course not. There must be balance when addressing this emotive topic but, sadly, that is rarely the case.
The lobby groups and saboteurs that feed off the subject would have people believe that every hunt and every pack of hounds are lawbreakers. That is wrong. As with any lawful activity, it is possible to break the law. Offences that do take place are prosecuted accordingly. The possibility of lawbreaking is not used as a reason to prohibit other lawful activities. Therefore petitions such as these need to be rejected.
Each year, thousands of people attend Boxing day meets such as the one in Ledbury. It is a tradition that has been going on longer than records show. However, last Christmas, the local town council came under pressure to try to ban the meeting in the centre of town. Thankfully, a vociferous majority came out in defence of the meet.
Hunting is about liberty and livelihood for rural people. It is a chance to meet and enjoy traditions passed down through generations. The class warriors are out of date. They choose to mislead and spin. What better proof is there that they are wrong? We must continue to support the rule of law and not be bullied by those who find the truth inconvenient.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who is no longer in her place, and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for opening the debate and raising some important points. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) made some interesting points. It is good that we keep talking as communication is really important in understanding where everyone is coming from.
We are here today because e-petition 552017 received more than 104,000 signatures from local people across the UK, and e-petition 584076 received more than 101,000. That is a lot of people committed to animal welfare, doing the right thing and maintaining and enhancing the protections in law for cruelty against animals. I do not plan to keep colleagues in the Chamber longer than necessary; I am sure that with votes coming up, nobody else wants to stay too long either. However, I want to ensure that a couple of points are on the record.
Members will know that e-petition 552017 asks Her Majesty’s Government to stop Forestry England issuing licences for trail hunting. Forestry England is a public body and in 2019-20 it issued 34 licences for trail hunting. Since 2020, licences have been suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. E-petition 584076 seeks greater protection for pets and animals from hunts, following the mauling to death of Mini the cat. That mauling involved huntsman John Sampson, who was found guilty in December. The petition follows a campaign involving the likes of Action Against Foxhunting and I pay tribute to the campaigners for their tenacity, care and compassion.
Colleagues will know that despite the Hunting Act 2004, foxhunting has continued in England and Wales under the guise of trail hunting. That fact was recently exposed by the conviction of Mark Hankinson, now a former director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, for intentionally encouraging or assisting others to break the Hunting Act 2004, in the case of R v. Hankinson. Despite its exposure as a cover for illegal hunting, the Ministry of Defence still licenses trail hunting on its own land, with at least 259 days of hunting licensed during the 2021-22 hunting season. We all know that those hunts regularly cause havoc in the countryside, terrorising wild animals, pets—as we have already heard—and people as well as disrupting infrastructure such as railway lines and major roads.
The simple fact is that hunting with dogs has continued despite the ban, with weaknesses in the Hunting Act 2004 abused by those claiming to conduct trail hunting or exempt hunting. The Hunting Act was one of Labour’s greatest achievements, and we will continue to stand by it every day. Indeed, we went on to live those values by attempting to improve and amend the Agriculture Bill, but we were not able to persuade Conservative Members to vote with us. Enough is enough. The Hunting Act 2004 must be strengthened and trail hunting must be banned on Government and all publicly owned or managed land. For many years now, Labour, through successive shadow Environment Secretaries, and animal welfare campaigners, such as the League Against Cruel Sports, have said that trailing is a smokescreen designed to disguise the hunt’s true activity. We need to call that out.
I am grateful to the league for its work, and its helpful briefing ahead of the debate. It made clear that during the last full hunting season for which data is available, it received 485 reports of suspected illegal hunting relating to 110 different hunts in England, Scotland and Wales. In addition, during the 2021 cub hunting season, which is euphemistically described as the autumn hunting, the league received 115 reports of suspected illegal cub hunting. The league acknowledges, as I do, that those figures are reliant on eyewitness reports, so we can fairly assume that they are just the tip of the iceberg. Like many in the Opposition, I am concerned by the lack of transparency and how rules that apply to all are being played by a few as they seek to work their way around the law.
We need action and we need this Government to stand up and be counted. We need to stop public land being used by those seeking to play around with the rules. Despite the exposure of trail hunting as a smokescreen for illegal hunting, the Government have continued to allow and license trail hunting on Government land—particularly land owned by the Ministry of Defence. In a written question about the impact of trail hunting on MOD land, the Defence Secretary went as far as to defend trail hunting as a legal activity. Trail hunting is currently suspended on Forestry England land, which is one thing, but that is not enough. Forestry England, as the Minister knows, is a public body that reports to her Department. It is England’s largest land manager and looks after 1,500 of the nation’s woods and forests.
Since news of the Hunting Office’s leaked webinar emerged in 2020, Forestry England has suspended trail hunting licences but has yet to ban trail hunting permanently. What discussions has the Minister had with the leadership at Forestry England about the issue? I pay tribute to the National Trust, Natural Resources Wales, the Malvern Hills Trust, and Cheshire West and Chester Council, which are among those that have seen through the hunt’s smokescreen and have permanently banned it from their land. Could the Minister, if possible, touch on what discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the matter?
In the 17 years since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force under a progressive Labour Government, many in the hunting community have been determined to circumvent the Act, and since 2010 they have largely succeeded. Trail hunting was invented in 2005 as a means of exploiting loopholes and enforcement challenges. Recent criminal proceedings have demonstrated how trail hunting has been used as a cover for illegal hunting. However, the Government have repeatedly talked down the prospect of addressing the gap in legislation. A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report in August 2021 recommended that the UK Government review the Hunting Act and its exemptions to improve the ability of police to enforce the Act. Her Majesty’s Government have yet to respond to that recommendation, so can the Minister let me know when she will launch the review? I would be happy jointly with the Minister to sponsor a booking in Portcullis House for a launch, which would be great. Some cross-party consensus would be a fantastic thing.
A 2021 green paper from Act Now For Animals, a coalition of 50 animal welfare charities, recommended that the Government end trail hunting on their land and strengthen the Hunting Act 2004. It recommended removing exemptions in section 1 that are being exploited and introducing the possibility of custodial sentences for breaches of the Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, hon. Members who have spoken and those who signed the two petitions. Labour will continue pushing for strong observance of the law and proper and effective animal welfare policies, and will keep holding this Government to account.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and I want to thank hon. Friends and Members. There is only a small crowd in the Chamber, but we have had some quite feisty views and some friendly but opposing views. I thank those involved from the Petitions Committee as well.
Today’s debate relates to two petitions that have been signed by enough people to secure a debate. The issue is obviously an important one for us to discuss. I will start with the Hunting Act 2004. The Act makes it an offence to hunt a wild animal with dogs, except when it is carried out in accordance with the exemptions in the Act, and it completely bans hare coursing. Hare coursing has been mentioned a few times, but all hon. Members will know that we are also making a sensible and well-supported amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that will genuinely help as regards any hare coursing. That is a positive step—I digress slightly, but it is important to note that.
The penalty for illegal hunting is an unlimited fine, and the Government take all wildlife crime extremely seriously. Enforcement of the Hunting Act is an operational matter for the police. Between 2005 and 2019, 887 individuals were prosecuted under the Act, of whom 514 individuals were found guilty, so, in its present form, the Act is fit for purpose and is being enforced. As we have heard, this Government made a manifesto commitment that they would make no changes to the Hunting Act in this Parliament. Trail hunting is a legal recreational activity following a pre-laid trail, and we heard a good description from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) about how it operates. It should not involve pursuing live quarry—[Interruption.]
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I interrupt the Minister because there is a vote in the main Chamber. I will suspend proceedings for up to 15 minutes. If hon. Members are back earlier than that, we will recommence earlier.
Rebecca Pow
I will pick up where I left off, rather than going right back to the beginning of my speech. I had just got on to what trail hunting is and was explaining that it is a legal recreational activity, following a pre-laid trail. As it should not involve pursuing live quarry, it is not specifically covered by the Hunting Act.
We recognise that it is possible that dogs used for trail hunting may occasionally pick up and follow the scent of live foxes during a trail hunt. If that occurs, it is the responsibility of the hunt staff to control their hounds—and, if necessary, stop the hounds—as soon as they are made aware that the hounds are no longer following the trail that has been laid. I think it was clearly stated by Members on both sides of the Chamber that there are over 300 hunts in this country, and many of them are involved in the completely legal recreational activity of trail hunting.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I just wonder if she could explain why, if there is not an intention to bait a fox in trail hunting, as she said, there are terriermen who join those hunts and use their tools to dig out foxes?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I will just reiterate what I said: there are parameters for what trail hunting is; it is a legal recreational activity, and it must be carried out in the right way. The data that we have received suggests that it is being carried out in the right way; where it is not, it obviously needs to be cracked down on. That is not the Government’s job; it is the job of the police.
Issuing a licence or giving permission for trail hunting is an operational matter for the landowner; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not play a role. Although it is called licensing, it is really an arrangement with the landowner and the hunt; the landowner comes to their own arrangement as to whether they want the hunt to proceed over their land. Different public sector landowners take different approaches to managing their land. That said, of course, other DEFRA Ministers and I continue to engage with interested parties through meetings and correspondence, and we obviously listen to everybody’s views and discuss matters of concern.
The first petition mentioned today relates to the Forestry Commission in England. Trail hunting in the nation’s forests was suspended by Forestry England following a police investigation leading to the conviction of a former director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association. It remains suspended until the Forestry England board takes a decision on its future, which is for that board to do.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that it is rather ironic that the Labour party campaigned against the privatisation of the Forestry Commission because it wanted public access to its land, and now it is saying that people should not have access to that land to carry out a perfectly legal activity?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. As ever, he is on the ball with his comments, as he was on the point about the 18,000 hounds that might have to be put down if the activity of hunting did not proceed.
I also want to touch on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke as a true countryman with a great deal of experience and knowledge. I think he said that he does not himself hunt—nor do I—but the expertise he brings to the table and his knowledge of rural affairs are very important when we are talking about these issues. I just wanted to put that on the record.
Rachael Maskell
In my contribution, I posed the question of why Forestry England has imposed this temporary ban but the MOD has not. There appears to be inconsistency across the public estate as to whether hunts have access, and I wondered whether the Minister could clear up that matter.
Rebecca Pow
I do not think it is a matter of me clearing it up. It is within the gift of these organisations to decide whether or not they want to come to arrangements with hunts, and Forestry England has obviously suspended this activity—as have a number of other organisations, such as the National Trust and the Malvern Hills Trust—and will be looking into it. Quite a range of people have decided to take that action.
I will now turn to the second petition we are considering today, which relates to the distressing incident in Cornwall concerning Mini, a rescue cat of 14 years. I am an owner of two cats, and I do not know how I would survive without them, so I can understand how awfully upsetting and emotional this incident was.
The Government are committed to the highest standards of animal welfare, and clearly many people in this country support the direction we are taking on animal welfare. We published our action plan for animal welfare in May 2021, which lays out the breadth of animal and conservation reforms—both legislative and non-legislative —that the Government are taking forward to ensure high standards of welfare for all animals, whether farm animals, pets or wild animals.
The passing of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 delivered on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce tougher penalties for animal cruelty. The Act’s new maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine will apply to animal cruelty offences, including causing unnecessary suffering, and is a significant step forward in improving animal welfare. The Act has received overwhelming support. Indeed, I worked on these issues as a Back Bencher, and many Members present have been working on them for many years, so I am really proud that they have now come through in our manifesto commitment and in legislation.
I fully understand the upset and anger felt by Mini’s owners at this awful incident. I understand that the hounds involved in the incident were being exercised—we have hounds going through our village regularly on exactly the same kind of outing, to give them exercise—and were not hunting at the time. There are already several pieces of legislation that can be used to prevent such incidents and to protect the public and companion animals from dogs. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 makes it an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place; there is the possibility of unlimited fines, or even imprisonment, for offences under that Act. In addition, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 includes community protection notices to enable the police and local authorities to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. Local authorities also have powers to make public space protection orders under the 2014 Act to exclude dogs from certain areas or insist that they are kept on leads.
Rachael Maskell
I want to draw attention to today’s ruling, because it is a landmark one: I understand that this is the first time a conviction has happened under the Dangerous Dogs Act where a dog has attacked another animal. Does the Minister agree that it is important for the breadth of the Act to be brought into full force when such instances as the taking of Mini’s little life occur?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Yes, today—we are allowed to speak about it now, Mr Mundell, are we not?—the appeal was refused. Judge Simon Carr said:
“It is a fact specific decision we are quite sure these dogs were dangerously out of control and in these circumstances the appeal against conviction is refused.”
That is very strong, as the hon. Lady said, and rightly so. I believe that the legislation has been used in the right way.
One other question was asked by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), which I think was about the potential review. In 2018, DEFRA was looking at the Hunting Act, but that was shelved. We now have a manifesto commitment not to amend the Act, which she is well aware of. We will not change our mind about that. A powerful statement about that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire.
Sir Robert Goodwill
No one has mentioned in the debate the important economic impact that legal hunting has in rural communities. The farriers, the horse breeders, the people who service the horse boxes—a whole variety of people—rely on legal hunting for their incomes and livelihoods. If we were to ban trail hunting more widely, people would be put out of work as a direct result.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. We should not forget it. I used to be an environment correspondent down in the west country, and I was there during the full throes of all the debates about hunting. I did not know that much about the economic impacts when I started, but I certainly learned a great deal, particularly in places such as Exmoor, where there are not many other places to gain income. There is tourism, of course, but hunting has a big impact on tourism, with people having their horses in stabling, and all the catering, accommodation and everything else it brings. That is a valid point. It has to be operated. Legally, we have put in requirements for the safe operation of trail hunting and so forth. Carried out in the right way, hunting is still valuable to the rural economy. Similarly, a good point was made about the fact that the fallen stock from agriculture goes to the hounds. If that were not so, that would create a problem. There are so many possible knock-on effects.
I realise that there are strong views on every side— I thank all hon. Friends and hon. Members for their input, and I thank those who signed the petition—but there is a clear consensus that the ban on hunting with dogs must remain, and this Government have committed to not amending the Hunting Act. Forestry England has responded to breaches of its trail hunting permissions and, as I said, all trail hunting on its land is currently suspended. It is very much an operational matter for Forestry England to decide how it wants to proceed. It will do so shortly, at one of its meetings.
As I hope I have demonstrated, protection for members of the public and their companion animals is already covered by several appropriate pieces of legislation, including on dangerous dogs. Another interesting point was made: as I said, I have two cats and we have hounds exercising through our village, but one of my previous cats was killed by a car. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire raised the issue of the other awful incidents that can wipe out some of our pets.
I hope that I have made it clear that we have appropriate legislation to cover incidents in which dogs act dangerously. Those found guilty under such Acts are subject to the full force of the law, and rightly so.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
As the Member who moved the motion cannot be present, that will conclude the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 552017 and 584076, relating to hunting.
Written Statements
Football Governance
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published their response to the recommendations made by the Independent Fan Led Review of Football Governance.
The Government’s response focuses on responding to the review’s 10 strategic recommendations. We accept or support all of the 10 strategic recommendations in our response, which sets out the Government’s planned reform of football. The sum total of our plans amount to significant reform with an independent regulator focused on financial sustainability, and a strengthened approach to ownership of football clubs and their governance.
The Government build on the case for reform set out in the review. We believe that there are two key problems in English football. First, there is significant risk of financial failure among clubs, and secondly, the cultural heritage of English football is at risk of harm. We have identified that these two problems have three root causes: the structure and dynamics of the market create incentives for financial overreach, inadequate corporate governance often affords unchecked decision-making power, and the existing regulation is ineffective. Without reform these financial failures will persist, and the economic and social costs would be substantial. Therefore, the Government believe that there is a need to intervene in football to secure the future of the game.
The issues highlighted in the review are complex and our reforms need detailed and considered analysis to ensure the sustainability of the sector long term. As a result, we have committed to publishing a White Paper in the summer which will set out further details on the implementation of reform.
In response to the strategic recommendations, the Government response sets out a vision for the reform of English football:
An independent regulator for football will be established. The response sets out the proposed objective, scope and powers of the regulator, and that it would oversee a licensing regime of the top five leagues.
The regulator will have a focus on financial regulation. The financial regulation regime will take a holistic approach, bringing together the Owners’ and Directors’ test, corporate governance and equality, and diversity and inclusion as part of one regime.
The current Owners’ and Directors’ tests do not go far enough in assessing suitability for ownership of clubs. The response sets out that the tests should be strengthened by enhancing due diligence to check source of funds and the strength of business and financial plans, and that an integrity-style test will be introduced. The forthcoming White Paper will provide further details on how the enhanced tests will work, and what will be in scope of the integrity test.
We believe that football needs a new approach to corporate governance, proposing a new model to be designed and overseen by the regulator. Football also needs to take further action on diversity and inclusion through their own plans for action. Further consideration will be given to ensure the model is proportionate and appropriate for football.
We agree with the review that supporters should be properly consulted by clubs, but we propose to share details in the White Paper on a more flexible approach to supporter engagement by making a minimum level of fan engagement a condition of the regulator licence. We have also committed to share details in the White Paper on the regulator implementing a licence condition which requires clubs to have a mechanism for fans to consent to changes to key items of club heritage.
On financial distributions in the football pyramid, we agree that more could be done by the Premier League to enhance financial flows through the wider football pyramid, and ideally this would be through a football-led solution. We have committed to revisit whether backstop powers are needed for the regulator to implement a new distribution agreement, if a solution is not found before the White Paper.
We agree with the review on the importance of football clubs to local communities, and set out that the position on “existing provisions”—which applies to football stadiums—in the national planning policy framework will be retained in the revised NPPF, in conjunction with Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities colleagues.
Finally, in response to the review’s recommendations regarding alcohol and football, we are committing to review the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, in conjunction with Home Office colleagues.
The Government are fully committed to reforming football governance to enable a long-term, sustainable future for the game. Accepting or supporting all the strategic recommendations in the review is the next step to doing exactly this, and will represent a wholesale change in the way football is governed in England.
We recognise the scale of change that is required, and the impact that our proposals will have within football and more broadly. That is why we are setting a strategic direction in reforming football for the better, but taking some time to consider the details of exactly how we will enact these changes. We will set out even more information on the precise implementation of our reforms in a White Paper which we will publish this summer, and are committing to implementing the reforms as soon as possible.
[HCWS781]
Room to Run Guarantee
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the statement, except in cases of special urgency.
I have today laid a departmental minute outlining details of a new liability, the Room to Run Guarantee, which FCDO plans to undertake in order to guarantee a US$1.6 billion—£1.23 billion at the current exchange rate—portfolio of African Development Bank loans.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) is Africa’s premier regional financial institution. It is a well respected multilateral development bank which lends to 50 countries and the private sector within Africa. The UK is a long-term AfDB shareholder.
The UK is creating this new liability for two reasons. First, to meet a clear climate financing need. Africa has large and growing financing needs for clean and green development. It is estimated that $3 trillion is needed to implement Africa’s climate strategies over the next 10 years. Secondly, to support the AfDB. The economic impact of the pandemic has constrained AfDB’s capacity to lend to member countries. This guarantee would allow the AfDB to continue to prudently increase its lending capacity at an important time.
The liability is expected to last for up to 15 years. FCDO would only pay official development assistance if a default occurs and if first loss cover provided by the African Trade Insurance Agency (ATI) is exhausted. The departmental minute sets this out in detail.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS779]
Trade Update
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
On Thursday 21 April, I met His Excellency, Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, where we reached an agreement in principle that the UK will liberalise all tariffs on imports of Ukrainian origin under the UK-Ukraine political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement. This follows the commitment made by the Prime Minister in Kyiv that the UK would step up our economic support. This agreement in principle is in direct response to a request from the Government of Ukraine and is part of the UK’s commitment to their economic stability. Both countries are now completing the necessary processes to rapidly bring this into force.
The UK Government offered this policy on a non-reciprocal basis, with no expectation or ask of the Ukrainian Government in return. However, the Government of Ukraine has confirmed that their preference is to match our approach and they will fully liberalise their tariffs under the FTA with the UK, in order to maximise the economic benefit for Ukraine and to help secure their economic future.
Key details include:
Liberalising all tariffs under the Free Trade Agreement to zero on all goods originating from Ukraine which will provide economic support in their hour of need.
Our analysis shows that the average tariff on imports from Ukraine not already fully liberalised is currently around 22%. Removing these tariffs provides broad and deep support for the people of Ukraine.
In the unlikely event of a surge of Ukrainian imports into the UK market, I have put in place a broad safeguard mechanism to protect domestic industry.
These changes will be for an initial period of 12 months but include a simple process to agree an extension with Ukraine.
The Government will shortly lay a statutory instrument to amend our domestic legislation accordingly.
This approach is leading the world in how we support Ukraine, and I will encourage trade ministers in other countries to follow our direction. With that in mind, I will soon convene Trade Ministers from the G20 and other nations to continue the international effort to put pressure on Putin and support Ukraine.
On Thursday 21 April, we announced that the UK will bolster its sanctions against Russia by expanding the list of products facing import bans and increasing tariffs. With these new measures, the UK will be imposing import tariffs and bans on over £1 billion-worth of Russian goods. The new sanctions will include import bans on silver and high-end products from Russia including caviar, and tariff increases of 35 percentage points on a range of products from Russia and Belarus, including diamonds and rubber. These new measures follow on from the tariff increases imposed on goods from Russia and Belarus on 25 March, and a ban on the import of many iron and steel products from Russia on 14 April. Legislation will be laid in due course to implement these measures. We encourage all importers that use Russian imports to source alternative supplies. As with all sanctions, these measures will be kept under review.
Today, we also announce additional sanctions to continue putting pressure on Putin’s regime. These sanctions include expanding our existing strong export prohibitions and closing loopholes to ensure that the UK is not selling Russia products and technology which could be used to repress the heroic people of Ukraine.
As I made clear to Ambassador Prystaiko, the UK will do everything in its power to support Ukraine’s fight against Putin’s brutal and unprovoked invasion and ensure its long-term security and prosperity. We stand unwaveringly with Ukraine in this ongoing fight and will tirelessly work to ensure Ukraine survives and thrives as a free and sovereign nation.
[HCWS782]
Completing the Move to Universal Credit by 2024
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
In 2012, Parliament voted to end legacy benefits and replace them with a single modern benefit system, universal credit. The UC system stood up to the challenges of the pandemic and ensured that support was provided for a significant number of new claimants with varying needs across the country. As the rest of Government and society returns to business as usual, it is appropriate to resume the process to complete the move to UC by 2024.
There are around 2.6 million households receiving legacy benefits and tax credits who need to move across to UC. The natural migration process, where claimants experience a change in circumstances and consequently move to UC, has largely continued throughout the last two years. The voluntary migration process has also been available throughout. We are taking steps to increase people’s awareness of the fact that they could be better off financially if they were receiving universal credit, including through the publication of our document “Completing the Move to Universal Credit” today on www.gov.uk. I will place copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
In that document, we set out our analysis which estimates that 1.4 million (55%) of those on legacy benefits or tax credits would receive a higher entitlement on UC than on legacy benefits and would benefit from moving voluntarily, rather than waiting for a managed migration. This is particularly the case for tax credit claimants, with our analysis estimating that around two thirds of them would benefit. That is why we have included information on UC in this year’s renewal forms for current tax credit recipients. It is important for current recipients to satisfy themselves that they would be better off on UC using independent benefit calculators before moving voluntarily, as once the claim is made recipients cannot revert to tax credits or legacy benefits, nor receive any transitional protection payments. More information is included in the document.
For those claimants who do not choose to move and have not migrated naturally, we will manage their migration to UC. Parliament committed to providing transitional financial protection to those who are moved on to UC through the managed migration process. While many households will be better off financially on UC, for those with a lower calculated award in UC than in their legacy benefits, transitional protection will be provided for eligible households. This means they will see no difference in their entitlement at the point they are moved to UC, provided there is no change in their circumstances during the migration process.
Before the pandemic, the Department had started testing processes for managed migration in a pilot based in Harrogate. In 2020, the pilot was stopped to handle the significant increase in new claims for UC resulting from the pandemic. During this pilot there was proactive engagement with 80 people, 38 of whom were moved to UC. Thirty-five claimants were better off and only three people required transitional protection. The remainder of moves were not completed before the pilot was stopped. This pilot only involved claimants that the Department had an existing relationship with. No claimants on working tax credits were approached directly to commence a move to UC.
The pilot provided valuable insights. First, while claimants will likely look for support from organisations they already know, such as a local authority, we are no longer assuming that all engagement needs to be managed by that organisation. Secondly, claimants can and will move autonomously, but some may need more support, particularly on digital access. The pandemic reinforced the importance of claimants being able to manage their own claims online and the strength of this system. Thirdly, claimants can successfully choose a date for their claim, factoring in other income and expenditure points during the month. Finally, the pilot allowed the Department to understand the processes and tools required to complete a managed move, such as those needed to calculate transitional protection.
As I have said to the House previously, we are not resuming the Harrogate pilot. We have learned from that experience and our wider experience over the last two years. As we complete the move to UC, I am absolutely committed to making this a responsible and safe transition. Next month, we will be starting a multi-site approach across the country with a small number of claimants—approximately 500 initially—being brought into the mandatory migration process. We will continue to develop our processes and systems to scale the migration process and complete by 2024.
We are resuming under existing regulations, although I intend to bring forward to Parliament amendments to the UC transitional provisions regulations, following their consideration by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
Universal credit is a dynamic welfare system fit for the 21st century. As part of our levelling-up agenda to support the British public, we will continue to help people into work and to progress in work, taking advantage of the recent reduction in the taper rate and boost to work allowances.
[HCWS780]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to the Grand Committee. I remind Members that they are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others—not, I think, a problem with this order, but it may apply later. 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.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee will no doubt appreciate, the construction sector is broad and a significant part of the UK economy. It is responsible for delivering infrastructure and large construction, including transport, energy, social infrastructure and commercial buildings. It is also responsible for delivering new housebuilding and for the repair, maintenance and improvement work needed for existing buildings and the built environment.
The traditional image of the industry and its workers is shifting. New technologies are enabling more efficient and modern methods of construction. We recognise the role that construction plays in reaching the UK’s net-zero targets, which the House passed into legislation in 2019.
This is a broad sector, as I said, and it is a large and growing one. It is valuable to our economy, currently contributing £155 billion, which represents 9% of our national gross value added. It is also valuable economically due to the large number and wide range of employment opportunities that it provides, many of them well-paid, highly-skilled roles offering excellent progression opportunities. It is valuable to the individual too; it employs 3.1 million workers, 813,000 of whom are self-employed.
In research conducted by the Construction Industry Training Board, known as the CITB, the Construction Skills Network forecast indicates that the sector will grow at an average rate of 4.4% across 2021-25. Skills interventions will be critical in meeting existing and future construction labour market demands and addressing skills deficits. New and existing workers will require interventions to retain, retrain and upskill as new regulations and technologies are introduced.
It is a broad, growing, and valuable sector, but it is a fragmented one too. Small and medium-sized enterprises make up more than 99% of all businesses, of which the majority are micro-businesses. It relies heavily on subcontracting and self-employment. This fragmentation creates long-held disincentives for employers to train and develop their construction workforce. This goes to the heart of what the CITB was created to do.
Established in 1964, the CITB is, at its core, industry led, and it exists to encourage the provision of construction training. It has a clearly defined role in identifying construction skills needs and plays a part, with others, in addressing them. It provides targeted training spend, as well as grants to employers, to encourage and enable workers to access and operate safely on construction sites, drive up skills levels and incentivise training that would otherwise not take place. It supports strategic initiatives to help to maintain and develop vital skills in the industry and to create a pipeline of skilled workers. It is developing occupational standards and recognised qualifications so that skills are transferable and increase productivity.
In all activity, the CITB is working in ways that will support the construction sector to develop an environmentally sustainable future, supporting the Government’s ambitions towards net zero. Over the coming three-year levy period, the CITB expects to raise around £502.2 million to invest in construction skills.
The recent 2021 levy order was for one year, not the usual three years. That order was more unusual still, as the levy rates that it prescribed were reduced to 50% of those prescribed by the three-year 2018 order. This was to accommodate the CITB’s decision to allow levy payers a payment holiday in response to cash flow pressures the industry was facing during the first Covid lockdown.
I now turn to the details of the draft order, and I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for considering this draft legislation. This three-year 2022 order returns to the levy rates prescribed by the three-year 2018 order—0.35% of the earnings paid by employers to directly employed workers and 1.25% of contract payments for indirectly employed workers—for businesses liable to pay the levy. However, the industry, having been consulted on the CITB’s delivery strategy and levy rate, supported the retention of the higher exemption and reduction thresholds for small employers contained in the 2021 order. Construction employers with an annual wage bill of up to £119,999—previously £79,999 in the 2018 order—will not pay any levy, while still having full access to CITB support.
It is projected that approximately 62% of all employers in scope of the levy will be exempt from paying it. Employers with a wage bill between £120,000—previously £80,000 in the 2018 order—and £399,999 will receive a 50% reduction on their levy liability while also receiving full access to CITB services. Approximately 14% of all employers in scope of the levy will receive a 50% reduction. Maintaining the increased exemption and reduction thresholds seeks to acknowledge and ease the budgetary pressures on SMEs.
The CITB has consulted industry on the levy proposals via the consensus process required under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Consensus is achieved by satisfying two requirements: that both the majority of employers likely to pay the levy, and employers that together are likely to pay more than half the aggregate levy raised, consider that the proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training. Both requirements were satisfied, with 66.5% of likely levy payers in the industry, which between them are likely to pay 63.2% of the aggregate levy, supportive of the CITB’s proposals.
This order will enable the CITB to continue to carry out its vital training responsibilities, and I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful and informative introduction to a welcome order of importance to our national economy and, indeed, to our future. I also acknowledge the ever-present commitment, conscientiousness and insight of my noble friend Lord Watson. I declare my interest in the register as president of the Engineering Education Scheme Wales, the EESW.
Page 2 of the order refers to consultation with Scottish Ministers, and I ask how and when consultations with Welsh Assembly Ministers took place. In the Explanatory Memorandum in paragraph 10.1, reference is made to a small group of employers that advised on the 2022 to 2024 levy orders. Will the Minister name the employers in the small group and describe the process? If the answer is not immediately forthcoming, perhaps she might write. Where in all this was there a place for trade unions? Was the TUC considered in any way?
Will the Minister expand on the role of technical colleges in the training of apprentices? Concerning apprentices, what role does a Minister play in relation to college trusts and boards? Surely these colleges have a huge and beneficial role. I have in mind here paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum.
At paragraph 7.4 there is a more serious statement, which I will quote:
“The construction industry contributes 8.6% of the UK’s gross domestic product, employing over 2.5 million people. However, there remains a serious and distinct market failure in the development and maintenance of skills in the construction industry: the trading conditions, incentives and culture do not lead to a sufficient level of investment in skills by employers.”
I thought it was very helpful to see that paragraph in our papers, and surely it is to the credit of the Government that it was put in. It is of huge importance, and I am sure the Minister will respond.
What special and urgent initiatives is the Minister undertaking on the basis of that serious paragraph? What policy stimuli are under way? Are not engineering apprentices of great national importance—for example, in our aerospace industry and the Ministry of Defence? How does a Minister liaise cross-departmentally to seek ever more and ever better apprenticeships?
I note the 21 November impact assessment and its self-evident helpfulness. Look, for example, at the figurative illustrations—figures 5 and 6—at paragraph 36. First, figure 5 shows the estimated CITB levy payable by employers in England, Scotland and Wales in 2018 versus 2022—that is, the changes. In this, general building, civil engineering and housebuilding come out on top, with £20 million for housebuilding. Why are the Government not pushing harder for housebuilding?
Secondly, figure 5 shows the levy paid by nations in 2022: some £149 million in England, £13.6 million in Scotland, but only, I note, £4.8 million in Wales. Will the Minister tell us what is going on in Wales? For certain, the Welsh Assembly and Government have a good record; all my compatriots are good payers, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Will she please comment and explain? Is it simply that the money that Wales pays is based on population only? But why so little?
Thirdly, in figure 6, it is good to see the brickie and the pointer itemised. The pointer puts the icing on the brick cake. Is the Minister prepared to agree? What are the Government doing to get more brickies and pointers? They are absolutely vital in housebuilding and they are in very short supply, which leads to bottlenecks. The Government want, in the most positive way, more housing built, but here is a bottleneck around the brickie and the pointer. We need many more in the industry, so how hard are the Government negotiating with the employers? Do they pressurise the chief executive officer of the CITB for more brickies and pointers?
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for that tour de force, and, having spent the week in Anglesey, we have a Welsh connection.
As the Minister rightly said, the construction industry is hugely important to the economy of the UK. She also referenced the need for a pipeline of skilled workers. What she did not talk about was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, that there is a national crisis in the shortage of construction workers, which could hamper the many infrastructure schemes that we have—not just big infrastructure schemes, but local and small ones. If my noble friend Lord Stunell was here, he would tell the Minister in no uncertain terms, which I think he has already done, about the dire consequences of not ensuring that those brickies and pointers, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, are recruited as quickly they should be. I have also wondered why more women are not involved in the construction industry.
The Construction Industry Training Board undertakes a large number of activities, and the Minister spelled them out in some detail, but this is perhaps a time to question what has been going on. I wonder whether the CITB would be considered by Jacob Rees-Mogg as part of his bonfire of the quangos. I hope not, but I hope that it will be reformed and refocused, because there are real concerns. You have only to listen to the National Federation of Builders, which is calling for a fundamental restructuring of the CITB, including an end to its levy-raising powers. It states that the majority of construction employers asked do not see the CITB as adding value to the industry and do not believe that it meets the labour market or industry needs, and that they cannot access the training they need when they need it. That is quite a concern.
Employers in the construction industry are facing many issues, post Covid. Is it fair that the academic institutions receive so much more; should not the levy go directly to levy-paying employers? The levy returns can sometimes be challenging and time-consuming for employers, generating additional administrative costs. Importantly, there needs to be an easier and quicker way to complete the required documentation without further record-keeping. As I have said before, a business must focus on the job of the business, making a profit and securing jobs. When the bureaucracy gets in the way, that often causes real problems for the business.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the comments made and answer them. I too had scribbled down that it would be useful to know, on a regular basis, the names of the small group who advised: let us name them and see who they represent. I had also scribbled a note asking whether the TUC was involved.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the order, which it is fair to say is not controversial. It states that
“the Secretary of State is satisfied that the industrial training levy proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry”,
and we concur. For that reason, I do not propose to say much at all about the levy itself, which will continue much as before. Rather, I shall focus on the CITB and its role in assisting the construction industry to address some of the issues of recruitment and training it currently faces.
In a previous life, further back than I care to remember, I was a full-time official with a trade union in the engineering sector, and I recall dealing with several industry training boards on a number of different issues. Indeed, from memory, there were more than 20 in the 1980s, until the number was significantly reduced by the Industrial Training Act 1982. It is to be regretted that, apart from those in the film sector, only the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board are still in place today. The last two are non-departmental public bodies, and thus accountable to Parliament and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, possibly within the sights of the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency—a quaint name, without a department behind it.
The order we are considering today runs to six pages, but its impact assessment is five times that length. That is to be welcomed, because it contains much interesting—in some cases, fascinating—information and statistics about the levy, the board and the construction industry itself. From it, we learn that the industry has had a levy and grant arrangement for 58 years. The impact assessment says that it currently employs more than 2.5 million people—the Minister said 3.1 million, so I am glad to hear it is growing—contributes 8.6% to GDP, and, if I caught it correctly, 9% of gross value added, which, as an economist, I think is a productivity metric. Both demonstrate the importance of the industry.
The CITB exists to ensure that the construction workforce has the right skills for now and the future, based on three strategic priorities: careers, standards and qualifications, and training and development. As is made plain in the impact assessment:
“There remains a serious and distinct market failure in the development … of skills in the construction industry”.
It is stated that this is because
“the trading conditions, incentives and culture do not lead to a sufficient level of investment in skills by employers.”
Unfortunately, this malaise is not restricted to the construction sector. UK employers in many sectors have long been unwilling to recognise the need for upskilling and to pay for it, and that is a major factor in the low productivity levels from which our economy suffers. The introduction of the apprenticeship levy five years ago was a clear sign of the Government’s acceptance that employers will not in sufficient numbers invest of their own volition in skills development, and thus require a firm hand on their collective shoulder to encourage them to do so.
The training levy plays a key role in equipping the construction industry with the skilled and flexible workforce it needs. In the post-EU world in which we find ourselves, and given the large number of EU nationals who have traditionally worked in the construction industry in this country, it is not just important but absolutely vital that the industry is in a position to train, and continually retrain, its workforce for the challenges facing the economy.
Indeed, to quote the Explanatory Memorandum:
“It is essential, now more than ever, that employers have access to the support needed to upskill existing workers and adequately attract and train new talent, as industry seeks to fully recover from the impacts of the pandemic.”
Absolutely. This order will raise more than £0.5 billion between now and 2024 to invest in training skills, which is why employers have always strongly supported the levy and value the payback they get from their contributions.
However, as the Minister will have noted from the impact assessment, the consultation among employers on the CITB’s proposals for this levy produced a figure of 66.5% in support. That should cause some concern, because not only does it mean that a third of employers were not in favour of the levy—for reasons unknown, or at least not listed in the impact assessment—but the 66.5% figure was down from 76.9% when the vote was last held, in 2017. Perhaps the Minister can say whether DfE officials and/or Ministers have asked the CITB for its explanation of that reduction and what action, if any, the board will be asked to undertake to ensure it does not fall further in three years. More positive is the survey on the final page of the impact assessment, which shows that, when asked whether the statutory levy, grant and funding system should continue, 75% of employers said that it should.
The CITB has had an awkward few years recently, with more than its fair share of criticism from within the sector. The board was forcefully led by Sarah Beale from 2017 until her departure last year, and now has Tim Balcon as its CEO. Ms Beale oversaw a restructuring that saw its workforce cut by two-thirds as it returned to its core business, but that has not assuaged all in the sector. One of its largest participants, Build UK, recently called for fundamental changes, stating that there remains
“widespread frustration with the performance of CITB”.
Mr Balcon deserves the chance to make his influence felt, but are the Minister and her officials aware of the discontent with the board felt by some of the employers it exists to assist? If so, can she share any information as to what support—I am not talking about financial terms—might be offered to the board?
One of those areas should be the need for much greater diversity within the construction industry. The CITB itself deserves credit for becoming, under Sarah Beale, a female-led organisation in a male-dominated industry. One of the potential benefits of that was that it allowed the CITB to push boundaries and promote change, but much more remains to be done. ONS data shows that the construction industry’s 16% female workforce—a point referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—compares with 23% in transportation and 25% in water supply and manufacturing, the other worst sectors.
The 2011 census showed that 13% of the UK population identified as black, Asian or minority ethnic, yet ONS data found that the percentage employed at that time in UK construction was just 7.5%. More worryingly, in a 2015 survey of its own, the CITB found that the actual figure could have been closer to 5%. We should be told what the current figures are, so that the board can begin to plot a course towards increasing the number substantially. As Kay Jarvis of the global infrastructure company blu-3 reported in 2020:
“The 2018 OutNext/PwC Out to Succeed survey also found construction had the third-worst image of all industries as an LGBT+ employer.”
A recent study by recruitment analytics specialist Hays discovered that, of those black people
“who managed to break into the construction sector”—
that term is perhaps of some importance—no less than
“78% claimed they had experienced career restrictions due to their race or other demographic factors such as sexuality and age.”
Whether this is down to structural prejudice or unconscious bias, it highlights the significant and clear challenge of discrimination in the hiring and promotion process, which surely must be addressed. The CITB is well positioned to do so; I hope that the Government will offer it every encouragement, perhaps by setting a baseline and then measuring year-on-year progress against it in respect of equality and diversity in various forms in construction.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I will attempt to cover the questions asked but I will of course write on any that I cannot answer at the Dispatch Box.
Before I go any further, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, highlighted the difference between the 2.5 million employees cited in the Explanatory Memorandum and the 3.1 million that I referred to in my opening remarks. The figure of 3.1 million comes from the Office for National Statistics and represents a wider definition of construction that includes the built environment and manufacturing. The figure in the Explanatory Memorandum is an estimate of the CITB-relevant part of the total. I hope that clarifies it for the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, shared his deep expertise in the sector and asked a number of questions in relation to Wales. In line with the requirements of Section 88 of the Scotland Act 1988, we consulted Scottish Ministers—the noble Lord pointed this out—who confirmed that they are content with the levy order. The Welsh Assembly has also confirmed its support for the order.
The noble Lord asked why the contribution for Wales appears to be so small. The levy is charged to in-scope employers based on their wage bill, so it is possible that there are fewer or smaller such employers in Wales and this is reflected in those figures. The noble Lord also asked how much of the levy will be distributed in Scotland and Wales. The split in income and expenditure between England, Scotland and Wales is not something that the CITB generally measures or reports on.
The noble Lord asked about engagement with the unions. Obviously, it is up to the CITB as to who it engages with. It is the legislation that controls who can actually vote on the levy proposals.
The noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Storey, challenged whether the Government are doing enough with our investment in training, qualifications and skills in this area. We have already put in place a wide range of opportunities for adults to gain the skills that they need for employment and are ensuring that people have opportunities to study by delivering on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. The provision of skills, in construction in particular, is supported through a number of routes, including courses available through further education colleges and independent learning providers, with funding of more than £1.3 billion from the adult education budget. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced construction T-levels in 2020, as an alternative vocational route into the sector, and are continuing to develop skills boot camps, which offer free and flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, funded through the national skills fund.
As noble Lords observed, apprenticeships remain a key route into this industry. There are currently over 640 high-quality, industry-designed standards available, and we aim to continue to improve and grow apprenticeships, so that more employers and individuals can benefit from them.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, rightly focused on the lack of diversity in the construction workforce. Obviously the CITB is not responsible for the construction workforce, but it has an important role in facilitating skills opportunities to help the industry strive towards a workforce that reflects today’s society. It undertakes a wide range of initiatives and activities; it works with industry and other partners to try to attract a diverse pool of new entrants into the industry and to promote construction careers. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that in three years, when we debate this instrument again, the make-up of the sector will look very different from where it is today.
The CITB is funding the training of industry construction ambassadors on fairness, inclusion and respect, who contribute to a dedicated industry project which creates resources for employers to promote and celebrate best practice across the sector. It is also funding a digital resilience hub, which is a free and accessible tool that brings together mental health resources for those working in the construction industry. Finally, it is funding the on-site hubs that support individuals to become employment-ready and site-ready to take up opportunities in construction. Their target is to support underrepresented groups, including women and those from black, Asian and other minority-ethnic backgrounds, to secure sustainable job outcomes. It is fair to say that representation from those groups remains disproportionately low. The CITB continues to work with partners to try to address that.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, questioned the value of the CITB and raised some of the criticisms that have been lodged against it, and asked whether there would be an alternative model for funding skills development in the construction industry. The Government seek to evaluate the rationale for and effectiveness of its arm’s-length bodies through a programme of regular reviews, and that includes the ITBs. In 2017, the review of ITBs confirmed that there remains an ongoing need for a central skills body and recommended that the CITB should make stronger efforts to address the skills gap and market failure within the industry. That included the requirement for the CITB to lead on emerging needs, such as supporting the Government’s ambitions for housing.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I mentioned earlier that the impact assessment shows that 75% of employers, when asked, said that they wanted the current scheme to continue. Is it not unthinkable that, with that kind of backing, the Government might move away from the current model?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously I cannot predict the future. I can only repeat what the review of 2017 said, on which basis the Government are moving forward. The review showed that there is an ongoing need for a central skills body and, as the noble Lord says, employers support it.
Following that review, the CITB’s implementation of its three-year transformation process, Vision 2020, has helped to make it a more focused and more agile partner to industry, and, as a result of the initiative, the CITB has implemented new governance structures so that industry voices are at the heart of decision-making, has launched new funding systems to allow employers to have easier access to support—the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to bureaucracy being a barrier to accessing support—and has moved to an investment model based on strategic commissioning. As I noted, the industry has expressed concerns about the performance of the CITB, but we are confident that it has worked hard to increase industry involvement in its strategic planning to address those concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the funding model and exactly what it pays for. The levy provides an investment in skills through a redistributive and collective fund, and it provides value through strategic initiatives that benefit the whole industry—I have referred to some of them already—such as attracting new entrants, identifying common standards and common training solutions, encouraging the transferability of skills, quality control of training provision, leadership and project management development, and collaborative behavioural training programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about the relationship between the amount of levy that is paid and the grants that an employer might receive. We believe that employers receive value for money, but they do not expect to receive a direct financial return via the training grants that is equal to the levy that is paid. As I mentioned, the levy is an investment in skills through a redistributive and collective fund that benefits all employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about our housebuilding targets. One of the priorities from the DfE to the CITB for 2022-23 is providing support to the industry to meet our ambition to build 300,000 homes each year.
There continues to be the collective view across the sector that training should be funded through a statutory levy system and that that system should be used to contribute to a pool of skilled labour, now and in the future, for this critical sector. There is a firm belief that without the levy there would be a serious deterioration in the quality and quantity of training in the construction industry, leading to a deficiency in skills levels and in capacity. That would create particular challenges in the current economic environment, when skilled workers are needed to deliver the infrastructure projects required to meet the environmental challenge of reducing the UK’s carbon emissions to zero by 2050, as well as all the other ambitions that we have referred to in relation to other infrastructure and housebuilding projects.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Delay in Expiry: Inquests, Courts and Tribunals, and Statutory Sick Pay) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Delay in Expiry: Inquests, Courts and Tribunals, and Statutory Sick Pay) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, last month, 25 March marked two years since the Coronavirus Act gained Royal Assent. This Act gave us the necessary powers to tackle the direct health impacts of the Covid-19 virus, support individuals, businesses and the economy, and maintain our critical public services during the pandemic. When the Act was introduced, this House and the other place agreed for the temporary provisions within it to have a two-year lifespan. The Government have always been clear that these provisions would remain in place only as long as they are necessary and proportionate to respond to the pandemic. Thanks to the progress made in the fight against the virus, the Government have been able to repeal the vast majority of the temporary non-devolved provisions in this Act. There are now only five temporary non-devolved provisions remaining in force, which are extended by the regulations before us today.
Four of these provisions, at Sections 30, 53, 54 and 55 of the Act, relate to the justice system. They have allowed the system to continue to function throughout the pandemic, enabling the courts to deal promptly and safely with proceedings, and to avoid unnecessary social contact and travel while upholding the principle of open justice. They are now proving vital in our efforts to support court recovery. These temporary measures are so important to court recovery that we intend to replace them with permanent legislation, but we cannot afford any gap in provision while we wait for that legislation to complete its passage through Parliament, albeit some of it is comparatively well-advanced.
Section 30 removes the obligations for coroners to hold inquests with a jury where Covid-19 is the suspected cause of death. An equivalent measure is included in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which is expected to receive Royal Assent later this spring. The replacement measure has effect for two years and can be extended by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Neither Section 30 nor the new Judicial Review and Courts Bill prevents coroners from holding jury inquests in cases where they consider it appropriate. I think it is important to emphasise this element of discretion vesting in the coroner.
Sections 53, 54 and 55 enable participation in court and tribunal hearings to take place remotely by video or audio links. They also allow audio or video footage to be transmitted to remote observers and create new offences to prohibit the unauthorised recording or transmission of any live links sent from court. Essentially, it is an updating of the power inherent in the court already to regulate the behaviour of those observing its proceedings.
They are due to be replaced this summer with new provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, subject to parliamentary approval. In the meantime, it is vital that these measures remain in place so that our courts and tribunals can continue to hold virtual hearings in an open and transparent manner. These measures continue to be crucial in helping our courts and tribunals to work more quickly through the backlog of cases that has built up during the pandemic.
Currently, around 10,000 hearings each week take place using some form of remote technology. On 14 February, the Lord Chief Justice issued guidance on the circumstances and types of proceedings where it might continue to be appropriate for advocates to attend Crown Court hearings remotely under these provisions. This includes bail applications, ground rules hearings, custody time limit extensions, uncontested Proceeds of Crime Act hearings and those hearings which involve legal argument only. Conducting these types of hearings via audio and video links means that court-rooms can be reserved for hearings which require participants to attend in person, including trials and sentencing hearings.
Without Section 30, the backlogs in our coroners’ courts would be significantly larger, further increasing the demand on local authority-funded coroner services. Hundreds, possibly thousands of individuals, would have to serve on Covid-19 inquest juries and coroner services would have been overwhelmed by the logistics. If the courts are unable to continue to use these provisions, even for a few months, I submit that it will have a significant impact on our court recovery programme. It will mean that defendants are waiting longer than necessary for trial, more complainers are waiting longer than necessary for justice and the bereaved are waiting longer than necessary for inquests. Therefore, we cannot, I submit, allow these powers to lapse. A maximum six-month extension will enable a smooth transition and avoid any disruption to service before replacement primary legislation comes into force. The provisions we are discussing today will be repealed once this new primary legislation is in force.
I turn to address a provision at Section 43 which relates to statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland. Section 43 is extended by this statutory instrument for a period of six months. This enables statutory sick pay to be paid from day one in Northern Ireland for absences relating to Covid-19. While statutory sick pay is ordinarily a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, Section 43 confers on the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in respect of this provision. In this provision, the UK Government are facilitating the extension of Section 43 on the formal request of the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland.
I take the opportunity today on behalf of the Government to note an addendum in the 12th two-monthly report of the Act, which was published on 24 March. This addendum addresses omission of status updates for two temporary provisions in previous reports. These are Sections 42 and 43 that relate to statutory sick pay and extend to Northern Ireland only. On behalf of the Government, I apologise for this omission and welcome the opportunity to correct it. The addendum provides information about the status of these provisions over the course of the pandemic. I have made inquiry of the Bill team about the way in which this addendum is promulgated and I am told that it together with an accompanying apology is placed in prominent view in the report.
I reassure the Committee and the House in general on behalf of the Government that the reporting omission has not impacted the policy relating to these provisions. The addendum provides information about the status of these provisions over the course of the pandemic.
On behalf of the Government, I thank all front-line workers and those working in our courts, tribunals and coroner services for the sterling work they have done to keep the system running.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. It is fairly technical in the sense that it is a six-month extension of the current emergency provisions —starting from 25 March—to cover the coming into effect and Royal Assent for the two Bills which the Minister mentioned. In that spirit, we do not oppose this statutory instrument.
The Minister set out the importance of this emergency legislation in dealing with the situation we were in during the pandemic. I remind the Committee that I sit as a magistrate in the adult, youth and family jurisdictions, and have sat in a lot of these courts over that two-year period. I have been active in the two Bills the Minister mentioned, in trying to take the best of that experience and use it in continuing to work with an overburdened court system. I accept the points that he made that we are dealing with 10,000 hearings a week that have some form of remote technology in them and that we should do what we can to do hearings remotely, because it frees up court rooms to try to address the backlog.
Understandably, given the nature of this statutory instrument, the Minister did not address the BBC’s headline news today about the continuing and worsening backlogs for sexual offences. I was just looking up the statistics while waiting for this debate and the figures are getting worse: the average case length for sexual offences is 266 days—nine months waiting for suitable cases to come to court. This is getting worse, so I ask the Minister what the nature of the bottleneck is. Is it, as the criminal barristers are saying, that the number of criminal barristers has fallen over recent years? Is it because the number of judges’ sitting days has reduced? Or is it, as I have also heard, that there is a difficulty and a bottleneck in recruiting a sufficient number of judges to deal with these backlogs, that of sexual offences in particular? The Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made the point in previous debates that the lack of availability is not of courts as such but of appropriate judges. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is still the case.
The Minister talked about Section 43 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and statutory sick pay provision in Northern Ireland. I noted the correction that he highlighted, which I am happy to take as read; I do not want to go into that any further.
As I opened, we support this statutory instrument. It is a technical measure as provisions within other Bills come into place. Nevertheless, I think the Minister should say something about the seriously bad figures that were produced in BBC programmes and made headline news today.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution and the spirit in which he framed his remarks, acknowledging the justification for this measure to extend the powers brought in under the peculiar and unique circumstances of Covid and the value that they had. As always with the noble Lord, he speaks from a position of expertise and experience of the value of such measures from his position as a magistrate—or, rather, his position as a magistrate informs his remarks.
The noble Lord posed a question on the figures. He sought an answer on the bottleneck and advanced a number of potential causes for it. I can tell the Committee something of the scale of the investment that the Government are making in the criminal justice system over the next three years. The sum of £477 million is to be invested in the system overall, which will allow us to reduce the Crown Court backlog to an estimated 53,000 by March 2025.
To provide additional capacity in the Crown Court, we are extending the sentencing powers in the magistrates’ courts from six to 12 months’ imprisonment for a single triable-either-way offence to allow more cases to be heard at that level in the magistrates’ court and drive down the backlog of cases over the coming years.
The figures we have indicate that these measures are already having a beneficial effect in that the case load in the Crown Court reduced from around 61,000 cases in June 2021 to around 58,500 at the end of February 2022. As a result, we expect to get through 20% more Crown Court cases this financial year than we did pre-Covid. The figures would be 117,000 in 2022-23, compared to 97,000 in 2019-20.
Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the instrument before the Committee today to extend the licensing hours in recognition of Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. I am asking the Committee to support the instrument to extend licensing hours on Thursday 2 June, Friday 3 June and Saturday 4 June. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of
“exceptional international, national or local significance”.
The Government consider the Platinum Jubilee to be such an occasion. This will be a period in which we celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s incredible service and remarkable dedication, and many people will want to gather with their family and friends and raise a glass to mark this historic milestone.
The extension will apply to premises licences and club premises certificates in England and Wales, which license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. These premises will be allowed to remain open until 1 am without having to notify the licensing authority and police via a temporary event notice, as would usually be the case. Premises that are licensed to provide regulated entertainment will be able to do so until 1 am on the nights covered by the order, even where those premises are not licensed to sell alcohol. This includes, for example, venues holding musical events or dances as well as theatres and cinemas.
The order does not extend to premises which sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets. Premises which provide late-night refreshment, which is the supply of hot food or hot drinks to the public, between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am, but do not sell alcohol for consumption on the premises will not be covered by the order; such premises will only be able to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am if their existing licence already permits this.
The Home Office conducted a public consultation, which ran for a month and concluded on 26 January this year. The majority of respondents agreed with the extension for the three-day period and that it should apply to England and Wales. The consultation also received responses from numerous trade organisations, which were supportive of the extension of licensing hours. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Local Government Association and the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers were all in agreement with the proposed extension to licensing hours for Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
I am sure the Committee will support this order to help celebrate a special and historic moment in our national history. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the order, which I entirely endorse. It recognises and reflects that there is a willingness, as we come out of the pandemic, to celebrate such an auspicious occasion. It has been a particularly tough time for the hospitality sector over the last two years or so.
I refer briefly to my chairmanship of PASS, the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, where I work closely with the hospitality sector. Not having to pay the TEN fee, as referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, will be very welcome in saving not just the fee but the time that would have had to be spent.
I have one hesitation. I am sure my noble friend will be aware of the agent of change issues that have been flagged up. She will be aware that we are just concluding a follow-up report to our previous Select Committee inquiry on the Licensing Act 2003. I am not yet at liberty to say what our recommendations will be because we have not yet concluded that, but there is an issue where there may have been a recent application for an outlet in the hospitality sector to open its doors in an area that has previously been primarily residential. Is that something that both the Government and those acquiescing to these licences will be mindful of, given that it will be, as my noble friend said, a four-day bank holiday? That is my only reservation. Otherwise, I entirely endorse the order.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. If ever there was an occasion of exceptional national significance, surely it must be Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. Therefore, we are generally supportive.
However, my concern is over the fact that the Government listened to the consultation that was run and, according to what they have published:
“Out of the 74 respondents, 58 agreed that the extension should only apply to on sales”,
not to off-sales. As a consequence, this instrument does not apply to off-sales.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My concern is Section 11 of the Business and Planning Act 2020, which allowed on-licence premises to sell alcohol as an off-licence for a period of time, because of the Covid pandemic. That included sales in open containers and alcohol for delivery to residential or work premises. Effectively, on-licence premises could act as off-licences. The ability of on-licence premises to act as off-licences does not cease until 30 September. That is my understanding of the legislation.
As I said, of the 74 respondents, 58 agreed that the extension should apply only to on-sales, presumably because they were concerned about disorder in the streets if people were allowed to buy alcohol in off-licence premises and take it away, rather than consume alcohol in regulated on-licence premises. Therefore, there is a flaw in the instrument, in that the concern about increased alcohol-related crime and disorder as a result of the extension being applied to off-licence premises has not taken into account that all on-licence premises are, until 30 September this year, able to act as off-licence premises. What does the Minister have to say about that?
Other than that concern, I hope that people will celebrate in a manner fitting with the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we in the Labour Party also support this statutory instrument and wish the Queen a happy birthday. I hope that the country enjoys a weekend to celebrate this happy occasion.
This is a usual extension of licensing hours, if I can put it like that, for royal events and major sporting events. For example, we did this for the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, for that of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.
We have heard about the consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was kind enough to mention his concern before today’s debate, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the point he raised. It is a fair question.
Finally, my question to the Minister is this: does she propose raising a glass until 1 am, as a fitting tribute to mark the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. On that very tricky question, I might raise a glass beyond 1 o’clock, but in my own home. I am very much looking forward to the weekend, as I am sure all noble Lords are, and I am reassured by the general consensus.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we gave careful consideration to the responses that raised concerns about the potential for a rise in crime and disorder as a result of the extension, and any impact on public resources, including policing requirements. As I said, the National Police Chiefs’ Council raised no concern about the proposed extension. The police have been given early notice of the Government’s plans and have a range of mitigating actions available to them to prevent and to deal with any isolated problems, should they arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, drew attention to previous extensions: namely, for the royal wedding, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and Her 90th birthday in 2016. We are not aware of any increased crime or disorder during those occasions. The SI itself specifically excludes sale for consumption off the premises. It is for a short duration, and many people will want to celebrate the Platinum Jubilee together in their local pub. Pubs may also wish to put on special celebrations for the occasion.
I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the potential boost to trade is very welcome, given the financial pressures that businesses have been under. She also pointed out the cost saving of £21 for a temporary event notice. I am very much looking forward to reading the agent of change report that she referred to, and we will comment on it in due course.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about off-sales for the coronavirus period interacting with this, this is purely for premises licences which establishments have in ordinary times, but I have asked those in the Box behind me what this will mean for off-sales, so I shall get back to him on that. In the meantime, I beg to move, and God save the Queen.
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Relevant documents: 29th and 34th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before the Committee today meet a commitment made by the Prime Minister in the 2020 policy statement Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Walking and Cycling to give local authorities outside London powers conferred in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to enforce contraventions of moving traffic restrictions. These powers are being commenced to coincide with these regulations, which are due to come into force on 31 May. The regulations before the Committee today form part of a package: an affirmative statutory instrument and a negative one. I shall refer to the former as the appeals regulations, and it is these are being considered by the Committee today.
The appeals regulations consolidate the rights of representation and appeal which have been in place England-wide since 2007 for vehicle owners who are or may be liable to pay penalty charge notices—PCNs—in respect of parking contraventions. They also extend those rights to disputed bus lane and moving traffic PCNs outside London. However, noble Lords should also note the negative procedure instrument: the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022. This instrument includes wider provisions for evidence, penalty charge notices, adjudication, penalty charge levels, and income and expenditure.
This regulatory package, introduced under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, consolidates existing legislation. At the same time, it makes powers available to local authorities outside London to issue PCNs for contraventions of safety-critical moving traffic restrictions, such as no entry, banned turns and unlawful entry into box junctions. From now on, local authorities wanting to undertake moving traffic enforcement may apply for formal designation of these powers to enable enforcement to begin in practice by using CCTV cameras that have been certified by the Secretary of State. We plan to lay an order designating the first group of LAs as soon as practicable and will lay further orders as demand dictates.
When using these powers, local authorities have a duty to act fairly. These regulations therefore make provisions entitling drivers who are or may be liable to pay penalty charges for contravening certain traffic restrictions, including the moving traffic restrictions, to make representations to the enforcement authority and, if their case is rejected, to appeal to an independent adjudicator against the penalty charge. The regulations prescribe the information that must be given when a penalty charge is imposed about the right to make representations or appeal against that charge. The regulations also prescribe time limits for each stage of these processes, within which both the motorist and the local authority must respond, and create an offence of knowingly or recklessly making false representations under these regulations or in connection with an appeal.
I assure noble Lords that these regulations merely extend long-established provisions for motorists wishing to dispute parking penalties to the forthcoming civil enforcement regime for moving traffic contraventions. To create parity across the board outside London, we have also used this opportunity to repeal the bus lane enforcement regime, in place since 2005 under the Transport Act 2000, to create a single enforcement regime under the 2004 Act; that includes bus lane enforcement. It was always envisaged that this would happen soon after the 2004 Act was introduced.
By doing so, we have removed some of the inconsistencies in the legislation. Motorists challenging bus lane penalties will therefore benefit from representations and appeals provisions not previously available to them. These will apply to all contraventions. For example, they can challenge a penalty charge on the grounds of “procedural impropriety”. There will also be an express duty on local authorities to consider any “compelling reasons” that the motorist gives for the cancellation of the charge; express powers for adjudicators to refer cases back to the local authority where there are no grounds to allow the appeal but the adjudicator considers that the authority should reconsider whether the appellant should pay all or some of the penalty; and a requirement for the authority to respond to representations within 56 calendar days.
Bringing bus lane powers under the 2004 Act also has an allied benefit, in that it enables Ministers to publish for local authorities, for the first time, statutory guidance to cover all contraventions to which local authorities must have regard. This will simplify the system for the local authority so that it does not have lots of different types of enforcement considerations when it plans how to operationalise them.
However, I am clear that civil enforcement of moving traffic contraventions—or, indeed, of any traffic contraventions —should be a last resort. If contraventions are preventable through other means, such as improvements to road layout or traffic signing, I expect this to be done before enforcement is considered. We will issue statutory guidance to ensure that local authorities use these powers correctly.
Before enforcement can begin in practice, local authorities must apply to the department for an order by means of a letter to the Secretary of State. To ensure due diligence, designation of a local authority will be conditional on them having already consulted local residents and businesses on where existing restrictions have been earmarked for enforcement, and due consideration must have been given to any legitimate concerns.
Local authorities will also be expected to issue warning notices for first-time moving traffic contraventions at each camera location for six months following enforcement going live. This will apply to any new camera location in the future. These requirements will be enshrined in the statutory guidance to ensure that enforcement is targeted only at problem sites, that road users clearly understand the new powers and that enforcement is carried out fairly.
I stress that traffic enforcement must be aimed at increasing compliance and not raising revenue. Local authorities will not have a free hand in how any resulting surplus is used, which will be strictly ring-fenced for covering enforcement costs or specified local authority funded local transport schemes or environmental measures. Neither will local authorities have a free hand in setting penalty charge levels for moving traffic contraventions, as these are banded and set out in the regulations in line with existing penalties for higher-level parking contraventions. As moving traffic and bus lane contraventions are of a type, we are increasing bus lane penalties by £10 to align with contraventions of moving traffic and higher-level parking contraventions —for example, parking in a disabled bay.
These regulations support the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions and play a key role in reducing congestion, with consequent benefits to air quality and to well-being. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have just two brief points to make. I thank and congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the regulations this afternoon. First, I understand that there was a delay and that the statutory instruments had to be withdrawn and re-laid. I would very much like to understand why that was the case and have an assurance that that will not happen with future SIs.
My second concern relates to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 29th report, dated 10 February 2022. At paragraph 40 it says:
“To free up police officers’ time, these Regulations extend the range of offences that can be dealt with by civil enforcement officers acting on behalf of local authorities, or in some cases traffic cameras.”
I would like to understand from which budget the civil enforcement officers will be taking on this work. I am mindful of the extent to which local authorities’ budgets are under severe pressure at this time.
Who will be responsible for the traffic cameras? In north Yorkshire and County Durham we have very few fixed cameras; the traffic cameras are mostly mobile. When I was an MP in north Yorkshire, I was informed, on the quiet, that in many instances there is no film in static cameras in north Yorkshire—they are just there to alarm people, in the hope that their behaviour will be reformed because they see a traffic camera in front of them. Are we relying on mobile traffic cameras, which are still the province of the police, or are there some other traffic cameras of which I am not aware?
With those few remarks, I wish the SI good speed.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, on this side we very much support these measures; it would be odd if we did not, as my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has been arguing for this move for pretty much as long as I have been in the House, which is over 20 years now. Civil enforcement of moving traffic offences is, as he has argued, really important in improving the flow of traffic generally and particularly for buses. Bringing the rest of England in line with London is a welcome step. I also agree with the Government that we need better enforcement for safety reasons for cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings, and so on.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bring forward these regulations, which I welcome. They will extend the rights of representations and appeals in parking, bus lane and moving traffic cases. I will not seek to detain the Committee for long, given that there is broad consensus on the basic principles. However, I welcome any details as to why it has taken so long to introduce these changes, given that they relate to a policy statement from two years ago.
A colleague was going to be doing this debate today so I came against the regulations only at 11.30 am. My understanding is that this is really a package made up of a commencement order that has no parliamentary procedures, a negative order that nobody has prayed against—so it will go through—and this measured affirmative order, or whatever the right term is. I hope that these regulations do a simple, uniform thing and bring the powers and appeal rights in England and Wales into a uniform piece of legislation. There are lots of nods but I would like to hear the Minister say yes to that because it would simplify how one thinks about this.
I wonder whether the Minister can offer a timeline for what flows from this package. I recognise that she may have done that in her speech but the impressive speed of her delivery was beyond my comprehension in places; I am not suggesting that she was not right and accurate, so I apologise for that. The reason I would like to see a timeline is because, as the Minister knows, the commencement of this order depends on the commencement of the negative order but I do not know when that is proposed to be. It would be useful to have on record when that will happen and when the consultation on the guidance will complete. I got the impression that the guidance might be published on the same day as the commencement. That would be unfortunate but it goes to the general issue of how motorists will know about both the offences and their appeal rights at the same time. I think the Minister said a little about how motorists will know about the offences, but knowledge about their appeal rights seems equally important.
The Committee hopes that these regulations will contribute to making the system of road traffic contraventions fairer and more effective. On broader road traffic issues, the Minister will be aware that the Government recently published an updated private parking code of practice, which caps fines at £80 in London and £50 elsewhere. Welcome as that is, unfortunately, the new code will not come into force fully until 2024. In the meantime, many parking firms are charging more than those caps permit. Does the Minister believe it is right that they are able to charge extortionate amounts before the new code of practice fully comes into force?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank noble Lords for contributing to this short debate. I apologise at the outset for my speed of delivery. I must slow down; I will slow down. I promise the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that, next time I give an opening speech, I will slow down, enunciate and break for breath every now and again.
Some important points have been raised, which I hope to cover. I will write, of course, because I suspect that I will not be able to answer a couple of things in full. I am grateful for the broad welcome for these regulations. I accept that they have been a long time coming, particularly given that the Traffic Management Act was enacted in 2004. Then there was the issue of commencing Part 6. The delay in commencing that part and in putting these regulations before the Committee is partly down to the pressures of the pandemic; it has been a little busy in the Department for Transport. We wanted to get this right, recognising that it will be up to local authorities to put this into operation. They, too, have been suffering from a lack of time and resources during the pandemic.
We did crack on with it when we felt that things looked a little more positive but we had an issue with the JCSI, which was alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. An error was discovered in the affirmative SI, which meant that we withdrew it and then re-laid it with the error resolved. It did not have an impact on the date of its coming into force, so it did not have an impact on the whole process of what was going to happen, but we are grateful to the JCSI for its work on finding the error because it would have been unforgivable for that to have got on to the statute book.
On the issues relating to the JCSI vires, I might write with a little more detail, perhaps to explain why we slightly differ from the JCSI and how we propose to respond to it. I believe that we will make some changes at the earliest opportunity; potentially, there is an opportunity to make a change in the first designation order, which will come soon.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh on resources, cameras and the gubbins that will have to be in place to operationalise these regulations, we know that some places have already put them in place. We know that London already does it but, let us face it, London is not really like everywhere else. But one might look at Cardiff. For example, in Wales, the Welsh Government commenced the Part 6 powers back in 2013 and, to date, Cardiff City Council and Carmarthenshire have acquired the designation of those powers. In Cardiff, we have a little bit of visibility about how they did it, how much it cost them and what the impact was on their budgets. The council’s latest Annual Park and Traffic Enforcement Report for 2018-19 confirms the following. For the first full year of enforcement, which was actually 2016-17—it is a little while ago, but that was its first full year, and it is the most up to date that we have—it ended up with a combined income of around £3.4 million and a total expenditure of £5.6 million, including parking. We estimate that it probably spent around £3.7 million on bus lane and moving traffic enforcement. So that was a deficit of about £0.3 million. We would expect that, in most circumstances, after the first year when things have settled down, you would end up with a surplus. As I explained in my opening remarks, that surplus can be used only on very specific things.
There is also the issue to consider, if a local authority is putting something in place, that we have said that within the first six months there will be warning notices rather than fines to be paid for any individual attracting a contravention at a particular camera. So that will reduce the income. It is also worth recognising that many of the set-up costs will be one-off costs. There will be ongoing maintenance costs for the CCTV, but they will usually be one-off costs, which can be met more than over just the first year. On the flip side, we know that costs will be mitigated somewhat by the slight increase to the bus lane penalties.
In general, in our new burdens assessment, we suggested that there was no additional burden to local authorities by implementing these regulations, and the Local Government Association did not object to the new burdens assessment. So I think either it will work out cost neutral or there will be a surplus which, as discussed, will be used only for certain areas. I take the point about some sites being very non-compliant and therefore attracting large numbers of fines. Of course, we will make it clear in the guidance how local authorities should deal with those sites. We want the cameras to be in problem sites but, clearly, there will be areas where they can improve their highways layout or, indeed, their traffic signage to make people understand exactly what has happened.
To go back to my noble friend’s question about cameras, those that are used for moving traffic contraventions must be certified by the Vehicle Certification Agency. We have very specific cameras that are certified by the VCA, and we certify cameras at no charge to the LA—the department bears the cost. We have a specific fund from which we draw down. But it is local authorities that are responsible for paying for the cameras and then putting them in place, so it is up to them.
That slightly leads on to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The guidance that we will complete will set out all sorts of things in relation to operating these regulations appropriately. I have mentioned those areas where there is lots of contravention. We have worked closely with the sector on the development of the detailed statutory guidance. We have had input from a wide range of stakeholders, including the motoring groups—the RAC and the AA have been very involved—and local government: the Local Government Association and local councils. We have also been in touch with and talked to active travel groups, including Sustrans, British Cycling and Living Streets, as well as the British Parking Association and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Clearly, we have to get this guidance right. We need to make sure we have the right level of enforcement and in the right places.
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the threat that economic crime poses to the UK and to our international partners, and are committed to combatting money laundering and terrorist financing.
Illicit finance causes significant social and economic costs through its links to serious and organised crime. It is a threat to our national security, and it risks damaging our international reputation as a fair and open rules-based economy. It also undermines the integrity and stability of our financial sector and can reduce opportunities for legitimate businesses in the UK.
That is why we are taking significant action to combat economic crime, including legislating for the economic crime levy and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, and progressing the Government’s landmark economic crime plan. We are also working closely with the private sector and our international partners to improve the investigation of economic crime, strengthen international standards on corporate transparency and crack down on illicit financial flows.
The money laundering regulations support our overall efforts. As the UK’s core legislative framework for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing, they set out various measures that businesses must take to protect the UK from illicit financial flows. Under the regulations, businesses are required to conduct enhanced checks on business relationships and transactions with high-risk third countries. These are countries that are identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing regimes that could pose a significant threat to the UK’s financial system.
This statutory instrument amends the money laundering regulations to update the UK’s list of high-risk third countries by adding the United Arab Emirates and removing Zimbabwe from the list. This is to mirror lists published by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard setter for anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing. As the Financial Action Task Force carries out its periodic reviews and regularly updates its public lists of jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies, we also need to update our own. Updating our list shows that we are responsive to the latest economic crime threats and ensures that the UK remains at the forefront of global standards on anti-money laundering and terrorist financing.
This amendment will enable the money laundering regulations to continue to work as effectively as possible to protect the UK financial system. It is crucial for protecting UK businesses and the financial system from money launderers and terrorist financiers. I therefore hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support these measures. My noble friend Lady Kramer has been suffering from Covid, as, regrettably, are so many colleagues. She would ordinarily have been here, and I wish her the best and a speedy recovery and return as soon as possible. I spoke to the previous set of measures involving a change to the list when the orders were brought to remove Botswana, Ghana and Mauritius, and I took the opportunity to ask the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, questions about how robust our internal systems were with regard to organised financial crime and the interaction between drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorist activities.
At the time, I also asked when we were likely to get the register of beneficial ownership. It shows how fast time flies, as he is no longer the designated Minister for financial crime and we have moved ahead in so many of these areas. We may well do, but I should be interested to know whether, after the more recent changes in government, we have a Minister with a designated portfolio who has taken over from the noble Lord on money laundering and financial crime. I know it is normal practice that these instruments and schedules are signed off by Government Whips rather than Ministers—the previous ones were too—but I should be grateful to know how that is structured in government.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. If she will tolerate me asking a number of questions, I would like to do so because these measures make changes with regards to individual countries and are also a policy change. Apparently, the Government will now automatically use an external set of decision-making for the classification of countries in the grey category by the FATF, the Financial Action Task Force. We have also been told repeatedly that we are moving away from the European Union’s approach, in which we would take the Commission’s view, so that we have the freedom to set our own approach. However, it seems as if one of our very first acts in having that new freedom is to give it away to another organisation for it to make some decisions on our behalf. I would be interested to know the rationale for that. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government simply say that, because we are aligned to the FATF, it makes sense for us to copy it for efficiency purposes. However, we were previously aligned to our European colleagues; I am not really sure what has changed.
One consequence of this, of course, is the change of countries. In particular, there is a difference in Zimbabwe because, as has been stated, it has been removed. I would be interested to know what the Government’s representations are, or what the position of UK Ministers is, in the FATF. I understand that it met at a ministerial level last week; I was in Washington while that was taking place. Given that there is Russian investment in Zimbabwe, particularly in mining, and given our interaction with Russia in terms of our sanctions, I am interested to know why decisions have been made with regards to Zimbabwe that may have a negative effect on our reducing the possibility of money laundering—especially when it comes to those who are investing in mineral extraction in these countries—and on trading. I would hate to think that one of the first actions of this measure was to create potential loopholes for Russia.
In that regard, there are new countries on the list. I support that but I see that, for Haiti, Mali, Malta, the Philippines, South Sudan, Turkey and the UAE, there is a difference of approach. In a previous debate on our sanctions regime, I singled out a mercenary group that is under the pay of the Kremlin: the Wagner Group. I have seen it at first hand, on a visit to Khartoum. I know that it is active in Mali, Chad and the Central African Republic, but it also operates in other countries. I am on the record as asking for the process to be started to proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation. It would then be under the proscription legislation and would come within this legislation. With Mali being a high-risk third country, I would be interested to know how that interacts with our work in seeking to reduce the scope of the mercenary operations from Russia. I hope that there are no gaps between the way we would operate under this approach and the FATF and our sanctions legislation. The destabilising work of that group in particular needs to be stopped; the UK can play a significant role in that.
With regard to the UAE, I am interested in the lack of information I have seen from the DIT on GOV.UK to inform those operating in our 19th-largest market that this measure is now in place. I understand that there will obviously be a lag in information when legislation has been put in place, but this had been signalled a fair bit in advance. I have seen plenty of government promotional material highlighting the £10 billion UK investment partnership with the UAE sovereign wealth fund, but there is a lack of information stating that the UAE is now in an at-risk category as far as doing trade in that area is concerned.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these latest updates to the list of high-risk countries. She will know that we fully support mirroring the list produced by the Financial Action Task Force—the FATF—so we will not oppose these regulations remaining on the statute book beyond the 28-day scrutiny period. As has been outlined, the latest iteration of the FATF list sees the removal of Zimbabwe and the addition of the United Arab Emirates.
I wonder whether the Minister can provide a little more information on the FATF’s rationale for these changes. Although Zimbabwe is no longer listed in the schedule, can she confirm whether the UK has decided to maintain any specific enhanced measures relating to that country? If she is unable to provide these updates today, can she commit to writing and placing a copy of the correspondence in the Library?
The last time this list of high-risk countries was debated, in November 2021, there was much debate around the absence of both Afghanistan and Russia. Is the Minister able to provide any update on the situation regarding Afghanistan, including any steps taken by the UK outside the FATF framework? Just because there have been other geopolitical developments in recent times, we must not forget that Afghanistan continues to undergo significant social and economic change. Much of that is unrelated to this policy framework but some of it may be. Clearly, the events in Afghanistan do not currently meet the FATF’s threshold for the country to be included on this list. However, it would be comforting to know whether and how the UK is keeping these matters under review.
Turning to Russia, the conflict in Ukraine has altered the picture significantly. In response to the actions of Vladimir Putin, the UK Government and other nations have sanctioned a variety of Russian businesses and individuals. The Labour Party has supported this and will continue to do so. Sanctions may act as a brake on Russian money-laundering operations for the time being but can the Minister confirm how such matters will be factored into the eventual winding down of sanctions? We must not return to business as usual.
We all know that the UK has a reputation as a destination for dirty Russian money. After sustained pressure to act, the Government recently brought forward a limited economic crime Bill. That legislation facilitated the creation of a register of overseas entities but it is no secret that it will take time for such a register to be operational. Once it is, it will be a useful tool, but it is no silver bullet. Can the Minister provide any update on the implementation of that register?
The Government committed to a progress report to Parliament within eight weeks of Royal Assent. We have not quite reached that date but we are only a couple of weeks short and mere days away from Prorogation. I would hope that the Treasury and others have made great strides, but have any of the enabling regulations yet been laid? Can the Minister comment on what has become known as the economic crime Bill part II, which has been promised early in the new parliamentary Session? I know that the Government normally resist pre-empting the contents of Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. However, we know that this Bill is coming, and it is vital to get that follow-up legislation right if we are truly to crack down on the illicit acts that the FATF was established to tackle.
I appreciate that these questions go slightly beyond the contents of this particular SI but I am sure that the Minister will agree they deserve to be asked. I look forward to her reply and to the House playing a constructive role in these matters in the months ahead.
I would like to bring up one or two issues that are related not particularly to the SI but to the Explanatory Memorandum. In the past, I have found the very last part of the memorandum, labelled “Contact”, a useful device when I was having trouble understanding SIs. The contact on this occasion is Stephanie, who has a surname that I fail to be able to pronounce; I hope she will forgive me for not doing so. She is at HM Treasury and
“can be contacted with any queries regarding the instrument.”
The ability to contact a relevant civil servant has been really helpful to me in the past but, on this occasion, there is neither a contact telephone number nor an email address. I put to the Minister that this is utterly unacceptable. It has crept into Treasury Explanatory Memorandums whereas many other departments—including the Department for Transport, which we previously had here today—have maintained the standard of a telephone number and an email address. I do not expect an answer now but I would like a written response.
The problem with reading paragraph 15.1 is that one is then tempted to read paragraph 15.2, which states:
“Emily Bayley, Deputy Director for Sanctions and Illicit Finance at HM Treasury can confirm that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.”
I am sure that this has appeared before but it is the first time my eyes have got this far through an Explanatory Memorandum. I have been campaigning for years to know what the standard for Explanatory Memorandums is, particularly in terms of the requirement I believe they should have that they can be understood by people other than those seeped in the detail of the subject. Can the Minister forward to me what the required standard is?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and join the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in wishing his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, all the best.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, started by asking about the change in approach from the UK Government to mirror the FATF’s list for high-risk countries after leaving the EU, rather than setting out our own list. The approach that the UK has taken, to align with the FATF, was first set out in an SI in April 2021. The reason for that approach is that the FATF is the international standard-setting and monitoring body for anti-money laundering, counterterrorist financing and counterproliferation financing. It has a detailed and extensive set of standards, which countries are monitored against using a transparent and rigorous peer-review mechanism.
By aligning the UK’s approach to the FATF, the UK is in line with international standards and the identification of countries is underpinned by the FATF’s consistent technical methodology and robust assessment processes. As a result, enhanced measures are implemented in a co-ordinated manner by the international community, thereby magnifying the preventive effect. I think that this approach to international standards is welcomed by noble Lords. However, it remains open to the UK to review and amend the list according to our own assessment of risks if necessary.
The noble Lord also referred to the EU’s procedures. The EU mostly follows the FATF, with some exemptions; it does not mirror it entirely. For example, EEA countries listed by the FATF are excluded from the EU’s list. Also, changes to the EU list happen less frequently than to the UK list, meaning that it is not reflective of geographic changes in risk profiles. That was an issue repeatedly raised by regulated entities in the UK when the EU list had legal effect in the UK. None the less, we will continue to work closely with European countries and the European Union on countering shared money laundering and terrorist financing risks to ensure a co-ordinated and targeted response.
The noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Tunnicliffe, both asked further questions as to why the FATF has added the UAE and removed Zimbabwe from its list. The FATF mutual evaluation of the UAE, adopted in February 2020, found significant deficiencies in the UAE’s illicit finance regime, with 10 of 11 measures of effectiveness rated low or moderate. As a result, the FATF placed the UAE under enhanced scrutiny. At the March 2022 FATF plenary, the FATF concluded that the UAE should be added to its list of jurisdictions, with significant weaknesses in its regimes for countering illicit finance. The UAE has expressed its high-level political commitment to making further reforms in a number of areas to exit the FATF list. Zimbabwe, following its evaluation in 2016, underwent a process of enhanced monitoring, similar to that of the UAE, but has now completed its FATF action plan to address the key deficiencies that had been identified in its anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regime back in 2016. Therefore, the FATF decided to remove Zimbabwe from its list.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked how the Government have informed those who may be affected by the changes to the list and, in particular, by the addition of the UAE to it. Her Majesty’s Treasury engaged with the sector ahead of adding the UAE to the list and published an advisory notice ahead of the change being made. Supervisors are also in communication with the regulated sector about the update to this list.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister is being very thorough in responding, and I am grateful. Could she write to me in answer to my next question? I do not expect her to reply now. It has been helpful for her to outline the FATF’s position on the UAE, but it is worrying if 10 out of the 11 are within this area of concern. Does the UK sovereign investment partnership with the UAE include elements seeking that the UAE makes progress on the areas that have been highlighted? It is worrying if a partnership investment worth £10 billion does not have within it mechanisms to make progress on areas where we have inserted that country into a high-risk category while having financial investment relationships with that very entity. The Minister does not have to answer that now if she does not want to. I do not expect to her to answer it now, but I shall be very happy if she wishes to write to me.
Baroness Penn (Con)
What I can do now is talk about the UK’s role and influence at the FATF, which in turn works with countries on the lists that we are discussing, to improve their performance. The UK as a founding member plays a leading role through its place on the FATF’s steering group, and makes significant voluntary financial contributions to the FATF and its global network on core projects and through extensive involvement in the FATF assessment. So the UK is absolutely committed through that channel to improving countries’ performances. I shall write to the noble Lord on his specific point about the UK’s sovereign investment partnership. If he will forgive me, I will also write to him on the specific points he raised in relation to Mali and other specifics in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about an update on the situation in Afghanistan and how the UK is keeping these matters under review. The UK is absolutely keeping the evolving situation in Afghanistan under review, and we continue to work with public and private sector partners to maintain an up-to-date understanding of money laundering and terrorist financing risks in that country.
The noble Lord also asked about how the current deterrents of sanctions on money laundering from Russia will be factored into the eventual winding down of sanctions. In lockstep with our allies, we are introducing the largest and most severe economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced to help to cripple Putin’s war machine. These co-ordinated sanctions go broader, deeper and sharper in punishing the actions of Putin and the Russian Government. They are having an impact on Russia’s economy; Putin has acknowledged the problems and difficulties caused by sanctions. Current estimates are that two-thirds of the assets available to the Russian Government have been frozen, strangling access to funding for military aggression.
We are particularly starving Russia’s access to finance, with asset freezes on major banks including Russia’s largest bank and the removal of selected banks from SWIFT. We have sanctioned Russia’s largest banks with global assets worth £500 billion pre-invasion. Since the invasion, we have also sanctioned well over 1,400 high-value individuals, entities and subsidiaries. However, we are not complacent and will continue to revise and reform our response to illicit finance to ensure that, as illicit finance threats evolve, our response does too. As the noble Lord noted, we brought forward the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act and we are preparing a wider economic crime Bill at pace. This is alongside a new kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to target sanctions evasion and corrupt Russian assets hidden in the UK. That means that oligarchs in London will have nowhere to hide.
As I just touched on, the noble Lord asked about the implementation of the measures in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, specifically on the overseas entities register. Since the legislation received Royal Assent, the Government have been working at pace to ensure the register is in place as soon as reasonably practicable. The Companies House digital designs team is making strong progress in building the register for operational readiness.
The noble Lord also asked about the planned economic crime Bill part two. We have published details of upcoming legislation, including fundamental reform of Companies House, enhanced information-sharing powers and new powers to seize crypto assets which are designed to clamp down on money laundering and illicit finance. We do not have long to wait for the Queen’s Speech at this stage, when I am sure more information will then be made available.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made a final point on Explanatory Memorandums. His point is well made that we often discuss quite technical matters in this Committee, sometimes at short notice, and therefore the Explanatory Memorandums are incredibly important to noble Lords. Of course, it was not the fault of the official named that their contact details were not there, and it is for Ministers to ultimately take responsibility for the information provided to Parliament. On the noble Lord’s specific question about the standards for Explanatory Memorandums, I will undertake to write to him if he permits me to. With that, I beg to move.
Deaths of Former Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the retired Member and former president of the European Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on 15 April. I also regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, on 6 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to both noble Members’ families and friends.
Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they still intend to sell the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre; and if so, what progress they have made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, VMIC is a private company and, as such, decisions regarding the future of the facility were made by the VMIC board of directors, not the Government. As Minister Freeman set out in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, Catalent announced that it had purchased the VMIC facility on 6 April. It plans to invest £120 million and envisages providing up to 400 additional jobs, which of course further strengthens the UK’s life science ecosystem.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, within days of my tabling the Question, I discovered that this jewel in the crown of our vaccine policy had been sold off to a major American pharmaceutical company for a great deal of money. The process was not made public. Can the Government assure me that taxpayers will get a benefit from the £200 million that they invested in this enterprise? What safeguards exist against the exploitation of the UK talent and workforce by a company run according to the profit-led motives of American pharmaceuticals?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry but a number of assumptions behind the noble Baroness’s question are wrong. First, this is a private company that sold off its facilities to a very successful US manufacturer that produced virtually all the Moderna vaccine, with great success. The vast majority of the vaccines that we have used and successfully deployed were also rolled out by private companies. All the employees who work there are being guaranteed their jobs, on the same terms and conditions, and indeed the facility will be expanded. She needs to rethink her questions on this.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think that everyone across the House agrees that we were ill prepared when this pandemic arrived, and planning for future pandemics is very important. The security and investment Bill was intended to secure private facilities that might be needed to secure the future of this country. Was that legislation applied, and was this sale evaluated by the unit in the Minister’s department? If not, why not?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course the legislation applies, as it does to all transactions that have taken place in this country since 1 January, so we would bear any appropriate security considerations in mind in any potential call-in. I obviously cannot comment on any particular circumstances, as the noble Lord will understand, but we are happy for this transaction to proceed.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Could the noble Lord explain whether we would be able to contain vaccines in this country from the centre in the event of us needing mass inoculation again?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The centre has not been completed —it is still under construction—so it has not produced any vaccines yet. Obviously whether it does so will be a matter for its new owners. But the Government have a wide range of emergency powers that we may need to deploy in the event of any future pandemic.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the sale of the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre has been described as akin to defunding fire brigades after they have extinguished a major blaze. Can the Minister tell us in detail what steps the Government have taken with the sale to ensure that this is not the case and that the UK remains well prepared for any future pandemics?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that this is indeed not the case. Her question is fundamentally misconstrued. The centre was originally set up a number of years ago to look at the development of vaccines for Ebola; it was a private company then and remains a private company now. It was grant-aided during the pandemic as a precautionary measure in case we needed additional facilities. All the facilities which delivered vaccines were also all delivered by private companies. I am not sure where the Opposition are going with this question. Of course, the facility remains in the UK. It will expand its production and another £120 million will be invested in the facility; it will be able to contribute to vaccine production in the future if we need it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government do this, can the Minister guarantee, first, that if there is a need for a mass vaccination programme, we will have the ability to do it? Secondly, can he guarantee that it will be in the same cost frame as we have seen recently? When compared with the Americans, it seems a very cost-effective way of delivering things.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, there are a number of other sites in the UK which also manufacture vaccines. If the Government need to procure vaccines for a future pandemic, I am sure that we will want to procure from this site, in addition to all the other sites which exist in the UK—all of which, I might add, are in private hands.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, in his response to my noble friend’s question, the Minister said that he could not give us any explanation of the process which had been followed for reasons which we would all understand. I did not understand why the Minister could not answer that question. I wonder if he could answer it now, as it seems to me that there are no reasons, in terms of commercial confidentiality, why he cannot answer that question.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The investment security unit looked at the transaction, as it does all transactions. Obviously, as the transaction has proceeded, we have decided not to intervene.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
The UK has an unfortunately long history of investing in research, developing products and then selling them and not getting the benefit of their extensive exploitation. Can the Minister say whether he thinks that there is any danger of that happening on this occasion? What efforts are the Government making to protect the research facilities which are, after all, the most remarkable thing about the way in which the vaccines were developed in the first place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This received grant funding—as did a number of other R&D facilities. The noble Baroness makes an important point that we need to ensure that R&D funding is used to develop and benefit companies, individuals and employees in this country. This is one of a number of different vaccine manufacturing facilities and, as I said, it is not yet operational. When the additional investment goes in, I hope that it will be operational in the future. It will offer the UK another excellent, world-leading production platform for vaccines.
English Football: Independent Regulator
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ravensdale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to introduce legislation to create an independent regulator for English football.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have endorsed the principle that football requires a strong independent regulator to secure the future of our national game. I am pleased to say that we will publish the government response later today, where we will set out plans to reform radically the governance of men’s football in England, accepting the 10 strategic recommendations of the fan-led review. Any legislation required to put an independent regulator on a statutory footing is of course subject to parliamentary time.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, as a supporter of Derby County Football Club, who as a team have shown tremendous spirit again adversity in the past months, I followed the fan-led review closely. Does the Minister accept that the time to legislate for an independent regulator is now, in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech? Further delays will add to the risk that the proposals will be watered down or simply not happen. What plans do the Government have to introduce a shadow regulator before legislation takes effect, which was also one of the key recommendations in the fan-led review?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Lord will know, the Government continue to engage closely with the English Football League about Derby County Football Club. Speaking so close to the gracious Speech, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not anticipate that, but the full government response to the fan-led review—which the Government commissioned —is published this afternoon. We have accepted all 10 of the strategic recommendations put forward by Tracey Crouch and the review. My honourable friend the Sports Minister will be setting out further detail in another place.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a supporter of Aston Villa, who beat Derby County to return to Premier League three years ago, I tell the House that the Premier League has accepted the need for reform of football. Can the Government therefore reassure the House that nothing will be implemented that could damage the global success of the Premier League and, in so doing, undermine the rest of the football pyramid?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. We want to make sure that those who generously invest in football are able to continue to do so, and to make sure that this investment flows right down the football pyramid so that it can be enjoyed by people, because football clubs are important to their local communities, as noble Lords know. We think that the owner and director test needs to be looked at, but we want to encourage investment across the whole of football.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that history demonstrates the need for tough regulation? I am slightly worried about the wording here, which refers to creating an “independent regulator”. We need something stronger.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the independence of the regulator is an important aspect of its work. The Government see the two key problems in English football as the significant risk of financial failure and the risk of harm to the cultural heritage of clubs. That is why we agree with the recommendations of the fan-led review and are setting out our details in another place.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, today’s announcement on football governance is of course a very welcome step forward. Fans, when you talk to us all, are demanding more than just consultation about club colours and stadiums. It is the day-to-day running and ownership of clubs that makes a difference to fans’ real involvement, as with their counterparts in Germany, for example. Therefore, can the Minister give assurance that this first step is not the last, and that fans will at long last have real input and a say in the running of their clubs in their communities? As already mentioned, can he explain why we need a White Paper or another consultation when Tracey Crouch has already consulted so widely? The last thing that football needs is more dilly-dallying and delays on this really important matter for fans and clubs.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the voices of fans need to be heard clearly. That is why this was a fan-led review and why we are grateful for all those who participated and gave their thoughts. The issues highlighted in the review are, in some areas, complex and the reforms need careful analysis to make sure that we get them right and safeguard the sustainable long-term future of the sector. My honourable friend the Sport Minister will set out further detail in another place.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that all professional sport has had problems? Community-based clubs representing us nationally in both forms of rugby, for example, have come under pressure and indeed collapsed or had to be reconstituted. Will the Government use this example as a way of making sure that all sports are better regulated? If they become successful, they become community assets, and all deserve to be looked after.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. There are lessons to be learned for other sports from the work that is being done here. The fan-led review had its origins in some of the challenges facing a number of football clubs, which is why the Government set it up. We are grateful to Tracey Crouch and to everyone for their thoughts. This review does have a wider application.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this government initiative. It is overdue. Will Ministers talk to people in Europe and around the world? Given the problems we have seen in recent years, the same regulation is needed for both the European and international game.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The focus of the fan-led review is on men’s football in England. This is where the Government’s response, which is being set out today, is focused. There is work to be done internationally. We are discussing this with the international bodies, as well as with those at home.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord’s ministerial colleagues will have heard the strength of feeling in this House about the need to legislate quickly and to include something in the Queen’s Speech. I understand that the Minister cannot give an answer now. I accept the very welcome commitment in the response published today, but what assurance can the Minister give that the excellent report by Tracey Crouch does not suffer the same fate as that of the Football Task Force, on which I served more than 20 years ago? Those recommendations were kicked into touch, in effect, by the Football Association and the Premier League. I urge the Minister not to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Austin. He certainly does not speak for fans on this matter; nor does he reflect the feeling in this House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord knows Tracey Crouch, the former Sport Minister, as well as I do. She has worked extremely hard in leading the review and is the greatest evidence that it will be followed through. She will see that action is taken. We are glad to accept all 10 strategic recommendations in her report.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, will the activities of the regulator be confined to football or might other sports be included; for example, cricket?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, at the end of March it was reported that DCMS had hired a New York consultancy firm, Oliver Wyman, to design the future independent regulator of English football. The department confirmed that but did not offer any further comment at the time. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on this contract today? Can he provide further information about, for example, the length of the contract, the terms of reference and its estimated value?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot give the noble Baroness all these details, not least because my honourable friend the Sport Minister is setting out further detail in another place. I shall be glad to write to the noble Baroness to follow up on all these points.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, the running of the football league includes Welsh clubs. Under the new auspices, what do the Government intend regarding, for example, Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham and Newport? In this sense the English football league is also the Welsh football league. Lastly, will the Minister use his considerable influence to persuade the Lords spiritual to pray hard for my own team, Everton FC? It is in trouble and may go down to a hotter place.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot speak for the Lords spiritual, but I know that their prayers will be ecumenically directed. The noble Lord makes an important point. As with the application of the review to other sports, there are lessons to be learned for football internationally and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We are discussing this with individual teams and with sports bodies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems with the Football League is that it never seems to have enough resources to conduct a proper fitness test on prospective owners and directors of football clubs? I realise that the Statement is yet to come. Is this issue being taken seriously enough to ensure that the regulator will have sufficient resources to do an effective job?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the current tests for owners and directors do not go far enough in assessing the suitability for ownership of clubs. My honourable friend will set out more detail, following the recommendations made in Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not anticipate what he will say.
Humanist Marriages
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice on 15 March (HCWS682) and the Written Answer on 24 March (142529), why they have legislated to permit religious and civil marriage ceremonies to take place outdoors, but not similarly legislated for humanist marriages.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, legislating to allow outdoor civil weddings on existing approved premises was a long-standing commitment, accelerated to respond to the highly exceptional circumstances created by the Covid-19 pandemic. Following public consultation, this was made permanent in April. Humanists seek fundamental changes to marriage law, which requires more detailed consideration. The Law Commission is reviewing the matter and is due to report in July. The Government are awaiting the results of that consultation before deciding how to proceed.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, it is very important to humanists that they marry in a place that is meaningful to them. Not only can Quakers, Jews, Church of England and Church of Wales couples have their own religious celebrant, they can marry wherever they want. In 2020 the High Court ruled that when the Law Commission has reported, the Government must carry out the High Court ruling to legally recognise humanist marriage. Can the Minister confirm that when the Government implement this ruling, humanists will join the groups able to marry in a location of their choice?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, at present in England and Wales, other groups—faith groups or secular people—cannot marry where they want: it is a matter of the venue, as opposed to the celebrant, and that, at present, restricts choice in that area. To establish where we go from here, we will, as I say, await the report of the Law Commission.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the judge in the High Court also ruled that
“the present law gives rise to … discrimination.”
For how much longer are the Government prepared to allow this apparent breach of the law without any guarantee that it will be resolved?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the High Court in its decision found that the Government were entitled to proceed by way of clarifying the law as it relates to all bodies, religious, secular or otherwise; albeit that there was a measure of discrimination against humanists, the Government’s course was appropriate.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, obviously we anticipate the advice of the Law Commission, but ultimately this is going to be a political decision made by the Government. Given the importance of humanism, in terms of both western civilisation and the British character, it would make enormous sense to end this rather silly discrimination and give humanists the right to get married in a ceremony and location of their choice.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the answer I gave to the previous question.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 made provision for the Government to introduce legal recognition of humanist marriages by statutory instrument—as Quakers and Jews already have, in fact, despite the Minister’s earlier answer. Later this year, I understand, the Government are likely to give legal recognition to outdoor religious marriages by changing primary legislation, a vastly more complex process. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss how this very simple objective can be achieved for humanist marriages without further delay, there already being nine years since the primary legislation was passed?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am perfectly happy to arrange that someone from the relevant department should meet the noble Baroness—as, indeed, my colleague in the other place, Tom Pursglove MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, has met representatives from Humanists UK, and Crispin Blunt MP. That took place on 24 March.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats clearly support this change; the Labour Party supports this change; the Government in Wales support this change; the Government in Scotland support this change; and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, it is ultimately going to be a political decision, so why are the Government waiting for the Law Commission’s report?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Because, my Lords, the question of marriage is a complex one and the Government do not wish to act prematurely where to do so may be to the prejudice of one group at the expense of others.
Baroness Featherstone
My Lords, will the Government give an estimate of the timescale for reform after the Law Commission has reported favourably?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, that would again be premature until we see what the Law Commission recommends.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what is it about the humanists that obstructs the Government from doing them justice? Scotland allows it; Northern Ireland allows it; the Channel Islands allow it. What is it about the humanists that means they are discriminated against in England and Wales? It is because they are not Christians?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, precisely not. The situation is that in Scotland the rules of marriage are, as I said in an answer to another question, based on the identity of the celebrant. In England and Wales, they are based on the venue where the wedding ceremony is to take place. That is a complex matter that will take time to unpick; it is not a matter of prejudice against one group—and specifically not a matter of their not being Christians.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, nothing the Minister has said so far explains why humanists should be denied the right to a legal marriage while other religious groups have that right. Please could he explain to the House why that is the case?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, humanists advance a position as a belief system, as opposed to the simple negation of religious faith. We are advised that establishing a further category of wedding based on a belief system would be a profound change to the laws that bear on weddings. As a result, we are obliged to wait until the Law Commission has reported.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests and ask the Minister a simple question: does he believe that the lack of legally recognised humanist marriages is unfair and discriminatory? If he does not agree that it is unfair and discriminatory, why not?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, if the question is directed to the department that I represent from the Dispatch Box today, there is no question of consideration of a belief that any such discrimination is unfair. If it is directed to me, I decline to answer.
On the former point, as I said in answer to previous questions, there is an outstanding Law Commission report. There is a High Court decision which considered that the Government were correct and acting appropriately in awaiting the position from which a more fundamental reform could be properly considered.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I feel for the Minister: he is struggling and I think he would just like to be able to say yes. The Minister is talking about a profound change. It is not a profound change for those of us with different beliefs who take marriage very seriously and want to be able to have our humanist views expressed. This is not profound; this is a human right. How about—just as with Covid, when outdoor marriages were allowed on an interim basis—we do this on an interim basis and then we can sort out the details after the Law Commission reports?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the Government consulted in 2014 on making provision for non-religious belief marriages, including a choice of location, using an order-making power. The consultation concluded that the matter raised a number of complex issues, including that by allowing humanists to solemnise marriages in unrestricted locations, the Government would create a provision for humanists that would not be available to all groups. Therefore, it was necessary to consider carefully the legal and technical requirements of marriage ceremonies before or at the same time as making a decision on whether to take forward the specific proposal to permit non-religious belief marriages. The loosening of restrictions on marriages taking place outdoors applied to venues within the existing provisions. Applying this to a humanist belief system could not be done within the existing framework; it would require innovation, which cannot be made.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I speak as a Christian, but my noble and learned friend seems to be making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill here. Surely, if two people wish to commit themselves for life to each other and do not have religious beliefs, they ought to have the opportunity to do so in a solemn and seemly way.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, they do. My noble friend refers to the conduct of marriage in a solemn and seemly way. That is, of course, available outdoors, whether in a religious or civil setting. What is called for by reforming the law towards humanist weddings is a profound difference from that. Civil or religious marriages conducted indoors or outdoors can be as seemly as my noble friend wishes.
Malaria
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle malaria globally; and what assessment they have made of the findings of the World Health Organization’s World Malaria Report 2021, published on 6 December 2021, in particular that after years of steady progress towards elimination, malaria cases and deaths are rising.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, declare my interest as chair of the charity Malaria No More UK.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I acknowledge and congratulate my noble friend on assuming the role of chair of Malaria No More UK, a charity we worked very closely with in the run-up to CHOGM in 2018. Turning to the specifics of the Question, the World Health Organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report notes that the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to an estimated 6% increase in malaria cases and a 12% increase in malaria deaths in 2020. The UK remains a very strong supporter of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, providing £4.1 billion to date. We also invest in research to help people to access new malaria treatments and diagnostics and support countries to strengthen their health systems.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, today is World Malaria Day. It is possible to end malaria within this generation, but we need continued UK leadership to do so, so I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. My noble friend mentioned the Global Fund; does he agree that it is one of the most effective and best value for money investments we can make with UK aid? This year will see the Global Fund replenishment. Can my noble friend give me any reassurance that the UK will make an ambitious pledge, as the United States has just done, to help get progress back on track?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the United Kingdom has invested £4.1 billion in the Global Fund to date and during the last replenishment. My noble friend is correct: the Global Fund’s investment case for the seventh replenishment has been presented to the Government. We are looking at this and reviewing our support in line with our published approaches to health systems and our commitment to strengthen work to end preventable deaths. We will announce our commitment in the near future.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, may I put the question in another way? In the last replenishment of the Global Fund, we were the third biggest contributor. We have been its founder and strongest supporter, and what we need now is an early and strong pledge to show leadership. Will the Minister confirm that “global Britain”—as the Government put it—will keep its leadership position in support of the Global Fund?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned our commitment and our support and leadership. Whether we are second or third, depending on which criteria are used, we remain very much committed to the Global Fund. As I said, I cannot pre-empt the announcement that we will make about the current replenishment because that decision is being finalised, but I can reassure the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that we remain very much committed to fighting malaria and to the Global Fund.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I was in Washington last week, and I met the US representative and board member of the Global Fund. She stressed to me very clearly that the Biden Administration’s earmark of $6 billion is part of the American approach of matching up to 30% as a percentage cap of the remainder of the contributions. So, if the UK cuts its support for the Global Fund, that will automatically cut American support, which would be devastating and a tragedy. The Americans have earmarked the funds—why can the British Government not state that they will not cut support for this crucial fund? It is over a number of years and the Government say they want to return to 0.7%, so why do they not make that announcement now?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord is tempting me to make a specific commitment, but as I said already, I cannot give a commitment in terms of the actual amount. I can again reassure the noble Lord that we are committed to the fund. I agree, as my noble friend has illustrated and the noble Lord knows well himself, on the real impact the Global Fund has had in tackling malaria. Regrettably and tragically, the Covid-19 pandemic has seen a rise in cases—though not to pre-pandemic levels. Frankly, there has been a real challenge, particularly looking at young children and pregnant mothers, with the rise of cases of malaria, and these are preventable deaths. That is why we remain committed to fighting malaria.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Minister is quite right to point out what has gone backwards during Covid in terms of malaria, but today there have been extremely promising results from the Jenner Institute in terms of the new R21 vaccine. Does the Minister agree with me that our investment in science is equally important and bore huge results in terms of Covid? Will the investment case for the Global Fund look at the possibilities of reversing that decline in progress through the new vaccine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, again, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work on this issue, but I share her commitment on the importance of the vaccine. She will be aware of recent trials that have taken place, including the World Health Organization’s approval of specific vaccines in key pilot countries. We are looking at that very closely. She is also right to point out the R21 vaccine being developed by the Jenner Institute in Oxford. As part of our focus on vaccines, I am also pleased that it now has an association with the Serum Institute to look at upscaling manufacturing of that vaccine once it has been tested. We are looking at working very closely with both those institutes.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, malaria deaths have risen year on year to the highest level in nearly a decade: 627,000 lives were lost to malaria in 2020. Could the Minister ensure that funding to the overseas aid budget is restored to 0.7% of GNI and that there is a successful seventh replenishment of the Global Fund? Could he indicate today when that announcement about the seventh replenishment will be made?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to make the point about the increases in deaths from malaria. We did see a real reduction from the estimated 896,000 to around 560,000 in 2015, but we have seen a rise in cases under Covid, so I accept that point. As I said earlier, I cannot give a commitment on the amount, but it will be during the course of this year, as we look to the deadline of the seventh replenishment, to ensure we make a sizeable contribution that reflects our continuing commitment to fighting malaria around the world.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not imperative that, at this year’s summit, Commonwealth countries renew the commitment that they gave in 2018 to reduce malaria by half?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister of State for the Commonwealth, I am working closely with our colleagues in Rwanda. Certainly, the United Kingdom was and is the biggest Commonwealth donor in fighting malaria, and we will be working closely with Rwanda to ensure this remains on the agenda for CHOGM in June.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord saw the encouraging report by Adrian Hill in the Times today about the vaccine trials. One of the things he said was that if the vaccine trial is successful, as it seems to be, it will cost a mere $3 per person to vaccinate the African population. That would require $600 million per year. Is the Minister aware of the cost of this scheme? Are the Government going to come forward with a response?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course right to point out the impact of malaria, particularly on Africa. Indeed, when you look at the statistics, they are very stark: 95% of cases and 96% of deaths from malaria are on the African continent. I have not read the specific article, but I am aware of the support and the issue of having effective costs. I think the real progress will be made through the World Health Organization and ensuring that vaccines are made available to all those who need them at a cost which is acceptable, reasonable and sensible for those who require them.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, in October 2021, the WHO recommended the first malaria vaccine for children living in areas of high to moderate risk of malaria. The demand for the RTS,S malaria vaccine is estimated to be far greater than supply over the next few years. What is the FCDO doing to speed up equitable access to the vaccine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The specific vaccine that the noble Baroness refers to, the RTS,S malaria vaccine, is one of those which has just gone through the World Health Organization’s approval process. This was based on trials in three countries, I believe: Ghana, Kenya and Malawi. Some 800,000 children received that vaccine. The conclusions of that—this is why it is important to continue research on the vaccines, which we are certainly committed to—is that the vaccine supply is limited and there are costs, as was pointed out just now by the noble Lord, to ensuring equitable access. The noble Baroness is right to point this out and, as I said earlier, we will work with the World Health Organization on equitable and fair access to the vaccines once they are scaled up. We should be encouraged that the Covid experience, through partnerships such as those with the Serum Institute, lends itself to a proper scaling up of the vaccines once those initial trials have been proven.
UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the UK-Rwanda asylum partnership arrangement was concluded by a Memorandum of Understanding and was not therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny requirements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda, which has now been published on GOV.UK, for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement and to address the shared challenge of illegal migration. The duty to lay before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 applies only to treaties. However, the safety, security and dignity of and respect for those relocated is assured through the agreement and will be subject to monitoring. We comply fully with our legal and international obligations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The agreement will not be a treaty and it will not be enforceable. Given that the deal would end the Government’s legal obligation to certain refugee claimants and therefore reduce their rights, surely such a significant international agreement should be disclosed, debated and agreed by Parliament. Why have the Government tried to slip this agreement out as a memorandum of understanding, hindering Parliament’s ability to scrutinise it adequately? Does the Minister accept that important MoUs such as this with Rwanda that affect human rights should be routinely disclosed and debated by Parliament under the terms of the Ponsonby rule?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships’ House does, there will be ample opportunity to discuss the aspects of this agreement. It complies with our international and other obligations. There will be ongoing monitoring of the agreement, and there is nothing in the United Nations refugee convention that prevents this happening.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does my noble friend confirm that, in the face of legal challenge, the Government have withdrawn their turnabout policies? Does this not suggest that the legal advice from the Home Office that the Rwanda policy accords with our international obligations should be treated with a degree of caution?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, this provision has been in place since 1999. I do not know if it has been challenged before, but it is certainly a long-standing provision that we think meets our international obligations.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Government have clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill to enable offshoring, which this House continues to oppose. If this legislation is necessary, why have the Government signed a memorandum with Rwanda before Parliament has approved it? If it is not necessary, why did the Government put it in the Bill in the first place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I have explained the provisions in the Bill. They are underpinned by legislation going back over 20 years but, as I explained to the House during the passage of the Bill, it is the certification process that is now in play in the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
If, as they say, the Government see the need for new and innovative means of dealing with the migration crisis now, did they have any contact with any of the other signatories to the refugee convention about these new and innovative methods before taking action on their own?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think it is quite clear why we are taking action now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
No, absolutely not. This Bill has been going through both Houses of Parliament for some time. I am sure that noble Lords have observed that people are dying at sea because of the actions of criminals facilitating journeys to the UK.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, are the Government accountable to Parliament or not? If they are, why should an issue as important as this, the deporting of asylum seekers to a third country, not be subject to an affirmative vote in each House of Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that MoUs are subject to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am just going on what has been the convention over many years. Usually, the CRaG Act process that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about is for treaties.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, first, why an MoU and not a treaty? I did not hear the answer to that. Secondly, why do the Government seek public interest immunity to protect the secrecy of the pushbacks policy and the fact that the policy could never have been used against asylum seekers? Finally, we hear from parts of the press that the Home Secretary thinks that criticism of the Rwandan deal is xenophobic. Therefore, can the Minister comment on the US State Department’s report on Rwanda of just last year? It reported significant human rights issues, including credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by the Government, forced disappearance by the Government, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the Government, and 10 other violations of that magnitude.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the US country report last year on Rwanda. Our own country policy and information team carried out an assessment on safety in Rwanda before we entered an agreement. That report is expected to be completed in the near future. I cannot remember the other questions that the noble Baroness asked because it was quite a long question.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Section 25 of the CRaG Act defines the meaning of “treaty” and says that it is a “written agreement … between States”, as long as it is “binding under international law”. Given that the Minister has said that this is a written agreement between states, is she suggesting that the agreement with Rwanda is not binding in international law?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is an agreement which both parties have agreed to be bound by. I will leave it to greater heads to unpick the meaning of that.
I have now remembered one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which was, “why not a treaty?” I do not know why, but it seems that it was appropriate to have an MoU. I am very happy to write to noble Lords with further detail on that. I hope that they will appreciate that I have not had much notice of this Question and am not going to be blag my way through it; I will write to the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, Amnesty International’s latest annual report sets out that, in Rwanda:
“Violations of the rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression and privacy continued, alongside enforced disappearances, allegations of torture and excessive use of force.”
This came following the UK Government’s own concerns, raised in July 2021 at the UN Human Rights Council. In the context of these human rights concerns in respect of Rwanda, it is deeply worrying that the UK Government have now decided that it is a safe third country to which they can offshore asylum seekers. Can the Minister please set out how these conflicting descriptions of Rwanda’s human rights situation have been reconciled?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Obviously, Rwanda has come on a very upward, positive trajectory since the genocide way back when. It is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world; it has a great equality record at the moment—certainly in its parliament —and it houses 130,000 asylum seekers. It also engages with both the EU and the UNHCR in placing asylum seekers.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, is not the real reason that the Minister is facing such anger in this Chamber today that, as everyone knows, the Government did it as a memorandum of understanding—not as a treaty—because they knew that the Rwanda deal would be extremely controversial, and that it would be raised by a number of noble Lords across this Chamber? It is of such significance that it should have been fully debated and discussed in both Chambers. Has it not come to something when a former Conservative Prime Minister stands up and says that this policy would have been found wanting on the grounds of legality, practicality, and efficacy? If the Minister will not listen to noble Lords in here, will she listen to the former Prime Minister? That is why people are so angry: there is a need for proper discussion and not for the Government to find some way of by-passing the process to slip through controversial policies.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that anyone would accuse me of trying to stifle debate or of not trying to answer noble Lords’ questions. I do try to answer them and, if I cannot, I will get back to them. As I said earlier, we are abiding by our international obligations. The EU and the UNHCR work with Rwanda to relocate refugees there.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I do not think that my noble friend has responded to that point. A memorandum of understanding can be defined as a treaty under CRaG if it is a written agreement between states and it is binding in international law. Why does the Minister not say that the Government will lay this memorandum of understanding before Parliament under CRaG?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I said to the noble Earl that I would clarify the point.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Will the Minister comment on another possible reason, in addition to the one advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for this not being a treaty? If it were a treaty, it would have to be registered at the United Nations, and there might be some embarrassment in seeking to register a memorandum of understanding governing an arrangement that is clearly totally inconsistent with the refugee convention, for which the United Nations is responsible. Can the Minister tell us in addition, since the agreement says that it is not justiciable in international law, how is it to be justiciable?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that people will find ways and means of doing that should they be motivated to do so. I go back to the point about both the EU and UNHCR engaging with Rwanda on the relocation of asylum seekers and refugees.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that there would be ample opportunity to debate this issue. We do not have any ample opportunity; what assurance can we have? There are so many questions of detail to which we do not know the answer. It is just a con trick by the Government, and they should come clean on the details before they remove a single person to Rwanda.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am not trying to con anyone. The beauty of your Lordships’ House is that it is self-governing. Debates can be brought to your Lordships’ House for full discussion.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, as we are struggling to defend democracy and democratic decisions, is it not totally opposed to that to try to sneak through an agreement without it being discussed and decided on in this Parliament? Why are the Government so adamant and reluctant to put such matters to a vote of Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister announced it last week; I do not think that there was an attempt to sneak anything through. The Home Secretary stood in the House of Commons last week and made a Statement about it.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend knows that this is a very controversial area of the Nationality and Borders Bill. I have moved amendments to the Bill, and we have had long debates on this subject. Another Minister indicated that no further legislation would be required to proceed with these arrangements. Can my noble friend confirm that that is the case? Is she saying that the Nationality and Borders Bill is required, or is it the Government’s position that no legislation is required?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend is right on two counts. First, the provision is in long-standing legislation dating from 1999, 2002 and 2004. Under the Bill, the certification process would not be needed, so essentially the policy could proceed with or without the legislation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that some people will find ways and means to make this agreement justiciable. Under our dual system in our constitution, any agreement made by government has to be underpinned by domestic legislation. If this is to be a binding agreement, as the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, it will require ratification by Parliament. How will this agreement be ratified?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is a memorandum of understanding, as opposed to a treaty, which has been the subject of debate today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I would like to update the House on the arrangements for consideration of Commons amendments to Bills tomorrow. We have already announced consideration of Commons amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Building Safety Bill. It is also expected that the Commons will send back a message this evening on the Health and Care Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. We will also consider amendments to those Bills tomorrow. The deadline for noble Lords to table amendments relating to those Bills will be noon tomorrow. Peers can speak to the Public Bill Office for further advice. I will continue to make announcements on the approach to further consideration of Commons amendments throughout the week.
I also take the opportunity to remind the House that there will be a rehearsal of the new pass-reader voting system at 12.30 pm tomorrow. It will start in the Chamber, and it would help if as many Members as possible could attend in order to provide a robust and realistic test of how the new system will work.
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Act 2022 View all Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 28 January 2022 - (28 Jan 2022)
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks extremely brief. The Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill amends Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in public museums and galleries in the UK. Cultural objects on loan from abroad featuring in exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are at the moment protected from a court order seizure for a period of 12 months from the time when the object comes into the UK.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for approving these institutions in England, which can come under this regime, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers in other parts of the UK. To gain approval under the Act, the institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.
When this Act was passed, 12 months was considered to be a very adequate period for objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned. During the Bill’s Second Reading, I mentioned that unforeseen travel delays can now result in works not being returned on time, and that risks undermining the confidence of foreign lenders to lend their art treasures to the UK.
The measures in the Bill would allow the current period, therefore, to be extended beyond 12 months at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, or indeed Scottish Ministers when it comes to Scotland. That will ensure that this protection remains fit for purpose. The new power to extend would only apply following an application from the approved museum or gallery. Extensions would be granted for a further three months initially, with a possibility of a further extension if considered necessary.
I am pleased to inform noble Lords that guidance for approved museums and galleries on how they can submit an application for extension has now been published in draft by the department, so the process and the guidance to support it are now ready to go.
I am delighted that the Bill has received such strong support, and I thank everyone who has contributed, including the Member for Central Devon, Mel Stride, for his work steering the Bill through, and the civil servants in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. As the department’s Secretary of State pointed out in the newspapers only today, they are knocking it out of the park in DCMS—whether they are present at their desks or not. Finally, I thank my favourite cultural object, who is, of course, our wonderful Minister, my noble friend Lord Parkinson. I am delighted that, after his successful visit to the Venice Biennale, he was protected from seizure and has returned to our shores to give the Bill the final seal of approval.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend not just for bringing forward this Bill but for his kind words. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sonia Boyce, who represented the United Kingdom at the UK Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, as well as Emma Ridgway, the curator, and everyone at the British Council who commissioned her work, which I am very pleased to report won the coveted Golden Lion for the first time since 1993. It is a tremendous achievement and everyone in the UK is very proud of them all.
I am pleased to reiterate the support of Her Majesty’s Government for this Bill. It is short and straightforward but will be of great benefit to the many approved museums and galleries in England and Scotland that rely on immunity from seizure protection when they borrow cultural objects from abroad. It will add an appropriate layer of flexibility to the existing legislation covering immunity from seizure. Currently, as my noble friend says, the maximum length of time an object can be protected from seizure while on loan is 12 months. As we learn and move on from the unprecedented challenges that museums and galleries have faced over the past two years in particular, the Bill rightly recognises that unpredictable delays do sometimes happen and that it may not always be possible for objects to be returned within that existing timeframe. The ability to extend the protection afforded to cultural objects is a sensible option to have. I am very grateful to my noble friend for presenting these helpful measures and for all his work in guiding the Bill through your Lordships’ House, to all noble Lords who have supported it, from all corners of the House, and, as my noble friend says, to the DCMS officials who have supported it.
As my noble friend says, the guidance for approved museums and galleries on how and when to apply for an extended period of protection has now been published in draft. The policy is therefore ready to be put into effect, subject to Royal Assent being granted. I am grateful to all those who helped the Bill speed on its way to the statute book.
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2022 View all Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 104-I Notice for Committee - (4 Apr 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass, and that is probably quite enough from me.
Elections Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-II Second marshalled list for Report - (21 Apr 2022)
16:52 - Division on Amendment 45 - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 199 - Amendment 45 agreed.
19:17 - Division on Amendment 63 - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 63 disagreed.
20:00 - Division on Amendment 69A - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 209 - Amendment 69A disagreed.
Lord Judge
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords—oh dear, I am sorry your Lordships are all departing. Maybe the Conservatives who are departing do not want to hear what I have to say.
Lord Judge (CB)
It is a very strange thing but, quite by accident—I promise it is by accident—I happen to have my copy of the Bill open at a part I have not really studied, called “Undue Influence”. Suddenly I find myself thinking, “What a very good thing to prevent that happening in this Bill.”
I have addressed your Lordships on a number of occasions about the Bill, particularly these clauses, including Clause 15, which we are discussing now. Noble Lords have listened with patience and courtesy and I have listened to the Minister with great patience. I regret that I am unconvinced by what he has said in the House so I intend to seek the opinion of the House at the end of this debate, but I intend to be brief.
I really do not think that anyone in your Lordships’ House can have the slightest doubt about the constitutional imperative that the Electoral Commission should be politically independent—independent of all political influence, whether direct or indirect, over the electoral process. If anyone disagrees with that, would they please say so? Any possibility that the party in government may have influence over the electoral process should be rejected.
Clauses 15 and 16 are repugnant to that foundational principle. They require the commission to have regard, at the very lowest, to pay close attention to the strategy and policy principles, and to follow the guidance, of the Government of the day. The importance of this feature of the language, which is tucked away but needs emphasis, is that the Electoral Commission will exercise its responsibilities in relation to the strategy and policy statement to enable Her Majesty’s Government to meet those priorities. If we rephrase that, it says that the Electoral Commission must enable the strategic and policy priorities of the Government to be met. That does not sound like independence. These are directive provisions. The word “duty” is used, imposing unequivocal statutory obligations on the commission that will govern—or, if not govern, will certainly influence —its own performance of its responsibility, and perhaps, dare I say it, is meant to influence it.
The commission, which everyone agrees—so far, at any rate—should be independent of government, is to be subject to a statutory duty to enable the Government to achieve their priorities: that is to say, their priorities, strategies and guidance to the extent that they relate to the electoral system. That is what the Bill says. This proposal came out of the blue without reference, consultation or, astonishingly—to me, at any rate, as someone who does not have a political background—for a proposal that has a constitutional impact, without cross-party discussion of any kind.
There is a problem with the Electoral Commission, as I have heard from all sides: it does not work as well as it should; it is inefficient; it does not do this, it does do this and it was wrong to do that. I have heard them all. Fine, but this proposal is not an answer to that problem. I simply ask us all to think: if this proposal had been included in the original Bill in 2000, outrage would have been expressed on all sides of the House of Commons. That is the problem.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord in his amendments, to which I have added my name. We have a cross-party understanding, I believe, that, whatever their intentions, the Government have got this wrong. When the House has the kind of unanimity that it has in relation to the Electoral Commission’s powers and the strategy and policy statement process, it is incumbent on any Government to listen and to learn.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in his dignified and honourable resignation from the Front Bench—I believe we unanimously regret that he felt he needed to resign—said in his resignation letter that we have to take into account how others see us.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the legislation in 2000. I was a Member of the Cabinet at the time. We had a majority of 179. We could have pushed anything through, but the outrage which would have emerged universally across our media, as well as from the Benches opposite, would have driven us back inevitably to a situation where we would have had to think again. I ask the Government, with less than half that majority, to think again. It is not what might be intended, it is how that intention might be perceived—as well as the real outcome. There is the potential for a Trojan horse to lead us down a path which could be regretted at length as part of our constitution. Crucially, this will be seen from outside the country in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, perceived in relation to the rule of law.
Gideon Rachman from the Financial Times has written a book called The Age of The Strongman. In it, like many others who have written on this subject, he poses the real and present challenge of the international democratic process being undermined by the clash between the strong autocratic leadership of those outside the democratic fold; those within the purview of the democratic fold who are leading their nations into autocracy and the diktat of the centre; and the participative democratic world, which involves people being listened to, not just in parliaments but across the nations, and taken notice of.
I am afraid to say that the clauses with which we are dealing this afternoon are a measure of a Government who have not understood that they should be on the side of the participative democratic processes which defend us against the creeping autocracy we see internationally at the moment. It is as serious as that. The Electoral Commission and the electorate as a whole, who were polled over the weekend, have demonstrated their concern. Most people will not understand the detail of the Electoral Commission—why would they? However, they do understand when a Government start to believe that their party and their place in government are one and the same thing—they are not.
I tried to put this across in recent legislation in other areas of public policy. The Government govern for the nation as a whole; they do not govern for a particular political party. Of course, they will want to implement their manifesto and the mandate they have been given by the electorate. By the way, there is no mandate at all on this; there is no suggestion, as there has been in other parts of the Bill, that the Government had indicated, in their manifesto and during the election, that they wished to deal with the Electoral Commission in this way. There have been suggestions from one or two Members of this House at Second Reading and at Committee that somehow the Electoral Commission attracted the notice of the Government—or the Conservative Party, I should say—in terms of what happened in the 2016 referendum. This was backed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox; I was sat next to her at the time, and it was a rather half-hearted effort to defend the Government on this particular set of clauses.
There is no argument for it; there is no problem, as the noble and learned Lord explained. What we have is a solution in pursuit of a problem which does not really exist. Fundamentally, we have a vision and message going out from this legislation that will be rued by us all if we do not get this right. I have a very simple appeal to the Government: take these amendments and accept them when they go back to the Commons tomorrow; withdraw the proposal because it does not have support anywhere in this House, in the other House, other than the three-line Whip, or across the country; and allow us to unify on consulting properly on whatever perceived problems the Government—or the Conservative Party—Labour, the Lib Dems or the Cross Benches might have about the operation of the Electoral Commission. Consult properly, undertake this in a democratic fashion, understand how we are seen as a country and get it right.
I ask the Government to please understand this afternoon that some of us, at least, will go to the wire on this one. So let us be prepared to go into next week if we have to, to ensure that we defend our democratic processes and practices. If we do not, somewhere in years to come, someone should ask each of us, “Where were you? What did you do? Did you understand what you were passing? Were you in favour of it? If you were not, why did you not vote against it?”
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will make three brief points in support of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The first follows a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has just made a forceful speech. As my noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned in an earlier debate, I was my party’s spokesman and I was in the shadow Cabinet of William Hague, now my noble friend Lord Hague, when the Bill establishing the Electoral Commission went through. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, implied, had the Blair Government sought to include these two clauses in that Bill, my party would have strongly opposed that. They conflict with the recommendation of the Neill commission’s report that
“An Election Commission in a democracy like ours could not function properly, or indeed at all, unless it were scrupulously impartial and believed to be so by everyone seriously involved and by the public at large.”
If it was right for my party to oppose those clauses then, it is right to oppose them today.
Secondly, I respectfully disagree with the argument in defence of the Government’s position put forward by my noble friend the Minister on March 10:
“It is entirely appropriate for the Government and Parliament to provide a steer on electoral policy … By increasing policy emphasis on electoral integrity … the Government are seeking to prevent interference in our democracy from fraud, foreign money and hostile state actors.”—[Official Report, 10/3/22; col. 1643.]
It is not the Electoral Commission that requires a steer, for example, on the importance of protecting our democracy from foreign money; it is the Government. The steer that my noble friend described—the statutory requirement to
“have regard to the statement”—
should be in precisely the opposite direction to the one in the Bill.
My third and final reason is related to the first. I have left the Government five times, which is more than anyone else in the Chamber—even the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Once was at the request of the electorate in 1997 and three times were, sadly, at the request of the then Prime Minister, but the last was of my own volition, one month after the current Prime Minister took office, when he illegally prorogued Parliament. That was the first of a number of steps that injure out democratic institutions—in that case the House of Commons. It was followed by the failure to defend the judiciary from the “Enemies of the People” attack by the Daily Mail, the attempted interference with the verdict on Owen Paterson, the resignation of the Prime Minister’s independent adviser Alex Allan—instead of the Home Secretary—and the evident disregard, shown from time to time, for the role of your Lordships’ House and the Ministerial Code. These clauses are another step in the same direction; they are disrespectful of the ground rules of our constitution, and they should not be in the Bill.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard three splendid speeches, and I intend to be very brief. I will pick up on a comment made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who is of course quite right that the public will not be interested or involved in the details of this legislation. But I have no doubt whatever that they have an acute sense of fairness. In Committee, I suggested that, for the Government to give instructions to the Electoral Commission is akin to a party in a football match—one of the two teams—giving instructions and guidance to the referee prior to the match. I do not think that anyone in Britain would think that that was a fair situation. I do not think that anyone could seriously contend that that is not what would happen if these two clauses become law.
What I find particularly persuasive is that this letter from the Electoral Commission, which many of us have, is, unsurprisingly, signed by every single member bar the Conservative nominee—I make no criticism of the fact that he did not sign it, but it was signed by everyone else. It argues against these two clauses. As they say,
“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role”
of an “independent electoral commission”. If anyone is wavering on this, just substitute the words “Conservative Party” for “Government”. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and I strongly support political parties; I have been in one all my life and I would go as far as to say that they are the lifeblood of our democracy. I do not regard as superior human beings those people who have not joined political parties. If we substitute the word “Government” with “Conservative Party”—because of course Governments consist, in the main, of one political party—it reads as follows: “It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Conservative Party to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role of an independent electoral commission.” Is there anyone here who could possibly dispute that statement? Forgetting about the Government for a moment, for one political party in a contested situation—which is precisely what elections are, which is why they can get fraught and need adjudicators—to give an instruction to the referee, or the Electoral Commission in this case, is clearly inconsistent and unacceptable as part of our electoral procedures. I urge everyone to see the fairness of that argument and to support the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, which has, if I may say so, attracted very wide support on all Benches of this House.
Others have already identified some of the aspects of Clause 15 that are truly objectionable, so I will not go into any great detail, save to say that, on any view, the powers given to the Secretary of State are very extensive. They are, as has been said by a number of your Lordships, designed to make the commission an implementer of government policy. The requirement on the Government to consult is extraordinarily limited, and the obligation on the commission to report compliance will expose the commission to the cry “Enemies of the People”, as happened in 2016 when the judges held that Brexit required the consent of Parliament. I might remember, too, that the Lord Chancellor of the day did not push back on that criticism. I acknowledge that the substantive statement is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but I also point out that, in the House of Commons at least, that will be the subject of the most strenuous whipping. In any event, of course, the statutory instrument procedure is not subject to amendment.
I have been in public life for 40 years—not as long as my noble friend Lord Cormack, but perhaps long enough—and I have come to a very settled conclusion: if you give powers to the Executive or to officials, in time they are certain to be abused or misused. That will certainly happen. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—I have known him for over 60 years—rightly pointed out, the present Prime Minister illegally thought to prorogue Parliament. I am told by reading the newspapers that, at this moment, the Government are thinking of simply abrogating the Northern Ireland protocol—a treaty obligation to which the Prime Minister signed up very recently and on which, at the time, he incorrectly stated that it did not create a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
As has been rightly said, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, election law is extraordinarily sensitive. I for one am not prepared to give powers to a Government that, if used, misused or abused, will certainly damage yet further the respect for our democratic institutions. It is for that reason that if, as I hope, the noble and learned Lord moves to test the opinion of the House, I shall support him.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I would like to join in on all these comments about the Prime Minister’s failings, but I just do not think there is time in this debate.
I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and will obviously support the amendments, but before I speak to those specifically, I hope noble Lords will not mind if I speak briefly about what we are facing this week—and possibly next week—because the Government have created a legislative deadlock. This was not the fault of your Lordships’ House; it was the fault of the Government, and if this legislation is not passed in the next few days, it falls completely. I have no problem with that—I would like to see it all fall—but the fact is that that probably is not a position your Lordships’ House can take. However, we can obtain very significant concessions from the Government. They will not want to lose all these Bills, and this is an opportunity for us to throw out the worst bits of the legislation that we have all argued about over the past few months.
I make a plea to the Labour Front Bench and the Cross-Benchers that we maintain the maximum amount of toughness in the face of what the Government are trying to push through this House. We should not fumble this opportunity to improve Bills that we have tried to improve, only for almost all those amendments to be ripped out by the other place. So, I am looking forward to today. I have sat here and listened to the speeches with a real smile on my face; it has been wonderful.
Amendments 45 and 46 are a perfect example of why we should not back down. We have to insist that we will not pass the Bill if Clauses 15 and 16 remain in it. The Electoral Commission, as we have heard, said it best, and I agree. It says that the proposals are
“inconsistent with the role that an independent commission plays in a healthy democratic system.”
This Government are trying to reduce the amount of democracy we have in Britain, and that is a terrible failing for a democratically elected Government.
The Greens are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for leading on these essential amendments. I am sure he is going to carry the House with him, and we will obviously vote for them again and again—as many times as it takes to force the Government to drop them or lose the Bill entirely.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I frequently do not agree with her; today, I most certainly do and I think, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this is one that we take to the wire, because this is completely unacceptable in a Bill of this nature. In no circumstances could I possibly condone the Bill if it goes forward with these clauses in it.
As I was listening this afternoon to some excellent speeches, I thought of those famous words of Acton: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I am afraid we are in danger of our Government being corrupted. I use those words deliberately and slowly, but it is a real risk, because the arrogance that we see from this Government—my noble friend Lord Hailsham referred to this—is something that, in my 52 years in Parliament, I have not seen before. Coupled with it is a disinclination to disagree agreeably, and in a democracy it is very important to be able to do that.
For a Government to take these powers to themselves is something up with which we should not put. I referred to this in previous debates, at Second Reading and in Committee. We have here a potential seizure of power that, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, we would not have countenanced from the Labour Government, with their massive majority, 22 years ago, when he and I—he was leading—were dealing from the Front Bench with the Bill that established the Electoral Commission.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for giving me a turn.
The case for removing these two clauses has been very powerfully made already and my point is a very simple one which will not take very long. These two clauses, if they remain in the Bill, will put in the hands of a successor Government the essential tools to immediately deliver the very first task set out in the autocrat’s playbook, which is, when you take power, make sure you keep it. In the UK, that means making sure that you have the Electoral Commission under your thumb.
I have only one question for the Minister. Taking him fully at his word that this Government would never in a million years use these powers to distort the actions of the Electoral Commission or to raise the bar for opposition candidates or opposition parties in any future election, what happens when the million years is up? What happens when another Government, less imbued with the deep ethical principles so clearly exhibited by the present Administration, less scrupulous about fair play and with less commitment to truth and accuracy, take office? Can the Minister say to your Lordships, in all honesty, that it will be safe to put these clauses on the statute book, just waiting for that ruthless successor Government to exploit? It could be an ultra-left Government with little regard for constitutional conventions, balancing the books or protecting industry from red tape, and perhaps ready to repudiate international treaties, undermining all those Conservative values that the Minister espouses so much.
Does the Minister think it is safe to leave these clauses in the Bill? I have seen the noble Lord in action. I do not believe that he is either so naive or so short-sighted as to believe it would be safe to do so, and it would not be in the long-term interests of the Conservative Party for these clauses to be in the Bill. I, my noble friends and other noble Lords all around the House have powerfully expressed the view that we are ready to help him get off the hook and to take these two clauses out of the Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and to the House, for having pushed him so rudely.
When one sees the way the tide of opinion is flowing strongly, it is very easy to think that it is best to keep one’s head down and not provide a cautionary word about being careful what we wish for in taking these amendments through—should the House so decide. I note and appreciate the concerns expressed in powerful speeches this afternoon. These are replicated in the briefing from the Electoral Commission referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Several letters in the correspondence columns of the broadsheets have carried an equivalent message.
I also recognise that the drafting of parts of these clauses can best be described as uncompromising. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to this, though I think he was slightly dismissive about the consultation processes provided for in Clause 15, in new Sections 4C and 4D. He pointed out that the procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation are proving increasingly inadequate and ineffective for modern conditions. He knows that I agree with him. I am pleased to be able to tell him and the House that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, will publish a further end of term report at the end of this week. This will give grist to his mill—and indeed to mine.
Among the concerns raised is the use of what can be described as tertiary legislation. I spoke to the noble and learned Lord in advance of this debate, so he knows broadly what I shall say about creating bodies over which there is absolutely no parliamentary control but which, none the less, have powers that concern some of the most fundamental aspects of our society. One recent example is the College of Policing, an independent body able to introduce regulations and codes that affect every one of us.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra have made common cause in attacking this. I entirely support them. To come to the point, I am not yet convinced that, if these two amendments were agreed, we would not be creating another body equivalent to the College of Policing, but this time for electoral purposes—an equally important part of our national life.
Am I enthusiastic about Clauses 15 and 16? Not at all, but I recognise that there is some parliamentary involvement and approval in this process. If these amendments were accepted, the Electoral Commission—with all the criticisms that have been made of it, fairly or unfairly—would float free from any even minor scrutiny or accountability. In my view, this would be even less desirable.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I wish him a very happy birthday.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I wish to make two points about these amendments. I do so in the hope—but not the expectation—that noble Lords who have set their faces against these clauses will look at them in a more favourable light.
First, all public bodies must be accountable, whether they are independent regulators or carrying out other kinds of function. This should not be a controversial statement. The role of the Speaker’s Committee, as set out in PPERA, with its focus on budgets and plans rather than outcomes and actions, provides a weak accountability framework. Indeed, the report on election fraud from my noble friend Lord Pickles, who I am glad to see in his place, found it ineffective. Clauses 15 and 16 beef up the Speaker’s Committee so that it can hold the Electoral Commission to account on the basis of the policy and strategy statement, remembering, of course, that that statement is not just the creature of government and must be consulted on and approved by Parliament. Anyone who opposes Clauses 15 and 16 really should explain how they would ensure that the Electoral Commission will be properly accountable, because the current arrangements are simply not fit for purpose.
Secondly, there is a myth that the strategy and policy statement is a de facto power of direction or involves giving instructions—I think that was the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—to the Electoral Commission. Clause 15 could not be clearer. There is no obligation on the commission to follow the statement. There is no alteration of the core duties and obligations set out in PPERA. The commission’s only duty is to have regard to the statement and report annually on what it has done in consequence of it. That report might, in theory, say that it has done nothing in consequence of the statement, but given the generally bland nature of these policy and strategy statements, I think that would be unlikely.
The opponents of these clauses, however, say that the strategy and policy statements will influence the Electoral Commission, with the implication that influence is always malign. I believe that the independence of the Electoral Commission is founded in the independence of the thought and integrity of the commissioners themselves, and those commissioners are not appointed by the Government. Genuinely independent commissioners will do what they think is necessary in accordance with their statutory obligations, and they will do that whatever the Government tell them to do. The commissioners are the first line of defence against undue influence. Influence can be a positive thing, too. I hope noble Lords would have no problem if, for example, a statement influenced the commission to focus on important issues such as those that arose in relation to Tower Hamlets. I remind noble Lords that the Electoral Commission did not cover itself in glory when first encountering the issues there. I urge noble Lords not to support these amendments.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I shall cover two or three points. I shall not go into detail about some of my concerns about the Electoral Commission, except to make a limited comment about difficulties I have at the moment. I will start by referring to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, earlier in relation to referees. I wear my rugby referee’s tie with pride today because it is an indication of the impartiality one is required to have under all circumstances. No player or spectator ever accused me of not being impartial. They may have accused me of being incompetent, and did so volubly from the touchline, but they did not accuse me of not being impartial.
I must disagree with both my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Noakes. As far as I am concerned, there are ways of dealing with the problems of the Electoral Commission. As I think many Members know, I have had more problems and more dealings with the Electoral Commission over the last 12 months than virtually anybody in this Chamber—and, my godfathers, does it not drive you barmy? I have sympathy with the Government because they are trying to tackle the problem. All I shall say on my latest difficulty, which has been running for four or five days, is: will the Electoral Commission please look at itself rather than passing to others the responsibility for policing matters—administering elections and the like? This problem has run since 2013 to my full knowledge. It keeps saying that other people need to deal with these matters but it does not look at itself.
These clauses are not a way of tackling the problems that I and others have faced with the Electoral Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, in effect, they tell us that the home team at a rugby match shall have the right to speak to the referee and tell him how he will referee that game. I am sorry, but I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: if you are giving guidance, however softly and subtly you do it, you are influencing the Electoral Commission and not giving others that opportunity to influence it in the same way. We need to look at the way that the commissioners are appointed, and we may need to look at the way that other organisations around it operate, but the one thing we do not need to do is to tie the commission to guidance from the Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on these amendments. We have had a very powerful debate from all sides of the House, and I suggest that we now ought to move towards the Minister’s response.
I remind the Minister of the constitutional context we are in and of his responsibilities as, in effect, the only member of the Government with responsibility for the constitution and constitutional propriety. Noble Lords may not be fully aware that, since the last reshuffle, there is no longer any Minister within the Government who has been given the specific responsibility of being Minister for the Constitution. The responsibility for this Bill has been moved from the Cabinet Office to the department for levelling up, communities, local government and various other things which provide a very extensive portfolio for Michael Gove. That leaves the Minister in some ways stranded, but in other ways he is the only member of the Government—apart from the Prime Minister himself—who specifically has responsibility for constitutional propriety among his major responsibilities.
The Minister will be well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, referred to issues of constitutional principle in his resignation letter and that, before him, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also resigned on a matter of constitutional principle. I hope that the Minister will address the constitutional propriety of these two clauses in winding up. After all, we are in a wider constitutional crisis, both domestically—I have referred to the context of that—and internationally, given what is happening in Ukraine and the growth of autocracies around the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who sadly is not in his place, addressed Britain’s constitutional crisis in his article in the Times last Wednesday. He reminded his readers:
“The British constitution, because it is unwritten, is particularly vulnerable to its limitations being resisted at the top of government … It is the responsibility of parliamentarians, and in particular Conservative ones, to insist”
that constitutional rules and conventions are followed. I welcome the reaffirmation made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, of the Conservative Party’s proud tradition as the constitutional party—from Burke through successive Salisburys to the noble Viscount’s father, Lord Hailsham—and I regret our current Government’s failure to maintain fully that tradition.
I invite the Minister to explain to the House how he considers these proposals to be compatible with Conservative principles of limited government and parliamentary sovereignty. If he cannot reconcile the tried and tested principles of Conservatism—about which he has often spoken eloquently—with these proposals, he should accept that they should be removed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we very much welcome these amendments. We thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for tabling them and for his excellent and clear introduction on his concerns about the implications of leaving these clauses in the Bill. I will be brief, as he and many other noble Lords made excellent speeches today.
We have made it extremely clear on previous stages of the Bill’s consideration that we are extremely concerned about its intention to make provisions for a power to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, drafted by government. As other noble Lords have said, this would allow political interference in the regulation of our elections and calls into question the independence of the Electoral Commission from government and political control. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. It is a dangerous precedent. If we look at similar democracies such as Canada, New Zealand or Australia, there is always a complete separation between government and the electoral commission. It is essential that our regulatory framework strikes the right balance between upholding the independence of the Electoral Commission and ensuring it is properly scrutinised and held to account. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made some good points about the fact that we need to look at how it operates, but this is absolutely not the way to go about it.
I remind those noble Lords who have said that this is not of any concern that new Section 4B(2) in Clause 15 says that:
“The Commission must have regard to the statement when carrying out their functions”—
“must”, not “may”. That is what really concerns us. We have had many excellent speeches, so I urge the Minister to listen very carefully to what has been said in the defence of our democracy. That is what we are talking about. We fully support these amendments and urge other noble Lords to do the same when this is put to the House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I have not detected universal enthusiasm for these clauses in the debate, but I will seek to persuade your Lordships that they should remain. Of course, in remaining, one of the things they do is provide a basis for further discussion.
Your Lordships’ House is a revising Chamber, but we do not have here amendments to revise. These amendments would simply remove clauses on the basis of arguments which, in my submission, are exaggerated in their concerns, although I understand and share the concerns for democratic responsibility and respect. We have even heard several threats to kill the whole Bill. I must remind noble Lords that this is a Bill that prevents election fraud and abuse; introduces the first controls on digital campaigning; cracks down in many ways on foreign spending; and improves the integrity of postal voting. These are matters which have wide assent across the Chamber and across both Houses. It would not be wise or proportionate for your Lordships to consider killing those proposals on the basis of this particular issue.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Would my noble friend accept that if the Government withdraw these clauses, on which there is a great deal of opposition, the Bill will go through? Several of us have said that it has many excellent features. We do not want to kill the Bill, but we do want to remove this anti-democratic element from it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can only respond to the language I heard in the debate and, of course, that will lie in Hansard. Of course I listen to the range of concerns set out by your Lordships. The main concern that I hear, and understand, is about the potential impact on the independence of the Electoral Commission.
I stated in Committee, and I do so again now, that the Government’s proposals take a proportionate approach to reforming the accountability of the commission to Parliament, which some who have spoken have admitted could be reviewed, while respecting its operational independence. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others that it is vital we have an independent regulator that commands trust across the political spectrum.
By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked would I worry if the Labour Party had such powers on the statute book. I remind your Lordships that the Labour Party is a great constitutional party, and I would trust it to use the responsibilities and powers that it had in an appropriate manner.
In previous debates, parliamentarians across both Houses identified areas of concern with the commission’s work. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts spoke to this. Under the existing accountability framework, in practice, parliamentarians are limited in their ability to scrutinise and hold the commission effectively accountable. The report by my noble friend Lord Pickles, whom I am pleased to see in his place, obviously alluded to certain issues that he felt had not been fully addressed. These measures will seek to remedy this by providing guidance, as approved by Parliament, for the commission to consider in the exercise of its functions, and by giving the Speaker’s Committee an enhanced role in holding the commission to account in how it has performed its duties in relation to the proposed statement.
It has been suggested, several times, that the “duty to have regard” to the strategy and policy statement placed on the commission in Clause 15 will weaken its independence and give Ministers the power to direct it. The Government strongly reject this characterisation of the measures. The Electoral Commission will remain operationally independent and governed by its Electoral Commissioners as a result of this measure, after as before. This duty does not allow the Government to direct the work of the commission, nor does it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I wonder, given what the Minister has just said, whether he could explain the purpose of new Section 13ZA, on the examination of the duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement, which states:
“The Speaker’s Committee may examine the performance by the Commission of the Commission’s duty under section 4B(2) (duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).”
What is the purpose of having the ability to examine the commitment to the policy statement? What would the Government do if it found that “have regard” had not been sufficient?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness that it is not a power to direct. The Speaker’s Committee is not a government institution; it is part of the architecture that is there, and has been there, to oversee the work of the commission. That was inherent in previous legislation; this legislation seeks to improve its ability to do so. What the legislation means is that when carrying out its functions, yes, the commission will be asked to consider the statement, but weigh it up against any other relative considerations.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, knows the respect I have for him. I have enjoyed discussing this matter with him and no doubt may again if he has his way in your Lordships’ House today, which I hope he will not, but our contention is that there are a number of safeguarding provisions around parliamentary approval and consultation built into Clause 15. I outlined that at length in previous debates and will not repeat it here. I believe, notwithstanding the noble and learned Lord’s remarks, that those safeguarding provisions should reassure those who have expressed concerns about strategy and policy statements being drafted by future Governments that may have ill intent.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Can the Minister list which Select Committees have Ministers as members?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Speaker’s Committee is sui generis. Obviously, it has senior representation from political parties in the House of Commons. I have enormous respect and affection for the noble Lord. It is not reasonable to impugn the integrity of a Speaker’s Committee and I do not think that he was doing so—
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I was not, in any way, impugning the Speaker’s Committee. I was picking up the point that the Minister had just made about the corollary of a Select Committee.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord rose. I had started to make it clear that I was not making any such proposal. The analogy I was using is just a mechanism in terms of the way that the committee will be able to conduct its reviews, effectively holding the commission accountable on a broader range of its activities than is currently allowed in law. As I sought to explain to your Lordships, that remit is currently narrowly restricted.
For the reasons that I have set out, I urge that my noble friends and noble Lords across the House oppose the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, and that Clauses 15 and 16 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated, including those Members of the House who do not agree with me. It is fun to listen to alternative arguments.
I have just a couple of points to make. The problem with these clauses is that they were inserted without any kind of discussion. When constitutional issues are being addressed, and when, in particular, the independence of the Electoral Commission and its performance are being addressed, surely, of all things, that is something for cross-party discussion, and it is for the cross-parties to make up their minds how to make the Electoral Commission do its job and perform its function better than it has. That is a matter for Parliament: I am not going to advance different solutions to this, but the problem is that nobody has asked anybody else. That is why I describe this proposal as “new minted”. It is “new minted”, and that is one of its problems.
The other problem is with the phrase “must have regard to”. I “must have regard” to everything the Minister says. I am going to listen to it; I am going to be influenced by it. I might not feel quite as strongly as I did against him—I do not know—but the point is that you have to have regard to the statement by the Minister of the Government’s strategies, priorities and guidance, and that would influence any body of people, however independent-minded they are and wish to be. That, surely, is the point of this legislation. The Government want the commission to be influenced by the strategy and priorities paper.
If the Electoral Commission says, “Well, we have seen what the Minister has to say. We have read the statement and we think it’s a load of rubbish”, what happens then? Apart from anything else, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be briefed on a judicial review by the Government that the Electoral Commission was not exercising its powers correctly, and he would probably win. As I have told noble Lords before, he never won a single case in front of me; and as I have also told noble Lords before, on every occasion when he appealed, he won.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I would just add, on a serious note, that the noble and learned Lord makes an absolutely correct point. If the Electoral Commission said, “We do not agree with this document and we are not going to follow it”, there would be a real danger of judicial review. There would be a real danger, in particular, because this document would have the approval of Parliament, it having been whipped through.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, on that happy note, I think we had better let the House make up its own mind. I seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Judge
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 10, line 33.
Lord Rennard
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, after a long debate on a substantive issue, this will probably be a rather shorter, more technical debate. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, from the Labour Front Bench, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, from the Greens, for supporting the amendment to delete Clause 19 in Committee. I am also grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, and his team for engaging on this issue of accounting for election expenditure in constituencies. The Government’s position appears to be that no change in law is proposed. I therefore think that Clause 19 is unnecessary. The Government say that it is about clarification, but I think this has been provided by the courts and that guidance from the Electoral Commission—provided it remains independent—should suffice.
The Government blame confusion about the rules for election spending in constituencies for the prosecution of the Conservative candidate, the Conservative agent and a senior Conservative HQ staff member following the campaign in South Thanet during the 2015 general election. However, it does not address the widespread concern after that election that the basic principles of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, which first provided a level playing field in constituency election campaigns, were being subverted in that election.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not have much to add to the noble Lord’s contribution. We support his contention that this is an unnecessary clause. I agree that the principle is one that we should completely reaffirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, did in a previous debate. We need the assurances from the Minister. If he is unable to give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, seeks, we will support him if he decides to divide the House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, Clause 19 is there to clarify the law on benefits in kind and make it clear that candidates need to report only benefits in kind that they have actually used or which they or their election agent have directed, authorised or encouraged someone else to use on their behalf. We had some discussion on this in Committee, as the noble Lord acknowledges. This was already widely understood to be true, prior to the Supreme Court judgment in R v Mackinlay and others. The Supreme Court judgment has led to concerns that candidates and agents could be responsible for spending they had not consented to or were unaware of or not involved in. This is an unacceptable situation and risks a chilling effect on people willing to put themselves forward as candidates and agents.
The noble Lord has been so kind as to refer to the positive engagement we had and I thank him for his continued interest in and engagement on the topic. In response to some of the concerns he raised, including those raised again today, I am happy to provide clarity on the government position. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked two specific questions and I can say to him that the Government are absolutely committed to the long-standing principle of a level playing field for general election campaigns, whether in campaigning being carried out at constituency level or nationally. The noble Lord referred to a statement made by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in 2019 when agreeing with the importance of the principle of a level playing field in relation to spending at elections. The Government maintain the commitment my noble friend gave; nothing in the Bill seeks to undermine that principle.
The proposals in the Bill will not change the fundamental principle that party spending in support of a particular candidate in a local area falls to be recorded as candidate spending against the local limit. Instead, the clauses bring forward changes seeking to maintain the level playing field by ensuring that all candidates and agents across the political spectrum are clear and confident in their legal responsibilities. Clause 19 also makes an equivalent amendment to the same rules for other types of campaigners, such as political parties and third-party campaigners, to ensure that the rules are consistent. We believe that these changes will bring much-needed reassurance and clarity to candidates and their agents on the rules which apply to notional expenditure for reserved elections. In combination with expanded statutory guidance—which we will discuss shortly—from the Electoral Commission on this matter provided for in Clause 20, this measure will support compliance with the rules and ensure that those wishing to participate in public life can feel confident doing so, clear in their obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked a further and very specific question. I can say to him that the Government are not acting in response to the judgment of Southwark Crown Court in 2019 in relation to campaigning in South Thanet in 2015. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2018 related specifically to the consideration of a particular point of law and concluded that there was no requirement for authorisation in Section 90(3) of the 2000 Act, which was contrary to the understanding of many and led to concerns about what expenses could potentially be incurred on a candidate’s behalf even without their knowledge. As a result, there have been calls from across the political spectrum for clarification of those rules. A cross-party committee of MPs, PACAC and the Law Commission have called for clarity on the rules in recent reports. The changes enacted by the Bill will only clarify the law so that it can be commonly understood. As I said, any uncertainty could lead to a democratic chilling effect, with candidates and election agents, who are often volunteers and fearful of their personal circumstances, unwilling to expose themselves to risk.
Finally, it is important to note that Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 already prohibits “local” third-party spending over £700 which has not been “authorised in writing”; therefore, it requires specific authorisation. Where such spending is authorised by a candidate, the candidate must also report on the spending incurred by the third party. If a third party, which could include a political party, spends over that threshold without authorisation, an offence has been committed. The Elections Bill does not alter this. Where a third party, including a political party, has provided property, goods and services free of charge or at a discount, or has made use of property, this must be recorded as a notional expense.
I can assure the noble Lord on those points that we are absolutely committed to the assurance my noble friend gave and that we are not acting in response to the judgment of Southwark Crown Court in 2019 in relation to 2015 and the issues of uncertainty that have arisen. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept those assurances and be ready to withdraw his amendment that would remove this clause from the Bill.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those warm words and his reassurance, and for his engagement and that of his officials on this important issue of election law. We have certainly made great progress on the issue since we began discussing what may happen in relation to notional expenditure and the original Private Member’s Bill, but I take from everything that he says, when he refers to clarification following the Supreme Court judgment, that any court in future would say that nothing in this clause should be taken as a change in the law.
I remain unconvinced that it is necessary but I am pleased that the Minister, in his correspondence, particularly that to all Members of the House on 4 April—if I may paraphrase slightly what he said—made it clear that there is no get out of jail free card for a candidate or agent who encourages excessive spending in a constituency and simply relies on the claim not to have authorised it. The word “encouraging” is quite significant in how that may be taken in a court in future should there be controversy over election expenses. It means that there cannot be a nod and a wink to expenditure in the cause of winning a constituency without accepting that such expenditure must be specifically authorised, to a £700 limit, for a third party. An election agent who told their HQ that they were delivering a leaflet with the local volunteers over the weekend so it would be convenient if two coachloads of paid activists could come on Wednesday and Thursday would certainly be encouraging illegal spending, as would providing them with maps and assisting them with their dining and hotel arrangements when they came to canvass or deliver in the constituency.
In my view, it remains a loophole that we must examine at another time that parties can post huge quantities of direct mail to a constituency aimed at influencing the vote there but claim that it is nothing to do with the local candidate. However, given that the Electoral Commission should retain its independence to advise on such matters, and that such advice could again be evidence in court, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, which leaves out the reference to an order under paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (in the inserted paragraph (aa) for section 156(3) of that Act), is consequential on the new Clause that Lord Hodgson is seeking to insert after Clause 27.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 54 and 56. Amendments 49 and 54 are paving amendments, and the bulk of what I want to say relates to Amendment 56.
The role of a Back-Bencher moving amendments is to spend a great deal of one’s time pushing on doors that are firmly shut and remain so. But every now and then a door opens and one staggers into the room off-balance with surprise, and so it is today. It is therefore right that I should begin by thanking the Minister and the Bill team for the way they have responded to Amendment 54, which I tabled in Committee and has now expanded to this group of amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is not in his place, for again putting his name to an amendment in this revised group.
I do not intend to repeat my remarks except to say that the amendment is intended to address head-on the so-called chilling effect on third-party campaigning resulting from the provisions of the 2014 Act. At the heart of that problem is what is known as the “intent test”. The wording in the Act catches for regulatory purpose any activity that
“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election”.
The decision on which actions or activities cross the line lies with the Electoral Commission. I make it clear that the commission has gone out of its way since the passage of the 2014 Act to reassure third-party campaigners about how it intends to implement these provisions, but we are here today scrutinising primary legislation and we want to future-proof it as far as possible. That includes future-proofing it from a future Electoral Commission that may adopt a less collaborative approach than the current one.
The answer is to introduce a series of statutory codes that have the following advantages: first, they require the Electoral Commission to undertake the intellectual heavy lifting needed to produce a code giving clarity and certainty to third-party campaigners; secondly, they give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise and approve the initial codes and any revisions thereto; and, thirdly, they give third-party campaigners the knowledge that compliance with the code provides a statutory defence.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome and support the noble Lord. Throughout the stages of the Bill, I have repeatedly welcomed some of his contributions, particularly in relation to third-party campaigning and creating the certainty and clarity that they need to ensure that the chilling effect does not have a huge impact on our democracy. I very much welcome this, and I welcome the principle that the code of practice provides that necessary parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome these amendments.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, one of the charming aspects of your Lordships’ House is that when a Minister is being chided for not listening to the House it is rammed to the gills but when the Government make a concession there are not quite so many here. None the less, I thank not only my noble friend Lord Hodgson but colleagues in other parts of the House who have made this case, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is not in his place for perfectly understandable reasons.
The amendment would create a new clause in the Bill which would remove a permissive power that allowed the Electoral Commission to prepare a code of practice, and instead, as your Lordships have asked, replace it with a requirement on the Electoral Commission to produce such a code of conduct. It also specifies the scope of the code, sets out the consultation process and procedure for the code, and creates a defence for third parties who are charged with offences under Part 6 of PPERA. It also makes the necessary consequential amendments to Clauses 20 and 25.
As my noble friend kindly acknowledged, in Committee I promised to consider his suggestions on a code of practice for third-party campaigners. He made his arguments in good faith, on the basis of great experience and genuinely reflecting the opinions of the sector. As he acknowledged, my officials and I have since met him and concluded that these changes are necessary and important for third-party campaigners.
The new statutory guidance—I do not know whether it will come to be called “the Hodgson guidance”—will provide certainty for third-party campaigners on how to comply with the rules relating to third-party campaigning. The amendment provides for the guidance to be comprehensive, and I say to my noble friend that it is our hope that this will address the term “the public” used in Part 1 of Schedule 8A on qualifying expenses.
The amendment requires the commission to consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, as in our earlier proposals on the strategy document. It also requires the commission to consult such other persons as the commission considers appropriate. As part of the statutory consultation, the Government would certainly expect a cross-section of civil society groups to be consulted; I can give my noble friend that assurance.
I am pleased to confirm that the Government are fully supportive of these three amendments, and I very much hope that your Lordships will support my noble friend.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 10, line 33.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments to Clause 22 in the name of Baroness Noakes ensure that the reporting threshold for section 28(3D) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (declaration of assets and liabilities to be provided on application for registration) is expressed in terms that are consistent with accounting practice.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 51 I will also speak to Amendments 52 and 53 in this group, and I can be brief. The amendments are technical and, I hope, non-contentious, especially as my noble friend Lord True has added his name to them.
In Committee, when we were debating what is now Clause 22, I asked the Minister about the wording of the new subsections (3B) and (3C) in Section 28 of PPERA. This exempts small parties from the new requirement to make a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register. The threshold has been set at £500, which is in line with the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which recommended it be set by reference to assets or liabilities. The Bill added another reference point: assets plus liabilities. Being a very old-fashioned accountant, adding assets and liabilities together did not make any sense to me.
Since Committee, I have had very constructive exchanges with my noble friend the Minister and his officials, and the outcome of that is the three amendments in this group. In effect, the amendments say that the small-parties threshold is now expressed as £500 for either assets or liabilities. It does this by saying that a small political party has to meet an assets/liabilities condition, which is defined in proposed new subsection (3C), in Amendment 53, as being met only if both assets and liabilities do not exceed £500.
I am grateful to the Government for facilitating this small change to the Bill in the interests of good accounting practice. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to highlight the importance that provisions relating to electoral law are consistent with accounting practice. I know that the noble Baroness speaks with great experience and expertise in this area, having served as the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, as well as holding various senior positions in the accounting and finance area.
Specifically, these amendments focus on the registration of parties and the declaration of assets in relation to this process. It is crucial that the individuals and groups participating in elections are fully transparent in their practices—a point which these Benches have consistently raised during debates on amendments in previous stages of the Bill.
I hope the Minister can provide assurances that PPERA and other legislation governing political activities are already consistent with accounting practice, but I would also appreciate if she could use this opportunity to provide a more general update on how the evolving governance of accountancy and reporting will relate to political finances.
Finally, the Minister will be aware that the Financial Reporting Council is preparing to transition to become the audit, reporting and governance authority. Can she confirm whether the Government expect the new authority to play any role in overseeing finances relating to elections? I look forward to assurances from the Minister.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 51, 52 and 53 were tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, whom I thank for sharing her considerable expertise in and knowledge of this topic. Her constructive engagement with the Bill, particularly this clause, has been gratefully received in order to ensure that the law works effectively and as intended.
Asset declarations upon registration as a political party is an important matter. In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Committee, I say that this measure was recommended by the Electoral Commission in its 2013 and 2018 reports—A Regulatory Review of the UK’s Party and Election Finance Laws, and Digital Campaigning: Increasing Transparency for Voters. This led to the Committee on Standards in Public Life making the very same recommendation in its 2021 report Regulating Election Finance.
Clause 22 introduces provisions that will require new political parties to declare whether they have assets or liabilities in excess of £500 when they register with the Electoral Commission as a political party. Those with assets or liabilities in excess of £500 will be required to give a record of them as part of their registration. This will provide an increased level of transparency regarding a political party’s financial position at the point of registration. As part of the registration process, new political parties are not currently required to submit a declaration of the assets they own or liabilities they have. This information only becomes available in their first annual statement of accounts, published on the Electoral Commission’s website, which may be up to 18 months after registration.
The central policy aim of Clause 22 is to ensure greater transparency regarding the financial situation of new political parties. It is my and the Government’s view that my noble friend Lady Noakes’s technical amendments make this clearer and easier to understand for political parties registering with the Electoral Commission. These amendments will remove the requirement to add together the assets and liabilities, therefore bringing this clause into line with the more standard accounting practices that my noble friend has shared with us. I will read Hansard tomorrow and make sure that the noble Lord has a written answer to the questions that he asked. Therefore, I am pleased to say that the Government support this amendment, and I urge the noble Lords to do so too.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in the name of Baroness Noakes at page 32, line 14.
“(3C) The assets/liabilities condition is met in relation to a party if—(a) the total value of the party’s assets does not exceed £500, and(b) the total amount of the party’s liabilities does not exceed £500.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in the name of Baroness Noakes at page 32, line 14.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, to leave out subsection (6) of the inserted section 89A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, is consequential on the new Clause that Lord Hodgson is seeking to insert after Clause 27.
“(10) An order under subsection (9)(b) or (c) may be made only where the order gives effect to a recommendation of the Commission.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes the power to remove or vary entries in the list of categories of third party that may be recognised for the purposes of Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 exercisable only on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, Clause 26 allows the Secretary of State to lay legislation before Parliament to amend the list of eligible categories of third-party campaigners in PPERA 2000. As we discussed at earlier stages, this is necessary in instances where, for example, legitimate categories not currently on the list emerge in the future. Without it, they would be significantly restricted in their ability to campaign if they could not be added to the list quickly. We consider the power to remove and vary entries equally as necessary in ensuring that the list of categories remains accurate. Any order, regardless of whether it adds, varies or removes categories, will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses, via the affirmative resolution procedure.
However, the Government have listened carefully to, and taken note of, concerns raised by noble Lords during debates, by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its recent report and by representatives from civil society organisations in recent meetings. In recognition of the strength of feeling on this issue, which I understand, I have therefore tabled an amendment that would mean that any order to remove or vary the description of a category of third-party campaigner can only—I emphasise “only”—be made where it gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission. This Electoral Commission lock will provide the necessary safeguard against any future Government potentially seeking to misuse this clause. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government are earnestly seeking to reassure those concerned by this clause, and that they will support this amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief again. I accept that, in Committee, I went on at length about this issue, although I did not repeat that later on. I accept that the noble Lord has entered into some proper consultation with the TUC and TULO. I welcome those meetings, and I certainly welcome the letter he wrote to both Frances O’Grady and Mick Whelan. It was welcomed particularly in reference to Clause 26—not only the reassurance that this will come from the Electoral Commission, but that there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny. So I very much welcome the Minister’s response and the fact that this House has been able to influence him in removing a clause from the Bill. I thank him very much.
“Code of practice on controls relating to third parties
(1) After section 100 of PPERA insert—“Code of practice relating to controlled expenditure100A Code of practice on controlled expenditure(1) The Commission must prepare a code of practice about the operation of this Part in relation to a reserved regulated period.(2) The code must in particular set out—(a) guidance on the kinds of expenses which do, or do not, fall within Part 1 of Schedule 8A (qualifying expenses);(b) guidance on determining whether the condition in section 85(2)(b) (promoting or procuring electoral success) is met in relation to expenditure;(c) guidance on determining whether anything provided to or for the use of a third party falls to be dealt with in accordance with section 86 (notional controlled expenditure) or with section 95 and Schedule 11 (donations);(d) examples of when expenditure falls to be dealt with in accordance with section 94(6) (expenditure of a third party in pursuance of an arrangement with one or more other third parties);(e) guidance about the operation of sections 94D to 94H (targeted controlled expenditure).(3) The Commission may from time to time revise the code.(4) In exercising their functions under this Part, the Commission must have regard to the code.(5) It is a defence for a third party charged with an offence under any provision of this Part, where the offence relates to expenditure incurred or treated as incurred by a third party during a reserved regulated period, to show—(a) that the code, in the form for the time being issued under section 100B, was complied with by the third party in determining whether the expenditure is controlled expenditure for the purposes of this Part, and(b) that the offence would not have been committed on the basis of the controlled expenditure as determined in accordance with the code.(6) In this section, “reserved regulated period” means a period in relation to which any limit is imposed by paragraph 3, 7, 9, 10 or 11 of Schedule 10 (regulated periods for parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly).(7) Section 100B sets out consultation and procedural requirements relating to the code or any revised code.100B Code of practice: consultation and procedural requirements(1) The Commission must consult the following on a draft of a code under section 100A—(a) the Speaker’s Committee;(b) the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee;(c) such other persons as the Commission consider appropriate.(2) After the Commission have carried out the consultation required by subsection (1), they must—(a) make whatever modifications to the draft code the Commission consider necessary in light of responses to the consultation, and(b) submit the draft to the Secretary of State for approval by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State may approve a draft code either without modifications or with such modifications as the Secretary of State may determine. (4) Once the Secretary of State has approved a draft code, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the draft, whether—(a) in its original form, or(b) in a form which incorporates any modifications determined under subsection (3).(5) If the draft code incorporates any such modifications, the Secretary of State must at the same time lay before each House a statement of the Secretary of State’s reasons for making them.(6) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State must take no further steps in relation to the draft code.(7) Subsection (6) does not prevent a new draft code from being laid before Parliament.(8) If no resolution of the kind mentioned in subsection (6) is made within the 40-day period—(a) the Secretary of State must issue the code in the form of the draft laid before Parliament,(b) the Commission must arrange for the code to be published in such manner as they consider appropriate, and(c) the code comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.(9) References in this section (other than in subsection (1)) to a code or draft code include a revised code or draft revised code.(10) In this section, “the 40-day period”, in relation to a draft code, means—(a) if the draft is laid before one House on a day later than the day on which it is laid before the other House, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the two days, and(b) in any other case, the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before each House, no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(11) If the name of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee is changed, the reference in subsection (1)(b) to that Committee is to be read (subject to subsection (12)) as a reference to the Committee by its new name.(12) If the functions of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee at the passing of this Act with respect to electoral matters (or functions corresponding substantially to such matters) become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, the reference in subsection (1)(b) to that Committee is to be read as a reference to the committee which for the time being has those functions.”(2) In section 156 of PPERA (orders and regulations), in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) an order under section 100B(8);”.(3) In Schedule 8A to PPERA (controlled expenditure: qualifying expenses), in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (10) insert— “(11) This paragraph does not apply in relation to expenses incurred during a period in relation to which any limit is imposed by paragraph 3, 7, 9, 10 or 11 of Schedule 10 (regulated periods for parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly) (see sections 100A and 100B as regards expenses incurred during such a period).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Electoral Commission to publish a code of practice on the operation of Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (which deals with controlled expenditure of third parties). The code of practice would not apply for the purposes of elections to the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out Clause 28 (joint campaigning by registered parties and third parties).
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces “if it is not reasonably practicable to comply” with “if it is not possible to comply” to ensure that the majority of electronic material is within scope of the bill’s intentions.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 58 and speak to Amendments 60, 61, 62 and 65. The amendments in my name in this group closely resemble those I tabled in Committee and that I spoke to comprehensively then. They all relate to digital election campaign content, and I will not repeat the arguments I made for them at any length today. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Parkinson, the Bill team and officials from DCMS and DLUHC for meeting with me after Committee, and for what could perhaps be called a moderately enlightening discussion.
Through these amendments, I have been pursuing four aspects of digital campaigning. First, clear guidance on digital imprints is represented by Amendment 58. I have been assured that the Scottish provisions in law—and hence their guidance—are not nearly as prescriptive as those set out in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give his assurance that the current interpretation of the Bill means that statutory guidance from the Electoral Commission—when it comes forward—will require the imprint in almost every circumstance to be on the image or post, unlike in Scotland. It is really only on platforms such as Twitter, where there is a character limit, that it can be considered not to be practicable to put the full imprint. In addition, I hope he will confirm there will be an expectation that the forwarding of posts will require either the full original imprint to be included or a new imprint to be placed on the material. There will also, I understand, be rules put in place for when and how long material must be retained for inspection.
Secondly, banning foreign actors is sought by Amendment 61. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord True, prayed in aid the new £700 limit and the imprint requirements at our meeting at Committee stage, but neither of them addressed the loopholes which will still exist where multiple identities can be created. This is where both Ministers’ statements were inadequate. The new amendment no longer covers British overseas electors, so I hope the Ministers come up with better assurances in this area. There is some consolation in the provision to review the operation of the Bill, but it is important at this stage—at this stage, not later—to take a view whether they are sufficiently watertight as regards foreign actors. This is an area where the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Committee on Standards in Public Life advocated much stronger controls.
Thirdly, Amendment 62 would require promoters to establish advert libraries for digital campaign adverts placed, while Amendment 60 would require detailed information about expenditure on digital campaign material. Here, the main government argument seems to be that the social media platforms that take political advertising—i.e. not Twitter—are keeping libraries already and are different in character, so it would be inappropriate to have a one-size-fits-all regulation. But at the same time, the noble Lord, Lord True, sought to assure me that several important recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission, including those relating to advert libraries and more detailed information on invoices, are still under consideration by the Government. Given the timing of the introduction of this Elections Bill, surely it is high time for the Government to have made a clear decision. What is the state of play here, in terms of a decision having been made on those recommendations?
The fourth area is that of misinformation and disinformation, starting with my Amendment 65 to criminalise false statements about election integrity, which is designed to see what direction the Government are planning to take. As I outlined in Committee, a whole host of Select Committees and the Committee on Standards in Public Life have made recommendations in this area. This has particular relevance in the context of the Ukraine invasion and Russian behaviour in the digital space for many years now. As former President Obama said in a recent interview with The Atlantic magazine,
“if you ask me what I’m most concerned about when I think back to towards the end of my presidency… that is the degree to which information, disinformation, misinformation was being weaponized. And we saw it. But I think I underestimated the degree to which democracies were as vulnerable to it as they were, including ours”.
And the director of GCHQ, Sir Jeremy Fleming, made a strong point about values in his recent speech in Australia. As he said,
“we must make sure that we stay true to our values, those that have made our systems and democracies so successful and will do so in the future too”.
A recent Ofcom study has revealed that 30% of UK adults who go online are unsure about or do not even consider the truthfulness of online information. A further 6%—around one in every 20 internet users—believe everything they see online.
There is, of course, crossover with the Online Safety Bill. I was grateful for the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, at our meeting, where he gave some assurance about the operation of the Bill and the powers of Ofcom regarding the design features of social media platforms and the way that their algorithms amplify misinformation and disinformation; about the adoption of the Law Commission proposals for a new offence of false communication; and about the workings of the counter-disinformation unit together with the Defending Democracy programme and the so-called Election Cell—which I was assured was not as opaque as it seems.
I do not expect the Minister to promise amendments ahead of the Online Safety Bill coming to this House, but I hope he will demonstrate a strong awareness of the importance of this aspect of digital campaigning. We will obviously return to this subject when the OSB comes into this House later in the year.
All that said, it is clear that in many of these areas the guidance and review of an independent Electoral Commission is going to be critical together with parliamentary oversight. Responsibility for elections has now transferred to DLUHC from the Cabinet Office but it is no more acceptable for the Secretary of State for Levelling Up to set the policy and priorities for the Electoral Commission than it is for the Cabinet Office.
Given the risk of skewing our political system in favour of the incumbent Government, it is all the more important we hold fast when the issue which we determined in the first group today comes back to this House. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group—Amendment 59, previously tabled in Committee as Amendment 45B. The purpose of the amendment is very simple: it aims to increase transparency about third party campaigning by inserting this new clause, “Disclosure of status as a recognised third party”.
It is not concerned with the question of the imprints on electronic or printed material, which are, essentially, transitory—they come and go—and which are the target of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which the Minister will reply in a minute. It is much simpler than that. It focuses solely on the homepage or the website, if it has one, of a registered third party campaigning organisation. If the amendment were accepted, the homepage of that registered organisation would be required to carry a statement along the lines of “XYZ”—the name of the campaigning organisation—“is a registered third party campaigner under Part 6 of PPERA 2000”, or similar wording.
The purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that individual members of the public viewing the website of a particular organisation are unequivocally, and at all times, made aware that the organisation is an active political campaigner. I have never suggested that this is going to bring about any radical change, but by increasing transparency about who is doing what to whom, it follows the direction of travel that the Government have said underlies the Bill.
In his reply in Committee, my noble friend the Minister was rather encouraging when he said:
“On the specific amendment of my noble friend, while the Government entirely agree with the principle that the public should clearly be able to identify recognised third parties, I can reassure the noble Lord that the current rules, supplemented by new rules in the Bill, will provide for that.”—[Official Report, 17/3/22; col. 477.]
He went on to say he wanted to go away to consider it further and asked whether I would withdraw my amendment, which I duly did.
At that point, my noble friend took the trouble to write to me. By this stage, I am afraid his remarks were rather less encouraging. He went on to say in his letter on 4 April:
“I … wanted to reiterate the Government’s position on your proposal to require registered third parties to disclose their registered status on a prominent place on their website, where they have a website … The Government entirely agrees it is right that third-party groups campaigning at elections should be transparent and clearly identifiable. Registered third party campaigners are already … listed on the Electoral Commission’s website, and the Elections Bill will introduce further requirements to ensure that any UK-based group spending over £10,000 registers with the regulator.”
If noble Lords read and consider that carefully, the outcome is quite different from that which would be achieved if my amendment were implemented. Yes, there will be rules about imprints on digital material, which might be strengthened by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if they were accepted, but unless a member of the public is visiting the organisation’s website because he or she has just received some imprinted material with a digital imprint on it, there will be no way of knowing whether or not the organisation in question is a registered third-party campaigner.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we had a lengthy debate on this in Committee and I accepted what the noble Baroness the Minister said at the time, that actually the requirements in the current law will be strong enough to ensure that the principle that we all want—greater transparency—will be applied. Certainly, I accepted that and understood it, because I think we all shared the concern that “reasonably practicable to comply” could be a huge loophole and she assured us that that would not be the case. We also discussed in Committee the fact that the industry itself, the online industry, had produced the means to ensure greater transparency. I made reference to the Adobe briefing, which I think is really important. I think we are all at one in terms of what is required.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I agree with him completely that it is again providing the means to ensure greater transparency. Certainly, from these Benches, we support his amendment and if he decides to divide the House, we will support him.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Elections Bill, let us not forget, will introduce one of the most comprehensive digital imprint regimes operating in the world today and I submit to your Lordships that whatever shortcomings they may feel, or however much further they want to o’erleap the ambitions of the Government, these proposals are about increasing transparency for voters and empowering them to make informed decisions about the material they see online. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, there is much agreement on that point, but we cannot, I fear, support Amendments 58, 60 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because they do not, in our submission, strike the right balance between increasing transparency and proportionate regulation of campaigning, while Amendments 61 and 65 would be highly difficult to enforce and would risk unduly stifling online campaigning and free speech, although I concede to the noble Lord that this matter will be further debated in the Online Safety Bill.
Regarding Amendment 58, it will not always be practical to display the imprint as part of the digital material itself; for example, as noble Lords have said, in a text-based tweet, where there is a strict character limit. This amendment would not give campaigners the limited, yet crucial, level of flexibility afforded by the Government’s regime and would thus risk unreasonably hampering their ability to campaign on some digital platforms. The above reflects the carefully considered and pragmatic approach we have sought to adopt. I know the noble Lord’s concerns; I appreciated the discussion we had and I understood where he was coming from. The perceived permissiveness of the guidance surrounding the Scottish digital imprints regime, in so far as it created a perceived loophole, was worrying him. I am pleased to confirm on the record here, as I said privately, that our regime will not operate in the same way.
The digital imprint regime that applies at elections in Scotland does not specify requirements regarding the location of the imprint, which is why the Electoral Commission’s guidance in Scotland was not prescriptive in this respect. However, our new regime does provide the necessary specifics on the rules regarding the location of the imprint. Campaigners will be required to ensure that their imprints are displayed as part of the material. Only when this is not reasonably practicable—this touches on my noble friend’s amendment—may the imprint be located elsewhere, but it must still be directly accessible from the campaigning material. Those who do not comply will be committing an offence. Furthermore, the statutory guidance we are proposing as part of our regime will provide practical directions to campaigners on how to follow the rules, including regarding the location of the imprint. This guidance will be subject to parliamentary approval, meaning that parliamentarians will be able to ensure that it provides sufficient clarity for campaigners to comply with the rules. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by those points.
On Amendment 60, candidates and registered campaigners already have to detail their election spending in their returns and provide invoices for payments over a certain amount, including in relation to digital campaigning. These are then made available for public scrutiny. The Government have explained that this requirement on campaigners to submit more detailed invoices or receipts about digital activity would need to be looked at carefully, as the detail provided is determined by the suppliers themselves, not the recipient. It could therefore prove difficult and burdensome for campaigners to comply with these additional requirements.
Similarly, Amendment 62 would require all campaigners promoting paid political advertising, and not the online platforms, to maintain a library of those advertisements, with specified information, for at least 10 years. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but we have explained that in our view this risks adding an unreasonable burden on campaigners, particularly smaller groups that rely on volunteers, or groups that are established only for the lifetime of a particular campaign. It is also not clear that there is a sufficient case for regulation in relation to political advert libraries, given, as the noble Lord acknowledged, that major platforms such as Facebook, Google and YouTube already make available libraries of political advertising that they host.
My response to Amendment 61 will focus on paid-for political advertising, as defined by Clauses 41 and 42, rather than other electronic material, as defined by Clauses 43 and 44, given that other electronic material is relevant only to UK-based entities anyway, with the exception of registered overseas electors who have also registered as third-party campaigners. The Government agree with the principle that there should be strict limitations on ineligible entities overseas spending money campaigning during UK elections, including on digital advertising.
Clause 25 will already remove the scope for any legal spending by foreign or otherwise ineligible third-party campaigners above a £700 de minimis limit. This is a huge reduction, given that those same actors can currently spend up to £20,000 legally during the regulated period in England, or £10,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Further to this, by requiring an imprint on all paid-for electronic campaigning material, regardless of where in the world it comes from, the digital imprint regime will already greatly improve transparency of political advertising from overseas actors. For any material that is published in breach of the imprint rules, the enforcement authorities are able to require the relevant social media platform to take down the material.
Strict controls on spending and clear transparency about origin are essential. But I cannot agree to a fast-considered and potentially disproportionate blanket ban on all political material from foreign actors within scope of the digital imprint regime. We would need again to examine carefully the implications and practicalities of enforcement and restrictions on freedom of speech to avoid any risk of unintended consequences.
I turn to Amendment 65. The Government remain concerned that this amendment includes no reference to intent and that the proposed new clause, as drafted, could criminalise unintentionally false statements. It could, therefore, be very broadly applied. It could also discourage people from raising any legitimate concerns for fear of a statement being considered false. This offence could potentially provide broad powers to clamp down on anyone who expresses genuine concerns about the process of an election. Overall, we believe that this clause could have unintended but potentially severe implications for freedom of speech.
I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take electoral disinformation and misinformation very seriously, but we believe that these are best addressed through non-legislative measures, such as the counter-disinformation unit to which the noble Lord referred and which was explained during our debate in Committee. Any regulation must be balanced with the need to protect freedom of expression and the legitimate public debate which is crucial to a thriving democracy.
The response on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is one of disappointment, but I thank him for his amendments. I hope that I have brought some clarity to the questions raised. I hope he feels able to withdraw Amendment 58, although I acknowledge that he will pursue certain matters on another Bill.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. The Government entirely agree that it is right that third-party groups campaigning at elections should be transparent and clearly identifiable. This is why the digital imprints regime will require recognised third-party campaigners to declare who they are when promoting relevant online campaigning material to the public, including but not limited to their websites. Where third-party campaigners use their websites to campaign, as defined by Clause 43, an imprint will be required. Promoters will be required to ensure that the imprint—or access to it—is retained as part of the material, if it is moved on. Where promoters comply with the digital imprint rules by adding an imprint in material displayed on their website, the imprint will be visible for as long as the material is available to the public online and remains in scope of the rules.
I know that my noble friend is not convinced that it is sufficient that third-party campaigners are already publicly listed on the Electoral Commission’s website. We believe that the current rules, supplemented by the new digital imprint rules, will provide increased transparency and identify recognised third parties. There are specific problems about the construction of this amendment, which I have discussed with my noble friend. As currently drafted, the amendment would create a new offence but does not specify a penalty for its commission or any statutory defences against the charge. Further, and I am sure this is entirely inadvertent, the amendment is drafted such that any website owned and operated by a recognised third-party campaigner—for example, a large charity which might have many different websites—would be captured, even if it were unrelated to the campaigning activities for which the third party is registered. It could lead to a disproportionate application of criminal liability. These proposals would need further discussion with third-party campaigners and potential enforcement authorities. Digital regulation is a complex area. Few have thought about it more than either the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, or my noble friend. But these digital imprint provisions were consulted on publicly—twice.
My noble friend is not entirely enamoured of the letter I wrote to him recently to assure him that the Government will continue to keep the transparency of digital campaigning under review. I underline this commitment. I assure my noble friend and the House that I will ask my officials to engage with the Electoral Commission to consider whether my noble friend’s proposal could be included as best practice for third-party campaigners, which the House has agreed to secure, in the commission’s guidance.
With these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel reassured to some degree by the clarifications that I have been able to give and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for engaging rather more carefully with the arguments this time around than the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did with her script in Committee. It was important to address some of these issues. The Minister’s reply was disappointing but expected. He used the word “disappointing” as well.
For a moment, I thought that his speech on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was going to have a “not invented here” quality. Actually, it was a game of two halves. Suddenly, the clouds seemed to part slightly. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is used to being given assurances from the Front Bench. He will, no doubt, pursue them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his remarks. Of course, transparency is the essence of what the principle within digital campaigning should be. The Minister’s clarification on the imprint aspect was helpful. The position is different from that in Scotland. I hope that this will be followed up in the statutory guidance to which he referred.
I am disappointed that the Government seem to be torn between saying that the other transparency provisions for advert libraries and invoices are disproportionate yet, at the same time, they are still considering the proposals from the Electoral Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They are taking an awfully long time to consider these aspects. Obviously, we differ as to whether or not they would be an unreasonable burden on campaigners.
There is a clear difference between what the Minister and the Government seem to be saying about the practicalities of enforcing the strict limits on foreign expenditure and the concerns of the Intelligence and Security Committee. This is not the place to pursue either this or the aspect of electoral misinformation. I was trying to draw out the Minister’s intentions about misinformation and disinformation. It was helpful to have some indication that the Government see the Online Safety Bill as a way of dealing with some of the systemic aspects of misinformation on social media platforms. We will return to this when the Online Safety Bill comes before us in the autumn. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Disclosure of status as a recognised third party
(1) Section 89 of PPERA (Register of notifications for purposes of section 88) is amended as follows.(2) At end of heading insert “and third party disclosure of registered status”.(3) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) During a period in which a notification under section 88 is in effect and the Commission has entered details of the notification on the register in accordance with this section, a third party shall disclose its status as a recognised third party in a prominent place on the homepage of its website.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a reference to a third party's “website” means any part of a website relating to that third party which that third party has caused or authorised to appear.(7) Subsection (5) shall not apply where a third party does not have a website within the meaning of subsection (6).(8) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they contravene subsection (5).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires registered non-party campaigners to disclose their status as such on a prominent place on their websites, so as to increase transparency for the public.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am disappointed by my noble friend’s response. His support in principle has been lost in a series of technical issues. Instead of seeing how we could make this happen, he has fallen back on “penalty not specified” and “technical problems”. This is a shame, bearing in mind that this is about transparency. Its purpose is simple. It does not impose any significant bureaucratic burden on anybody anywhere. He has given a fig leaf, a quarter of a loaf, a few slices of bread in his undertaking to make sure that the Electoral Commission is brought into play in looking at this whole problem. This is so that we do not have a situation where people could pop on and off the website: when they are issuing digital imprinted material they put their name on the website and when they are not doing so they take it away again so people cannot see whether they are campaigners or not.
I hope my noble friend will make sure the feet of the Electoral Commission are held to the fire on that. I am not about gesture Divisions so, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 59.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, it is not possible to withdraw at this point; I must technically put the question. No one has thereafter to vote for it if they do not wish to do so.
The question is open now, so the noble Lord may withdraw if he wishes.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Permissible donors
(1) Section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2)(a), after “register” insert “at the time at which the donation is made, but not an individual so registered as an overseas elector”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent overseas electors donating to political parties in the UK.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. This amendment would prevent overseas electors donating to political parties in the UK. We had quite a debate about this in Committee so I will not go over all the points, but I want to talk about the reasons behind our concerns and to raise a few key things.
We are concerned that the change to remove the 15-year limit on registering overseas electors creates a loophole in donation law that would allow wealthy donors unlimited access to our democracy and the opportunity for unprecedentedly large donations. We do not believe that foreign donors should be allowed to financially influence our democratic processes; that right should be reserved for citizens who actually live in this country. The Electoral Commission recommended introducing new duties on parties to enhance due diligence and risk assessment of donations based on existing money laundering regulations, which would protect parties and build confidence among voters, so that sources of party funding would be thoroughly and properly scrutinised.
We are therefore disappointed that the Bill does nothing about this and does not bring in what is urgently needed—an effective regulatory and enforcement regime to ensure that foreign money and dark money cannot enter our political system through donations to political parties. We have tabled Amendment 63 to protect our democracy from this foreign money, which we know is already impacting our politics. Concerns about how our democracy is being influenced by malign foreign influences has been highlighted already in the Russia report. That was debated at length in Committee, so I will not go into that any further, but it provides a clear example and concern.
Our fear is that the Government have, potentially inadvertently, created a system vulnerable to overseas interference. It allows a person to call up any or every local authority to say they were resident in the area 30 or 40 years ago with pretty flimsy proof and then be able to be registered and donate enormous sums of money. That is our key concern. When this was debated in Committee, the Minister said that if you have the right to vote, you should have the right to donate. Although I understand entirely the principle behind this, it does not address our very real concerns. If I am not satisfied by the Minister’s response that there is genuine recognition of this concern and that action will be taken by the Government to stop this potential foreign influence on our elections and political parties, I will wish to divide the House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 63. I strongly support it and I trust the House will give it its support. The absence of any detail from the Government on how they will implement the idea of overseas votes for life is quite remarkable. There is nothing on how they would check the bona fides of expatriates claiming to be citizens and to have lived in particular UK constituencies, perhaps half a century ago, in contrast to the proposals to tighten domestic identity checks. There is nothing on new measures for getting ballots out to these new voters and returning them in the span of our short campaigns. From the hundreds of messages I have had from expatriate voters, that is one of the issues about which they are most concerned: how difficult it is to get the ballots out or get them back. There is nothing on the current distribution of overseas voters in constituencies or how the expansion might affect the current balance of our constituencies in terms of size and the equalisation of the numbers of voters in each. The Government do not know what the current distribution of voters by constituency is—at least, the Minister did not when I submitted the Written Question to him—or how overseas voters are distributed by overseas countries or how many would be likely to register.
In these circumstances, one has to conclude that the Government’s main objective in extending expatriate votes for life is to tap wealthy donors who long ago moved abroad to avoid paying UK tax to increase the structural advantages from which the Conservatives already benefit in funding electoral campaigns. All the amendments in this group address the huge question of how to maintain a level playing field in the financing of political campaigns. This is one of the many issues on which the Bill falls short. Noble Lords will recall that the Committee on Standards in Public Life published a substantial report on political finance last summer, just two days after the Government had published the Elections Bill. The Government have made no effort since then to incorporate its proposals into the Bill, in spite of introducing a number of other significant amendments.
We all recognise that uncontrolled flows of money into political campaigns can unbalance and corrupt democratic politics. We see the extent to which American politics has become the plaything of the super-rich. Noble Lords may have noted that in the last three months of 2019, in the run-up to our last general election, two-thirds of the money reported by the Electoral Commission to have been contributed to UK parties flowed to the Conservatives. Quite possibly, as much again flowed to the think tanks of the right, including from non-UK citizens in the USA and non-democratic states. We are drifting closer to the American situation, with the difference that only one of our major parties has easy access to large-scale donors.
As other amendments in this group suggest, we need a broader review of political funding than the Bill permits. Amendment 63 thus offers a stop-gap measure. Those who have moved to Monaco, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Caribbean tax havens to avoid paying UK tax should not be permitted to bias our domestic politics by funding political campaigns. Yes, we should allow them to vote as citizens. But we have learned from flows of money from Russia and right-wing foundations in the USA that the buying of influence over British politics from overseas undermines the level playing field that democratic campaigns depend on and that I hope the Minister still supports. It also corrodes trust in the integrity of our democratic process. I regard Amendment 63 as an important stop-gap measure until, perhaps, a different Government tackle the question of political finance and its regulation. I hope the House will support it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. They have already very clearly outlined Amendment 63, to which I attached my name, so in the interests of time, I will comment just on Amendments 66 and 68 in my name. These are advances, derivations or different approaches that arose from the debate we had on these issues in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, just said, I would not necessarily suggest that these are the complete answer—although Amendment 68 certainly takes us in the direction that he referred to of reviewing our current situation—but they are an attempt to raise the issues and continue the debate from Committee.
I begin by noting—I owe this to the Forbes website—that a superyacht costs on average about $275 million. I cannot personally attest to that, but we can take it as a ballpark figure to start with; of course, there are probably quite a few going second hand at the moment, which might make them a bit cheaper. This is a demonstration of the fact that, in our current economic system, with the corruption and extractivism, we have people in the world who have access to massive sums of money. Amendment 63 and most of the debate around this have focused very much on foreign influence. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about bringing influence over our democratic politics. But what my Amendments 66 and 68 do is ask: why should any individual, wherever they reside, have that kind of influence over our democratic politics?
If we look at what a typical political party—one of the two largest parties, or perhaps particularly the party that draws the most funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said—spends on a general election, it is about 10% of the cost of a superyacht. It is not quite small change down the back of the sofa for the oligarchs, but it is not a really large amount of money. I asked in Committee what would happen if one of our existing political parties or a new political party drew all its funding from one source—one highly questionable source or any source at all. For example, we have just had the French election, and the far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, who got more than 40% of the vote, got a very large loan from a Hungarian bank linked to President Putin. If noble Lords want to see how this plays out in Australian politics, they might like to look at the role of Clive Palmer in the election going on now, since I raised that issue in Committee.
This amendment developed from the Committee work. Of course, we do not have exact parallels to the two examples I have just cited in the UK, although I note, looking back over the past decade or so, that in the run-up to the 2010 election, Lord Ashcroft donated about 20% of the money that the Conservative Party spent in preparing for and running that election campaign. In 2021, the Conservative mayoral candidate, Shaun Bailey, received about 40% of his funding from the same source. I am not in any way casting aspersions on those cases; I am merely asking what happens to our politics when one person is hugely influential and a party is dependent on that one person.
Amendment 66 is an attempt to say that there should be a limit on how much one person can influence a political party. I came up with the figure of 5%, which I think is a reasonable estimate. This was debated at some length with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is not in his place today. He said that he would go away and think about whether one person should be able to donate 100% of the cost of an election campaign for a party or major character. I give notice to the Minister that I raise that question again. The noble Earl said he would go away and reflect on what the maximum percentage should be; maybe the Government do not think my 5% figure is right, but do they really believe that 100% of the funding for a political party’s campaign for a general election should be able to come from one source? Maybe they think it should be 50% or 25%. I give the Minister fair warning that if I do not get an answer to that, I will be bouncing back up again. I am sure that, if they engage with Amendment 66, the Government are likely to say that this might be drafted differently. I have attempted to address some of the main issues. I will not push this to a vote. I do not believe that I have necessarily found all the answers here, but there is a really important question that needs to be asked about whether we should limit anyone’s, not just foreign residents’, percentage of influence over our parties.
Some will say that we have rules about declaring donations and, providing they are followed—your Lordships’ House did its best earlier to keep an independent Electoral Commission overseeing that—voters can use that information to influence their choice. However, even if it is all open and transparent, voters have many reasons to make the choices that they do. Elections do need to be funded, which is why I have put down Amendment 68, which would require a 12-month consultation on public funding of political parties. This very much draws on the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, tabled in Committee and on which, unfortunately, due to the hour, we did not have time to have a full debate. None the less, the noble Lord put forward—as he has again in an amended form here—a proposal for how to do this and get state funding of political parties. We could have lots of debates about the nature of that and the way it should be done, so rather than do that, I have put down this amendment for a review.
I will stop there, but I remind the Minister that I will be asking him if he thinks that 100% of the funding for a campaign should be able to come from one source.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, although I do not think it goes to the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the massive increase in the electorate contained within this Bill. We know from the impact assessment and I know from written replies I have had from the Minister that it increases the electoral roll of people living abroad—many of whom have lived abroad for decades—from around 1 million to 3.3 million, an increase of 2.3 million names. I remind the House that these will overwhelmingly be people who have lived abroad for more than 15 years—for many, 50 or 60 years —and who have no reasonable expectation of ever returning to this country. The Bill makes it easier for this registration to persist as, once on the register, names now remain for three years as opposed to one year previously, and you can get on the electoral roll by the process of attestation—in other words, providing you can get someone to attest that you lived at 22 Station Road 60 years ago, even though 22 Station Road has been demolished and you have not been back since, and that you are a bona fide former resident of the United Kingdom.
To me, that is wrong in principle, but I shall also apply it at a constituency level—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised this and I can give him some of the answer. Under the present system, with the 15-year rule on residence that is allowed, in London and Westminster, 2.43% of voters at the last election were overseas voters. Let us assume that that increases by three, once these 2.3 million are added to the register. You could then have constituencies in the United Kingdom with 6,000 or 7,000 voters in an electorate of 73,000 who have no obvious connection whatsoever with the constituency in which they are voting. That, it seems to me, is wrong.
Whatever your view is, the absolute basis of our electoral system—which I cherish; I have to be controversial here by saying I am a powerful supporter of first past the post and single-member constituencies—is that representation, for a general election, is based on where you live. That is a very good basis for registration and voting, it seems to me. But, no, we are going to add 2.3 million people to the register who never lived in the country—not in recent memory.
In order to do this, the Government are spending some £15 million. I wish that they would show the same anxiety and commitment on making sure that people resident within the United Kingdom and not on the register at present were added instead of spending £15 million on getting people to vote in individual constituencies—possible decisively, affecting the result—who simply do not live in the area.
I am very sorry that this Bill has extended the period of residence from 15 years to life. I hope that the Minister can improve on his answer when I raised this before; he asked what on earth is the basis for objecting to supporting a 15-year rule, which says that—I quote him loosely—if you have been abroad for 15 years, you can vote in an election, but if you have been abroad for 15 years and a day, you cannot vote in an election. That really is a thin argument; he really can do better than that. That applies to any boundary—why do we say people can vote at 18 but not at 17 and 364 days? We can all find numerous examples of how people draw boundaries.
The problem of overseas voting—and here I find myself agreeing with the Green Party, which I do not on every occasion—is that with the possibility of this initial problem, which is that you can vote however long you have been away from the country, you can also now provide funds for parties. It means, as has already been said, that, in theory, a party could be almost entirely financed by people living abroad with no intention of returning to the United Kingdom or of living with the consequences of their vote. That is the other crucial element in our democracy: you live to see the consequences of your vote. People who voted Conservative—I hope a lot of them vote Labour at the next election—bear some responsibility for what is happening in the country at the moment. It is not the same responsibility as the Minister, of course, but they have some responsibility. Of course, if you live abroad, vote from abroad, remain abroad and intend to remain abroad, then you do not live with the consequences of your vote.
I very much regret that, somehow or other, this massive extension of the franchise is in this Bill, without any compensating extension of the franchise for people in this country who are not on the electoral roll. I have seen no sensible, adequate defence of it so far. I am sure that the Minister will do his best, which he is bound to do, but we have made a step in our democracy that violates the principle of representation by place of residence and adds the problem of enabling parties to be massively financed by people living and working permanently abroad.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords who have already spoken. I will speak briefly about Amendment 67. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent committee to report on the creation of what I call a foundation for democracy, whose sole aim is to prevent the rich and corporations from directly funding political parties and hijacking the political system. Private money in our political system is a cancer, and the issue has not really been adequately addressed by this Bill.
In 1863, US President Abraham Lincoln visualised democracy as a
“government of the people, by the people, for the people”.
Some 160 years later, that remains elusive—we are light years away from it. Yes, people vote, but political power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of those who can fund political parties and get favour in return. Their preferences are prioritised.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Is the noble Lord not aware that Report is for short, sharp speeches, not this endless diatribe he is currently inflicting upon us?
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his observation. I am sure that members of the public would be quite interested to note that when an alternative proposal is put forward, it is called a “diatribe”. That kind of confinement of alternative, competing discourses to negative spaces does not do any good. But the message I want to get across is that there is a corrosive element at the heart of our democracy that can be dealt with only by ending the receipt of any private money by any political party.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of Report is to report back on things that were inadequately dealt with in Committee. Amendment 69, which I am speaking to, was inadequately dealt with in Committee. We had a debate and a very unsatisfactory answer, so I want to return to it—not at the same length as in Committee, but nevertheless in some detail that might make for uncomfortable listening for different parties in the House.
The idea is for risk assessment and due diligence policies to be used to control and look at procedures on political donations. What is the problem? Dirty money in the UK leaves parties exposed to malign influence, risks fostering dependence on the proceeds of crime and other dubious funds, and undermines the integrity of the electoral system. PPERA does not require UK political parties to run anti-money laundering checks on donors. In fact, there are no indications that parties do robust checks on the source of donations, nor that parties reject donations after such checks have been made. As the UK’s anti-money laundering framework has been progressively tightened over the last decade—I pay tribute to the current Government on this issue, as I have done before—political parties’ minimal checks have become an increasingly glaring anomaly. Examples from the media suggest that if parties check the source of donations at all, they are inadequate and fail to prevent the flow of tainted money into UK politics.
The Electoral Commission has argued since 2018 that risk management principles from anti-money laundering checks by businesses could apply to election finance. In July 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that parties have anti-money laundering style procedures to determine the true source of donations.
How would Amendment 69 address the problem? It would update PPERA to require parties to develop and publish reasonable and proportionate risk-based policies for identifying the true source of donations above £7,500—we are not looking at small donations here. Parties would need to have reasonable and proportionate risk assessment and due diligence controls and procedures in respect of those policies, as provided for in a statutory instrument. For any donation or an aggregate amount exceeding £7,500, parties would need to undertake enhanced due diligence checks, with a simplified process thereafter. Donors giving over £7,500 would need to declare whether their business is in a high-risk sector, which is defined in the amendment, and whether they have been under formal investigation or convicted of certain offences. Parties would need to include a statement of risk management in their annual accounts identifying that.
What have the parties done about due diligence checks on donations? The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report, Regulating Election Finance, identified broad support for exploring anti-money laundering style regulations from the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Scottish National Party. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats agreed that there was merit in exploring this style of regulations but that it would be important to think about how the process would work and the administrative workload involved. The Conservative Party told the Committee on Standards in Public Life that it thought that current regulations for donations were sufficient.
In their response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation that parties should have procedures in place for the true source of donations, the Government said that
“it is very important to balance the need for parties and other campaigners to generate funds against the cost of actually carrying out checks on donations, to ensure they come from permissible sources. We think the current rules are proportionate and achieve this balance.”
When a version of Amendment 69 was debated in Committee—it was rather longer; it is still long but it has been tightened up a bit—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that
“all we can do is keep the rules under review. I am suggesting that in this particular area, the balance is about right.”—[Official Report, 28/3/22; col. 1378.]
Let us look at the balance: due diligence checks would be a relatively low administrative workload. If due diligence checks had been required on donations above £7,500 in 2021, the Liberal Democrats would have conducted checks on just 11% of donors, or 72 donations out of 642; Labour on 25%, or 133 out of 536; the Greens on 29.2%, or 19 out of 65; and the SNP on 63%, or seven out of 11. This means that, at most, Labour would have had to do checks on one donation every 2.7 days over the course of a year, and the Liberal Democrats would have had to do one check every five days. Obviously, because some donations come from the same donor, it would probably be less frequent than that.
Now we come to the Conservatives; no wonder we get complaints from the Tory Benches about what is being said. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but that was a very unfortunate intervention. The Conservatives would have checked 51.5% of donors— 457 donations out of a total of 887 were of £7,500 or more. Of course, this reflects their greater resources, with donations of almost £19 million in 2021—around double what Labour received.
I have three examples of potentially suspect donations. I gave a lot more in Committee, and I stand by them all; they are all there on the record. All major political parties have accepted potentially suspect donations from individuals and companies that were under investigation or later found to be involved in economic crime. The media has reported on a catalogue of such donations, with Spotlight on Corruption providing most of the information. The Conservatives received £2 million in cash donations from Lycamobile, a company whose premises were raided by French authorities in 2016 on suspicion of money laundering, leading to the arrest of the company’s directors. Despite evidence emerging in 2015 that Lycamobile employees were dropping off rucksacks full of cash at post offices across London, the party took a further £587,000 from the company until July 2017.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I really need to add very little to what he has said. It is very difficult to see why there should be opposition to a requirement that political parties should have
“a reasonable and proportionate risk-based policy for identifying the true source of donations.”
The Government’s answer to this, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave in Committee, is that there has to be a balance. It is clear, however, that where the balance is now is not satisfactory, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, there have been a series of donations to all political parties that have been not to the credit of the parties, not good for their reputations and not good for the reputation for cleanliness of our politics.
As I understand the position, the Government have not ruled out acting on the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but regard this as a complicated matter—perhaps it is—and need more time to work on it. If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, seeks to test the opinion of the House, I will support him. I would be gratefully comforted, however, if not only the Minister but the spokespeople for the other political parties said tonight that they duly take this issue seriously and regard donations from foreign sources and people who want to influence our politics in an unhealthy way as a growing danger to our politics. If the spokespeople for the parties and the Government will say that they take this seriously, and the Government do not rule out acting on the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life in due course, I will be very comforted.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I was thinking that others would wish to intervene, but that does not appear to be the case.
These are important amendments, but I shall not encourage anyone to think that the Government will accept them. The context is a shared concern about dirty money, a phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, used. I do not think any Government have been stronger in response to the Russian invasion, or in bearing down on oligarchs, than this Government. However, following our robust debate in Committee, I am pleased that we are again returning to this important issue of political donations. I do listen to contributions of noble Lords and these debates will certainly serve as a key reference point for the Government as they keep rules on political donations under review, to ensure that they continue to provide an effective safeguard that protects the integrity of our political system. In that context, the Bill bears down very heavily on foreign donations and makes them much harder.
Turing to the specific amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, Amendment 63 would remove the rights of overseas electors to make political donations. Amendment 69B would place a £7,500 limit on any donation or series of donations from overseas electors. I fear that many will not be surprised when I reiterate that the Government cannot support these amendments, as we intend to uphold the long-standing principle, first introduced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life itself in 1998, that if you are eligible to vote for a party, you are also eligible to donate to that party. These amendments would overturn that principle by removing the right of overseas electors to donate. Overseas electors are British citizens who have the right to vote and, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, the Labour Party has acknowledged that for many years. They are reasonable participants in our democracy. Furthermore, due to the interaction of Amendment 69B and the existing legislation, there would be no provision for either the return of donations exceeding the £7,500 threshold or the reporting of such donations to the Electoral Commission. This leaves a significant gap, which means that the amendment would simply not have the intended impact.
The Government do not support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, to which I listened carefully. It was fair for him to set out his case because he wishes to establish an independent committee to report on the creation of a foundation for democracy. The concept here, however, which is where agreement falls away, is that he submits that this body should be responsible for collecting all donations made to registered political parties and mandatorily allocating them based on membership and vote share at certain elections. The Government can find no justification for this amendment and believe it would place unreasonable restrictions on an individual’s freedom to donate to the political party of their choosing. It would go against the fundamental principle of allowing members of the public to get involved in our democracy by giving their support, be it at the ballot box, via a cup of coffee or via donations, to any party or parties that they choose.
Moreover, this proposal would risk disproportionately penalising smaller parties, which may not have such high levels of membership and vote share as the larger parties, but form an integral part of our democracy. Indeed, it is not clear to me how any new parties would emerge under the noble Lord’s system, as they would not be able to fundraise for themselves and would therefore struggle to get their message out to the public to encourage members to join and voters to support them in the future. The Government are therefore simply not convinced that there is a demand or evidence to support the noble Lord’s radical idea; nor do we think it necessary to establish an independent committee to come to this conclusion. Should other parliamentarians share the noble Lord’s view, the existing framework of parliamentary committees obviously provides an ideal place to consider the proposal further, so I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Next, I turn to Amendments 66 and 68, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which address a similar theme. Amendment 66 would seek to cap donations that any one individual or organisation can make to a political party to 5% of that party’s maximum campaign expenditure limit at the preceding election. This cap would apply to all donors, whether individuals or organisations, such as trade unions for example. What effect would it have on a large trade union donation?
Amendment 68 would require the Government to publish a report on proposals to establish state funding of political parties and limitations on private donations. In essence, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are seeking the Government’s views on these two fundamental principles. I will underline our position.
First, fundraising is a legitimate part of the democratic process. Consequently, there is no cap on political donations to parties, candidates and other types of campaigner but, instead, strict limits on what they can spend on regulated campaign activity during elections. These maintain a level playing field in elections. In particular, the noble Baroness’s amendment has the potential to create a very uneven and complicated playing field. Under the proposal, each political party will have different amounts it can fundraise, given that spending limits are calculated according to the number of constituencies it contests. New political parties in particular, again, would be affected and this change could encourage quite unnatural growth, whereby new parties are incentivised to contest seats they have no intention of winning to give them a more competitive funding limit in the next cycle. I will not be drawn on what percentage of a party’s overall donation might be permitted because the Government simply do not accept that there should be such a percentage figure.
Secondly, there is absolutely no public support for expanding the level of public funding already available to political parties. The Government are not going to go down that road.
Finally, I wish to address Amendment 69, retabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. This would introduce requirements, as he said, for registered parties to carry out risk assessments and due-diligence checks on donations. Only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations and there are strict rules requiring companies making donations to be both incorporated and carrying out business in the UK. Parties must check that companies meet these criteria. It is also an offence to circumvent the rules through proxy donors—for example, an impermissible donor seeking to make a donation through a company that is itself a permissible donor. Political parties must already report all donations over a certain value to the Electoral Commission, which are then published online for public scrutiny.
The Government have heard the concerns that donors may seek to evade the rules and, in principle, the point of strengthening the system to provide greater levels of assurance on the sources of donations to ensure they are permissible and legitimate is important. Indeed, the Government recently published, ahead of introducing necessary legislation, the Corporate Transparency and Register Reform White Paper.
Reforms to Companies House will deliver more reliably accurate information on the companies register by introducing mandatory identity verification for people who manage or control companies and other UK-registered entities, providing greater powers for Companies House to query and challenge the information it receives, and introducing more effective investigation and enforcement powers for Companies House. This, in combination with a new power for the Companies House registrar proactively to pass on relevant information to law enforcement and other public and regulatory bodies, including the Electoral Commission, will indirectly support the enforcement of the rules on donations by providing greater confidence in the accuracy of the data held at Companies House, including when seeking information on UK-registered companies and other UK-registered entities that have made political donations.
The Government have not dismissed the fact that this is a significant area, which is why we are instituting these reforms to corporate transparency, but for the reasons I have outlined to the House on various amendments, I urge that noble Lords consider not pressing their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister sits down, may I confirm what he said? I wrote down his words: “The Government do not accept that there should be a percentage limit.” On the percentage of contribution from one person or organisation to a political party’s campaign, would the Minister confirm that the Government believe it appropriate for 100% of the funding for a political party’s campaign to come from one source or organisation?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I think that is a false question. In our democracy an independent person is entitled to stand in a constituency, for a cause that he or she believes in, and may choose to fund that campaign. Nobody else may want to give any money. That would be an example of 100% funding of a campaign by a small campaign or individual. There are complexities here, and the fundamental position to stand on is that in free democracy, people should be able to make a contribution of whatever sort they choose, provided it is permissible and legal.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it has been very clear from the debate we have just had and the other amendments that have been discussed, as well as my Amendment 63, that there are some really broad concerns about political donations, electoral finance and the procedures and systems that underpin and manage this. I urge the Government to take away those concerns more broadly and consider how they may be addressed in the future.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, I thought I had made it really clear, both in Committee and in my opening remarks today, that we are very concerned about the potential for dirty money infiltrating and influencing our political system. If I was not clear, I am very happy to confirm that we do have those very deep concerns.
I thank the Minister for his very detailed response, but I disagree with him that the Bill makes it harder to make overseas donations. Instead, our concern is that part of removing the 15-year limit actually makes it easier for people from foreign locations to donate to our political system. We are concerned that often it allows very wealthy donors unlimited access to our democracy, through what we could see to be unprecedentedly large donations. That is our big concern with this and why we have put this amendment forward. To avoid that kind of outside influence in our democracy, the right to make those kinds of donations should be reserved for citizens actually living in this country.
As I say, I thank the Minister for his detailed response, but do not believe he has addressed the real concerns expressed by us and other Members who have taken part in the debate. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 63.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Review and consolidation of electoral law
Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a timetable for undertaking a wholesale review and consolidation of electoral law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a recommendation of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its report on the Elections Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendment 64 looks to bring in one of the recommendations that came from PACAC around the consolidation of electoral law. The Elections Bill makes substantial changes to electoral law, but it does not tackle something that has been fundamentally and widely recognised: the need to consolidate the existing voluminous and fragmented body of electoral law. Amendment 64 aims to address this.
PACAC has done a number of reports on electoral law. In 2019, Electoral Law: The Urgent Need for Review noted that even the most professional agents can worry about falling foul of electoral law and the complexity that it currently contains, and that this provides serious risks and difficulties for electoral administrators. PACAC has been recommending for some time now that the Government should look at prioritising non-controversial consolidation of electoral law that can command cross-party support. Much of this would have cross-party support because we all recognise that this needs sorting out. Once that consolidation has been achieved, the Government should proceed to evaluate the effectiveness of electoral law more generally to see where we could bring in further reforms to make it more straightforward for those involved in it to manage.
I am aware that the Government agree in principle that electoral law needs consolidation but at the moment consider that there are more immediate challenges outside of the structures, which presumably is what much of the basis of the Bill before us is looking at. We agree with PACAC that electoral law needs looking at. It needs consolidating and, in many areas, it needs simplifying. We have tabled this amendment to ask the Government to look very seriously at this recommendation and to take some action on it, if not now then as soon as is practically possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was delighted to sign this and could see from the Minister’s face that he was thoroughly in agreement that it is a very good move. It is a constructive suggestion of something that desperately needs doing. We are rushing to pass legislation in this final week or fortnight of the parliamentary Session, but this is an early request to the Government to include an election law consolidation Bill in the coming Queen’s Speech. It would be very practical and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, it would have cross-party support, so it would be a rather nice note to start the new parliamentary term on.
A lot of the groundwork has been laid already. The Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee produced a report on this in 2019 and the Law Commission has done extensive work as well, which culminated in a 207-page report with 106 recommendations. That sounds a very practical document. The recommendations include consolidating and modernising our election law, which is currently spread across 55 Acts of Parliament and over 200 other pieces of legislation, most of which are derived from centuries-old rules and regulations.
Modern electoral rules would make the administration of elections more straightforward and more accessible to the public. Better democracy is better for everyone, as we have been saying all afternoon, but this will be particularly important for independent candidates and smaller parties, because at the moment they are navigating a minefield. There is always a risk of innocent mistakes.
I hope that the Minister will respond very positively to this and that we can look forward to supporting him wholeheartedly on a Bill in the next Session.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. It is about as modest as it could be without doing anything. It is saying that there should be a review over the next 12 months, at which point the Minister should publish a timetable for undertaking a wholesale review and consolidation of electoral law. A senior civil servant commissioned with producing an amendment which kicked something into the long grass could hardly have come up with something better, so I very much hope that the Minister can accept.
Picking up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made, the core of this is the complexity of existing legislation. It is not even that it fits together like a neat jigsaw. It is several different jigsaws which must be made to fit together to produce certainty by those who are conducting elections or participating in elections.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that he has explained that what to some of us look like extremely threatening changes to the law proposed in the Bill have been described by him as simply clarification where things were uncertain or unclear or where people had come to different conflicting conclusions. That is the situation we are facing as far as all the legislation governing elections is concerned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has already referred to the Law Commission’s report. The work is there; it is ready. The Electoral Commission, in its briefing to noble Lords this week, talked about the complexity and difficulties for campaigners, candidates and their agents in finding their way through the current forest of legislation and the difficulties that electoral registration officers have in interpreting how each bit might apply in particular circumstances. The fact is that, as amended or not, the Bill is adding another layer—a different jigsaw—with overlapping patterns and places which will make it more confusing to get through.
I notice that the Minister several times said, “Don’t forget that a lot of the people conducting elections are volunteers.” He did not add that, in many cases and particularly for agents, they are not volunteers at all; they have to be press-ganged into doing a very difficult and challenging job. They surely deserve to have a simple playbook in front of them which incorporates all the legislation that they are expected to have regard to and to take account of.
Having said “have regard to”, that was a key phrase in our earlier discussion. The difference between “consulting” and what the outcome of that might be and “having regard to” and what the outcome of that might be is central here. PACAC has produced a report which I would like the Minister to have regard to. CSPL has produced recommendations about consolidating electoral law, which I would like the Minister to have regard to. The Law Commission has produced a draft set of proposals, which I would like the Minister to have regard to. I do not want him to consult on all this; I want him to have regard to it and to get on with it.
In default of that, I strongly support Amendment 64, which gives him an escape hatch from confronting the issue I have put in front of him. All we are asking for is that, over the next 12 months, he draws up a timetable for undertaking a wholesale review and consolidation of electoral law. It could hardly be a lighter-touch amendment seeking to see this legislation consolidated as it should have been a long time ago. I hope that in the interests of clarification, which the Minister is so keen on, and in the interests of having regard to advice, he will proceed by accepting this amendment and taking a small step forward to improving the lot of agents and candidates across the country.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 64, so ably moved by my noble friend. It is an inoffensive amendment. The reason I rise is to say that I look forward to the Minister’s reply, because in my bones I feel that the answer we are going to hear from the Dispatch Box opposite is that there is a reason why the Government cannot accept it. I look forward to hearing what that reason or reasons may be, because one would be hard put to object to anything so inoffensive; it does not even have a timetable. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government agree in principle that there is a strong case for the consolidation of electoral law, and we have noted the interest expressed in this Chamber and in the recent PACAC report. However, as previously noted in Committee, we must acknowledge that the process of consolidating electoral law will be a long-term project that will take significant consideration and policy development. It is not something to rush, and it is not something for which the Government should commit to firm deadlines in a timetable at this stage.
The changes brought forward by the Elections Bill are part of a large programme of work, which will include secondary legislation and practical implementation matters. As such, it is the Government’s view that the implementation of this work should first be completed before work on the consolidation of electoral law can begin. For this reason, the Government cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I always do my very best to be inoffensive, so it is nice to know that my amendment has been appreciated. It is good to hear from the Minister that the Government in principle support what we are trying to achieve with it. This may take a long time and it may be complicated, but it will be very worth while in the end and I encourage the Government not to throw this away and to keep it as something to be done in the near future, if possible. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Non-resident donors
Within the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make an order under section 43 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 so as to bring section 10 of that Act (non-resident donors etc) into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring the provisions of section 10 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, relating to non-resident donors, into force within 3 months of this Act being passed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
My Lords, this amendment was not tabled in Committee. This is the first time we have looked at it. It addresses recent concerns that have been raised around non-dom status and donations from non-doms. I thought it was important that this was acknowledged during our discussions on the Bill.
The Labour Party believes that non-dom status should be abolished. We have recently made that very clear. We believe that there should instead be a modern scheme for people who are genuinely living in the UK for short periods. We want to address the fact that we can have small group of high-income people who live in the UK and are able to access non-dom status. We do not believe that they should be able to continue to avoid paying UK tax on their overseas income for up to 15 years, as is currently possible with the system we have at the moment.
We believe we should look at the systems in other countries and put in place something similar that is suitable for our country. For example, Japan, France and Canada have much better systems in place, where genuinely temporary residents who are here for short periods would not pay tax on overseas income gains, but that would not be possible for those who are here much longer.
This would bring about a clear, simple system. If we look at what we are doing at the moment, the rules are around 200 years old. It also means that the domicile is passed down through people’s fathers. It seems extraordinary that we still work by those laws. Surely it needs to be properly looked at and considered. I understand that HMRC has to use four complicated flow charts just to determine someone’s domicile. We have been talking about simplifying electoral law; this is something else that clearly needs looking at and simplifying.
We think that a temporary tax regime for residents would work. It would provide some tax advantages, but only for short periods of time, unlike the way the system is at the moment. Fundamentally, we believe that if you make your home in Britain long-term, you should pay tax here on all your income.
We are also concerned that the current system prevents non-doms investing their foreign income in the UK, as bringing it here means that it then becomes liable for UK tax, so there is no advantage for them to do so. That means that non-doms who earn income in tax havens and other low-tax jurisdictions would face a large financial penalty if they attempted to bring that income here to the UK. We do not believe that this is good for business; we should be encouraging more investment in the UK through these wealthy people.
We are aware that the Government have a business investment relief scheme which is intended to fix this, but we do not believe that it is working properly. The latest figures show that less than 1% of non-doms invest their overseas income in the UK in any given year, and that cannot be good for UK business. In addition, if we made these changes, it would bring us into line with other major economies. The UK is one of the only large economies which has these arrangements. As I have said before, France and Canada, for example, have different regimes, as does Germany.
This issue needs serious consideration. The Government need to address it and the Elections Bill provides an opportunity to do so. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response. However, because this is such an important matter and it needs to be dealt with, if I do not hear from the Minister serious ways in which it can be addressed, I will consider testing the opinion of the House.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, elections and donations are about choice. People who have non-dom status choose not to pay their tax here and, while they have this status, they live abroad for more than nine months of the year. The fundamental question raised by this amendment is: should they be able to donate the perhaps millions of pounds which they save in taxes by being non-doms to a political party, for example, which might want to preserve that beneficial tax status for them? In other words, we might connect the two principles of being able to give millions to a party and benefit by not paying millions which other people might consider are owed in taxes.
There are a number of occasions in our debates when we say that what we are doing is asking the other place to think again. However, we are not, on this principle, asking the other place or even this House to think again. The legislation which said that non-doms should not be able to donate to political parties was passed by both Houses in 2009. So we are not asking anyone to think again; we are simply asking for the legislation, passed with the approval of both Houses, to be implemented. Since 2010, various excuses have been put forward as to why this has been supposedly difficult or impractical, even though it was approved by Parliament. Essentially, the excuse provided is that the HMRC says, “Well, all tax issues are confidential, so you can’t implement this”. However, a form of declaration accompanying any donation, saying, “I am not a non-dom, so I am entitled to donate”, might well suffice and fit the bill. If you were making a false declaration, that could be an offence.
However, I do not really accept the HMRC’s argument—or rather, the Government’s argument put forward on behalf of the HMRC. For example, when Parliament said that if you are a higher-rate taxpayer, you should not benefit from child benefit—which I think was a fair measure—you needed to sign a declaration to the HMRC saying, “Someone in this household pays a higher rate of tax, so I can’t receive child benefit”. Why, therefore, can you not sign a declaration saying, “Someone in this household is a non-dom and therefore cannot donate to a political party”?
This debate is really about some of the fundamental parts of the Bill. The extension of the right to vote beyond 15 years is not really going to extend voting rights for very many people. For the reasons I outlined at Second Reading and will not go through again, the postal vote system, needed by most people who vote overseas, is so slow that very few votes would count in a general election. However, through this Bill the ability to donate unlimited amounts of money is being extended to a lot of people, including non-doms. A little earlier today, when discussing a technical aspect of the Bill, the Minister kindly confirmed that the Government’s position is very much to maintain a level playing field at local constituency level and nationally. However, I do not believe that this is happening. This extension of the right to vote is more about the right to donate, and should not be applied to non-doms.
In December 2020, the Government said that they wanted to increase the national expenditure limits for political parties in a general election “in line with inflation”. In 2000, Parliament agreed that there should be a level playing field between the main parties in elections. The principle was very much that it had to be a level playing field, not that each of the parties should be able to spend up to £20 million. If we increase that £20 million limit, or thereabouts, by the rate of inflation since 2000, that is a 79% increase. Therefore, the national expenditure limit, if increased in line with inflation since 2000, would go up for the Conservative Party, for example, from almost £20 million to almost £36 million. Where is that extra £16 million going to come from? Much of it will come from overseas donors, many of whom are non-doms. I do not think that this appeals to the British sense of fair play, and it should not happen.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fear that I am not going to be able to allow the noble Baroness to remain in her seat for the rest of the evening. The Government cannot agree to these provisions, which seek to bring into practice a provision from the 2009 Act regarding donations from non-resident donors. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe replied to the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on this same uncommenced provision.
The Government’s position on the matter remains unchanged, but it is important briefly to place on record the reasons why. The Government have no current plans to bring into force the uncommenced provision, Section 10, regarding donations from non-resident donors. It would be extremely difficult to make the provision work, as the Electoral Commission warned in 2009 when the Bill was going through Parliament. The coalition Government, in which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was influential, did not implement it between 2010 and 2015. The fundamental issue is that it is not workable, given that an individual’s tax status is subject legally to confidentiality. It would therefore be difficult or even impossible for the Electoral Commission, political parties, which would face fines for this, and other campaigners accurately to determine whether a donor met the test set out in Section 10.
I acknowledge that the Labour Party has come forward. I do not wish to get into a debate about the Labour Party’s fiscal proposals—that is slightly outside the scope of the Bill—but I know that Sir Keir will send a thank you letter to the noble Baroness for having raised this issue. Our principle, basically, is that taxation is not the basis of enfranchisement in the UK. As a British citizen is able to vote in an election for a political party, they should be able to donate, subject to requirements for transparency in donations, which we have discussed. There is also a precedent whereby those who do not pay income tax rightly remain entitled to vote. A lot of low-paid people do not pay income tax, but they have a legitimate right to vote. I know that perceptions differ on this issue. I remind the House that on two occasions, in 2009 and 2013, the Electoral Commission warned about the practical implications of the policy. For these reasons, and because of the duty of confidentiality in taxation, which would have to be overridden by other legislation, the Government cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his support and for his excellent speech. I thank the Minister for his response, although I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that it is not a response that I am particularly happy with or happy to accept. This issue has concerned a lot of people in recent weeks and months, and the Government need to take the position of non-dom status very seriously and look at it again. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“Review of operation of Act
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the review period—(a) prepare a report on the operation of this Act,(b) publish the report, and(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) In subsection (1), “the review period” is the period—(a) beginning with the fourth anniversary of the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) ending with the fifth anniversary of that day.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the operation of this legislation, not less than 4 and not more than 5 years after it receives Royal Assent.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 69D. I believe both amendments are significant to the House and I hope it will reflect on their importance, because I know there are aspects of the Bill that have concerned Members on all sides of the House. The amendment establishes a statutory duty for post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, something that has been asked for, certainly by the noble Baroness opposite.
We had believed, and I maintain, that it is standard practice to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts following Royal Assent, but we have listened to the strength of interest in guaranteeing that scrutiny takes place which will go across the Bill and we have tabled this amendment requiring the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the operation of this legislation, not less than four and not more than five years after it receives Royal Assent—in other words, in good time. We judge that this amendment supports the commonly shared aim of this House, and answers the recommendation made by PACAC, that the impact of the measures be assessed following implementation of the Bill.
The amendment also sets out that a report by the Secretary of State will need to be set before Parliament to allow debate and scrutiny of the operation of the Act, as your Lordships have asked. Amendment 69D is a minor and technical amendment necessary to state the territorial extent of paragraphs 25 and 26 of Schedule 1. I hope the House will understand that I wish to place on record in Hansard that I think this is a significant proposal from the Government which will allow and ensure statutory consideration and examination of the Bill as a whole if it is given Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee I tabled Amendment 205 to ask the Government to include in the Bill a statutory commitment to post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, as recommended by PACAC. I want to say very briefly how much I welcome the amendments that the Minister has just introduced and to thank him very much for listening to my concerns and the concerns of other Members of this House about the lack of pre-legislative consultation or scrutiny. The fact that this has been included in the Bill is extremely welcome.
Member’s explanatory statement
This minor and technical amendment ensures that the territorial extent of amendments to Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 made by Schedule 1 to the Bill is correctly stated.
Lord Stunell
“(3A) Regulations must not be laid to bring Section 13 into force until—(a) a period of two years has passed since this Act is passed;(b) the Secretary of State has published guidance to Electoral Registration Officers on how to determine whether an applicant has been resident in the UK for electoral registration purposes; and(c) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on—(i) the documentary evidence that may be required to support an application to be an overseas elector;(ii) the length of time that a person must have previously been in the UK in order to register as an overseas elector;(iii) the security and timeliness of the delivery and return of ballots to overseas electors; and(iv) such other matters pertaining to the registration of individuals as overseas electors as the Secretary of State considers relevant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment delays section 13 (overseas electors) coming into force for a period of at least two years, and until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament on how the system of registration of overseas electors is to operate. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance to Electoral Registration Officers.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 71, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, relates to the implementation of Clause 13, which deals with the qualification for voting arrangements for overseas voters. It is my contention that this part of the Bill is technically flawed and, as drafted, will produce some strange and surely unintended consequences. We believe it essential that these are overcome before it is brought into force, and doing that needs some serious thought, proper consultation and the preparation of guidelines and advice.
I raised some of my concerns in Committee, where the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, undertook to write to me. On 6 April, the morning of Report, I received a letter from the noble Baroness which basically said on the two issues I raised: “Well, it’s okay; let’s just see how it goes”. I will deal with those two points first, but I shall come to others despite the lateness of the hour and where we are in the proceedings.
The first issue I raised in Committee, which was addressed to some extent by her letter, was the extremely loose definition of who can qualify to go on the overseas register of voters. Clearly and unambiguously, an individual must be a British citizen, but what else do they have to be to get on the register? The clause says they must have been previously resident in the United Kingdom. Nothing is specified about for how long or at what age. I will again mention the case I raised in Committee: a British couple make a touch-and-go visit back from Ghana, during which their baby daughter is born and following which they emigrate to Switzerland. In due course, at the age of 18, that baby can claim an overseas voting right, never having been on a UK register and never having been eligible to be on one, because they were not 18 before they left the United Kingdom.
The Minister’s answer was that electoral registration officers were the best people to judge whether a person claiming the right to join the overseas register had in fact acquired a UK residential qualification by virtue of spending, for instance, a fortnight in a maternity unit in Hounslow, or not. I gently suggest to the Minister that it might be better to establish a more formal and regularised decision-making process, one less prone to happenstance and the personal inclinations of electoral registration officers. There is reference in the Bill to guidance being produced, although it does not say that it will tackle that issue. Indeed, the letter from the noble Baroness does not suggest for a moment that such advice will be made available. Noble Lords will see in the amendment we have tabled that that is one of the matters we say needs to be considered and resolved before this section comes into force.
In the same debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that the aim of this proposal was that those on the overseas register would be in exactly the same position as those on the UK register of voters. I take that to mean that, apart from anything else, they will be free to nominate someone to be a candidate for a public election in the constituency in which they are registered. No one seems to know whether that includes nominating for a local government election, or if there is a mechanism for deciding in which ward they could validly nominate.
Clearly, if you were on the overseas list by virtue of appearing on a previous electoral register, that matter is settled because you would have appeared for a particular locality, which will place you in a ward and make you eligible to nominate somebody for it if you wish. However, for someone with a residential qualification, it is perhaps less clear-cut whether ward B in the maternity hospital at Hounslow—where you happen to have been born when your parents came off the aeroplane—is or is not in a particular ward. That is a small detail compared to some of the other matters I will raise, but it certainly indicates that there are matters which are not yet clearly resolved.
So, it is clear that if a person can nominate somebody, whatever they can nominate them for—whether it is restricted to parliamentary elections because it is on a constituency basis, or whether they are located sufficiently well to nominate somebody for a local government ward—they must also be free to stand for election as a candidate themselves in that election if they should choose. So far, so equal. The aim of making sure that overseas voters have exactly the same rights and duties as electors in this country is achieved.
But surely it ought also to mean that if convicted of an offence—let us say death by dangerous driving—that results in a sentence of more than six months, they should be disqualified from standing and if elected at the time, they should lose office, just as someone on the UK register would. I remind the Minister that the Government strongly resisted efforts by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford to permit some categories of prisoners to vote. The Government are completely hostile to the view that people should have a vote in prison, never mind that they might stand or even be elected or retain their office if in prison. However, the answer that the noble Baroness gave me in that letter was that being in a foreign prison was not in fact a bar to standing for public office in the UK; she made the perfectly fair point that the UK Government—and by extension, electoral returning officers—would have no knowledge of foreign court decisions and that in any case, in many jurisdictions, imprisonment could result from acts that were legal in the United Kingdom.
That is a pretty good reply—well drafted and crafted—but it does not really bear examination, because there are a number of things which candidates cannot be: they cannot be bankrupts, and they cannot be suffering from a mental illness that requires their detention. But those matters are simply covered by a candidate’s declaration: you tick a box to say that you are not bankrupt and that you are not detained. The Government and the electoral registration officer do not have the means of checking that either. So, these matters could perfectly well be dealt with by having an additional question on the declaration at nomination stage. It would have exactly the same strength and capacity as a tick in a box to say, “I am not bankrupt, and I am not currently detained under the Mental Health Act.”
The argument that it is impossible to monitor whether an overseas elector is in prison and therefore should or should not be able to nominate somebody—or indeed continue to hold office having been previously elected—is therefore mistaken. At the moment, the Government seem to accept that there is nothing they can do about it. It seems to me obvious that a simple modification to the declaration form would solve the problem and, of course, falsification of the declaration form is an election offence. So, such an additional, suitably worded declaration by an overseas voter would be open to exactly the same challenges as the standard declaration form. In most cases, the mere existence of such a declaration would be a sufficient deterrent and any that got through would likely soon be weeded out by opponents and certainly would not need extensive investigation by the Government.
Surely the Government, with their fetish of preventing prisoners from voting, are not going to allow overseas voters not only to vote but to be eligible to stand while they are serving a sentence in a foreign prison for what would be an imprisonable offence in this country—I mentioned dangerous driving.
It might be asked what category of voter would benefit from this; well, there might be a few “McMafia” figures languishing in a Spanish prison, I suppose. All that could be dealt with by an amended declaration form, which could be produced in about 10 minutes with a word processor. But there is no provision for such a thing in Clause 13, and the Government seem to have given up in the attempt. So far, so wrong.
Let us consider the case of a councillor elected to a UK local authority—say, the London borough of Richmond or the Wiltshire county authority—who then moves to Dover. When the new register is published, they lose their vote in their old area and, lacking another qualification, have to vacate their office. I ask noble Lords to consider what would have happened if that councillor had moved a further 30 miles east, to Calais. They could of course then ask to be put on the register of overseas voters for their former area. Long before the new register comes into force, they would be qualified by virtue of that to continue in office and indeed to re-stand in due course. Do the Minister and her advisers know that Clause 13 produces the absurd result that such a councillor moving to Dover is disqualified but one moving to Calais is not?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I simply say that I thought that that was a masterly exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I would happily second all the questions that he is asking of the Minister on the absurd ramifications. The only thing that I would say by way of regret to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is that we do not need an inquiry or further consideration. The simple solution is invariably the best one, and it is not to extend the ability to vote from overseas beyond the 15 years very wisely and fairly established by the Labour Government. This acknowledged that people might quite legitimately be going abroad for a while, and it would be wrong to disenfranchise them, but, by the end of 15 years, it is pretty well established that someone is unlikely to return and their connection with the United Kingdom diminishes by the day—and they are living with the consequences. I will certainly not repeat the argument, but, when you have a problem, look for the simple solution. Let us all agree that this extension of the franchise for life, virtually irrespective of residence, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has declared, is absurd.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I should declare an interest. I have two sisters, one of whom left Britain 60 years ago and the other 50 years ago. They would be entitled to vote under this provision. I also have a nephew and a niece who left in infancy. They too would be entitled to vote under this scheme.
I also declare an interest in that my party has been in favour of moving towards overseas voting and has thought some of it through. It has looked at practice in comparable countries such as France and Australia. It is clear that we need to involve embassies and consulates abroad if we are to make sure that votes are returned in time. It is also clear that we should be moving towards overseas constituencies, given the different requirements of those who vote from overseas. This happens in a number of other countries. It could be done here. The Minister seemed astonished when I first mentioned overseas constituencies, as if he had not heard of them before.
I have had hundreds of messages about this, from people in France in particular. First, the local MP where they are still registered tells them it is nothing to do with them and they are not going to take up their case because they do not live in the constituency. Secondly, they would like to have overseas constituencies with particular MPs, or Members of the second Chamber or whatever, who would take their interests into account. France has a small number of overseas constituencies, with a much larger number of voters per constituency, and their interests are taken into account.
I hope the Minister will not mind my saying that, when I first went to discuss with him and his team the way in which this extension might be implemented, I was staggered by the lack of detail and what seemed to me to be a lack of interest in the detail. We have very little information on its implementation. It is not quite as bad as the Government’s proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, which appears to have had almost no thought as to how it might be implemented or costed.
There are a range of things that we need to consider. We know already that getting ballot papers out to foreign countries and back within the short time period is extremely difficult and very often fails. What do the Government propose to do about this if they are going to implement this expanded scheme? We have not yet heard anything on that. Will it involve embassies and consulates abroad? I asked a Question last summer and was told by the Foreign Office that it had not been consulted on this and did not expect to be involved to any degree. The Australians, the French and others clearly play a large role in managing and assisting with overseas voting. How therefore would this be carried out in practice when it comes? The Government also wish to shorten the campaigning period. At present, that proposal has been put off. If the campaigning period were any shorter, getting ballots out and back would be almost completely impossible.
This amendment says, “Tell us how you will do this. Demonstrate to Parliament that you have actually thought this through and that you have some way of identifying who are British citizens overseas, where they were residing in Britain beforehand and that, if they wish to vote, the means will be provided for them to receive ballot papers and to get them back—and do not implement it until you are able to answer those questions”. I have not yet heard the Minister or his officials be able to answer any of these questions, and therefore we have tabled this amendment.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, we are nearing the end of this debate on Report. I cannot say that this Elections Bill is one of this Government’s finest constitutional measures. Although it is late in the day, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, a very clear exposition of some of the questions which have not been answered, and I think it is perfectly fair to ask the Government—even at this late stage on Monday night—to provide some answers.
I find myself sitting here thinking back to the time that John Stonehouse disappeared, which some noble Lords may remember. When he disappeared, it became clear that there was no provision under British electoral law to remove him from his position as a Member of Parliament. Even though he was arrested and imprisoned in Australia, his constituency went unrepresented, because there was no way of getting rid of him. So things that might appear to you to be unlikely, such as those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, might still one day actually occur.
The only thing I would add is that, over the Easter Recess, I met a British citizen who left Britain 55 years ago. He has been living in an EU country. I can report to the House that he was astonished to discover that the Government were now planning to give him the vote. He asked me a number of questions, such as “Where would I cast my vote?”—which brings me to the questions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Some countries, France being one of them, have overseas constituencies. After decades of inaction, the Americans finally made it possible for Republicans and Democrats abroad to vote while living in the UK. I am sorry to say this at such a late stage, but this is an area that has not been as fully thought through as it should have been. That is exactly what this House is here for and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his excellent introduction to this amendment. It is worth focusing on the fact that the Minister has, on numerous occasions, stressed the impracticalities of some of the amendments that have been considered today, saying “We can’t do this because it’s impractical”. Yet, without any thought, the electorate can be increased from 1 million to 3.3 million, as we heard from my noble friend earlier, without any infrastructure or effort to manage the implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about other countries. Other countries have different voting systems, such as list systems and regional systems. But our democracy is fundamentally based not on a party system but on the constituency system, where an individual MP represents the people of that constituency. With what is being proposed, we could suddenly have, as my noble friend said earlier, 7,000 or 8,000 people being allocated to a constituency who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, have never lived there. And we will not even make any attempt—or there will not be any practical way—to verify people’s entitlement to vote.
In this Bill, we have said that if a resident in a constituency turns up at a polling station but fails to produce photographic evidence of their entitlement, they will not be given the vote. But someone who lives abroad can get a vote in a constituency and be sent it without any proper checks. It is absolutely crazy that the Government are not taking the time to look at the practical implications of this. It comes back to the point: why is it being done? It does not really appear to be being done to defend and enhance our democracy. I know I have said it before, but all this effort is going into people who have left this country, who have never lived here or who have lived here for a very short period of time—we are extending the vote to them—but people who have lived here for 27 years, and paid tax and national insurance, will not be given the vote. It is crazy.
This amendment is absolutely right. It would ensure that the Government pay proper attention to the practical implications of their policy and do so in a timely fashion. It is not as if we are trying to say, “Don’t do this”—even though I agree with my noble friend and would prefer that the Government did not do it. The amendment is saying, “Okay, if you’re going to do it and if it’s a principle you support, do it properly. Understand the consequences, particularly the consequences for our democracy”. This side wholeheartedly supports this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will first answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I am sorry that he did not get as much information as he needed, but I will have to hold the House a little longer to give him more detail.
On candidature, anyone who wants to be a candidate in an election in this country needs to be a resident of this country and to have proof of residency. So, nobody living abroad can be a resident of this country—that is the first thing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
May I remind the Minister that it is part of the responsibilities of our consuls abroad to look after the interests of British citizens when they are in foreign prisons? So it is not the case that we will not have information on these. Our consular network should have the information relevant to this, but perhaps the Foreign Office has not been consulted.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Then we come to somebody who was born in the UK and has been here only a short time. The current system allows citizens who have left the UK while still too young to vote the ability to register based on their parents’ or guardians’ previous registration, but this is subject to an arbitrary 15-year limit from when they left the UK. The Government want to remove this arbitrary time limit placed on British citizens who have resided here, and we have no intention to replace one time limit with another arbitrary time limit requiring a British citizen to have been resident here for a certain amount of time before they can register.
The Bill will permit children who are UK citizens and who have resided in the UK to be eligible to vote based on their previous residency here. They would apply in respect of their last place of residency. This approach is consistent with the principle of individual responsibility, which underpins individual electoral registration and ensures that voting rights are not conditional on choices made by others in the past.
Additionally, British citizens born outside the UK must have previously resided in the UK to become eligible to register to vote. In practical terms, someone who left the UK at a very young age or who was present in the UK only for a short period will find it difficult to demonstrate their residency at a particular UK address to the satisfaction of a registration officer. I would also question whether anyone who lived in the UK only for a very short period would have any interest in voting in our elections. I hope that gives a little more substance to my letter.
I now turn to the amendment as tabled. The purpose of this amendment would be to delay the commencement of Clause 13 of the Bill for two years, and the extension of franchise for parliamentary election for British citizens overseas. The amendment would require three conditions to be met before regulations could be laid to bring into force the provisions. The Government have set out much detail on the intended registration and voting process in their policy statement Overseas Electors: Delivering ‘Votes for Life’ for British Expatriates. Referring to the condition whereby the Secretary of State must publish guidance for EROs on determining residentiary requirements of overseas electors, further detail on residency requirements will be set out in secondary legislation.
Electoral registration officers will require British citizens who have been resident, but not previously registered, to demonstrate to their satisfaction that they were resident at a specific address. Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 already lays down the general principles regarding residence for electoral purposes which a registration officer must consider and apply in deciding whether a person is resident at a particular address for those purposes. The same approach to residency must be applied within these boundaries and, as now, registration officers will be supported in this by guidance from the Electoral Commission, with whom the Government will work closely.
As for reporting on documentary evidence, the Government intend to align closely with the existing exceptions process for those domestic electors for whom an ERO considers that additional evidence is required to verify their identity. This is a system that administrators are already familiar with, and we will continue to work closely with stakeholders to develop this process. It will be set out in secondary legislation and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and to parliamentary approval.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, brought up the issue of how we will help expatriates—the people who want to vote from abroad—to actually be able to vote. I think we had a discussion on overseas constituencies, and it was made very clear that the Government are not supporting that idea. However, the Government have already improved the delivery and return of ballots to overseas electors by working with Royal Mail and the British Forces Post Office, expediting dispatch abroad, and funding the use of the international business response licence that expedites the return of the ballot packs from overseas in a large number of countries, as well as covering any postage costs that might otherwise be incurred.
This Bill will also introduce an online absent vote application service that will allow overseas electors more easily apply for a postal vote.
Lord Stunell (LD)
Will the Minister develop her point about the repayment of postal charges? Perhaps she could explain to noble Lords a little more fully what that implies. To my knowledge, a number of local authorities are quite clear at the moment, that they will not post postal votes overseas because of the additional expense. I do not know if there is an element of guidance needed in those cases, but there might be an element of finance. If one had a constituency with the projected 4,000 or 5,000 overseas electors, it would be a significant additional sum. I wonder if she could say something about the Government’s financing of that additional outlay.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot at the moment. It may be part of the burdens that will be financed for local authorities, but I will get the noble Lord a complete answer on that and make sure it is absolutely correct.
The introduction of votes for life is a manifesto commitment. The framework for the previous Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 was subject to a full public consultation and has formed the basis for this refreshed policy. Since then, we have worked very closely with the electoral service managers and administrators on the design of the processes, and the practical implementation of these measures. On this basis, it is unnecessary to further delay the extension of the franchise, and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to reconsider and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her reply and for the much greater level of detail that she has provided on this occasion, which I very much welcome. She has indeed answered some of the points that I raised, although I think she skirted over the possibility of amending legislation so that some account could be taken of imprisonment overseas. As I say, that is a matter that could easily be covered by an extension of the existing declaration that candidates make.
I am not satisfied with the answer that I have had but at this time of night I certainly do not intend to force my view upon the House. I just say to the Government that I think some of these matters will come back to haunt them, and at that moment I hope to be present to witness the haunting taking place. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Elections Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-II Second marshalled list for Report - (21 Apr 2022)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I will first make a statement on the legislative consent process in relation to the Elections Bill. The provisions in the Bill will considerably strengthen the delivery of UK parliamentary general elections and other reserved polls. There has been open and positive engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in the development of the measures in the Bill. For a number of measures, coherence and consistency across both devolved and reserved polls was considered beneficial to providing electors with clarity and ensuring operability for electoral administrators and those regulated by electoral law.
To deliver those benefits, we sought legislative consent from the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Given that both the Scottish and Welsh Governments expressed support in principle for a number of areas within the Bill, we are disappointed by their request to remove all aspects that relate to devolved matters. Nevertheless, we respected that request and tabled ahead of Committee the necessary amendments to ensure that the Bill as a whole applies only to reserved—and excepted, as it relates to Northern Ireland—matters. This affects measures relating to the Electoral Commission, intimidation, clarification of undue influence and political finance.
I note that the Welsh Government have subsequently laid a supplementary LCM in which they disagree with the devolution analysis for the digital imprints and intimidation proposals. The UK Government’s position is that our legislation on these issues is reserved and does not engage the legislative consent process. Nevertheless, we note that the Welsh Government are supportive in principle of our proposals in these areas.
While divergence is a natural consequence of devolution, the Government welcome the indication given by both the Scottish and Welsh Governments that they will consider legislating comparably across a number of areas. UK Ministers remain committed to working closely with their counterparts as they develop their legislative proposals to deliver the best outcome for voters, the electoral sector and those regulated by electoral law.
In moving that the Bill do now pass, it may be helpful if I make a couple of remarks at this point, although I do not know whether it is conventional to do so at the start or the finish. I know that all of us on all sides of this House, as has been evident in our debates, share a common desire to keep our elections secure, fair, transparent and up to date so that our democracy can continue to thrive. That, in essence, is what the Bill has been about.
I am grateful to all noble Lords across the House who have engaged in debating the substance of the Bill for their most robust scrutiny, which has gone up to the very last seconds. I thank both opposition Benches for their sustained interest and engagement, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Stunell, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Scriven, who is not here. I am never quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is a sub or actually on the Front Bench, but anyway he has played a challenging and useful role.
Obviously, I particularly thank Her Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Front Bench opposite: the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who is coming back into the Chamber just in time for his ears to burn, if they can burn in—it is Burnley, is it not?
Lord True (Con)
I thought it was. I thank those noble Lords for their constructive interest in and engagement with these measures. We have not always agreed—sometimes we have—but I have been grateful for their willingness to work with this side and our Bill team on these matters. As a result of this willingness to reach compromises around the House, the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House improved and strengthened.
On our Benches, I thank my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Hayward and Lady Noakes for their input, which has led to amendments that I also believe have enhanced the legislation. I am astonishingly grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott, who seems to step into every breach when I fall or, if you like, am not sufficient. She has such an impressive capacity to pick up the technical issues and work at pace, and I have been so grateful to her for her good humour and tireless work. It is much appreciated. I also thank my noble friend Lord Howe, who is not here, for stepping into the breach when I unfortunately had my lights punched out by a Covid headache and worse. I fell short then of a promise to all noble Lords that I would be here every hour of every debate. Of course, that could not be helped, but I assure your Lordships, as someone who likes to live up to his word, that it will be a source of annoyance when I look back on this.
Finally, we all want to go, but I cannot let anyone go—I know that people on all sides of the House understand this—without mentioning the extraordinary hard work of the Bill team and the policy officials behind the Bill, many of whom have worked for what may seem like half a lifetime to them on preparing it and putting it together. There are so many of them that it would be invidious to name them all, but many of your Lordships have had direct personal contact with them. They have been enormously professional, good humoured and patient—which you have to be if you work with me—and have lived up to the very highest standards of the UK Civil Service and the quality of public service that we all admire. So, my final thanks are to them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may remark to my noble friend Lord Rennard and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that in the process of this Bill I have appreciated that it is possible to be quite astonishingly, nerdishly expert on the details of elections to the degree to which the two of them and one or two of our colleagues on the Labour Benches are. That goes far beyond my limited experience, having fought only five elections in my life. They really understand the details in all sorts of ways. I have done some of my electioneering in some of the more difficult parts of the United Kingdom.
I thank the many pro-democracy organisations that have helped and advised us and lobbied about the Bill as it has gone through: Best for Britain, Unlock Democracy, the Electoral Reform Society, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Democracy Defence Coalition. I particularly thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, who has done superb work with others around the House to make sure that the amendments are there on time.
It is difficult to welcome this Bill. It came to the House accompanied by a number of very critical reports, including one from the constitutional affairs committee of the House of Commons, which said that the Bill in its current form was not fit for purpose. We have improved it a little—we now face ping-pong on some of those improvements—but it is still not entirely what is needed.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, rather powerfully, this is a constitutional Bill on which there was an absence of cross-party consultation or consensus on the fundamentals of our constitutional democracy—that is a worry. We will have to return to this. The next Parliament, whenever it comes, will have to undertake the job of simplifying and clarifying electoral law, which is what we should have been doing—and have failed to do—with this Bill. Perhaps there are some improvements, and there are certainly some necessary changes in this Bill. There are a number of other areas which we on these Benches bitterly regret and, for that, I can make only moderate thanks to the Minister and the Bill team for what has been achieved.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying that I agree with the noble Lord the Minister that this Bill is improved and strengthened having gone through this House. This Bill is a clear demonstration that your Lordships’ House can really prove its worth when a Bill comes that is not really good enough. I thank the Government and the Minister for bringing forward some important changes and concessions which have improved the Bill considerably.
I also believe that your Lordships’ House has sent a very clear signal to the Government about concerns around, in particular, photographic ID and the independence of the Electoral Commission. I thank my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Khan, for their support and all the work that they have done on this Bill. I also thank Ben Wood, in our office, who has worked like crazy on this Bill and others, providing really important support.
I thank the many noble Lords who have taken part in debates on this Bill and who have contributed to making it the better Bill that it is today. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his important work demonstrating our concerns around the Electoral Commission. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord True and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their time and consideration of our concerns. They have given us a lot of time and some of the concessions that we have had are extremely gratefully received and have made the Bill much better. I also thank the officials, because they also gave us that time to try to improve things in this way. I join the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in thanking the many organisations that have provided time, briefings and the detailed information that has helped us to understand some of the complicated areas of electoral law.
I just end by saying that I hope that we can continue to work together constructively to address the outstanding areas where we believe we can still make more progress.
Easter Recess: Government Update
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry, I thought that the noble Baroness would be repeating the Statement, as it was made over a week ago in the Commons. I was rather surprised not to have it repeated, so I apologise for my delay in standing up.
For those who did not hear the Statement, they may not realise that it was several Statements rolled into one. I must say that many of us felt quite uneasy that the Prime Minister decided to merge his promised Statement following the police investigation into parties and events at Downing Street with a report about his visit to Kyiv and, at the end, just a few words on the crisis closer to home of soaring costs and prices.
In some ways, it was the tale of two leaders: on one hand, a President who, in facing the most difficult and challenging of circumstances that any leader could possibly face, has been resolute and inspirational and, at all times, has put his country and its people first; and then a Prime Minister who was forced into a humiliating apology for breaking the very rules and laws that he said others had to obey because they were essential.
Across the country, the accounts of personal sacrifices from those who obeyed the rules because it was the right thing to do are heartbreaking. It was not always easy, and for so many, the hurt and sadness remain. Yet even in his apology, Boris Johnson still pleaded that it “did not occur” to him, “then or subsequently”, that he was breaking the rules. In making the Statement last week, the Prime Minister sounded genuinely contrite. Yet following his appearance at the 1922 Committee that evening, Mr Johnson’s former ally, Steve Baker MP, said:
“You couldn’t have asked for a more humble and contrite apology … The problem is the contrition didn’t last much longer than it took to get out of the headmaster’s study. By the time we got to the 1922 Committee meeting that evening it was the usual festival of bombast and orgy of adulation. It took me about 90 seconds to realise he wasn’t really remorseful.”
I want to move on to the other issues in the Statement. On Ukraine, it was mostly about the Prime Minister’s visit to Kyiv, which we welcomed. At every point, it needs to be clear, both to the Ukrainian people and to the Kremlin, that we are united across this House, across Parliament and across NATO in our support for Ukraine. Putin has been forced into a change of tactics after humiliating losses and Ukraine’s extraordinary military determination. Despite their herculean efforts, as Putin continues his illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable war, each day seems to bring greater tragic consequences for Ukraine and its people.
I think the whole House will welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with world leaders, the message of solidarity essential. But tonight, I would like to press the noble Baroness further on ensuring that the Government move faster and harder on economic and diplomatic sanctions. This is as urgent as providing military support. Failure to take the necessary actions only helps the Kremlin. Against the backdrop of war crimes, Ministers are still failing to close loopholes on trusts, proxies and ownership thresholds, and the Government have yet to enforce the ban on the export of luxury goods. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether any further sanctions will be laid before Prorogation? Despite so many promises, we are still waiting for the much-needed, urgent reform of Companies House. The issue of stopping oligarchs shielding their ill-gotten gains has been raised in your Lordships’ House on numerous occasions. I know the noble Baroness is not going to give away secrets from the Queen’s Speech, but in some ways, it would be helpful to give an indication of whether this will be a priority in the new Session of Parliament.
The response of the public in support for those seeking sanctuary from the war has been amazing. Yet despite the Home Office telling us that thousands of visas are being processed, the accounts of those struggling refugees lend credibility to the whistleblower working on the scheme who said it has been “designed to fail.” Many in the UK have been daunted by having to make contact themselves with refugees. In other cases, the bureaucracy seems designed to be as difficult as possible.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness read the comments in the press over the weekend or saw anything of the Statement today in the other place, but there are numerous examples of delays and some quite tragic cases of visas not being issued. A university professor, Olga Kolishyk, applied to come to the UK with her two children. One is 11 years old and the other is a baby of six months. Despite being told there would be no problem, as the baby was on her passport, she has now been told by the Sheffield office that both children must have biometric scans in Warsaw, which is 800 miles away from where she is. Another 11 year-old had been waiting so long that his passport expired, and he is now having to start the process all over again; and he also has to go to Warsaw for biometrics. The Government promised to approve applications in 48 hours, yet families who first applied more than five weeks ago are still waiting or have heard nothing.
Many Ukrainians want to stay close to home, as they want to return when it is safe to do so, but those applying to come to the UK are traumatised, usually leaving behind loved ones—often the men in the family who are staying to fight. It is generally older people and women with children who have had to flee their homes with whatever they could carry with them. So, travelling hundreds of miles to Warsaw for biometrics, or even having just to photocopy documents, is in many cases impossible.
Can the Minister provide an update today, and perhaps again later this week and on an ongoing basis, on the number of applications, including how many have been approved, the number who have been informed —there are cases where they have not been informed that a visa has been issued—and how many refugees have arrived here in the UK? Alongside that, it would be helpful if she could provide details of how the system will be urgently improved.
In the Statement, the Prime Minister briefly touched on the cost-of-living crisis, referencing the impact of both Covid and the war in Ukraine. Undoubtedly, these have had an impact—but so have government policies. The energy Statement before the Easter Recess provided little confidence that the Government have a grip on the issue. The quickest and cheapest way of upping energy output and taking the pressure off prices would be onshore wind, but that is not even part of the mix: why? The price of the weekly shop is escalating. Add in the predicted 40% rise in the energy price cap this coming October to dramatic increases in the cost of petrol and other household essentials, and no wonder so many of our fellow citizens are now feeling absolutely desperate. I am sorry, something just flew into my eye—but I think the fly is in a worse state than I am. To paraphrase a former Member of your Lordships’ House and of the Minister’s party, some people in our country have never had it so bad. There is more that can be done. Will the Minister agree to take back to Downing Street the need for an emergency Budget that will urgently and immediately tackle this cost-of-living crisis?
This Statement was a mix of issues that would have been better addressed separately. I hope that, moving to the next Session, more time will be given in your Lordships’ House for us to debate and consider ways forward on all these issues. For now, I hope that the Minister can answer the question that I have posed today. If she is unable to, perhaps she can do so in writing in the days ahead.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this almost entirely vacuous Statement is in three unconnected parts. The first deals with “Partygate” and is really desperate stuff.
“I paid the fine immediately”
said the Prime Minister, as though this was somehow praiseworthy rather than a legal requirement.
“As soon as I received the notice, I acknowledged the hurt and the anger”
said the Prime Minister, as if, until he received the fine, he was not aware of what the country has been feeling for many months.
“It didn’t occur to me, then or subsequently”,
said the Prime Minister,
“that a gathering in the Cabinet Room could amount to a breach of the rules”,
as though this inadvertent thoughtlessness or straightforward ignorance was an excuse for breaking the law. We are told that there may be more prime-ministerial fines; we read that the Gray report will be excoriating about his behaviour; and we now have the prospect of a long wait until the Commons Privileges Committee decides whether he has misled the Commons. For the Prime Minister, this is death by a thousand cuts; but for the country, it is a continuing shame and embarrassment.
Over recent days, a number of Cabinet Ministers have explained that they support the Prime Minister and have set out their reasons for doing so. I was out of the country for a week, until yesterday evening, and so may have missed any such Statement from the Leader of the House, so I wonder whether she will take this opportunity to inform the House whether she believes that the Prime Minister’s law breaking is as irrelevant as many of her colleagues do, and whether the Prime Minister still has her full support.
The second part of the Statement is about Ukraine. While the Prime Minister’s travelogue, complete with random comments about people bumped into on the streets of Kyiv, is interesting, he has literally nothing new to say. We obviously support the assistance which the UK is now giving Ukraine and share the Prime Minister’s admiration for the courage and heroism of the Ukrainian people. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that sanctions could be tightened in some respects.
We also agree with the noble Baroness that the asylum process is as dysfunctional as her examples proved. It beggars belief that the rules are so bureaucratic and inhumane—and that they still have not been made less bureaucratic and humane. I also look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the Leader’s figures for the number of people who have applied, have been accepted and have arrived through the asylum process.
But a lesson from this crisis that the Prime Minister has yet to draw publicly, I think, is that it is a mistake to appease tyrants like Putin, as successive British Governments did over the last decade. It is right that the UK is now prepared to offer long-term support to Ukraine to protect it from any future invasion, but the lesson here surely is that, if we had given the country more support at an earlier stage, there would not have been such an invasion in the first place.
Thirdly, the Statement makes passing reference to the most serious domestic issue facing the country: the cost of living crisis. It says that the Government are “tackling” the long-term impact on energy prices and cites as one of their main achievements that
“we are helping families to insulate their homes”.
The Government should indeed be helping people to insulate their homes, but they scrapped the green homes grant last year and, in the Chancellor’s recent Spring Statement, there was literally nothing new to insulate so much as one single additional home. This is a typical case of prime ministerial hyperbole. It would be great if what he claimed were actually true, but it is not.
Finally, the Prime Minister says that his job is
“to make the British people safer, more secure and more prosperous”.
That should indeed be his job. However, as we now see on a daily basis, Brexit is making the country less prosperous and less secure—and it remains his proudest boast.
So the Prime Minister’s record is to diminish the office that he holds, diminish the standing of Great Britain across the world and fail the British people on the core requirements of government. As I believe he will discover in next week’s elections, the British people have had enough of it. For all our sakes, the sooner he goes, the better.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their comments. I wholeheartedly endorse the noble Baroness’s praise of the Ukrainian people and President Zelensky for the incredible courage that they are showing in their courageous fight. I obviously cite our continued support for them—I will cover a couple of points shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the fines and the Prime Minister’s approach. As he made very clear last week, the Prime Minister offered a full and unreserved apology, quite rightly, and he made clear that he fully respects the outcome of the police investigation, which is still under way. He has paid his fine, and anyone who either watched last week’s Statement or read Hansard saw that he was contrite in his apology, quite rightly.
On Ukraine, the noble Lord said that we did not do enough. To be fair, there has been an acknowledgement that there were other things that we could have done. But I point to one of the key things that we did, which is important and has been much appreciated: Operation Orbital, which we started back in 2015 and which meant that we trained 22,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces. The commitment and solidarity that we have shown with the Ukrainian people, and the leading role that we have played in terms of providing support to the Ukrainians now, are important and have been recognised. We will continue to do this. As the noble Baroness alluded to, the Defence Secretary made a Statement today to highlight further support that we are giving, and I am sure that we will discuss that further in the House later this week.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about sanctions. So far, we have sanctioned more than £900 billion of global assets from banks and sanctioned oligarchs and their families with a net worth of approximately £200 billion. Last week, we announced a new wave of 26 sanctions on key leaders in the Russian army. We are fast-tracking a further 19 individuals and entities in alignment with global partners from the G7 and the EU. We have also announced further trade sanctions, expanding the list of products facing import bans and increasing tariffs. These include bans on silver, wood products and high-end products from Russia. We will also increase tariffs by 35 percentage points on around £130 million-worth of products from Russia and Belarus, including diamonds and rubber. I believe we are doing two SIs this week in Grand Committee on further measures around sanctions that have been agreed, so there will be further action in this area, as the noble Baroness said, before we prorogue.
In relation to refugees, I will give a few figures that I have to hand. As of 4 pm on 20 April, 107,200 visa applications had been received under both schemes and 71,800 visas issued. For the Ukrainian family scheme, 41,200 applications had been received and 32,500 visas issued. Under the Ukraine sponsorship scheme, 65,900 applications had been received and 39,300 visas issued. As of 18 April, 21,600 Ukrainians had arrived in the UK through the schemes. We are taking steps to simplify and speed up the process, including removing the need for Ukrainian passport holders to attend an in-person appointment. We have 500 staff working seven days a week to process applications and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Harrington will have taken note of the cases that the noble Baroness raised. I shall certainly draw his attention to them and I hope that noble Lords have found him very willing to engage with them, as the Minister involved. I will speak to him once again about whether there is further engagement that can be done, on top of what I have mentioned just now.
In relation to the cost of living, we are taking action worth over £22 billion in 2022-23 to deal with the cost of energy. Of course, we are constantly reviewing the measures to tackle cost of living issues facing families across the country. One thing I will point to is fuel duty, which the noble Baroness mentioned. Of course, we have cut that by 5p for 12 months, saving the average motorist £100 a year, but we are well aware and cognisant of the issues that families are facing across the country. We are continuing to work on that and will continue to take measures as and when they are appropriate.
The noble Baroness asked about onshore wind and the energy strategy. Within the energy strategy, what we have said on onshore wind is that we will consult on developing partnerships with supportive communities that wish to host onshore wind infrastructure in return for guaranteed lower energy bills—so there was an element of onshore wind included in the Statement. In relation to the economic crime Bill, as she rightly says I cannot go too far, but I can reassure her that it is a priority in terms of action that we will take going forward.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am not surprised that the Leader of the House did not repeat the Statement orally: who would want to repeat such a Statement? I make no comment on the fact that Covid regulations were broken, because we know that the Privileges Committee in another place will reach a view on this and we will discover in the autumn what its judgment is and what will follow accordingly.
I shall raise one point about Ukraine, because the Prime Minister said in the course of his Statement that
“our long-term goal must be to strengthen and fortify Ukraine to the point where Russia will never dare to invade again.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/22; col. 49.]
Other Members in the Chamber tonight were present at a meeting earlier today of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, in which very interesting evidence was given to us about the current situation of a war that has lasted longer than anyone probably thought it would. What kind of condition Ukraine will be in at the end of hostilities is by no means clear. I put it to the Leader of the House that it would be very helpful if the Government could find time, in government time in the next Session, to explore the important issues that are already beginning to be raised, such as: what are the West’s war aims, to put it bluntly, in the current situation? I very much hope that the Government will see to it that we have such a debate in the next Session.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount and will make a couple of broader comments. There will be a NATO summit in June, at which NATO will agree a new strategic concept to set the direction of the alliance for the next decade and long-term changes to our deterrence and defence posture in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There is action at that level looking towards the future.
The noble Viscount will be aware that the international community has committed to widening its package of military support for Ukraine and exploring new ways of sustaining the Ukrainian armed forces over the longer term. I can reassure him that many conversations are going on internationally, and with President Zelensky and his Administration, to make sure we all come together and work to help rebuild Ukraine and provide it with the support it wants and is asking for. We are very cognisant of wanting to make sure we deliver what it needs at each given point. We hope that military hostilities will finish, but focus is on that element and the support we can provide there at the moment. However, we will of course move to reconstruction and helping ensure that Ukraine can get back on its feet as quickly as possible following—we hope—the end of hostilities.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I will refer to the first part of the Prime Minister’s Statement. It will be understood how distressing it has been for those of us for whom it was the greatest privilege of our lives to work in 10 Downing Street in support of the Heads of our Governments to hear the accounts of what went on there during the regulations over Covid. I revert to a question I raised with the Leader in her initial Statement about Sue Gray’s preliminary report. In the reset of 10 Downing Street, who will have overall responsibility for staff management, both civil servants and special advisers? Despite their titles, I do not think it will be the chief of staff or even the deputy chief of staff, but it really will have to be somebody if any recurrence is to be prevented of behaviour which has been so damaging to the Government.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Samantha Jones, the permanent secretary and chief operating officer, will be in charge of civil servants in No. 10. As the noble Lord will know, the Ministerial Code states:
“The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment.”
There is experience within No. 10 to draw on. There is specialist HR experience from the Cabinet Office’s spad HR team to support that role. I believe the chief of staff and the deputy chief of staff will also play a role in that regard.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, almost six months to the day before the Russians invaded Ukraine, the United States—and, by extension, its NATO allies—left Afghanistan. We have talked a lot already about the Ukrainian refugee scheme. In the other place, John Baron MP, chair of the APPG for the British Council, raised the issue of British Council staff who were told that they would have the opportunity to come to the United Kingdom. They are still stuck in Afghanistan. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that the commitments they made in August are met, that the ACRS is fit for purpose and that people who have worked for the British Council actually know when they can begin to apply? Looking at Ukraine and seeing what offers the UK has made to Ukrainians, they feel that they are being ignored.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
They are certainly not being ignored. My understanding is that they can access the schemes, but I will have to write to the noble Baroness because this has been largely focused on Ukraine. I think an answer was given, but I do not have the words to hand and do not want to mislead her. However, I am very happy to put on record what was said in response to that in the Commons.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has apologised for the fact that he was fined. However, he still seems to be of the view that an event that took place in the Cabinet Office before an important meeting could not have been a breach of the rules. You would have thought the cake and the presence of his partner might have given the game away, but he maintains that he could not believe it could be a breach of the rules.
Does the Leader of the House agree with me that if the party had been in the private flat at No. 10, such ambiguity would not be possible? A party in the flat at No. 10, if it had been attended by the Prime Minister, would be—even in his view—a clear breach of the rules and if that were the case, and was found to be the case, we would not need to wait for the result of the Sue Gray report or the committee’s investigation: it would, inevitably, be a case for resignation.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Baroness’s question involved a lot of “ifs”, and I am afraid I am not going to speculate. The police investigation is under way. What I can say on the basis of what has happened is that the Prime Minister has offered a full and unreserved apology, he has made it clear that he respects the outcome of the police investigation—as I said, that is still under way—and he has paid the fine that has been issued to him and has apologised fully.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Leader of the House gave us the latest figures on applications and approvals for the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but I am not sure if she has seen a report from Brighton emerging today. In what is sadly an inevitable next step, a placement has broken down, the Ukrainian in question having been faced with a demand from the host to support the payment of utility bills.
Brighton council is highlighting that there is no mechanism underneath this hastily designed scheme whereby a person whose placement has broken down can be placed somewhere else. So, a Ukrainian refugee who came to this country seeking refuge was told, “Here is the scheme and here’s how it works”, and they are now being thrown into the hands of a charity. A local church is providing a home for a few days, but the problem is inevitably going to land in the council’s lap. However, it would appear that there is no provision under the scheme for a placement to be transferred or a person to be replaced. Will this be looked at and dealt with as a matter of urgency, because it is obviously likely to occur again?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. I was not aware of the case but obviously, she has now raised it. If she would like to send me further details or contact my noble friend Lord Harrington directly, I am very happy to facilitate that or ensure that this issue is raised with him.
As she rightly says, it is a new scheme and I suspect that other issues may arise that will need to be addressed, but as soon as intelligence is gathered, we can deal with them. As I say, if she would like to send me more details, I am very happy to pass them on, or she can speak to my noble friend directly. We have in this House a Minister responsible for such things, so we will certainly take on board these issues, which, as she rightly says, need to be addressed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
If I may I will raise another issue in this rather scattergun Statement; I believe this is within the rules. In the other place, reference was made to what the Prime Minister described as “Russia’s barbaric onslaught” on Ukraine. The Labour Member for Rhondda raised the issue of the reported involvement of mercenaries—particularly one mercenary company, Wagner—in some of the most horrific events there. He also referred to what is usually known as the United Nations Mercenary Convention, more formally known as the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. The Prime Minister said that he would study the proposal because the UK has not signed up to this UN convention and has not been a proponent of it. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are seriously looking at this, and will she ensure that we hear in this House—in some way or another—the outcome of that study?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am sure that if the Prime Minister said he would study it, he will. What I can say is that we are continuing to gather evidence to assist ongoing investigations into crimes committed in Ukraine, such as the ICC investigation. We have led 41 states to refer atrocities to the ICC and we are providing additional funding to it. UK military and police are providing technical assistance to the investigations. The Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit has commenced the collection of evidence, and we are working very closely with the Ukrainian Government. We have also appointed a former ICC judge, Sir Howard Morrison, as an independent adviser to the Ukrainian prosecutor-general, and we have welcomed the OSCE’s Moscow Mechanism report, which is the first independent report to identify evidence of potential Russian war crimes in Ukraine.
I reassure the noble Baroness that we are leading action in this area and we will continue to do so, because we want to ensure that all perpetrators are brought to justice for crimes that have been committed in Ukraine.