House of Commons
Prayers
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we start the business of the day, I want to mark a poignant anniversary. On 12 October 2002, exactly 20 years ago today, 202 people, including 28 Britons, were killed in the Bali bombings. These horrific bomb attacks were organised to cause maximum carnage, leaving hundreds of families and friends shocked and grieving. I know that today, 20 years since the Bali bombings, will be difficult for many people. I would like to express heartfelt condolences and best wishes from all of us here in the House of Commons to the survivors, families and friends.
I would also like to remind Members that the ballot for the election of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is currently taking place in the Aye Lobby. The ballot will be open until 2.30 pm. The side doors between the Chamber and the Aye Lobby will be locked until the ballot has been concluded.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Cabinet colleagues and I are committed to ensuring the further success of Channel 4. The Government are determined to support the incredible TV production industry in Scotland, and we believe that in the long run the UK production industry will benefit from a sustainable Channel 4.
Jeff Smith
Channel 4 is a key commissioner for Scottish independent production companies. It spends about £20 million a year on Scottish productions, supporting about 400 jobs in Scotland. Analysis from Ernst & Young says that privatisation could result in £1 billion being lost from the UK’s nations and regions, so for the sake of Scotland’s creative economy, will the Secretary of State make representations to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to follow the evidence and keep Channel 4 in public hands?
Mr Jack
I have had discussions with the Culture Secretary and the previous Culture Secretary. The Government’s position is that we are looking again at the sale of Channel 4, and we will have further details in due course. We want Channel 4 to flourish, and we want independent production companies to flourish and thrive, because we recognise that we live in a challenging and changing media landscape.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have held a number of discussions with the Levelling Up Secretary and his predecessors on freeports. This Government are committed to delivering two new freeports for Scotland to boost economic growth. The UK and Scottish Governments will be making an announcement shortly.
Iain Stewart
Five high-quality bids for freeports in Scotland have been received. Only two can be successful in this round. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will work with partners in the unsuccessful three so that they can realise their ambitions through other means?
Mr Jack
Before I answer the question, I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his diligent and excellent work in the Scotland Office. He made a huge impact, and I absolutely thank him from the bottom of my heart.
In answering my hon. Friend’s question, the Government are committed to boosting economic growth in all areas of Scotland. We will use all the levers at our disposal to do so, and we will do that in partnership with the Scottish Government, as we are doing with freeports. Hopefully, that will also include investment zones—discussions are ongoing between officials—and I hope that those who are unsuccessful in their freeport bids can apply for investment zone status, which will help them to increase their economic activity, so the answer is yes. Funnily enough, I do not exclude the freeport winners from going for investment zone status, as that is not identical, and there are advantages in their becoming investment zones as well.
Andrew Bowie
Of all the five excellent bids, I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that, given the focus on a North sea revival, the importance of the North sea transition deal to our future energy security, the dynamic and pioneering spirit of business and industry in the north-east of Scotland, and the fact that we will create 30,000 new jobs in my constituency and around the north-east of Scotland, the Aberdeen and north-east freeport bid will be one that he announces as successful.
Mr Jack
I admire my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the north-east bid. He is right to be enthusiastic, as he represents that part of Scotland. It is a process, and we are following the metrics, as was done with the English freeports. It is important that we do not make a political decision, and that we make the right decision based on the bids before us. As I say, for those that are unsuccessful, hopefully investment zones will be another route. I have not shown any preference for any bid, and it is right that we do not and do it properly according to the metrics that we set out, because we cannot leave this open to judicial review, which would lead to further delay.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I am glad to hear the right hon. Member say that the Government intend to consider repurposing Scottish green freeports into investment zones. What discussions have been about environmental protection concerns and the removal of EU environmental standards?
Mr Jack
There is a full prospectus explaining all that, which we agreed with the Scottish Government. We have put it out to bid. We have five bids, from Orkney down to the Forth and the Clyde, and they all understand the environmental impacts. A lot of it is about reclaiming brownfield land, which is part and parcel of the levelling-up agenda, and I think everyone understands what has to be done environmentally to reclaim brownfield sites.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
We have invested £172 million in Scotland in round 1 of the levelling-up fund, which is around 10% of the total UK funding. In March, we published a monitoring and evaluation strategy for the levelling-up fund. Further updates on the strategy will be published in due course, and results of round 2 will be announced later this year.
Caroline Ansell
That is wonderful to hear. In my beautiful constituency of Eastbourne, we are busy working to ensure that £20 million of Government levelling-up funding is energising and growing the visitor economy. [Hon. Members: “Scotland!”] My question is: how is the levelling-up fund doing the same in Scotland—the land of my forefathers—to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can capitalise on and consolidate the staycation market so much born out of the pandemic years?
Mr Jack
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Levelling-up measures are all about delivering local priorities and pride in place, which go hand in hand towards creating a sustainable tourist economy. The £150 million community ownership fund is allowing us to put cultural and heritage assets back in the hands of local people across the whole United Kingdom.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What would the impact have been on levelling-up projects if the Scottish Government had followed the advice of the Scottish Conservatives to give these unfunded and catastrophic tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society? Will the Secretary of State now apologise to the Scottish Government for insisting that they follow this disastrous and reckless course of action?
Mr Jack
The hon. Member is conflating two issues. The reality is that the levelling-up funds, of which there are £200 million in the current round, are being well received across Scotland. That is real devolution in practice. All local authorities are engaging with the UK Government—and guess what? They are enthusiastic when it comes to applying for money to help local projects.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world and we believe that the devolution settlement strikes the right balance. We continue to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government to implement the Scotland Act 2016. This includes passing secondary legislation to deliver the extensive welfare and tax powers granted by the Act.
Allan Dorans
The vast majority of people in Scotland support the continued existence of the Scottish Government. Despite the settled will of the Scottish people for greater autonomy and self-rule, some senior Conservatives—there are Secretaries of State among them—are becoming even louder in their calls for the UK Government to claw back powers from the devolved Assemblies. Will the Secretary of State today commit before the House that the UK Government will not under any circumstances attempt to revoke powers devolved to the Scottish Government?
Mr Jack
Absolutely. In fact, since we left the European Union, we have given more powers to the Scottish Parliament. Actually, whenever asked, not a single Member of the Scottish National party has come up with one power that has been taken away. It is quite the contrary. We have given more powers and will continue to do that, because, let us be clear, we are the party that is strengthening devolution and the SNP wants to destroy devolution.
Deidre Brock
I believe that the EU forecasts that the Irish economy will grow by more than 5% in 2022, showing the real potential for growth that exists for smaller nations that are part of the EU. Meanwhile, on the back of the UK Government’s disastrous fiscal statement, mortgage payments for many Scots are rising dramatically and people will struggle to keep a roof over their heads, let alone to feed and keep themselves warm.
Today, the Office for National Statistics tells us that there was a slump of 0.3% in GDP in August in the UK, before that disastrous event. Why will the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues not accept that their fiddling with devolution while the UK economy burns will never be enough to protect the Scottish people he supposedly represents and accept that an independence referendum has to happen so that the Scottish people can protect themselves?
Mr Jack
You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Speaker, that I think that that is absolute nonsense. This is not the time. A vast majority of Scots do not believe that now is the time for an independence referendum and that is very clear. The constitution is reserved to Westminster—that is in the process of going through the Supreme Court to be determined now. To me it is very clear that the people of Scotland want this Government to get on. The support we gave during covid, with 900,000 jobs furloughed, the support we have given to households and businesses for their energy costs and our helping to grow the Scottish economy through freeports and investment zones: that is what the people of Scotland want.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Devolution is about Scotland’s two Governments working together and we have seen the success of that with city and region growth deals and with the progress towards freeports. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that language is also really important? When the First Minister said that she “detests the Tories”, she was insulting—[Interruption.] Cheers are coming from the SNP. She is insulting hundreds of thousands of Scottish Conservative voters when she should be representing the whole of Scotland as First Minister.
Mr Jack
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Language is terribly important in politics. We saw the desperate death of David Amess and others before him, and people cannot incite people using words such as “detest”, which, as can be seen in the dictionary, is another word for hate. The irony is that the Scottish Government are bringing forward a hate Bill yet we have language such as “detest”. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call it out.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
The Government fully recognise that families, households and businesses are worried about rising costs. That is why we have taken decisive action to get families and businesses through this winter and next, and we are focused on growing the economy to raise living standards for everyone.
Janet Daby
According to Citizens Advice Scotland, the cost of living crisis is the “perfect storm” that risks sweeping tens of thousands of households across Scotland into poverty, problem debt, and destitution, and nothing could be closer to the truth. Scottish Labour has a plan and is calling for an emergency cost of living Act. Will the Minister raise with Scottish Ministers what both Governments could urgently do, using all the levers at their disposal, to help individuals and families in Scotland through this terrible crisis?
David Duguid
The UK, like Europe and other countries around the world, has been forced to respond decisively to the challenges posed by high energy prices resulting from, among other things, Russia’s weaponisation of energy markets. Because of action taken by this Government, the most vulnerable households will get at least £1,200—some much more—of cost of living support this year on top of the benefit of the energy price guarantee. Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that this Government and the devolved Administrations must work together to make sure that the most vulnerable get the most support.
Carol Monaghan
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, if the Government do not uprate benefits in line with inflation, then claimants, many of whom are working, will experience the biggest ever real-terms cut to benefits in a single year. Is it not the case that the Minister’s Government are prioritising growing the wealth of the richest while not doing enough for the vulnerable, including the elderly, in our communities in Scotland?
David Duguid
Again, it will come as no surprise that I do not totally agree with everything that an hon. Member said. The hon. Lady asked about raising benefits in line with inflation. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking at that—as she would do on an annual basis in any case—and will announce in due course the decision on benefits uprating.
Alison Thewliss
According to Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures, 15,378 people in Glasgow Central receive means-tested benefits such as universal credit, and many of them will be working in low-paid jobs. The Scottish Government have done their bit by introducing the leading Scottish child payment, but what representations has the Minister made to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to support the uprating of benefits? He has not been clear about what representations he has made for the people of Scotland.
David Duguid
The hon. Lady makes excellent points. On making representations to my ministerial colleagues, having been in this post for a very short time, I have not quite got there yet, but these discussions are happening. Under the agreed fiscal framework, the Scottish Government, through the levers that they have, will receive an estimated £340 million of additional funding as a result of just the basic rate tax cut. It is for the Scottish Government to use that additional funding as they want to, including on increased spending or tax cuts.
Alan Brown
In the policy decisions chapter of the so-called “Growth Plan”, line 9 on page 26 shows that reversing the corporation tax increase will cost £68 billion over the next five years. Given the cost of living crisis, did the Minister and his Secretary of State argue for or against a £68 billion subsidy to the biggest, wealthiest companies in the UK?
David Duguid
The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Government have committed to reversing the planned corporation tax increase from 19%, so it is staying at 19%, which will attract businesses to Scotland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. It is often missed that the Government have delivered on top of the recently announced energy price guarantee. It means that typical households receiving means-tested benefits will receive £1,200 of support; those on disability benefits on top of that will receive £1,350; low-income pensioner households will receive £1,500 of support; and low-income pensioner households who are receiving disability benefits will receive £1,650 of support. As well as that, the energy price guarantee will mean that a typical household will pay no more than £2,500 on their energy bills.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), has a long-standing family commitment, which is why the privilege of asking questions falls to me today.
The UK Government’s so-called mini-Budget has created a financial crisis—made in Downing Street but paid for by working people all over this country, including in Scotland. Has the Minister’s Department made an assessment of how much worse off Scottish households will be as a result of the Chancellor’s disastrous actions?
David Duguid
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place instead of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). As I said, the energy support put in place means that a typical household will not pay more than £2,500. That is on top of the additional benefits that were announced earlier this year and more recently and which will make sure that many households, including those on the lowest incomes, will actually be better off than they would have been.
Peter Kyle
The only long-term solution to this crisis is a more sustainable energy policy, which the Government have failed to deliver for 12 years. In 2017, Nicola Sturgeon announced a national energy company for Scotland. Five years on, we are in an energy crisis and that plan has been ditched, so does the Minister agree that the right way forward is through Labour’s plan for Great British Energy, a home-grown, publicly owned company run for and by the people of this country and for the interests of people in this country?
David Duguid
The hon. Member is absolutely correct to point out the Scottish Government’s commitment, made back in 2017, to have created a nationalised energy company in Scotland by now. That has not happened, and quite frankly I do not think that it should. I do not think that Labour’s plans should be implemented either.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The first mini-Budget from this Government required two Bank of England interventions just to stabilise the economy. It tanked the pound and it massively worsened the already brutal cost of living crisis that our constituents are facing. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State, as Scotland’s representative in Cabinet, confirm that any future fiscal event from this Government will neither make further cuts to the Scottish budget nor introduce further cuts to our already crippled public services?
David Duguid
On top of the already record increased block grant of £41 billion that the Scottish Government have already received, measures announced in the Chancellor’s recent fiscal statement mean hundreds of millions in extra money going to the Scottish Government. As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), it is for the Scottish Government to decide whether to spend that on tax cuts or to increase spending.
Mhairi Black
After 12 years of austerity, which has caused in excess of 300,000 deaths in the UK, this Tory Government have cost the public billions. They have given dodgy covid contracts to their pals. They are scrapping the bankers’ bonus cap. They have forced a hard Brexit on Scotland against its will. They are now helping the richest people in the country, on the backs of millions of people who are choosing between heating and eating. I ask the Minister: is it genuinely a surprise to him and his colleagues to discover why most people in Scotland detest the Tory party and its values?
David Duguid
I must say that I am disappointed that the hon. Member chooses to double down on the hate-filled language of her party leader. I repeat that the Scottish Government have received a record amount of block grant funding—£41 billion—since devolution began, and all the other measures from which people and businesses across Scotland will benefit. Those in the most vulnerable households and on the lowest incomes will particularly benefit from the measures that this Government have taken.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
The Government’s recently announced energy price guarantee will support households with their energy bills across the whole United Kingdom, including in Scotland. This decisive action will save the typical household at least £1,000 a year for the next two years.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
May I follow up on the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) asked about the Scottish Government’s decision to abandon their plans? Will the Minister confirm what discussions he has had with his Scottish counterparts about ensuring that Scotland’s renewable potential directly benefits the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom, given that the cost to the consumer of renewable energy is so much lower?
David Duguid
As I have said, Ministers in the Scotland Office discuss such matters regularly with our colleagues in other Departments. Energy policy is reserved, as I am sure the hon. Member will understand, but we endeavour to work constructively with the Scottish Government on everything that can have an impact on the livelihoods of people and communities in Scotland, as well as businesses.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
One of the most critical ways of reducing domestic energy costs in Scotland is by supporting renewable energy generation and carbon reduction efforts. I have raised before at the Dispatch Box the fact that the UK Government chose to sideline the Acorn carbon capture and storage project in the north-east of Scotland. The Scottish Government have refused to provide financing either.
The Secretary of State may be interested to hear that Labour has put forward a fully costed plan to invest in Britain’s infrastructure, which includes providing the funding for the Acorn project. Will the Secretary of State encourage his Cabinet colleagues—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to start the question again, because I could not hear.
Liz Twist
I believe the Secretary of State and the Minister may have heard the first part of the question, so I will conclude by asking the Secretary of State to encourage his Cabinet colleagues to look again at how the carbon capture and storage project can be supported to enable it to get under way as a matter of urgency.
David Duguid
As the hon. Lady may be aware, the Acorn cluster looms large in my own constituency, so I have nothing but the greatest support for that project. I can also assure her, and the rest of the House, that this Government have stood firmly behind it: we have invested £41 million in the project directly, and it is also the reserve cluster in the Track-1 sequence. Track-2 sequencing for carbon capture and storage across the United Kingdom is coming soon, I am told, and I look forward to that announcement with great interest.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, let me point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Elizabeth Truss)
This Saturday marks the first anniversary of the senseless murder of our friend Sir David Amess. David was a superb parliamentarian, who brought colleagues across the House together on a huge range of issues. He represented the best of Parliament as a devoted champion of his constituency. Our thoughts are with his wife Julia and his five children, as well as with the people of Southend, which now stands tall as a city in testament to David’s tireless work.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Graham Stringer
I knew Sir David, and I share the Prime Minister’s sentiments completely.
Spooking the markets, increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages, was almost certainly an act of gross incompetence rather than malevolence, but going back on the commitment to end no-fault evictions is an act of extreme callousness. Can the Prime Minister reassure the 11 million private renters in this country that she will fulfil that commitment?
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to hear about the situation of young people at York Hospital, but I am pleased to say that this is an issue on which my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has focused in her plan for patients. We are making sure that people can access treatment as soon as possible: we are delivering record staff numbers and record levels of funding.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in her comments about Sir David? She spoke for the whole House when she made those comments. I know how deeply his loss was felt on the Government Benches, and we extend our best wishes across the House at this important time.
I also want to send my heartfelt condolences to the families of all those who tragically lost their lives in Creeslough last week. Donegal is a special place for my family and me, and across the House. The people there are in all our thoughts.
This morning the Business Secretary toured the television studios arguing that the turmoil in the markets had nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s Budget. Does the Prime Minister agree with him?
The Prime Minister
We have taken decisive action to make sure that people are not facing energy bills of £6,000 for two years. We remember that the Opposition are only talking about six months. We have also taken decisive action to make sure that we are not facing the highest taxes for 70 years in the face of a global economic slowdown. We are making sure that we protect our economy at this very difficult time internationally. As a result of our action—this has been independently corroborated—we will see higher growth and lower inflation.
Keir Starmer
Avoiding the question, ducking responsibility, lost in denial—it is no wonder investors have no confidence in her Government. This is why it matters: a few weeks ago, Zach and Rebecca from Wolverhampton were all set to buy their first home. Then the Government’s borrowing spree sent interest rates spiralling and their mortgage offer was withdrawn. I met them last week. They are back to square one: unable to buy, devastated and sick to their back teeth with excuses and blame shifting. Does the Prime Minister understand why Zach and Rebecca are completely furious with her?
The Prime Minister
The fact is that when I came into office, people were facing energy bills of up to £6,000 per year—[Interruption.] Well, I am sorry; Labour Members are shouting, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is opposing the very package that we brought in with the energy price guarantee. That was the major part of the mini-Budget that we announced. He has refused to confirm whether he backs our energy price guarantee for two years, which protects families not just this winter but next winter. We are seeing interest rates rising globally—[Interruption.] They are rising globally in the face of Putin’s appalling war in Ukraine. What we are doing is helping people with lower stamp duty, helping people with their energy costs, reducing inflation with our energy package and keeping taxes low. I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a Damascene conversion last night when he backed our cut to national insurance.
Keir Starmer
The economy is in turmoil. People are really worried. This is really not the time to descend into nonsense attacks about last night. There is no point in trying to hide it; everyone can see what has happened. The Tories went on a borrowing spree, sending mortgage rates through the roof—they are skyrocketing by £500 a month—and for nearly 2 million homeowners, their fixed-rate deals are coming to an end next year. They are worried sick, and everybody in this House knows it. They will not forgive; they will not forget; and nor should they. When will the Prime Minister stop ducking responsibility, do the right thing and reverse her kamikaze Budget, which is causing so much pain?
The Prime Minister
Last night, the Labour party supported bringing down national insurance. Is he really—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister. I am sorry if her own party doesn’t, but I certainly do.
The Prime Minister
I am genuinely unclear about what—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not want an early bath at this stage. The rugby world cup is coming, but let us not start it too soon. Let us hear the questions and the answers.
The Prime Minister
I am genuinely unclear as to what the Labour party’s policy is on our energy price guarantee. It was the biggest part of our mini-Budget. Are the Opposition saying that they want to reverse it and that they want to see people facing energy bills of £6,000? Is that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying?
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister knows very well that, on this side, we voted against the national insurance rise in the first place. She voted for it, so who is doing the U-turn? Honestly.
Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to U-turn on her unfunded tax cut for the super-wealthy. This week, she is beginning to realise that she needs to extend the windfall tax, one step behind the CEO of Shell, but she is still going ahead with £18 billion of tax cuts for the richest businesses, and they did not even ask for it. She has still gift-wrapped a stamp duty cut for landlords, just as renters feel the pinch, and she is still holding out tax cuts for those who live off stocks and shares. Why does she expect working people to pick up the bill for her unfunded tax cuts for those at the top?
The Prime Minister
I notice the Leader of the Opposition is still not saying whether he supports our energy price guarantee. This is very relevant, because it is the biggest part of our mini-Budget. The fact is that all the Opposition have said is that people should be supported for six months. Does he think that, in March, pensioners should be facing very high energy bills? That is what will happen if he does not support our energy price guarantee.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is not even attempting to answer the questions now. I gently remind her that the idea of freezing energy bills was a Labour idea that she took on. During her leadership contest the Prime Minister said, and I quote her exactly:
“I’m very clear I’m not planning public spending reductions.”
Is she going to stick to that?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. [Interruption.] Look, we have almost £1 trillion of public spending, and we were spending £700 billion back in 2010. We will make sure that, over the medium term, the debt is falling, and we will do that not by cutting public spending but by making sure we spend public money well. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about our spending on the energy price guarantee, which he does not seem to support, but the reality is that he cannot criticise us, on the one hand, for spending money while, on the other hand, claiming we are cutting public expenditure. [Interruption.]
Keir Starmer
Conservative Members can cheer. I hope they listened very carefully to that last answer, because other people will have listened very carefully. Who voted for this? Not homeowners paying an extra £500 on their mortgage. Who voted for this? Not working people paying for tax cuts for the largest companies. Who voted for this? Not even most of the MPs sitting behind her, who know they cannot pay for tax cuts on the never-never. Does she think the public will ever forgive the Conservative party if it keeps on defending this madness and goes ahead with its kamikaze Budget?
The Prime Minister
What our Budget has delivered is security for families for the next two winters. It has made sure we will see higher economic growth, lower inflation and more opportunities. The way we are going to get our country growing is through more jobs, more growth and more opportunities, not through higher taxes, higher spending and his friends in the unions stopping hard-working people getting to work.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I want to see more jobs, more opportunities and more homes for local people in Cornwall, which I know my hon. Friend is working towards with her colleagues. I am delighted that we are bringing forward these investment zones, which will give those opportunities to local people.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the murder of David Amess a year ago? Our thoughts and prayers are very much with Julia and his family. Of course, we also think very much of those in Creeslough, who have been caught up in the terrible tragedy there.
I would have hoped that if the Prime Minister were making public spending commitments today, she would have said that those who rely on social security benefits will get their benefits uprated in line with inflation.
When the Prime Minister last stood at the Dispatch Box, the average two-year fixed-rate mortgage stood at 4.5%. It is now at 6.5% and rising, hitting average families with an extra £450 in mortgage payments every single month, over and above what they were paying. Thirty-seven days into the job, this is literally the cost of the Prime Minister’s incompetence. It is the price households are paying, and all because of the Chancellor she chose. Will she now give up on her desperate plan to save her Chancellor’s skin by scapegoating the Governor of the Bank of England?
The Prime Minister
The action we have taken has meant that families in Scotland and across the UK are not facing gargantuan energy bills. What the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in Scotland could do to help us out is build the nuclear power stations that are going to help our energy security and help us get more gas out of the North sea, to help deliver on a more secure energy future for all of our people.
Ian Blackford
If the Prime Minister wants to ask us questions, we can swap places. The reality is that she is ignoring the damage of the chaos of the mini-Budget. She is worrying about saving the Chancellor’s job, but many families are now worried about not just heating their homes, but keeping their homes. The scale of this Tory crisis is frightening: 100,000 households a month are up for mortgage renewals; people cannot afford to pay an extra £4,500 a year in interest, and plenty are already falling behind. The Prime Minister and her Chancellor have completely lost control. The only things growing under this Government are mortgages, rents and bills. Is that what she really meant when she declared herself a “pro-growth” Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
We have taken action on helping families to heat their homes. That has been very important, and I would love to see more support on delivering the energy security we need. Interest rates are rising globally— that is a fact—and interest rates are a decision for the independent Bank of England. But I want to do all I can to help families across Britain. The way we are going to help them is by delivering economic growth, and by making sure we have the jobs and opportunities in Scotland and right across the UK. What independent forecasters have shown is that, following our intervention, economic growth is going to be higher than it would have been if we had not acted. That is vital for jobs, opportunities and livelihoods, and helping to make sure that people are able to put food on the table.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about our support for cleaner water. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has asked from a sedentary position what we are doing about it. The Environment Secretary has increased the fines on water companies 100 times should they discharge sewage into waterways in an illegal way. We have acted.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
May I associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks made about the tragic events in Creeslough in County Donegal? Our prayers continue to be with that devastated community.
I welcome the renewed negotiations with the European Union about the Northern Ireland protocol. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the outcome of those negotiations must reflect the objectives outlined by the Government in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, and that that is the key to unlocking the door to political stability in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman; we need to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That means making sure that we have free-flowing trade east-west as well as north-south, it means making sure that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from the same tax benefits as people in Great Britain, and it means resolving the issues over governance and regulation. I would prefer to achieve that through a negotiated solution with the EU, but if we are not able to do that, we cannot allow the situation to drift; we have to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this health research is vitally important. I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is looking at whether and where the scheme can be expanded, and we will be doing further commissioning rounds to look at that issue.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
Mr Speaker
I do not think I am responsible, but I am sure the Prime Minister will take that on board.
The Prime Minister
What we have done as a Government is act decisively to deal with the very severe energy crisis we are facing. [Interruption.] We are facing a severe energy crisis. We are also facing a slowdown in economic growth globally due to Putin’s war in Ukraine, and not acting is not an option.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The energy price guarantee is a key part of the growth plan, but too few businesses and households know about it, even if the Labour Party does not support it. Can I urge the Prime Minister to have a nationwide mail-out campaign to communicate what the Government are doing to assess people on reduction of energy and, more particularly, to have a reduction-of-energy campaign for public buildings, so that we do not go down the route of spending too much on consumption?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that the Energy Secretary is working on a plan to help companies and individuals use energy more efficiently. We are also working on this across Government. I was delighted to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) yesterday, and I hope we will be able to start this going in No. 10 straightaway.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First, may I say what a brilliant job our fantastic nurses do across the country? The figures the hon. Gentleman is quoting are simply wrong. The independent pay review body recommended a £1,400 rise on average, and that is what the Government are committed to delivering.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Following the loss of 27 lives last winter in the channel, the UK Government offered joint patrols to the French on the beaches. Can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that she renewed that offer to President Macron when they met and, further, that there will be no new money and no fresh agreement with the French unless they agree to joint beach patrols and joint security across the channel to bring an end to the small boats crisis for good?
The Prime Minister
The Home Secretary is committed to dealing with this very difficult issue of the small boats in the channel. We do need to sort it out. We are committed to legislating and to getting an agreement with the French Government. I did discuss it with President Macron last week, and the Home Secretary is following up.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I completely understand that families are struggling. That is why this Government acted within a week of coming into office to put in place the energy price guarantee so that people are not facing £6,000 bills. That is why we reversed the increase in national insurance and why we are cutting basic rate tax so that families are keeping more of their own money. We are also making sure that the most vulnerable households get an extra £1,200 of support. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will communicate that to his constituents.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for her warm words about Sir David Amess, who is sorely missed in this place.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economy and I warmly welcome the expansion of the small business threshold. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Conservative party is on the side of enterprise in its determination to unleash the full potential of our great country?
The Prime Minister
We in the Conservative party understand who pays our wages—it is the people who get up every day to go to work and the businesses that are set up. Those are the people driving our economy and we will be unashamedly pro-growth, pro-business and pro-opportunity.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First, let me offer my best wishes to the hon. Lady on her appointment as chair of the Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust. I can assure her and colleagues around the House that fracking will only go ahead in areas where there is local community support.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Two weeks ago, a bomb in Afghanistan killed 35 girls and young women. They were Hazaras, from the country’s second-largest ethnic minority, who are being massacred under the Taliban. Today, outside Parliament, Hazaras from across the UK, including from my constituency, are gathering to call for international support to stop the slaughter, and we are joined by representatives of the Hazara Committee in UK. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister support the Hazaras in trying to stop the killings and arrange for her Ministers to meet their representatives?
The Prime Minister
What is taking place in Afghanistan is extremely concerning, I am afraid, with the reversal of women’s rights and women’s opportunities. One of the things we have done is to make sure that we are restoring the aid budget for women and girls, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be very happy to meet the group to discuss further.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I want to correct the hon. Lady, because what we are doing is simply not putting up corporation tax. It is not a tax cut; we are just not raising corporation tax. I feel it would be wrong, in a time when we are trying to attract investment into our country and at a time of global economic slowdown, to be raising taxes, because it will bring less revenue in. The way we are going to get the money to fund our national health service and to fund our schools is by having a strong economy, with companies investing and creating jobs.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I fully support this Government’s growth agenda, but would the Prime Minister agree that that can be achieved while also protecting and restoring our precious nature and ecosystems and working with our farmers, so that we meet our legally binding target to restore nature by 2030? I know she understands that; she has precious chalk streams in her own constituency. Will she agree that, if we get this right, there will be more jobs, skills and opportunities, because every nation in the world depends on its natural environment?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend did a fantastic job promoting the natural environment when she was at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We are going to deliver economic growth in an environmentally friendly way. This is about improving the processes and delivering better outcomes for the environment while making sure we have a growing economy as well. Those two things go hand in hand.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are pulling every lever to improve our energy supply in Britain, whether that is the North sea and opening up more opportunity there, which those on the Opposition Front Bench are against, whether it is fracking, whether it is more renewables, which I am very supportive of, whether it is more solar panels in the right place or whether it is more nuclear power stations, which are opposed by the SNP. We are doing everything we can, because we can never again be in a situation where we are dependent on authoritarian regimes for our energy.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Over the past week, serious safeguarding failures by the children’s charity Mermaids have come to light, with revelations that the charity sent breast-flattening devices to young girls behind their parents’ backs, promoted harmful medical and surgical procedures to children and hired a trustee with links to paedophile organisations and a digital engagement manager who posted pornographic images online, including of himself dressed as a schoolgirl. For years, despite whistleblowers’ raising the alarm, Mermaids has had unfettered access to vulnerable children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has taken far too long for these concerns to be taken seriously, and does she also agree that it is high time there was a police investigation into the activities of Mermaids and its staff?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that under-18s are able to develop their own decision-making capabilities and are not forced into any kind of activity. On the subject of the investigation that my hon. Friend raises, of course, those matters should be raised and looked at properly.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
For my Richmond Park constituents and communities across south-west London, from Wimbledon to Elmbridge, any expansion of Heathrow would be disastrous. A third runway would see over 6 million more tonnes of carbon pumped into the atmosphere every year, and 2 million households would be affected by increased noise levels. Last week, the Transport Secretary said that she supported Heathrow expansion. The Prime Minister has previously stated that she would support a fourth runway. Does she stand by her previous comments, or will she rule out Government support for the construction of a third runway at Heathrow?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with what the Transport Secretary said. We need to make sure that industries such as the air industry become more environmentally friendly. I support the development of low-carbon technology in those sectors. That is the way that we will help to grow the economy but also serve the environment.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister is such a champion for nuclear. When will the mission and plan for Great British Nuclear be announced? The market needs the confidence to invest in new nuclear, such as at Wylfa in my constituency of Ynys Môn, to help us to achieve net zero, for our energy security, and to get thousands of high-quality jobs.
The Prime Minister
I can tell my hon. Friend that Great British Nuclear will be set up this year, and it will bring forward new nuclear projects. I am delighted about her support for Wylfa and for making sure that we have nuclear power provided in Wales. I would like to see that right across the United Kingdom.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
May I welcome the Prime Minister to her place? I am not sure how to measure a good honeymoon, but after five weeks of a crisis conceived in Downing Street—a crash in pensions, interest rates rising, mortgage market turmoil and complete financial chaos—the country has been left wanting divorce. In two recent polls, 60% of those in this country want an immediate general election. The Prime Minister claims that she is listening mode; will she give way to the public?
The Prime Minister
I think the last thing we need is a general election.
Economic Situation
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current economic crisis.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Chris Philp)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in Washington, having meetings with the IMF, and is—[Interruption.]—which have been—[Interruption.]—routine meetings, which have been long scheduled.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know it is the first Wednesday back; we are all excitable. Let us have a little calm, so that I can hear the Minister. Come on, Minister.
Chris Philp
Thank you, Mr Speaker. They are routine meetings that have been long scheduled, and are certainly not a cause for exuberance or over-excitement from the Opposition.
As we know, the world has faced surging energy prices since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have seen very high inflation across the western world, and we have seen a cycle of increasing interest rates across western economies as well—across many western economies. But let me reassure the House that the fundamentals of the United Kingdom’s economy remain resilient. Unemployment, at 3.5%, is the lowest it has been in my lifetime—and for the record, I was born in 1976. Economic growth last year, the calendar year 2021, was the highest of any G7 country—7.5%. Just yesterday the IMF forecast that economic growth—GDP growth—this current year in the UK would be at 3.6%—once again, for the second consecutive year, the highest of any G7 country. So our economy is in resilient condition.
But I know that many families are worried about the challenges we face, and that is why, just a few weeks ago—two or three weeks ago—we introduced the energy price guarantee. Families were genuinely fearful that they might face this winter energy bills of three, four, five, six or even seven thousand pounds per year, but that energy price guarantee will ensure that the average household sees energy prices no higher than £2,500 on average—not for six months, like the Labour plan, but for two years.
We also introduced a growth plan to get our economy growing, to see wages sustainably rising, to see good jobs created and to create a sustainable tax base to fund our public services. This Government have a growth plan; the Opposition have no plan.
We intend to do this in a way that is fiscally responsible, and that is why—[Interruption.]—and that is why, on 31 October, in less than three weeks’ time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out the medium-term fiscal plan, explaining to the House exactly how he will do that, and how we will continue the UK’s track record of having the highest growth in the G7, not just last year but this year as well.
Rachel Reeves
People are facing insecurity, instability and deep anxiety and they deserve answers. Conservative economic policy has caused mayhem with financial markets, pushed up mortgage costs and put pension funds in peril, and it has wiped £300 billion off the UK’s stock and bond markets—all directly caused by the choices of this Government. The mini-Budget, just 19 days ago, was a bonfire made up of unfunded tax cuts, excessive borrowing and repeated undermining of economic institutions. It was built and then set ablaze by a Conservative party totally out of control—not “disrupters” but pyromaniacs. And that fire has now spread. Yet Government deny all responsibility.
So will the Minister tell the House, what guarantees will the Government give that the currency slide will stop, and that people’s pensions are safe? How do they expect people to pay £500 more a month, on average, on their mortgages? How many more repossessions of family homes will there be if the Government do not change course? How much more are the Government spending on debt interest because of higher borrowing costs?
While Ministers desperately try to blame global conditions, why is it that no other central bank in the world has had to step in three times in less than three weeks to protect financial stability?
The country now faces a very serious situation. Ahead of the ending of the Bank of England’s emergency operations this Friday, what action will the Government take to ensure that their Budget does not have further consequences for financial stability, or for people’s pensions?
This is a Tory crisis made in Downing Street, but it is ordinary working people who are paying the price. It can be resolved only when the Conservatives put aside their pride and reverse this catastrophic mini-Budget, and they must do so now.
Chris Philp
The shadow Chancellor calls for a reversal of the growth plan, yet at the first opportunity—last night—the Labour party voted for it. She asks about mortgage rates, so let me point out to her that mortgage rates around the world have been on an upward trajectory all year. In fact, if we compare base rates in the United Kingdom with those in the United States, we see that in both countries, as she will be aware, the base rate started this year at 0.25%. In the UK the base rate is currently 2.25%, and in the US it is 3.25%, a full percentage point higher.
The shadow Chancellor referenced borrowing costs. I am sure she is aware that two-year Government bond yields are about the same in the US as they are in the UK—US bond yields have been going up over the course of this year as well. She referenced the currency: the dollar has shown strength against a basket of currencies throughout this calendar year. If she looks at the dollar strengthening against the euro, she will see that it strengthened about 15% this calendar year, and strengthened about 15% against sterling—very similar figures.
The shadow Chancellor also asked about the cost of living. We are very mindful of that, which is why we have introduced a £37 billion package to help people, disproportionately targeted at those on lower incomes, so that people on the lowest third of incomes receive £1,200. It is why we introduced the energy price guarantee on our second or third day in office, ensuring that people do not pay, on average, more than £2,500, instead of facing bills of £5,000 or £6,000—and not for six months, as the Labour party offered, but for two years. It is why the national minimum wage was increased by a large amount last April. It is why the national insurance threshold was increased to £12,500 in July, so people on lower incomes now pay virtually no national insurance or income tax. That is the package of measures that this Government have introduced, because we stand on the side of working people and have taken the steps needed to support them.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was quite right to bring forward the date for the medium-term fiscal plan and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. He now has, of course, a huge challenge in landing those plans in order to reassure the markets. He has to get the fiscal rules right and come forward with spending restraint and revenue raisers that are politically deliverable. Given the huge challenges, there are many—myself included—who believe it is quite possible that he will simply have to come forward with a further rowing back on the tax announcements he made on 23 September. Can my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary confirm that that possibility is still on the table?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for his counsel, which the Chancellor always listens to very carefully. The Chair of the Select Committee, along with others, suggested publicly that the date for the medium-term fiscal plan should be brought forward, and the Chancellor listened to him and responded by bringing the date forward from 23 November to 31 October.
There are no plans to reverse any of the tax measures announced in the growth plan. There is, I think, a measure of consensus—indeed, the Labour party voted only last night for the reduction in national insurance. We want to ensure that the UK is a competitive jurisdiction that companies and high-potential individuals who are internationally mobile choose to come to, to locate and grow. However, as the Select Committee Chair says, we of course need to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, to ensure that debt over GDP falls in the medium term. The plan will lay out to the House in detail exactly how that will be achieved, scored by the OBR, on 31 October.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister talks about the IMF, but not about its criticism yesterday or the pathetic growth it has projected for next year of just 0.3%—funny that.
The Treasury Committee took evidence this morning from a range of economists, all of whom echoed the concerns of the public about the chaos that this shambolic UK Tory Government have created. I am not sure whether the Minister considers Deutsche Bank as part of his anti-growth coalition, but its chief economist, Sanjay Raja, was very clear this morning that the UK has particular characteristics that are making this crisis worse. He said, “you’ve got a sidelined fiscal watchdog, you’ve got the lack of a medium-term fiscal plan, one of the largest unfunded tax cuts and package of measures since the early 1970s, and it’s sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
This is chaos that the Minister and his colleagues have deliberately created, and it is impacting people and businesses across these islands, so I ask him: will he bring more money to the devolved institutions to help them tackle the chaos that he and his colleagues have created? Will he commit to uprating benefits by inflation and giving more support to those in the asylum system and those on “no recourse to public funds”? Will he bring certainty to businesses that do not yet know what will happen at the end of the six-month reprieve, because those bills have not gone away?
The Glasgow Centre for Population Health published some research that attributed about 330,000 excess deaths since 2010 to austerity—the Tory austerity by the Minister and his colleagues over the past 12 years—so will he cancel any further cuts, because they cost Scotland and our neighbours far more than we can ever afford? Scotland did not want this, did not vote for this and cannot trust in the financial stability of the UK, never mind this Tory Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, but can I just say that she knows the rules give her one minute, not one minute and 45 seconds or two minutes? Please, let us stick to the rules of the House.
Chris Philp
The Scottish Government are of course receiving record levels of funding, and that will continue. The hon. Member asked about excess deaths. Well, I think the drug death record of the nationalist Government is, frankly, pretty terrible. She asked about the uprating to welfare. There is a statutory process that happens every year—every autumn—and that decision has not been taken. It will happen in the normal way, as it has been done for every year.
The hon. Member referenced the IMF’s growth forecast for next year. I have already pointed out that last year we had the highest growth in the G7 and this year we have the highest growth in the G7. If we take the three years together—last year, this year and next year—we will find that the UK, at 11.7% over those three years, still has the highest growth of any G7 country.
The hon. Member asked about institutions. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have the highest regard for the OBR and the Bank of England. They are meeting both of those institutions regularly. She referenced the growth plan. Having a competitive tax system, supply-side reforms to unleash the productive potential of our economy and making our energy market function properly once again are essential prerequisites for growth, and I am proud that it is this Government who are promoting them.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am disappointed at the shadow Chancellor, who is a very good economist. She is accusing the Government of causing problems for people’s mortgage rates, but my right hon. Friend will agree with me, I am sure, that one of the worst things that can hit any economy is a wage-price spiral as a result of huge inflation. Can he confirm to the House that the action the Government have taken to provide support to the economy and to provide this huge input in relation to energy prices will bring down headline inflation, and specifically make mortgage rates better than they would have been otherwise, which is totally the opposite of what the shadow Chancellor is saying?
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend, who of course has a very distinguished professional track record in financial services, is absolutely right. A range of independent forecasters have confirmed that the energy price guarantee will not only protect our constituents from high prices, but lower inflation by about 5% compared with where it would otherwise have been—a vital intervention. While we are on the subject of inflation, it is worth keeping in mind that inflation in many countries in continental Europe is considerably higher than it is in the United Kingdom. For example, in Germany it is 10.9% and in Holland it is 14%.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has made great play of supporting people with their energy bills, but businesses only get support until March. The Government also make great play of creating growth. Many of the businesses in my constituency, particularly hospitality businesses, with a guarantee on their energy bills only until March, are making decisions in the coming weeks about whether they will be able to stay open and continue to be employers. How does that help growth, and will he give them some guarantee from March onwards?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady raises questions about timeframes. Of course, the Labour proposal was only for six months for consumers and businesses, and I did not hear her criticising that. The consumer offer is for 24 months—for two years. In relation to businesses, she is quite that the business scheme is for six months, but the Government made a commitment back in September that within three months of September—so within two months of now—further plans would be brought forward to explain to businesses, charities and, indeed, the public sector how they will be handled after March next year. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will announce that to the House in the coming weeks.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Growing our tax revenues in a way that is sustainable in every sense of that word is clearly massively important to pay for all the things we deeply care about, but will my right hon. Friend reassure us that he does get the significance of Government borrowing costs and that he will make sure that His Majesty’s Government do nothing that pushes those up unnecessarily high compared with the United States and Germany?
Chris Philp
Yes, my hon. Friend is making a very important and very reasonable point. I have said this already, but he mentions comparisons with other countries, and our two-year bond yield is about the same as that of the United States at the moment. However, we are mindful of the need to ensure reasonable borrowing costs, which of course means financial responsibility. Our debt-to-GDP ratio today is the second lowest in the G7. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be setting out in under three weeks’ time—on 31 October—precisely how he will be delivering fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility in the years ahead, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, when he hears that statement, will be reassured and comforted by it.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Earlier today, the Treasury Committee was given evidence that was incredibly sobering. All five of the economic specialists agreed that the UK’s Budget has contributed—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) come back and listen to another question? He should not just dash out.
Emma Hardy
As I was saying, earlier today we on the Treasury Committee heard evidence in which all five economists agreed that the UK’s Budget has contributed to the current economic turmoil. With the Prime Minister earlier stating that there were going to be no budget cuts, and further to the point from the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), does the Minister agree with Mohamed El-Erian, the chief economic adviser to Allianz, who said yesterday:
“I see no alternative but the government saying we will not cut taxes now”?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have already set out how there have been global trends over the past six or nine months, with higher energy prices, higher inflation and a cycle of increasing interest rates around the globe. In particular, I set out how the monetary tightening in the United States, at 300 basis points over the past nine or 10 months, is one and a half times higher than the fiscal tightening in the United Kingdom, which has been 200 basis points over the same period.
In relation to the hon. Lady’s questions about balancing the books over the medium term, the medium-term fiscal plan will set that out. We do intend to control public spending—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, just listen to the answer—for example, to stick within the spending review 2021 spending limits. I would point out to the House that those SR21 spending limits do see real-terms increases over the three years, but we are going to be sticking with iron discipline to those spending limits, not increasing them, and we will also show spending restraint in the years ahead. However, showing spending restraint is different from real-terms cuts.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is very welcome that, a few minutes ago, the Chief Secretary said that the effect of the statement on 31 October will be to show that the Chancellor is 100% committed to fiscal responsibility. That is very welcome to colleagues on all sides, I think, but can he confirm that that means all the previous unfunded tax cuts will now be funded in that statement?
Chris Philp
What the statement will set out in the round is how we will get debt as a proportion of GDP falling in the medium term. That is the critical metric, and that is what the medium-term fiscal plan will deliver.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Can I just offer the Chief Secretary to the Treasury some gentle advice? If he refuses to accept that the fiscal event on 23 September has had any effect on what has happened in the markets since, that will not be reassuring for the markets. He needs to stop being in denial and admit that serious mistakes were made.
The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions that there would be no public spending cuts, yet we know that, as a result of the fiscal event and the unfunded tax cuts, there is a £60 billion gap between expenditure and the money coming in. If there are no public spending cuts, that leaves only the reversal of the tax cuts to balance the books, does it not?
Chris Philp
I have explained in response to an earlier question that spending restraint is not the same as real-terms cuts. We do not plan real-terms cuts, but we do plan iron discipline when it comes to spending restraint. The answers to the hon. Lady’s questions will be set out in full at the fiscal statement, which will be accompanied by a full Office for Budget Responsibility scoring and a set of OBR forecasts. That is when all those questions will be answered very clearly.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The intervention of the Bank of England in both the gilt market and the corporate bond market has alarmed many in recent days. I would be interested in the view of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Treasury’s assessment of the cost to the Treasury and the fiscal position following the interventions by the Bank of England in those markets.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It obviously depends on the prices at which the Bank and England buys and sells bonds or gilts in the market. It is worth observing that so far it has purchased considerably less by value of gilts than the limits that were set out originally. The volume of gilts that it has on its balance sheet is much less than the limits. On his question about fiscal cost, if there is any fiscal cost, that will depend entirely on market prices.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Two days before the Budget, a young constituent of mine hoped to buy her home through shared ownership. She was offered a mortgage at 4.28% interest by the Halifax. A day after the statement, the offer was withdrawn and a two-year fixed-rate deal has rocketed to 6.9%—that is £150 a month more overnight because of the Government’s unfunded giveaways to people on over 150 grand a year. What is the Minister’s advice to my constituent? Should she take the deal, or does he agree with the panel of experts at the Treasury Committee this morning that she should not go near it, because house prices are about to plummet?
Chris Philp
I am obviously not going to offer individual financial advice to constituents. What I would say is that there are about 2,300 mortgage products currently on the market. We are keen as a Government to help first-time buyers, particularly younger ones in their 20s and 30s, which is why stamp duty is being cut for cheaper purchases. The stamp duty threshold for first-buyers has been raised, from memory, to £425,000, which particularly helps with putting together a deposit, which cannot be mortgage-funded. In addition, we want to help people with the broader cost of living pressures, which makes it easier to find money to fund mortgages. That is what the energy price guarantee is designed to do, and it is what lower tax rates in general are designed to do, including the tax reductions that the Labour party voted for yesterday. It is what the cost of living package is designed to do—the £37 billion. By helping with the cost of living in general, we are obviously making mortgage costs a little easier to meet.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Yesterday, the International Monetary Fund underlined the position of the UK economy as the fastest growing in the G7. Despite the noises off, it further stated that the recent fiscal changes would add further to growth projections. That is in addition to the record low unemployment data that has been highlighted this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further changes need to be made in terms of supply-side reforms, which will continue the momentum of a growing economy, resulting in real jobs in my constituency and across the country?
Chris Philp
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning the international comparisons again. The unemployment figure in the UK is 3.5%—inexplicably, Opposition Members have not asked about that—which is the lowest in my lifetime and compares favourably with that in France, where it is more than double, at 7.3%, and Italy, where it is 7.8%. Even in Canada, it is 5.2%, so our unemployment figures compare favourably internationally. As for the growth figures he asked about, if the three years are taken together, the figure is 11.7%, which heads the G7. That is nearly four times higher than Germany, at 3.9%, over double the figure for Japan, at 5.1%, and higher than the figures for France, Italy, Canada and the USA.
My right hon. Friend asked about supply-side reforms to help his constituents. He will hear a lot more about them in the coming weeks, both directly from Secretaries of State and from the Chancellor in the medium-term fiscal plan, to explain how we will get regulatory burdens off the back of businesses to help them to grow and create the jobs for his constituents that he rightly wants to see.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The mini-Budget fiasco has caused a material risk to the UK’s financial stability, and the Bank of England has said that $1 trillion could have been erased from UK pension fund investments if it had not stepped in after the mini-Budget turmoil. So the Minister needs to heed the advice of the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and others across the House, and junk the tax cuts in the Budget. They are unfunded and they are creating chaos in the markets. We need to restore confidence so that our constituents do not suffer. The Minister needs to stop being arrogant and take heed, listen to the expertise and take action.
Chris Philp
If the hon. Lady objects so much to tax reductions, why did she vote for them yesterday?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Yesterday, I spoke with business leaders in my Crawley constituency. They welcomed both the near record low unemployment levels and the International Monetary Fund outlook of 3.6% growth. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that that is a direct consequence of the policies that the Government are enacting?
Chris Philp
Yes, I do. The leading growth in the G7 and the lowest unemployment figures in my lifetime are testament to the sagacity of the Government’s economic policies.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Today is another day when the Government’s mismanagement of the economy is causing market turmoil, putting thousands of pensioners and mortgage holders at risk. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England told pension funds to “sort it out” after announcing that the Bank’s emergency bond-buying scheme would close in two days. The Government have 48 hours to save pension funds. Will they call the Chancellor back from Washington, hold an emergency Cabinet meeting and deal with the pension crisis?
Chris Philp
The Chancellor is in extremely regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, which, with its various agencies, has responsibility for systemic financial stability. We are working closely with it, and we have complete confidence in the Bank’s management of this process.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Conservative party stands for low taxes, but also for fiscal responsibility and sound money. Given that the Prime Minister has just said that there will not be public sector spending cuts, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government are considering deferring any of the tax measures recently announced by the Chancellor?
Chris Philp
We do not plan to defer the tax measures, because we think that having an internationally competitive tax system is important, as it will help to encourage businesses and successful individuals to locate here in the United Kingdom, rather than anywhere else. I used to be technology Minister, and tech businesses can choose whether they locate here, in New York, San Francisco, Singapore, South Korea or anywhere else in the world. We want them to choose the United Kingdom, which is why competitive tax rates and the right regulatory environment are important.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Ind)
Britain has embraced globalisation arguably more than other nations over the past couple of decades. About half of our GDP is subject to international headwinds, but the world is getting more dangerous, not less. The Minister mentioned Ukraine. May I suggest that any future fiscal statement is run by the National Security Council for comment and perhaps recommendations, which might include organising a United Nations safe haven around the port of Odesa, so that the grain ships can get out, helping to reduce the price of food and inflation in this country?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion about Odesa. I know that he is an expert in military matters and matters of international diplomacy, and that he has been to Ukraine in the past 12 months. I will pass his suggestion on to my colleagues.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I do not think that Ministers appreciate the gravity or urgency of the situation. We have a Prime Minister who committed to no spending cuts a few minutes ago, a Government still committed to tens of billions of pounds of unfunded tax cuts and the Bank of England withdrawing its special support on Friday. What are the Government doing to avoid a market crash this Friday?
Chris Philp
The reason that, on the second day of the new Government’s term in office, we brought forward the energy price guarantee was to protect consumers and in effect lower inflation by 5% compared with where it would otherwise be. We legislated at pace yesterday to alleviate the burden of the national insurance increase, which Opposition Members enthusiastically voted for. In terms of markets, as I said, we are in regular contact with the Bank of England and have complete confidence in its ability to manage systemic financial stability.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The funds made available by the Bank of England to purchase gilts were described by the shadow Chancellor as taxpayers’ money. I find that confusing. My understanding—I am not an economist—is that those funds are not taxpayers’ money and that, in fact, the Bank of England may even make a profit from the actions that it takes on the markets. Different people will have different views about whether the Bank of England’s intervention is appropriate action, but does the Chief Secretary agree that it is completely wrong for the shadow Chancellor to describe those funds as taxpayers’ money?
Chris Philp
It is not taxpayers’ money in the sense that the phrase suggests. There is a fiscal indemnity so that any profit or loss will end up flowing back to the Exchequer, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), whether that is crystallised depends on market prices. I point out that the volume of gilts so far purchased is considerably less than the limits that were set out.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Covid supply-side disruption and the war in Ukraine have obviously added to inflation, as has monetary policy in the United States and our own high levels of borrowing, added to the rate of interest here in the UK. That has put real pressure on households across the United Kingdom. Despite the fact that the Government have responded by putting more money in people’s pockets through tax cuts and help with electricity bills, there is real public concern about the stability of our economy. Does the Chief Secretary accept that that is partly due to poor political decisions such as reducing the top rate of taxation, bad communication of his own strategy, open warfare on his own Benches and some of the careless remarks that we saw yesterday from the Governor of the Bank of England?
Chris Philp
I think the Prime Minister said a couple of weeks ago that, with hindsight, some of the pitch rolling or preparation could have been better handled, but I think that the package of measures is in the interests of the country. In addressing the cost of living pressures that the right hon. Gentleman referred to, we are protecting our fellow citizens, our constituents, from what could have been £5,000, £6,000 or even £7,000 annual energy bills. That is important. We are alleviating the burden of taxation at what is a difficult time. We are making sure that the households most in need of assistance get additional assistance, amounting to £1,200 a year for the one third of households on lower incomes. All those are measures designed to protect our constituents and I am sure that he will join me in welcoming them.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Of course, I welcome the energy intervention and help for the lower paid. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as it is important to grow the economy, it is important to grow society and that, if we believe in trickle-down theory, we should also have trickle-up economics? By that, I mean that we need to invest in education and skills. Will he confirm that education spending will increase in real terms and incorporate rises in wages—whatever they may finally be—for the teachers, support staff and many other people working in education?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As Chairman of the Education Committee, he is a tireless campaigner for education and skills. I agree that the purpose of economic growth is to grow all parts of the economy, to help people across the entire income spectrum—rich and poor alike—and to ensure that the burden of taxation on those people is as light as it can be. That is why we have increased the minimum wage by such a large amount—from £5.93 an hour when Labour left office to £9.50 an hour today—and why we have lifted so many people on lower incomes completely out of taxation through increasing the income tax and national insurance thresholds to £12,570. All that disproportionately helps people on lower incomes.
We are seized of the importance of ensuring that education is properly funded. It is an investment in our country’s future and our children’s future, and I assure my right hon. Friend that that is very much at the front of our minds as we think about the fiscal plan.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Like many others, I have listened with disbelief to much of what the Chief Secretary has said. While we have been in the Chamber, the Bank of England has again linked the economic turmoil to the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget. Will he explain to us all and to the public why he is right and the Bank of England is wrong?
Chris Philp
As I have explained before, we are in a global cycle of interest rate increases and there has been global dollar strength. We have taken action in the energy intervention and in the growth plan to protect our constituents, get our economy growing and build on our record as the fastest growing G7 economy last year, this year and over the three-year period as a whole.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The whole world is facing a global inflation crisis, and the US, Germany and other countries are facing a worse situation. That is why I believe that the best way to deal with the situation is to get more people into better-quality jobs. I have already hosted two job fairs in Rother Valley and will have another one Friday week at Wales High School. I am pleased to see that 680 more people are in work this year than last year, and 40 more people are in work than were last month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to get people into good-quality paying jobs and that the Government always stand by working people?
Chris Philp
Absolutely. I completely agree with my hon. Friend, whose work on jobs fairs is extremely commendable. The way out of poverty and to create prosperity is to get people into good jobs and see rising wages. That is how we will combat poverty. That is why it is so welcome that unemployment is at a 48-year low.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
With the greatest respect, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not seem to be inhabiting the same planet as the rest of us. It is clear to anyone that the Government’s half-baked mini-Budget, sidelining of the Office for Budget Responsibility and lack of authority have caused chaos in the markets, and households are already paying the price. Should the Government not just accept that they could do something in the national interest to change that by reversing their disastrous mini-Budget that has sent us into chaos and calling a general election now so that the country can decide how they want to get out of this crisis?
Chris Philp
The hon. Member calls for a reversal of the growth plan, yet she voted in favour of its largest measure just last night. She talks about sidelining the OBR, yet it will be fully scoring the medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October. The right response is to protect our constituents from rising energy prices, and we did that on our second or third day in office. The right response is to get our economy growing, and that is what the growth plan will do.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Today, the Chief Secretary has made much mention of spending and pay restraint. During the cost of living crisis, the Government have repeatedly told workers that they must accept pay restraint to keep inflation in check while plotting to make further swingeing cuts to public services. Why do the pay restraint and cuts not apply to bankers, too? Is this not the same old Tory ideology of austerity for the oppressed many and luxury for the privileged few?
Chris Philp
If I may respectfully say so, that is nonsense. The tax reductions, including those that the hon. Gentleman voted for last night, apply to everybody in work earning more than £12,570 a year. The national insurance cut and the cut to the basic rate of income tax are tax cuts for everybody, rich and poor alike. The increases in the threshold disproportionately benefit people on lower incomes, and the people on the very lowest incomes now do not pay any national insurance or tax at all. Again, the significant increases that we have seen in the national minimum wage from £5.93 an hour under Labour to £9.50 an hour now most benefit people on low incomes. The Government stand on the side of people on lower wages but doing the right thing by working.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his attempts to reassure the UK economy, even though they are simply not working. Does the Minister agree with the former chief adviser to the Bank of England, who said that because of this Budget we can “say goodbye to growth”?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has commented on reports that the Government plan to increase benefits only in line with earnings instead of CPI September inflation, stating that this would amount to the biggest
“permanent deliberate real-terms cut to the basic rate of benefits”
ever made in a single year. Can the Chief Secretary assure my frightened constituents today that, first, these reports are not true and, secondly, that he will uprate benefits in line with CPI inflation in September?
Chris Philp
I have already explained, as I think I said yesterday, that there is a statutory process that happens every single year when these decisions get taken. No decision has been taken on the question yet; indeed, the September CPI figure, which is relevant, has not even been published yet. When the decisions are taken, Ministers will of course have regard to the cost of living pressures and high inflation that we and many other countries are experiencing, although of course the energy intervention will make that inflation lower than it would otherwise be. We also, of course, must pay due regard to hard-working taxpayers who ultimately have to pay the benefit bills, and we will take all of that into account when we make the decisions.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Following the Government’s pretty disastrous mini-Budget, the hedge fund manager and Tory donor Crispin Odey is said to have made millions from shorting the pound. It has also been suggested that the Chancellor met Crispin Odey for lunch in the weeks running up to the mini-Budget. Is that true and, if so, what did they discuss?
Chris Philp
I am afraid that I have no idea who the Chancellor met. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman writes to the Chancellor he will set that out, but I do not know.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I would like to ask the Chief Secretary about unemployment. How can he possibly crow about unemployment when there are fewer people in work than before the pandemic and when rates of inactivity because of long-term sickness are through the roof?
Chris Philp
I think having the lowest unemployment in my lifetime and having lower unemployment than comparable countries such as France and Italy is something that we can be proud of as a country. Of course, we are committed to working with people who have long-term sickness, working through the NHS and with work coaches at the Department for Work and Pensions to find ways to enable them to return to the workforce. Of course we are going to work with them, but ultimately having the lowest unemployment rate in my lifetime is something we should be proud of.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Listening to the Minister, I wonder what colour the sky is in his world. He talks about the energy price guarantee protecting families from energy bills of up to £6,000 a year, but as a direct result of the Government’s mini-Budget families in my North Durham constituency now face a mortgage increase of £6,000 a year not just this year but in future years as well. He can blame international markets when it comes to energy, but is he actually going to admit that the mini-Budget has led to those families paying £6,000 a year extra, if not more in some cases, and what is his advice to them?
Chris Philp
I have explained already that there is a global upswing in interest rates—
Chris Philp
The right hon. Gentleman can say no and not want to hear it, but I will just tell him again. In the United States, in the last nine months, there has been a 3% increase in the federal reserve base rate. In that same period, the Bank of England base rate increase has been only 2%. It has gone up by one and half times more in the United States compared with the United Kingdom. We do understand that there are cost of living pressures and that is why we have stepped in with the energy price guarantee to protect families in his constituency and mine from the £5,000 or £6,000 bills that they would otherwise have faced. That is why we are alleviating the tax burden on their shoulders and why we will ensure that the economy grows.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
A few weeks ago, the Welsh Government warned that they face a shortfall of some £4 billion to their three-year funding settlement as a result of rising inflation. Will the Minister confirm that the Treasury will consider, in the statement at the end of the month, providing additional funding support to help mitigate the impact of inflation on the budget for public services in Wales?
Chris Philp
Public expenditure both in Wales and across the United Kingdom stands at record levels. It has never been higher. In relation to extra funding, we are going to have iron discipline when it comes to public spending so the spending plan set out at the comprehensive spending review 2021, covering this current financial year and the next two, contains the limits we are going to stick to with discipline because it is important that we make the numbers add up.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
A few minutes ago, in answer to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), the Chief Secretary said that the costs to the Treasury of the Bank of England’s intervention was not known because it depends on pricing, which I would imagine is fairly blindingly obvious even to him. Does that mean that the Treasury has made no assessment of that cost? If they have, what is it?
Chris Philp
It depends on market prices, as I say. Lacking any clairvoyance about where prices may move in the future, it is not possible to make an assessment not knowing where prices will be in a fast-moving market. I repeat that the volume of gilt purchases by the Bank of England have so far been a great deal below the ceiling that was set out.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Resolution Foundation’s chief exec, Torsten Bell, told the Treasury Committee this morning, “This is what happens when you are not paying attention.” He said that the Government’s proposals would not have been a good idea at any time but, “You definitely shouldn’t be doing it in the current climate.” Our constituents need the Government to pay attention. Where is the plan to stabilise the economy now and stem the ongoing damage the mini-Budget continues to cause?
Chris Philp
The growth plan protected the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine from what could have been £6,000 or £7,000 energy bills this winter. Frankly, I think they will welcome that. The growth plan will lay the foundations to continue the G7-leading growth we experienced last year and this.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I would like to dare the Minister to come to Newcastle and explain to my constituents, who are worried about their mortgage payments, their pensions, their benefits payments, their public services, their businesses and the cost of their supermarket shop, that this Government are fiscally responsible. They would laugh in his face, which is what the markets are doing. Why cannot he accept that the only way to address this crisis, made in Downing Street, is to withdrawal the fiscal mini-Budget and put in place something credible, costed and competent?
Chris Philp
Once again, the hon. Lady calls for the withdrawal of the growth plan, yet she voted last night for the biggest measure contained in it. I would be quite happy to explain to anyone, whether in Newcastle, in her constituency, or in Croydon, south London, in mine, that we are protecting people from energy price rises, that we have plans to keep our record growth levels going, that we are cutting taxes on working people and that we have a plan to get the economy going. I would be happy to go anywhere in the country and explain that.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Why does the Chief Secretary think that the Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman said that the mini-Budget was “stupid and cruel”? I know that that is how my constituents in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale think.
Chris Philp
I imagine that constituents in the hon. Lady’s constituency, as much as in mine, are pleased that they will not face energy bills of £6,000 or £7,000 this winter, which the growth plan delivered on. I do not agree with the analysis she read out from Mr Krugman, or Dr Krugman—[Interruption.] Professor Krugman; I am happy to stand corrected. This growth plan will ensure that we continue with our G7-leading levels of growth.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The £60 billion of borrowing for the energy guarantee is to paid back by bill payers, not the oil and gas producers who are making record profits on the back of the public’s misery. That is not fair. Will the Minister consider raising not a temporary windfall tax but the basic tax rate for oil and gas producers, which in the UK is the lowest in the entire world? If he raised it even to the global average, he would raise an addition £13.4 billion every single year.
Chris Philp
I will make a couple of points. Extraction companies already pay about double the rate of corporation tax that other companies pay. In addition, we have imposed the energy profits levy, through which the rate of taxation on their profits increases to 65%. That is a pretty significant rate of tax, even by Labour party standards, and it will raise about £23 billion over the relevant three-year period. The hon. Member will also have seen the announcement from my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary yesterday on ensuring that renewable companies provide energy to our constituents at reasonable prices. The suggestion that no contribution is being made by the energy sector in the circumstances is, frankly, not accurate.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister quoted IMF analysis but curiously not the part where it warns that rising prices will be worse in the UK, noting that the Government’s tax cuts will “complicate the fight” against soaring prices, and where it expects higher prices to last longer in the UK than elsewhere. What is his analysis in relation to food prices and tackling food poverty in the next two years?
Chris Philp
The energy intervention will make sure that inflation in this country is about 5% lower than it otherwise would be. That is not a Government forecast, but the consensus of independent forecasters. Also, the inflation rate in the United Kingdom is lower than in some other countries, including Germany and Holland.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
No matter what the Minister has said today, the sums do not add up—that is a fact. The Government have lost control of the situation and shown a level of incompetence that has rarely been seen in British politics. As a result, we have seen increased anxiety and even terror about the cost of living and energy bills, as well as mortgages. On pensions, can the Minister give an absolute guarantee and assurance that people do not need to worry about the future of their pensions?
Chris Philp
If the hon. Member is asking about the state pension, the Prime Minister has been clear that we stand by the triple lock. If he is asking about the private pension system, yes, I have complete confidence in the Bank of England’s responsibilities around financial stability. On his first comment, I think that having the lowest unemployment rate for 48 years and the highest economic growth in the G7 is something we should all be happy about.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As well as mortgage costs, the cost of lending to businesses is going up. UK Finance said that small businesses have £240 billion in outstanding debt. What assessment have the Chancellor and his Department made of the impact that the rise in borrowing costs will have on businesses’ ability to invest, and what will the Minister do about it?
Chris Philp
We are very mindful of the impact that rising global interest rates have on businesses. That is one reason why we will keep corporation tax at 19% rather than increase it to 25%. What I do not know is whether the Labour party support that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I would like to relay to the Chief Secretary a message that I just received from one of my constituents who was watching Prime Minister’s questions. My constituent said:
“The Prime Minister says she is unashamedly pro-growth and pro-business, but our local dry cleaner was in tears this morning at the news that their energy bill has gone up more than four-fold. They say they get it but they really don’t.”
What does the Minister have to say to my constituent and thousands more of my constituents who are simply terrified about how they will sustain their businesses or keep a roof over their heads in the context of the self-inflicted chaos and harm to our economy that his Government are causing?
Chris Philp
On the energy bills for the dry cleaner in the hon. Member’s constituency, she must be aware that the whole world has been experiencing the energy price crisis as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. That is driving energy prices higher. The dry cleaner should be the recipient of the business energy guarantee scheme in relation to their bill. It should not see bills rising as high as she suggested, so if she writes to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or to me about that case, I will be very happy to look into it to make sure that the business—like businesses in all our constituencies—is being properly protected.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), will the Minister give us a few details of the Government’s back-up plan to protect people’s pensions, should the run on gilts continue when current Bank of England support ends, despite dire warnings from the pensions industry?
Chris Philp
As I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England and his officials. The Bank of England has responsibility for financial system stability and I have complete confidence in its ability to manage that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The energy price guarantee still means increases in costs for consumers. We know that disabled people already face higher costs, and the only support that thousands of unpaid carers receive from the Government is carer’s allowance. In many cases, that means that they have been excluded from cost of living support. In addition, carer’s allowance is effectively means-tested due to the earnings cap, meaning that carers cannot seek work, as the Chief Secretary seems very keen for them to. Will he commit to ensuring that we review the carer’s allowance situation and, if not, that we provide further support to carers, who do such valuable work?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady is right that despite the energy price guarantee—the decisive intervention that has protected our constituents from £5,000 or £6,000 bills—bills this year are higher still than they were last year. That is why we have made the £37 billion intervention, which, for people on lower incomes, amounts to £1,200 a year. There is more money on top of that for people with disabilities for the reason that she mentions. As for reviewing various components of disability and caring benefits, those will get reviewed in the normal way along with the other benefits. The Minister with responsibility for welfare and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lay all that out in the coming weeks.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I, too, am really concerned about the oversight of our pensions industry. When was the last stress test to see whether these funds had sufficient liquidity to cope with market turbulence, and can the Minister explain in simple terms the regulation of pension funds right now? Our country needs pension stability, not ongoing, home-grown financial crises.
Chris Philp
We have excellent regulators overseeing our financial system and pensions in particular, whether we are talking about the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority or the Pensions Regulator. They are all rightly independent, but all of us in Government and Parliament can have every confidence that they are making sure that our system is operating safely and securely.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister said that the Government were being fiscally responsible. I am no expert, but fiscal responsibility does not usually result in the market and the wider UK economy being set ablaze in what can only be described as a bin fire. With the pound in freefall, pension funds on the brink, unfunded tax cuts for the rich, mortgage payments up by hundreds of pounds and the UK’s financial institutions—barring the Institute of Economic Affairs, obviously—utterly undermined, the Government are waiting another six weeks to show their working. That is not fiscally responsible; it is chaos theory-IEA style. Will the poorest pay for this or will benefits be uprated in line with inflation—yes or no?
Chris Philp
The hon. Member was obviously not listening to my previous answers in which I said that the decision has not been taken and the CPI figure, which is a critical input into the decision, has not even been published yet. I also explained how interest rates around the world are rising—they have risen more in the US than they have here—and how the dollar has been strong against a number of currencies. Its strengthening against the euro has been only about 3% higher so far this year than it has against sterling, so I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation at all. As for fiscal responsibility, we have the second lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. The Chancellor said that we will get the debt-to-GDP ratio falling over the medium term. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) has less than three weeks to wait, if he can contain himself, before the medium-term fiscal plan is set out in full.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
A local teacher and her partner wrote to me last week. Once their fixed-rate mortgage comes to an end, their mortgage will rise by £9,000 a year; that is an extra £750 a month. They are terrified and cannot sleep because they do not have that sort of money spare. I have listened to the Minister’s answers, but given that the IMF’s Tobias Adrian said yesterday that the announcements on 23 September triggered rising interest rates, will the Minister finally accept that the Conservative Government’s mini-Budget has caused this chaos for our constituents?
Chris Philp
We have every sympathy with people who are struggling. That is why we have the energy price guarantee. It is why we have had the £37 billion intervention. It is why we are cutting taxes, particularly for people on lower incomes. It is why the minimum wage increased by so much a few months ago. It is why we have increased the national insurance threshold to help people.
On interest rates, I have explained more than once this afternoon that there is a global cycle that has been going on for about nine months. So far in this calendar year, interest rates in the United States, a comparable economy, have increased one and a half times as much as in the UK: by 300 basis points, compared with 200 basis points. It is very important that the House keeps that context in mind.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, when I asked the Chancellor, he could not tell me how private pension schemes will be protected since the Bank of England has confirmed that it is ending its refinancing scheme. The Pensions Regulator has a responsibility to ensure that pension schemes are viable. However, in the current economic situation, without making demands on employers and workers, those pension schemes will collapse. How is the Chief Secretary going to respond?
Chris Philp
I have to say that the speculation in which the hon. Lady is engaging is slightly reckless, if that is perhaps not too strong a word. We have extremely capable regulators: the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Pensions Regulator and others. Their responsibility is to make sure that our financial system, including pensions, is safe and secure for our constituents. The Government have complete confidence in our regulators, and I think the House should as well.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
There has been growth since the mini-Budget: a growth in people stopping me on the street in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields to say how worried they are about their bills and rising mortgage costs. I met estate agents in Putney this week; they say that the stamp duty change will make absolutely no difference to the housing crisis in Putney. What does the Chief Secretary say to families who are looking at a £500 increase in the cost of their mortgage as a result of this failed strategy, or at having that cost passed on to them if they are renting?
Chris Philp
When the hon. Lady was stopped in the street, I presume that she explained the points about global interest rates increasing. When her constituents asked about energy prices, I presume that she explained to them that this Government took decisive action on our third day in office to protect our constituents from bills that could have gone up to £5,000 or £6,000 a year. I presume that she also explained that the Labour party’s plan was good only for six months, but the plan that we have put in place lasts for two years.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
We have seen the crash of the pound. We have seen mortgage prices going through the roof. We are seeing the cost of living across the country getting out of control. There has been economic chaos since this new Tory Government took over from the last Tory Government. May I ask the Chief Secretary: on a scale of one to 10, how well does he think it is going?
Chris Philp
I do not call the lowest unemployment for 48 years, and the top growth rate in the G7, economic chaos.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Small businesses across my constituency are watching the news with utter dread. They have just about survived the pandemic, the Brexit uncertainty and the collapse of the tourist trade in London, which really affects my constituency—we normally have more than 3 million people going through Waterloo station alone. The spiralling costs, combined with the recession, will wipe out any existing benefits or support from the Government. These businesses simply do not have six months. The Chief Secretary has gone on and on about growth, but does he agree that growth will happen only if these businesses survive the winter?
Chris Philp
That is why we have offered the energy price guarantee to businesses as well as to consumers, and why we are keeping corporation tax low at 19% rather than putting it up. Of course, that helps businesses of all sizes: any business making £50,000 a year or more in profit will benefit from the freeze in corporation tax. We do not yet know, as far as I am aware, whether the Labour party supports that position. The shadow Chancellor is sitting impassively, not giving any indication whether she supports lower taxes; I think the House would love to hear at some point what her views are.
Those are the things that we are doing to help businesses. Last night, we voted—the Labour party voted for it as well—to reduce the national insurance burden on businesses. That is the plan that we have to help businesses, and I am very proud to stand behind it.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am very pleased to hear that the Chief Secretary has confidence in the Bank of England. The media are now reporting, for the seventh time, that the Bank of England has clearly linked the mini-Budget or UK-specific factors to the turmoil in the bond market. That includes, in the past hour, the Governor speaking to camera and to a room full of the world’s top banking chief executive officers in the US. Can the Chief Secretary explain to me why the Governor of the Bank of England is wrong and why he himself is right?
Chris Philp
Obviously I am not in Washington and have not heard those comments. I am not going to speculate about what the Bank of England Governor may have said. We are working closely with the Bank of England Governor and other regulatory authorities to make sure that we navigate these globally volatile markets successfully, but in the long term what matters is continuing to grow our economy. That is what the Government’s plan will do.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The energy price guarantee is doing some heavy lifting today, so let us look at it in more detail. Energy Action Scotland has produced analysis in the past couple of days that shows that the average bill in Scotland will be not £2,500, but £3,300, and that for someone who lives in a rural area it will be in excess of £4,200. What message does the Chief Secretary have for people living in energy-rich Scotland, where we produce six times more gas than we use and almost all our electricity comes from renewables?
Chris Philp
Well, if the nationalist Administration in Scotland were willing to support more natural gas and oil extraction or indeed nuclear power generation, that would help the energy situation. Renewable energy use in the United Kingdom has increased from, I think, 7% to 42% over the past 12 years, which is very welcome. The energy price guarantee has protected families and businesses across the United Kingdom from bills that could have been £6,000 or £7,000 higher, which is a huge amount. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the £37 billion intervention, which particularly helps people on lower incomes, giving them an extra £1,200 a year to support them with bills. The fact that we are in such an economically successful Union means that we can offer things like the energy price guarantee and the £37 billion energy intervention.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It does not get more serious than this Tory-led crisis made in Downing Street. Only yesterday, a mortgage adviser in my constituency contacted me about offers that he is redoing for customers with increases of £300 to £500 a month. People are desperate for stability, but rates are changing by the day.
Commentators have said that sidelining the OBR in the recent mini-Budget and not having its assessment created more uncertainty. Does the Chief Secretary agree that sidelining the OBR was not helpful and was a mistake? Can we have a guarantee that it will not be sidelined on 31 October or in any future fiscal event?
Chris Philp
When the new Government came into office there was a need to act urgently on the energy price guarantee, and to alleviate the extra national insurance burden, which the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine are paying right now, but—thanks to yesterday’s vote—will not be paying from 6 November. That is why it was done quickly: to address the situation in front of us.
The OBR will be fully scoring the medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October. There is a statutory requirement under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 for the OBR to produce forecasts twice in every financial year. That commitment will continue.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Chief Secretary will be aware of the stress on mortgage holders as they have watched deals being withdrawn with the prospect of steep rises ahead. What assurances can he give them that the Government will act to undo the damage done and to ensure that mortgages remain attainable and affordable for homeowners?
Chris Philp
When I checked, there were about 2,300 mortgages available. Obviously the global cycle of increasing interest rates is affecting people in the United Kingdom, as it is affecting people around the world, including in the United States of America, as I set out earlier. We are trying to make sure that other cost of living pressures are mitigated as far as possible through things like the energy price guarantee, reductions in the burden of taxation and the plan to continue economic growth.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
A constituent has written to me to say that she and her partner are being priced out of the private rented sector. They recently secured a mortgage for a shared ownership flat, but the mortgage offer has now been withdrawn. She is desperately worried for herself, for her partner and for their young son, who attends a local school. She says that the Government’s mini-Budget has destroyed their dream. Will the Chief Secretary apologise to my constituent? Can he tell her what she should do and how the Government will end this mayhem that they have caused?
Chris Philp
The Government are keen to help everyone, including the hon. Lady’s constituent, to get on to the housing ladder: that is something we strongly support. I have already explained about the global interest rate increase cycle that countries around the world are experiencing, but we are doing everything we can to help, and I believe that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be laying out some plans relating to house building in the coming weeks. We have already reduced stamp duty for first-time buyers—stamp duty is a particularly challenging element of buying a first home, because it cannot be funded by a mortgage—and the Government will continue to do everything they can to support people who are trying to get on to the housing ladder.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
This is the question that my constituents want me to ask the Government: why is the Chancellor experimenting with their lives, putting their homes and pensions at risk, to test out his fancy economics? The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have no mandate to take the gamble that they are taking, so will the Chief Secretary urge his colleagues to ditch their disastrous Budget and put their new plans to the people in a general election?
Chris Philp
If the hon. Gentleman thinks it was all so disastrous, perhaps he could explain why he voted for it last night. The real gamble is having taxes that are too high. The real gamble is not having a plan for growth. This Government have a plan for growth; the Labour party has no plan.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline the specific help that is available to the working poor? They face not simply energy increases but mortgage increases, and increases in the cost of diesel and petrol just to get to work to actually earn some money, and the price of groceries is 15% higher. While those people’s top-line income does not qualify them for universal credit, the present circumstances must surely call for assistance. Will the Minister tell me and the House where that help will come from?
Chris Philp
We certainly do stand with the working poor. That is why we have increased the thresholds to ensure that people on lower incomes pay very little income tax and national insurance. It is why we froze petrol duty, and, indeed, cut it by 5p earlier this year. It is why we have increased the national minimum wage by such a large amount, from just £5.93 an hour under the last Labour Government to £9.50 an hour today. So we do stand on the side of the working poor, and I will certainly continue to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his constituents are looked after and protected in the years ahead.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Given that the UK Government, in the run-up to their fiscal statement, chose to ignore warnings from anti-poverty campaigners about the devastating impact that a lack of targeted support for lower-income households would have on those households, will the Chancellor now be making some sort of assessment of the impact that that will have on levels of poverty in the UK?
Chris Philp
I dispute the claim that there was no targeting. I have already pointed out that the minimum wage has risen hugely under this Conservative Government, from £5.93 an hour to £9.50 an hour. When we made the first energy intervention this year with the £37 billion package, that was targeted: it was targeted, rightly, at people on lower incomes, so that those on the lower one-third of incomes received £1,200 per annum, and people with disabilities, and some pensioners, received even more than that.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Hard-working families are paying the price for this Government’s reckless kamikaze Budget. Hundreds of families in my constituency depend on universal credit while being in full-time work. According to a recent Survacion poll, 38% of them fear being made homeless next year while 34% fear having to resort to food banks next year. Given that the Government have just committed themselves to no spending cuts, will the Minister also make a commitment to ensuring that benefits are uprated to keep up with inflation, so that those most in need in my constituency and throughout the country will not be forced from their homes and left to go hungry?
Chris Philp
As I have said, no decisions have yet been taken; that will happen in the normal way in the coming weeks. I have already explained how the minimum wage has gone up and how we have alleviated the burden of taxation on people on lower incomes, but ultimately what will help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is ensuring that we have a growing economy so that everyone’s wages can go up, which is why we have a growth plan. I think the hon. Gentleman and his constituents can take comfort from, and be happy about, the fact that we have the lowest unemployment for 48 years and the highest growth in the G7. However, we would like to go further to help his constituents, and that is why we have a growth plan.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My son currently pays £612 a month for his mortgage. Next year, when his fixed rate comes to an end, he will be paying at least £1,300 a month. My daughter, a hard-working junior doctor, cannot even look at buying a property on her salary of £23,000 a year. The stamp duty cut is no help to her.
What this Government are doing is not hypothetical; it is real, and it is affecting people like my son and daughter. The U-turns, tax cuts for the richest and a failed Budget are all signs of a Government who are out of ideas. Will the Chief Secretary tell me why any person in the UK should listen to a single thing they say?
Chris Philp
As I have already explained repeatedly, there is a global increase in interest rates, and as I have also pointed out, the increase in base rates in the United States this calendar year has been 1.5 times higher than the base rate increase in the United Kingdom. We know that people are facing pressures, for the reason that the hon. Lady set out, and also because of energy prices. That is why we have helped with the energy price guarantee. It is why we have put £37 billion towards helping people. It is why we are alleviating the tax burden on people on lower incomes, and it is why we have a growth plan. That is what we are doing to deal with these global pressures, and our plan is designed to help people exactly like the hon. Lady’s children.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And the last word comes from Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I thought you were going to say “Last but not least”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you.
According to figures published in connection with the mini-Budget, not implementing the corporation tax increase is predicted to cost the Treasury more than £2 billion in this financial year alone, and in subsequent years £12 billion, £17 billion, £18 billion and £19 billion: £68 billion in total. We can split hairs about whether or not that is a tax cut, but is not the reality that the Treasury’s own figures show that cosying up to business has created a £68 billion black hole?
Chris Philp
I thought you were going to say that you had saved the best till last, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is important to have internationally competitive rates of corporation tax. Keeping it at 19% is not just for big businesses; it is for smaller businesses too, because any business with profits of over £50,000 will benefit. Many of these businesses have a choice about where to locate. They do not have to locate in the United Kingdom, but could go to America, to Geneva, Singapore or South Korea. Many of them are internationally mobile. We want them to choose to locate in the United Kingdom and to invest in the United Kingdom—including, of course, Scotland—and that is why we are maintaining a competitive rate of corporation tax. We still do not know what those in the Labour party think about this, because they will not tell us.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Scottish Questions today the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), stated:
“I have raised before at the Dispatch Box the fact that the UK Government chose to sideline the Acorn carbon capture and storage project in the north-east of Scotland. The Scottish Government have refused to provide financing either.”
However, on 14 January this year, despite this being a matter for the UK Government, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson stated:
“That is why I am announcing today that we stand ready with up to £80 million of funding to help the Scottish Cluster continue and accelerate the deployment of carbon capture technology.”
May I seek your esteemed guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can ensure that the record reflects the reality?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to make that point of order. He will know, as the House knows, that it is not for the Chair to make any comment on the content of what hon. Members say here in the Chamber. I am guessing that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that what was said today directly contradicted something that was said some weeks ago. Is that the basic point?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that every Member who speaks in this House is responsible for the veracity of what they say, and I am sure that if the record requires to be corrected, the people concerned will go ahead and correct it.
I should have checked this with the hon. Gentleman: did he give notice to the Members whom he has quoted?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to him for doing that. I know that he normally does things properly.
BILL PRESENTED
Energy Prices Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Simon Clarke, Alok Sharma, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack and Mr Secretary Buckland, presented a Bill To make provision for controlling energy prices; to encourage the efficient use and supply of energy; and for other purposes connected to the energy crisis.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 159) with explanatory notes (Bill 159-EN).
Point of Order
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
On a point of order, and for the convenience of the House, it may be helpful if I give some advance notice of my business statement tomorrow. In tomorrow’s business statement, I will announce that the business for Monday 17 October will be all stages of the Energy Prices Bill that has just been introduced. A motion appears on today’s Order Paper that, if agreed, will mean that notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted before the Bill has been read a Second time. I wanted to be able to advertise that fact, and I hope it is helpful to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. It is indeed helpful to the House to know the intention of the Government on when this important Bill is going to come forward. I ought to add to that point of order and to the motion on today’s Order Paper relating to the management of the Bill that, for amendments at Committee stage, I will be lenient about the timetable for putting down such amendments. Just as the Leader of the House is trying to help the House, I will also try to help the House to engage in a full and proper debate on the Bill.
Marine Activities (Licensing)
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Marine Activities (Licensing) Bill 2022-23 View all Marine Activities (Licensing) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer responsibility for marine licensing from the Marine Management Organisation to local authorities; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to be able to stand up for coastal communities today, particularly my own community of Clacton, a place I first came to in 1957 and have represented locally and nationally since 2007. I have seen at first hand what works locally and what, sadly, does not work. Our great coastline has evolved over millennia, and I hope to keep that track record going.
The Bill seeks to put in place a pilot to devolve many of the Marine Management Organisation’s functions to local authorities, and I will put forward my reasoning now. The MMO is a group that I have increasingly come to see as not fit for purpose in its current form. As a Member for a coastal area, and a boating man for over half a century, I like to think that I speak with some authority on this subject. Few people know about the vital role of the MMO. It manages some 90,000 square miles of hugely diverse seas and coastal areas, which is roughly the same size as the United Kingdom’s land mass. To give some context, 95% of our imports and exports come by sea, around 20 million tonnes of aggregates are taken from our seas for construction projects each year and the UK is working towards a third of our electricity being produced from offshore wind by 2030. Our seas are also home to 175 marine protected areas. At the same time, our seas and coasts are the backbone of our fishing and seafood industries, with a combined gross value added to the economy of almost £2 billion per year. This little-known group has tremendous control over all those activities.
The issues here are a lack of expertise in the subject, a deficiency in direction and oversight and, above all, thanks to our vast and varied coastline, a lack of local insight. In terms of real expertise, I have heard tales of faceless officials taking months and months to determine licences due to a lack of practical understanding of what they are looking at. Indeed, I was told that two officials from the MMO came to Walton-on-the-Naze in my constituency to take stock of a marine development in our backwaters. They seemed to be surprised about the tidal range and direction there.
Also, we recently had a serious issue with sea defences on the Naze, an area of land that projects out into the North sea. The sea wall that kept a sewage farm secure was deteriorating at a rapid rate. The local Naze Protection Society, with the assistance of landowners and local councillors, swung into action. After effecting temporary repairs, they made the plans, raised the money and ensured that the contractors were ready to go. All was in place, except for a licence from the MMO to carry out the necessary works. With every tide, and especially every storm, making the job more difficult, urgent, and expensive, it was paramount that this licence was granted so that the works could commence, yet after 13 weeks, the MMO had failed to issue it. At this point I was approached and, after banging a few heads together, I managed to get the licence issued within an hour or so. Work began the very next day. It really should not depend on Members of this place calling Ministers and Secretaries of State to get these results. I pay tribute to the wonderful people involved in those vital works for raising tens of thousands of pounds and for keeping their patience with the MMO at that time.
Looking at the senior structure of the organisation, it is quite clear why we have an issue. The MMO’s senior executive and non-executive leadership is comprised of laudable expertise from Government Departments—such as the DWP in this case—and externally from the private sector world of communication. However, a central body, no matter how well led, cannot be expected to understand the minutiae of local issues as well as a local council can. The experience in Clacton with the MMO is meeting officers who were unaware of the tidal area we have on our sunshine coast. It is my strong view that the central leadership of our great public sector is simply not delivering in this case. The MMO was created by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and it should have regular reviews every three years. I welcome its 10-year plan, but there is nothing in there about the role that it can and should play in the regeneration of declining coastal communities such as my own.
It seems rather odd that we allow the MMO so much centralised power. We have seen planning and licensing become core parts of local authorities’ action plans. Councils are accountable and, by their very nature, have a deep understanding of local issues and their local scene. I think we need to look to a slimmer MMO with more devolution and with a non-executive directors board of experts with real-life experience holding it to account. I have held talks with my own district council in Tendring, the chief executive officer of which is the very capable Mr Ian Davidson, and it has expressed an interest in finding out how it could take on many of these functions—with, of course, centralised oversight. The council is prepared to carry out a pilot scheme and to spearhead this much-needed change. It is merely a case of local knowledge for local issues. You do not need to be a maritime expert to run the MMO, any more than you need to be a constitutional scholar to be a Member of this place. However, given the problems I have outlined, I feel it is time to say that localism has merit. We often speak about bonfires of quangos. Well, I think I have just found another log for that fire!
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Giles Watling and Stephen Metcalfe present the Bill.
Giles Watling accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 160).
Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 View all Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 11-R-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (5 Jul 2022)
16:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 380 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to speak to such an important Bill this afternoon, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will feel similarly about its gravity and weight. This legislation will go a long way towards recognising Northern Ireland’s rich diversity in identity and language, bringing tangible benefits for Irish language speakers, Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition.
Before I turn to the Bill’s provisions in more detail, I pay tribute to my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), who both championed this Bill. I am very pleased to continue their work.
However, I must temper my enthusiasm for the Bill with regret that it is we, as hon. and right hon. Members of this House of Commons, who are debating it rather than our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Assembly. To be frank, it was never the Government’s intention to introduce the Bill in this Parliament. I explain to those who are not aware that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly were both restored on 11 January 2020, when all five of Northern Ireland’s main political parties came together on the basis of a very good document, New Decade, New Approach, which contained a balanced package of measures relating to identity and language. Draft legislation was prepared by the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Northern Ireland and published alongside New Decade, New Approach for the Assembly’s consideration. It is therefore a matter of enormous regret that the package was not taken forward in a timely fashion by the previous Executive.
I do not intend to relitigate those arguments. Instead, I will use this Bill to look to the future. It will be the job of a newly constituted Northern Ireland Executive to take forward the implementation of this legislation. The provisions of this Bill are based on enshrining respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures and traditions, and indeed celebrating their contribution to Northern Ireland.
We introduced these provisions in the firm belief that Northern Ireland’s rich diversity contributes immeasurably to the Union, of which we are proud and to which this Government hold a proud and fundamental commitment. We are also taking separate but linked steps when it comes to identity and language, steps that reflect this pride in Northern Ireland’s cultural richness and diversity.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am very glad to learn that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) met representatives of Conradh na Gaeilge yesterday, and I am sure that he and the Secretary of State will both be aware that the language groups An Dream Dearg and Conradh na Gaeilge were instrumental in organising a campaign that saw 20,000 people on the streets of Belfast in May to support language rights.
Given that a commitment to reflect Welsh language legislation was made in the St Andrews agreement 16 years ago, will the Secretary of State indicate whether he is minded to accept the amendments along those lines that were discussed in the House of Lords?
Chris Heaton-Harris
When I was on a treadmill in the gym this morning and last night, I read the debates in Committee and on Report in the other place, and I will answer in exactly the same language. This package is exactly what was proposed in New Decade, New Approach, and we are sticking rigidly to that. As the right hon. Lady will know from those discussions, we are very proud of all the identities and languages across the four nations. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) was very pleased to have that meeting yesterday, and I believe it went particularly well.
Last year we announced £2 million in funding for Northern Ireland Screen’s Ulster Scots and Irish language broadcasting funds to help deliver more high-quality Irish and Ulster Scots broadcasting in Northern Ireland. In May 2022, the Government officially recognised the Ulster Scots as a national minority under the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities.
At the same time, under the section of New Decade, New Approach entitled “Addressing Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances,” we made £4 million available to the Irish Language Investment Fund to support capital projects associated with the Irish language.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for moving Second Reading today. Does he understand that, when it comes to the Irish language, the focus is on the language, but Ulster Scots—I am very proud to be an Ulster Scot—is more than a language? It is the culture, the art, the poetry, the music and the words. It is more than just a language to the Ulster Scots. How will the Bill ensure that Ulster Scots has the central focus that the Irish language has, because it is bigger than just a language?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The former leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party, Dame Arlene Foster, recognised in January 2020 that this is a “fair and balanced” package that has been agreed by all parties. I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am delivering on the agreement, as the Government promised.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am listening intently to the Secretary of State, and he is right to quote the former First Minister but wrong to associate this Bill with what was agreed in January 2020. In this Second Reading debate, I hope he will listen with an open mind to the concerns that my colleagues and I will raise about the Bill’s departure from what was agreed.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am always happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in this House.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am glad to see the Secretary of State implementing these key parts of New Decade, New Approach. Of course, other commitments within that agreement could not be delivered even when we had an Executive. There was a key commitment for 10,000 students at Magee University in Derry. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) agreed that we could have a medical school at Magee, which has now been delivered, but the real prize is a full-scale university for the people of Derry. Will the Secretary of State commit to getting that done?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The Government are committed to delivering on New Decade, New Approach and all its commitments. That has come forward at different stages, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and today we are hopefully celebrating the Second Reading of this part of that delivery.
It will not have escaped right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill began life in the other place, where the debate was typically forensic. The Government will move a number of amendments to address issues raised in the other place, and I will shortly delve into their content in slightly more depth, but I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support them when the time comes. I feel strongly that the amendments will improve the Bill.
I will briefly discuss the overall strategic intention of the Bill before running through its provisions in turn. Broadly speaking, the Bill delivers on the commitments detailed in annex (e) of New Decade, New Approach to
“respect the freedom of all persons in Northern Ireland to choose, affirm, maintain and develop their national and cultural identity and to celebrate and express that identity in a manner which takes into account the sensitivities of those with different national or cultural identities and respects the rule of law.”
In practical terms, the Bill does this by broadly replicating the draft legislation on identity and language published alongside New Decade, New Approach. As I have already set out, the draft legislation was prepared by the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Northern Ireland at the request of the UK Government. We have done our utmost to stay as close as possible to the draft legislation. The Bill therefore provides for the delivery of a cultural framework, as set out in New Decade, New Approach, to the benefit of the whole community in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I concur with the Secretary of State that the Bill broadly reflects New Decade, New Approach. On reflecting the community, does he agree that it is important to think about both the Irish language and Ulster Scots as shared across the community, and not the sole attribute of one side or the other? They are something that we all have in common, and the different languages and traditions are part of a very rich history in Northern Ireland and across the island, which we should promote.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I believe that this can be celebrated across all communities and in all ways with the respect it truly deserves, so yes, I happily agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
Secondly, the Bill provides for a requirement for public authorities to have due regard to the national and cultural identity principles, and the establishment of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to oversee them, fostering mutual respect and understanding of Northern Ireland’s different national and cultural identities.
Thirdly, the Bill provides for the creation of an Irish language commissioner, providing official recognition for the Irish language, and a requirement on public authorities to have due regard to Irish language best practice standards when providing services to the public.
Fourthly, the Bill repeals the Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737.
Fifthly, the Bill creates a commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition, who will be responsible for the enhancement and development of the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition; and a duty on the Northern Ireland Department of Education to encourage and facilitate the use and understanding of Ulster Scots in the education system.
Finally, the Bill provides for the safeguarding of the delivery of these New Decade, New Approach commitments by giving the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—currently me—the ability to ensure that they are implemented.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that modern, 21st-century Northern Ireland is home to a large number of traditions, particularly the Polish community, who are a very valued part of Northern Ireland society? Does he agree that in everything he is outlining, which I welcome, it is important that those communities feel included, particularly when we are talking about an Irish language from which they might be excluded, as of course Polish is probably more fluently spoken in Northern Ireland than the Irish language at the moment?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise counsel on this matter. I was having a conversation earlier today where I was reminded of the large number of Hong Kong Chinese who also live in Northern Ireland, contribute to the economy and are assimilated into different communities. So I completely understand the wise point he is making.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As the earlier intervention pointed out, while we agonise over an Irish language commitment there are more Chinese speakers and Polish speakers in Northern Ireland than Irish speakers. The Secretary of State quickly glossed over the role of the two commissioners, which is one of the ways in which this Bill does not faithfully reflect what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. The Irish language commissioner will have the power to direct other public bodies, which will have a significant impact, especially on some Unionist-controlled councils, depending on the decisions he makes. The Ulster Scots commissioner will have no such power to direct. How does the Secretary of State explain the disparity between the treatment of those who are looking for the protection of Ulster Scots, where there is no power to direct, and the treatment of those looking for the protection of the Irish language?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. This serious subject was well debated in the other place and I am sure he will be tabling amendments to probe the Government further on these matters, which we will have a long time to discuss. I go back to what was said in the other place by the Minister, which was that we are trying to reflect honestly and truthfully what was agreed at the time of New Decade, New Approach. As I have detailed, the two commissioners have distinct jobs—they are slightly different. I will be happy in Committee to go through with him in great detail where those levels lie and why exactly the level of detail is as it is.
Sammy Wilson
The Secretary of State is right to say that the two commissioners have distinct jobs, but the important thing is that we must make sure that both these people have the same ability to deliver what they are expected to deliver when they do their job. If we give a power of direction to one commissioner but not to the other, although they may have distinct jobs they do not both have the ability to respond and to deliver for the people they are meant to represent.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I would never like to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I would like to think that when we get to debate the detail of the responsibilities of each commissioner and how those duties could be implemented, I would be able to allay some of the concerns he has just outlined. However, I will go into some more detail now, having I hope given the House a broad picture of what this Bill does. Let me go through the clauses and schedules in turn, to try to put a tiny bit more meat on the bone.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for taking so many interventions. As a former Northern Ireland Minister, I am pleased that this Bill is coming forward, even though I probably agree with some of my former colleagues that it might need a little tweaking, which we can discuss as we go through it. We have discussed Chinese, Mandarin and Polish, but one language we have not discussed is British Sign Language. It came into statute after the agreements we are talking about were done. How will BSL and the people who rely on it be affected by the Bill?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. BSL was briefly mentioned in debate in the other place and I believe a probing amendment was tabled on it. BSL is not reflected in this Bill, because BSL is, we hope, already well respected and widely used across Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. He may like some more information or help, and perhaps he wishes to table a probing amendment on BSL. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I tabled amendments to make sure that sign language was available in the different languages that the European Parliament used at the time, and I believe it is vital for us to be able to communicate with all parts of society. However, this package is purely about what was agreed back in January 2020 in New Decade, New Approach, and BSL was widely in use at that point in time.
Sir Mike Penning
The point I was trying to make is that since the agreement was made—it is the basis of this legislation—it has become law in these islands that BSL is an official language. It has been used extensively for many years, but it is now in statute that BSL is an official language of this country, which is why I am interested as to how the Bill will affect that.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I hear what my right hon. Friend is saying, but BSL is not reflected in this Bill at this point. I am sure he can add expertise and wise counsel as to whether this is the right place for any addition of that type.
Clause 1 amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make provision for the national and cultural identity principles, and requires specified public authorities to have due regard to them when carrying out their functions. These principles affirm the freedom of everybody in Northern Ireland to choose, affirm, maintain and develop their national and cultural identity, and to express and celebrate that identity in a manner that takes account of the sensitives of those with different national and cultural identities. Furthermore, public authorities should encourage and promote reconciliation, tolerance and meaningful dialogue between those with different national and cultural identities.
Clause 1 also establishes the new Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, which will be required to promote awareness of the principles, and to monitor and encourage compliance with them. It will, for example, be able to issue public guidance on best practice for complying with the new duty and to commission research into matters relating to national and cultural identity in Northern Ireland. Clause 1 was also amended in the other place, and I will tackle that when I talk about new clause 8, as inserted in the other place, a bit later in my remarks; further details are also contained on the proposed Office of Identity and Cultural Expression.
Clause 2 provides for the official recognition of the status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland and the appointment of an Irish language commissioner to enhance and protect its use by public authorities when they are providing services to the public. The commissioner, who will be appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly, will develop standards of best practice to which public authorities must have due regard. Those standards will have to be approved by the First and Deputy First Ministers before they can take effect. The commissioner will also monitor and promote compliance with approved standards and investigate complaints where it is claimed by a person directly affected that a public authority has failed to comply with its obligations.
Clause 3 makes provision for the appointment of a commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. The commissioner will be required to promote awareness of services provided by public authorities in Ulster Scots or those likely to be of particular interest to those with an interest in the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. The commissioner will also be required to provide and publish advice, support and guidance in respect of such language, arts and literature, reflecting the Government’s recent recognition of Ulster Scots under the framework convention, as I set out earlier. That advice will also cover the effects and implementation of that international agreement, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the Council of Europe charter for regional or minority languages. For Members who are interested in this matter, schedule 3 contains further details about the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
To those on the DUP Benches, it is evident from the Secretary of State’s explanation that there is a disparity between the power of the two commissioners. One has the power to direct; the other has the power to issue advice. That is important, because I was involved in the discussions on the New Decade, New Approach agreement, and we were very clear. We have seen local council buildings in Northern Ireland stripped bare of any vestige of British identity. We wanted to protect the right to reflect our identity in public buildings and public spaces, yet I do not see any power for the Ulster British commissioner to direct councils where they are stripping out the Ulster British identity from their public buildings and public spaces. He can offer advice, but does that compel a council to act? For us, this is a key issue.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The right hon. Gentleman is correct; the duty is to give due regard to the items that I have listed. I would like to think that some of the measures that I have outlined would act as safeguards. The appointment of the commissioners must be made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in agreement, and there will be a level of understanding at that point in time, but I completely understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman has been making.
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. The fact of the matter is that the 2021 census showed that there is pretty much equality of facility, at least at some level, between the Irish language and Ulster Scots, at I think 12.4% and 10.4%. We also want parity of esteem between the two communities, yet it is not clear to me—I hope he can help me out on this—why there is such a difference between the commissioners in the legislation. It seems to me, on the principle of parity of esteem and given the more or less equal pegging between the two languages in the most recent census, that they should be dealt with equally.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I have some statistics that back up his point, from the 2021 “Knowledge and use of Irish and Ulster-Scots in Northern Ireland” report, which is published annually by the Department for Communities. It states that 17% of adults have some knowledge of Irish, 8% can read in Irish and 5% can write in Irish, whereas 16% of adults have some knowledge of Ulster Scots, 4% can read Ulster Scots and 1% can write in Ulster Scots.
I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s main point, but I hope he will understand that we have faithfully lifted from what was agreed at the time of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. That is what I am currently talking about, and I am quite sure that we can go into detail in debate in Committee about why that needs to remain as it is, but if he will allow me, I shall now move on a tiny bit.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister is being very generous. Does he understand the point that has been made? As far as the Ulster Scots community is concerned, the attack on that community, especially by Sinn Féin-dominated councils in the west of Northern Ireland, has meant the stripping out of any of the symbols identified with the Unionist community. If the role of the Ulster Scots commissioner is to look at the whole remit of culture, and if there is already known to be a problem in Sinn Féin-dominated councils that ruthlessly try to stamp out any of the Unionist tradition, surely that is the most compelling reason to give that commissioner the ability to stop that kind of cultural destruction through the power to direct.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making his point with strength and passion. I will not go any further on this particular point today, as I believe I have outlined the case that I would make, but as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I would be very happy to listen to, and hopefully explain and debate, various amendments that might be brought forward on the matter in Committee.
If the House will indulge me, I shall race through the final piece of my speech, because I do not want to take all the time, which is rapidly running out. Of the various other clauses, clause 8 is a new clause inserted by Members of the other place following a further set of amendments from the Government. That clause, alongside the amended clause 1, relates to the establishment of the Castlereagh Foundation. The Government are committed to fund the establishment of the Castlereagh Foundation, as Members will see from paragraph 25 of annex A to the New Decade, New Approach agreement. It was envisaged that the foundation would explore identity and the shifting patterns of social identity in Northern Ireland, and more detail will obviously come to the fore during further debates.
Taken as a whole, the Bill is a hugely important milestone when it comes to identity and language in Northern Ireland. Communities in Northern Ireland have long been awaiting progress in this area. The Bill celebrates Northern Ireland’s different identities and cultures, which contribute immeasurably to the strength and character of our Union, and demonstrates the Government’s commitments to all parts of it. Having followed the debate in the other place, I am cognisant of the fact that not all right hon. and hon. Members, from across all parties, will like everything in this Bill. I accept and respect that, and my door, and indeed that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, is always open.
However, the Government are determined to see the Bill through this House in a timely fashion, given how long it has taken to get here. We owe it to all communities in Northern Ireland to do that. Indeed, it is our sincere and genuine hope that the parties in Northern Ireland will form an Executive in the not-too-distant future, to make the necessary appointments, oversee the implementation of this important package and maybe deal with some of the issues raised by hon. Members in today’s debate. Until then, the Bill is a reminder that the UK Government will always deliver on our commitments to Northern Ireland and care deeply about its people of all communities, and I commend it to the House.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I would like to begin by passing on my condolences and that of the Labour party for the 10 people who were tragically killed last week in Creeslough. I would also like to thank the emergency workers in Northern Ireland who provided help, working in partnership with their colleagues across the border.
I thank the new Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill and welcome the new Minister for Northern Ireland to his place. The Bill broadly keeps with the identity and language commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement—I see the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), in his place—and the achievements of those on both sides of the Chamber who negotiated it are recognised across the House, and certainly by us in the Labour party. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be speaking, so that we can benefit from his insight into the deal at the time.
That deal led to the restoration of the Executive after an extended period of absence and had, at the time, the agreement of all parties. This legislation is a serious undertaking and I pay tribute to the officials who have worked on it. It combines three separate draft Bills, which were supposed to be taken forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where they would have benefited from the enhanced scrutiny of local representatives. The Bill creates the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, recognises the status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland and provides for the appointment of an Irish language commissioner and a commissioner for the Ulster Scots. To effect these changes, the Bill directly amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Crucially, it adheres to the principles that underpin the Belfast/Good Friday agreement: equality, respect and parity of esteem.
As the Bill was introduced in the other place, it has benefited from a wealth of expertise from our colleagues there. I strongly recommend that Members read those insightful debates—whether they do so on a running machine is for them to decide; how the Secretary of State managed to read those contributions while running is something that I cannot quite comprehend. I pay particular tribute to Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who helped to negotiate the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The agreement recognises that the Irish language and Ulster Scots form part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland. These languages are part of our shared heritage, too, as the United Kingdom. Indeed, it was enriching to see the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) recently swear allegiance to the King in Ulster Scots.
Other contributions during the Bill’s passage recognise the wider history behind the identity and language issues. The Bill contains a clause that repeals the Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737—very long awaited by Irish language groups. It includes an amendment passed in the other place establishing the Castlereagh Foundation, which will explore shifting patterns of identity in Northern Ireland. We welcome the provisions that create a clear, unambiguous legal framework, which will help and inform public authorities and Government Departments about their duties and responsibilities regarding language promotion.
Language and identity issues have clearly always been a part of the peace process. They have often featured in the agreements made to restore devolution in Northern Ireland, as happened during the St Andrews and the New Decade, New Approach periods. The Government have set out that they believe the Bill will help to take the sting out of these issues and to prevent them from paralysing the institutions again in future. We also support the Bill on that basis, and we want to see the normalisation of language rights to take some of the politics out of them. Of course, it is a matter of regret that this legislation is not being discussed and passed at Stormont. Sadly, we are experiencing another period in which devolved government in Northern Ireland is not functioning. But the Government are doing the right thing by introducing this legislation here. We welcome that and that they are the honouring commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement.
There were repeated promises to proceed with this legislation following that agreement. It is remarkable that, in the written ministerial statement of 21 June 2021, the Government promised to introduce this Bill by October 2021. When the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) was Secretary of State, he repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that the Bill would be introduced before the end of the last Stormont mandate. It should not be so easy for the Government to let slip their own deadlines and promises to Northern Ireland.
We should all be concerned that the Executive have not been functioning for more than 40% of the time since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. People need a stable, functioning Executive to meet the enormous health and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland in the coming months amid the cost of living crisis that our entire country is facing. The Government are trying to prevent any further identity and language issues destabilising Northern Ireland by giving the Secretary of State new powers. This legislation would permit them to step in, if necessary, to implement what the Bill is trying to achieve.
I want to repeat that it should be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to discuss and debate legislation whose territorial extent is within Northern Ireland. However, the Opposition will scrutinise the Bill and suggest amendments in areas where we think it can be improved. We have concerns about how cultural expression on the basis of “sensitivities” is to be interpreted in practice. It might be more appropriate to use a human rights basis. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that in his winding- up speech.
We would also welcome further clarification on the Castlereagh Foundation, and on whether the Government will publish the written advice available to the Northern Ireland Office before the Bill reaches Committee stage. It is positive that the Government are trying to uphold other commitments that they made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. We would be glad to hear an update from the Minister on the connected classrooms programme, which was another promise made by this Government. We could do with some clarification on when that will be brought forward.
There is also the question of whether the Bill needs to address the recent court ruling about the Executive being in breach of their legal duty by failing to adopt strategies on Irish language and Ulster Scots. Additionally, while the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to step in, I know that there is concern that there are no timeframes or conditions for when they will take action. Assurances that there will not be undue delay would be welcome especially considering the history of this legislation and the delays that it has undergone. Overall, however, I reiterate the Labour party’s support for the Bill and hope it receives swift passage through this place.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I add to the comments of the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) about the tragedy in Creeslough?
I welcome the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to the House, although I echo and support the comments that have been made about how it would have been better if such legislation had taken place in a devolved space. None the less, I accept that it is great that the Bill is being brought forward. Language rights in Northern Ireland is an extremely emotive issue, and it was a very emotive issue during the negotiations over the New Decade, New Approach agreement. I genuinely believe that the Bill enhances the language provision, the culture provision and the rights that stem from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the St Andrews agreement and previous agreements, so I support the Government in moving forward with it.
There was a lot of talk at the time about the Irish language. Many campaigners, some of whom are in the House today, campaigned hard for clearer Irish language rights, despite the fact that councils in Northern Ireland can already conduct their business in the Irish language. There was some very strong campaigning on the issue here and by youth groups and other groups in Northern Ireland, so I hope that the Bill provides a good and balanced approach to what they have been wanting for many years.
The Bill will establish the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. It is worth paying tribute to the former MP for Belfast South who did a lot of work, along with other Northern Ireland colleagues, on the structure of aspects of this Bill, particularly the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. There is the provision for two commissioners: the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. It had been difficult, during New Decade, New Approach, to get adequate balancing for the two commissioners. I accept some of the points that have been made today about duties: at the time, there were concerns about the commissioners having direction and directive powers, but further aspects have been raised today that may require more analysis.
There has been a huge debate about the Irish language that has resulted in this Bill, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, Ulster Scots is spoken, or at least understood, by an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland. It is not a fringe dialect but a growing language that is integral to many traditions across Northern Ireland, particularly in North Antrim and Strangford, as I am sure we will hear. That is reflected in the recent census, which showed that many people do not identify as British or Irish but have a Northern Irish identity and that Ulster-Scots is extremely important to them.
I note that concerns have been raised by the Ulster-Scots Agency, who I spoke to today, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at aspects of the powers of the commissioners. I recall that during that negotiation there was concern on both sides about directive powers of the commissioners.
The official recognition of Ulster-Scots as a national minority under the framework convention is a positive move, and I will speak a little about the vibrancy of Ulster-Scots. In Derry, Derry and Raphoe Action has organised Ulster-Scots cultural evenings and runs initiatives to increase skills for young people in the Ulster-Scots community, including piping and drumming, singing and dancing classes. The Kildoag pipe band, made up of young people from Derry, was successful at the world championships in Glasgow in August.
The strong Ulster-Scots culture in Derry city and Strabane reflects the huge cultural diversity across Northern Ireland. The poet Angeline King, who is from Larne in County Antrim and is writer in residence at Ulster University—her work includes “A Belfast Tale”—focuses on Ulster-Scots and explores the complex and diverse culture in Northern Ireland. It is worth also reiterating the vibrancy of Ulster-Scots in the Republic of Ireland. Three Ulster counties of Cavan, Monaghan and County Donegal—particularly, although I might be corrected, in the Finn Valley area of County Donegal—have a significant amount of Ulster-Scots culture. The Frances Browne Ulster-Scots poetry competition in Donegal, which celebrates the legacy of Frances Browne, the blind poetess of Ulster from Donegal’s Finn Valley, runs competitions in Ireland’s three traditional languages, Irish, English and Ulster-Scots. It is obviously not appropriate to comment on the broadcasters of other nations, but I think I am right in saying that on RTÉ there is no broadcast programming in Ulster-Scots, which is something that might be looked at or considered in future campaigns.
When I was Secretary of State, I had the privilege of engaging with several groups dedicated to the Ulster-Scots tradition. Those organisations continue to be supported by the Department for Communities—there are more than 1,000 active Ulster-Scots groups. The Ulster-Scots writing competition will be hosted in the Linen Hall library, the oldest cultural establishment in Belfast. National Museums NI has introduced a new “Languages of Ulster” project, which offers people the opportunity to explore the rich and diverse language traditions associated with both Irish and Ulster-Scots.
There is a fantastic blogger and Tweeter called Lentil Pentil in Scotland—I do not think she is the sort of person who wants a push from a Tory MP, but she does an Ulster-Scots word of the day and is well worth having a look at. As we have heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) recently swore his oath in the dialect.
I welcome the fact that the Bill proposes that the Department of Education will “encourage and facilitate” the use of Ulster-Scots in the Northern Ireland school curriculum. I note also that the Ulster-Scots Agency would like more support with grants and funding to make that happen. There is also the question of Ulster-Scots A-levels, university degrees and the creation of research institutes, and I hope those will be considered in the future. There has been a very good review of the Ulster-Scots tradition by the Department for Communities, and that report is well worth considering.
On the issue of funding, my understanding is that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport did cover funding for broadcast, but that has now come to an end. I hope the Government, with their sizeable budget, could have a look at that and continue to support broadcasting activities in Ulster-Scots.
This Bill is a significant step forward. The Good Friday agreement states:
“An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society”.
The Bill delivers on fundamental rights for Irish speakers and Ulster-Scots speakers. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the agreement, the Bill follows its spirit and will ensure that the Ulster-Scots tradition thrives over the next decade and beyond.
I grew up in Scotland where there is a fantastic word, “scunnered”, which I think adequately reflects the sentiment on the Government side of the House today.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
How do I follow that word?
I begin in all seriousness by echoing the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House about the appalling events in Creeslough. I send my personal condolences to all who have lost their lives, their families and all those who have been deeply affected by that awful tragedy.
The Scottish National party welcomes this Bill, although we, like others, very much regret that the legislation is being brought forward in this place rather than through the Northern Ireland Assembly. It deals with two languages that are clearly integral to the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland. As hon. Members have mentioned, both Irish and Ulster-Scots are languages with significant usage; the latest census shows that 12.5% of people in Northern Ireland have use or some use of the Irish language and some 10% have use or some use of Ulster-Scots.
Ahead of this debate, I happened across a publication online produced by the British Council on Ulster-Scots. Obviously, I was familiar with the strong cultural links and shared vocabulary between Ulster-Scots and Scots, but I do not think I had fully taken on board how similar they were. There was such similarity that, were I to live in Northern Ireland, I think I would be able to include myself in that 10%.
We have already heard the word “scunnered” from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith); it is a word that frequently applies to how we feel when things in this place do not go our way. “Aye”—for yes—is a word that every hon. Member ought to be familiar with, along with blether—always more than a few of those about the place—boak, crabbit, eejit, flit, oxter and thrawn. Then of course there is “sleekit”, although, were I to apply that word specifically to any hon. Member, I am sure I would be getting my knuckles rapped from the Chair, so I will not seek to do so. There may be an occasion where I want to push my luck, but it is not this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of clarity, I appreciate that a great many people in the House do not understand the words the hon. Gentleman has just used, but I do, and he is absolutely right about the way in which he might apply them. I will be listening carefully.
Richard Thomson
I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall take care to ensure that the rest of my remarks are within the parameters of normal parliamentary debate.
A language Act has been promised from the Good Friday agreement through the St Andrews agreement and, most recently, the New Decade, New Approach agreement, so in our view the Bill is long overdue. Language, culture and identity matter.
Linguistic rights are human rights, as reflected in various international conventions that seek to uphold the ability of linguistic minorities around the world to practise and use their own languages. Citizens have a fundamental right to their identity and to cultural expression. Those linguistic rights are contained in the United Nations declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, the European convention on human rights and the European charter for regional or minority languages.
Across these islands there is an unhappy legacy of the suppression of some of those rights. Thankfully, we have left behind the dark days of physical and cultural barbarism where children had their native tongues thrashed out of them in schools, but that is not the only reason for languages being marginalised.
Mass media produced in a dominant language has been a key driver of that as well. Indeed, the correlation between the decline in the use of Scots Gaelic in the home and the rise and availability of television in the English language is marked. Without action to rectify that, indigenous languages are often left in a parlous state, with a diminished and marginalised status. Steps can of course be taken to remedy that through schooling, broadcasting in those languages and support for cultural activities—those are just some of the more obvious examples.
Although a language might be in fairly common everyday usage—it could be a language of conversation, a language of song and poetry, or even a language of print—if it is not in daily use as a language of law, commerce or administration, any existing lack of parity of esteem is reinforced. That is deeply regrettable, because our languages are an essential part of our culture and heritage. Even if we speak more than one language, we will default to the language that is our most natural form of expression. Whether or not we speak all the languages from the places where we live, we are shaped by them and the inheritance they give as part of a cultural wealth that belongs to all. I firmly believe that, just as the promotion, support and legal recognition of Scotland’s languages—particularly Gaelic—has threatened no one, promoting the Irish and Ulster Scots languages should pose no danger to anyone’s culture or identity.
The Bill clearly gives official status to the Irish language, giving citizens in Northern Ireland the right to register births, deaths and marriages in Irish and to request court proceedings to take in place in Irish; increasing support for Irish-medium schools and more; and giving official recognition to the Ulster Scots language and culture. I recognise, as others have, the disparity in that, but the Bill would create an identifiable and recognisable policy landscape similar—at least in part—to that of Scotland, where the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gives Gaelic legal official status, while the Scots language, which is spoken by upwards of 1.5 million Scots, does not have the same legal status. The Scottish Government are currently consulting on ways to support the Scots language, and I hope that one of the outcomes of that consultation will be a similar language Act recognising and giving status to Scots. I would be the first to acknowledge, however, that whatever similarities there are, the issues at play in Scotland are somewhat different.
A language Act might be a necessary step towards ensuring that a language survives and thrives, but it is insufficient on its own. I fully take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the importance of the culture, music, song, poetry and everything else that supports a language and keeps it in daily popular use.
To draw my remarks to a close, giving official status to the Irish language and recognition to the Ulster Scots language and culture is a positive step, but I cannot help but feel that to enhance mutual respect not just between languages but between communities and traditions, there should also be parity of esteem in law, not just between the English and Irish languages, but between Ulster Scots and those languages, and that the institutions being created and the powers granted by the Bill should be equal. Both commissioners should have the same status in law with the same powers behind them. That would be hugely beneficial to what I think we would all like the Bill to achieve: parity of esteem and helping to work towards mutual respect.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
On behalf of our party, I offer our deepest sympathies to the families who lost loved ones in the horrific incident in Creeslough—it is heartbreaking to see those scenes and the funerals that are taking place. Our thoughts are very much with the families.
It would be remiss of me not to point out at the outset that this matter is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, and it therefore ought not to be a matter of decision for this place. The deliberate move by the Government to bring the legislation through this place is yet another example of how the devolution settlement is set aside at the whim of the Government of the day if doing so is deemed politically expedient. It appears that this Government increasingly believe that the Northern Ireland Executive are best suited to performing a management-board function rather than acting as a democratically elected decision-making body. That weakens local democracy and, indeed, the very reason for a return of devolution in already very challenging circumstances.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend also notice a correlation between matters being brought to this House and out of the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the demands made by Sinn Féin for that to happen? Even though Sinn Féin Members refuse to take their places in the House, they are quite happy to lobby the Government to get the things that they want through the House. In most cases, the Government simply ignore things that concern Unionists, such as the protocol.
Carla Lockhart
Absolutely—kowtowing to the demands of Sinn Féin is often the way that it goes. For those reasons, we will vote against the Bill on Second Reading and table amendments. Should those changes not be made, we will continue to oppose the Bill.
Many Members have referred to New Decade, New Approach. It is almost as if that document consists of one issue—namely, that of language and identity. It does not, and I could list a range of commitments that the Government have given that are yet to be fulfilled. One, of course, relates to the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place in it. That remains unresolved, and I remind the Government that the Prime Minister has given quite explicit commitments to the House on the essential components of any solution to the protocol issue. Those commitments must be delivered upon.
Language and identity are extremely sensitive issues in Northern Ireland because they mean a lot to sections of our population, whether they cherish the Irish language and identity, or their Ulster Scots identity and language is fundamental to who they are and how they express themselves. It is of deep regret that there have been times when language and identity—whether Irish or Ulster Scots—have been denigrated, abused by derision or abused by the weaponising of such language and identity by those for whom they are simply vehicles to pursue an overtly political goal.
It is my belief that, rather than addressing the facilitation and respect for language and identity, the Bill is, in fact, a reward for those who have weaponised the Irish language for decades. Those people have neither love nor learning when it comes to the Irish language; rather, their motive is to use it as part of a wider cultural war. Indeed, imposing the legislation on Northern Ireland society will only result in language and identity being a more potent weapon that causes greater damage to community relations and cohesion at a time when many of us wish to see a more united community focused on healing divisions, not aggravating them.
When talking about the political dynamic of Northern Ireland in this House, it is very rare that we do not hear words such as “consensus” or phrases such as “cross-community support”, which are deemed the cornerstone of the political process and progress made to date. Yet the legislation removes that cornerstone, and the self-proclaimed guardians of the Belfast Agreement are those behind its removal.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to speak later.
Part 2 of the Bill is the very antithesis of cross-community consent. Specifically, clauses 6 and 7 provide carte blanche for the Secretary of State to do as he or she wishes in these deeply controversial policy areas—something that was not agreed in the NDNA. Clause 6 states:
“The Secretary of State may do anything that a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department could do in the exercise of an identity and language function”—
anything; anything at all, regardless of the democratic mandate given to the Minister in that Department, regardless of the manifesto on which that Minister may have stood before the electorate and received his or her mandate. It is the power of direction taking precedence over the power of local voters: neither community consulted; rather, being instructed.
With increasing tendency, cross-community safeguards, at the heart of the Belfast and St Andrews agreement, are simply set aside when it suits the Government to do so. The word “disregarded” in the Bill stands out like a sore thumb. While Government figures and Members of this House may be ordering a birthday cake to mark the 25th year of the Belfast agreement next year, it is worth stating that the same people cannot have their cake and eat it—surely they cannot celebrate something while at the same time destroying it.
There is a deep-lying and justified suspicion within the Unionist community that such powers have only been taken, and will only be used, to appease the demands of the most vociferous and most divisive elements within the language and identity lobby. That being the case, it is not possible for us to support the legislation, in which there are no safeguards to address the concerns of Unionists and, indeed, those of a non-Unionist persuasion who do not subscribe to the radical agenda of the language and identity lobby. We rightly question whether the vast amount of public money set aside to satisfy those demands is the best use of finite public resources.
The data from the 2021 census of Northern Ireland shows that 228,617 people have some ability in Irish, with almost the same number—190,613—having some ability in Ulster Scots. On the basis of those numbers alone, it is hard to rationalise the disparity in this legislation between the status and powers of the Irish language commissioner, and that of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. It is a matter of deep regret that amendments tabled in the other place that could have provided recourse for at least some of these legislative inequalities were not accepted. That further cements belief among Unionists that the Government are more concerned with the concerns of one community over the other. That is a dangerous mindset in the context of Northern Ireland.
If the Government are serious about providing some degree of balance in the Bill, they must look at a number of areas with reference to the powers of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. The DUP believes that the functions of the commissioner should be extended to reference explicitly heritage and culture. Currently, the Bill provides only for language, arts and literature. If the ambition is to make this legislation as comprehensive as possible, such a change would be desirable to better reflect the extent and importance of the distinct traditions.
There are a series of shortcomings in the Bill relating to how the commissioners can respond to alleged breaches by public authorities of the requirements relating to Irish language and Ulster Scots. Should a public body face an alleged breach and is found to be culpable, the Irish commissioner can make recommendations on how a public body can
“remedy its failure and avoid future failures”.
In terms of the Ulster/British commissioner however, the remit is much more limited to giving advice only on how a body
“might have better regard to published facilitation guidance.”
That is insulting, to say the least.
Furthermore, the admissibility grounds for making merely a valid complaint are much weightier in relation to Irish. Even when it comes to devising an action plan on how a public authority will fulfil its obligations, there appears to be a requirement for Irish, but no similar requirement for Ulster/British. I ask the Secretary of State, in his summing up, to address that point specifically and to explain how such an imbalance is in the public interest and how it represents a balanced approach to both identities.
Let us not ignore the costs that will be associated with this Bill. If—and it is a big if—the Executive are restored, they will have an in-tray of issues that will come at unprecedented cost to the public purse: delivering on the Bengoa reforms to our health service; investment in schools; addressing historic underfunding of special educational needs; road and rail investment; and tackling the problems associated with a crumbling water network. Yet this legislation will take money away from those priorities, which have an impact on us all, regardless of identity, and add further strain to the budgets of public authorities. What is more important: a bed for a cancer patient or an Irish or Ulster Scots translation of a public document that can be read in English by all?
I urge the Government to think long and hard about the core message that this Bill sends to those in Northern Ireland—not just around the lack of balance, as I have outlined—and fundamentally to consider the wisdom of cultural supremacy being enshrined in law.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I had not intended to speak until perhaps the very end, so I am grateful to be called so early. I am delighted to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She very clearly and very fairly outlined some of the serious concerns that we have raised and will continue to raise, and which show the dangerous departure that the Government have adopted from what was agreed in NDNA.
There was an old television advert for Harp lager starring Colin Murphy, a comedian in Belfast. The question he posed in it was, “Is your glass half empty? Is your glass half full? Or more importantly, what’s in the glass?” It is through that prism that I shall approach my contribution this afternoon.
It is incredibly easy to be caught by arguments of the past around the Irish language and continue to stand in its way; and our most recent history will show what impact that had on good government in Northern Ireland, on progress in Northern Ireland and on showing respect for one another. I do not want to repeat that process; I am incredibly comfortable with what was agreed in NDNA.
The lengths and efforts that went into that negotiation were not only important in the wider context of social cohesion in Northern Ireland; they were important for our political progress at that time. Should somebody have an interest in the Irish language, which I do not, should somebody want to engage in a language that is of no interest to me, that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to take it further and build on the support that is there under the Belfast agreement for the Irish language and for Ulster Scots tradition—the Government support that is there, encouraging people to explore and build upon a flourishing language—that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to engage with Government Departments, if they want to write to a Government body and get a response, that is not something that will ordinarily trouble me; that is not something that I will be overly exercised by, and that is not something that I think we should be overly concerned about.
I think of the political aspirations that were outlined for year upon year, and government denied in Northern Ireland for these quests—they were not achieved in NDNA. In fact, Conradh na Gaeilge, one of the organisations that championed the cause of what it described as a “stand-alone Irish language Act” summarily failed, and Sinn Féin summarily failed in its negotiations at the time of NDNA. It wanted a stand-alone Irish language Act, but did not get it. It is not in New Decade, New Approach, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted a commissioner with unfettered powers; it did not get it. It was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted an imposition on what would otherwise be equality legislation in Northern Ireland to provide for quotas in employment; it did not get it. It was not achieved: it is not there in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted the Irish language imposed on me, on my neighbours and constituents, and residents throughout Northern Ireland through road signs and everything else, but it did not get it. It was not negotiated in NDNA, it was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. From that perspective, I can take some comfort from what was agreed.
That is before we add in the counterbalances and the support for Ulster Scots and, for the first time, Ulster British. Why is it, if we look through the prism of a glass half full, that Unionists do not stand back and say, “For the first time, rather than being faced with having our culture and identity stripped out of buildings, civically or otherwise, throughout Northern Ireland, this is a legislative vehicle to enhance the Unionist and Ulster British tradition in Northern Ireland?” That is something that I support and welcome; it was secured through the NDNA negotiations, and through the provision of the commissioner for identity and the Ulster British commissioner. Those are good things. The provision of, and the agreement to provide for, the Castlereagh Foundation—providing Government-supported academic rigour to the case for the Union for the first time—is a great thing. It is something in the Bill that I welcome, and something that it was important for us to get agreement on at the time of NDNA.
But then, we get to the last part of the prism that I started with: what is in the glass? During the three years when there was no Government in Northern Ireland, I was incredibly frustrated by this faux argument about whether there was a stand-alone Irish language Act or not. It was totally irrelevant. The question is not, “Is it one chapter of a bigger book, or is it a book itself?” but “What does it say? What does it do?” However, that debate rarely featured in Northern Ireland society during those three years. Yes, the Scots have Scots legislation and the Welsh have Welsh legislation, so why can the Irish not have Irish legislation? That is a fair enough question, but the Scots legislation is not the same as the Welsh legislation, and neither is the same as the provisions in this Bill. They are different.
So, what is in the glass? What does it do? The fundamental error that Members will hear about from me and all of my colleagues this afternoon is that the Government have taken what was agreed through negotiation between parties in Northern Ireland, corralled, encouraged and spearheaded by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and decided to deliver in a one-handed fashion through this Bill aspirations that were not agreed at the time of NDNA. That is a fundamental disaster.
Within the Office of Identity, as the former Secretary of State will recall, it was important that no commissioner could proceed with their agenda for the year, their budget-setting process, or what they intended to do in their annual reports without the consent of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—the Executive Office. For the Secretary of State to assume the power to do whatever he wants anyway, not just in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive but even in the presence of one, is an incredibly foolish approach to Northern Ireland politics. When we have an agreement that has been painstakingly thrashed out for years, whether it was officials in the Northern Ireland Office or former Ministers who thought it was a good idea to assume that power themselves through this Bill, it was a fool’s errand. That point will be discussed in Committee.
Stephen Farry
Given the argument that the hon. Member is making, would he explain why it was that over a two-year period when the Assembly and Executive were functioning, no effort was made to bring forward legislation within the Northern Ireland Assembly at a time when all those issues could have been addressed in the correct forum, rather than them defaulting to Westminster?
Gavin Robinson
Coronavirus. I am not sure whether the hon. Member was aware, but there was a pandemic in our country and around the world, and normal government was set aside in the interests of public health and public safety.
The Bill even envisages a situation—I think it is one of the subsections of clause 6—where an issue has been raised with an Executive Minister and brought to the Executive, but agreement has not been found. Sorry? Leaving aside our own personal political aspirations for this or any other Bill, where the Executive collectively decide not to do something but the Secretary of State, at the request of a one-sided aspiration, can decide to supersede them, what is the point in devolution? The presentation of the Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill makes it incredibly difficult for somebody who can stand here and openly and honestly say that he thinks the agreement two years ago was worthwhile, and should have been reached. It is causing support to crumble, because what was agreed is being set aside for things that could not, and would not, have been negotiated or agreed at the time.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend also accept that the Secretary of State then brings himself into the quagmire of disagreement in the Executive, and will increasingly find himself—as has happened on a number of occasions when legislation has come to Westminster—put under pressure by one particular political party, with all the threats of “If you do not act in the way that you are enabled to act and we want you to act, there will be consequences”?
Gavin Robinson
It is the antithesis of democracy; it has applied to a couple of other issues over the last number of years, and here we see it again. The Secretary of State and his colleague the junior Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), will today—as they did yesterday and will do tomorrow—implore that devolution be restored in Northern Ireland. That is a laudable idea, and I would like to see it, but the Minister cannot stand up today with a straight face and say, “I would love to see devolution restored so that we can get on with these issues, even though I am proposing through this Bill provisions that would mean that when you do not do what we like, we will do it for you anyway.” That is not the way in which we should proceed.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I will deal with that point more fully later on, but I put on record on behalf of the Government that we have absolutely no intention whatsoever of behaving in that way, as is the long-standing position of the Government. We have no intention whatsoever of leaping in to use powers; they are all for the last resort, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows.
Gavin Robinson
If there was—and I cannot doubt the veracity of what the Minister says about the intention the Government may have—there is absolutely no need for the power in circumstances where the Executive is functioning. There is no need for the power in circumstances where the Ministers who are responsible for these issues are in office. If what he says is genuine, that should be an amendment that I trust he will engage with fully.
Sammy Wilson
Would my hon. Friend accept that, while it may not be the intention—and we accept the word of the Minister in his intervention—the reality is that once the power is in this Bill, there will be pressure, when somebody does not get their way, to go to the Secretary of State and demand that he or she exercises those powers, and if they do not then there could well be consequences? That is the whole point: put the power in the Bill and someone will expect it to be used.
Gavin Robinson
Now, and if not now, probably more purposefully in the future when circumstances change, personnel change and Government change. It is a road down which this Government should not have trod.
I started by indicating what I believe was right in the NDNA. I am culminating, having canvassed on the issues where I think the Government have erred in the presentation of the Bill, and it cannot have our support if it remains in this state. The Government have got themselves in a position where, having engaged with parties across the spectrum and with various aspirations, that is now crumbling, and I think that is hugely regrettable. I do not want that to be the end to this process, so I do hope that after Second Reading there will be a willingness to engage in a way that there has not been over the past four, five or six months, when officials and Ministers have ignored, baulked at or just fundamentally disagreed on what they think the Bill means and what we believe it means. We cannot proceed on that basis.
In asking whether the glass is half full or half empty, and highlighting the question of what is in the glass, I want to be in a position where we can raise a glass to the provisions in this Bill. It is the same position I was in when I stood in this Chamber, worked on and brought through—having brought in a private Member’s Bill myself—the provision about the statutory duty for the armed forces covenant. I brought that forward myself, we got it into the NDNA and it was delivered by this Government. Similarly, other provisions were secured in the NDNA, and we want to see them delivered. So I hope that we will be in a position where we can raise a glass, with a fully functioning Executive, to the progress that has been made. However, given the way the Government have brought forward this Bill and are advancing the aims of it, I am sorry to say that I do not see that happening any time soon.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I want, like others, formally to convey our condolences to and our solidarity with the people of Creeslough after the unimaginable tragedy that struck them on Friday. I know that the very sincere words from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the King have been warmly received and felt by every community across the island. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anamacha.
I would like to speak about this important—overdue, but welcome—legislation. It has been a long road to get here at length, but credit is due to the lovers of the language throughout the decades for their persistence and to those who did campaign for this legislation. Is fearr go mall ná go deo—it is better late than never.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—I am sure he would like to clarify that other beers are available—who made a thoughtful contribution. If that is his party’s position, it will be easier to engage with, because there are good provisions in the Bill and, crucially, these are provisions that the DUP agreed to in New Decade, New Approach.
The Bill provides for an Office of Identity and Cultural Expression for both Irish and Ulster Scots, with the aim of promoting pluralism and respect for diversity and shared cultural and linguistic heritage. It guarantees no diminution of the status of the English language, and yes, it does repeal the Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737. It provides for commissioner oversight to promote and ensure best practice in the use of language by public bodies.
Just for clarity, Members will be aware of the Social Democratic and Labour party’s approach to public bodies and public buildings. We believe in levelling up—to borrow a phrase of the time—on identity. We do not believe in expunging the shared history of this place, but it is just a fact that in many public buildings there will be no markers of identity for people of an Irish tradition, women, the LGBT community or trade unions. Buildings have been very much of a single identity for many generations, and it is appropriate that they will change. However, we stand by our shared history and seek to protect it, and this Bill will not undermine that.
We hope that this Bill will normalise and mainstream, and that it will remove a lot of the poisonous party politics that has thwarted the language. Language has of course been political on the island of Ireland for many hundreds of years. Unfortunately, party politicisation has not improved—in fact, it has deepened in recent years—and the SDLP is hopeful that this Bill will take the business of promoting and protecting language and culture out of such everyday thwarting and weaponisation. However, we do have very serious concerns about re-embedding it in the Executive Office, which over the last decade and more has become a place of veto and deadlock, where good ideas in Northern Ireland have been going to die. We will be seeking, by amendment, to address that to prevent delay and language provision being held hostage in future years.
Those provisions have to be put into legislation because of the commitment to protect language, on which there has been dither, delay and denial for decades of devolution. It is also correct that this should absolutely be done on the Floor of the Assembly. We would all wish that to be the case, but it is also important to note that the Northern Ireland Assembly, to the best of my knowledge, has never delivered a piece of equality legislation.
Those who think that they are holding some imaginary line by undermining equality provisions should be aware that they are doing the opposite of what they think they are doing. They are making many people believe that the rights, lives and opportunities that they want are not available to them under devolution in the United Kingdom. Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh—a good word never broke a tooth—so I think it is appropriate that people find it within themselves to be positive about these provisions.
Claire Hanna
I would be delighted to do so—I would use my Ulster Scots and say, “Houl yer whisht, Jeffrey,” but I will let you speak.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Well, I will try not to be thran about it.
I welcome the approach that the hon. Lady is taking. In her, I see someone who lives the Irish language, who values it and sees it as an important part of her culture and identity, and I have no difficulty with that. She spoke about the importance of words. Does she agree with me—and I quote the words of Danny Morrison, the former publicity director for Sinn Féin—that every word spoken in Irish is
“another bullet…fired in the struggle for Irish freedom”?
It is that kind of use of the language as a political weapon that causes concern. I am not for a moment suggesting that the hon. Lady is guilty of that in any way, but does she agree that we need to move beyond that and get away from politicisation? Language is a means of communication. It should not be used as a political weapon.
Claire Hanna
I will come on to address exactly that politicisation, but it is also about the collective punishment that is applied to children learning Irish in the nursery school. Of course the right hon. Member knows that I would not support language like that, but neither do I damn all protection of Ulster Scots and Ulster British identity because of some words of Ulster Scots or Irish that may appear on a loyalist mural or drum. That is why we need those protections, so that people cannot deny everyday provisions because of the perceptions that they have. I should be delighted to come on to that, and I want to discuss how we build up the confidence of everyone in these cultural provisions by implementing things that were agreed many years ago and which could take some of the heat, poison and damage out of everyday politics.
A fair and wise point was made earlier about the need for things such as a sign language Act as well. It is a fact that the stop-start stand-off culture in which the Assembly has been bogged down over recent decades has damaged the wider rights and entitlements of everyone in Northern Ireland to decent public services and economic opportunities. Those who have withdrawn governance, in this stand-off or the previous one, which was ostensibly over the Irish language, are doing far more to undermine rights and entitlements than a Bill such as this will ever do.
The measure is far from perfect, and it has been a long time coming. I would like to mention two of my Gaelgóirí colleagues, Patsy McGlone and Dominic Bradley, who tried to bring forward private Members’ legislation in 2008 and 2016, before it was introduced. At least we are on the path now, even if it falls short of what was promised at St Andrews—an Irish language Act based on the experience of Wales and the Republic of Ireland. This legislation is not that, and it is fair to say that it is very far from radical. Language in the Republic of Ireland and Wales thrives in part because it is underpinned and financed by a strategy to focus on promotion, because those nations have been able to proceed without the toxification that language and identity have experienced in our region. I really, really regret that language has become zero sum—if they win this, we lose this—like a lot of other things in our region. That is not unique to Northern Ireland or the Irish language, but we all have to work to counter it.
Julian Smith
It was key during the negotiation that neither of the commissioners had the right to promote, and the hon. Member’s party and others—including the DUP—were correct in ensuring that promotion was nowhere near the focus of the Bill.
Claire Hanna
The right hon. Member is right to clarify that, but we do need a promotion strategy. As someone with an interest in the language and who is inspired when I hear names and place names, if I want to read a council’s accounts, I go and do it as Béarla—I will read it in the English. The promotion is what will allow the language to be transmitted and to thrive, and the Bill is not as expansive as many people would wish it to be.
I want to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I really regret the suspicion of Irish by many Unionists, but I do not pretend not to understand the roots of it. Some of that is just about the experience that we have all had in our lives. Few state schools, which the majority of Protestant, Unionist and loyalist children would attend, promote Irish, and trips to the Republic, where Irish-language signs are normal, were not as commonplace. They probably did not spend their summers learning Irish in Rann na Feirste or Machaire Rabhartaigh, as I and friends of mine did. I therefore appreciate that some of it is about cultural experience; that in many cases people perceive Irish language as something to be used for a buttressing phrase in a political contribution; and that some perceive it as a manifestation of aggressive Irish nationalism, but that is not what it is to so many speakers.
Yes, no doubt there has been weaponisation in the past, but some of that is about the failure of political parties over decades to internalise and sell the concept of parity of esteem where it applies to culture, and to tar and tarnish an entire community of people because of the phraseology of others. The reality of the long war and the long peace that we have had is that “their” and “our” cultural archetypes are reinforced all the time with all the decades of suspicion and baggage that many people have. But we have an opportunity, through legislation such as this and more, to fly by those nets, particularly to a generation for whom “us” and “them” does not mean as much as “all of us.”
As the right hon. Member said, we can make language about the richness of communication and heritage and not about an identity marker. That is why so many take such inspiration from the work of Linda Ervine and Turas—Irish for “Journey”—the project that she set up with the east Belfast mission of the Methodist Church. Linda has not changed who she is—she has not changed her identity or her aspirations—but she is connecting many hundreds of people from a Protestant background with their own history and the Irish language. She received an MBE from Her Majesty the Queen for her efforts in that work, where she has taken such a mature approach to these issues. Her views on Irish, like Ulster Scots, are rooted in a real understanding of the entwined nature of nationalist and Unionist history. She said:
“I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have a rich cultural identity, a mixture of native Irish and of the many peoples who made Ireland their home. This rich ancestry influenced our surnames, our place names and our everyday language. Our vernacular of hiberno English reflects this mixed identity. We are native…speakers whose English is littered with beautiful Scots and Gaelic words. The syntax of our speech reflects that of Gaelic. As a people, we are culturally rich, yet instead of embracing that wonderful cultural mix, we separate it into narrow divisive boxes and deny ourselves.”
Many of us should take on board her approach to language and many other things.
I also acknowledge the work of people such as the much-missed Aodán Mac Poilín, who was the director of the Ultach Trust, a cross-community language promotion agency, and an inspiration to me as a late learner of Irish, which I picked up in adulthood. His posthumously published collection of essays, “Our Tangled Speech”, is one of the most nuanced and perceptive books that I have ever read on Northern Irish politics and culture. He argued that to get the sustainable transmission of language, it needs to be embedded in public bodies and have the support of Government and other interest groups. He was also clear about the need to shift our attitudes and learn from our past. He had theories about how nationalists and Unionists have believed each other’s propaganda over the years and found themselves reacting to both the position that they think is being ascribed to them and their opponent’s ideological position, which he believed was why our debate has often got so extreme. He always perceived the Irish language to have been a victim of that. I think the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) would probably concur with a lot of that analysis
I also want to mention the work of the recently deceased Dr Roger Blaney, whose work “Presbyterians and the Irish Language” was a revelation to many people about the work done by so many of that denomination in Belfast to preserve and protect the language because it was at its most vulnerable. It is a matter of fact and the politics that the rights component of language has been a product of the withholding of support. Many Gaeilgeoirs I know over the years were not as bought into the concept of an Irish language Act as they were into that of promotion and the living language. It is a fact that what are seen as small-minded approaches to language and the cancellation of programmes has made people believe that it needs promotion. Organically, the community of Irish speakers is growing in number and in breadth and that is a win for all of us.
We believe that this Bill will help to grow that wider embracing of language. Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine—it is in each other’s shadows that we grow. We are better when we all work together, and I hope that that is something that Members will keep in mind when we vote on the Bill.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I want to join others in passing on my condolences and sympathies to the families of those who sadly lost their lives in Creeslough and to the wider community. The tragedy they are currently dealing with is unthinkable.
On this occasion, I think it is appropriate to say a few words in Irish followed by the English translation. Tacaím leis an reachtaíocht seo. Tá sé an-tábhachtach Tá oidhreacht roinnte ag an nGaeilge agus Ultais i dTuaisceart Éireann. Déanfaidh muid ceiliúradh ar an oidhreacht sin. That is, I support this Bill. The Irish language and Ulster Scots are part of the shared heritage of Northern Ireland. We celebrate that heritage. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) has just said, that heritage can be seen in the place names and surnames that are evident right across the community in Northern Ireland. That very much cuts across the traditional divide.
The Bill delivers on a key commitment of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. That agreement broke the deadlock that had seen the institutions of the Good Friday agreement cease operation for almost three years. As is the case with the current impasse, my party did not believe that there was any justification for that impasse. However, it is a matter of record that frustrations around the non-delivery of legislation and other measures related to the Irish language and other language issues was a key factor in that stand-off. The achievement of a package of measures on language and culture was a key element in the breakthrough. Commitments to legislate for the Irish language and Ulster Scots go back much further, to the St. Andrew’s agreement of 2006, and reflect the more general commitments made in the Good Friday agreement of 1998.
Indeed, we want to see all aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement being delivered and a key element of that deal was the rightful expectation that the culture and language package would be a priority for the restored Executive and Assembly. It is a major disappointment and concern that that did not happen. Whenever I asked the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) to explain why, he rather flippantly discussed the issue of covid. Of course, I am aware that covid was a major issue for the world, but government did not grind to a halt in other places. A lot of other legislation happened in this place and, indeed, other legislation happened in the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Bills taken forward by his own ministerial colleagues. Frankly, there is and was no excuse for this measure not being done in the Assembly in a timely manner and that would have provided an opportunity for a much more rounded discussion. That said, we will listen to and take on board the DUP’s comments and reflect on them in Committee. We want to get this as right as we can in this place.
It is a matter of regret that it falls to the Government to take the Bill through Parliament. Generally, it would be far better if matters of equality and human rights were addressed in the devolved space. That would be a characteristic of a mature and responsible democracy. As has been said, that delivery has generally not been the case over the past 20 years. We have to ask why there is a constant blockage. Tension is already emerging over the powers that the Secretary of State may take in relation to the Bill. That reflects a lack of confidence in that, even if the Bill were passed without the powers, the implementation would be stymied back in the devolved space. That is a source of frustration and the pretext for why we are where we are.
Accusations are made generally about interference in the devolved space. I want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly addressing the full spectrum of issues under its remit, including equality and human rights. However, I think this legislation can be justified as a matter of political necessity to ensure that we have a more solid foundation for what will hopefully soon be restored political institutions. Moreover, this is also a matter of the Government ensuring compliance, in respect of Northern Ireland, with the UK’s international human rights commitments, particularly on language.
I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about the weaponisation of the Irish language. We appreciate that some people have made uncalled-for comments, but I think that does a huge injustice to the vast majority of people who have been campaigning for Irish language rights over many years. In Belfast recently, we saw close to 20,000 people on the streets calling for those protections. People from all backgrounds and all walks of life want to see language protections in Northern Ireland extending both to Irish and Ulster Scots.
Gavin Robinson
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) might like to intervene. She was not demeaning or dismissing anybody who has campaigned for Irish. In fact, many of the campaigners who have campaigned for Irish language provision will equally acknowledge that their aspirations have been dampened and harmed by the irresponsible and politically naive approach of those who have indeed weaponised the Irish language.
Stephen Farry
The comments that were made are on the record and people can see them. However, we are in danger of getting ourselves into difficulty if we over-focus on the particular points that have been made by some republican activists about the Irish language. That is not where the vast majority of people are. I note that the hon. Lady did not give way during her comments, but nevertheless, I am happy to.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Gentleman did not ask me to give way and I have taken many interventions from him in the past. No one can deny in this House that the issue has been weaponised. That has been done by a small number of individuals, but it has been weaponised, and I think we can all accept that fact. He talks about equality. Will he go further and support the amendments that we will introduce on the fact that the Ulster Scots commissioner will not have the same powers as the Irish language commissioner? Our amendments will aim to bring that in line.
Stephen Farry
I will say two things. If we can all agree a self-denying ordinance, let us move past the comments about weaponising language and relegate those to the small minority of people who have said that. Let us focus on those who are generally asking for protections in Northern Ireland for the right reasons.
On the hon. Lady’s second point, yes, I am happy to look at the DUP amendments. I am not prepared to give a commitment until we see them, but we will approach this issue with a genuine open mind in that regard. It is worth stressing that there is a different context relating to how Irish and Ulster Scots are recognised by the UK in terms of reference to the various international treaty bodies. It is not entirely a like-for-like comparison. None the less, we are happy to look at the points that she made about the powers.
That point leads me on to another point that is important to stress. There are those who would wish the Bill to go much further in its level of protection; the hon. Member for Belfast East referred to some issues that have been mentioned previously but have not been taken forward. Equally, there are some who may wish to dilute it. I think it is important that we reflect and respect the spirit and indeed the letter of what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach as far as practically possible, because we are conscious that that is the political agreement. Anything else, in terms of major amendments, would primarily be something for the Northern Ireland Assembly to take forward.
There are a number of issues that I think need to be teased out in Committee, in addition to some of the issues that have been mentioned. I note that Ulster Scots has been designated as an ethnicity by the Government. I think there needs to be some scrutiny of that, because there is some debate as to whether demand or the wider rationale warrants it. I am not sure that there is complete consensus among Ulster Scots activists on that line.
There is also concern about moving from having a single director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression towards having more of a multi-member commission approach. Sadly, that brings up fears about a bit of a carve-up happening in relation to that office, given the history of other public appointments in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), that we need more transparency around what is happening with the Castlereagh Foundation. He also made a point about the use of the word “sensitivities” as a potential qualifier in relation to the exercise of language rights. I would perhaps suggest that we need to look instead at a more rights-based balance in taking that forward.
There are potential amendments to be considered in relation to the extension of what is meant by “public authorities”, moving from what at the moment refers entirely to those that fall within the devolved space. Reference was made to what happens with some applications within Northern Ireland, but with non-devolved functions, for example, Swansea offers bilingual driving licences in English and Welsh. There is a desire among some people in Northern Ireland to see them offered in Irish or Ulster Scots as well, so perhaps that could be addressed in an amendment.
I think that there needs to be some degree of sensitivity around the safeguards issue and that we should look at the issues around timescales for interventions. I do not relish the concept of Ministers intervening—I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm that the intention is not to be intervening all the time—but the contrary fear is that, if there is an impasse, it could become prolonged. It would be useful to have some timeline for when interventions should happen.
Finally, I want to respond to some comments about the background to where we are and the debate about culture and language in Northern Ireland. There has been a lot of misinformation, shall we say, and there are a lot of tropes out there about what this would mean for the fundamental reorganisation of society, from road signs through to employment quotas. None of those things has happened, because this was a negotiated package through the New Decade, New Approach system. That is where the value of negotiations came to the fore: in ensuring that there was a balanced package in that regard.
This is about public bodies responding to the needs of their client base in a proportionate way. It is not about a radical transformation of Northern Ireland society. To go back to what I said at the start, we have to accept that both Irish and Ulster Scots are part of the mixed overlapping fabric of what is our shared society in Northern Ireland, so whenever we talk about protecting what we have in Northern Ireland, protecting the language heritage and ensuring that we continue to promote those languages have to be very much a part of our shared and integrated future.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
First, may I acknowledge the trepidation that I feel in standing up to talk about this matter? I hope that I can make a positive contribution about some of the lessons that we have learned in Wales over many, many years from addressing these issues.
I approach this matter today with a proper sense of humility. I have never been involved in Northern Ireland politics.
Hywel Williams
There is enough at home, actually! I do not really want to address the political aspects in any way, really; as I said, I want to share some of the fruits of our experience.
Obviously, no two situations are the same, and the situation with Welsh is very different from the situation with Irish, Ulster Scots or any other language used in these isles. What I think we can give, however, is a certain sense of reassurance that the language issue can be depoliticised to a degree, which, in fact, is liberating for all the parties involved. I am very much a glass-half-full person. At the last election in Wales, even the United Kingdom Independence party managed to include some Welsh in its pamphlets, which says something about the degree of depoliticisation of the language there. We have developed a provision for all traditions, including the tradition of speaking Welsh.
By now, we have also avoided some of the pitfalls. I will say a little about language law, because I think there are pitfalls there which should be avoided—particularly in relation to the Welsh Language Act 1967—but let me first acknowledge some of the contributions made by Members sitting behind me, and the gut-wrenching emotional elements of language change. Writing in the 1960s, the Welsh philosopher J.R. Jones said something very interesting. He said that some people had experienced leaving their countries, turning their backs on their countries and perhaps not coming back, but he knew of an experience that was even more gut-wrenching: the feeling that you are not even leaving your country, but your country is leaving you—that change is somehow a threat. He was referring at the time to the decline in the number of Welsh speakers to about one in five. We are in a somewhat different situation now as we look forward to the census: it seems likely that the proportion will be one in three. Given our target of 1 million Welsh speakers, there is a long way to go and a great deal of work to do to take people with us.
One of the differences relating to Welsh is that it has always been a language for official business. Traditional Welsh law was codified as long ago as 950 by my namesake Hywel Dda—or Hywel the Good: that is something that has been thrown in my face for many years! However, in 1284 the Statute of Rhuddlan took away the Welsh criminal code and replaced it with the Norman criminal code. The civil code was replaced in 1535 and 1542 by the “Acts of Union”— the Laws in Wales Acts—including the penal clauses, one of which states that
“no Person or Persons that use the Welsh Speech or Language, shall… enjoy any manner Office or Fees”
in the King’s realm. That is the sort of exclusion to which the Welsh language was subject at the time. There was also a reference to “sinister Usages and Customs”. That illustrates some of the emotional elements surrounding a language that was seen as strange, dangerous and difficult. As a younger person, I used to glory in the fact that I had a “sinister usage and custom” in that I spoke Welsh, but those laws were finally repealed in 1993. That is the extent of their history.
The Welsh Language Act 1967, to which I said I would refer, introduced the concept of equal validity. One of the pitfalls that I mentioned is the provision that, in the case of divergence,
“the English text shall prevail”.
That sounds quite reasonable until we think about how it might be applied. If the Welsh law says “Mae dau a dau yn bedwar” and the English law says “Two and two are five”, it will be five, not four. That is the situation that pertained until the 1993 Act, which established the Welsh Language Board.
We have now reached a position in which all matters involving the Welsh language have been devolved. I do not think I should really be standing here talking about Northern Irish affairs—I think that this should have been decided in Northern Ireland—and I certainly do not wish to extend my contribution beyond this Second Reading debate.
In 2009, I was part of a Committee here that looked at devolving the Welsh language entirely by a legislative competence order. That Committee was made up of Members from Wales and we learned a great deal about co-operation across parties and the depoliticisation of the issue. The Committee was chaired by Professor Hywel Francis from the Labour party. I was a member, and I worked closely with him, with Mark Williams from the Liberal Democrat party and also with the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who, although I disagree with him entirely on most things, is also my right hon. Friend. We were able to meet across the table and decide, after a great deal of careful consideration, that the language issue should be devolved entirely to the Assembly in Wales, as it then was. It is now the Senedd. That led to the current state of play in terms of language in Wales. The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 gave official status to the Welsh language and set up the commission, along with various other things that hon. Members will be familiar with. That is the process that I would want to see in respect of matters in Northern Ireland. It should be decided in Belfast.
I want to say a bit about the practical outcome of having language—knowledge emancipates all languages and traditions—and to look at how things are in Wales now. I know that the use of language in courts of law is not part of this Bill, but in Wales—in the Crown court in Caernarfon, for example, which I am familiar with, and elsewhere—Welsh can be used in court without any special preparation. It is just a normal part of life; it has been normalised, which is a word I think the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) used. It is becoming unremarkable. In that respect, it allows people to address other issues that are of equal importance. We also have all-Welsh hearings with simultaneous translation, which has become normalised. It has a cost, certainly, but it enables people to use the language of their choice. I am in favour, as Conservative Members are, of people being afforded the greatest choice possible. That includes cases of the most serious kind. Murder cases are heard in Welsh in Caernarfon and elsewhere.
Turning to one entirely practical consequence, my interest is in social policy, social work and work with children, and the courts can now acknowledge that the language of the home might not be English and that children can be heard in the language that they speak at home. Again, that is not in the Bill, but I think enabling children to give their evidence in the most acute cases in the language of their choice is just a matter of good law and good practice.
In Wales, there has been a long process, not an event. There is always a temptation to see any piece of law or social development as the last barricade that must be defended at all costs. As I have outlined briefly in my speech, the process is best looked at by the people directly involved; but it is a process none the less. I hope that my speech will go some way towards reassuring the sceptical and giving hope to the optimistic.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am proud to be an Ulster Scots speaker. The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is no longer present, but he referred to instances of children in Scotland speaking Scots Gaelic—this probably happened in Northern Ireland with Ulster Scots as well—and how it would be beaten out of them. I went to Ballywalter Primary School—that was not yesterday, by the way; it was a long time ago, back in the ’60s—and certain things stick in the memory when we look back over the history and the years. This is one of those things. Mr Whisker was the principal of the school, and he asked us some questions and we had to fill in the answers. I went home and spoke to my granny Hamilton, who came from Clady, outside Strabane in County Tyrone. I asked her, as you do when you are six or seven years old, “Granny, what are the answers to these things?” She filled them in, in Ulster Scots, because that is how we spoke at that time, and I took them into school the next day. Mr Whisker is now dead and gone, and I never speak ill of anyone, but he marked it and said, “This isn’t English.” I said, “This is Ulster Scots, Mr Whisker”, and he said, “That is not how we do it in this school.” It is the way things were in those days, and this is not a criticism, but I got a clip around the ear, which I took home to my granny or my mum and reappraised the situation. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, the Ulster Scots that I had as a child in Ballywalter in the 1960s was beaten out of me in every way.
I gave my oath in Ulster Scots a few weeks ago, and there is nothing quite like expressing yourself in that beautiful language. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) also gave his oath in Ulster Scots. I have given mine in Ulster Scots on four occasions—2015, 2017, 2019 and four weeks ago. I am very pleased to do that, because it is who I am. I am an Ulster Scot, and I am proud to be an Ulster Scot. That is not a political statement; it is who I am. That is how I see language, and it is contained in every proposal I make on Ulster Scots.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) is not present, but he said he was scunnered—that is the word he used. Well, scunnered means fed up. I hope he is not fed up, but the word in Ulster Scots is glaidsome or blithe. I am glaidsome or blithe, but I am certainly not scunnered when it comes to speaking Ulster Scots. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) is also not scunnered in speaking the Irish language, as she did very well. She made an excellent speech, as did others.
I researched the census online, and the number of Ulster Scots speakers has gone up by 50,000 in 10 years—from 140,000 to 190,000. That is 10.4% of the population. I am not saying anything else, but it is a fact that the number of Irish language speakers was up by 1.7%, whereas we were up by a significant number.
I am an advocate for Ulster Scots, and I encourage schools such as Portavogie Primary School and Derryboy Primary School outside Saintfield to teach it. I love to delve into the poetry and history of the language, and the hon. Member for Gordon referred to the arts. It is the poetry, the stories and the flow of the language that I love.
I am for Ulster Scots, but I am not for this Bill unless changes are made. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) knows that I have the highest respect for him. We came into this place together, and we hung about together on our first day. We got our photograph taken on the steps in Westminster Hall, and we had a good chance to talk and engage. I understand that he does what his heart tells him to do. That is the sort of person he is. I hope he will take on board our constructive points as we try to move forward.
The Ulster Scots language and culture is alive in my constituency of Ards and Strangford. I sat on Ards Borough Council a long time ago, having first been elected in 1985. I am not saying I am better than anyone else, because I am not, but along with others I was instrumental in bringing Ulster Scots names to many villages, with the agreement of the people. Greyabbey is Greba, Ballywalter is Whitkirk, Ballyhalbert is Talbotstoun, and Portavogie is St Andrews. Those names were added because people wanted it to happen. It is about moving forward in a constructive, positive way that brings people with us. I would love that to be our central focus.
When I was at Ards Borough Council, which is now Ards and North Down Borough Council, we had a sign saying “Fáilte to the Ards”, which means “Welcome to the Ards”. Those names and welcome signs, introduced way back in the 1990s and 2000s, are a simple expression of our language. Philip Robinson—or Robeinson, as we call him in Ulster Scots—lives on Hard Breid Raa in Greba. He speaks Ulster Scots with a fluency and flow, from a love of the language. He has written a number of books, which we are pleased to see. I make this point because it is important to do so. I have talked about what we did in the villages of Ballywalter and others along the Ards peninsula. I say gently to Newry, Mourne and Down District Council that political signs were put up in Irish in streets in Saintfield in my constituency when the people of those streets did not want them. The point I am making is: you have to bring people along with you. You don’t try to put this down their throats in a way that has the adverse and reverse effect. We have to engage with local communities and do this right.
It was always understood that the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition would not have the same functions. That was in order to meet the different priorities and needs of the Unionist and nationalist communities, so that each would be provided with a commissioner that was equally meaningful for the respective purposes. It is self-evident that in order for the functions of the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British commissioner, although different, to be of equal value to those of the Irish language commissioner, the functions must be equally robust and enforceable as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner in order to provide something of equal value to the Unionist community. I want to make it clear that I want to see a language Bill that comes through here that respects other traditions and other languages. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) spoke just before me—I hope I pronounced his constituency correctly—and we have seen the success he has had there; what they have done in Wales is incredible, and it has come about with the co-operation of the people. We need to do this with the co-operation of the people. It is really important that that happens in order to provide something of equal value to the Unionist community.
We are therefore deeply concerned that although the Bill requires a public authority to have regard to the Irish language commissioner no such obligation exists in relation to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, and try to understand where we are coming from, what we are trying to say and why it is important to get this right—I say that to him gently. That is what all my colleagues on our Benches are trying to say, including my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), whom we are to hear from soon. They will all say this over and again.
This arrangement transparently violates the parity of esteem principle by giving the Unionist community something of less value. What sort of Bill brings in something that is of less value for the community that I represent? It is Ulster Scots, but some have different cultures as well and feel that this must be equal. In what other country would this blatant bias be not only accepted, but enforced? This is what happened through the House of Lords and it is where we are with this Bill today. I could mention certain countries, but Members would certainly not like the parallels. I also would not do that because I know that these are not the Government’s intentions. Little wonder we were shocked when in the Lords the Government sought to defend this violation of the principle of parity of esteem on the basis of three things. I will cite them and explain why, with respect, the Government need to get this sorted.
First, in the other place the Government suggested that this approach is required by New Decade, New Approach, but its text does not address the detail of enforcement with respect to either the Irish language commissioner or the Ulster Scots Ulster British commissioner. This does not make it wrong to provide an enforcement mechanism for the Irish language commissioner’s functions through a statutory duty to “have regard”. Indeed, one could argue that the requirement for this is implicit as it would be absurd—DUP Members believe this—to create commissioners and not to require the public authorities they engage with to have regard to them. However, in order to maintain parity of esteem, this provision must plainly also be applied equally to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner’s functions. It is very clear where we are.
Secondly, the Government Front Bencher in another place defended this arrangement by suggesting that, in addition to having different functions, it was appropriate for commissioners to have completely different powers in relation to these functions and that, for example, the bodies addressed by both commissioners should have a duty to have regard to only one of the commissioners, but not the other. I mean, really? Why has that not been understood by the Government? Specifically, as bodies that the commissioners address—to be clear, these are the only bodies that the commissioners address, as the Government confirmed on Report—public authorities are required to have regard to the Irish language commissioner but are not required to have regard to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner.
Secretary of State, that is a key issue, and that is where we are coming from. Such an arrangement is self-evidently indefensible and insulting to the community that I represent—the people of Ards and Strangford, and indeed those across the Ulster Scots-speaking community in all of Northern Ireland—as is the suggestion that the Unionist community could be bought off with just the image of a commissioner, while the nationalist community is afforded the reality of a commissioner. We have the image, but they have the reality. How can that be?
Thirdly, the Government suggested that we agreed to have two commissioners engaging public authorities, which would be required to have regard only to the Irish language commissioner and not the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner, on the basis of the draft legislation produced around the time of the NDNA. That is, however, incorrect. We agreed to the text of the NDNA, but not the draft legislation before us today. They are two different things. I do not know how this could happen. How can we have these talks and agree something, and then something else comes forward? It is completely wrong for the Government to try to deploy a constitutional sleight of hand against us all by trying to spin something that was not in the agreement as if it was. Even if the Bill were as much a part of the agreement as the agreement itself, simply asserting the text of the Bill would only serve to highlight the difficulty, in the sense that the agreement text and the draft text of the Bill at present are different.
In the absence of any statutory obligation on public authorities to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner, and while such an obligation does exist in relation to the Irish language commissioner, although we may have the form of two similarly important commissioners, in reality we have one, and one only. As though that were not enough, while the Government have recognised that the two commissioners’ functions must be different in order to provide something that is supposedly of equal value to each community, the Bill treats Unionists as second-class citizens by giving them the right to complain to their commissioner about failures by public bodies relating to only part of their commissioner’s function, while giving nationalists the opportunity to complain to their commissioner across the full spectrum of his or her functions.
Equal treatment does not start with this kind of Bill. Again, the Minister in another place suggested that we agreed to this bizarre arrangement on the basis that, in addition to agreeing to NDNA, we had also agreed to draft legislation that gives the Ulster Scots commissioner less authority in their functions than that accorded the Irish language commissioner, when we had done no such thing. The Bill before the House today is unequal and certainly does not treat us fairly.
The Unionist community is not stupid. Let us be quite clear: we understand what we see before us, and we have expressed that in this Chamber. I cannot stress enough the critical importance of Government amendments to restore parity of esteem on both these points. If the Bill is not amended to address that—something that we, our party and I, and the Ulster-Scots Agency have called for consistently over the years—it will entrench discrimination, shouting the message loud and clear that, while the nationalist community should be afforded the reality of a commissioner to address their priorities, the Unionist community, to which those of us on the DUP Benches belong, must make do with just the image of a commissioner. We will be tabling amendments to correct these problems and will ask for an urgent meeting with the Minister between now and Committee to discuss the matter.
Mr Steve Baker
I would certainly be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I am confident that he knows that I did write to offer meetings shortly after I took up my post.
Jim Shannon
I am not surprised that the Minister of State has replied so positively. Yes, I look forward to those meetings, and, obviously, my party will be more than happy to engage with them as well. All I say is just do these things before we get to the point that we are at right now. The Unionist people are tired of being treated as second-class citizens by a Government whom they respect and whom I respect as well. Can that respect not flow both ways? Apologies fly to the nationalists, and yet there is no apology for the massive mistake the Government made in the withdrawal agreement. People in my constituency of Strangford come back from work to a cold home, worried about how they will pay their rent or their mortgage as well as for the petrol to get them to work.
I have read the explanatory notes and estimated that the annual cost of the three new authorities will be some £9 million. In order to prevent these offices from being exploited for political purposes by one community—[Interruption.] I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Speaker. Do you know what my constituents in Strangford want, Mr Speaker? They want the NHS sorted out. They want the waiting lists for cancer organised. They want to know when they are getting their cataract operations and when they are getting their dental treatment. They also want to know why, when they want to go to the dentist in Newtownards, they find that there are no dentists that will take on new customers. One of my constituents had to travel to Dundalk to get their teeth done. My constituents want to know why new builds in the education sector are not taking place. They want to know why the new building for Glastry College in my constituency will not be built when the £9 million would near enough build it. They want to know about the Ballynahinch bypass, which could be built for a lot less than that. I make these points because it is important to put down a marker. When it comes to spending money, my constituents want the money to be spent in a positive fashion.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good argument, advocating the fact that his constituents want investment in public services rather than in costly translation services for a second language. He will have heard the Government talking over the past few weeks about a bonfire of the quangos. Have we not heard about that before? Does he not find it curious and quite surprising therefore that this Bill would create yet another quango in the case of the office of identity and cultural expression? Does he think that that is good use of public money at the present time?
Jim Shannon
I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman’s point of view and understand the reasons for it, but we hope to have a language Bill that respects our point of view. That is what we are about, but I thank him for his intervention.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Gentleman has actually got it wrong? It is not one quango, but three quangos. There will be a commissioner for Irish language, a commissioner for Ulster Scots, and the office of identity and cultural expression. This will be a costly exercise.
Jim Shannon
I thank my right hon. Friend and colleague for his intervention. Yes, there is no doubt that there could be a number of bonfires, not just on 11 July, but at other times as well.
In conclusion, how do I look my constituents in the eye and say that all of this money is spent not to make a difference to the quality of their lives, not to make a brighter future for their children, but as a clear, blatant and horrifyingly expensive sop to a political agenda. I want to look them in the eye and know that I have done all that I can to bring the right legislation through this Bill at the right time and for the right reason. The promotion of culture and heritage is not a bad thing, but the politicisation of language and the use of it as a weapon must be prevented. In its current state, this Bill simply enables that politicisation and therefore requires urgent changes. I look forward to the Minister of State giving us that meeting so that we can make the changes that we all want to see for the people of Northern Ireland, and especially for the people that I represent.
Mr Speaker
I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of the new Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A total of 459 votes were cast, one of which was invalid. The counting went to three rounds. There were 441 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached therefore was 221 votes. The winner is Alicia Kearns elected with 241 votes. She will take up her post immediately and I congratulate her on her election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I thank the Clerks of the House, who ran a very successful election. I also thank all those who stood for election. I hope they know how much I respect them and how I hope to continue working with them as Chair, because I hope we can work together more as a House. I also thank Tom Tugendhat, who is now elevated to far superior places, but was a fantastic Chairman of the Select Committee. Most of all, I say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who gave their support to me. It means everything to me. I hope to do them proud; I hope I can represent all their interests and I am here now to do as they bid. Thank you ever so much.
Mr Speaker
Just a gentle reminder that it is not by name; he is the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). Do not worry about it. On that basis, let us go to Paul Girvan.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this Bill. I am glad to see that it is not a stand-alone Irish language Bill, as was being peddled by those who wanted to have it as such. However, the identities issue within this Bill causes concern, because there is an imbalance in how things are dealt with.
I understand that both commissioners have certain powers, but one seems to have more power than the other. By that, I am saying that the Ulster Scots commissioner will really be there as a tick-box exercise, as opposed to somebody who can effectively take complaints forward and recommend that they be addressed by the public authorities that are being used. I appreciate that there are a large number of public authorities in Northern Ireland to be consulted—I think it is somewhere around 70-plus—but all of them have different interpretations of what they have to do.
I use this as an example: local authorities in Northern Ireland have off their own bat started to go down the route of language signage for street names. In doing so, they have created a problem. Many people may not understand the nuances of this, but it is seen as territory marking. If someone goes into a certain area and sees Irish language signs, they will say, “Well, that’s an area I will not be buying a house in, because being from my community I will not be happy or safe there.” That is another area where division is being driven into our community, and Irish-language signs are being used as such by councils.
There was mention made by Members from my own party of those who have removed emblems and pictures of our monarchs from our council buildings. All those things have been stripped out to try to make a neutral environment, yet some are still putting what I call some of their republican agenda and driving it forward. Those measures and the powers that are supposedly within this Bill, such as the language aspect, need to be addressed.
I will say a wee bit about the language aspect and bilingualism with Ulster Scots. That is not necessarily their priority. They have areas they want to focus on, and one of those might be looking not just at the art and literature aspect, but the culture and heritage aspect. Our heritage needs to be respected. I feel very much that we are under attack not only from this Bill, but from those who put in place the protocol and made those people who live in Northern Ireland—whether you believe it or not—feel like second-class citizens. That is what is being portrayed here, because we see our Ulster Scots heritage and culture being treated as second class, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned.
I also have concerns about the cost associated with the implementation of this legislation. There might well be money associated with setting up the office of the commissioners for both languages and the shared services in relation with that, but I have a problem with the cost impact on each Government Department of the implementation of aspects of what is put forward in this Bill. Some control needs to be put in to ensure that the Bill does not run away with itself.
I, for one, come from the Ulster Scots background, as many Members will know, but I know and am friendly with fluent Irish speakers who were brought up as Protestants in Donegal and had to learn Irish as part of the culture where they lived. Language was used not as a cultural identity issue in Northern Ireland but as a weapon, and it continues to be.
I appreciate that some people try to steer away from that, but as the leader of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), mentioned, Danny Morrison said way back in the 1980s that each word spoken in Irish is a shot fired in relation to Irish liberty and freedom, so I think we need to be very careful about how the law is interpreted by those within the Unionist and Protestant communities. They do not necessarily buy into Linda Ervine’s approach on this whole thing. I do not discount that she is there for the right reasons, but let us be honest: a large section of the Unionist community do not buy into that agenda because they believe that it has been used as such.
I believe that we need to use the opportunity in Committee to table amendments that will make the Bill acceptable. I am not saying that it is not acceptable as it is, but our party’s amendments should be listened to, taken on board and respected, as we feel very much that we are being treated as second-class citizens because of the Bill’s imbalance. It does not necessarily take into account the so-called “parity of esteem” that is peddled by everybody. That term is used to suit an agenda on many occasions. On this occasion, we will use it because we do not believe that we have parity of esteem in how the legislation has been measured out. I want to ensure that that is taken on board.
I appreciate that the Minister of State has listened to us and agreed to have a meeting. We will have that meeting—we want to put our message across, and we will do so—and we will also table amendments to ensure that we get the redress that is required to make the Bill acceptable. It is wrong to say that we accepted this when NDNA was brought forward. This legislation is not what we agreed to, and we have fought it tooth and nail the whole way through the process. We will continue to do so until we get that redress.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Front-Bench speakers, if there is to be a Division, I would welcome the names of the Tellers for the Noes. I call Tonia Antoniazzi.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions to this interesting and lively debate. It is perhaps unusual to say that discussing a matter in Parliament should serve to depoliticise it, but that is what the Bill rightly aims to do, by creating structures and legal protections for these languages—not simply preserving them but promoting them to and for everyone in Northern Ireland. Protections for national and cultural identity principles should be welcomed, ensuring that the Irish language and the language, art and literature of the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition are recognised not as the property of one section of the community or one political outlook, but as an important part of Northern Ireland’s rich and diverse cultural heritage.
I note some of the conversations that have been had in the debate about language and growing up with a language. My father’s parents were first-language Italian speakers, but they never spoke Italian to him, and my mother did not speak Welsh because it was not the done thing. We have heard people talk about Polish, Chinese and sign language in Northern Ireland—those are all very important.
Before coming to this place, I spent 20 years of my life as a modern foreign languages teacher who grew up in Wales and did not learn Welsh. I am very proud of my Welsh culture and heritage and am very embarrassed to say that I did not embrace learning the language as a child because I had the opportunity to do other things. However, as a language teacher in Wales, I embraced Welsh because it brings communities together. As a teacher, you look at the language, your history and all the links of multilingualism and bring them together to create a positive community; that is what needs to be done here. Open your eyes to the opportunities and celebrate languages and your history together. I emphasise that because it is so important in these times.
As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I cannot help but compare the Bill to the radical changes that we have seen over the past decade with regard to the Welsh language. Within my lifetime, what was an issue of fierce political division has become a normal part of day-to-day life. The words used by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) were, “It is now unremarkable.” Is not that how it should be?
Every child learns Welsh in school. It is my great regret that my son never went to a Welsh-medium school, because that opportunity to be bilingual is a genuine gift. The ability to access public services in Welsh is enshrined in law. Legislation is brought and debated bilingually in the Senedd. You will hear Welsh in the city centre of Swansea or the smallest village in north Wales. It is unremarkable. There is, of course, still debate around the language today.
Earlier we heard it said that finances could be used elsewhere. That argument should not be weaponised against language. We want to remove that aspect, because language is so very important. Will the Minister, with the Secretary of State, commit to a timescale for the Bill? I would be grateful if he also addressed the questions about resourcing for the sector that have been asked by the Ulster-Scots Agency.
As colleagues have said, the Bill was born from drafts that were due to be taken forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is regrettable that this legislation is being debated here, rather than in Stormont, but the Government are to be commended for bringing it forward and ensuring that commitments made in the NDNA agreement are honoured.
The bringing forward of this long called-for legislation is, along with a marked change in attitude regarding renegotiation of the protocol, a welcome change in tone and action. I hope it represents an end to the culture of missed deadlines and broken promises that has characterised much of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland —an approach that has only added to political instability and uncertainty.
Colleagues have spoken of the Bill’s foundations being rooted in the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement but, as Lord Murphy of Torfaen astutely noted in his contribution to the discussion in the other place, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is not something one can pick and choose from; it is a package. And the key part of that package is a functioning Assembly and Executive. Those are the institutions where this debate, and the scrutiny of this legislation, should be taking place, but as that is not possible, the Government are right to uphold commitments made to people in Northern Ireland, and the Labour party supports this legislation’s swift passage.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
What a debate it has been. It has been really excellent—wide-ranging; at times hopeful and optimistic; at times reflective and reassuring; at times, it must be said, fearful and disappointed. But it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to such a debate on such a sensitive subject.
The Bill, as has been said, will implement the draft legislation associated with the New Decade, New Agreement deal, which all parties signed up to. I listened very carefully to the speeches and will return to them in a moment. I really share hon. Members’ hopes that these measures will be implemented in full by a future First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in a dynamic and timely manner, to help take Northern Ireland forward beyond these debates.
Yesterday I engaged with a range of language groups, which I found extremely helpful. I particularly want to thank Conradh na Gaeilge, Foras na Gaeilge, Linda Ervine of the Turas language programme—who has already been mentioned—Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, and the Ulster-Scots Agency.
Before I get into individual contributions, there have been some points of general agreement among all Members: the necessity of carrying forward the agreement that had been reached through NDNA, a lament that this House must pass this legislation and, of course, agreement on the extreme sensitivity of it. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that I, like the Secretary of State and everyone else in the House, share the great sense of loss and sorrow about the explosion in Creeslough. It is an absolute tragedy, and I put on the record the Government’s thanks to the Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service for all they did to help out.
As I hope to elaborate on, this is a conversation about the future, and the future that we are creating for ourselves. If the Front Benchers will allow me, I will begin by responding to what the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said, because like him, I approach this subject with a degree of trepidation and humility. I originally come from Cornwall. The Cornish language has been resuscitated since I left; I do not know any Cornish, but of course I do not have to pursue my Cornish roots, because my parents come from Hampshire. Nevertheless, I can see the great merits of people wishing to pursue their roots, and I know that today will be a great day of celebration for many people—I saw that in particular with Conradh na Gaeilge—because they love the language, its roots and where it takes them. That is a point that I will come back to.
The hon. Member for Arfon made the point that this has been liberating in Wales. As the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, he used the word “unremarkable.” He talked about depoliticisation, and that is my ambition. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) mentioned Linda Ervine. I hope that she will not mind me saying that I was really moved by the efforts that the Turas language programme is making to teach Unionists Irish—Unionists who recognise that they do not have to go back too many generations to find that their ancestors, too, were speaking Irish. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, and I am grateful to him; that means so much. Look at the conversation we have had in the House—so much hurt; layers upon layers of hurt over decades. People have been insulted on both sides. I have listened to Ulster Scots saying that they have been demeaned, and Irish speakers saying that their language has been demeaned. This just cannot go on. We are the authors of our future.
I do not need to repeat the points that have been made about the weaponisation of language; I will just say that someone said to me yesterday, “We are building bridges; politicians are burning them behind us.” That should be a challenge to us all. Of course, the sorts of politicians who weaponise language as advancing nationalism have let the public down. All of us face the challenge of working out what future we are going to write, so I am grateful for the opportunity to begin my return to the Dispatch Box by agreeing with the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) asked me some specific questions, including about human rights and the connected classrooms programme. That programme is an important commitment, and officials continue to explore avenues of progress to deliver that commitment and facilitate the establishment of the programme. I hope to be in a position to update the House on progress shortly.
On the Castlereagh Foundation, I thank the former First Minister Arlene Foster, who chaired the advisory committee, and the rest of the committee. The advice was requested by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and the advisory committee was unable to support the progress of the UK Government commitment to Castlereagh at the time within the powers available to the Secretary of State. That led to the amendment of the legislation.
Turning to our general approach and human rights, the approach we are taking is consistent with the draft legislation published alongside NDNA; it really is for OICE to implement this in practice. Although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may direct OICE, this matter would be transferred to it, and would be for it to take forward.
I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made an extremely well-informed speech. He picked up on the point about the Ulster-Scots Agency. We have received a number of representations about amendments, including from the Ulster-Scots Agency, and if I may, I will on this point turn to the request for amendments from DUP Members.
I have to say that we have listened to people request amendments to go further on the Irish language side, and the DUP has made very strong representations today. What the Government have tried to do, recognising that this really should have been taken through in the Assembly, is to stay absolutely faithful to the draft legislation. I am just slightly conscious that, if we do open the Bill up to amendments, we will hear many calls for reciprocity and a whole series of amendments one way or another.
Mr Baker
I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say that I hear what he says about the need for parity in powers. I absolutely look forward to meeting him and his colleagues, and going through in detail how they think there has been some shortcoming. It is vitally important that we carry people with us, because I think this could be a great moment for moving on and achieving what has been achieved in Wales—depoliticising language. I think that would be a very good thing, and I look forward to meeting him, but I will give way to him briefly if he wishes.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister of State for giving way. The thrust of our request to him—in a very kindly but also very firm manner—is about the fact that the Irish language commissioner has clout, but the Ulster Scots commissioner does not have that clout. It is a visual issue. I made the point earlier that for those who love the Irish language, it is the language that is the main thrust of what they are about, but for Ulster Scots it is about all the other things. It has the history, the art, the stories, the poetry and the music—pipe bands have been mentioned, for instance—and they are just some of those things. When it comes to the discussions we are going to have about those things, I hope we can have equality. Let us have a state of equality. I want to be as equal as anybody else. I do not want to be in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, where some people are more equal than others. Well, I am not, and neither is anyone else on these Benches.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful. On step-in powers, can I just say, as I said in an intervention, that the Government would not wish to intervene routinely in devolved matters? The use of the powers here and elsewhere in the Bill would require the most careful consideration. The Government’s decision to include these powers was not taken lightly, but progress must be made to ensure that political stasis in Northern Ireland does not further frustrate this legislation. As some of the people I met said to me, they have waited a very long time for this moment.
I do not wish to take up disproportionate time in this debate—I know Members have many matters to discuss with me in meetings subsequently, before we come to further stages—so I will conclude by saying that this has been an extremely good debate, and I am very grateful to all Members who have participated. If I could say one other thing it is this: let us please use this moment to have a new beginning for Northern Ireland on the issue of language—a new beginning that people from all parts of the communities can celebrate, and one that can help us all write a more positive future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
IDENTITY AND LANGUAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS]: PROGRAMME
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 View all Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 11-R-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (5 Jul 2022)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TODAY)
Voting by Proxy (Amendment and Extension)
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That:
(1) this House
(a) believes that Members experiencing serious long-term illness or injury should be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy, under a pilot scheme issued by the Speaker and reviewed by the Procedure Committee;
(b) directs the Speaker to amend the scheme governing the operation of proxy voting in accordance with paragraphs 1-40 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 383, on Proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall; and
(c) directs the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the temporary amendment to Standing Order No. 39A no later than 17 March 2023.
(2) the following amendments to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made:
(a) in paragraph 2, delete “absence from the precincts of the House for”;
(b) in paragraph 2, delete “childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child” and insert—
“(a) childbirth;
(b) care of an infant or newly adopted child; and
(c) complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”; and
(c) delete paragraph 7.
(3) the following amendment to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made, and have effect from 17 October until 30 April 2023: in paragraph (2) insert “(d) serious long-term illness or injury”.
It is a pleasure to open this debate on the proposals put forward by the Procedure Committee in its first report of this Session. This is a House matter that the Government have been very happy to facilitate time for so that Members can consider and debate the reforms in that report and associated changes proposed to the Standing Orders. The House has been asked to consider the expansion of the proxy voting scheme to cover long-term illness or serious injury under a pilot scheme lasting from 17 October 2022 to 30 April 2023, with a review to be completed by the Procedure Committee by 17 March 2023.
I think that all Members of the House will agree that Members should no longer hear the words “Could you have your chemo on another day?”, “We will send an ambulance for you so you can vote”, or “Thank you so much for delaying your c-section to vote in this critical debate.”
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
On reflection, does my right hon. Friend not think that it might be better to allow a longer period of time to elapse so that a fuller evaluation can take place, before the Procedure Committee is invited to make a further decision?
Penny Mordaunt
We want to get on with these measures. There has been careful consideration from a number of Committees in arriving at them. We want to get cracking with them, but the evaluation will be a matter for the Committee.
In addition, if agreed, this motion will make changes to the existing proxy voting arrangements by removing the bar on participation in proceedings while in possession of a proxy vote; providing equal rights in relation to proxy voting for parental absence for Members who are biological fathers, the partner of a person giving birth or an adoptive parent; and incorporating complications relating to childbirth into the main body of the Standing Order.
Any changes to the system of voting in the House of Commons should always be given careful consideration. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for their work on this issue over recent years.
In February 2018, the House agreed that MPs
“who have had a baby or adopted a child should for a period of time be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy.”
That was followed by the agreement of a pilot scheme in January 2019 that was made permanent in September 2020. Since then, we have taken further important steps to meet the needs of new mothers, fathers and adoptive parents. In January 2021, the House endorsed a Government-proposed Standing Order change to expand the scheme to allow MPs who have had a baby or adopted a child to be entitled, but not required, to cast votes in the House by proxy. That system is currently in place.
Members will remember that the scheme was expanded for reasons of the pandemic for long periods in 2020 to good effect. When the system of proxy voting for baby leave was introduced, the House discussed the scope of the scheme in great detail. It was felt, on balance, that the anonymity of slipping and pairing was preferable for Members who were ill or had caring responsibilities, rather than declaring personal circumstances to qualify for a proxy vote during a difficult time. I understand that some Members will retain that view. That is why I agree with the Procedure Committee that the expansion of the proxy voting scheme should not affect the pairing and nodding-through mechanisms, which will remain available to Members.
Pairing has been, and continues to be, a valuable practice that allows Members to be absent from votes, whether that is as a result of ill health or other reasons. The Whips Offices on both sides of the House work hard to ensure that the system functions as well as possible for individual Members.
Nevertheless, since the earlier conversations about the scope of the scheme, there have been growing calls for expanded proxy voting to include those suffering from serious illness or long-term medical health conditions. That was the overwhelming evidence in the Procedure Committee’s inquiry, and the Government have a great deal of sympathy with Members in that position.
The Government welcome the Procedure Committee’s consideration of the evidence relating to the expansion of the scheme. In establishing a pilot to trial the expansion of the proxy voting scheme, the House would be recognising the importance of creating a more inclusive culture and working environment in Parliament and continuing the progress made in this area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I hope, as I think we all do, that the pilot scheme will become a reality in its entirety, because society is changing. There is maternal leave and paternal leave, and other businesses understand that special conditions can be in place for people who are disabled. We as the mother of Parliaments—I say that collectively—should also move with modern changes in society and understand that we must have a workplace that endorses all the things that happen to our constituents out there in Strangford and elsewhere.
Penny Mordaunt
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that many Members of the House gave evidence to the inquiry. This is not about the merits of those individual cases but, clearly, this needs to be trialled and we want to ensure that that is brought forward as swiftly as possible.
It is important that all Members of this House can participate in our votes. Divisions here change people’s lives across the country, so the legitimacy of the system must be above reproach to ensure that we maintain the full confidence of our constituents. Proxy voting meets that test. It has worked well for Members who are new mothers or fathers, allowing them to continue to serve their constituents while dealing with their family obligations. We have confidence that extending its scope under these pilot arrangements will work well.
I do not wish to detain the House for too long. However, the motion proposes one or two other changes that hon. Members will wish to consider carefully. I am grateful to the House authorities for providing an explanatory note ahead of the debate.
I wish briefly to cover one proposed change. The motion removes the requirement that Members be absent from the House to exercise their proxy vote. That follows representations from Members who might wish, for example, to participate in an urgent question or statement for which the suspension of a proxy vote with notice is impossible. The House will note the concerns raised both by the Government and by the Procedure Committee that this measure is likely to be of most benefit to Members who are based relatively close to London, and that it could introduce pressure on Members to participate in proceedings while on leave for parental duties or because of matters of ill health.
As the Committee points out:
“Absence from the Estate serves a dual purpose: it explains why a Member is able to vote by proxy but also affords a degree of protection to Members taking care of very young children.”
Members will be able to make use of proxy votes on a voluntary basis and in the same spirit. It will be entirely voluntary, and it will be for each Member to determine whether they wish to participate in a debate at short notice. I assure Members that, in introducing this change, the Government do not envisage any change to the role of MPs, or how they perform in this place their duty to their constituents. Nevertheless, there may be circumstances in which this change will serve a helpful purpose by enabling Members to participate in proceedings without suspending their proxy. Of course, Members should not attempt to vote in person in those circumstances.
The Government believe that a pilot scheme in which the effect of this expansion is carefully measured is a sensible first step, as it is imperative that the voting process remains robust and transparent and that the personal accountability of each Member’s vote is not lost. The review conducted by the Procedure Committee will be essential in determining whether the changes to the scheme are made permanent.
As Members of this House, we all have a duty to ensure that Parliament is inclusive for all Members and their circumstances, be they parental responsibilities or long-term illness, which the proposed pilot scheme would cover. The Procedure Committee found that the
“overwhelming balance of evidence…was in favour of an extension of proxy voting”
to include those areas. Ultimately, it is for the House to consider whether it thinks it right that the proxy voting system be expanded. For my part, I hope that the House will support the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for moving this important motion. It is disappointing that we had to wait until after the summer recess for this debate; I can only hope that it has inspired her to press ahead with other important matters of House business such as the Members’ code of conduct, which we will be partially debating next Tuesday—but that is for another time.
I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), her Committee and its staff for doing such excellent work in pressing on with the issue and pursuing it so determinedly, and for the sensitive way in which they conducted their inquiries. I have already welcomed the publication of their report, read it carefully and noted its recommendations. The Committee clearly received an
“overwhelming balance of evidence…in favour of proxy voting being extended to include Members suffering from…long-term illness or injury.”
I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that she has my full support in introducing this pilot scheme.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who both gave very personal evidence to the Committee about the difficult challenges that they faced with long-term illness. We all know at least one colleague who, despite being seriously unwell, has wanted to drag themselves in for a vote and carry out their most basic duty as a Member of this House at a time when it may have been unwise to do so.
I wish also to put on record my support for the counter to that. We also know of the really supportive work done by the Whips Offices. I was well supported by my Whip throughout the time that I was having treatment, so I was able to stay away and not have to think about it. That is a very personal choice and I fully recognise that there will be Members with different views and different needs, but I want to make it clear that I am glad that the option of nodding through and pairing remains, and that this measure is therefore optional.
Parliament ought to be a model workplace at the forefront of rights at work and accessibility. I think that the motion strikes the right balance: it is proportionate and it is welcome.
As the Women and Equalities Committee has recommended, addressing outdated, entrenched, gendered stereotypes about childcare is essential. Members should have the option to take shared leave, and I am glad that today’s motion could resolve that.
I also want to put on record my support for the decoupling of a proxy vote from restrictions on participating in other parliamentary proceedings. The Committee understood and recognised the need for “keeping-in-touch days”, as they may be called. Some Members will want, and feel able to, come in occasionally to make an intervention, but will not necessarily feel able to stay physically for votes or return the next day. I commend the Committee for recognising the benefits of such flexibility. I know that that range of choices will aid recovery and improve wellbeing, as, of course, will “nodding through” and pairing.
I am aware of the concern that has been raised over privacy for Members, which is, perhaps, why I am referring again to “nodding through” and pairing. There will be Members who want to make that choice for that reason. I was reassured to see no proposed changes in the mechanisms that exist as political agreements between Whips Offices, because respect for privacy is important. When they wish to do so, Members should be able to—and, under this proposed arrangement, they can—continue to choose that more discreet option.
I have a few questions for the Leader of the House, and possibly for the Chair of the Procedure Committee as well. Can the Leader of the House tell us what other considerations there have been about maintaining privacy for Members if that is what they wish? Can she, or perhaps the Chair of the Procedure Committee, give us a bit more detail about how the scheme might work in practice? What thresholds have been discussed in relation to the severity of illness or injury that will qualify a Member for a proxy vote?
Has thought been given to the possibility that the pilot may have to be extended if it is not used for the very legitimate possible reason that Members simply do not need it during the six months that we have allocated? I hope that no Members will need it, but they may, and it may be for a happy reason. There may be all sorts of reasons unconnected with illness. If Members do need it because of illness, we will be able to test the parameters of the pilot, but if they do not, I suggest that we will need to extend it. It would be wrong for the scheme to be dismissed because of low take-up, or not to go through some of the complications that may arise if we do not test it in practice.
Given that this is a pilot scheme, may I ask whether the Procedure Committee will have time to assess the way in which it works? Can the Leader of the House update us on her discussions with the Chair of the Procedure Committee about how the pilot will be assessed? What criteria will be used, and will this involve an assessment of Members who proactively do not want to be part of the scheme, but want their considerations to be heard?
This pilot of a very well-considered proposal has come at the right time. In fact, we could all probably say that its time was probably last year or the year before, but I am glad to be here at this point, when we can say that we are taking another step forward towards making our Parliament truly one in which all can serve, regardless of health, disability or childbirth status.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Procedure Committee.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for finding time for the debate. It is very welcome that time is provided in the House for us to debate these matters properly. A habit had been developing of making such debates “nod or nothing”, which did not give Members an opportunity to have their say about the important matters which govern how we best represent our constituents.
As my right hon. Friend said in her opening remarks, proxy voting is a relatively new procedure for the House. It was initially introduced in 2018, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it was in May 2019 that that the pilot scheme for proxy voting during baby leave was introduced following a report from our predecessor Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). The current Committee, which I now chair, reviewed the pilot scheme and produced a report in September 2020, making the baby leave scheme permanent.
During that process, we were acutely aware of calls to extend proxy voting to other areas, but we wanted to ensure that the review focused on the way in which the proxy scheme worked for those on baby leave—a very “known” event which is very public. People are very aware that their Members of Parliament, or their spouses, are having babies. I think that that has improved this place, and made it a much more welcoming environment for new parents.
At the time we issued our report in September 2020 we were in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, and at that same time the House agreed that proxy voting should be extended for matters of illness or being unable to attend this place due to the coronavirus. At that point, it was a widely used measure. For very good reasons, Members were not expected to be in the Division Lobby. That was absolutely right, because it would not have been a safe place for them. A very difficult process of voting with social distancing was introduced, and it was quite right that proxy votes were available to pretty much anyone who wished to use them by the end of the pandemic. I think there was a point when only about 14 Members had not taken up a proxy vote.
I want to reassure any Members who are concerned that we are going to start down that route again that that is not what this scheme envisages. This will be a much more restrictive scheme which we do not envisage being used by more than a small number of Members at any one time. However, it was clear from all the evidence that we took that, for those Members who need it, the scheme will be the most valuable way to enable them to represent their constituents.
I see that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) is here, and I know she is going to contribute to the debate at some point. Hers was one of the most overwhelming pieces of evidence given to the Committee. She said that representing our constituents and being able to have our votes recorded was an incredibly important part of the democratic process, and that it cannot be right in a modern Parliament that wants to give open access to everybody if Members feel unable to do that or if they feel pressured to put their health in jeopardy in order to come into this place and vote.
I am pleased that the Government have tabled this motion. I want to make a point about confidentiality, because that is something that I am nervous about. I am not going to say that I am not concerned about it. We toyed with this issue on the Committee: how can we ensure that someone going through a deeply personal and private experience can have the confidentiality they need when taking up this scheme? It is clear that we have to ensure that there is transparency to constituents around voting, but that transparency could impact on people’s personal situations.
The first point is that nobody needs to take up the opportunity. If Members do not wish to take a proxy vote, they do not have to do so. I am pleased that pairing will still be available, even though it relies on trust and on the relations between the usual channels working. It is an important part of the way we conduct our business. For any Member who is away for just a short amount of time, pairing is a good way to deal with these matters. We heard evidence that if a Member was unable to attend for a few weeks, their constituents did not notice, but there was strong evidence that after a certain period of time, they did start to notice that their Member was not voting. It is a matter for each of us how we represent our constituents and what we are prepared to say in the public domain, but the evidence we received from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and many others who had gone through or were going through long-term medical conditions was overwhelming: they said that the availability of this option, for those who wished to take it, was incredibly important. So I am pleased that that is going to be the case.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) asked about the consideration given by the Committee to eligibility—I feel like I am answering a statement here. We came to the view that a scheme should be designed to allow the Speaker the final say on the provision of medical evidence for someone needing to take time away from this place in order to get the treatment they need and have the best chance of recovery from whatever their condition may be. It should be noted that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority allows Members of Parliament an additional budget for staff if they are away for three months or more. I would have thought that is a very good example, as three months feels about the right amount of leave needed to qualify for a proxy. Clearly, it will be on a case-by-case basis. We did not want to dictate which conditions qualify and which do not, but we were keen to make sure there is flexibility for Mr Speaker.
The hon. Lady also asked about time for the review, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who is a previous Chair of the Procedure Committee—I served under him—is right. I am slightly concerned about the timeframe for the review, because I would not want so few Members to take up these proxies that we do not have evidence on which to operate. The Leader of the House is extraordinarily pragmatic and helpful, and I am sure she will work with me if it is felt that the pilot needs to be extended slightly before the Committee reviews it. We will, of course, find time for whatever review is required.
Finally, we deliberately decoupled any parliamentary absence from the baby leave proxy when it was introduced, so that no new parent felt pressured to come to this place. They were allowed to have proper time with their newborn, in the way that all new parents should have, but we learned during coronavirus that there are many occasions when it is important for Members to be able to contribute to debates and then to exercise their vote via proxy, both for keeping in touch and for recovery. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford that being able to come in for a few days at a time, to be able to take part in debates while still receiving treatment, and still to be able to go home and recover, is incredibly important.
I finish by thanking the other members of the Procedure Committee and my fantastic Clerks, who worked incredibly hard on this report. Without them, we would not have had the superb report that is before the House today. I fully support the motion, and I hope the House will agree to it unanimously.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for moving this motion.
This appears to be one of those rare and happy occasions when agreement breaks out across this place, so I do not propose to speak for very long. I am conscious that many colleagues have been involved in exploring these issues in great detail for some time, and they will want to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief.
I begin by paying tribute to all the Clerks, as the convener of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), mentioned, and all the Members who contributed to this report, through either their work or their evidence. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for her tireless and determined work on this issue, and for her willingness to draw on her own very challenging experiences of serious illness to advocate for these important changes to this place’s voting schemes.
The SNP firmly believes that politics and democracy belong to everyone, and we are committed to Parliaments being as open as possible. The Scottish Parliament is currently conducting an inquiry, launched by Holyrood’s presiding officer, into parliamentary procedures and practices, and we look forward to its results. We welcome the progress made in this motion. It makes politics and Parliament more accessible to everyone, which can only be a good thing.
It was in September 2020 that this House agreed to make permanent arrangements for proxy voting for MPs who are absent from Westminster because of childbirth or caring for an infant or newly adopted child. It is certainly more than time for this to be extended to cover Members with serious long-term illness or injury. The case for extending the scheme was already strong before covid-19, but it is even clearer now, in our post-pandemic society, that as other industries adapt and modernise their work patterns and practices, the time has come for this place to do likewise.
As the Australian academic Dr Sonia Palmieri comments in the report,
“the changing membership of Parliaments and wider changes in society created a drive for greater flexibility in order to create greater productivity and diversity.”
Our Parliaments must reflect that. The overwhelming balance of evidence heard by the Procedure Committee was in favour of an extension of proxy voting to include serious long-term illness or injury. Some Members have touched on how the pairing scheme can work well in the case of short-term illness or injury, such as a bad bout of flu. However, pairing disenfranchises two Members and it is also difficult to explain this somewhat opaque system to constituents. Proxy voting is generally simpler and more democratic, and I have confidence that the protections suggested will protect confidentiality adequately and appropriately. We need to ensure that Members advised by their doctor to take a prolonged period off have better accessibility to still being able to represent their constituents. Pairing will still be available to those who prefer it, and will continue to be available to those with short-term illnesses or injuries.
Constituents should not be disenfranchised because their Member of Parliament has a long-term medical condition, a disability, caring responsibilities for an infant or newly adopted child, or complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss. Furthermore, I was sorry to read that Members taking long-term absences have highlighted the abuse they have received on social media for missing votes through no fault of their own, because there was no system in place to use their vote.
I should state that I also support the Women and Equalities Committee’s call for biological fathers to have an equal opportunity to take advantage of the proxy voting scheme. It is important we do not entrench gendered stereotypes about childcare, and I hope the House will return to this in the future. I also continue to favour the continuation of the electronic voting system introduced during the pandemic. Clearly, it is a step too far at this stage, but I hope that we will be able to come back to it.
I will leave it there, but I commend the progress made towards this pilot. It respects the needs of constituents and Members. As the academic Professor Sarah Childs from the University of Edinburgh noted in her contribution to the Committee’s inquiry, the principle of presenting
“‘role model’ inclusive workplace best practice, setting the standard at home and abroad”
is an important function for any Parliament. There is more to be done on accessibility, as I have mentioned. The UK still ranks very poorly on maternity provision, and I ask the House to note that the Scottish Parliament allows MSPs to take their babies into its debating Chamber, as it is considered essential that parents with babies are able to be fully involved in the business of Parliament, which includes the Chamber, However, I am sure that is something this House will return to in the future, and I really commend the report and all the work put into it. This is a good day for the House.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
As a proud member of the Procedure Committee, I rise to support the motion and to commend the excellent work that the Chairman does. The Clerks and staff are excellent, and we have seen her contribution and those of all the members in the report.
When I became a Member of Parliament in 2019, I was most intrigued from day one by the comparisons between the institutions in which I had served. As a military man for 27 years, I was proud to serve an organisation that got the job done. It was very efficient and slick. People knew their place and it was very output-focused. Coming to Westminster, I was struck straightaway by just how quirky and unique this place is, with the obsession with standard operating procedures, dogma and process. It has baffled me to this day, three years on, that we are not more efficient here in how we work. Adjusting to what one might call “antiquity” was not necessarily easy for me, which is probably why I joined the Procedure Committee, because I felt as though I could add some value to what we were doing. Today’s motion is a classic example of where we can add some value.
Parliamentarians should, by nature, be considering ways of becoming more relevant, entering the 21st century and bringing Parliament to the fore in terms of modern ways of working. I completely agree with the shadow Leader of the House that this is about modern ways of working to benefit any modern employer. We are and we should be modern employees. We are adults and we are paid to do a job; we serve our constituents. At least give us a say on how we do that business.
When we consider what an MP actually does, we see that the roles and responsibilities are huge. They are vast—we work around the clock, we work really hard and we believe in what we are doing—but if we analyse it and strip it down, the only non-discretionary thing that we have to do is voting. We have to come here and vote on motions and legislation, which is what our constituents expect us to do, so why would we not make that most fundamental priority fit for purpose? Why, as elected Members of Parliament, would we not make it easier for ourselves to do that? Why would we not do what is necessary to help ourselves in that important task?
So in a nutshell, it is absolutely right that we support the motion today and that we consider extending proxy voting. In my view, it is crazy that Members of Parliament—adults who are ill or injured, who are caring for loved ones at home, with the most desperate, compassionate circumstances, or who are similarly indisposed—cannot register a vote without physically being here. Those who were here before 2019 may recall the scenes of one particular Member being wheeled through the voting Lobby in a wheelchair, suffering from a brain tumour. It is absolutely outrageous that we demean ourselves and what we do here by forcing that to happen.
This is also about childbirth and complications arising from childbirth, and about maternity and paternity leave, and there are many other examples of where we could and should extend proxy voting. We did electronic voting during the pandemic, and my word, it worked so effectively, didn’t it? Why would we not be able to exercise a vote by electronic means? I understand why that is not with us now and why it is necessary to be here in person, and I am a great fan of that, but it was so easy to vote in 2020 using our phones, so why should it not be as easy for us all to vote in the same way or via alternative means if there is a legitimate reason why we cannot physically be here?
So should we remove the bar to participation in proceedings while in possession of a proxy vote? Yes. Should we incorporate
“complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”
into the body of the Standing Order? Yes. And should we temporarily allow Members experiencing long-term illness or injury to use a proxy vote? Absolutely, yes. This is what the military might call a no-brainer: it has to happen. Of course, as we heard earlier from the Chair, the devil is in the detail, and there will be work to define the exact qualifying criteria for a proxy vote. That will come from the pilot and through trial and error, but there is no question but that this is the right thing to do.
Finally, I commend to the House the work of the Procedure Committee more widely. It is an often forgotten Committee, but one that had real utility during the pandemic, in ensuring that we could continue working in that awful, difficult circumstance. Of course, we must challenge dogma and orthodoxy. We are not here to stand still as parliamentarians. We are here to force the agenda, move forward and make sure that this place is fit for purpose. Parliament must be relevant. I therefore look forward to many more such motions as we go forward.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this motion forward today.
“I’m not broken; Westminster is.”
I first uttered those words nine months ago, having launched a campaign to introduce the very measures that we are debating. They are measures to benefit our constituents, because let us be clear: they are the ones disadvantaged when their Member of Parliament cannot vote on their behalf. I must say that seeing three Leaders of the House over the duration of my campaign and the Procedure Committee’s inquiry really gave my campaign slogan a bit more credibility than I was initially hoping for. This place is broken; this place is exclusive; this place must enact more reforms. But today we can start to change that. Today, almost exactly two years since I walked out the door of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, we are starting to make this place just a bit more progressive. We can make this small but mighty change that will see no constituent disenfranchised due to the ill health of an elected Member.
I did not choose to fall ill; no one does. I did not choose four months of hospital stay and life-saving surgery, and I did not choose to live my life with a disability. It has been a hell of a long journey back to this place, but I would do it all again, because representing the people of East Dunbartonshire is an absolute privilege. It should not have to be this difficult. At a time when I needed my workplace to show compassion and understanding, the procedures were not there. This place legislates for equality but could not provide it for its own elected Members.
But this is not about me. If this is the struggle that I and many others across this House have faced, I shudder to think what rogue employers are doing to our constituents the length and breadth of these four nations; to people who just need some understanding and time as they recover from ill health. This place sets the tone for a society that enables those who are fully able and further restricts the vulnerable. Let us change that today.
This place can be so much more. Irrespective of politics and the constitution, this place should be a force for good. This place should act with courtesy, respect, equality and inclusivity—hallmarks of how we want our society to function, from the Commons to our communities. It is our communities that look to us to provide. We are servants of the public. Our constituents—the people of East Dunbartonshire—should look to this place for examples of good practice. Their voices should never be silenced.
Voting by proxy, promoting inclusivity and providing adjustments for those with a disability gives every workplace across these four nations the standard to strive towards. I am particularly grateful that, under this scheme, proxy voting does not hinder participation. I discussed this in my evidence to the Committee and also read it from others. This is what a phased return to work should look like and this will be a shining example to people across our constituencies.
The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), gave me his time and let me nip his ear off on numerous occasions about this issue, and for that I am incredibly grateful. I also welcome the new Leader of the House to her role and wish her well. The issue of proxy voting has always been about people, not politics, and I would be very happy to meet her to talk about my experiences and how we can make this place better for future generations. My deep thanks go to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). Lastly, I give heartfelt thanks to Mr Speaker for his unwavering support. He was generous with his time and advice and he gave me reassurance that the House was taking this issue seriously and that we absolutely had to get it right.
It is not lost on me that I have pushed boundaries and made some people feel uncomfortable, but I make no apologies for that. Disability, accessibility and making this place more inclusive sometimes means having awkward conversations. I hope that, after this debate, I feel proud and reassured that the next Amy Callaghan—am I allowed to say that?—will not have this battle on their hands. Let us make this a start: the start of a process of change where this place can become a beacon of light, shining by way of promoting equality for people right across our communities, and becoming the example of an inclusive Parliament.
When I walk out of the Chamber for the last time, I hope to do so proudly, leaving this place in a better state than when I joined it. With everyone’s help today, we can begin that process. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not broken, and today Westminster might just get a wee bit better.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
I think that there is only one Amy Callaghan, and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire has just proven that with one of the most eloquent speeches that many of us will have heard in this House. I congratulate her immensely on everything that she has achieved.
I think the hon. Member alluded to the point that, if we started from scratch, we would not invent the current system for voting in Divisions in this House. Crowding into Lobbies to queue up for an individual headcount is a colossal waste of time and resources.
The card reader system has marginally improved things, but we still waste hours, if not days, each year simply queuing up to vote. Anything that improves the experience and accessibility of voting in Divisions, however marginal, is to be welcomed.
During the pandemic, the then Leader of the House—now, quite remarkably, the Business Secretary—made great play of the historic and
“absolute, unequivocal constitutional right of Members to attend Parliament”,—[Official Report, 16 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 1172.]
which, he repeatedly reminded us, dates back to at least 1340. Of course he was correct: we are privileged to have an absolute right to attend Parliament.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) that, ultimately, the purpose of attending is first and foremost to vote. We have an absolute right to vote in this House, but we do not have an absolute right to speak. We can do our best to get on the Order Paper or to catch the Speaker’s eye, but there is rarely, if ever, an absolute guarantee of being called to speak, so ultimately it is through voting that we can be certain of exercising our mandates to represent our constituents.
However, there are times when attending Parliament is difficult, if not impossible. The House eventually recognised that, with a system of proxy votes for baby leave. Even in a few short years, that experience has been overwhelmingly positive and has evolved and developed. Anyone who would suggest rolling it back would find very little appetite at all for doing so.
Extending proxy votes to Members in other unavoidable situations that make attendance difficult is the natural next step. The Procedure Committee heard many important personal examples, and we have just heard one, incredibly powerfully, on the Floor of the Chamber. The broad consensus for today’s motion is to be welcomed, as is everything in the Procedure Committee’s report. I echo other Members of the Committee in thanking the Clerks for their outstanding work, as always, in assisting with its production.
Having served on the Committee from 2015 to 2017, it has been a fascinating experience to return to it in this Parliament. I agree with the Chair that perhaps there will be a little flexibility to let the pilot scheme breathe, given the delays in getting this motion to the Floor of the House in the first place, but I slightly disagree with her when I say that, in reviewing the operation of the scheme, I hope we can consider whether there is room to go further or do things a little bit differently.
The “proxies for all” system that existed during the pandemic operated incredibly successfully and removed any question of what the reason was, what the qualifications were or why people had to be absent at any given time. It also remained voluntary throughout the pandemic. Members did not have to sign up for a proxy vote; they could attend if they wanted to, or make an arrangement for pairing, or to have a slip or to be nodded through, using the other mechanisms that exist.
It is worth exploring how the system might evolve, and that includes looking again at remote voting, because it worked extremely well and ultimately that is where the future of a modern, 21st-century Parliament should lie.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my surprise and puzzlement that most people are not allowed to have a vote counted if they do not physically go through the Lobby, but there is absolutely no requirement on us to have listened to a single word of the debate? We do not need to know what it is we are voting on, as long as we turn up. Does he understand why my constituents, and possibly his, think that that in itself is something strange?
Patrick Grady
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. The Chamber is maybe not quite as full as it ought to be for a debate of this importance, but I am sure that other hon. Members, wherever they might be, are following our proceedings live—as no doubt are the many thousands of people tuning in to the live stream and to BBC coverage and so on. There are a lot of different ways now to engage with parliamentary proceedings, both for members of the public and for those of us who, for whatever length of time, are Members of Parliament.
We only have to look at the Scottish Parliament to see how, when it was first set up 20 years ago, it went out of its way to become that kind of modern exemplar, adopting fixed decision times and electronic voting. Similar systems are in place in devolved legislatures and, indeed, local council chambers across these islands. In Holyrood they have continued to use remote voting since the pandemic, which is of huge assistance to Members of the Scottish Parliament who have remote constituencies, caring responsibilities or other kinds of accessibility requirements.
If Parliament—any Parliament, including the future independent Parliament of Scotland—is to be inclusive and truly representative of our modern and diverse society, then participation for its elected Members must be as straightforward and as intelligible to the outside observer as possible. Proxy voting means that Members are not forced into an opaque pairing system or the nonsense of nodding through, which is essentially a proxy voting system but means that Members—I have experienced this as I have had to nod people through in the past—have to stay somewhere else on the estate but are excused from having to go through the Lobbies. That does not help people who have difficult conditions for which they should really be at home recuperating and regaining their strength. The extension of the scheme will allow constituents to be represented even when a Member is indisposed through no fault of their own.
Patrick Grady
I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Procedure Committee.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a valuable member of the Committee. I want to reassure him that many people who are not here are watching the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who is availing herself of the proxy vote for baby leave, has just texted me to say how pleased she is that the debate is happening and how much she wants the extension to go through, so there are Members observing who might not be in the Chamber.
Patrick Grady
I entirely agree. That exactly proves the point. Many Members are in their offices right now catching up on their constituency correspondence, but they will have the Chamber feed on and will be watching the debate out of the corner of their eye, if only just to find out when the Government will drop the Whip so they can all go home. That is exactly the point: we engage differently now. It does none of us a service when people see pictures of a full Commons talking about one thing and an empty Commons talking about another. That is not representative of how this job works. This point has already been made, but if we want people from more diverse communities, with broader life experience, and who want to raise a broader range of issues, we have to make the job as accessible as possible. That is what I think is happening today.
At this rate, we might manage to drag this House into the 21st century sometime around the start of the 22nd, but by then Scotland will be blazing its own trail as an independent country and, for us, Westminster will be merely a quaint historical curiosity.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I commend the work of the Procedure Committee, its Chair—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—and its Clerks. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for sharing her experience in such a powerful way.
I support the motion and think that the changes are a positive step towards increased flexibility that will benefit constituents in the long run. Of course, it is important that the proposed amendments to Standing Order No. 39A are narrow enough that Members should attend when capable. In a parliamentary democracy, the communities that Members are elected to represent should feel confident in the knowledge that their MP will be present and will show up for the job that they have put us here to do.
I welcome the change to give proxy votes to those who are kept away from business as a result of serious long-term illness or injury. It is crucial that our constituents’ voices continue to be heard and represented in this place through our votes, even when something beyond an individual’s control has prevented them from attending. We are all human, and we are all susceptible to illness or injury.
The Committee’s report, in reflecting the evidence given by colleagues, considered nuanced points about the current pairing system, the anonymity ensuring that absent Members do not need to publish personal or private medical information, and the perception of the public when they see that Members have missed numerous votes over an extended period—that is where a recorded proxy vote is key. Some, though, still believe that pairing through the Whips is the way we should continue.
In the case of Members who sit on these Benches as independents without party affiliation, that does not work, because the number of independents is consistently low in comparison. That position is very often overlooked in terms of how it might impact on our ability to do the job effectively. There is no option of pairing for independents, but we are no less concerned that our constituents should have adequate representation in this place.
Before I conclude, I have two questions for the Leader of the House. Generally, doctors will provide a fit note for employees who are absent from work for seven days or more. If a fit note is the criteria that will be used to determine a Member’s eligibility for a proxy vote, will the same timescales apply so that a proxy vote could be granted when the Member cannot attend from seven days of illness onwards? There are situations where a Member may, for example, unexpectedly be admitted to hospital, but whether or not their condition will be limiting for the long term may not be immediately clear and they miss out on votes again.
Under the proposed amendment, the pilot scheme would need to be reviewed by 17 March 2023. Serious long-term illness or injury cannot be easily planned for and I wonder how the scheme could be assessed if eligible cases were very low between now and March. Will the Leader of the House share any criteria that would be used to inform a decision on that, and if numbers were too low to decide, could the pilot be extended?
The House is a unique and sometimes antiquated place of work that comes with a great sense of privilege, but it is right that we modernise where we can and where it would be advantageous. As long as a medical professional has deemed a Member unfit to attend, they should be given the space to recuperate without the pressure of feeling that their constituents have no voice.
The Treasurer of His Majesty's Household (Craig Whittaker)
I shall be brief. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I thank the Procedure Committee for its helpful report and recommendations. I also thank the Women and Equalities Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for their recommendations, which have really enhanced the other Committee’s report.
As was set out at the start of the debate, the Government welcome the step of implementing the pilot scheme, which will offer greater assistance to Members with serious long-term illness or injury. I am grateful to the Committee for indicating that it will review this change to the scheme, and I think it is important that the pilot should be implemented permanently only if the Committee can reassure the House that it has worked well.
I welcome the thoughtful debate that we have had today. It was wonderful to see and hear the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) here today and have her endorsement that we are finally starting to take disability and accessibility for Members seriously in this place. I know how hard she has campaigned, over a very long period, for these changes and I must say huge congratulations to her on a personal level as well.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, asked three questions. The first was around maintaining the confidentiality of the individual Member. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said, although proxy voting is designed to be a transparent and open process for constituents, we do have the nodding through and pairing process from our superb and excellent Whips’ Offices, which ensures discretion if preferred by the Member; and of course the Procedure Committee will consider confidentiality when it assesses the pilot scheme.
The hon. Member for Bristol West also asked about the threshold of injury or illness. That ties in with a question asked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). This is a highly pragmatic scheme, for which the Speaker will have discretion. Mr Speaker will also publish updated guidance to the scheme in due course. I hope that answers that question.
Finally, the hon. Member for Bristol West asked about the assessment process for the pilot. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said that the process used during the pilot conducted in 2019—assessment by those who actually used the scheme—would be applied here too. If more time is needed because of lack of use of the scheme, it will be for the House to decide whether to allow more time for that pilot scheme. I think that covers most of the questions that were asked.
Karen Bradley
It is wonderful to see my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. Could I ask for his commitment that the Government will facilitate that vote to allow the pilot scheme to be carried forward, and allow the House to make that decision?
Craig Whittaker
The straightforward and right answer to that is yes. We will make sure that gets facilitated.
There is much more we can consider when looking at how we adapt some of our proceedings in the House to make them fit for the 21st century and—as the wonderful hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said—make it a more modern environment for Members, as well as those who are not Members who come into this place. There is no question in my mind but that we need to continue to make progress, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect carefully on the points made in today’s debate. I hope Members will support the motion, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That:
(1) this House
(a) believes that Members experiencing serious long-term illness or injury should be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy, under a pilot scheme issued by the Speaker and reviewed by the Procedure Committee;
(b) directs the Speaker to amend the scheme governing the operation of proxy voting in accordance with paragraphs 1-40 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 383, on Proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall; and
(c) directs the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the temporary amendment to Standing Order No. 39A no later than 17 March 2023.
Ordered,
That,
(2) the following amendments to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made:
(a) in paragraph 2, delete “absence from the precincts of the House for”;
(b) in paragraph 2, delete “childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child” and insert—
“(a) childbirth;
(b) care of an infant or newly adopted child; and
(c) complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”; and
(c) delete paragraph 7.
Ordered,
That,
(3) the following amendment to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made, and have effect from 17 October until 30 April 2023: in paragraph (2) insert
“(d) serious long-term illness or injury”.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I rise to present a petition recognising the importance of the work of the Department for Work and Pensions team based in Phoenix House in Barrow and Furness. The staff there are specialists in industrial injury and disablement benefits. They act with speed and compassion, and hundreds of constituents, individuals and representative groups have called on the DWP to reverse its decision to close that office in pursuit of efficiencies. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the Department of Work and Pensions services currently housed at Phoenix House in Barrow are not withdrawn.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Barrow and Furness,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) services currently housed at Phoenix House in Barrow should not be withdrawn; further that the team at Phoenix House provide a specialist and essential service with industrial injury and disablement benefits; and further that the local community wants the Phoenix House team to remain in Barrow.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the Department of Work and Pensions services currently housed at Phoenix House in Barrow are not withdrawn.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002772]
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition, alongside a corresponding online petition, signed by over 1,200 Cynon Valley residents. The petition sets out measures that residents wish enacted to alleviate the cost of living crisis. The petitioners request that the House of Commons
“urge the Government to hold consultations, ahead of the Autumn Budget, on fairer funding for Wales, inflation-proofed increases in pay, pensions and social security, controls on prices in essential household goods, increased taxation of wealth, increased emergency payments to households funded by a windfall tax, and a programme of mass home insulation.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Cynon Valley,
Declares that the economic hardship created by the cost-of-living crisis is incredibly concerning.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold consultations, ahead of the Autumn Budget, on fairer funding for Wales, inflation-proofed increases in pay, pensions and social security, controls on prices in essential household goods, increased taxation of wealth, increased emergency payments to households funded by a windfall tax, and a programme of mass home insulation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002773]
Hedge End Train Station: Accessibility
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
From a debate about accessibility in our Parliament, we move to a debate that I am pleased to have secured about an issue that has been a long-standing concern for my constituents living in Hedge End, Botley, West End and Fair Oak: the lack of accessibility at Hedge End train station. I rise two years after having first outlined the issue in an Adjournment debate in October 2020, with the problems I will revisit not having been resolved, and the factors exacerbating those accessibility issues getting worse.
I place on the record my congratulations to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and welcome him to his place. I had the privilege of working very closely with him as his Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Home Office, and I know that his attitude at that Department will be borne out in his new Department. I say to him gently that with great responsibility comes great expectation, and he should know that there is great expectation in Hedge End and from the hon. Member for Eastleigh. We look forward to his summing up of this debate.
There is at this time a concerning gap in accessibility in provision in the region where my constituency is based. For example, I was concerned to learn that only 43% of stations in Hampshire have step-free access—among the lowest count among the counties of the UK. In addition, only 24% have an accessible ticket office and 32% have national key toilets. However, before I lay out the case for Hedge End and the need to improve station accessibility there, I want to address the context of this debate and provide the Minister with some of the details of the situation in my constituency.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Just before my hon. Friend lays out the context of the debate, he talked about the trains that go to Hedge End. Can I tell him that the most used station on that line is Raynes Park, and I have been campaigning for the last five years to get step-free access and accessibility there? It is the most used station, so the points he is making about Hedge End and Hampshire apply across the region, and I hope the Minister in his summing up will talk a bit about the new fund that might be available at some stage for these great schemes.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. I will let the House into a secret. I was his parliamentary researcher, so I hold some of the responsibility for not managing to get that station in Raynes Park its accessibility grants, but he is a tireless campaigner for his constituency. In Eastleigh and at Hedge End, we obviously have some work to do to get the amount of people he has at Raynes Park, but he outlines a point that is very important and very similar to that in my constituency. I know Raynes Park station very well, having been around with him in his constituency. People have a choice there: they can get a taxi to Wimbledon if they cannot make the footbridge, or make the journey across the footbridge at Raynes Park. He has not been campaigning for this for five years—I started working for him in 2011 and I know that it was an issue he brought up then. I know that he will continue to do that and I hope the Minister will outline in his response some good news for Wimbledon as well as for Hedge End and Eastleigh.
Going back to the case in Eastleigh, I am proud that the Eastleigh constituency is a thriving community. I have noted previously that the population in my patch has grown by 15% in the last 20 years, a clear sign that Eastleigh acts as a magnet for families and individuals seeking a great place to live. This has of course led to a corresponding, but in my view reckless increase in house building by the Liberal Democrat council, Eastleigh Borough Council, particularly in Hedge End, which I also regret has not been met with an increase in investment in suitable infrastructure locally to guide development in a reasonable and responsible manner.
The problem continues with speculative housing developments and large-scale developments being built in the borough, which historically has been caused by the failure of that local council to develop a local plan. The volume of new housing in Hedge End has been substantial. Between 2001 and 2011, new homes delivered at Dowd’s Farm, a major strategic development in Hedge End North, increased the population in that borough council ward by 33.6%; that was in 10 years. Between 2011 and now, major new housing developments have delivered a further 450 new homes, with more housing delivered not only as part of Dowd’s Farm, but at Kings Copse Road and St John’s Road. But that is just the start of it.
Eastleigh Borough Council has either granted planning permission or allocated space for a further 738 new homes to be built in Hedge End in the next 10 years. Most damagingly, a new council-built development of 2,500 homes in the village of Fair Oak and Horton Heath will mean that infrastructure will be under immense strain, with no substantive contributions to the improvement of Hedge End station just down the road. In simple terms, families are moving into the area, but are being forced to use roads, not rail, to go about their journeys. Anyone with a disability, children or the elderly, when returning from London to my constituency at Hedge End, has to alight at Eastleigh or Southampton Airport Parkway station, 6.4 miles away from Hedge End, which is now the second largest settlement within my constituency of Eastleigh.
Towns and villages such as Hedge End, Botley, Bursledon and Hamble are served by small stations that lack the facilities required to serve growing settlements. Many of my constituents choose to live in Hedge End because of the railway connections to London, the great sense of community and excellent local schools. That explains why Hedge End station is well used, with more than 522,000 entries and exits before the pandemic. That was up from 506,000 in 2017. However, for some people in my constituency entering the station is not as easy as exiting it, and I hope that the Minister can assist with that. Parents with disabled children, disabled adults and parents with pushchairs or prams cannot use Hedge End station to travel, because there are no lifts or wheelchair or pushchair-accessible facilities at the station. Travellers and commuters with mobility issues are left, as I have mentioned, in the unacceptable situation of being able to take the train to London from Hedge End—a journey of about 70 miles—but being forced to alight at Southampton Airport, Eastleigh, Fareham or other stations towards Portsmouth on their return journey. At Hedge End station, there is an even worse situation, as the car park is on the side of the station adjacent to the line that goes to London. Anyone returning from London cannot get to their car easily—they may have to take a taxi or make a long walk to get to the other side of the station. That is not suitable for people with disabilities.
The small sum of money required to upgrade the station would mean that pressure points at Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh would be reduced, giving better access for communities in the southern half of my constituency while relieving the burden on the pressured road network. Journeys from Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh, which are the closest stations to Hedge End and over 6 miles away by car or taxi, naturally incur additional costs and inconvenience. The lack of access to the station means that people in the southern half of my constituency are forced to travel to Southampton Airport parkway, which is used annually by 1.7 million passengers, or to Eastleigh, which is used annually by 1.6 million passengers. They can only access those stations by driving through the towns of Fair Oak, Horton Heath or Bishopstoke, or by driving down the M27. With the extension of the runway at Southampton airport, which I completely support, those two stations will only become busier, becoming pinch points in that section of the network.
That creates another problem. Our towns and villages, such as Eastleigh, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, are struggling with a lack of investment in road infrastructure caused by housing overdevelopment. That means that the roads around Eastleigh and Southampton airport station are often blocked in the rush hour and are inaccessible. There is a wider point, in that the Government quite rightly—I completely support them—argue that we need greener and more sustainable forms of travel. I agree, but the current facilities at Hedge End station do not facilitate that, and in many respects actively discourage it. That is, of course, bad for passengers, bad for the environment and bad for our local transport networks.
If the Minister cannot respond tonight on funding provision, I urge him to return to the Department and look at a wholesale review of the funding processes for accessibility to local train stations. There is a bid in at the moment from South Western Railway to secure accessibility funding for Hedge End, but the periodic nature of the funding process and the lack of clarity from central Government on the process for applications mean that we need to look at a wholesale review of the British rail network across all four countries in the UK to see whether the Government can do more to alleviate some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and I have outlined.
The Minister will know that levelling up is not just about solving a geographical problem between north and south. It is about equal opportunity and better outcomes for those who are disadvantaged. Quite frankly, in this context, that is not happening in my constituency when it comes to travel. I firmly believe that with the installation of either a lift or wheelchair-accessible facilities at Hedge End station, we can achieve exactly the sort of results that are at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We can give disabled people the opportunity to travel for work and enjoyment, and we can make life better for families and parents with young children. We can improve our environment by getting more cars off the road—something that my constituents want to do, but which they cannot because of the type of development that has taken place and the lack of accessibility at Hedge End and stations further on, such as the one at Botley in the southern half of my constituency. We can make sustainable travel alternatives a sensible, viable option for my constituents and the wider community.
Now is the time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and finally deliver infrastructure improvements that my constituents are desperately seeking and which they quite rightly expect. Given the excessive development and a growing population, the disabled, the ageing and the parents in my constituency need to have this sorted, and they need to have it sorted very quickly.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Kevin Foster)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate on rail accessibility at Hedge End station in his constituency. This might be my first trip to the Dispatch Box as Rail Minister, but I know that it is far from the first time that the issue has been raised on the Floor of the House. Thanks to his determined campaigning efforts, this is, I think, the second such debate since his election in 2019. The debate is a good opportunity not only to reply to his points about Hedge End but to set out the Government’s continued work to make our rail network more accessible for all passengers.
Transport is at the heart of how we go about our daily lives. It gets us to work and places of education, allows us to run our businesses efficiently and enables us to build connections with people all over the country. More than 14 million people in Great Britain identify as having a disability, and even more people will find that they have struggled to access a railway station due to a mobility issue. The Government recognise how inaccessible transport is a barrier to unlocking their potential, as my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) outlined. However, while our railway’s heritage is magnificent, it means that many stations date from a time when the needs of disabled customers were simply not considered, and the infrastructure available reflects that.
While we estimate that 75% of rail journeys are made through step-free stations, we recognise that only about a fifth of all stations have full step-free accessible routes into the station and, crucially, between each platform. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh highlighted this with Hedge End, and I can think of a station in my constituency where access to one platform can be achieved only via two flights of steps. For some, that situation at their local station is the barrier preventing them from using rail at all, and that is fundamentally unfair.
Making rail fully accessible for all—whether for a person with a disability or, for that matter, for a person struggling with a heavy pushchair or a suitcase—is of great importance to the Government. The inclusive transport strategy published in 2018 set out our ambition for all disabled people to have equal access to transport by 2030. Where physical infrastructure remains a barrier, assistance may also play a role in making access equal. Good progress is being made on the commitments set out in the strategy. In 2021, we published the plan for rail, which set out how the railway specifically must evolve to meet the needs of its customers. As part of the plan, the Government announced the development of a national rail accessibility strategy: a step change in rail network accessibility for disabled passengers and those with accessibility needs.
The plan also committed to a comprehensive accessibility audit of rail network facilities to provide us with a complete understanding of what stations in Great Britain look like today and to set us in the direction of change. The benefits of that are twofold. The data generated will be made publicly available, enabling passengers to plan their journeys better. It will also equip the Government and the rail industry to better target future investments to bring stations into the 21st century. The audit is progressing well, with more than 85% of Great British mainline stations already audited and the remainder to be completed by spring 2023. That will give us a really complete picture of what accessibility looks like at each station beyond whether it is step-free.
The Government will continue to push the rail industry to comply with its legal obligations to meet current accessibility standards. The Department also requires train operating companies to set out in their accessible travel policy how passengers can book assistance or alternative accessible transport in advance where accessible infrastructure is not yet available. The passenger assistance programme is in place to make accessible journeys easier, providing support to disabled passengers in planning their journeys with confidence and in safety.
I am very aware that accepting and adapting to current accessibility infrastructure is not enough. We must invest in transforming our rail infrastructure to ensure that it meets accessibility needs for years to come. The Access for All programme does just that. Since launching in 2006, the programme has provided step-free accessible routes at more than 200 stations, including at Southampton Parkway in 2010. It has also provided about 1,500 smaller-scale improvements such as accessible toilets and improved customer information systems—all things that make it easier for someone to make their journey.
The inclusive transport strategy extended the programme to 2024, providing nearly £400 million of additional funding. That will deliver accessible routes at more than 100 additional stations, with 24 already completed since 2019. To accelerate delivery of further step-free accessible routes, we recently closed nominations for stations during the next railway funding period, which begins in 2024. Any station in Great Britain without full step-free access was a potential candidate. I am pleased to say that more than 300 stations were nominated and to confirm that Hedge End was one of those stations. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh for endorsing the nomination. I suspect that another nomination might also have come in from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. The Department will now assess the nominations with Network Rail, using the same criteria as for previous tranches.
All inaccessible stations deserve funding—we want a network that is accessible for all—but it is essential that the Government allocate Access for All funding fairly, with consideration of a wide range of criteria. The selection process takes into account annual footfall, the incidence of disability in the area and, sometimes, proximity to particular facilities that those with mobility issues might need to access, such as a local hospital. It also considers the availability of third-party funding and the operational views of the rail industry. We will look to continue to ensure a fair geographical spread of projects across the country. I expect to be able to make an announcement on shortlisted stations next year.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh for securing this debate on rail accessibility at Hedge End station. In responding, I wanted to demonstrate the work that the Government are doing to improve rail accessibility, despite the limitations historic buildings and infrastructure place on us. We are improving our knowledge of the accessibility picture on our rail network through the stations accessibility audit. We are setting out our plans for improvements in the upcoming national rail accessibility strategy along with delivering infrastructure improvements through successful programmes such as Access for All.
I am committed to improving rail accessibility for all passengers, so I am grateful for the representations made today by my hon. Friends. They strengthen the case for the work we are doing. I know that my hon. Friends are both constant and active advocates for the needs of their constituents and I know that if there is not a commitment forthcoming in the future this will almost certainly not be the last time we discuss step-free access at Hedge End station on the Floor of the House. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh will realise why it would not be right for me to give him a firm commitment today ahead of the wider announcements on the Access for All scheme, not least given the wider interest among many Members from both sides of the House who have supported and promoted schemes, but I know he will be on my case until he gets what he wants for his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 View all Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I begin with some instructions that are contrary to the Government’s view that you should not tell people how to live their lives. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted during sittings of this Committee. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on all the clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
Tips, gratuities and service charges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to bring this Bill to Committee. I express my sincere thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, and congratulate him on becoming a Minister. It was he who first tabled this important private Member’s Bill and did so much work to get it to this stage. This groundbreaking legislation will benefit millions of workers, and I am honoured that the Minister has asked me to sponsor this Bill with Government and cross-party support.
The Bill is all about fairness. I entered politics to be a voice for others. The hourly pay in the hospitality sector is one of the lowest of all sectors in the UK. The Bill will potentially benefit more than 2 million people— 7% of workers in the UK—who receive tips as part of their work.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
My son, Liam Eastwood, works in the hospitality industry. He is quite fortunate that he keeps all his tips, which supplement the quite decent wage that he is paid as well. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, contrary to what some on the left are saying, the Bill ensures fairness in allocating tips and is not an attempt to reduce a decent living wage?
Virginia Crosbie
My hon. Friend is a hard-working champion and advocate for his constituents in Dewsbury, and I have been hearing about his son, Liam, and how he has been working. I highlight the fact that the Bill has so much cross-party support. It is great to see how we are all working together to make a significant change for workers in the hospitality sector, who are having a particularly tough time at the moment.
As I said, the Bill will potentially benefit more than 2 million people—7% of workers in the UK—who receive tips as part of their work. It will ensure fairness across the board, so that whether people work in Pete’s Burger Bar in Holyhead or serve fine dining at the Gaerwen Arms, they will be treated fairly and equitably. Places in dire need of levelling up, such as my constituency of Ynys Môn and other coastal and rural communities, are often home to thousands of people employed in tourism and hospitality. Local employers on Anglesey include the Sandy Mount hotel, Sergio’s, the Sea Shanty, Catch 22, the Oyster Catcher, Dylan’s, and the White Eagle. There are so many to mention—I am sure all Members here have the same story to tell.
I was the first one in my family to stay on at school beyond the age of 16, and it was the hospitality sector—work in restaurants, pubs and cafés, like the Mercury Café and Fifi’s Restaurant—that helped me to pay my way through sixth form and university. The tips I earned were spent on a new winter coat or a pair of warm boots.
There is a drive for better hospitality career opportunities and pay—driven by the likes of Aled Jones-Griffith and his team at Coleg Menai—but jobs in such sectors are often seasonal and poorly paid. For many workers, tips form an important part of their potential earnings, particularly in these challenging times. Although most employers distribute tips fairly and honestly, that is not the case for everyone. That is what the Bill seeks to address.
I will deal with clauses 1 to 14 together. The provisions create a legal obligation on employers to pass on tips to workers in full. The only deductions permitted are those required or permitted under other statutory provisions, such as tax law. That will promote fairness for workers and ensure that they receive the tips they earn. The vast majority of customers give tips on the assumption that they will go to the workers, and do not expect businesses to take a slice. Likewise, workers rightly expect to receive their tips in full, in recognition of their hard work.
The Bill will also provide greater transparency for employers and workers on how tips should be treated, and will create a level playing field for businesses that already pass on tips to workers in a fair and transparent way. Finally, consumers will have the confidence that the full value of their tips will go to workers.
Let me set out the detail of the clauses. Clause 1 inserts into the Employment Rights Act 1996 a new part on how employers must deal with qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges, which I will refer to as tips. The Bill will apply to all tips paid by a customer to an employer, including tips paid by card, which are usually paid into the employer’s bank account. Some 80% of tipping is now paid by card.
The Bill will also apply to tips paid directly to a worker if the employer controls or influences the allocation of tips—for example, if the employer tells workers how to share the tips between themselves. The Bill will not apply to tips received by workers when an employer or associated person does not control or significantly influence the allocation of the tip.
Clause 1 aims to capture all scenarios in which an employer has control over tip allocation and distribution, to prevent them from taking advantage of that control to exploit workers. The clause provides that
“tip, gratuity or service charge”
means the actual amount paid by the customer. As employers cannot make deductions for things such as processing fees, the Bill ensures that workers receive the full amount of tips.
Clause 2 introduces a fairness requirement that requires employers to ensure that the total amount of tips is allocated fairly among workers of the employer at the place of business where the tips were paid. That means, for example, that tips paid by customers at a particular restaurant will not be shared with workers at a different restaurant of the same employer. In determining how to allocate tips fairly, the employer must have regard to the relevant provisions of the code of practice, which is described in later clauses. The amount of tips allocated to a worker is payable to the worker by the employer.
Clause 3 sets out how the employer’s obligations apply when tips are allocated by an independent tronc. The Bill allows for tips to be allocated by an independent tronc as long as the arrangements are fair overall and have regard to the code of practice. The word “tronc” comes from the French word for an alms box; it is about pooling and redistributing tips. The tronc can be employer controlled or independently operated by a member of staff or a payroll or accounting company. Tipping practices vary among employers, and the Bill seeks to support diverse practices as long as they are fair. Clause 3 also provides that tips can be payable to workers by independent tronc operators, either directly or through the employer’s payroll.
Clause 4 details when tips must be dealt with. It sets out that an employer must ensure that tips are allocated to workers and paid no later than the end of the month following the month in which they were paid by the customer. For example, if a tip was paid on 8 April, the employer would need to deal with the tip by 31 May.
Clause 5 sets out how an employer’s obligations regarding tips apply to agency workers, who are workers supplied by an agency to work for a business, such as a restaurant. They benefit from the Bill and will be treated as if they were workers directly employed by the restaurant. That ensures that agency workers do not miss out on tips they have earned. The clause defines which agency workers are eligible to be covered by the protections and requires tips to be fairly allocated to eligible agency workers. It allows a business to pay the agency worker’s share of the tips to the agency, which must then pay that sum to the agency worker. This is because agency workers are often not on the business’s payroll.
Clause 6 concerns the written policy and records that employers must keep of tips. All employers that deal with tips on more than an occasional or exceptional basis are required to have a written policy on dealing with tips. That policy must include whether or not the employer requires or encourages customers to pay tips and how the employer ensures that all tips are dealt with in accordance with this legislation, including in respect of how the employer allocates tips. The employer is required to make the written policy available to all workers of the employer at the place of business.
Employers are also required to keep records relating to tips. Records must be kept for three years and include the total amount of tips paid, the amount allocated to workers and, if relevant, the amount allocated to an independent tronc operator. The requirement to keep records is essential to ensure that workers have access to the information they may need to enforce their rights. The clause provides workers with a right to make a written request to access limited relevant parts of their employer’s tipping records. That allows workers to gather evidence to seek redress if they are not being treated fairly.
Clause 7 explains the enforcement mechanism for employers’ obligations regarding tips. Workers can present complaints to an employment tribunal that an employer has failed to comply with their obligation to allocate tips fairly, or failed to do so in time. The clause also allows agency workers to present complaints. The limitation period for those complaints is 12 months.
Workers’ rights to bring forward such claims are at the core of the Bill, as employment rights need to be underpinned by effective enforcement. The clause sets out how a tribunal should determine complaints about tips. When a complaint by a worker is well founded, the tribunal must make a declaration to that effect. The tribunal may also make a range of orders, including an order requiring the employer to revise any allocation of tips they have made, or an order requiring the employer to make a payment to a worker of up to £5,000 to compensate them for consequential financial loss.
Clause 8 explains how workers can complain if their employer breaches the information provisions. That includes an employer failing to comply with the requirements relating to written policies dealing with tips, records of how tips have been dealt with or workers’ written requests for information. Workers can bring forward a claim to an employment tribunal in those circumstances. The limitation period is three months. Workers’ rights to bring forward those claims are essential to the Bill, as access to that information allows employers to be held accountable and workers to check that what they are paid is correct and fair.
The clause sets out how a tribunal should determine complaints about the employer’s policy or record keeping obligations. When a complaint by a worker is well founded, the clause states that the tribunal must make a declaration to that effect. A tribunal can also order a payment from the employer to a worker of up to £5,000 to compensate them for consequential financial loss.
Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State powers to issue, revise or revoke a code of practice for the purpose of promoting fairness and transparency in the distribution of tips. The code of practice is necessary to help to describe different circumstances that are fair or unfair in more detail than the Bill could. The code can also be adapted to changing circumstances more easily than primary legislation. To issue a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult ACAS and publish a draft to allow stakeholders to make representations, before laying the draft before both Houses of Parliament for approval.
The clause establishes the procedure to revise or revoke the code, and details the legal effect of the code. It sets out that the code is admissible as evidence in proceedings before an employment tribunal and, where relevant, must be taken into account.
Clause 10 sets out some additional provisions relating to tips. It prevents employers from bringing restitution claims against workers in respect of tips. If an employer is ordered to revise their allocation of tips and they have over-allocated tips to a worker, those tips are not repayable from the worker to the employer.
The clause preserves existing contractual arrangements relating to tips. That means that if a worker was already entitled by their contract to receive a certain percentage of qualifying tips, they would remain entitled to those tips despite the passage of the Bill. However, payments under the statutory and any contractual obligations can be set off against each other to avoid double counting.
The clause prevents workers from opting out of their rights under the Bill and provides further definitions, including of “customer” and “place of business”. It clarifies certain situations in which it is unclear to which place of business a tip is attributable. The clause also provides that the Bill applies to tips paid by customers on or after the date on which the obligation to allocate tips fairly comes into force. The Bill is not retrospective.
Clause 11 amends certain provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with regard to tips and clarifies that a worker cannot contract out of, or consent to amend, their right to receive tips that have been allocated to them by their employer. It also amends the definition of “wages” to include tips.
Clause 12 amends other pieces of employment legislation as required. That is because some Acts require amendment to ensure the provisions will apply correctly and cohesively once the Bill comes into force.
Clause 13 sets out where the provisions of the Bill apply in the United Kingdom and provides that the Bill regulates qualifying tips paid at, or otherwise attributable to, a place of business located in England, Wales or Scotland. The legislation does not regulate tips in Northern Ireland because employment law is devolved to Northern Ireland.
Clause 14 is the final clause apart from the title. It defines how and when the Bill comes into force, and confers the power on the Secretary of State to determine when clauses 1 to 12 come into force by the making of regulations. Clauses 13 to 15 come into force on the day the Bill is passed.
Let me close by thanking the Chair, the officials who worked so hard to make the Bill a success and everyone present for supporting the Bill. Once again, I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Minister for putting his faith in me and for everything he has done to bring the Bill this far. We all want workers to be treated fairly, and we all want to see the rewards for hard work distributed to those they are meant for. This is a great opportunity for stakeholders to engage in setting up the code of practice. Let us work together to ensure the Bill achieves what it has set out to do.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn on taking the Bill forward on behalf of the Minister, the hon. Member for Watford. I congratulate him in particular on rising to ministerial office; I have always found him incredibly thoughtful since he entered the House in 2019. I never quite thought it would be a Conservative Member bringing forward legislation to strengthen employment rights, so I am grateful to Comrade Russell for doing that. I only hope that the current Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to start supporting employment rights, because he seems to be on a bit of a slippery wicket on that one.
I want to offer my support and that of my party for the whole Bill, from clauses 1 to 15. My constituent, Joan Tomson from Carmyle, was in touch with me in the summer about this specific issue of how to protect tips for staff. I am fortunate to have in my own constituency excellent restaurants such as Kastriot’s in Baillieston and Gia’s of Shettleston. They would not dream for a minute of trying to steal their staff tips, but this Bill addresses the bad employers out there who behave in a completely unacceptable way. It is right that we bring forward legislation to bring them to heal.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister when I say that the Government need to bring forward a full employment Bill. It is noticeable that we are having to bring forward piecemeal bits of legislation, such as the excellent Bill before the Committee or, indeed, the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on neonatal leave and pay. These are hard-won battles that we are having to fight on employment rights, but if anything has been taught as a result of the shameful actions of British Airways and P&O Ferries—
Chris Stephens
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill and the other legislation that he talks about have the support of the trade union movement, which is playing a vital role? The rhetoric that we sometimes hear from Ministers is not the rhetoric that we want to hear. We want to see a partnership with trade unions so that we can shape employment legislation that deals with insecure work and unfair conditions.
David Linden
This is probably an appropriate juncture to declare my membership of the Unite trade union. I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right to put that on the record and it is topical because at the weekend the wonderful Rozanne Foyer from the Scottish Trades Union Congress talked at the SNP conference about how refreshing it was that the Scottish Government very much view trade unions as partners. I am sure that, given the doughty leadership of Comrade Russell as the Business Minister, the trade unions will find an open door from this Government, but my hon. Friend is right to put that on the record.
As much as I seek to poke a bit of fun at the Minister, today is a day for us to work across party lines. This is an excellent piece of cross-party legislation and I will be glad to see it hopefully pass through Committee, through the remaining stages in this House and then over to the noble Lords, and receive Royal Assent.
The Chair
I see no other Back Benchers wishing to contribute to the debate. Would Chris Stephens like to sum up on behalf of the SNP?
The Chair
Okay. I understand that the shadow Minister has a personal issue that means she is unable to be here this morning, so I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Dean Russell)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your guidance, Ms McDonagh.
As has been kindly noted, until recently I was the policy sponsor for this Bill; I am honoured to be the responsible Minister and to see it through the whole way. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn for stepping in to sponsor the Bill, and I thank the other Committee members for their time and energy. Personally, it means a lot to me, and it will mean immense amounts to the millions of workers we will help by getting the Bill through Parliament. It will make a difference to them.
This is about fairness. The issue of protecting workers’ tips is not only close to my heart but incredibly important to so many. I am grateful that we have cross-party support, as indicated today and on Second Reading, to help to take the Bill forward.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. Will he outline the broad support that the Bill has received not only from individual trade unions but, importantly, from the TUC?
Dean Russell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. It has been fantastic to engage with all those groups and I am immensely grateful to all those who have lobbied and pushed for this legislation. I will come to this point later in my speech, but the Government originally explored this issue in 2015, and the discussion goes back way longer than that. I am grateful to everyone who has been involved. I am not sure whether I am allowed to allude to myself as the hon. Member for Watford, but in his speech on Second Reading the hon. Member for Watford said that he felt very much that he was standing of the shoulders of giants, as I do, and we really are. This change has long been fought for and I am pleased that the Government listened to me when I was a Back Bencher. I am now very pleased to be the one listening and helping to make this change happen.
This change is happening because many people were appalled to hear the stories over the past few years of bosses wrongfully pocketing tips that were intended for workers. The money left by customers who wanted to recognise the hard work and excellent service of staff was taken by businesses; at times they took up to 10%, and we heard about the awful, nefarious practice of staff not receiving tips at all. The Bill will stop that practice. The Government believe that tips should go to the workers who earn them and that businesses that withhold tips from staff wrongfully benefit from money that is intended for hard-working staff.
Ultimately, the Bill will stop that conversation we have at the end of a meal or after having received good service—I think we have all said, “Are you definitely going to get this tip?” It is important that the Bill will end that conversation.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will encourage people who work in the hospitality industry to realise that they are actually going to get the tips for the service they give? In itself, that will encourage better service, because it will give people that feeling that they want to put more into the job.
Dean Russell
Absolutely. The Bill will give everyone certainty: in a time of particular uncertainty, especially as we face the cost of living crisis, people will know where they stand. Of course, it will take some time for the legislation fully to come into force, but organisations should put measures in place now rather than wait for the law to change. That is how it should have been anyway, but the Bill will make sure that businesses with bad practices deliver the right thing in the short term and onwards.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I was pleased to be in the Chamber to support my hon. Friend when he was the promoter of this much-needed Bill, so it is great to see him in his place to take it even further. First, how will we ensure that the 2 million people we are trying to help with the Bill get the message? Will the Government run a public relations campaign to ensure that those people know their rights? Secondly, some unscrupulous employers will not treat people in the right way, so it is good to see in the Bill clauses to protect people who could be affected. Of course, some people end up in employment tribunals because they have been sacked or unfairly dismissed because they have complained about a process, so will the Minister, in his new position, also advocate for whistleblowers, to ensure that they too get the right protections in law?
Dean Russell
I know how important my hon. Friend’s campaigning on whistleblowing is for her and I appreciate her raising it. I will come to the tribunal process later in my speech. In terms of communications, it has been wonderful that, from the early stages of the Bill, the media have been very active in promoting it, and I know that the Government have been very much promoting it. This is also about transparency, which I will come to, in terms of not only ensuring that businesses are clear with their staff but making it clear to the public that members of staff will be keeping 100% of their tips. That is a key part of the Bill that it is so important to get across: 100% of their tips—everything that they are given—should be shared fairly with staff.
I will continue with my speech, so that we can come to a close. All the points that have been made show why the Government stand resolutely behind the Bill. We want to see it enacted, benefiting millions of workers in industries where tipping is common, such as hospitality, which is such a huge workplace for so many. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has set out how the clauses protect workers and why that is so important, and I am pleased to say that the Government support all the clauses. I will reiterate a few points on why they should stand part of the Bill.
The Bill will prevent employers from making any deductions when distributing tips, apart from those required or permitted by existing legislation, such as under tax law. That ensures that all money left by customers is passed to workers in full—I reiterate the words “in full” as often as I can. The Bill also establishes a requirement to allocate tips fairly—fairness is at the heart of the Bill—between workers at a place of business. That protects vulnerable workers and prevents exploitation.
A statutory code of practice will help to promote fair allocation of tips. The code will be developed with the help of key stakeholders and will be subject to a full consultation period before the final version is brought to both Houses for approval. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle made, that consultation is key, because it will help to raise awareness of what organisations and workers want but also make them aware that this is going to happen across all the sectors affected. It will ensure that the diverse views and practices of stakeholders are taken into account in preparing the code. To support enforcement of these new requirements and hold employers to account, the Bill will also require employers to have a written policy on tips and to maintain records relating to tips. These measures will be enforced by employment tribunals, with the tribunal empowered to revise allocations of tips and order compensation of workers.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East, who is not in his place, made some wonderful comments, and I reiterate my thanks to him for them. He asked why this legislation is not being brought forward as part of an employment Bill and is, instead, a private Member’s Bill. The Bill highlights a very important issue, and I am pleased to say that there is cross-party consensus that tips should be fairly attributed to workers. I know, because I felt it at the time, that it was disappointing that the Queen’s Speech did not include an employment Bill for the third Session of this Parliament, but we remain committed to bringing forward legislation to deliver on our commitments on employment rights, and I know that there are several other pieces of legislation coming through.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to the Minister, who is, as always, generous in taking interventions. A number of Members have stepped in where the Government have not acted—a number of private Members’ Bills are being tabled that address issues of employment and workers’ rights. Will the Minister commit to look at those pieces of legislation and meet the hon. Members who have put them forward, so that we can tackle some of the issues and injustices that take place at work?
Dean Russell
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I am always happy to meet Members and discuss how they feel we can create better workplaces and support workers’ rights. I already have many meetings with colleagues to ensure that we are heading in the right direction on that.
With regard to the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I want to be clear that more needs to be done to ensure that tips earned by workers go to them in full, which is why the Government are supporting the Bill. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn for taking forward this legislation.
I also note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury about his son, Liam. I know he is a proud father of Liam; he regularly talks about how proud he is of him. Liam is a credit to him, with the work he is doing while at university. The key point my hon. Friend made is that this is not about topping up salaries. That is an important point in the Bill, and it is important that we communicate it. This is a gratuity, tip or service charge that is a “thank you” on top of a salary. It should never be used by employers, and the Bill makes it clear that this is not about topping up salaries; it is about an additional piece and making sure that workers receive tips fairly and squarely.
I will now conclude, because we have covered a lot of ground and I am very pleased with the feedback from the Committee. The Bill provides vital protection for low-paid workers. Bringing forward these new rules will protect over 2 million workers from bad bosses and give them an avenue to seek remedies. It will be good for businesses too, as they will be confident that they are not being undercut by companies where bosses are keeping tips for themselves. The Bill is an excellent step. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has received support from both sides in the House and in Committee, and I want to thank everyone for the collaborative way we have all worked, for the way that the feedback has come in and for their support inside and outside the Chamber to make sure that workers are protected in this way. I look forward to following the Bill through its parliamentary stages.
Virginia Crosbie
This House is at its best when people work together, and the Committee has been a shining example of that co-operation and collaboration. I thank all hon. Members who have been on this short Committee. As a Welsh MP, I am delighted that there are two other Welsh MPs, both of whom are women, on the Committee. Tourism is a key sector in Wales, contributing around 12% of all employment.
I thank those who contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury talked about his son Liam, who has had a very positive experience in the hospitality sector. The hon. Member for Glasgow East talked about a level playing field, and I congratulate him on his private Member’s Bill on neonatal care. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about the support of the unions, and Kate Nicholls, who heads up UK Hospitality, has been very helpful with the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley talked about fairness, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle talked about the importance of a PR campaign and whistleblowing.
This is an important Bill, which enshrines a right that seems evident to many consumers already, and I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is not right that business owners can keep part or all of the tips given in good faith to workers by customers who recognise the good service they have received.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
This is a great Bill that will give the hospitality sector the boost that it needs and provide people with security in their job. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is really needed, particularly in parts of Gower and her constituency of Ynys Môn, where we have such a shortage in hospitality?
Virginia Crosbie
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. This Bill is so important, and it is important that we can get these people back into the sector. Tourism and hospitality is one of the key sectors across the UK, but particularly in Wales.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress of the Bill. As she mentioned, there are three female Members of Parliament from Wales on this Bill Committee. Hospitality is a sector that employs more women than average, so does she agree that the Bill is a very good step towards getting more women into the workplace?
Virginia Crosbie
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and she makes an important point. The average salary in the sector is one of the lowest in all sectors in the UK, and the sector is particularly important for women.
I would like to highlight the fact that, although we have three Welsh MPs, we also have two MPs from Yorkshire—I do not want them to feel left out. I am grateful for everyone’s support so far, and I particularly thank the Minister. I hope we can use this momentum to deliver the successful passage of the Bill and benefit workers right across the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 October 2022 - (12 Oct 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be very grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I am happy for Members to take off their jackets, if they so wish. Date Time Witness Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 10.20 am Federation of Small Businesses; Confederation of British Industry; and British Chambers of Commerce Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 10.35 am Trade Justice Movement Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 10.55 am International Chambers of Commerce Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 11.25 am TheCityUK Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 2.15 pm British Phonographic Industry Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 3.05 pm National Farmers Union; National Farmers Union of Scotland; and Scottish Crofting Federation Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 3.25 pm Professor Albert Sanchez-Graells, University of Bristol Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 3.45 pm UK Trade Policy Observatory Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 4.05 pm Trades Union Congress Wednesday 12 October Until no later than 4.30 pm Wine and Spirit Trade Association
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of the written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before oral evidence sessions, although we might not need to do that. In view of the time available, I hope that we may settle those matters formally, without debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion that was agreed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Wednesday 12 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 12 October;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 October;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 3 and 4, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Thursday 20 October.—(James Duddridge.)
The Chair
The Committee will therefore proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill next Tuesday at 9.25 am.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(James Duddridge.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email.
We could go into private now, but the indications are that no one wants to. If that is acceptable, we can go straight on to questions and the formal evidence session. We are still sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, Members should make any declaration of interest in connection with the Bill.
Examination of Witnesses
Lucy Monks, Andy Burwell and William Bain gave evidence.
The Chair
The first panel of witnesses is Lucy Monks, head of international affairs at the Federation of Small Businesses, who will appear in person; and Andy Burwell, director at the Confederation of British Industry, and William Bain, head of trade policy for the British Chambers of Commerce, who will both appear by Zoom. I understand that there are some problems with Zoom at the moment, but we will bring the two other witnesses in later. Lucy Monks is present, so we will deal with questions to her. Lucy, will you introduce yourself, before I ask Members if they have any questions?
Lucy Monks: My name is Lucy Monks. I am head of international affairs at the Federation of Small Businesses. We represent the UK’s small and medium-sized businesses.
The Chair
Thank you, Lucy. I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.20 am. I will be strict about the time. I first call Gareth Thomas.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Lucy Monks: The entire free trade agreements?
Gareth Thomas
The entire deals—or are they so wonderful that they could not be improved in any way?
Lucy Monks: Absolutely not. For a long time, Australia and New Zealand have been areas where UK small businesses have been interested in doing a greater amount of trade, so anything that reduces those barriers and makes those markets more accessible is welcome—not only for access to those markets, but because Australia and New Zealand are useful territories as jumping-off points, especially for smaller businesses that might need to take smaller steps into export support.
The areas in which we would want to see a little more movement have been around the movement of people, in essence. We think that there is scope for further discussions with both Australia and New Zealand about moving skilled workers in and out of the UK—lending our skills to those markets, and vice versa.
The Chair
I remind Members that questions must be in scope—they have to be about the Bill, not the general issue of trade.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Lucy Monks: I think the rush will come as far as people are able to be encouraged into those markets. Again, it is useful progress, but it is the implementation that matters. Small businesses have problems accessing public procurement in the UK as it stands, because they find it technically difficult. They obviously do not have the ability to take the same kind of risks as larger businesses. They might not have the technical departments, lawyers or whoever might support them through that process. That is in the UK, which means that small and medium-sized enterprises are basically underserved in the UK procurement processes as well. Those issues need to be addressed if we are to get UK small businesses into Australia and New Zealand as well.
First, SMEs have to understand the opportunities, which have to be made as clear as possible. The scope of the Bill and of the FTA makes it clear that measures have to be put in place to open up transparency, so that small businesses are more aware of the opportunities in front of them, but we have to wait for those things to happen to know how successful they will be.
I am cautiously optimistic. There are small businesses that are working very successfully, but obviously public procurement is just one part of the regime. There are construction businesses, architects and engineers working very successfully to deliver public projects in both Australia and New Zealand, usually because they have a particularly niche skillset that they can provide to those markets—for example, they are experts in delivering railway stations or bridges, with a particular set of expertise that those countries might not have the skills base for. It is about enabling a bigger basis of those businesses to take advantages of potential opportunities and to understand them.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Lucy Monks: We have, yes—
Gareth Thomas
Or has a unit in the Department for International Trade been set up to support you?
Lucy Monks: We are having those conversations. I think there is more focus on it, because International Trade Week is coming up soon. The Department for International Trade has been talking to us and other bodies about encouraging opportunities. It is an ongoing process, because the Australia and New Zealand deals are very new in the context of the UK, so it has to be an ongoing process in which businesses are also able to feed back and to say, “This is working”, or, “That isn’t working.” There has to be a degree of flexibility, because we do not want to be landed with a product that essentially does not improve with time. But the Department is talking to us lots.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Q
Lucy Monks: If it is a matter of process for Parliament, I guess you will have discussions with relevant Ministers about your concerns about scrutiny. There is always a point at which it is useful for us to be able to be part of those conversations. The more information that is available to us and the public, in general, and that we are able to feed into, the better.
Drew Hendry
Q
Lucy Monks: In all honesty, we have had extensive conversations with the Department for International Trade. We have also given evidence to your colleagues on the International Trade Committee. I feel that we have had the opportunity to have thorough conversations. In all fairness to colleagues at the Department for International Trade and the civil servants leading on it, they have been proactive in engaging and pursuing those conversations for a number of years. I have been doing this job for only six months, but I was doing a similar job at a similar organisation before this and we engaged quite extensively with the Department there.
Drew Hendry
Q
Lucy Monks: I think the process issue is one for you to take up with your colleagues. It is obviously critical because this is new and, as I said, there has to be a feedback process. However, the way in which you and your colleagues across Government and Parliament interact is one for you, I think.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Q
Lucy Monks: Yes. There are SME chapters in the Australia and New Zealand agreements. If we had a concern with the Bill and the issue around procurement, it would be that, as I said, small businesses tend to be cut out of the procurement process even in our own country, so both the FTA and anything that impacts procurement legislation need to be done in a way that supports small businesses. I am not as concerned about competition from Australian and New Zealand small businesses as I am about the ability for larger businesses to take opportunities that could be sitting there for smaller businesses.
Separate from that, for a long time there was a conversation between various Government Departments about trying to improve the central Government procurement system, not only for small businesses, but generally in its ability to encourage greater social value through public spending, basically. A couple of years ago, the Government finally published a social value model, part of which is supposed to be about encouraging engagement of small businesses both in the direct procurement system and as part of that supply chain. Obviously, larger businesses can go and bid for contracts, but they kind of have to promise that they will engage with x, y, z number of small businesses in delivering bits and pieces.
The Government have promised to keep monitoring how that model is implemented. I would ask that we keep monitoring how these measures are implemented in terms of both the ability for small businesses to actually access those procurement markets in Australia and New Zealand, and the impact of larger businesses that are going forward and trying to procure those projects and their ability to bring along UK small businesses as part of the process.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Good morning, Lucy. You talked about the potential challenge of larger Australian and New Zealand businesses winning UK Government contracts. Is there anything in the legislation you would like to see amended to support small UK businesses in winning Government contracts when facing that international competition?
The Chair
Lucy, just before you answer I should say that we have now been joined by Andy Burwell and William Bain. We have had a few technical problems, but welcome to you both. Will you please introduce yourselves briefly to the Committee?
Andy Burwell: Apologies, everyone, that I am not there with you—I have had a few childcare issues this morning. I am Andy Burwell, international director at the Confederation of British Industry. My team covers everything from trade to foreign policy, national security and, increasingly, supply chains.
William Bain: Good morning, Chair and Committee. I am pleased to be with you this morning. I am William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce.
The Chair
Thanks very much. Lucy has been holding the fort and was just about to answer Bill Esterson’s question, if she has not forgotten it.
Bill Esterson
Q
The Chair
We will take Lucy first as she was asked first.
Lucy Monks: Under the terms of the FTA, I guess we cannot be too defensive; otherwise, we will slightly defeat the point of what we are trying to achieve. I am sorry to bore on about this, but there are ways that small businesses can be encouraged to take opportunities that are available to them. For example, the Department for International Trade could support the implementation of, say, the small business chapter or the procurement chapters, where there is a clear push for the degree of information and support that would be needed for businesses to compete on an even keel. At the moment, small businesses are not even competing on an even ground.
The Chair
William, do you want to add anything to that?
William Bain: We are obviously aware of the interplay between the Government procurement agreements at World Trade Organisation level and the different FTAs that have been and will be signed. Our view would be that some of the issues are probably best sorted through the joint committee apparatus that will be created once these two FTAs come into effect. We can then examine, in a sort of full way, how things are operating for small businesses here and for their counterparts in Australia and New Zealand. Of course, we also have the ability to raise issues under the Government procurement agreement, should they arise, at Geneva. We would see those options as the best means to try to resolve any issues. Overall, we want to see the agreements ratified as quickly as possible.
The Chair
Andy?
Andy Burwell: I hope you gave Lucy all the difficult questions on procurement while she was sitting there with you.
From speaking to our members about these free trade agreements and procurement, which I presume this specific line of questioning relates to, we know that they are broadly content with where the FTAs are. They are very supportive of a competitive public sector market in principle—one based on quality, cost and value, and innovation. Increasing the competition in the market drives British firms to be more innovative, to have better quality and to drive better value. Also, the Government’s social value commitment ensures that anybody who wins a contract for goods or services in the public market contributes to the UK economy, which is an important principle.
Our members are very conscious that the vast majority of companies that win contracts in the UK are either EU participants or EU-headquartered companies or UK-headquartered companies, with the large majority having presence in the UK, so in general our members were not concerned about the provisions or the Bill’s impact on their ability to win contracts in the UK.
The Chair
Mr Esterson, have you finished your questioning or do you have further questions?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Lucy Monks: The point that William made about the potential to address these issues in future forums is really important. We should make clear what is and is not possible. If you go through the annexes to the Bill and the agreement, there are obviously quite a lot of bits that are scoped out because of the more federal system in Australia and New Zealand. It is a matter of seeing how far we can progress these things and address them further down the line through the appropriate forums.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Lucy Monks: Yes.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
What about the other two?
William Bain: Again, our response would be that trade deals tend to unfurl once they are ratified. We have strong joint committees set up under the agreements to look at implementation. We have just taken part in recent implementation discussions around the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, so they are very rigorous indeed. The committees have the ability to make clarifications and small improvements that do not change the overall text but can provide greater context about what the text actually means. At this stage, it is unlikely that we will be able to amend a closed agreement with Australia and New Zealand, but through the joint committee apparatus and the engagement that you as Members of Parliament will have with your colleagues in Australia and New Zealand, you can secure further clarifications that might lead to some of the changes that you are seeking.
Andy Burwell: Just to add to that, there is an important principle that will be a running theme throughout today’s discussion, which is that free trade agreements are only one means of achieving market access. Although at a national level, there is reciprocal access for procurement, there needs to be greater clarity at a federal level. Equally, there are opportunities and means of gaining access in Australia and New Zealand outside the free trade agreement process, through the market access work that DIT regularly does. Industry and the Government need to continue to work with our counterparts in Australia and New Zealand to seek greater opportunities between the nations.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Lucy Monks: I guess that is always a concern with these kinds of processes. An opportunity to feed in if changes are made would be great. I know there is sometimes a need to move quickly to change regulations, but the opportunity to feed back into that process is obviously always welcome. That does not even have to happen within the context of what happens through a parliamentary scrutiny process; there can be conversations with the Department and parliamentarians, too.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
But a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult before regulations are made might be useful.
Lucy Monks: Yes.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
William and Andy, do you have any views on this?
William Bain: The maximum consultation with business and other stakeholders is important when important regulatory changes are being made, so we would encourage the greatest possible transparency from the Government in that respect. In relation to whether things are done through the negative process or the affirmative process, those will be issues for you as lawmakers to address. I am aware that if this Bill becomes an Act, it will be replaced by the Procurement Bill in due course, so there will be another opportunity to revisit this issue if it is considered that the legislative processes around order-making are ripe for improvement in some way.
Andy Burwell: Much like William, I am going to say that the decision about whether the negative or affirmative procedures are used and the processes in the House are for you to discuss and debate. In terms of business consultation, I have no doubt that if the Secretary of State and the Department deem it necessary to make further changes, they will consult with industry, and we would encourage them to do so in depth. Given the existing discussions, I have no reason to doubt that that would happen. The key thing is that if changes are made, industry is notified in a timely fashion, there is clarity as much as possible, and the changes are communicated clearly to all parties to enable them to utilise whichever provisions are changed, as well as prepare for them.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Andy Burwell: I am broadly content with where we are. I do not think a specific process necessarily needs to be set down in legislation because, as we all know, the world changes and in future we may need to have a process different from what we have right now. We should not hamstring ourselves with a particular approach in this legislation.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Lucy Monks: Basically there needs to be more done to help businesses—especially small businesses—export. There is so much potential with the kind of businesses we have in this country and the kind of markets that might be able to open up to us. We are entering into a new world. We have had conversations with the Department for International Trade over the export support service, which is meant to cover the EU and basically help businesses find their way through the new relationship. Has that worked as well as it could have done? Has it been as targeted as it could have been in the level of support? Not really, but the Department has promised and is in the process of introducing a new system that is supposed to address some of the concerns we have levelled, such as providing detailed information in a way that is accessible to small businesses, rather than just pointing to bits of the Government website, which is what was happening before.
We need to keep working in the direction we are talking about and trying to improve the availability of those kinds of services, while also looking at, for example, new ways of working with the FSB or DIT to encourage more people to understand and to export. We would be happy if that were to continue. There are so many different things that will have to happen to encourage businesses, and especially small businesses, to think about exporting if they are not doing it already, or to export into new markets if they are unfamiliar with exporting to Australia and New Zealand, because the cost and the risk can potentially be so high. We all need to work together to ensure that that can take place.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Lucy Monks: I am the head of international affairs at the FSB, so I always think that more could be done to help exporters enter into new markets. I do not want to take up the Committee’s time by running through a list of things, because there are so many things—for example, helping businesses mitigate some of the financial risks that they might face, because there are broader benefits to the UK economy if we can get those businesses into those new markets in the first place; providing the right kind of information; encouraging larger businesses to bring smaller businesses along with them; and doing more to allow for market access support. There is so much more that can be done, and we want to ensure that it will be done. If you want to have another conversation about all those things, I would be thrilled to have that conversation with you and with colleagues in DIT.
The Chair
May I remind the Committee to make sure that questions are within the scope of the Bill?
Gareth Thomas
Q
Lucy Monks: It is not the only type of risk, but it is a very clear risk—again, especially for smaller businesses that do not necessarily have the experience or the access to the legal departments and trade departments that larger businesses have. The points he raised need to be looked at and addressed for the sake of legal clarity, because he brings up some interesting points.
Gareth Thomas
I wonder if Mr Bain or Mr Burwell have a view.
William Bain: In terms of the question about the export capacity of these two trade agreements, we would see the case for a refresh of the export strategy. We think that some elements of it have worked well, so it is a case of examining and rocket-boosting those but also leveraging what business groups and other trade bodies do collectively, in terms of turning what are otherwise dry legal texts into growth-generating instruments for our export companies. In the chambers network we have particular strengths in trade promotion and trade facilitation. We are doing the paperwork that makes international trade happen.
In the other business groups and trade bodies, we all have expertise that can be leveraged with what the DIT is providing, to ensure that we get more exports from agreements such as the two that we are considering today. It is more of a refresh than to discard the export strategy. That seems to us to be the best way forward with both these agreements.
Andy Burwell: I will jump in off the back of that. Thank you for the question, Mr Thomas. I am probably going to have a slightly more positive tone than Lucy and William. The export strategy did take a step forward. The 12-point plan was broadly welcomed by business. If we look ahead for these two agreements and put them in the context of these two free trade agreements, as William said, to a degree it is about utilisation. It is about how industry and Government can work together to really push that utilisation. Due to covid and other reasons, we have had a dearth of trade missions and support from Government for trade missions. There now needs to be a really concerted effort to get out, shout about the UK and excellent goods and services and get British business thinking about travelling overseas.
Under the Trade Act 2021, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has an excellent dataset of British exports, which at the moment the Department does not leverage as it could or should. Giving the Department the ability to use that alongside business groups, as part of the approach to encouraging and promoting exports, would be a real opportunity for the Department and industry.
The final point I would make is the importance of continued work between industry and Governments on market access. The issues do not stop at the signing of an FTA and its ratification. There needs to be continual discussion between Departments in the UK and in post about market access issues and non-tariff barriers that we can work on together to further the opportunity for growth.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Andy Burwell: From his perspective, from a technical point of view it is accurate, but it all depends on how the new access is used and what the experience will be. I think we will have to wait and see whether those concerns come to the fore. It is hard for me to judge right now whether they are correct.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Andy Burwell: The professor will be much more the procurement expert than me. Speaking to members about these two agreements specifically and whether they had any concerns about the Procurement Bill and its powers, in the grand context of the changes that the Procurement Bill is making and the reforms within it, in a way these pale into insignificance. They are very minor in the grand context of that Bill. In broad terms, our members felt that they would be positive for industry.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next witness.
Examination of Witness
Leo Verity gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Leo Verity, the senior political adviser at the Trade Justice Movement, who is appearing via Zoom. The session will last until 10.35 am. Could the witness introduce themselves?
Leo Verity: Good morning. My name is Leo Verity. I am the senior political adviser at the Trade Justice Movement. We are a network organisation that represents around 60 non-governmental organisations and trade unions, and we work on issues around trade rules, including trade democracy and scrutiny, which is something I would like to focus on this morning.
Drew Hendry
Q
Leo Verity: Yes, that is a problem with the trade scrutiny system we have and the parliamentary processes we follow. There are major inconsistencies with the way the Government are approaching parliamentary scrutiny, so it is maybe worth touching on some of the problems we saw during the Australia ratification period. You will be aware that the 21-day CRaG period took place before summer recess, so Parliament has officially given its consent to that agreement.
Parliamentarians had major problems during that period with trying to secure parliamentary debates in the Commons. In the end, an urgent question that was tabled was the only opportunity for parliamentarians to debate the Australia agreement. Now we are in a situation, as you say, where New Zealand has not been through that process. There is a question here about what chronology Parliament should be following. It seems illogical that we are talking about legislation implementing an agreement that Parliament has not yet given its consent to, and that is probably a reflection of the way in which the Government view the CRaG process. Given that the Australian CRaG process was so fast that it was difficult to get meaningful scrutiny, I think that debating and implementing the legislation on New Zealand at this point implies that the Government are not expecting any further meaningful scrutiny of the New Zealand agreement in the CRaG period.
We would like to see consistency, and the logical standpoint should be that Parliament should approve these treaties through the CRaG process before Parliament discusses the legislation needed to implement them for future agreements. I certainly think that consistency is the key thing we need to see for future agreements.
Drew Hendry
Q
Leo Verity: I think so, yes. In truth, I think that awareness of the ratification process for Australia among not only the public but parliamentarians was extremely low, given the way it was snuck through, really, before the summer recess without meaningful notice of when it would be coming. I have seen that the new Secretary of State has made a commitment that for future agreements there will be at least 10 sitting days between the Government’s final report on trade agreements—the section 42 report—and the triggering of CRaG. That is less than the ITC requested—they wanted it to be a 15-day period—but at least it is some kind of structure that we can work by, so there is something about how these processes are supposed to work. But given that we saw that the CRaG process for Australia was so unfit for purpose, I certainly think it needs reform for future agreements.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Leo Verity: In terms of Australia and New Zealand, I know that in Australia the treaty is in front of joint committees that are constituted to properly scrutinise the agreement line by line, which is certainly more thorough than what we have. I think that is a relevant point about the Australia timeline. It is another question about why CRaG was rushed through for the Australia agreement prior to the summer recess, given that in Australia the treaty is done in front of a committee and then the implementing legislation will come forward, so there was certainly no rush for that happen.
In terms of other scrutiny processes to learn from, it is worth pointing to places such as America and the European Union, where there seem to be more meaningful scrutiny opportunities throughout the whole process of negotiation. For example, in America negotiating objectives come before Congress; that would be something that we would really welcome. As it stands, Parliament has no opportunity to debate the negotiating objectives that negotiators take forward. There are also more meaningful opportunities for legislators to see texts during negotiations; again, at the moment, parliamentarians do not see negotiating texts at any stage of the process. We would argue that it would be beneficial for the International Trade Committee to at least have a view of the negotiating text during the process. Finally, there will be guaranteed votes and debates on the content of trade agreements after signature; that is the big omission that we saw with the Australia CRaG process. The International Agreements Committee was debated in the Lords, but the International Trade Committee and the Liaison Committee pushed extremely hard for an opportunity to debate the Australia agreement, which was not forthcoming. In the end, an MP tabling an urgent question provided the only opportunity to debate the agreement, but there was still no vote on its content, which is something that happens elsewhere.
Finally, and linked to that, CRaG allows for parliamentarians, in lieu of a vote, to pass a motion against resolution. There is no opportunity to amend the text or anything like that. Even that motion, as I understand it, would just delay ratification rather than resolve against it. Given that there is no precedent, it is not completely clear what form that motion would have to take for parliamentarians, so it seems that ultimately there is no meaningful way for parliamentarians to express dissatisfaction with the trade agreements that our negotiators are coming back with. I think that is a problem.
The Chair
Can I remind everybody to stick to the scope of the Bill? A lot of the debate is very relevant, but please keep that in mind, in both asking questions and answering them.
Bill Esterson
Q
Leo Verity: In terms of amending the content of the agreement, as it stands I do not think so. One of the things we would be concerned about with the Bill in particular is that it is going to entrench some of the failures we have already seen in the scrutiny process. For example, we submitted written evidence, alongside the Public Law Project, that talks about the fact the secondary legislation brought in under the Bill will be subject to the negative procedure, and how that compounds the overall scrutiny deficit. There will be no opportunity for further regulations to be brought in to implement the procurement chapter. There will be no opportunity to debate those statutory instruments, which I think is a problem.
This Bill is a vehicle for debating the agreement in the round. We had concerns that the Secretary of State said, in a session with the International Trade Committee during the CRaG process, that the process of implementing legislation was an opportunity to discuss the content of the Bill; we do not see how that is the case. I have spoken about the scrutiny context, but given how narrow this legislation is, and given that it focuses on one specific chapter of the agreement—the procurement chapter—there is no meaningful scope for that further debate. The thing that I think could be done with the legislation would be to ensure that our treaty scrutiny deficit is not furthered, by ensuring that regulations brought in under the Bill will be debated. There is nothing to reopen the content of the agreement.
Bill Esterson
Q
Leo Verity: I have a couple of minor points on that, which, again, are covered in the written evidence that the Public Law Project did some fantastic work on. Some of the powers in clause 1 are not constrained by any kind of necessity test. I believe the wording is that regulations can be made where they are considered appropriate. I think that could potentially be problematic.
I know that concerns have also been expressed by the devolved Governments about the content and powers in the Bill. The Scottish Parliament has passed a legislative consent memorandum against the Bill on the basis that UK Ministers would be able to make further regulations without the need to refer back to Scottish Ministers. In addition to that, there are also some concerns expressed that there would not need to be further consultation with Scottish Ministers if the agreements were altered in the future. The Scottish Government have pointed out that that is a strange thing to include, given that the agreements have just been signed and this legislation will ultimately be superseded by the Procurement Bill that is with the Lords at the moment. Those are some of the areas that refer to treaty scrutiny and ensuring that any powers brought in under the Bill can be subject to proper scrutiny.
Bill Esterson
Q
Leo Verity: It is a good question. It also goes back to the point about the timelines for the Australian ratification of the agreement from their side. As far as I can infer, it is because the view is that this legislation can be passed quickly, and it is anticipated that the Procurement Bill will last for a long time. It often seems to be the case in the passage of these trade agreements that the Government have a tendency to impose arbitrary deadlines on themselves. We see it with the UK-India free trade agreement at the moment: we are two weeks away from the deadline that the Government imposed on themselves to come back with an agreement. That has been subject to criticism from ourselves, but also from lots of business groups and others.
There is no reason to be hasty in these agreements. These are new, from-scratch and comprehensive agreements, and as far as I can infer this legislation is in place so that the agreements can be signed off more quickly. That is what we have seen reflected in the scrutiny processes: there seems to have been a rush where none was needed. People on all sides of the argument accept the principle that more scrutiny is worth while, but that is all that I can read from it. Whether it is a good use of parliamentary time for this Bill to be debated in detail before being superseded by the Procurement Bill, I am not altogether certain, but that is an open question.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in a relatively broad way. First, do you think it would be useful to restrict more tightly what the Secretary of State can make those regulations on? If so, how? Secondly, would it be useful to include on the face of the Bill a requirement to consult with stakeholders and non-governmental organisations, or even with the advisory committees and standing committees that already exist in the Department, and/or the International Trade Committee, which as we know was treated appallingly by the Department under its previous leadership?
Leo Verity: Absolutely. That would be extremely worthwhile. We have talked about the parliamentary processes, but there are lots of big problems with the kind of consultation that has been available for civil society and for business organisations. We have certainly found it difficult to have those opportunities. Groups do exist—advisory groups, as you mentioned—that we take part in, and others within the Department for International Trade, but sometimes it is difficult to see the outcomes of the first discussions and, as you said, the relationship between the Department and the ITC has not been good enough either. It would be good to have some kind of meaningful mechanism for proper consultation with Committees, the public and also devolved Governments, which have been sidelined.
In response to your first point, on restrictions on what the Secretary of State can do, I think that would be worth while. I mentioned that the wording we were concerned about in the Bill was about regulations being made where considered appropriate; I am not an expert in procurement and I do not know what the intentions of the Government are in terms of the specifics of the regulations, but some kind of constraint on that language would be extremely helpful.
The Chair
We do not have time for any further questions so, on behalf of the Committee, I thank the witness for his answers.
Examination of Witness
Chris Southworth gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Chris Southworth: Good morning everybody. It is a great pleasure to be here; thank you for the invitation. My name is Chris Southworth. I am the secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce here in the UK. I am also the co-chair of the legal reform advisory board at the ICC digital standards initiative in Singapore and the ICC representative to the Commonwealth, so I am pretty well plugged into the digital trade agenda and very supportive of the Government’s efforts, in its trade negotiations, to develop and drive forward new digital trade corridors with commitments to reform laws and remove legal barriers to the handling of key documents and paper forms. The Australia and New Zealand agreements were the beginning of that process, if we look back in time.
There are a few points that I would like to make here. The first relates to the time of the negotiations; these were the first after the EU roll-over deals. Of course, the world has moved on quite significantly since then, and you can see that through the UK-Singapore digital economy agreement.
In terms of the context of the agreements, the Australia and New Zealand agreements are what we call a minimal requirement; they have got the basics, but they are not the gold standard, which is the digital economy agreement with Singapore. However, they are perfectly sufficient for us to modernise trade systems, remove all paper, enable our platforms, systems and processes across the public and private sectors to go fully digital and paperless, and, importantly, standardise those processes. All of those are key barriers to the digitalisation of trade, so this is quite an exciting opportunity.
I should mention that, although the value and volume of trade with both countries is relatively small in the UK context, this is about positioning in Asia. That is an important piece of the way we need to look at these agreements. This is about the UK preparing the ground to be closer to the Asia space and closer to relationships with the likes of the CPTPP. This was one of the first stepping stones towards that overall objective, which is the right objective; I do not think there are many people out there saying that is the wrong thing to do. Obviously, we are now in CPTPP accession negotiations, so we have moved on considerably. This is step one.
In terms of the context of the agreements—
The Chair
Order. Sorry, Mr Southworth. This is very useful information and we are very grateful, but we need to move on to questions. I will ask Gareth Thomas to start the questioning, and I am sure you can add what you need to add at that point.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Chris Southworth: Others may have comments on that. I am looking at this through the lens of the digitalisation of trade, and I do not think there is any conflict there at all. I think the two things are quite complementary, so we are not concerned by that. There has been no discussion raising those sorts of concerns in any of the networks we are involved in. I hope that answers your question.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Chris Southworth: I think we would all hope that it is opening up opportunities for everybody. SMEs are obviously crucial. It is great to have the big companies using these deals, but ultimately most traders are SMEs, and those are either operating within supply chains or operating independently. I hope that small companies across the UK look at this as a great opportunity to increase their trade with another part of the world—Australia and New Zealand in this context.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Chris Southworth: I would not say it is rosy. You only have to look at the trade figures to see that. There is a range of issues here. If you look at it in the context of digitalisation of trade, it is not as simple as just putting an agreement in place and then expecting it all to happen, which is exactly why we have created the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation. We need to help industry understand what systems and processes they can use to make trade simpler, cheaper and faster. That is the big opportunity in terms of digitalisation, and that has to be a joint effort. The Government are doing a stellar job in that area. In fact, we are leading in the world on that. Lots of other countries are looking at what we are doing. So there is no issue there in my view.
If there is an issue, a question that I would pose is around the practical model of export support. We are the only big nation that delivers B2B support through Government. Every other major exporting economy works in partnership with the likes of chambers of commerce. This is a great point to reflect on whether we have the right model or whether we could be leveraging the private sector far better. I would argue, having been in government myself, in what used to be UKTI, and looked at exactly these issues, that you do not have to spend very long with other countries—Japan, France, Germany or anywhere else—to see that if Government can streamline and really focus where it adds value, which is more in Government-to-Government negotiations, Government-to-business on the big strategic opportunities where the Government are required, and then in partnership with business on the B2B support, that works exceptionally well. It is very efficient. You can mobilise whole value chains into markets on a whole different level than we can in the UK. That is a huge opportunity and is something that should be reflected upon and debated—whether we have got the right model or whether we can do that in a better way.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Chris Southworth: Like I say, I have been around this particular discussion for many years now, both in government and outside government. I personally think it was the wrong call. I think we can do it better. There are lessons to learn from others—particularly the Japanese model. The Japanese chamber of commerce operates like we do, with a voluntary membership model, but it has legislation that provides legal certainty, meaning that it can drive in investment over the long term. That is what we too need to do in the private sector, to make sure we have the right capabilities. It has a really effective relationship with METI, its DIT equivalent.
I personally think we can do this better, and we can do it more efficiently. Ultimately, trade is a business activity. Governments do not trade; businesses do. When a company picks up the phone and asks for advice, it wants business advice from people who do this stuff day in, day out, and it wants proper advice quickly on what to do and what not to do. That is a far more efficient way of doing that B2B piece than it is coming from Government, where you are naturally restricted. On top of that, you are constantly chopping and changing with contracts and different approaches. All that does is create more and more uncertainty, and you cannot build for the long term. We need to build for the long term. There is a big opportunity to do this much better, and I would strongly argue that that has definitely got to be the way forward, but it needs more debate from all those involved.
The Chair
Can I remind you again that, in both questions and answers, we must stick to the Bill and not debate the wider policy?
Gareth Thomas
Q
One of our later witnesses is a gentleman called Professor Sanchez-Graells, who gave evidence to the International Trade Committee on some of the legal issues relating to remedies for businesses that feel they have been unfairly treated in a tendering process. If I have understood his evidence correctly, he argues that the remedies available under the UK-Australia FTA are worse for businesses that have been treated unfairly than those available under deals we have done with similar countries, such as the EU and New Zealand. As a result, there might be regulatory chill—it might put businesses off bidding for Government contracts in Australia. Is that something that you worry about? If his evidence suggests that there is a serious issue, do you think the Government would need to address it quickly?
Chris Southworth: To be honest, I would defer to others to advise on that. Obviously, the trade remedies framework is very important, for all the reasons you have just set out, but I am not in a position to comment as it is not a space that we are focused on. Others are much more into that space than we are and would be better placed to advise on it.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from John Cooke, chair of TheCityUK’s liberalisation of trade in services committee, appearing via Zoom. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Mr Cooke, would you like to introduce yourself? I will then ask Members to ask you questions.
John Cooke: Thank you. Am I the only person giving evidence?
The Chair
In this session. There are a number of evidence sessions.
John Cooke: Thank you very much. I am John Cooke. I am a consultant with TheCityUK, and I co-chair an expert advisory group at TheCityUK on liberalisation of trade in services.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Gareth Thomas
Yes, in respect of the Bill.
John Cooke: One has to remember about the agreements with Australia and New Zealand that, as far as services are concerned—that is my particular area, and financial and professional services within that—they are agreements with trading partners that already had pretty liberal regimes, so there was only a limited amount extra that could be achieved in the agreements. All the same, they are useful agreements to have, and in particular they have provisions in them on regulatory co-operation that provide frameworks for building further points in the future into the relationship between the United Kingdom and the two countries.
Gareth Thomas
Q
John Cooke: I think they have value in themselves, certainly on public procurement and Government procurement. The view we have always taken on financial and professional services is that while Government procurement is often thought of in terms of procurement of goods, such as medical supplies and so on, the UK sector in these areas is very keen that it should be absolutely explicit that Government procurement also applies to services.
We look at this globally, not just in relation to Australia and New Zealand. The example I would give is that if, say, a country has a pensions regime that is provided by the state but also has a private sector pillar for extra investment, we would want to be quite sure that that private sector pillar is open to bidding and tendering by UK financial product suppliers. Sometimes there is a tendency in that sort of thing for a Government to feel, “Well, as the pension provision is in the main a state pension that is Government controlled, any private sector pillar should also be somehow confined to the country concerned.” We are very keen to remove any such assumption and make sure there is open competition, so—[Interruption.]
The Chair
We have lost the witness, so I will suspend the session until—hopefully—we get Mr Cooke back.
The Chair
Welcome back. Mr Cooke, can you confirm that you hear us okay?
John Cooke: Yes, I can.
The Chair
I think you were halfway through an answer, or coming to the end of it. Do you want us to move on to the next question?
John Cooke: I do not know at what point I was cut off exactly. The point I was making was that Government procurement is commonly associated with supplies of goods, but we in services, and in financial services in particular, are keen that, where the Government are commissioning the private sector, for example, to provide a private sector pillar of pension provision, UK financial services providers should be in a position to bid for that; it should not be confined just to financial services within the country concerned, or to nationals of the country concerned. That was the point that I was making. We value the public—Government—procurement provisions for their own sake, as well as for whether they prove to be a stepping stone to CPTPP membership.
Gareth Thomas
Q
John Cooke: I am not familiar with that particular comment. I think it depends very much on the context of an observation like that. For us in financial and professional services, we look for particular kinds of help. On the whole, when dealing with financial businesses —with very big businesses—they might need a certain amount of door-opening help from missions abroad, which I think they get. I do not think that we have expressed any discontentment about that. The question may be much more open for smaller businesses, where the Government might be in a position to do much more by way of helping them in particular markets. The other kind of help that is of course very important for all exporters is the implementation of a trade agreement. The making of a trade agreement is not an end in itself; its implementation needs to be carried through. Where the other party might not implement it fully, that needs to be attended to actively.
Gareth Thomas
Q
John Cooke: It is not a point that I have been made aware of, frankly. I will gladly make inquiries and, if appropriate, submit some written evidence to the Committee, but it is not something that has been brought to my attention.
The Chair
As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Jenkinson.)
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Second sitting)
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 October 2022 - (12 Oct 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Sophie Jones, director of public affairs at the British Phonographic Industry, appearing via Zoom. We have until 2.15 pm for this session. Please will the witness introduce herself for the record?
Sophie Jones: Good afternoon. My name is Sophie Jones. I am director of public affairs at the BPI, representing UK record labels.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Sophie Jones: I do not know how much. It did feel like something of a rush, but while some relatively modest progress was made, we welcome a number of strong improvements. I think you are referring particularly to Australia, but that was to New Zealand as well. Some of the things we were most interested to see, particularly around the Australian system of placing broadcast caps on the royalties that can be paid through to music rights holders, artists and musicians, is a commitment to make progress on those matters through ongoing dialogue, rather than firm commitments within the trade agreement itself. Perhaps that, as a significant focus and priority for us, with more time might have been able to make even more progress than the bilateral discussion approach that is being taken. While very welcome, that is perhaps an area that might have been given a firmer commitment.
The commitment is important because currently, in effect, the music industry provides a cross-subsidy to the broadcast sector, so that when musicians have their music played on broadcast channels in Australia, the amount of royalties paid is significantly capped at 1% of the gross revenue from the broadcaster. It is a significant policy area, and we hope to see progress made on that so that artists both in Australia and the UK can see the benefits of it flowing through.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sophie Jones: The trade agreements themselves are significant in opening up markets to exporters, such as ourselves. British music is a phenomenal export success. In recorded music, we have seen our export revenues grow steadily year after year. That is partly due to the strength of the UK music sector and partly to do with the phenomenal talent we have here in this cultural capital, as well as the soft power of our music throughout the world. Outside of free trade agreements, we seek to—it is the example I just gave—bring countries more into line with the UK’s gold-standard IP framework and ensure that the value of the music we are creating is fairly recognised.
There are other parallel, accompanying schemes that we think could be more bold and ambitious. For example, we run something called the music export growth scheme with the Department for International Trade and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. That provides a really important foothold for British artists—independent artists in particular—when exporting into those territories.
We think there should be bigger, more ambitious support for that scheme, particularly with the rise of streaming, to enable access into markets such as those of Australia and New Zealand, which are really important touring markets but of course very far away, expensive and difficult to get to. The opportunities opened up by the rise of digital streaming mean that British artists have more access into those markets to generate export revenue and engage with fans, but smaller independent companies and artists need extra help to do that.
There is a huge growth opportunity there. We think that recorded music exports are set to double in the next two years, and by the end of this decade they will be at more than £1 billion a year. We need initiatives such as that and investment that helps bridge some of the gap in marketing, so that we can promote into those territories more than we ever have done before.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sophie Jones: If you are an SME or an independent artist, there is a cost of either going to tour in that territory or market yourself in that territory, particularly in a streaming-led environment where competition is so fierce and you are competing against the whole catalogue of music on streaming platforms. The music export growth scheme that we run provides grants that help support that kind of marketing, promotional and touring activity in a way that companies and artists at that scale in the market struggle to be able to meet. It is an investment injection to help bridge that gap.
The scheme is really successful. It generates £13 back for every £1 that is put in through the Government partnership. We see it very much as a valuable, even necessary, scheme to enable that export activity to happen for those who are at the earlier stages of their career development.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I will thank the witness for her evidence. We will now move on to the next panel. Thank you, Ms Jones.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonnie Hall, Donald MacKinnon, Gareth Parry and Nick von Westenholz gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Gareth Parry, senior policy and communications officer for the National Farmers Union of Wales, Jonnie Hall, director of policy for the National Farmers Union Scotland, and Donald MacKinnon, chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation. All three will be appearing via Zoom. Welcome also to Nick von Westenholz, director of international trade at the National Farmers Union. We have until 3.5 pm for this session. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Nick von Westenholz: I am Nick von Westenholz, director of trade and business strategy at the National Farmers Union of England and Wales.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Parry, for joining us at comparatively short notice. I very much appreciate you taking the time today. Will you introduce yourself?
Gareth Parry: Thank you, Chair. I am Gareth Parry, senior policy and communications officer for the Farmers Union of Wales. Thank you for that acknowledgement.
Jonnie Hall: Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you can hear me loud and clear. My name is Jonnie Hall. I am director of policy with NFU Scotland. I am speaking to you from Edinburgh.
Donald MacKinnon: I am Donald MacKinnon, the chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation. I am a crofter from the isle of Lewis.
The Chair
Thank you. Some might ask why we are doing that twice, but it is because we do not know who you are even though I am reading out the names. Now we do, so we are very grateful. We now have questions from colleagues.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
For those of you joining us via Zoom, I can see all of you clearly, so if you raise your physical hand, we can go from there. Nick.
Nick von Westenholz: Generally, the position of the NFU on procurement—this will not surprise you—is that we are keen to encourage it, perhaps as in the UK guidelines, which encourage the purchase of locally produced food. That is broadly shared by many MPs, that our schools, hospitals and other things should as much as possible be able to provide British food on the menu. Agreements such as those found in the trade deals, as well as the Government procurement agreement that the UK is a signatory to, put some restrictions on that. The potential quid pro quo, of course, is that we might be able to benefit from greater procurement access to overseas markets.
First, it is not clear to us exactly the extent to which food procurement will be central to the chapters in this sort of agreement; it might be other, much bigger procurements that are more likely to benefit from the arrangements, whether in the trade deals or the GPA, to a large degree because we are very far away from each other. If we are looking at a total service contract, it is not necessarily straightforward for businesses in Australia to provide that to schools or hospitals in the UK, and vice versa. Nevertheless, this potentially captures those kinds of contracts.
I am not sure that I am at the moment aware of UK businesses that are looking and eager to capitalise on this or to provide UK food directly to Australian public procurement markets. It is obviously a long way away to be doing that. I suggest that the opportunities are modest, probably both ways. Nevertheless, there is some concern that these sorts of arrangements do restrict the ability of the UK Government in future to look at ways of increasing the amount of British food subject to UK public procurement guidelines.
The Chair
Would any other witnesses like to respond?
Jonnie Hall: Yes, if I may come in on that, first to echo Nick’s points about the need for Governments and public bodies throughout the United Kingdom primarily to source their procurement locally, certainly within the UK or within the devolved Administrations, as it is here in Scotland. One additional slight complication to this issue on Government procurement, which I am sure the Committee is well aware of, is that over the summer the Scottish Parliament passed something called the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act. This has measures in it here in Scotland on public procurement and so on.
Alongside lots of questions around what is UK legislation on the one hand and devolved legislation on the other would be questions in my head around the intersection between UK Government procurement in the food arena and what the Scottish Government are trying to achieve through legislation here in Scotland. Maybe that is a complication too far at this stage, but I just raise that as an issue, in addition to supporting what Nick has already said.
In terms of overall Government procurement, I do not believe that food issues will be of huge significance. That is not to say that food, trade and agrifood trade issues as a consequence of the free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand are not of huge significance. I am sure you are well aware of some of our concerns around that.
Gareth Parry: From the FUW’s point of view, specifically with regards to procurement, it is worth remembering that New Zealand and Australia are huge net exporters, particularly of red meat and agricultural goods. It is assumed, at least, that there would be more scope for those countries to make the most of procurement contracts in the UK compared with vice-versa, where for certain products there may be an opportunity to make the most of that procurement benefit in those two countries. From our understanding, there would be scope for them to make use of our markets rather than the other way round.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Q
Nick von Westenholz: I do not have a concern with that specific issue of the timing of the implementing legislation. Clearly, it is the Government’s position that a number of things need to be in place before they go ahead and ratify this deal: the implementing legislation such as the Bill, certain regulations that flow from that and the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process itself. The chronology, as it were, is not necessarily the most important thing. They all need to be done.
What is a much bigger concern of ours is the fact that the debate on Second Reading, and I suspect some other debates on the Bill, will be used as a proxy for a general debate and discussion about the merits or otherwise of these two trade deals. This is the wrong vehicle for that, frankly. It turns out that it is possibly the only vehicle for that and we will make do with that, but we understood, through the exchange of letters from the Government and the International Agreements Committee in the House of Lords, that the process would be—and should be—a debate tabled during the CRaG process. That is important because that is the only period of time where MPs retain the ability, if they so wish—I suspect with this deal they would not have wished to do so—to delay the ratification. Once that CRaG process is completed, that power for MPs falls. That process with Australia has been completed, so MPs no longer retain the right to delay ratification under the CRaG for the Australian trade agreement.
We are where we are, but I would say that with a number of other FTAs coming down the track, it would be very good to hear a commitment from the Government that they will allow time for debate on a relevant motion—not a neutral motion—prior to the end of the CRaG period. In that case, they can satisfy normal expectations of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability for what are very important trade deals that will have a big impact on all our members.
Jonnie Hall: May I come in here? Again, to echo everything that Nick has just outlined, the whole issue of the scrutiny of free trade agreements, particularly in the context of agrifood, has been a major concern for farming and crofting interests here in Scotland. Throughout this process in the last two years, as we saw first the Australia FTA and then the New Zealand FTA quickly follow suit, a whole host of questions were raised about the role and efficacy of the process. In particular, it rekindled the thoughts around the role of the so-called Trade and Agriculture Commission, and its powers or otherwise to essentially scrutinise FTAs in the agricultural sphere before they have gone through all of the other processes. That was rather than it being a retrospective scrutiny, by which time it was too late—the horse had bolted in many respects. There are still concerns here in Scotland, which I am sure are shared across the United Kingdom, from the agrifood sectors in that regard.
Donald MacKinnon: I agree with the two previous comments, but I reiterate that it is so important that these trade deals are given the scrutiny that they deserve. The really important thing is that we consider all the potential unintended consequences—for our sector, in particular—of what may be well meaning motivations. To pick up on the point that Nick made, the really important thing for us is not just these trade deals that are in front of us just now, but the precedent that they set for the future, and the precedent that the process sets for the negotiation of future trade deals, the scrutiny that is applied to those and the implications of that.
The Chair
Before I call Anum Qaisar, I think Nia Griffith has a supplementary, or another question.
Dame Nia Griffith
Q
Nick von Westenholz: We take the Government’s impact assessment at face value. It is not surprising, if you look at the basics of the trade deals, that the deals themselves change very little for UK exporters to Australia or New Zealand. They are open, liberalised economies already, with tariffs generally at zero, although there are some tariffs on some products. Of course, coming the other way, the deals are very liberalising—over a period of years, admittedly, but eventually we will liberalise our markets in a way that they are not for other countries that we do not have trade deals with. It makes sense that there would potentially be a negative impact in those sectors of the economy where Australia and New Zealand are particularly strong, such as agrifood. So, yes, those impact assessments sound right to us.
Jonnie Hall: To complement what Nick has just said, for agriculture and agrifood as a whole, it looks like a potentially damaging impact, but I think we need to be a bit more nuanced about it, and look at it in terms of particular sectors in agriculture. New Zealand is very strong in terms of red meat—beef and lamb—but also dairy and horticultural production. Australia is likewise, and you can add grain to that. There are clear potential impacts for particular sectors that are already really quite vulnerable in large parts of the United Kingdom, not least in Scotland. I am thinking particularly of the red meat sector and how important that is to the rural economy of Scotland and, indeed, the whole economy. Scotch beef and Scotch lamb are iconic products, but we are not in a situation whereby we can stack it high and sell it low, as it were. Anything that comes along and undermines our position in that respect is clearly going to be a considerable threat—I use that word advisedly—to the viability of agricultural businesses here in Scotland.
Donald MacKinnon: I agree with everything that Jonnie said there. I think of the impact, particularly on the red meat sector, which, we cannot forget, operates in some of the most fragile areas of the country and really underpins the rural economy in these areas, particularly in the highlands and islands, where my members are crofters.
I just want to add another point about timescales. Often the argument is put to us that New Zealand is not ready to flood us with lamb on day one—I am sure we will get on to the safeguards that have been put in around the 15-year transition—but that was never something that we were concerned about. This is about changes that can happen over a much longer period of time. Agriculture does not operate on year-to-year, short lifecycles. We operate in generational terms in our businesses, and 15 years is a relatively short period of time in that sense. So it is not that we are concerned that the negative impacts are going to happen straightaway. This is about the long-term future of our industry. That is what my members are concerned about.
Gareth Parry: I would take that a step further, from a Wales perspective at least. Without going into too many details of the figures from the UK Government and the impact assessments of all the different sectors and the different nations across the UK, I think it is worth highlighting how much more Wales relies on agriculture when it comes to rural economies, rural communities, our Welsh language, and a number of other, tertiary businesses that rely on agriculture. We believe that those impacts would be much more significant in Wales.
Dame Nia Griffith
Q
Nick von Westenholz: I am not sure it could be done via the Bill, because I guess the Bill is simply legislating domestically for what has been agreed under the Government procurement chapters in the FTAs themselves. My understanding is that if they were to do that, they would have to go back and open up the negotiations, which are obviously completed. I think the Bill either stands or falls. I am not sure an amendment would be possible in that sense.
I would have to examine the text closely, but under the relevant chapters in the agreements and, indeed, in the wider Government procurement agreement, there are provisions that allow Governments to stipulate provisions around environmental protection and so on, and environmental standards for procurement contracts, as long as those are not discriminatory between domestic and overseas potential bidders. I am not sure that that would extend to, for example, animal welfare and those kinds of production standards, but I could not be absolutely sure about that. I would suggest that there is some degree of flexibility for Governments to stipulate certain requirements in the contracts for these public procurement arrangements, but on the question whether that extends to specific animal welfare requirements, I do not believe it would.
The Chair
I remind colleagues that the scope of the Bill is quite narrow, as Nick alluded to. I do not know whether any other witness wants to comment on that question.
Jonnie Hall: The question raised the issue of standards, and how you could build and ensure standards through any procurement contract. We all have standards in mind around all sorts of trading arrangements, and that has been one of the major focal points of the FTAs with New Zealand and Australia, but we have to bear in mind that it is not just about animal health and welfare and environmental standards; it is about the way in which the production systems operate in New Zealand and Australia. Their costs of production are different from those in the UK, often because of the very high standards and compliance costs that go alongside production here.
Ultimately, an awful lot of procurement contracts will be negotiated on price, given that there will be a written understanding, at least, that the standards in them will be of an equitable value, if that is the right expression. It is the competing on price piece that will probably be of more concern to Scottish producers than anything else, because we operate under different agricultural production systems and our cost structures are therefore different. If it comes to Government procurement issues, it may be that New Zealand and Australian produce is more attractive simply in terms of value for money—I will call it that, but the word “value” is not right.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Q
Nick von Westenholz: As I said at the beginning, these kinds of arrangements, whether through FTAs or more generally through the Government procurement agreement, obviously put restrictions on the ability of the UK Government to encourage purchasing of UK goods in public procurement contracts. You understand why: these are liberalising arrangements that are intended to encourage trade. But we also know that there is widescale political support for “buy British” provisions in Government procurement, so there is a tension between the sorts of provisions in these chapters and the stated desire from the Government to encourage more Government procurement of British food.
In terms of how much that will come to bear in practice, Australia and New Zealand are obviously on the other side of the world; it is not clear the degree to which they will be pitching for procurement contracts around food, but this would facilitate that if they wanted to. It is part of a wider picture of essentially facilitating more overseas provision of food in public procurement, and that is a concern if your policy objective is to encourage more “buy British” in public procurement.
Jonnie Hall: I agree with what Nick just said. There seems to be some divergence between a policy that is intended to stimulate trade, as opposed to backing local Scottish and British food producers and manufacturers. There will obviously be some sort of trade-off in that situation, and I am not clear where that would leave Scottish producers in the longer term.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
The deal does not cover schools in New Zealand and Australia, because those public institutions are at the state level, not the federal level. If, for example, we produced a certain crop or fish, such as British cod, cheaper, those products would not have that easy access, so people in Australia having fish and chips would not necessarily have British fish or British potatoes. Do you not think there is an inherent unfairness in this deal? Should there be some procurement conditions in the Bill to ensure that it is about reciprocity and, where reciprocity does not exist, to allow devolved or local authorities to take a divergent approach, as Australian local authorities will be able to do?
Nick von Westenholz: I certainly agree with the principle of what you say: these deals should be reciprocal. There are a number of elements of the Australia deal where there is an asymmetry. In some of the environmental aspects, there are provisions that apply to UK-wide environmental regulations, but only to Australian federal regulations rather than those at state level. Most Australian environmental laws actually exist at state level, so the vast majority of environmental laws are not covered by this trade deal. I would say that that is an imbalance and an asymmetry in the deal.
As I say, as a point of principle, I agree with you. The rather lengthy annexes to the FTA set out which bodies are covered at both national and sub-regional levels. It is not always easy to discern exactly what is and is not covered, so I will bow to your knowledge on the exact differences in the bodies that are covered—I would not be able to confirm that myself—but, where there are differences, we would be concerned about that.
I would temper that a little with the fact that I am not sure we think there will be a major exchange of business through procurement contracts on food as a direct result of this deal. We will need to keep an eye on that. It will probably be other, bigger industrial services contracts that are likely to benefit, so I would not want to over-egg it. However, as a point of principle, I agree with you.
Jonnie Hall: I will add one thing quickly. There was a reference to the carbon content of lamb from New Zealand versus the carbon content of Welsh lamb, or indeed Scottish lamb. I think that would be a real sticking point in many ways, because that carbon is not necessarily calculated using the same process and the metrics may not be directly comparable. We need a level playing field in how we measure the carbon or climate impact, or indeed any other environmental impact, of production in Australia and New Zealand versus production in the UK before we can draw any sort of comparison. If you cannot do that, you have to be very careful about any assumptions you make about importing any product because of its smaller carbon footprint or any other environmental impact before you rush into any deal.
Gareth Parry: I agree with everything that has been said. I have not seen the figures relating to the carbon footprint, but if they are correct, thank you for challenging them. I also agree with the point about carbon calculators, and as a union we have been raising that issue on a national level. The same calculator may be used to compare neighbouring farms, or even on a national scale, but the issues become even more apparent when we look further afield and discuss trade deals: the issues that arise in comparing the carbon footprints of two farm holdings five miles apart also apply when we compare the carbon footprint of a product produced in a UK nation with that of a product produced on the other side of the world.
It is really important to consider the scale of production in countries such as Australia and New Zealand, compared with the UK. I guess that has something to do with the conclusion that the carbon footprint is lower. The scale of production over there—and things are produced to different standards there, as has been said—cannot be compared to that in the UK.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Nick von Westenholz: As a general rule, we are nervous about the overuse of secondary legislation to implement Government policies. That goes back to the earlier point about parliamentary accountability and scrutiny.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Nick von Westenholz: Yes, indeed. I would not like to comment, because you would need more expert legal commentary on the precise powers available in the Bill. I sit on the Trade and Agriculture Commission to which you referred, and our experience from that supports the points made by Jonnie Hall. We found very varied calculations of the relative carbon emissions from New Zealand and UK red meat production, which is exactly the point made earlier. To give New Zealand farmers due respect, on a global scale, they have comparatively very sustainable and good global emissions—as do we; we should be proud of ourselves as well.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member, tempts our witnesses to comment on other Bills. Even though he does so in the context of this Bill, that is slightly out of scope of the Bill. Perhaps he might rephrase his question.
Bill Esterson
I can certainly rephrase it. What sort of provisions would you ideally like to see in this Bill?
Chair
Excellent. You confirm your experience and political agility.
Nick von Westenholz: I touched on it earlier: much as we might want to say, “We can amend the hell out of the primary legislation in order to amend the FTA,” that will not happen, and I also do not think that would be right. The FTA has been negotiated by the UK Government’s negotiators, and what they have come back with has been agreed with Australia and New Zealand. Trying to change the details of it through primary legislation would simply mean opening up the negotiations again; we would have to go back and renegotiate.
I might think that there are elements of the FTA that need renegotiating, but the way to do that is to have much more transparency and scrutiny throughout the negotiation process. As I said earlier, that was agreed in the exchange of letters between the International Agreements Committee and the Government. The Government committed to sharing their objectives before negotiations opened, to sharing updates throughout the negotiations with Parliament, and to providing for a debate on an amendable motion at the end of the process. If the Government do that, one could be pretty assured that the negotiations would end up with a result that is more palatable to a whole range of UK stakeholders. That did not happen in this case, and that is why there has been serious disquiet, particularly in the farming sector, about the deals.
Gareth Parry: Ever since the trade deals were mooted, we have been calling for a level playing field when our producers are in competition, or even greater competition, with producers in Australia and New Zealand. We could be here for hours discussing differences in production methods and standards between the countries, but my understanding is that there is no provision in the trade deals that would allow us to influence how those countries produce food and vice versa. From my understanding, that is why quotas and tariffs are used in trading across the world. If we are not allowed to influence how food is produced in another country, we use quotas and tariffs to create that level playing field. As Nick said, perhaps they cannot be incorporated to negotiate the current FTAs, but they definitely need to be considered when future trade deals come down the line.
Jonnie Hall: I thought the issues of concern were articulated very well in the first question. If they are the issues of concern, it strikes me as being a bit odd that they would be dealt with in legislation on Government procurement, rather than in the original process governing the trade agreements. I guess I am echoing what has been said by Nick and Gareth.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Nick von Westenholz: As I said, I sit on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, but maybe it would be right to say that I am making my comments as a representative of the NFU. Obviously, my role on the commission is as required and set out by the Secretary of State, who asks us to do what she would like us to do and says what she would like us to look at. We do that job as requested, essentially.
From the NFU’s perspective, I think the strength, or role, of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is as strong or as weak as the parliamentary scrutiny process around it. We look very closely, in considerable depth, at the standards aspects of trade deals, and we have produced two reports that go into some depth on that. The value of that is in providing parliamentarians with as much information as possible, so that they can assess the strengths and weaknesses of the FTA. Obviously, that goes alongside the broader assessments that Select Committees in both Houses make. We hope that, armed with that information, parliamentarians can then an informed decision as to whether they like an FTA or not. If parliamentarians, as I mentioned earlier, are not given the opportunity to vote on that, or even to debate it during the CRaG process, that clearly seriously undermines the effectiveness of any assessments, whether from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, Select Committees or, indeed, anything else. The scrutiny process and the role of Parliament in this is vital.
We still are using the CRaG process as the main process. As I say, I do not think that it has been used at all well in this situation, but that is what we have. That process was designed while we were a member of the EU, and really it did not envisage that free trade agreements like these would be subject to the process; it was for international treaties covering many other sorts of things. It seems to me pretty obvious that, having left the EU more than six years ago, we should design a parliamentary process, in statute, that actually deals with the fact that we are an independent trading nation doing these very important and often in-depth free trade agreements. The current situation is not designed to do that, and that is being shown up already in the Australian FTA.
Jonnie Hall: I completely endorse what Nick says. The Trade and Agriculture Commission was set up with the best intentions, and gave the agricultural industry and probably the whole agrifood sector a bit of encouragement that proper scrutiny would take place as trade deals were being negotiated. That was enhanced even further in November 2020, when the UK Government said that the commission would be placed on a full strategy footing, to ensure that the voices of farmers, growers, those in the supply chain and environmental, animal health and welfare groups could be heard while the UK Government were securing trade deals.
However, in March 2021, the terms of reference were published by the UK Government, and they stated that TAC would scrutinise free trade agreements once they were signed. That takes the whole point of the commission away from under its feet in many ways. It would work well, was effective and, I think, did perform a useful function—as Nick says, in informing parliamentarians, more than anything else. It has now been somewhat sterilised in some ways. We still need some sort of body to function in that way.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Nick von Westenholz: I would not want to give a long answer; we all have opinions on what happened with the negotiations. I would just say that if you are doing a trade deal with a country such as Australia or New Zealand—countries that are, particularly when it comes to goods, already almost totally liberalised, and are very big and effective agricultural exporters—agriculture in the UK will probably be the main sector to come under pressure as a result. If you wanted to do a deal, and particularly if you wanted to do it quickly, and wanted it to be liberalising, as was the Government’s intention, I am not sure that you could do it in any way that did not at least have the potential to have a negative impact on UK agriculture, though none of us knows exactly what the outcome of the deals will be in the next few years.
Jonnie Hall: If you look at modern trade deals—deals in the last 20-plus years—agriculture has often been the sacrificial lamb in those trade negotiations, no pun intended, so the expression, “being thrown under the bus”, resonates quite clearly with the agrifood sector. In modern-day economies, it is in digital, tech, manufacturing and finance that great gains are to be made. We are the primary producers of a primary product; when it comes to overall value, agriculture and food products will be relegated to the tail end of a trade agreement between modern economies. If you ask other sectors of the economy, they will probably think that the agreements that have been signed are very much in their interests and create opportunity. We tend to see them in another way.
Gareth Parry: I wanted to answer the question on the Trade and Agricultural Commission. Forgive me, but I am not 100% sure of the full list of TAC members; however, we have long had the policy that representation on the commission needs to reflect the potential impacts on the agriculture and food sectors across the UK. I emphasise the need for good representation of all nations. I fully agree with what Nick and Jonnie said about the effectiveness of the TAC. As was said, it is no secret that the agricultural sectors in both the countries that we are talking about are huge. There will always be winners and losers in these types of liberalised trade deals, and unfortunately, as we can see from the impact assessments, agriculture is predicted to be one of the sectors that is a significant loser from these deals.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Q
Nick von Westenholz: When we were a member of the EU, all trade agreements by the EU were scrutinised directly by Committees of Parliament. There was, through that process, a good degree of parliamentary scrutiny. At that time, Parliament retained a theoretical ability to either accept or reject all regulations stemming from the EU. A lot of people might argue that the power was exercised rarely, if ever, and that played greatly into the debate on our membership of the EU, but certainly formerly Parliament had a greater ability to oppose trade deals.
The Chair
Order. If colleagues have got something to say, they should say it through the Chair for the benefit of Hansard, the broadcasters, the public and most of all out of courtesy to our witnesses. Thank you Dr Mullan. If there are no more questions, I thank the witnesses for their time. In particular, if I may, I thank Mr Parry, who came in at late notice; we certainly wanted to hear from Wales.
Examination of Witness
Professor Albert Sanchez-Graells gave evidence.
The Chair
Professor Albert Sanchez-Graells is professor of economic law and co-director of the centre for global law and innovation at the University of Bristol law school. He is appearing via Zoom, and this session will end at 3. 25 pm. For the record, could you please introduce yourself, professor? Thank you, sir.
Professor Sanchez-Graells: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity. I am Albert Sanchez-Graells and, as you said, I am a professor of economic law at the University of Bristol.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: Yes, that is correct. Thank you for the opportunity to expand on those ideas. Basically, the starting position is that both the UK and Australia, as well as New Zealand, are members of the World Trade Organisation plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement. That means that free trade restrictions are already bound by a standard of rules with which they comply, and then they have bilateral agreements on market access. You would have expected that if the UK and Australia wanted to deepen that market access, or the UK and New Zealand wanted to do so, they would do it by adding to the annexes of the GPA, basically by keeping the rules as they are, but accepting that this or that market at national or sub-national level is also open to the tenders of the other jurisdiction. By the way, that is the approach that has been followed in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, basically because that is a clean legal approach. We agree on the rules, we just negotiate on market access.
The difficulties with the chapters in the UK-Australia agreement in particular, and to some extent in the UK-New Zealand agreement, is that they have not done that. They have copied the rules of the GPA and then tweaked them. In those tweaks, there are problematic changes. I have identified two main areas of problem: one is the national treatment rules on access to markets, which applies in particular to suppliers in different jurisdictions, and the other is access to remedies. The access to remedies is the one that worries me because under the chapter with Australia, not the one with New Zealand, there is a clause that allows for the exclusion of legal remedies completely on the basis of public interest. That means that, for example, for very high-profile projects, or very high value, the courts might just set aside any claims for a suspension of the procedure or even for the compensation of damages to admit that there has been a loss to be excluded on the grounds that that is not in the national interest. It is a very open-ended clause. I think that this will make tenderers from Australia, in particular, think twice about tendering in the UK now, when they could basically be mistreated or even illegally excluded from tenders and then not have access to legal redress.
I think that that can be problematic. What is also problematic is that of course it plays both ways. If I am a UK small or medium-sized enterprise and I have to decide whether to invest my limited time and resources in bidding for a contract in Australia or bidding for a contract in, for example, the European Union, I know that, in the European Union, my interests are protected to GPA-plus standards, whereas under the FTA, in Australia, my interests are protected to GPA-minus standards, so I would probably refrain from bidding in Australia, which then brings a big question mark to the practical advantages of the enhanced market access that the Government have claimed the chapter will bring.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: Thank you; those are good examples to flesh this out. Let us take High Speed 2 as the first example. Let us imagine that for any bit of the construction of the lines or for the supply of the rolling stock, the UK conditions wanted to prioritise UK steel, as is Government policy at the moment. Imagine that an Australian construction company wanted to tender for the contracts, but the steel that it wanted to use for the rails was South Korean steel. In the current conditions, before the FTA enters into effect, the Australians have to be treated equally to a UK company even if they want to use South Korean steel, because South Korea is also a member of the GPA.
What would happen under the FTA is that, because of the specific wording in the provision—I do not want to bore you with the detail—there would be an option for the UK buyer to take a narrow understanding and say, “You are not offering Australian steel and you are not offering British steel, so I no longer have to treat you equally to UK bidders. Therefore I exclude this construction company from the tender.” The construction company probably would want to challenge that, especially because it spent money tendering but also because it is potentially a profitable contract, so it goes to the High Court. Let us say that the High Court dismisses the claim, on the basis that HS2 is already so delayed and so over budget that there is no public interest in looking at this issue. Then the Australian company is left with maybe one final resort option, which is to try to bring an investment protection claim on the basis of that denial. But certainly it seems strange that if the FTA had not entered into effect, the Australian company would have had access—maybe not to suspending the project if the interest is high, but certainly to claim the damages for that unfair treatment of its tender.
The same thing would happen the other way. Let us imagine that an innovative British company that wants to sell low emissions rolling stock for that metro link in Melbourne airport goes and tenders in Australia. It is excluded for any number of reasons and it wants to challenge the decision. It could also be barred from access to remedies in Australia, which means that the UK tenderer has lost its time and probably made a loss on the project. That would generate a very big disincentive for anybody to try to tender in future projects. But also, again, there would be a risk of maybe trying to raise this issue as an investment protection issue. That would basically, in simple terms, open up a trade war between the UK and Australia.
To me, it is counterintuitive that when we are trying to deepen our trade liberalisation on a bilateral basis, we are creating problems that do not exist under the current multilateral basis, where these issues are not allowed.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: Yes, that is absolutely correct. In the tender process that we are imagining for the Melbourne airport rail link, if a French company, a British company and an Australian company was tendering, and the Australian company was preferred, the French would have access to remedies that could not be excluded, at least in terms of claiming for compensation for lost profits, or at the very least for the cost of having bid, but the UK tender could be barred from those remedies. Again, that does not seem like a post-Brexit improvement of the position of UK businesses under these stand-alone free trade agreements.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: I would make two points on that. First, even if the CPTPP were to resolve these problems, which it will not—I will explain why later—there would always be the problem of how long it takes between these FTAs entering into force and CPTPP basically overturning them. The reason why CPTPP would leave these FTAs without effect is that both Australia and New Zealand are members of CPTPP, and therefore the later international treaty modifies the previous ones. For any tender that started between the entering into force of these FTAs and the entering into force of the UK’s membership of the CPTPP, the rules of these FTAs would apply. So this is not an issue that might be on the books and is then fixed by CPTPP; it could run for years even if CPTPP enters into force.
The second and more important point is that CPTPP is very close to the Australian procurement chapter, which is probably where its inspiration was drawn from. So it would keep the same problems under the Australian chapter and make the problems under the New Zealand chapter worse, because on remedies the New Zealand chapter is aligned with the GPA, but once CPTPP entered into force all single relationships with New Zealand would have the problematic clause that would allow the barring of access to remedies. So CPTPP would not make it better, and in any case we would have to live with the consequences of these FTAs for the period between the entering into force of them both.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: Of course, I am not privy to the negotiations, but my impression is that these chapters very much started from the position of the trading partner. I do not think the reason why the New Zealand chapter is different from the Australian chapter has to do with the UK Government learning from mistakes; I think it has to do with different starting positions among the New Zealand negotiators and the Australian negotiators. Australia has the same sort of clause in most of its trade deals, and it also pushed for it under the CPTPP. You may call it luck, but I think we may just call it an effect of the rush in which the deals were negotiated. Effectively, they have made the UK a rule taker, because they have accepted the proposals of the counterparty just to progress negotiations. That is my observation.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: This would be an issue that would depend on the terms of the investment chapters in the FTAs, and, again, the investment chapters are different under the Australian and New Zealand deals. The New Zealand deal excludes procurement from all of those outstanding obligations of the investment chapters. That would not be a problem in that FTA, but in the Australian investment chapter there is an obligation to provide fair treatments, which includes common customary law on access to justice.
The point I am trying to make without being too complicated is that the Australian company that had bid for HS2 and had been thrown out on the basis that it wanted to use South Korean steel goes to the High Court and sees its action thrown out on the basis of public interest. It could then say, “Okay, I was trying to acquire an investment in the UK. The UK has to give me fair treatment in the process of trying to gain this investment. They have denied me access to remedies. Also, they have denied access to remedies on grounds that they cannot play with other companies that are in a very similar position to me, including other companies that come from GPA countries.” They could make the case of having been discriminated against in not being given access to remedies and make that an investment dispute.
The difficulty in this context is that under the Australian chapter, to the best of my knowledge, and I am not an investment expert, there is no possibility for the Australian company to sue the UK Government. They have to raise the issue with the Australian Government so that they could raise it as a dispute under the agreement with the UK. That is why I think it opens up the problem of potential trade wars. It is not an issue even of relatively secretive arbitrators determining whether the UK has to compensate the Australian company, but it immediately becomes a potentially very high-profile trade issue between the two countries. It is very difficult in that case to foresee how it will end up being resolved. There will be a panel which will also work relatively similarly to an investment arbitration tribunal. If what the panel decides is not implemented, then we can just go to countervailing measures and other types of sanctions. The prospects are not looking good, unless the UK Government at some point decides to settle the dispute to avoid those problems.
There is a long story, starting with the Brexit process, of very expensive settlements for procurement mishaps, for example, with the ferry contracts or with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Potentially, these could be very expensive claims to settle and the terms of those settlements are never very clearly controlled, and the process whereby those settlements are achieved is also not necessarily well scrutinised in time. That opens up all sorts of other issues with how, instead of being dealt with in the courts, the misbehaviour of a procuring entity in the UK ends up becoming a political and potentially very expensive issue.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: I always said from the beginning that it is difficult to know how realistic the impact assessment is because the details have not been made public, so we would need to take the Government’s word at face value. It is difficult to see that some of the touted advantages are going to be exploited, because we are talking about high-profile, high-value projects. We know that usually there is always a risk of protectionism, especially in the current circumstances. If I were advising a big company, I would flag the risk that going to Australia means we are basically putting all of our investment at risk because we may not be able to recoup it. I wonder whether that was taken into account in the impact assessment, but I would think not. That £10 billion probably has to be adjusted downwards for that uncertainty, which will make some companies not take advantage of the opportunities.
The other issue that makes me wonder how accurate the impact assessment was relates to the claims that the Government made in some of the documents that tried to promote the advantages of the FTA. For example, they said that there is now a massive improvement in access to financial services contracts because some authorities in Australia are now covered. But those authorities are already covered under GPA, just at the higher value threshold. There is quite a lot of marginal improvement on market access. I would have wanted to see some evidence that UK companies would have been interested in those contracts but were not bidding because they did not have a legal right to bid, which I have not seen anywhere. I think that the £10 billion is a quite theoretical, best-case scenario. I advise caution in assessing that figure.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Professor Sanchez-Graells: That is correct; I think that is what the UK impact assessment claims. When the International Agreements Committee raised this issue in the report, the Government’s response did not provide any further details; they simply said that the figure was properly checked. It may be the cynic in me, but when those figures are not put out for public scrutiny, perhaps we naively accepted the benefit suggested by the counterparty.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for his evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Professor Sanchez-Graells: Thank you for your time.
Examination of Witness
Michael Gasiorek gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Michael Gasiorek, director of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, who is joining us via Zoom. This session will end at 3.45 pm. Will the witness please introduce himself?
Michael Gasiorek: Yes. Good afternoon and thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence. My name is Professor Michael Gasiorek. I am a trade economist. I am director of the UK Trade Policy Observatory and co-director of the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy, and I am based at the University of Sussex.
Dame Nia Griffith
Q
“This may endanger…the EU’s…adequacy decision to the UK”,
and public trust, which would obviously be a very serious issue. Is there any way that we could remedy your concerns through the Bill?
Michael Gasiorek: The short answer is that I do not know. The issue that arises is to do with the agreements in the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand deals on transmission of data across countries, and whether they accord with the EU’s data adequacy decisions. I am not a legal scholar, so I would not be able to tell you with regard to the specific terms of this Bill. My understanding was that I was coming to the Committee to address questions about the economics of the agreement, not the legal technicalities; I am afraid that I am not a lawyer.
Dame Nia Griffith
Q
Michael Gasiorek: I think the reason that the economic impact is limited is largely driven by the fact that we trade very little with both Australia and New Zealand. In each case, it is not much more than 1% or 2% of our trade—less with New Zealand than with Australia—and they are both very far away. There is very little that could be done to increase the aggregate economic impact of the agreement. Logically, these are countries that we do not trade very much with, and that are very far away—that is one of the reasons why we do not trade very much with them; another is that their GDP is smaller than that of larger trading partners. There is little that could be done in the Bill to change that outcome.
Dame Nia Griffith
Q
Michael Gasiorek: Once again, I will pass on that question. As I informed the Committee’s secretary, I am not a specialist on procurement processes; I am a specialist on the economics of the agreement.
The Chair
Okay. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his time.
Michael Gasiorek: Thank you very much.
Examination of Witness
Rosa Crawford gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from our next witness, Rosa Crawford, policy officer at the TUC, who is appearing via Zoom. Rosa, thank you for being available a little early. We have until five minutes past 4 for this session. May I ask you to introduce yourself, for the record?
Rosa Crawford: I am Rosa Crawford, policy officer lead on trade and Brexit at the Trades Union Congress, the national union centre that represents 48 affiliated unions, and over 5.5 million workers.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Rosa Crawford: We as trade unions believe that public procurement has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs and many apprenticeships, but they need to be on the right terms; we have to make sure that these are decently paid jobs, on good, secure terms and conditions, that support a just transition and promote equality. What causes us concern about the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is that it does not provide guarantees that those social objectives will be promoted through our public procurement procedures. In fact, there is potential to undermine them, particularly in the parts of the UK-Australia trade deal about public procurement, which this legislation would allow to be implemented.
Article 16.17 of the UK-Australia agreement says only that environmental, social and labour considerations “may” be taken into account by procuring entities, and only when those considerations are
“based on objectively verifiable criteria”.
That could open up scope for Australian companies, via their Government, to challenge social criteria in UK public procurement processes as being potentially unverifiable, because that is an undefined term. Multinational companies are eyeing up our procurement market—this is a big objective in trade deals—and will be looking for any means of challenging any social criteria that they regard as being a burden for business, such as a requirement to pay a living wage or to provide secure conditions. We are very worried about the language in the UK-Australia procurement provisions, which the Bill would allow to be implemented.
Let me connect that to the Procurement Bill going through Parliament. It does not give us the assurances that we need that social criteria will be promoted through its provisions, unlike the EU-derived procurement rules in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which allowed the Government to refuse a tender on the grounds of its non-compliance with International Labour Organisation conventions, and required social value criteria to be taken into account in the most advantageous tender criteria. There is no such requirement in the Procurement Bill. That means that now, in UK procurement rules, there are no provisions to prevent public money from being given to suppliers who abuse fundamental workers’ rights. For us, that is going in completely the wrong direction.
In the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, we made commitments to promote fundamental International Labour Organisation standards, yet in the Procurement Bill and the UK-Australia agreement, we do not see them promoted. I will highlight two more concerns about the Procurement Bill. There is no requirement for high labour standards—
The Chair
Order. Forgive me, but we are not talking about the Procurement Bill. There is clearly some crossover, but if we can try to avoid the temptation to spend too much time on that crossover, I would be very grateful. Thank you.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Rosa Crawford: CPTPP could create an even more problematic situation for us. Members will know that the CPTPP contains the investor-state dispute settlement provisions, and unless the UK explicitly opts out of those provisions, we will be bound by them. That obviously means that foreign investors could sue the UK Government for any actions that are interpreted as being a burden on business. That could mean living wages and decent conditions. If we accede to the CPTPP, we could be allowing social criteria that we include in our public procurement provisions to be challenged by foreign investors from across the CPTPP countries, which obviously include some of the largest multinationals in the world.
It is extremely problematic to us that the UK is considering acceding to the CPTPP, and the TUC is opposed to that, as are the majority of trade unions in CPTPP countries. It should be said that the CPTPP takes a very broad, liberalising approach towards its service commitments, which means that a number of public services that are part-privatised could be locked into that privatisation through the CPTPP. The direction taken by the CPTPP, as well as by the UK-Australia trade agreement, which the Bill will implement, seems to us very problematic. It could undermine the expenditure of public money through public procurement—[Inaudible.]—and decent-quality public services.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Rosa Crawford: We have specific concerns about the lack of scrutiny provided for through the Bill, because paragraph 2 of schedule 2 states that any regulations made under clause 1 will be subject only to the negative procedure. Obviously, that will deny MPs the opportunity to scrutinise the procurement legislation introduced via the Bill, so it will not be possible for Members to challenge legislation that undermines social standards in procurement. We believe that clauses 1 and 2 should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
We also have more broad concerns about the lack of scrutiny of the UK-Australia trade deal specifically, as well as of all the trade deals that the Government have negotiated to date. For us, it is really important—[Inaudible.]—scrutiny, and scrutiny by trade unions. Otherwise, those deals will not deliver the best outcomes for workers, public services and all sectors of the economy. We really regret the process that was followed for the UK-Australia deal; Members were not provided with the opportunity to debate and vote on the agreement when it was brought before Parliament in June. The Bill is the only opportunity we have to debate the provisions of that deal, but the legislation is extremely narrowly drawn, and that is completely inadequate, in terms of the democratic process.
Trades unions have also been completely shut out of negotiations. We released a joint statement with our counterpart in Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, at the start of the negotiations, setting out our positive agenda for what we thought a UK-Australia trade deal should look like. We said that trade unions should be in the room to provide expertise from across different sectors about the kind of protections that workers need, as well as the agricultural safety standards required. That impacts on workers’ conditions, and has to do with workers not being exposed to unsafe chemicals and unsafe procedures. We said that unless trade unions were in the room, we would not get the outcomes that workers needed.
The Government made a lot of positive noises about trade unions being included in the negotiations, and last September, the then International Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, said that the trade unions would be included in their trade advisory groups, which are consulted on the text of trade negotiations. We were not given those seats, and we were not consulted on the text of any of the UK-Australia trade deal as it was being negotiated. As a result, we have a trade deal that does not have adequate enforcement mechanisms and has very weak commitments on workers’ rights; there is only a reference to the International Labour Organisation declaration, not to the fundamental conventions. The terms of the deal refer to listing for services, which, in common with the CPTPP, will expose part-privatised services to being locked into that privatisation. The deal also has very problematic provisions on data liberalisation, which could mean that workers’ data is not properly protected. It could allow for that data protection to be challenged as a barrier to cross-border flows of data.
We have ended up with a deal that is completely inadequate and threatening, from a workers’ rights point of view, and from the public point of view, because we did not have engagement with that deal. As I said, that is also the case with the UK-New Zealand deal. In fact, we have not had input to any of the trade deals that the Government have negotiated to date. We really want a change of direction; we want trade unions consulted, as they are in other countries, such as the US; there, they are routinely consulted during trade negotiations. We want Parliament to be given a full say, and to have the ability to debate and vote on any trade deal brought before the House.
The Chair
Thank you. We have a little bit more time than we expected, but we also have quite a few questions to get through, as I am sure colleagues will be pleased to hear.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (James Duddridge)
Q
Rosa Crawford: I understand that there can be a debate, but that it is much more difficult for the regulations to be voted down, and that a debate is not guaranteed. There must be an active initiative to pray against the regulations to create that debate. That is much less likely to happen. Such a number of SIs come through that it is quite difficult to trigger a debate on each one and vote against them. Full democratic scrutiny is much harder to achieve under that process than through primary legislation.
The Chair
The supplementary point was made, and a supplementary supplementary point is now on the record as well, so I think we will move on.
Drew Hendry
Q
I would like to ask Ms Crawford a question that I have asked others, and it is very much on the theme of what you have been talking about. You have said that questions have not been answered on jobs, climate change, workers’ rights, environmental considerations, and indeed the correct way to spend public money. What is your view of the fact that implementing legislation is being introduced on the New Zealand FTA before Parliament has had the opportunity to debate it under the CRaG provisions?
Rosa Crawford: We believe, again, that there is a deficit of democratic scrutiny. Much more parliamentary scrutiny should have been possible throughout those negotiations, as well as the negotiations on the UK-Australia FTA. The International Trade Committee has not been consulted on the text of that agreement as with UK-Australia, and there has not been the possibility to have a proper debate about the agreement before it is implemented, as you say. We are extremely concerned about that process and very worried that the Government will again try to push this through Parliament without having the proper debate required. Obviously, the negative resolution procedure will apply there, and it means that unless there is a resolution against, which can only delay the agreement for 21 days, it will become law. It is going to be very difficult for that process to be triggered by parliamentarians, so we are very concerned about the approach taken with UK-New Zealand as well
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
I have asked people about the scope of the secondary legislation that the Secretary of State can lay down. In regard to the trade deal, the scope is slightly wider than “must”; it is currently phrased as “may”. Do you think that the scope is correct at the moment, or should it apply only to things that the Government are legally required to bring forward under the trade deal?
Rosa Crawford: Yes, we are concerned that the scope is very broad. As has been said by you and a number of members of the Committee, the negative resolution procedure makes the process for scrutiny and debate, and for full democratic—[Inaudible.] Using “may” terminology, rather than what the Government are legally bound to implement, introduces an element of concern that there might be a whole range of things brought in through this legislation that are not strictly required to be brought in, and that could be problematic because this Government have not suggested they are going to take an approach that is about protecting social standards and ensuring that social criteria are indicated in public procurement. We are therefore worried that there might be additional measures that would allow for further liberalisation of the public procurement processes, and for businesses that do not respect workers’ rights to be awarded public money. That would completely undermine the standards, so we are very concerned about the broad drafting of the Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Rosa Crawford: We would strongly support the inclusion of such a provision because, as I say, it is essential to consult trade unions on the provisions in all parts of the trade agreement. On public procurement specifically, we need consultation with the unions to ensure we have the requirements there so that international labour standards and environmental standards are upheld, and that we pursue public objectives such as reducing inequalities through public procurement. That consultation with trade unions and parliamentarians is really important. The International Trade Committee is an important Committee that should be consulted, because there is expertise there on the public procurement provisions; then maybe other Committees that are relevant and have an interest should be consulted. Having that requirement for consultation with MPs would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
Bill Esterson
Q
Rosa Crawford: Yes, that is correct. With both the UK-Australia and the UK-New Zealand trade agreements, you have a weak labour chapter that makes reference only to the ILO declaration, rather than a requirement of fundamental international labour organisation standards respected by both parties. That is an issue in Australia and New Zealand because, despite the fact they both have progressive Governments, neither has ratified all the fundamental ILO conventions. New Zealand has not ratified the fundamental conventions on minimum age, health and safety, or freedom of association, and Australia has not ratified the fundamental conventions on minimum age, and health and safety.
Without that base of fundamental rights, there can be potential for a pressure on rights to lower here, as businesses take advantage of the market access they can get through the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand trade agreements to places where they can potentially respect rights less. That could pressure rights to be lowered here. You do not have a labour chapter that has high standards, requirements and rights, and it has an ineffective enforcement mechanism that requires a proven effect on investment and trade, which we think will be difficult to meet.
There are similar provisions in the CPTPP labour chapter, despite the fact that CPTPP contains countries that are egregiously breaching labour rights—such as Vietnam, where trade unions are banned, as well as Brunei. We have not seen the CPTPP labour chapter being used at all. To us, those kinds of provisions are ineffective when they are included in a trade agreement, so it is concerning that the trade agreements we have with Australia and New Zealand do not have those effective provisions in place for labour standards. It sets a concerning standard for trade agreements we might sign with future partners, particularly as the Government are considering signing trade deals with places where labour rights are much worse, such as Gulf states, India and Israel.
The direction of travel is concerning in Australia and New Zealand. The inadequate protections around environmental standards also have an impact on workers’ rights; allowing produce with lower environmental safety standards to be imported into the UK potentially exposes workers here to more dangerous chemicals and other production methods that impact on workers’ safety and protection. We are concerned about the approach taken in both agreements.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Rosa Crawford: No. We have just had several pledges from successive Secretaries of State for International Trade. Liz Truss, when she was Secretary of State, had a meeting with our general secretary, Frances O’Grady, in which she assured her that unions would be included on these trade advisory groups. As I say, that was in September 2021.
Then our general secretary had a series of meetings with Liz Truss’s successor, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, including a meeting that also included the US trade ambassador Katherine Tai. She also made the pledge that trade unions would be included on these trade advisory groups. After that meeting, she appeared before the International Trade Committee in April this year, where she said that she hoped that trade unions would be included on the trade advisory groups as soon as possible, but we still have not seen any sign of that.
We hope that the new Secretary of State for International Trade will make good on that promise. We have written to Secretary Badenoch to request that the Government fulfil their pledge to include trade unions on the trade advisory groups, but we still have not seen anything. We are surprised and concerned that we have not seen progress in over a year since the Government pledged to include unions in the group. As I say, the outcomes are that we are getting trade agreements that are undermining workers’ rights, and new trade talks are being launched with really serious implications for workers’ rights with countries such as Israel, India and the Gulf states.
Gareth Thomas
I do not know whether it is in order, Chair, but to save time for the Committee next week, I wonder whether the Minister might want to reassure the TUC representative that the Secretary of State will grant access to the TUC in the future. It would save a bit of time next week if he were willing to give that pledge.
The Chair
I am very grateful for that very kind offer from the shadow Minister, but it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on what the Minister may or may not say in the future. I am sure that if the shadow Minister raises it next week, he can hear it directly from the Minister.
If there are no further questions, I thank Rosa Crawford for her time, and for spending a little more time with us than advertised. We very much appreciate it. Thank you very much indeed.
Rosa Crawford: Thank you.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Miles Beale, chief executive officer of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, who is joining us via Zoom. This session will last until 4.30 pm. May I ask the witness to introduce himself for the record? Thank you for being prepared to join us slightly earlier than advertised; we are very grateful. Over to you, sir—[Interruption.] I think you are on mute. [Interruption.] We still cannot hear you. I think we will suspend the sitting while we iron out some of the technical difficulties.
The Chair
Yes, we can hear you loud and clear.
Miles Beale: Fantastic. Thank you to my team, and apologies for that technical issue. We ought to have got used to it by now, but I am afraid that every now and then it defeats us.
Good afternoon, my name is Miles Beale. I am chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. We have approximately 350 all-UK members. All our members are involved in buying and selling, importing and exporting, or advising on the sale of wines and spirits in the UK market.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Miles Beale: I think there is a small difference between the two deals, in any event. From a wines and spirits point of view, there was—still is—a low tariff that the deals are getting rid of in both cases: a 5% tariff for exports and imports in either direction. Obviously, it is of benefit to consumers and businesses in both countries when those fall away. That is pretty straightforward—fairly simple.
I think we see an improvement on the Australian trade deal in the New Zealand one, because the New Zealand deal includes an annex and has a bit more of a dynamic element to it. The wine and spirits annex will allow us to have conversations over time, and improve on the deal that is already there. That was not available as an annex in the Australia free trade agreement.
There are a couple of things that we were expecting to be able to get out of the New Zealand deal that we are not yet able to get out of the Australian one, particularly around the wider variety of wines and spirits being available on both markets, and better traceability and brand protection, particularly for spirits. There is a distinction you can draw between the two deals, and you can see some progress being made; the New Zealand deal is slightly better than the Australian one.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Miles Beale: Yes, in general terms that is true. There was an effort to get the Australia deal done quickly. You could say rushed; one person’s rushed is another person’s achievement in a shorter period of time. We were keen to support a deal that got over the line. There has been a bit more time for the New Zealand deal and it is probably slightly simpler to do, but the New Zealand deal also benefits from being the second one after a 42-year gap. I think that, certainly on the UK side, officials were in a slightly better position and knew a little bit more.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Miles Beale: Yes, I think we would share that view, particularly for our exports. Let us take British gin as an example: we think it has significant cachet, and we particularly see smaller gin brands doing very well in the Australia and New Zealand markets. At the Wine and Spirit Trade Association we have organised our own trade missions for some of our small businesses. We normally take a group of them to markets that we think are likely to prove fruitful for them. We have not been able to do Australia and New Zealand, partly because they are geographically very far way and are smaller markets than some of the others we have chosen to go to, such as parts of the US and Japan.
We would like to see significantly more support for British SMEs that have export potential. It is one of the things we have talked to the Department for International Trade about quite a few times. Anything we can do to bring down the costs of entry into markets where we think the products would be successful would be a good idea. We know that other countries do that to a greater or lesser extent. One of the opportunities we see in the next few years is speeding up some of our SMEs getting into exporting wines.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Miles Beale: It is not quite as simple as that. The Department has certainly listened to what we have had to say. In practical terms, we get some support for our SMEs going into market from the posts—the embassies and high commissions in the markets that are out there, usually in capital or larger cities. What we have not had is any financial support. To be honest, that is the thing that would make the greatest difference for small businesses in particular.
Occasionally, there are large food and drink festivals that the DIT—or, in some cases, other Departments such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—encouraged us to point our members towards. In truth, it is rather hard to appear as a small British gin brand or a new sparkling wine brand next to different types of British food and drink where there is probably a more established market, so that tends not to work so well for our members. We would need something more tailored to get the results we need.
Gareth Thomas
Why do you think the financial support has not been provided? Is the Treasury just not interested, or does it prefer to concentrate on other areas of support?
The Chair
Order. Forgive me; we need to keep within the scope of the Bill. I am sure that the shadow Minister will have ample other opportunities to raise such issues, but today is not the occasion. Mr Beale, you do not have to respond to that.
If there are no other questions, I thank our witness for taking the time today, and I reassure him and his office that Zoom issues happen to us all. It is no problem at all. We are glad that we were able to hear your responses and evidence today. Thank you for your time; it is much appreciated.
Miles Beale: Thank you very much.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Jenkinson.)
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
New Developments on Green-belt Land
(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
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of new developments on greenbelt land.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I thank every single Member and my hon. Friends who have chosen to participate in this important debate and represent their constituents’ concern. The impact of new development being imposed on our treasured green belt is a burning issue for many of my constituents in Coventry North West, so I welcome this opportunity to highlight their frustrations.
From Eastern Green to Allesley, Keresley and Holbrooks, communities in my constituency have seen vital green spaces lost to new housing developments in recent years, with more of our local green belt threatened with the same fate if we do not change course. Campaigners in Coventry want to see a bold change of direction concerning planning and development policy, so I hope that securing this debate will force the Government to listen and take note.
I want to start by examining the process by which houses are built and how it favours big developers, who are not accountable to local communities and often ignore local housing needs. We all know that Britain has long faced a housing crisis. Waiting lists for social housing continue to grow to record lengths, while home ownership in the UK has fallen to 65%, with many struggling to get on to the housing ladder. It is a plight that stretches across all our constituencies, and it has been left unaddressed by the Conservative Government for over a decade. The Government have also failed to introduce any meaningful reforms to planning and development since I became the MP for Coventry North West in 2019. Serious change in this area is long overdue. The lack of action means that we are left living in a planning and development free-for-all, and the impact on our local communities is clear for all to see.
As things stand, it is private developers who hold the balance of power. They decide which type of houses are built, where they are built and the prices that they are sold for. They are not accountable to anyone but themselves—not to communities, not to local people, not to local government and not even to national Government. For years, my constituents have told me that the current planning rules are not fit for purpose. They serve developers’ greed and do nothing to allow local voices and those most impacted by new development to be heard.
We need to be able to hold developers to account. Developers will claim that they are helping to fix Britain’s housing crisis by building new developments, but the truth is that until they start listening to the needs of local people, they will only make the problem worse. Indeed, the new Prime Minister’s suggestion that we should simply hand more power to property developers risks permanently changing our communities. The voices of residents and their elected representatives will be virtually wiped out of the planning process if the Prime Minister ignores their objections and presses ahead with these changes.
But is it any wonder that this Conservative Prime Minister wants to hand even greater power to wealthy developers when property developers were responsible for 20% of all donations—more than £60 million—to the Conservative party between 2010 and 2020? While Conservatives in Coventry conveniently pretend to care about saving our green belt from development, the same political party is lining its pockets with donations from the very housing developers that they claim to be standing up to. This is unacceptable. We need our Government to stand up for local people, not those seeking to maximise their profits at the expense of our precious green belt.
Our planning system is completely broken, and the answer cannot be to hand more power to a few greedy developers. Instead, a complete overhaul is required, with local communities and local government in the driving seat. That way, they can set the direction of travel concerning new development in their neighbourhoods, delivering affordable homes for families exactly where we need them.
A survey of my constituents that I carried out recently unsurprisingly revealed that a clear majority wanted more affordable homes to be built in Coventry, but that they wanted those homes to be built on the existing brownfield sites across the city instead of on our treasured green spaces. The survey also showed that residents were overwhelmingly against any proposed changes to planning laws that would make building on green belt easier. A majority of residents were also worried that the rule changes would mean local people had even less say when a new development was proposed where they live. I call on the Government to take action to ensure developers are accountable to local people, communities and elected representatives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and I apologise for the fact that I will not be here later on, because I have another thing to go to. Does she agree that in urban and rural development, as with much in life, there is a delicate balance to be found? Current planning does not find the common-sense balance, and community planning takes a back seat to the interpretation of the law. We need to ensure that future planning is flexible enough to protect both urban and rural development, and that communities have a full say in what happens. I know the rules are different in Northern Ireland, but in many cases back home I find that local people do not have the input that they should.
Taiwo Owatemi
The hon. Member makes an important point, and he is absolutely right that local people need to be able to have a local say on developments in their area. Developers should not be dictating to people in Coventry North West, who have often lived in the area for generations, what is in their best interests.
I will take a moment to look at the statistics, which are often used to estimate how many homes should be built and where. With the 38 new investment zones that have recently been announced, Whitehall is taking more and more control over the planning processes in our towns and cities. This approach is often predicted using census projections, but in Coventry the predictions have turned out to be way off. Our population has not grown anywhere near as quickly as was anticipated. The Office for National Statistics estimated Coventry’s population would be over 379,000, but recently released census results show that our city’s population actually stands at just 345,000—more than 30,000 less than predicted. This means that green-belt land may be torn up unnecessarily for houses that are not actually needed. It is now clear that the Government projections were plain wrong, and that top-down imposed house building targets are widely inaccurate.
The outcome in Coventry is that some of the most beautiful green spaces in my constituency have been needlessly taken away from green belt and allocated for house building instead. The figures do not stack up. For the short term, I would like to see a halt to building on any green-belt land around Coventry while accurate figures are calculated. I have repeatedly joined campaigners across Coventry in calling for these figures to be reviewed, but our pleas are falling on deaf ears. The Government have refused to take any action to remedy the situation, so the decimation of our green belt is poised to continue. Plans are still ongoing to build new developments that few people want. An overwhelming 92% of residents who took part in my survey thought that those elected to represent them on the city council must have a proper say on new development proposals in our city, but local government has little power over the matter.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her excellent speech. In my constituency, Weaver Vale, more than 2,000 units are being built on green-belt land as we speak. This former green-belt land was purchased by the Government agency named Homes England, yet the national planning framework talks about building on green belt in exceptional circumstances. There are huge contradictions, and the direction of travel seems to be towards further liberalisation. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be strengthened protections in the green belt.
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank my hon. Friend for his important point. He is right that we must continue to strengthen the protection of our green belt.
An overwhelming 92% of residents who took part in my survey thought that those elected to represent us on the city council must have a proper say on new development proposals in our community, but local government has little power in the matter. Instead, Whitehall is able to impose house building targets based on its faulty figures. I want to see a real shift in power away from Whitehall and towards local government. That would mean that local elected representatives, accountable to their residents who live and breathe their community, had the final say on new development. That way, we could abandon the inaccurate house building targets imposed by Whitehall and get on with meeting local housing needs.
In contrast to the Conservative Government, who have consistently sided with wealthy developers over local people, the Labour party has set out a different vision for planning and development policy. Labour would hand power to local communities to build the affordable housing they need and give councils the ability to build much-needed social housing—the houses we need where local people want them to be built. When new developments were built, Labour would give priority to first-time buyers and prevent new homes from being bought up by foreign investors before local people got a look in. That would put the dream of home ownership within reach of many people who cannot get on the housing ladder and reverse the decline in home ownership under this Government.
While the Conservatives are in the pocket of their property developer donors, a Labour Government would be on the side of local communities and would deliver the housing that Britain needs. Far too often, the houses being built are in opposition to what people need and want. Across the communities in Holbrooks, Allesley, Keresley and Eastern Green in my constituency, many have real and heartfelt anxieties about the impact of large-scale new development and its devastating impact on green-belt land. That is because the wrong type of housing is being built, and those houses are being built in the wrong part of the city. Eventually, they are going to be sold at an unaffordable price. From start to finish, this is a mess caused by a broken system. Those communities are already changing because of overdevelopment, and there is a great deal of frustration owing to the fact that communities can have large-scale development imposed on them without receiving the investment that is needed.
Too frequently, when homes are built in the wrong part of our city, the additional local services and new infrastructure required to support them are not put in place. Greedy developers must not be allowed to profit from building hundreds of expensive new houses against the will of local people and then walk away, doing nothing to provide much-needed services and infrastructure. New developments in Coventry North West are often built far from the nearest GP surgery, schools and shops, and without a proper broadband connection. Those developments often have neither public transport nor adequate roads. Everyone is fed up with massive developments being allowed to go ahead without proper thought and consideration being given to the infrastructure needed and the availability of public services. It is just not good enough.
It is morally bankrupt to build homes without also ensuring access to vital services, and it makes no practical sense either, as extra pressure is piled on already overstretched services. Developers will always want to turn a profit, but they must be made to play their part in delivering the services and infrastructure required to support the new homes that they build. In my constituency, too many homes are being built on green-belt land, and they are simply too expensive for local people to afford. I have repeatedly met with big developers to insist that they build affordable, family-sized homes for first-time buyers in the right part of our city, but those calls have repeatedly been dismissed. We must build homes that are affordable for families living in Coventry. Otherwise, what is the point of those homes?
Overpriced homes and out-of-reach mortgages are not what my constituents need. In Coventry, there are brownfield sites and similar land suited to redevelopment. That must be used first, before developers start destroying our precious green belt. Rather than building on the green belt at the behest of developers, I want houses to be built on brownfield sites, on disused land and in empty buildings, because that is what local people have asked for.
Lastly, I will highlight some of the specific local concerns that affect my constituency. Too often, developers earmark popular open spaces in our towns and cities for new homes, depriving communities of much-needed open spaces. That is certainly a problem in my constituency. Take Coundon Wedge, a beautiful spot that is enjoyed by people from across our city. Developers have been eyeing up Coundon Wedge for some time and, as homes are proposed on nearby Browns Lane, many people are understandably anxious that the Wedge will be next.
The local council has made it clear for decades that it does not want to build homes on Coundon Wedge. However, many people fear that because inaccurate house building targets are being imposed on Coventry by Whitehall, the hands of the local council may soon be forced. That is totally unacceptable. Coundon Wedge must not be put up for sale, and as the local MP I will oppose any future plans for new development on this vital green space.
Although local Conservatives in Coventry have been cynically campaigning to save Coundon Wedge for their own political gain, their party has been in power for the last 12 years and has failed to deliver long-overdue reforms to our planning law. The Conservatives are overseeing the very same planning and development free-for-all that threatens the future of the Wedge. Indeed, when the Conservatives last led Coventry City Council, they proposed thousands of new homes on green-belt land in Keresley, which is also in my constituency. People in my constituency will not be so easily fooled, and the hypocrisy will not go unnoticed.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I support many of the arguments that the hon. Lady has made, and I share her concern about greenfield development. However, one issue in my constituency is the absence of a local plan that sits with local government. I wonder whether that is the case in her patch, too, because I understand that in her area, as in mine, there is a very long waiting list for social housing.
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank the hon. Member for making that important point. Yes, in my constituency there is a long waiting list for housing, and local government needs more control over that.
I have covered a number of issues today, including how house building favours large developers, how the statistics that are used are often inaccurate and lead to undesirable outcomes, and how the houses that are built are often not what local people want or need. I am sure that many Members here have similar issues in their own constituencies and that, like me, they have heard from concerned constituents who oppose the current development free-for-all. It is seriously concerning that the new Prime Minister appears determined to make the situation even messier. We have seen reports in the media just this week of Government Ministers scheming to hand over yet more power to developers. At the same time, they want to scrap rules that ensure new homes are affordable, and they want to remove wildlife protections. This Government want to create a developer wild west, which is completely out of order.
I believe that the only way to deliver for our constituents is to listen to their concerns. It is overwhelmingly clear to me that they want good-quality, family-sized homes that are for sale at an affordable price, and they want those homes to be built on empty brownfield sites, alongside good-quality infrastructure and local services. They do not want homes to be needlessly built on green-belt land—they do not want that to be imposed on them by an out-of-touch Whitehall and developers looking to make a quick buck.
With reform in development and planning rules high up on the Government’s agenda, I call on the Government to do the right thing: listen to my constituents and take action as soon as possible.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Colleagues, there are nine of you trying to catch my eye, and we have about 50 minutes in which you can all make your excellent speeches. If you can contain yourselves to five minutes each voluntarily, that will be most helpful.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing the debate and leading it so well.
Some 91.4% of my South Staffordshire constituency sits within green-belt land, and the largest number of signatories to the petition—616 in all—are South Staffordshire residents. That indicates the real passion, concern and desire to protect the green belt in South Staffordshire.
There are a number of things that the Government can do to make a material difference to protect the environment, nature and conservation—all things that every one of us in this House values and wants to protect so very much. At the moment there is a real lack of clarity in the Government’s approach to the duty to co-operate. That puts enormous pressure on many local authorities, especially ones that neighbour large urban, metropolitan areas.
The Government have said that there will be changes to the duty to co-operate, but they have not come up with the clarification that authorities need to be in the best position to proceed with local plans and understand what the new rules will be. I hope that the new Minister will take the opportunity to set out clearly what the new rules on the duty to co-operate, or its abolition, will mean. If he is not able to do so, will he give a date for when that clarification will come about?
It would also be useful if the Minister could speak to local authorities that are in the process of developing their local plans. In South Staffordshire, we are in a terrible situation. We are having thousands of houses imposed on the green belt by Black Country authorities and by Birmingham as a result of the Government’s saying that they are going to abolish the duty to co-operate but not clarifying what they will replace it with. This is urgent. Will the Minister say whether authorities that are proceeding with local plans are able to pause those plans and make sure that they have protections so that they are not vulnerable to unscrupulous developers coming forward with plans? Authorities cannot properly proceed until the Government clarify what the replacement for the duty to co-operate will look like. I hope the Minister will be able to do that today.
The simple reality is that the duty to co-operate system is causing many local authorities to build the wrong types of houses in the wrong areas. It is a blight on our countryside and our green belt. The Minister needs to act on the Government policy to abolish the duty to co-operate and stop imposing thousands of housing units on the green belt when it would be more appropriate to use brownfield sites and inner cities in order to regenerate.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West made a very important point about how the housing numbers that local authorities are required to use are simply wrong. It is widely known in the industry, by planning authorities and in communities that they are wrong. The 2014 figures, which are currently the basis for plans, are leading to the incorrect numbers being used by local authorities, which puts an even greater burden on councils to provide numbers that are not required. That needs to be urgently addressed. The figures are eight years out of date.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that coupled with that is the uncertainty regarding the five-year land supply? Does that not also need urgent clarification?
Sir Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is spot on. I know that our hon. Friend the Housing Minister has great ambition and drive. He has many predecessors whom he can far outshine by showing great leadership. He can be known as the finest Housing Minister out of many by giving clarity on these issues. Making reforms to the housing market and to housing supply would not only benefit people who want to buy a home, but protect the green belt, our countryside and nature. I urge him to seize the day and do that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing the debate.
Before asking what is being built on the green belt, we have to ask what is being built on brownfield sites. In York’s case, it is assets for investors rather than homes for families and communities. CPRE estimates that more than 26,000 hectares of UK brownfield land are available for development—enough to build a million homes. Between 2006 and 2016, the proportion of brownfield land used for residential development dropped by 38%, whereas building on greenfield land increased by a staggering 148%. Public money is invested in the remediation of brownfield sites, while the owners land bank before declaring the unviability of any affordable or social housing. It is a complete scam.
Until the Government turn planning on its head, landowners and developers will continue to game the system, using every means possible to derive huge profits from urban brownfield sites by delivering high-priced investor units that do not meet local need and exceed local affordability. In York, again and again, this has meant that scarce land is used for the development of properties for the investment market, student accommodation or hotel rooms, leaving local housing need unmet and pressure to develop the green belt—a developer’s paradise.
Just last week, the Lib Dem-Green York Council agreed yet another multipurpose development, including an 88-room aparthotel and 153 new apartments, more than half of which will be bedsits and will immediately flip into holiday lets. There will not be a single affordable unit. That mirrors a long succession of planning decisions in our ancient city. In York Central, Government agencies are planning to use 45 hectares of brownfield land for the delivery of 2,500 units that are unsuitable and unaffordable for local families, thereby wasting the land and pushing vital economic and housing development to the green belt.
Every hectare of brownfield land that is squandered for extractive profits puts another hectare of green belt under threat. On each of these new developments, large swathes of properties move to the second home market immediately after completion. Some are never occupied, and many turn into Airbnbs. The revenue pays the mortgage while the asset gains value, pushing up house prices even more and making them completely inaccessible to local people.
Meanwhile, in York, thousands of families are waiting for a home that they simply want to call their own. We cannot pretend that there is any gain for local people; demand is outstripping supply, driving up property value but never delivering the homes people need. They are being driven out of their city to some greenfield site miles away. That impacts the local economy too, with people on the lowest incomes having to make the longest commutes, involving costs they cannot afford.
Greenfield demand is a consequence of failed planning, and I fear that greater liberalisation is on its way. The Government are going in completely the wrong direction. Unbelievably, Dartmoor, the North York Moors and the New Forest are set to fall within the boundaries of freeports and urban centres’ investment zones, free from planning restrictions. The developers’ charter is back, but without a people’s charter for public land for public good, we will never meet housing need. The economic crisis has made things worse.
The only politician to make real inroads in this area was Nye Bevan. In a famous speech, he said that only municipal control could ever develop the housing needed. He was right, and he delivered it. York is plagued with applications for green-belt development, but brownfield land must not be squandered at the expense of our green belt. We cannot stand by when people have nowhere to live. This is not an urban versus rural debate, but one between those who extract profit and those wanting to protect communities. Working together to ensure that brownfield sites are developed for local need will protect the green belt. The Government need to decide which side they are on.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing this important debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue.
My constituents in East Hampshire were among the top 10 by number of signatories to e-petition 600577, which is explicitly linked to this debate and is about green-belt and greenfield sites. It is important to make a distinction between the two: “green belt” is a particular land designation and a particularly important natural asset, but “greenfield” is also an important part of nature and amenity, whether for resident constituents or people coming from further afield. People often use the two terms interchangeably.
Realistically, I do not think we can say that we will never build on a greenfield site. Whatever type of dwelling we or our constituents live in, it is built on what was once a greenfield site. The reality is that the population has been growing for many years, for many reasons, including the positive fact that people are living longer, as well the tendency towards smaller households. However, we can make sure that we prioritise brownfield sites, and we need to give meaning to that. It is an easy phrase to throw out, but it has to mean something and to be enabled, through initiatives such as the facilitation of high-quality, amenity-enhancing estate redensification, town centre concentrations and city centre revitalisations.
The situation in my constituency is almost unique because the constituency is bisected by the boundary of a national park. Some 57% of the area is in the national park and 43% is outside it. Unusually, there is a sizeable town—Petersfield—inside the national park. Although the housing numbers were assessed on the basis of the whole district, effectively almost all of them have to go in the minority area, outside the boundary of the national park. That potentially puts a great deal of pressure on places just outside the boundary, such as Alton, Four Marks, Whitehill, Bordon and parts of the village of Liphook. In practical terms, East Hampshire District Council’s emerging local plan sets out that 632 homes a year will have to be built, but 532 of them—some 84%—will have to be delivered in the 43% of the area that is outside the national park.
The system nominally allows local authorities to use what is called “an alternative approach” to assess housing need where the strategic policy-making authority’s boundaries do not align with the local authority. However, there is a big risk in taking that route; authorities know that if they pursue it, they can expect challenge when the local plan is examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The consequences of the plan failing at that stage, in terms of speculative development and lack of infrastructure delivery, are potentially so great that local authorities are naturally reluctant to consider an alternative approach. We found it difficult to find examples of local authorities in a similar situation that have adopted such an approach.
I thank the Minister’s officials at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for meeting officials from my local council earlier this year to discuss these difficult circumstances, but the situation essentially remains the same. The “Planning for the Future” White Paper of 2020 contains proposals to look at land constraints right at the start of the process of assessment of housing need, but we are not clear about the status of those proposals. Is the Minister able to give us any further detail about that? That would be welcome.
In common with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), I am also keen to urgently understand the meaning of the “more flexible alignment test” that is intended to replace the duty to co-operate. Finally, in a situation such as mine, where the boundary of a national park cuts across the constituency and the local authority area, it would be preferable if numbers could be assessed separately inside and outside the park.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing the debate and leading it so well.
I grew up in a little village in Cheshire, in between Chester and Warrington, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury)—probably only a political nerd would describe the area they grew up by its constituency. We were always sensitive about the need to maintain the green belt. There was pressure from new towns in Warrington and Runcorn, which were providing overspill, but the green belt is there for a reason: to prevent both urban sprawl and urban decay. Hon. Members have already talked about the fact that if development must take place in city and town centres, it revitalises them.
The green belt must be there for everybody. There cannot be an assumption that it is only there for the people who are lucky enough to live in it. The countryside should be enjoyed by everybody. We talk about rural poverty and rural deprivation. It is true that that happens, but getting people into rural areas would make a difference to that. The green belt should be there for all to enjoy, and it needs to be defended.
Despite the name of my constituency—City of Chester—almost three quarters of it is green belt. In the last few years, I am afraid that we have seen developments in green-belt areas, which were opposed by the local community and the council but overturned on appeal and granted by the Government.
I am currently battling development of a greenfield site on Sealand Road. The clue is in the name: it is in part next to the River Dee, which has flooded in the past. These are floodplain areas, and there are fields there used as sinks during floods, but they have been built on. The local council opposed that development, but speculators bought the site, took it to appeal and won. There are existing houses on Sealand Road. The new houses have had to be built raised up behind them, because of the threat of flooding. I can say now that when the first floods happen in that area—because they will; as I say, the name is something of a giveaway—all that water will go to the existing houses. The Government must understand that they cannot keep granting green-belt developments in entirely unsuitable locations over the heads of local authorities.
There is a difference between planning regulations in England and Wales: when new residential developments are built in England, particularly on the green belt, there is no requirement for the developers to deal with surface water, whereas in Wales there is such a requirement. That contributes to drains being inundated when there is heavy rain. The drains cannot cope, so water is diverted into the sewers; then the sewers cannot cope, so water is diverted into open water such as rivers. There has to be a change in planning rules in England to make sure that developers have a responsibility to build suitable drainage. Otherwise, the water falls on stone, concrete and tarmac; it does not go anywhere, and it inundates the sewerage system.
My hon. Friends have already said that the wrong type of housing is being built for the wrong reasons. The current housing policy in England suits the needs of the developers, not the housing needs of communities. The developers get the most profit from building big, executive-style country houses in nice locations. I do not blame the developers—they are there to make a profit, and good luck to them—but that should not dictate our housing policy. Our housing policy should meet the needs of the community, and that means building lots of different types of housing, and in cities. There should be a presumption against spreading out and an aim to maintain vibrancy in city centres.
Finally, there is still reluctance among local councils, which are under severe financial pressure, to stand against development proposals even if there is strong community opposition, because they know that they would have to pay the costs of an appeal. That is unfair and wrong, and it skews local councils’ planning judgments and their ability to fight against green-belt or any other developments, because they have to be very cautious about costs. I would be grateful if we could look at that again.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing this debate and clearly setting out many of the challenges we face in our constituencies. I want to focus on one particular planning application in Willingdon, which sits in the constituency of Eastbourne, because it reflects all that is wrong and all that needs reforming in the planning system, and it also reflects my constituents’ many concerns.
On the need for reform, I echo the comments that have been made about the five-year land supply. The planning authority currently has 8,000 approvals that have not been built, and yet it is held hostage by speculative development because there is no local plan. That powerfully demonstrates the very weak voice of local determination, because this has happened despite the wishes and desires of the local community.
The planning application also reflects some of the faultlines in the calculation of housing need. This greenfield site, so cherished by the local community, represents probably the final green space between Eastbourne and Willingdon. The application essentially changes forever the character of the local area, which was once a village but is increasingly part of an urban fringe, and takes important agricultural land out of use. It is well recognised that there are concerns about flooding in the area, and I am absolutely mystified that Southern Water has given its support and endorsement to the planning application, based on the use of storm overflows. That cannot be right.
Congestion and road safety are also in the mix, but I want to focus on due process, and I know that my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), shares my concerns. On 6 September, I spoke at the appeal inquiry and outlined the fundamental and fatal flaws in our local transport models, which were exposed in a 2019 report by the highly regarded AECOM. I argued that if the models are unfit for purpose, the findings based on them cannot be considered in any way safe or sound. Highways are clearly central to the decision to grant or reject this deeply unpopular proposed development, and are the reason it was previously thrown out.
Of most serious concern is the obvious chilling effect that the threat of costs has had on local government bodies and the democratic process. Wealden District Council twice refused the application. Days before the appeal, it withdrew its objection, not because its concerns and principled objections had been answered and satisfied, or because the local residents it had been representing had been otherwise persuaded, but because it had been warned by its legal representative that continuing courted the risk of substantial cost. Willingdon and Jevington parish council, which had likewise stood against the application at every turn and contributed strongly at every stage of the process, was similarly forced to withdraw. That is a damning indictment of the system and a clear democratic faultline.
The decision has now been made, and the appeal has been successful. I urge the Minister to meet me and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, to look at the application and call it in. I also ask him to look at levelling up as it relates to VAT. New build and greenfield attracts a 0% VAT rating, but conversion, restoration and renovation of my Victorian town centre carries a 20% VAT penalty. It is clear where the balance of interests lies. Finally, I ask him to consider the brownfield-first strategy mentioned today.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing the debate and on her excellent opening speech. In July I attended a public meeting in Greasby community centre organised by local people who are determined to protect the green belt. The hall was absolutely packed, and it is abundantly clear that my constituents feel passionately about protecting the green belt, and I support them.
The green belt is incredibly important for our health and wellbeing, to supporting wildlife habits and to allowing nature to flourish. It has a vital part to play in our response to the climate and ecological emergency, so we need housing to be built on brownfield sites. In recent months there has been a spate of applications from developers to build homes on green-belt land in Wirral. In Wirral West, Leverhulme Estate currently has plans to build up to 260 homes in Pensby, 290 in Irby and 240 in Greasby.
There was great concern among Irby residents at the news that another developer—Richborough Estates—has come forward with a proposal that could see up to 190 news homes built across 31 acres of green-belt land on either side of Mill Hill Road. On their website, the developers say the site
“will be promoted for Green Belt release through the emerging Wirral Local Plan”,
so it seems they will be lobbying for these green fields to be released for development. I have voiced my concerns, and according to the local press the company has said it will not proceed with these plans until the site is successfully removed from the green belt and has status within the Wirral local plan. That is hardly reassuring, and the developers’ intentions remain clearly stated on their website. Local people are angry and upset, and I support them as we stand together in our opposition to Leverhulme Estate and Richborough Estates’ proposals to build houses on precious green belt.
CPRE, the countryside charity, publishes regular reports on the state of the green belt, which, among other things, track the number of submitted and approved applications for development on green-belt land. According to the most recent report, in February 2021, 793 applications were submitted on green-belt land between 2009-10 and 2019-20, of which 337—just over 42%—were approved. That resulted in the building of more than 50,000 housing units, so clearly there is not the level of protection for the green belt that there needs to be. The situation looks likely to become worse because the Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill could further weaken protections. The Bill would introduce national development management policies, which would have primacy over local development plans, meaning that those plans could be easily and rapidly rendered out of date by changes to national policies.
I would like to look at the implications for Wirral West. Wirral’s draft local plan states:
“Sufficient brownfield land and opportunities exist within the urban areas of the borough to ensure that objectively assessed housing and employment needs can be met over the plan period… The council has therefore concluded that the exceptional circumstances to justify alterations to the green belt boundaries do not exist in Wirral.”
However, an NDMP could overrule that. I fear we are facing a power grab by central Government, so it would be helpful if the Minister could rule out a situation where, on the one hand, a council says that any new housing in its area will be built on brownfield sites and the green belt will be protected but, on the other hand, the Government set a national development management policy that overrules the local council position.
It is a matter of real concern that the current Secretary of State has previously called for the release of green-belt land for new homes and has described the green belt as
“an arbitrary and increasingly damaging holdover from seventy years ago”.
He has said:
“The green belt is not part of the problem, but is the problem. As currently constituted, it has become the central obstacle to enabling the building of the volume of houses we need, where we need them.”
It is also concerning that, back in 2019, the now Prime Minister said that the Conservatives should build 1 million homes on the green belt. No wonder people in Wirral West are concerned by the threat the Conservatives pose to the green belt. I urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to think again, and I ask the Minister to speak to them directly about this matter because it is clear that people value the green belt and want it protected.
We need more homes in Wirral and right across the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West so eloquently described. Such homes need to be affordable for first-time buyers and private renters, they need to be in locations where infrastructure such as roads, public transport and services is already in place, and they need to have high levels of energy efficiency and to be built on brownfield sites. It is a matter of real concern that, just as it has damaged the economy, the Government’s policy now threatens to further damage the environment too. The Government really must come forward with strong protections for the green belt as a matter of urgency.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on bringing forward this debate on issues affecting Coventry, which have an impact on my constituents—particularly those who live in the village of Bulkington, within the ambit of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council. My constituents there are having to accept a 27.3% increase in the size of their village, with the number of houses moving from 2,794 to 3,558.
That is a massive increase and proportionally much more than other areas are being asked to take, but there is an opportunity to hold back on consent for 196 homes on one site if the Secretary of State grants a moratorium on strategic site approvals in the way the hon. Lady has asked for. I have written two letters to Secretaries of State asking for that to be done. Regrettably, the response was not positive, but I will make the case for action to the Minister today.
The challenge in Bulkington arises because, in 2015, a memorandum of understanding—a duty to co-operate—between Warwick District Council, Coventry City Council and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council included provision to promote the release of land that was previously in the green belt. This arose from the need for additional housing in the city of Coventry, which, as the hon. Lady drew attention to, arose from the Office for National Statistics population estimates in 2014.
The challenge for Coventry is that it is an established urban area and there remains a shortage of land in that urban area to meet those housing numbers. As a consequence, Warwick was brought into the mix, along with Nuneaton and Bedworth, to provide additional land as part of their duty to co-operate. I support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) in asking for some clarity on this particular role.
In her remarks, the hon. Member for Coventry North West unfairly criticised Conservative councillors for their approach to these matters. In this case, the issue arose because Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, which was Labour led at the time, chose to declassify part of its green belt to enable this development to take place. It is important to note that, at the time that that action was taken, it was opposed by the Conservative group on the Council. Significantly, without that declassification, my constituents in Bulkington would not be facing the challenges and problems they currently face.
The hon. Lady referred to the inaccuracy of the numbers, and that was picked up by CPRE, the countryside charity. A review has now taken place and was published in May 2021. It found that the population estimates
“for some cities such as Coventry did seem to be inconsistent with local evidence. This appeared to be the case in some other smaller cities with larger student populations”.
The hon. Lady and I are both proud that Coventry has two universities—Coventry University and the University of Warwick—but that results in some confusion around the number of houses needed.
The hon. Lady pointed out that, in a further development, we now have actual data—the 2021 census figures—and do not need to work off projections. In Coventry’s plan, its population is projected to grow by in excess of 89,000 between 2011 and 2031. The actual growth in the first half of that period, according to the 2021 census, was 28,300. That is substantially less—almost half—of what was projected. That is why the numbers—on which the housing development that the hon. Lady referred to and that is affecting my constituents was based—need to be looked at. If the Coventry population figures had been more accurate, the need for adjacent local authorities to help meet Coventry’s housing need would have been diminished. The development in Bulkington would not need to take place.
So what is our ask? What happens next? Conservative-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council—the Conservatives have controlled it in recent years—and the people of Bulkington would like the Secretary of State to impose a moratorium on new housing while Coventry City Council and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council review their local plans. As I mentioned, one site in Bulkington was previously green belt but has now been declassified and has not yet been consented. It is known as HSG7, and it would accommodate 196 homes to the east of the village. Developers currently have a window of opportunity, and we wish to stop that development taking place by asking the Minister to consider the moratorium to which the hon. Member for Coventry North West and I have referred.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I commend and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for her excellent speech and for securing the debate, and I concur with many of the points raised by Members on both sides of the Chamber. In the time available to me, I would like to raise three points: first, the pressure on green land in and around Reading and the neighbouring town of Woodley; secondly, the importance of protecting green spaces and historic streets within towns; and thirdly, the need for the Government to rethink their planning proposals and to have a new planning policy.
First, the pressure on green land in our part of the Thames valley is already significant, as colleagues may know. We have a growing population in our part of southern England, and there is a lot of pressure from speculative developers trying to build on the outskirts of existing towns. Reading does not have a green belt, but it does have a lot of green land. The Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty is a short distance away from the northern boundary of the town. In other directions there are protected sites and interesting landscapes that need to be preserved for local amenity use. As other Members have said, it is so important for local residents to be able to go out and enjoy the countryside, whether that is walking their dog, looking at the countryside or enjoying the green space. That is important for people’s wellbeing and mental health, and everyone should have access to our wonderful countryside.
Sadly, in our area we have a specific problem with speculative developers, and I would like to mention one case that indicates just how appalling this can be. On one site on the edge of Emmer Green, a small village that is now part of Reading, a speculative developer wanted to build a large number of executive homes. That would have started to join up Reading with the neighbouring south Oxfordshire village of Sonning Common, which is completely against the wider thrust of planning policy and the importance of maintaining separate settlements. It was an unsuitable, unsustainable site that would have led to a large amount of extra traffic in both directions, which no residents in the area wanted. I and neighbouring MPs and parish councils campaigned against it, and we were successful. However, I am concerned that the Government’s proposals could unleash a wave of similar applications on the outskirts of existing towns and cities in my constituency and neighbouring parts of southern England.
The strange contrast is that, in Reading, there is a large amount of brownfield land. We actually have enough brownfield in the borough of Reading, let alone the neighbouring suburbs, to provide almost all the housing that is needed until 2036, and that is from Reading Borough Council’s local plan. I urge the Minister to listen to that point, and I hope he will consider rethinking the policy.
Secondly, preserving historic streets is a related issue for many people living in towns and cities; my colleagues from two historic cities—my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for City of Chester (Christian Matheson)—mentioned it, and others have hinted at it. Reading is a Victorian, Georgian and arts and crafts town, with a huge amount of really attractive architecture. Sadly, as a university town with many new residents coming in, we already face a lot of pressure, with houses being converted into bedsits, which causes all sorts of issues for neighbouring residents, such as overflowing bins and parking problems. The Government’s proposals would allow what could, in many cases, be quite ugly extensions under permitted development, such as unwanted large rear extensions and loft conversions that are out of keeping. That aspect needs to be rethought, and there should be an emphasis on maintaining the attractive visual appearance of historic areas, whether or not they are conservation areas, for the benefit of all residents. I hope the Minister will consider that point about our wonderful urban environments in many towns and cities, which is related to the issue of preserving the green environment.
I appreciate that there is pressure on time, so I will move on and highlight a potential future policy. As many Members have rightly said, there should be much greater emphasis on redeveloping brownfield. We have some interesting and positive examples of that in our town, in which attractive, red-brick terraced houses or low-rise flats have replaced industrial sites near the town centre, often reusing land that had been derelict for some time and providing a benefit to local residents by removing an ugly site. Also, the environment is protected by the reduction in traffic and the increase in cycling, walking and public transport use. All those are for the greater good, at a time when we are trying to address the serious challenges of climate change and other related environmental challenges. That, surely, should be the way forward.
I hope the Minister will focus on that point and look again at the balance in the planning system between brownfield and greenfield, which seems to be out of kilter. Sadly, the Government proposals, from what I understand of them, would take that much further and allow developers far more leeway to build in areas where local residents clearly do not want development and where there would be unfortunate environmental impacts such as increased car pollution and traffic jams and, indeed, an economic impact owing to transport delays.
I shall conclude, as I appreciate that there is time pressure. I hope that the Minister will think again and listen to the concerns raised by Members on both sides of the Chamber.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing this important debate, although I shall start by disagreeing with her slightly.
In the Lewes constituency, we had a good system. We had a local plan in place, and nearly every town and parish in the Lewes district had neighbourhood plans, which were voted on by local people and put together by parish councillors. That was delivering our housing numbers in the right place and delivering the right type of accommodation, which enabled older people to stay in their communities by downsizing and young families to begin their life in their community with a starter home.
Our issue is that in 2019 the Lib Dem-Greens took over the district council and let that local plan go out of date, and with it the five-year land supply. With that, all the neighbourhood plans have fallen, and since then we have been inundated with applications from developers, who seized the opportunity to target every greenfield site in the constituency for housing development.
The local planning authority has refused most of those applications on the principle that they are not in the local plan and not in the neighbourhood plan, but those refusals are being overturned almost daily by the planning inspector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) suggested, and there is inaction from our local council, which is squabbling over housing numbers. Meanwhile, not having a local plan in place means that our communities, parishes and town councils, which worked so hard to accommodate the housing numbers they were given, are being left to face the consequences.
Maria Caulfield
I will not because there is little time left.
That is not fair because the housing being built on those sites is not affordable for local families. It is £400,000 or £500,000 for a starter home, and those are three-bedroom or four-bedroom homes that do not allow our older residents to downsize and stay, or our new young families to start their life in their community. This is not the right housing. We were trying to build communities, not just homes, and the system has failed us.
I have seven key asks of the Minister. Many Members have raised the brownfield first strategy, which was highlighted by the previous Prime Minister and hinted at by our current Prime Minister. We need clarity on that. In Lewes town, we had the Phoenix quarter, which would have delivered thousands of new homes. The Government gave the council £1 million to start that scheme, but not a brick has been laid on the site. Meanwhile, our green fields are being concreted over.
We need to be able to force local councils to get their local plans in place. It cannot be right that we had a plan in place that delivered the housing numbers and the housing that our communities wanted, but that the local plan is not happening because the council is squabbling over housing numbers. All that is now a hostage to fortune. It is the same in the Wealden district of my constituency, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. There has never been a local plan and the district is holding out for the Government either to scrap housing numbers or to deliver a different housing strategy. Meanwhile, every greenfield site is open to challenge from developers.
The standard method was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson). I have received letters from the previous Housing Minister saying that it is not a target, just an indication, but local councils do not feel confident enough to take matters to appeal, because when they do so the planning inspector does not uphold that view. The 2014 housing numbers, which form the standard method, as has been highlighted, are inaccurate and out of date.
We need to take the heat out of the south-east. Members across the Chamber might not agree with me, but we are talking about applications in their thousands, not their hundreds. We have GPs who have closed their lists because they cannot cope, schools that are full and roads that are congested. At the end of the day, we are just not building the housing that helps our local communities, and residents have had enough.
On the land banking issue, Oliver Letwin did a review a couple of years ago and said there was no problem—“Nothing to see here, folks.” Actually, I agree with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. Wealden district has 8,000 units that have planning permission, but because they are mainly on brownfield sites, it is cheaper, quicker and easier for developers to challenge the council, win at appeal and build on greenfield sites instead.
We absolutely need to support our local planning authorities. In the case of the proposed Mornings Mill development, the council has refused it twice and it has gone to appeal. I am concerned not about the cost but about the principles behind that decision. What is the point of having planning authorities? We might as well give the decision to planning inspectors in the first place. We have tried to build the housing that we are required to build, we did our local plan and our neighbourhood plan, and it cannot be right that decisions by democratically elected councillors are overturned. Developers have the money and legal expertise to be able to win every single case.
Finally, I will address the issue of local plans and five-year land supplies going out of date. Does it really need to take years? They were good plans, and there are only a couple of sites that did not come to fruition. It should take months to revamp that, and we should be able to keep those local plans and the legal protections they provide for our constituencies.
The odds are stacked against our communities at the moment, and we need the Minister’s help. We want to build housing, but it must be the right type of housing for our communities, and we want to build communities and not just homes.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I thank all of you for your co-operation this morning.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) not only on securing a debate that is clearly of great importance to the communities that she represents, but on her willingness to tackle at length a subject that is controversial and has arguably failed to receive the attention it deserves in this place. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part this morning in what has been a lively, interesting and thoughtful session.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend outlined with her customary forcefulness her concern about the large-scale green belt release that has been authorised on the fringes of her Coventry constituency. The individual cases she mentioned are complex and I do not intend to comment on them in detail, other than to say that, more than anything, they illustrate the difficult position in which individual local authorities are placed in the absence of effective sub-regional frameworks for managing housing growth.
My hon. Friend was also at pains to situate the general issues arising from green-belt development in her city within the context of Britain’s housing crisis, and she was right to do so. After all, the point at issue here is not whether green belts have value and can provide for public recreation, contact with nature and habitat maintenance, which they do. Rather, it is whether green-belt land should be released to meet the significant housing need that now exists across England and, if so, how much and under what circumstances.
When it comes to the green belt, what should be in many ways a relatively dispassionate debate consistently provokes intense emotion and polarisation. That is partly because housing development, by its very nature, will always be a contentious issue, but that fact alone cannot account for the strength of feeling generated by this issue.
I would suggest that at least two other factors underlie the passions provoked by the green belt. The first is that any consideration of the green belt as policy labours under a series of misconceptions. Chief among them is the falsehood, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), that green belt is always and everywhere green fields, as opposed to the reality, which is that, at least on the edges of most major cities, green belts include abandoned industrial buildings, petrol stations, scrubland, motorways, farmland, golf courses and nature-rich green fields.
The second misconception is that, more often than not, any debate about the future of the green belt is framed as an irreconcilable choice between two flawed options— namely, the complete abolition of green belts or rendering their present boundaries entirely sacrosanct. A more honest and nuanced approach is long overdue—one that recognises that the green belt has served England’s towns and cities very well over many decades, in terms of its original aim of preventing unlimited urban sprawl, and that it must be retained for that purpose. We also need to accept that the green belt’s existence has come at a cost, in terms of constrained housing supply, growing problems with affordability and problematic development displacement, and that there is a strong case for looking again at how the policy should operate in the years ahead.
The Labour party fully supports the prioritisation of brownfield development. We remain committed to preserving the green belt and would resist any attempts to abolish it, as per the long-held wishes of those for whom nothing short of total planning deregulation will suffice. Not only are green belts not to blame for all the country’s housing shortage ills, but their removal would without question trigger a tsunami of land speculation and an increase in low-quality, high-cost and infra- structure-deficient development of the kind that, as we have heard, is already far too commonplace.
However, we are equally opposed to any attempt, along the lines mooted by the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) in the recent Conservative leadership contest, to prevent green-belt land from being released for development under any circumstances. The truth is that there are certain types of land within green-belt boundaries—for example, brownfield land within green belt or poor monocultural farmland next to key transport hubs—that are ideally suited for development. Politicians who argue that every inch of green-belt land should be forever off limits are doing the public a disservice.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I wish to respectfully correct the hon. Gentleman. He is referring to already developed land—he talked about petrol stations and industrial areas—but actually that sits outside the green-belt designation. Green-belt designation does not include previously developed industrial land.
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman; I think he is wrong on that point. It includes brownfield land and land that has previously been developed. That is part of the problem: there is a misconception that green belt always equals greenfield, but it does not. I will talk about the distinction in a minute, because it is important for how we might go forward.
The debate we should be having is not a rehash of the stale exchanges between those who wish to abolish the green belt entirely and those who wish to render it inviolable. It should instead focus on what the Government need to do to ensure that more of the right bits of the green belt are released for development, that land-value capture is maximised on those sites so that the communities in question can benefit from first-class infrastructure and more affordable housing, and that green-belt land with the highest environmental and amenity value is properly protected, enhanced and made more accessible. The selective release of green belt should increase, rather than decrease, the opportunities for urban communities to benefit from green space and nature.
In our view, any approach to green-belt development must be premised on the involvement of local communities. More needs to be done to ensure that local authorities routinely review green-belt land as part of the local plan-making process, and that they have the freedom to take a balanced view of how green-belt land within their boundaries is managed. We also want to see a more meaningful role for the public in determining which areas of green-belt land are permanently protected, which are improved and made more accessible, and which, if any, might be appropriate for new homes.
Perhaps most importantly, any green-belt development must deliver tangible benefits for local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West ably outlined, the problem is that in far too many cases today, green-belt land is being transformed into ill-planned neighbourhoods full of overpriced executive homes with the inevitable community backlash that that results in. That point was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda), and by the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield).
Ensuring that green-belt development leads to beautiful and well-serviced neighbourhoods with good access to improved green open spaces and homes that are genuinely affordable for local people would require reform, not least to enable local authorities to acquire the land at a reasonable price, but that is entirely feasible if the political will exists. We can debate the precise delivery mechanisms, but Labour believes that the case for more effectively facilitated, very limited development on poor-quality land within green belts in areas where it is most needed, in a way that meets local housing need, while at the same time protecting and enhancing high-quality green-belt land for the benefit of the public, is unarguable.
The alternative—here I take issue with the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson)—is to accept what is already taking place: namely, the progressive loss of all kinds of green-belt land, including greenfield and high-quality green-belt land, via haphazard and speculative fringe development, often of poor quality and via appeal. Doing so also sets aside a potentially valuable means of boosting housing supply, simply because it is too politically sensitive.
In the face of a housing crisis that is our country’s most pernicious iniquity, blighting the lives of millions, the notion that every part of the green belt is sacrosanct cannot be justified. It is high time for a serious debate about the role that a reimagined green belt can play in tackling the crisis. I look forward to hearing from the new Minister, and I once again welcome him to his place. I hope he can clarify not just what the Government intend to do to prevent the ongoing release of high-quality, nature-rich green-belt land of the kind we have heard about, but what the Government’s thinking on the green belt now is more generally, given that in the space of just three years the present Prime Minister has called both for a million homes to be built on green-belt land and for no green-belt development whatsoever to take place.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind him to leave two minutes for the mover of the motion to respond at the very end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
Thank you, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful to all colleagues for attending today, and I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing this debate. In this my first debate as housing and planning Minister, it is good to get into the important issues that hon. Members have raised. I am sure that they will be brought back regularly throughout my time in post.
A significant number of different issues, both specific and broad, has been raised about the green belt. I will try to answer and address as many of them as I can in the time available. There are two things that mean that I will be unable to answer some questions or to directly address some specific points. First, as hon. Members are aware, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system I am unable to comment on large aspects of individual local plans and specific planning applications, given that they could be called in and dealt with at ministerial level. I apologise to hon. Members for being unable to do so, but I hope they will understand the rationale behind it. Secondly, as a number of hon. Members have indicated, there is a set of questions that are open at this time, and that is because we have a new Government—a new Administration, Prime Minister and Secretary of State. We hope and aim to close and clarify many of those questions as soon as possible, but I hope hon. Members will understand that I am not able to do so in this debate.
With those points in mind, and before turning to the individual comments of hon. Members, I will restate the Government’s clear position that the green belt is a hugely important part of our planning system. For many decades, this much loved and historical feature has protected our landscape. The national planning policy framework makes clear that the green belt has a specific purpose, that it should be released only in exceptional circumstances, as has been clear for a number of years, and that, where possible, local authorities should take into account other ways in which development can take place before looking at green belt, including a requirement to consider brownfield development.
Margaret Greenwood
I refer back to the countryside charity CPRE’s research. It examined a 10-year period of the release of green-belt land and found that about 41% of applications to build on the green belt had gone through. Does the Minister believe that the protections are sufficient and strong? The research suggests that that is not the case.
Lee Rowley
That is a very important point. I will come to it, but it is important to highlight that the amount of green belt in this country has increased in recent years. The overall amount has gone up substantially. That is due in large part to the introduction of a green belt in the north of England, but it is also the case—we should always stand back and consider this—that, in terms of pure hectarage, the amount of green belt has increased. The hon. Lady makes a very important point, and ultimately we have a decision to make on green belt.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on the Opposition Front Bench made the important point that some parts of the green belt do not have the same aesthetic quality as others. Moreover—this has been in the NPPF for a substantial amount of time—there will be exceptions. In certain instances, buildings will need to be built for farms and for forestry, and consideration will have to be given to elements that most hon. Members and people out there will accept are reasonable. My point is that there has to be flexibility. The NPPF provides flexibility while making significant statements about the importance of the green belt, which is absolutely vital.
Lee Rowley
I will conclude my point, if I may. If the process for at least some scenarios needs to be flexible, as is the case here, we need to consider who is best placed to determine that flexibility. In my view, that decision has to be made locally because, in those very small instances, it is the localities and the local councils that will be able to make the best decision about what should or should not happen with this designation of land. That is within the wider context that, ultimately, the green belt should be released only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear and compelling case to do so and when other things such as brownfield have been considered first.
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In my constituency, 10,000 houses are being built on green-belt land. That does not seem to me to be an exceptional circumstance. It seems like riding roughshod over the green-belt policy.
Lee Rowley
As I have indicated, I cannot talk about individual cases, but I understand his point and the strength of feeling that he shares with other colleagues about the issue of appropriateness.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West made a substantial number of important points. Again, I congratulate her on securing the debate. I am not sure I agree with some of her slightly more partisan elements, but I will disregard them in the spirit in which this debate has largely been pursued. The reality is that everything in planning is a challenge. There is a balance to be struck and a set of trade-offs. There are no easy answers. We all share the same desire. I have a substantial proportion of green belt in my constituency, which I want to enhance to protect our natural environment. I want it protected so that everybody can enjoy it in future, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) indicated in his remarks.
We also want to ensure that people can get on the housing ladder—a point that was highlighted by the hon. Member for Coventry North West. The proportion of home ownership is not as high as it used to be, although it is starting to rise again. We have to balance these things, and that requires a nuanced and mature debate, which we have largely had today, with a recognition that there has to be flexibility in the system, as well as the great protection that is necessary.
Lee Rowley
I really must make progress.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West talked about a failure to address issues in planning. I accept that there are always challenges in planning, but I wish to put on the record the importance of the 2 million new houses that have been built over the last 12 years—2 million families have had the opportunity to realise their dream of home ownership. Some 600,000 of those are affordable homes, and 242,000 were built in 2019 alone. Billions of pounds, whatever our views on whether that is sufficient, will have come forward in infrastructure to support communities.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West also highlighted the challenges in how the system works. I absolutely accept that there are challenges in how the system works, but ultimately this is a process where local authorities—I will not mention specific councils—have the power to bring forward a plan at the time that they wish. They should understand the context in which local plans are brought forward. They have the ability to both include and exclude locations, and they can set the overall framework in which development happens in a local area.
There is then clarity that allows developers, communities, individuals and those who are affected to understand what will and will not happen. Some authorities do that well. Some of those that perhaps do it less well could learn. I am unable to comment on Coventry specifically, but I hope the hon. Lady and her colleagues from the city will reflect on that.
Lee Rowley
I need to make progress—I have only a few minutes. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) talked about the duty to co-operate, and I hope we will be able to make further announcements on that in due course. I am happy to discuss it with him separately if that helps, given his interest in it.
Colleagues from various constituencies, including the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), talked about brownfield land. I absolutely accept the huge importance of developing on brownfield land. As I highlighted, the national planning policy framework indicates the importance of that. A substantial amount of taxpayer subsidy has already been brought forward for brownfield land. There was only one announcement, back in July. I hope that, if hon. Members’ local authorities had the opportunity to bid into that brownfield land fund between July and August this year, they did so. Should it be appropriate, it is important that local authorities take opportunities to bid to build on brownfield land, and that they think through what they can do locally to bring forward additional brownfield land.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about investment zones. I place on the record that the expression of interest guidance for investment zones is clear on the environment: mitigation would be required of any environmental impacts of proposed investment zones. If local authorities that apply do not concur with that, their application would be failed. That is publicly available in the guidance on expressions of interest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made strong points about the importance of a diversity of approaches to ensure that we support housing need in local areas. I am happy to talk to him more about the land constraint point that he highlighted.
The hon. Member for City of Chester talked about the importance of green belt, which I have already talked about. I wholeheartedly concur with him on that point. He also highlighted water and storage facilities. Paragraph 160 of the NPPF covers that, but if there is a specific point he thinks I should be made aware of, I would be happy to talk to him separately.
My hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) talked about specific applications. I am afraid that I am unable to talk about those, but my hon. Friends have noted them. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about the importance of neighbourhood plans and the involvement of local areas in them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for raising the issue about his locality. Within the bounds of appropriateness, I am happy to receive further representations on that and to talk about it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Reading East for highlighting the brownfield element.
In the 30 seconds that remain, I again thank all colleagues for their comments. It has been a useful and helpful debate, and I look forward to further discussions. If there were simple answers on this issue, I am not sure that we would be here today. If there were easy ways to resolve the very difficult trade-offs, I am sure that my many predecessors would have done so years ago, as I have been told on a number of occasions. However, it is good to talk and to understand the concerns in local areas. I am grateful both to the hon. Member for Coventry North West for securing the debate and to everybody for their contributions to it.
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank all hon. Members for participating in the debate and for speaking so passionately. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) spoke about protecting the green belt and giving more power to local people, so that they have a say in the development process. My hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda) focused on the importance of building on brownfield sites and protecting the democratic process. We all agree that building affordable houses, with proper infrastructure that meets the needs of the population, should be a priority for the Government. I hope that the Minister takes back all the issues that hon. Members have raised today and takes urgent action.
Will the Minister also meet me to discuss Coventry’s plan, and will he put on hold any green-belt applications currently put forward to Coventry City Council, so that the council has the time to review local plans and make decisions based on current ONS figures? Lastly, I thank all the activists who have campaigned to protect our green spaces, both in Coventry and across the country. They understand the impact that the issue has in their communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of new developments on greenbelt land.
Procurement of Evusheld
(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
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
There has been a lot of interest in this debate. I will call Daisy Cooper to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to have the final say, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the procurement of Evusheld.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I am pleased to have secured this important debate on behalf of the forgotten half a million immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients in England, and the 18,617 people who have signed the parliamentary e-petition calling on the Government to fund the preventive covid-19 drug Evusheld. I pay tribute to the extraordinary campaigning work of Evusheld for the UK, Blood Cancer UK, Kidney Care UK and many other charities that have given their members a voice. There is clearly significant interest from colleagues across the House, and I will endeavour to take as many short interventions as possible.
Let me be blunt: the Government have got this badly wrong. Some of our most vulnerable people are now in an impossible position, or, as some of them have said, they have been left to rot. People with blood cancer, vasculitis, kidney transplants, multiple sclerosis, long- term conditions and rare diseases and those on immunosuppressant drugs are crying out for the preventive drug Evusheld. Why? For them, the covid infection is just as deadly—in fact, more so—than when we first went into lockdown two and a half years ago. They do not mount a response to covid through the vaccines like the rest of us. Covid is not just a bad cold or an inconvenience, but a killer disease. In a society where people are allowed to walk around with that killer disease without being required to wear a mask, test or isolate, nowhere is safe for the immunocompromised—not inside or out.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I share the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks. Does she agree that it is incredibly important that the clinicians and scientists take this decision through the usual rigorous methods, and not us as politicians?
Daisy Cooper
I welcome that intervention and I do agree. I will outline all the scientific evidence that backs the decision to procure Evusheld and roll it out right now, this side of Christmas.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate. I was contacted by a constituent ahead of it, who reiterated that as autumn and winter approach, we are even more vulnerable and isolated. Given what we face, I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that it is urgent for Ministers to listen to this debate and set out plans to support immunosuppressed patients and people during the difficult winter ahead.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Lady is right. I will set out not only that the scientific evidence backs up the case for Evusheld, but that there is strong political consensus for it. Of course, the voices of those affected must be heard.
There is nowhere that is safe for these people: not shops, not schools, not supermarkets, not buses, not even the very GP surgeries and hospitals that they need to visit to manage the conditions that make them vulnerable. They are at extreme risk of hospitalisation and death, and they have been left with no choice but to lock themselves away from family and friends for two and a half years. Many now face a third winter of shielding.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments. I have a constituent who has been shielding for 30 months—a 26-year-old who is the son of Mrs Rehana Patel. Along with the hon. Lady, I plead that the Government continue to give serious consideration to the use of Evusheld to help those thousands of clinically vulnerable people across my constituency and the rest of the UK.
Daisy Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
Let us move on to the facts. Is Evusheld safe and effective? Yes, it is. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approved it in March, seven months ago. Is there enough scientific evidence? Yes, there is ample evidence.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The hon. Lady and I have had conversations about this issue and about my own constituents. What I cannot understand is that the RAPID C-19 committee has looked at this 11 times. These are supposed to be experts that are looking at it. She is quite right to want evidence that proves that the committee is wrong. How come we have got into a situation where Government scientists are saying one thing and the rest of the scientific community is saying something completely different?
Daisy Cooper
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. That is exactly the question I would like the Minister to answer.
There are two significant problems with the most recent report published last week. First, it effectively says that the RAPID C-19 group looked at the results of a trial run on actual people in December 2021 and concluded that the evidence was so good that they were going to recommend that Evusheld be rolled out to patients. However, in May of this year, they looked at non-clinical data—test tubes, petri dishes and the like—and decided that the results were not good enough. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that high concentrations of a virus in a petri dish do not translate to tests in real human beings.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I understand that 33 other countries have approved the use of Evusheld, including every G7 member apart from the United Kingdom. What do you think we can learn from the other parts of the world that have approved this important treatment for the immunocompromised?
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful for that question. In fact, Evusheld is now so effective that not only has it been rolled out in 33 countries, but a number of countries, including Japan, Italy, Spain and Israel, have actually put in repeat orders for Evusheld, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US has even launched a public drive to increase uptake. In private discussions, both the Minister and his predecessor have indicated to me in meetings that there was some evidence that countries had bought the drug but were not using it.
Let us be clear: the failure of any Government to identify clinically vulnerable patients and distribute the medication to them has nothing to do with the effectiveness of that particular drug. Before we throw stones in glass houses, we should remember that of immunocompromised patients in England who caught covid and were referred for treatment, only 17% actually got it. That failure to distribute is more to do with the fracturing of our health systems; it is not about the effectiveness of this drug.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this vital debate on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me and in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary health group. Does she agree that when people feel they are being left to rot, it is not only their physical health that is impacted; their mental wellbeing is crippled in the stage of recovery where they need the most support possible?
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Many people are clinically vulnerable because they have a health condition, and their physical health is getting worse, as it would when someone is stuck at home for two and a half years, but the mental health impact is also incredibly profound. We know that many of our constituents have experienced suicidal thoughts.
I turn now to the advice of the RAPID C-19 oversight group, which has been mentioned. The Government refused to share this advice for some time, and many of us were asking for it. I was pleased to see that this advice was finally published last Thursday on 6 October. I was pretty shocked for two reasons. First, the report actually says that the group looked at real-world data and the impact on people and that data was very strong. Then it looked at the data in a non-clinical setting and decided not to roll it out. That seems absurd to me.
There is a second problem with the evidence that was published last week. It lists the evidence that the group reviewed, and it leaves out one very critical scientific study by the Francis Crick Institute—a study that I believe the Government commissioned themselves. That study was commissioned to look at the effectiveness of a different drug: sotrovimab. That report concluded that sotrovimab was effective, and the Government are using that report to justify why they continue to use sotrovimab. However, the report also concluded that Evusheld was even more effective. So why not buy Evusheld too? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
On the same day the Government published this RAPID group report, The Lancet—the world’s highest-impact general medical journal—carried an article by 19 experts calling on the World Health Organisation to update its guidance on Evusheld, based on the study the Government commissioned. In the article, those experts say that Evusheld should be used for not only preventative, prophylactic use, but treatment. The UK Government are really trailing behind. Can the Minister tell us why the RAPID study ignores this vital piece of research, which they must have known about?
Many of the people we are talking about have already had five or six vaccine jabs, even though they will mount very little, if any, response. The Government say it is important that these people get those vaccines, because they say some response is better than none. Why does that same test not apply to Evusheld? Why is it being singled out and held to an impossible standard?
Let us look at what the Government are proposing, instead of following the science. Ministers have referred Evusheld to NICE for further clinical and cost-effective assessment; apparently, we might hear back in April 2023. That is another delay—another six months of isolation—even though every other covid treatment and vaccine was urgently procured before being appraised. I ask again, why is the Government’s treatment of Evusheld so inconsistent?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My constituent Helen Nash asked me to be here to support the case that the hon. Lady is making. She makes the key point: while the Government did a lot of great work to accelerate the availability of vaccines for the population at large, this particular cohort seems to be subject to a very different set of criteria. That is the great concern. While we must rely on clinical advice, we must also have the same situation for all people, regardless of their status.
Daisy Cooper
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the big concerns that has not been answered by the Government so far is why their approach to this drug is so inconsistent with their approach to others. As I say, Ministers have referred Evusheld to NICE, and it is not at all clear why their treatment of it is so different.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health has proposed that immunocompromised patients have an antibody test, and that those who do not respond well enough could join an Evusheld trial. Let us be clear what that trial would mean in real life. It would require some of the people who have been shielding to stay alive for two and a half years to come out of shielding like the rest of us, but without any protection from covid vaccines, knowing that they might only be given a placebo. It would be like taking lambs to the slaughter. I would be astonished and appalled if that proposal passed anyone’s ethics test. I do not know if the Minister would support one of his loved ones taking part in such a trial, but I certainly would not. Can the Minister therefore tell us why his Department wants to take this dangerous approach instead of the approach suggested by the Drug Safety Research Unit, which has called on the Secretary of State to roll out Evusheld now, for this winter, and to run an observational study of the impact?
Another question that has arisen is whether there are problems with supply. The answer is no. AstraZeneca has dismissed that claim.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is presenting a powerful case; I congratulate her on securing this important debate. Max Johnson is a 14-year-old heart transplant recipient. He was the key figure in the organ donation campaign that was supported by Members right across the House. Max and his family are being supported by their local MP, the hon. and learned Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), but we have kept in close touch. Max’s life has been turned upside down since the start of the pandemic, with no light at the end of the tunnel of isolation. Does the hon. Lady agree that Max, along with thousands of other people across the country, has the right to a better life and should be allowed access to Evusheld without any further delay?
Daisy Cooper
I completely agree.
I do not know how much a dose of Evusheld costs. I hope that, when the Government enter into negotiations with AstraZeneca, they will get a good price for the taxpayer. However, all Members of this House know what the cost is to our constituents who are affected. They have given up jobs, caring responsibilities and vital moments in their lives—they could not go to weddings, funerals or births. Some of them no longer run vital volunteer-led community services. Some have lost their life, and some are suicidal; they are thinking of taking their life because the psychological torture of prolonged shielding is too much for them to bear.
Those people are getting even more ill, because no one can be locked up for two and a half years without getting problems with their back or knees, or experiencing extreme loneliness and mental ill health. Those are all problems that are piling up for our already overstretched NHS. If those immunocompromised patients get covid, they are far more likely to end up in an intensive care unit, which we know will cost us thousands and thousands of pounds. There is also a risk of variant escape, because several studies show that new variants and virus mutations are more likely in immunocompromised patients. Against that backdrop, Evusheld is the cheap option.
Two years ago, Members stood in this room and begged Health Ministers to change their minds on care home restrictions, which were supposed to protect people but were so tight that some people started dying of neglect. We are at risk of that happening again. The Government changed course after that debate and can do so again today. The people affected by this feel that they do not have a life; it feels like a life sentence. Ministers have it in their gift to give those people their life back, and on behalf of the half a million, I urge the Minister—I beg him—to do it today.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Robert Jenrick)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) for securing the debate, and the many hon. Members from across the House who have either intervened on her, or whose presence on behalf of their constituents speaks to the concern and interest across the country.
I come to this debate not merely as a new Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, but as the Minister who established the shielding programme in spring 2020. I have been involved in these issues, in one way or another, for two and a half years, and care deeply about the individuals who have been shielding since then. Having met many of them, both as a Minister and as a constituency MP, I understand their distress, and the psychological harm that living a cloistered life places on them and their loved ones.
I also approach the issue with the view that the Government should make decisions on covid-19 treatments based on the available evidence and the recommendations of the medical experts at our disposal. That has been the case for all covid-19 treatments, and is, and should be, the case for Evusheld. It is imperative that we deploy only those drugs that we are content are effective. We would be doing a disservice to the public if we deployed drugs through the NHS that, in this grave situation, gave them a false sense of security.
Robert Jenrick
I will make one further point, then I will come back to my hon. Friends. That does not mean that there is not a role for Ministers in interrogating the evidence, listening to the voices of those with the contrary view—both in the House and in the public domain—and ensuring that we get all the information that we need before we make informed decisions. That is the approach that I have tried to take in the three weeks in which I have been in post, and will take going forwards.
Caroline Ansell
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. On behalf of the half a million, and of one very special lady in my constituency, I wanted to ask a question. I have carefully considered the Government’s response. It talks about the risks outweighing the benefits of deploying Evusheld at this point, but I have not really been able to understand what those risks are; I understand the risks of not deploying it, which have been outlined. Could the Minister could speak to that? As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) described, my constituent is fighting for her career, mental health and relationships, and this debate is very important to her.
Robert Jenrick
I hopefully will answer as many of those points as I can in the time available. I will go to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) next, and then make some progress.
Dr Luke Evans
I entirely agree with the point about making sure that we have clinically robust evidence. We saw during covid with ivermectin how poor data influenced a debate that was sparked across the world. That said, one thing we do have control over is how quickly we look at the regulation. Is there anything that the Minister can do to speed up the decision making? That is within his gift.
Robert Jenrick
Yes, there is, and I hope I will be able to shed further light on that in my remarks, but given that there is relatively little time, sadly, for this debate, let me set out first the process that we have been through; I hope that that will give some comfort to those in the Chamber and listening to the debate that the issue has been handled in a very rigorous way.
Our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, gave conditional marketing authorisation to Evusheld in March 2022, but—this is an important point to note—it did so noting a lack of data regarding how it responds to the omicron variant. The lack of supporting data has been noted by other respected regulatory authorities, including the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. Although the MHRA licenses drugs, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assesses the clinical and cost-effectiveness of them. The normal process would therefore be that NICE proceeds to investigate Evusheld, and that is happening as we speak. As the hon. Member for St Albans said, that process is due to conclude in April next year, but yesterday, I met NICE’s chief executive, Sam Roberts, to review her work and to seek reassurances that her work could proceed at a faster pace, and she has committed to reverting to me as soon as possible with a new timetable.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I welcome that development. I want to place it on the record that of course the devolved Governments also depend a lot on the advice of RAPID C-19. I am sure that the Welsh Government, along with the others, will welcome an accelerated timetable, if it is possible. I congratulate the Minister on doing that.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that comment. Given the urgent need—we all agree on that—to protect lives during the pandemic, we also expedited processes by creating RAPID C-19 as a multi-agency initiative made up of the UK’s main healthcare agencies. It was established in 2020, in response to the pandemic, to get treatments, such as Evusheld, to NHS patients quickly and safely. Therefore we did not simply leave the matter in the hands of NICE; we asked RAPID C-19 to review the evidence base for the use of Evusheld and to consider whether the evidence merited patients having access to it ahead of the normal NICE appraisal. The evidence has now been published and is available on gov.uk; any emerging evidence will continue to be kept under review. That includes the Crick data that the hon. Member for St Albans mentioned, which was published in May and in August and is now being reviewed by RAPID C-19, and also the Lancet study that she referenced, which was published on 6 October, relatively recently.
Three types of evidence have been considered. The clinical trial data is generally the strongest source of evidence. However, in this case, the trial was carried out before omicron became dominant, so it does not confirm efficacy for omicron variants. It would be, I think, concerning to deploy a drug on the NHS that had not been considered in the light of omicron.
Robert Jenrick
I will, but given that I have only five minutes remaining to me, this is the last time I will be able to take an intervention.
Vicky Foxcroft
The Minister is making an interesting speech, but I am really inquisitive as to how we are still using vaccines that have not been tested on omicron, yet we are using the excuse of Evusheld not being tested on omicron for those people who are immunocompromised.
Robert Jenrick
Before we deploy Evusheld on the NHS and give members of the public the sense of security that comes with that, it is clearly sensible for us to investigate its efficacy in the light of the dominant variant. Otherwise, we would be giving people a false sense of security.
We have looked at in vitro neutralisation studies, which can be completed much more rapidly than clinical trials, that have measured in the lab how a new variant changes the binding efficacy of the therapeutic. These studies show reduced binding with different omicron variants, which means that the clinical efficacy against these variants is expected to be reduced. We have also reviewed the published clinical experience of the use of Evusheld, including the studies emerging from the United States and Israel. There can be difficulties in interpreting some observational studies if, for example, there is not an appropriate control group. The conclusion of the evidence review is that there are uncertainties about efficacy, so a clinical trial has been proposed to look at that. We are working with AstraZeneca on the practicalities of creating an urgent trial that can inform the debate ahead of NICE’s ultimate decision in early 2023.
As was noted, other countries have introduced Evusheld, including, in some cases, before omicron was dominant. Many have decided to double the dose to try to counter the drug’s reduced ability to neutralise the omicron variant. Our experts consider that even at this increased dose, the evidence is still insufficient to demonstrate efficacy, so individuals could be at risk if they changed the protective behaviours that they have undertaken for many months.
The Government recognise that an effective pre-exposure programme for immunosuppressed people would be valuable, but the scientific evidence does not support emergency deployment of Evusheld at this time. To boost the evidence base for future decisions, clinical advisers in the expert groups and my Department have recommended a clinical trial, which could help us to answer outstanding questions on dose, efficacy and duration of protection against different variants. We are working through the practicalities of that trial. We will update colleagues and members of the public as quickly as possible.
We have had great success in generating evidence in clinical trials; last week, initial results from the PANORAMIC trial indicated that early treatment with one drug significantly reduced recovery time, and we will now work in the same way to understand what this evidence means for patient access to the drug. I appreciate the difficulties that immunosuppressed individuals face, particularly if they are concerned about not having protection from covid-19 vaccinations, and so continue with behaviours to avoid covid-19. We all recognise the impact that that has on individuals’ lives and want to improve their quality of life. The Antivirals and Therapeutics Taskforce has ensured that UK patients have the earliest access to antiviral, antibody and anti-inflammatory COVID-19 treatments. NHS patients were often the first in the world to receive safe and effective treatment, both in clinical trials and following regulatory approval of treatments.
Colleagues here and those listening at home have my personal assurance that I will continue to work with expert advisers in the Department, and with RAPID C-19, to ensure that they review all emerging evidence, and to ensure that the NICE process is carried out as swiftly as possible, while ensuring that it is safe and efficacious; we want to ensure that members of the public, who may ultimately receive this drug, have confidence that it does what they think it does.
I am holding a meeting for Members of this House with our expert advisers tomorrow at 11 am. It will give Members the opportunity to ask our experts, including those who have been part of RAPID C-19, any questions and seek further assurances. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Albans for securing this debate, and for the passionate way in which she expressed the strong feelings of members of the public; I hope to work with her productively in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Sewage Discharges
(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
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sewage discharges.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank all colleagues who are here to debate this important issue. I also thank the public and the e-petitioners for driving us to seek this change. I welcome the Minister to her place, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, for everything he has done on this matter. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will try to limit interventions. I recognise that there is a Minister here—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—who cannot make a speech, and I hope some of these words will apply to him.
Let me illustrate why I sought this debate. As of 16 September, on nine out of the 16 days of the month Bexhill’s beach had been issued with a pollution risk warning and signs warning against bathing because of the risk of sewage discharge. On 18 August, a fault at a pumping station at Galley Hill caused a discharge of waste water, and sewage was pumped into the Bexhill coastline. It lasted for two and a half hours, starting at 2.59 pm, and bathers were not warned about what was occurring until early evening. In the settlement of Heathfield, residents at the bottom of the hill are up to their knees in discharge when heavy rain comes. That has led to rat infestations, illness for children and pets and contamination of homes and gardens.
Our sewerage system is not fit for purpose, and yet we keep building homes in these areas and making the situation worse. Much of our nation is covered by combined sewerage systems comprising hundreds of thousands of miles of sewers. When those systems cannot cope with the volume, rather than back up into properties, they discharge into our seas, our rivers and our waterways from approximately 15,000 combined sewer overflows. The practice is disgusting. Last year, there were more than 370,000 monitored spill events. Every discharge impacts our environment and our marine life, and our ability to enjoy it and make a living from it. This can no longer be tolerated.
Successive Governments have failed to tackle the issue, going back to the 19th century when much of the combined sewerage system was installed, although I welcome the Government’s latest steps to tackle the problem. Our job is to find solutions. With that in mind, I have four issues that I wish to touch on, and I will ask the Minister a number of questions.
The first issue is the storm overflow discharge reduction plan. I welcome the concept, but we could be more ambitious with the deadlines to eradicate storm overflows. The plan relies on data being correctly and fully recorded. Many citizen scientists, for whom we should all be very grateful, believe that the discharges are not fully recorded. I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. Given concerns about under-reporting, is she confident that the discharge data is accurate?
The event and duration of overflow discharges is monitored, but not the volume and impact. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended the installation of volume monitors on overflows. Will the new Minister explain why the Department rejected that recommendation?
Given that the 2035 and 2050 targets have been criticised for lacking sufficient ambition and urgency, will the Minister consider allowing Ofwat to permit sewage companies to deliver their improvement plans earlier and to higher standards? Southern Water, in the area I represent, aims to meet the storm overflow targets, but it would hit 80% by 2030, rather than 75% by 2035, which is the Government’s target.
The second issue is bathing water testing and quality. To use an example local to me, Bexhill’s bathing water quality is rated sufficient. There was a concern recently that it would drop to poor. The town comprises 40,000 people, and that number swells during tourist season. To assess water quality, testing occurs weekly between May and September. It is tested at different times of the day, but always in the same place in the sea. I am told that the water is tested in the busiest part of the beach, but our beach has no focal point and surely a wider area of bathing water should be tested. We are adjacent to excellent bathing water at St Leonards, so swimmers cross from excellent to sufficient in one stroke.
Every day—I am sure it is the same for other colleagues—the Environment Agency sends me pollution risk warnings. However, for many days, Bexhill has been the only beach where signs advising against bathing should be displayed. When I asked what made Bexhill unique, given that it rains across the Sussex coast, I was told that there was something particular about Bexhill and heavy rainfall. In Bexhill’s case, the testing place is adjacent to an outlet coming from a stream, which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. In three years in which the agency has tested sub-optimal bathing water, Southern Water’s own testing in the immediate vicinity has come up clear on the same day.
Many suspect that heavy rainwater is coming from the highways into the stream and then entering the sea. That may or may not be the cause of the low bathing water quality. However, the fact that we do not know why our bathing water is only just sufficient tells us that we do not know enough about what is going on and therefore we do not know how to clean things up.
Does the Minister believe that it would be more optimal to test water quality on different parts of the beach and on a continuous basis? Given that the bathing water testing regime is some 30 years old, does she believe that the Environment Agency’s testing takes into account the latest pollutants, such as plastics, and gives an adequate reading of our bathing waters? Will the storm overflow discharge reduction plan prioritise busy bathing areas, such as Bexhill, which have bathing quality status below excellent or good?
The third issue is the impact from roads and house building. I will refer to the experience of residents in Heathfield, who have been blighted by sewage and flooding, and they still are when heavy rain comes. This is not just about the sewage companies, but about highways agencies ensuring that their drains can take heavy rainfall rather than it ending up in the combined sewer and causing a discharge or backfill. Despite this, Heathfield has more house building on top of the ridge below which these other roads sit.
On house building and roads, does the Minister believe that it is right to put the onus mainly on water companies to deliver fixes in the storm overflow discharge reduction plan, when many of these assets and the responsibility for them rest with the highways authorities? Has she considered giving the highway authorities a statutory duty to act and to maintain these assets after action has been taken, along with the funds that are to be generated for the plan? Alternatively, would she consider a prohibition on surface water from the highways entering the sewerage system? Either would reduce the chances of the combined sewer becoming overwhelmed in inclement weather. Next, will the Government commit to implement the plan for sustainable drainage systems—or SuDS, as it is known—thereby removing the automatic right to connect to the public sewer system, in order to prevent new developments from adding more surface water to the combined sewerage network?
Highways authorities can refuse to allow connection to their water courses. Will they be required to provide this access in order to avoid a situation in which developers connect to the combined sewers? Will the planning provisions in the forthcoming Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill enable further action to ensure that development takes place only where it will not put further pressure on the combined sewerage system, or will it provide local planning authorities with a justification for saying that further house building cannot take place without the establishment of separate drainage systems? Will the new planning rules allow for sewage companies to be statutory consultees on new planning applications rather than on just the local plan? My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has a fine amendment in mind for that, and I would fully support it.
The final piece is the role of all of us—the role of the public. With more understanding of the combined sewer system and a demand that we end discharges into our waters, the public stand ready to play their part. However, many householders just do not know whether they are putting the heavy rainwater from their gutters into the sewerage system. If they did, many of them would take action to halt the flow and thereby halt the number of discharges when the system is overwhelmed. It might be cheaper to provide water butts to homes for free than to cope with an overwhelmed drainage system.
Will the Minister consider a requirement for householders to be informed if they have a combined sewerage pipe from their homes? Will she consider further financial incentives for householders to ensure that their rainwater goes into a water butt or tank, to help to reduce volume and to help when water is scarce in drier times?
I am so pleased that we are having this debate. I will end my remarks there because so many people wish to speak, and I am grateful to the Minister for the response that she will give.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
As everyone can see, this is a highly subscribed debate. If everyone gets to speak—I want to try to get everybody in—they will have a minute and a half. I will have that limit informally for the first couple of speakers, but I will quickly introduce it formally if people do not stick to it.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Elliott. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing this important debate. I am speaking quickly because of the 90-second limit that has been set.
We must be clear: we are in a dirty water emergency. Only 14% of English rivers meet good ecological standards, and water companies discharged raw sewage into English waterways more than 1.2 million times between 2016 and 2021. In my own constituency of Stockport, the Rivers Trust has reported that there have been 1,089 sewage spills for a total duration of 3,487 hours. This is shocking. As water bills have increased by 40% since privatisation, £72 billion has gone to shareholders, and yet investment in improving infrastructure has decreased by 15%. People are rightly angry.
The shameful frequency of sewage discharges and the resulting damage to our most valued, delicate river habitats is wreaking havoc on our natural environment and ecology, notwithstanding the public health issues it is causing. In the north-west, recent data from the Labour party shows that our tourism and leisure spots have been devastated by 253 years’ worth of raw sewage discharge. We also know that across the region there has been a 62% increase in the number of monitored discharge hours between 2018 and 2021. That is why I was so disappointed to learn last week from a report in The Guardian that the Environment Agency knew that raw sewage was being pumped into our rivers in the north-west of England 10 years ago in 2012. I must add that the Environment Agency has had a significant funding cut over the last few years, and we must talk a lot more about that. My local company, United Utilities, has been dumping raw sewage into rivers while failing to treat the required amount of sewage stipulated in its permits.
I am conscious that other people want to speak, so I will make my last point. Between 2002 and 2018 Scottish Water, which remains publicly owned, invested on average nearly 35% more per household than private English water companies did. Meanwhile in Germany, only 5% of the water supply leaks, but in England that figure is 20%. Additionally, by the admission of the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2018, nine regional water companies had paid out 95% of their profits to shareholders between 2007 and 2016. The simple solution to this crisis is public ownership of water.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I have public sewage discharge meetings concerning my rivers. I get the water companies, the Environment Agency, the district council and the county council together, and we take verbatim minutes and agree action points. One of the key things we heard in the last meeting was that British water bills are among the lowest in Europe. If we wish to clean up our rivers, there is therefore scope to increase our water bills. The Environment Act 2021 was a wonderful piece of legislation introduced by the Government, and let us make it work. We have already heard about monitoring above and below discharges so we can see where the problem is. Publish the data so the Government get the plans and send them off to Ofwat, which can allow more investment to stop storm discharges. The worst discharges do not occur during storms, however; they happen most of the time.
The other half of this problem is farmers, and I declare my interest as a farmer. Under environment land management schemes, we have new soil quality plans to stop farmers using fertiliser in unsuitable conditions, when nitrates and phosphates run off into water. Over the 30 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, our precious limestone rivers in the Cotswolds have become more opaque, and there are more weeds in those rivers. Our plans under the Environment Act and under the sewage reduction plan over the next 25 years, costing £56 billion, need to be sped up. That is what our constituents demand.
The only other ask I make of the Minister is to give the Environment Agency enough resources not only to police discharges, but to make prosecutions quicker and easier. That is what we need so that polluters, whoever they are, know they will be caught out and stopped. The public are demanding it and Members of Parliament, who are here in such numbers, are demanding it. We must get on and get these plans into action more quickly.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing this excellent debate. It is really important, and I thought he made an exceptional start.
I want to make three points. It is not really possible to articulate an argument in the time available, so I will just go through the motions. I want to mention the problem, the impact and the fundamental flaw in the water industry. The excellent Rivers Trust sewage monitoring data for 2021, which is available on the website, highlights 5,115 hours of sewage discharges in my constituency alone. That is the equivalent of 213 days of continuous sewage discharges. When sewage is dumped on 213 days out of 365, that is not an exceptional event but a persistent problem.
My constituency is fortunate because we have the east Durham heritage coast, and east Durham is home to a thriving wild swimming community. Seaham Seaside Swimmers is a local network with many hundreds of members who are passionate about health and wellbeing. Those who participate in that activity are aware of the Safer Seas and Rivers Service app, and last year there were more than 119 pollution alerts from the three combined sewage outlets in my constituency. We really must do better, and we look to the Government and the regulator to do so.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing the debate.
My Gosport constituency is a peninsula surrounded by Portsmouth harbour and the Solent’s waters, so we are a coastal community. We are also proudly protective of the ecology of the Solent. From the seagrasses to the seahorses, the flora and fauna of our coastal waters is vital to their health and sustainability, which is threatened by sewage pollution. In Stokes Bay, Lee-on-the-Solent and Hill Head, we have avid swimmers and lovers of water sports all year round, not just in the summer months.
We know that several targets have been set out for storm overflow reduction, and I welcome the new measures, but I have to express my frustration at the implied lack of urgency. The timescales are simply insufficiently ambitious. I know that storm overflows are a Victorian sewer system design feature, and I know that achieving the targets will require large and complex infrastructure projects, but water companies have made staggering profits for decades. In some cases, they have paid eye-watering fines while not sufficiently investing in infrastructure. Enough has to be enough.
Unfortunately, we regularly experience sewage outflows around our local beaches in Gosport. They do not always coincide with heavy rainfall, but the Environment Agency is only funded to deliver the requirements of the bathing water regulations by testing the waters between May and September. Therefore, if discharges occur in the winter months, the water quality is not known. I say to the Minister that our coastal ecology is affected all year round and people use the waters all year round. Can she please tell me what thought has been given to asking, and funding, the Environment Agency to check the waters all year round?
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
Over the summer, we saw multiple news stories reporting that water companies were pumping sewage into the sea. There were numerous reports of people being warned to stay out of the water at popular beaches because of pollution risks and unsafe conditions. It is an issue that my constituents are very concerned about, particularly as I represent a coastal community. In August, the Government published their storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which requires water companies to reduce discharges into designated bathing water and high-priority nature sites by 2035, and into all sites by 2050. That simply is not good enough.
The Rivers Trust has criticised the Government’s lack of ambition and said that the plan is too little, too late, adding that it was appalled to see that the plan had not taken into account the thousands of responses to the draft consultation, which called for much more ambitious targets. It is very clear that the Government’s plan to tackle discharge just does not show the level of ambition that we need to protect and enhance the quality of our coastal waters and waterways.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
We have too much sewage going into our waters. This is not a new problem—everybody in the various political parties is agreed on that. I was a supporter of the Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), and I am a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams. I also have the great Letcombe brook project in my constituency, so this issue matters a great deal to me.
A lot of nonsense has been written about MPs voting to allow sewage into our waters. As the independent fact-checking website Full Fact said, that is not true: whichever way that vote last year had gone, sewage would have continued to go into our waters, because our systems are very old, we cannot change them overnight and the alternative is sewage backing up into people’s homes, which is even worse.
I welcome the Government’s Environment Act, which places a legal duty on water companies to reduce the harm from sewage discharges, and the storm overflows plan, which will unlock £56 billion to help fix the problem. I probably most welcome the increase in the maximum fine from £250,000 to £250 million; that is the sort of thing that will help the water industry to take the issue seriously. There is a whole range of problems, from leaks to sewage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said, the public see a water industry that is
“slow to stop leaks, slow to repair them, slow to stop pollution and slow to say sorry.”
That has to change—the sooner, the better.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Ms Elliott, and I also thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing it.
We hear that there will potentially be an increase in the maximum fine. There have been only 11 prosecutions in the last four years, so we know that the real cause of anger is the failure to deal with legal discharges of sewage into our waterways, lakes and rivers. The collective profit of the water companies last year was £2.7 billion—£1 billion in shareholder dividends. The choice is not having sewage back up into people’s houses or letting it flow into our waterways, rivers, lakes and streams. The alternative is to invest those obscene profits in holding tanks to ensure that we do not get sewage outflows in the first place. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members muttering from sedentary positions. I wish they were as angry about sewage as they are about people campaigning against sewage.
In Windermere, the largest lake in England, there were 71 days last year when sewage was discharged legally. In Coniston, there were 112 days when sewage was discharged legally. In the River Eden, in Kirkby Stephen, there were 2,500 hours of sewage being discharged legally. In Morecambe Bay, there were 35,000 hours of sewage being discharged legally. The option here is obvious: to force the water companies to invest their profits now—not over a 20-year period—to ensure that the water in the lakes of the Lake district, the dales and the rest of the country are not polluted by sewage, so that this environmental health risk, public health risk, risk to animal welfare and risk to our economy is not allowed to continue. The Government have the power to force the water companies to take the action that they should take. We know that the water companies have the money to do it. Why are the Government not forcing them to do it now?
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
I have 90 seconds to make three points. First, water is not like other products; it is the single most critical resource for any society. Without it, human civilisation, even existence, is impossible. I make that point because there is a special duty on water companies to act in the public interest, and I am afraid that too often they have deliberately shielded themselves from scrutiny or used complex structures to avoid paying taxes. They have appeared more interested in financial engineering than in the civil engineering that is required.
Secondly, combined sewage overflows are not new or unique, as has powerfully been pointed out. The reality is that there are more per capita in Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. However, times have changed, and expectations have rightly changed, too. Progress is required, and it is required now.
Thirdly, the River Chelt, in my constituency, matters very much. I grew up near its source; it flows through my back garden, as it happens. I am pleased that Severn Trent Water have said to me—have given, in their words, a cast-iron assurance—that they will reduce overflows into the River Chelt by 85% by the end of 2024. That is welcome—it is essential—but if it does not deliver, I am afraid that my constituents, and constituents around the country, will take the view that the water companies are the unacceptable face of capitalism.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am proud to represent the River Lea as part of my constituency, but in 2021 there were 27 instances of sewage discharge into the Lea—184 hours in total. That is not new: in 2019 overall the River Lea was classified as bad, failing on both chemical standards and ecological health. It is one of the most polluted rivers in the UK. Research from Thames21—an excellent charity that does work to keep our inland waterways clean—and University College London shows that the amount of faecal E. coli bacteria in the river regularly exceeds international standards. That is not a sentence that I ever thought I would have to read out, because it is shocking that that is the case. Hackney, my local council, has established the London Lea Catchment Partnership with other local councils and Thames21, to try to improve biodiversity, increase the cleanliness of the river and work to discourage swimming, Sadly, that has to be the case when we are still getting that level of discharge.
I have two key asks for the Minister. As other Members have highlighted, the sampling system has been unchanged for 25 years. It covers the May to September period. We need better and different sampling. Secondly, the Canal & River Trust does not get information or data in real time from the Environment Agency, so when it does monitor water quality there is a time lag and delay. If that could be done in real time, the Canal & River Trust and other partners such as Hackney Council could at least warn users not to use the river when it is dangerous. As other hon. Members have said, it is shocking that we have got to this stage, and we need real action now.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
May I start by pleading with colleagues about the tone of this debate? We are legislators, not pollsters. When we vote, it is not an opinion poll on whether sewage is good or bad; it is about making good law that we are able to enforce.
I want to place it on record that I was proud to vote for the Environment Act. We know about the scale of the problem because we voted to put monitoring in place for the first time. We are investing £56 billion to change the infrastructure. Of course it could be done quicker, but we are making a start. We are seeing record levels of fines. Southern Water in my patch was fined over £90 million last year. I welcome the maximum possible fine being increased to £250 million—that cannot come soon enough.
I violently agree with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), that we also need to look at our highways, house building, the concreting of driveways, and the impact that they all have on water. I would like to see the expansion of reservoirs so that they can cope with rainfall. Finally, fixing the leaks is not just about saving water, but about making sure that water is not adding to the rainfall and adding to the problem. Given the number of Conservative Members present, I hope the Minister acknowledges the importance of this issue. We want to see enforcement action taking place.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing this important debate. In Salford, we have had numerous incidents of sewage discharge. For example, in 2021 a sewer storm overflow at Pomona docks spilled 289 times for a total of 1,733 hours, discharging into the Manchester ship canal. It will take more than regulation and fluffy reduction targets to fix the problem.
Sadly, years of chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and inaction by water regulator Ofwat means that there are few legal teeth to stop water companies flagrantly discharging sewage into our waterways. In my own constituency, the Court of Appeal sided with a major water company in the north-west, United Utilities, in a case brought by the Good Law Project over the legal routes available to people to challenge its discharging of sewage into the Manchester ship canal. That case means that any water company can dump sewage into waterways in England and Wales without fear of being sued in a civil court by any group—whether that is an angling club, a swimming club, a wildlife group or local residents. There is plenty that the Government can do to address the issue: properly fund environmental agencies, give environmental agencies real legal teeth for enforcement, and set more ambitious legal targets to clean up water quality. Finally, they should bring water companies into public ownership. It cannot be morally right that dividend extraction trumps investment in infrastructure.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. We need to be absolutely clear: nobody wants to see untreated sewage discharged into our rivers and seas. To suggest otherwise is quite frankly nonsense. I have the privilege of representing the wonderful constituency of St Austell and Newquay. It has two coasts, and hardly a week goes by when a constituent does not contact me about this issue.
To suggest that Conservative Members do not take this matter seriously, and at times are not angry about what is going on, is quite frankly wrong. This is the first Government to put in place a deliverable plan to address the issue and hold water companies to account. That is what we voted for, and that is what we are delivering. Yes, it could be quicker—and I know that because I had the privilege of being the Minister who launched the combined sewage discharge reduction plan. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who did most of the work on that; I just got to do the glamorous bit and launch it. It contains a review date of 2025 to look at whether the delivery of the plan can be sped up. I urge the Minister and whoever is in the hot seat when the review takes place to continue to do that.
The Government are looking at planning reform, and if there is one thing we can do to help it is to speed up the planning process for water companies that want to upgrade their sewerage systems. Removing the red tape would help deliver the plan much quicker.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. For my constituents, this issue is of significant local concern. In fact, last year, the very first visit I made as an MP was to see with my own eyes the impact of a sewage discharge at Latimer Park in my constituency.
Chesham and Amersham is home to two of the nation’s chalk streams: the River Chess and the River Misbourne. They are globally rare and locally precious, but despite their ecological significance, in 2020 and 2021 the River Chess saw a total of 175 discharges from Thames Water’s treatment works in Chesham—one of the worst figures in the country.
My constituents clearly share my disgust, as more than 1,000 of them signed the petition to ban this damaging practice, and I want to give voice to their concerns. Fortunately, I have been assured that something is about to change at a local level. This summer I met Thames Water, which outlined its plans to expand the capacity of the Chesham sewage treatment works by 40% to prevent future sewage discharges. However, as we know, storm overflows do not only take place due to a lack of capacity. Discharges frequently occur during particularly rainy periods when the rainwater run-off makes its way into the sewerage system through leaky pipes and loose manhole covers. Thames Water is looking to counter that in my constituency, and is undertaking a project to replace or reseal 750 manhole covers. I welcome that investment, and I look forward to seeing the results of its efforts, which it assures me will be completed by the end of 2023. I know I will not be the only one locally keeping a close eye on whether it meets that target.
If we are to protect our country’s rivers, similar action must be taken across the country, and quickly. The Government have assured us that such improvements will take place, but I am concerned that, under current plans, a portion of the price of the works will be paid by the public in the form of increasing water bills. The discharges occur in large part as a result of years of underinvestment and neglect by water companies. They must be held to account for the failure to maintain essential infrastructure to a functional standard. They should pay to fix it.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I will get straight to the point. For the record, this Government did not vote to allow raw sewage to be discharged into rivers. On the contrary, it was this Government, through a whole range of processes—in particular, six pages of clauses in the Environment Act 2021, which I was proud to bring through with the support of many hon. Members here—who put in place a comprehensive system for dealing with our sewage once and for all. We also set targets to reduce storm sewage overflows via the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, announced by the other former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). We hope the current Minister—I welcome her to her place—will make sure we keep to the targets. In 2025, the Government have to report on progress. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman): I think we can bring forward the 2050 target and get rid of the impact of these overflows quicker.
We have to make sure that Ofwat, the independent regulator, does its job. It has had new guidance from the Government through the strategic policy statement to put the environment at the top of the agenda and reduce storm sewage overflows. It has to use its tools better than it did before. Water company executives should not be taking large salaries unless they reflect environmental improvement.
I welcome the new fines for polluting—that is great—but please could we make that money available, via a third-party organisation such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, to communities and farmers in the catchments where the pollution occurred? I think that would be very popular.
Finally, this is much bigger than just sewage; we have loads of other things to deal with. The cocktail of pollution in our rivers is shocking, but the Government are on it. We have set new targets for nitrogen and phosphorus soil run-off. The Minister has to report back on those targets by 31 October, so no pressure. We agreed as a Government to publish those targets, and we would like to see them come to the fore.
Can we please deal with fatbergs and bring through mandatory clear labelling on what things are flushable? The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) will probably comment on that. Finally, we need a more holistic approach to dealing with water: supply, demand, abstraction—bring it all together, Minister.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. I thank all the 111,000 people across the country who signed the petition, and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for introducing this important debate.
Last year, 370,000 discharges of untreated sewage flowed into our English waters, including the Wandle, in my constituency, for three and a half hours on 25 August. That followed 81 sewage leaks into the Wandle in 2021. People are shocked by these sewage overflows, but the situation can be changed.
I have three points to make. First, the reason for that leak was that the storage of the Beddington sewage works overflowed, going out into the sewers. Water companies need to fast-track storage to stop overflows happening.
Secondly, my campaign to ban the use of plastic in wet wipes has had support cross-party, including from former Ministers. A consultation closed in February. Plastic is the reason why wet wipes do not disintegrate but flow through the sewers and out into the riverbed. Just yesterday, I was on the bank of the River Thames and saw all these toxic ropes formed by wet wipes that have not disintegrated because they are made of plastic. Will the Minister confirm the next steps on that public consultation, whether she supports banning plastic in wet wipes, and when that ban will be put in place?
My final point is about urgency: 2035 and 2050 are far too late. We have the worst-quality rivers in Europe. It does not have to be this way. I urge the Minister to take more action, more urgently.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My constituency of South Cambridgeshire is home to many beautiful chalk streams: the Mel, the Shep, the Rhee—I played in them as a kid. That is why the issue of sewage discharges is so important to me and my constituents. It is clear that sewage discharges are completely unacceptable. We must do everything we can to tackle them.
I fully support the measures that the Government took in the Environment Act 2021 to tackle them. I note that the Opposition parties all voted against the one piece of legislation to reduce sewage discharges—we will have to ask them why they voted that way. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the maximum fine from £250,000 to £250 million, but I have a suggestion to go further, and I have made this point previously in the Chamber.
Ofwat is doing a consultation on financial resilience, which includes looking at dividend payments and tying that to environmental performance. I have written to the chief executive of Ofwat, David Black, to suggest that he goes even further and considers tying bonus payments of senior managers and dividend payments to environmental performance. In particular, if a water company is fined for illegal sewage discharges, it should not be able to pay dividends to its shareholders that year or to pay bonuses to its senior manager. Bankers lose their bonuses for breaking the law, and so should senior water executives. I urge the Minister to consider taking that forward.
Finally, the constituency of South Cambridgeshire as among the highest levels of house building in the country. That has been massively pushed by the local Liberal Democrats, who are trying to build far more than the Government think is necessary. All those houses produce sewage, and all that sewage increases discharges into our local rivers.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for introducing this debate. I share the anger of many constituents, Members and the petitioners at the actions of water companies as they continue to pump sewage into our rivers and seas.
As another riparian MP, I know how important the Thames is—it gives space for rowing, paddleboarding and kayaking. It helps local businesses such as boat companies to thrive and it supports wildlife and our natural environment. Thames Water pumps raw sewage into the Thames every time it rains more than a drizzle. Last year, over two days it pumped 2 billion litres into the Thames. It came from Mogden sewage treatment works in my constituency, which has released raw sewage 45 times already this year.
I have challenged Thames Water about odour, mosquitos and sewage discharges over the 25 years that I was councillor and the seven and a half years I have been an MP. On 31 January 2021, my constituency saw at first hand the impact of a chronic lack of investment in sewage infrastructure. When the brick wall of the sewage inlet at Mogden collapsed, sewage spilled into the pristine Duke of Northumberland’s river, then into surrounding homes and parks in Isleworth, and then into the Thames.
We have seen a decade of failure from successive Conservative Governments. When the Prime Minister was Environment Secretary, she had a near puritanical obsession with cheese and pork, but what about sewage? She did not have a single meeting with water companies to discuss their performance on sewage spills, but she found time to push through savage cuts to the Environment Agency and to its enforcement and monitoring work, which is a disgrace. People across the country are rightfully angry. This has been a systematic failure, a failure by Ofwat and a failure by successive Conservative Governments over a decade.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for their superb campaigning on this issue. This is a hidden scandal, and it is frankly deeply shocking.
In South West Surrey last year, we had nine sewer storm overflows in Godalming, nine in Grayswood, 12 in Bramley, 29 in Farnham and 76 in Chiddingfold. Taken together, they amount to 24 hours a day of sewage storm overflows for 65 days in a row—two whole months. It is morally indefensible to pollute our environment in that way.
We know the answers, which have been spoken about eloquently today. In particular, we need investment in more wastewater and rainwater capacity, the proper measuring of phosphate levels, the banning of plastic wet wipes, which I support absolutely, and changes to the planning rules. The Government have done a great deal on the issue, and it is a shame that we were not able to do more when we were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats a decade ago.
Two thousand people responded to my survey on the issue, and 94% of them signed a petition to the water companies. What all of us want is a timetable, so that we can see tangible progress on cleaning up our rivers, saving our fish and boosting biodiversity in our precious countryside.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to everyone who took to beaches across the south of England this weekend in protest at the deplorable condition of our beaches and rivers. At Bexhill beach, in the hon. Member’s constituency, wild swimmers came together to form a human wave. Meanwhile, in Whitstable, local campaigners cordoned off Tankerton beach and declared it a crime scene. They were distinctly British protests, and people had the right to be angry.
Even if Ofwat is content to turn a blind eye, a crime is being committed—not just against our precious natural environment, but against all those who depend on our nation’s waters for their livelihoods, leisure and mental wellbeing. For far too long, the water monopolies have been allowed to treat our rivers and coastal waters as open sewers. Since 2016, more than 1 million sewage spills have been recorded, which is one every two and a half minutes. That is the equivalent of more than 1,000 years of raw sewage. Britain is once again the dirty man of Europe.
In my constituency, more than 650 sewage spills were recorded last year, with thousands more along the length of the Mersey. That is dealing a grievous blow to the decades-long effort to improve water quality in our region and undermining the ability of working-class families in Birkenhead to enjoy some of our borough’s best beauty spots.
The blame for the unfolding ecological catastrophe lies squarely with the water monopolies which, since the privatisation of the water industry in 1989, have hiked up bills by 40% on average in real terms while paying £57 billion in shareholder dividends that could have gone towards making much-needed improvements in infrastructure. However, we must not forget the essential role that this Government have played as an accessory to the crime.
Water companies such as United Utilities in my region would surely never have acted with such disregard for their obligations towards our natural environment had they not been guaranteed that successive Conservative Environment Secretaries would simply look the other way. Indeed, the Prime Minister served for two years as Environment Secretary—
Mick Whitley
Sorry. The last thing I will say is: bring the water back into public ownership.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My congratulations to my office neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I will make a few quick points, because I agree with virtually everything that has been said—apart from what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) just said.
The Minister, in her response, needs to reassure us that she will be looking at the water quality target work done over the past year. That is due to be published shortly. She needs to ensure that it dovetails with what is in the Environment Act 2021, in order to ensure that the results of the self-monitoring called for by many Members upstream and downstream of the storm overflows are made available to the water companies, the Environment Agency and the public, so that we can all know the quality of the water we are visiting.
Secondly, I hope the Minister will speak to her colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill goes through, so that we can ensure that the necessary measures, as highlighted by the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who has done so much work on these issues, can be properly brought into effect in legislation as required. That includes, for example, making water companies statutory consultees for large developments that might impact on a treatment or supply location. At present they are not, other than through the local plans.
Finally, when the Minister looks at the implementation of drainage management plans by water companies, I urge her to recognise that there is the possibility for some companies to go further and faster with those plans? Will she encourage them to do so, as Severn Trent did when it decided to replace the main sewer in Mansfield as part of the green recovery plan funding last summer?
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my constituency next door neighbour and parliamentary colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). This debate shows that there is a clear need for action, and it has more than done justice to the issue. I want to echo the call for an informed, responsible debate.
I represent the beautiful coastal community of Eastbourne, and tourism is our mainstay. Genuinely, this last summer, local people said to me that they would not take their lives in their hands by swimming in the sea. However, they are stunned when I tell them of the reality around our situation—that our bathing water quality is actually good, touching on excellent, and that a live Government-funded and county council-delivered project called Blue Heart is going to get us to that excellent rating.
People are equally surprised to learn, having looked at the social media discharge on this subject, that 95% of our discharge is actually rainwater. They are also surprised to learn that, since 2017, Southern Water has redirected any dividends back into the business and has not paid out those profits. They are equally surprised when I say that, while the international standard for “good” is set at 70, the UK sits at 74. That is better than Germany and France, and we are chasing the Scandinavian countries, which do these things rather better.
It is really important for communities such as mine that this debate is grounded in responsible, informed discussion. I echo the sense of urgency. I asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in May whether the bathing season could be extended all year round, and I very much hope that that will be the case and that monitoring will likewise be all year round.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I wish to put on record the deeply felt frustrations of many residents in Hastings and Rye, who rightly expect clean rivers and seas, as we all do. I strongly welcome this debate, secured by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who spoke passionately and persuasively about the sewage discharge issues facing local people in East Sussex and about the responsibility of Government, water companies, highways organisations and the Environment Agency in dealing with them.
While some try to use the issue to score political points, this Government have taken extensive steps to ensure that we have clean water and a fully costed, affordable plan. After all, it is measures introduced by a Conservative-led Government that mean that the true extent of this issue is now better understood. Comprehensive measures have been put in place, and I urge the Government to do what they can to ramp up the pace of change. It is easy to play student politics with an issue such as this, and to shout and demand action without having a real plan, but working with all stakeholders—local, regional and national—is a pre-requisite to progress.
We can all do our bit by helping to reduce surface water, meaning rainwater, from entering the sewage pipes and to reduce what we put down our loos and kitchen sinks—cooking fat, wet wipes and such. Local solutions are key, and we should make greater use of nature-based solutions to reduce water surface run-off: water attenuation plans, swales, tree-planting, household water butts, permeable paving, grey water storage tanks in new developments and so on. If we work with all stakeholders and put local solutions into practice, that will, alongside central Government action through the Environment Act, begin to make a real, positive and long-lasting difference to our ability to reduce our reliance on sewage discharge.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for bring this important debate to the Chamber. Over 1,200 of my constituents responded to the petition—the third highest number from any constituency—but I would argue that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the feeling on the ground.
I welcome the excellent work done by various Ministers and former Ministers; it is this Government who are driving forward this agenda, which for many years has been ignored. As someone who has been closely involved locally in this issue for the last two years, working with the community, Thames Water and the Environment Agency, I know that a lot of people on the ground are willing and able to significantly improve the quality of life of my constituents. I urge the Minister to continue to build on the work of the excellent new Secretary of State by putting the feet of Ofwat and the Environment Agency to the coals to ensure that they understand how important this issue is on both sides of this House and, more importantly, to our communities.
In South West Hertfordshire, I have the Grand Union canal and the River Chess, which are unfortunately frequent flyers in this respect. Comments have been made about illegal sewage treatment releases, but there have consistently been legal sewage treatment releases, which have caused even more offence to my constituents. Hopefully the Minister will appreciate my emotion; all I am doing is sharing what my constituents feed back to me.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliot. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing this speed debate. I will make four points. One, which has already been alluded to, is that the impact of storm overflows on coastal communities must be recognised and prioritised by the Government and water companies.
In Southend we have seven miles of beaches, which attract 7 million visitors a year, although the most important visitor every single day—I am stealing a line from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell)—is the sea. We have the Thames, which is the lifeblood of our local economy and supports our thousand-year-old fishing and cockle industries. We also have one of the most environmentally protected foreshores in the country, and, of course, our local economy.
That is why it is so outrageous that, last year, in Southend alone, sewage was pumped into the sea 48 times, for more than 251 hours. That is more than 10 whole days. On top of that, being at the end of the Thames, we get the 39 million tonnes of sewage dumped into the Thames every single year. Coastal communities are a special case.
Point No.2 is that the water companies need to do far more. Of course, I recognise and welcome that the Government have taken steps to tackle the problem through the storm overflow reduction plan. However, Southenders cannot wait until 2035 for the use of storm overflows to be eliminated in Southend West. Most importantly and immediately, Anglian Water must better inform residents when there has been a recent pollution incident from one of our five storm overflows. The data and technology are there; the water companies must use them.
Thirdly—I may not get to my fourth point—we can all do our bit, as has been said very fluently this afternoon. One of the main causes of storm overflows being used is blockages caused by non-flushable wet wipes. There are 370,000 blockages a year, which cost bill payers £100 million to sort out. Will the Minister agree to support the brilliant Conservative Environment Network campaign for a mandatory clear labelling system for commonly flushed items such as wet wipes? Just because things might be biodegradable—and wet wipes are not—that does not mean they are flushable. I will not carry on with my fourth point.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing this debate; it is clearly much needed. I thank the 278 of my constituents who signed the petition and helped to bring this debate here today.
Last Saturday morning, hundreds of residents gathered at Gyllyngvase beach in Falmouth to attend an anti-sewage pollution protest. In Falmouth, we have had enough. This is affecting people’s lives and businesses, and it is not just in Falmouth; it is happening all over my constituency. In Cornwall, we do not just look at the waterways—we use them for recreation, we use them to fish for a living, we use them for exercise, and we swim in them. I have one of the world’s most sustainable fisheries on the River Fal, and we have a duty of care to protect that fishery and give it the best chance of life.
One of the most shocking figures I saw was that one storm overflow spilled 355 times, for almost 7,500 hours in our River Fal. Some simple maths shows that that particular outlet was discharging sewage for the equivalent of 312 days. Just imagine for a moment that sewage was being discharged all day and all night for 312 days in a calendar year. That did not literally happen, but it kind of did.
I recently met South West Water on site in Portloe, a beautiful, picturesque fishing village, to talk about the raw sewage overflow there. When the system overflows, as it often does in the summer, it squirts sewage up into the air and on to the foreshore, which is horrendous. It should not take the intervention of the local MP before something is done about that. Something has to change.
I have had the great privilege of sitting on the Environmental Audit Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), and we have done some great work on this. I pay tribute to the work he has led—I have only been a small part of it. I work locally with people and stakeholders to do what we can to clear up the River Fal, in particular, and it is not just about the storm overflows; all sorts of other things go into the river. After two and a half years as an MP and much longer campaigning on this issue, I believe we really must do better. I have run out of time, so I will sit down.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
We have managed that on time. I call the SNP spokesperson, Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I commend you on getting so many speakers in, and I commend the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing the debate.
We have heard about the key issues regarding sewage discharges. I am in a unique position, in that I am the only MP in the current Parliament who is a sewerage civil engineer. I have designed combined sewer overflows and sewer flood alleviation schemes, so hopefully I can add some insight. I worked in the water industry from 1993 until my election in 2015. In my early days as a graduate engineer, I saw at first hand how the Tories resisted implementation of EU legislation, which left the UK with a massive catch-up in terms of cleaning up the beaches and getting rid of the “dirty man of Europe” moniker. I hope we do not see a return to that south of the border.
In those early days, as with the privatisation of the railways, the Tories argued that privatising the water companies had magically created investment and improved performance. The reality is that it was nothing to do with privatisation, but resulted from the requirement to comply with the EU bathing water directive and urban waste water treatment directive and allowing the water companies to borrow money. The fact that Scotland maintained public ownership of the water companies that would eventually become Scottish Water is proof that compliance and investment can be achieved without the need to privatise.
Since privatisation, English water companies have paid out nearly £60 billion in dividends. That money should be reinvested into upgrading infrastructure. It is effectively a £2 billion-a-year subsidy from water bill payers to hedge funds and asset management companies. It is also worth pointing out that bills in Scotland are lower than those in England and Wales.
It might not be popular or widely understood, although some Members did touch on it, but combined sewer overflows are required to protect the sewer system and prevent widespread flooding of roads and buildings. Nothing can be worse than houses being internally flooded by sewage, with people having to move out of their houses—which are left stinking and needing clean-up—and fearing that the same will happen every time it rains. The reality is that combined sewer overflows are required. Combined sewers are designed to take a one in 30-year storm so, by default, any storm greater than that will exceed the capacity of the system. That is why relief is required, but due to developments over the years, we need combined sewer overflows to provide relief from storms with return periods of much less than one in 30 years.
We have heard talk about elimination of storm overflows altogether and about a 2050 target. All the water companies are saying that they can do it. I do not think that is a realistic proposition. To eliminate CSOs altogether, we would need to completely separate surface water from the combined sewers. That means disconnecting all the road drains that are connected. It means disconnecting roof drainage. Hon. Members have suggested butts to deal with that, but they would still have to be disconnected from the sewers. Private surface water connections would also have to be identified because people drain their driveways or gardens and connect them into their own combined drain. All that needs to be identified and eliminated, so I would urge the Minister to think carefully about the practicalities of what is required. We would need massive new surface water sewers and pumping stations and, as I say, there would be disruption in many roads and streets throughout the country.
I have said that CSOs are a requirement, but they need to be well designed. They need to be designed so that they do not have a detrimental impact on water quality. From what we have heard today, that is not happening, so that needs to be addressed. It is obvious that this has not been the case in practice by private water companies over the years. Private Eye has long highlighted exemptions that were applied to discharges post privatisation. It was a “get out of jail free” card for a lot of companies. It is obvious that there is insufficient operational maintenance, and the reason is clear: they are making profit by cutting running costs. Not enough is spent on maintenance, and that is why we have heard about pumping stations failing and then discharging into rivers and seas.
The worst company, according to the Financial Times, was Southern Water. Historically, it was close to defaulting on its loans and now with Macquarie at the helm, debt has risen to £6 billion and Southern Water’s risk profile is deemed to be at risk of a credit rating downgrade as a result of poor operational performance. It should be pointed out that Macquarie was allowed to take over Southern Water despite Ofwat highlighting poor performance at Thames Water, so there are serious questions about that ownership.
While the focus rightly has been on the shocking discharges of sewage into rivers and coastlines, and obviously on criticism of the performance of water companies, there is one big issue that I want to touch on, which it seems the Tory Government have been blind to. The elephant in the room, which was touched on slightly by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, is the right to connect for developers in England and Wales. This means that a statutory water company cannot refuse a developer permission to connect to a sewer. It is effectively a right for a housing developer to pollute the environment, which is disgraceful.
The issue goes back to failings in the Water Industry Act 1991 and was confirmed in a Supreme Court case between Barratt Homes Ltd and Welsh Water in December 2009. Welsh Water had tried to prevent a developer connecting to an overloaded sewer, but Barratt effectively forced its right in law to connect to that sewer, and that has now been put down in law. It means that any responsible water company that is implementing improvements to a system can see all that good work and all the environmental benefits wiped out because a developer can, in theory, connect hundreds or even thousands of houses to the sewer, which obviously will then destroy any upgrades that have happened.
A key question for Back-Bench Tories to consider is, why have the UK Government not acted to resolve this loophole, which was put in law in 2009? Is it because they are too cosy with house builders? Is it because they fear it will impact house-building targets? It needs to be addressed soon. In Scotland, the law is clear via the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. Any developer has to apply for permission to connect to the sewer system. If the assessment deems that a new connection will cause detriment to the sewer system, that developer has to pay for the remedial works to ensure there is no detriment to it. That means that housing developers have to take it on the chin and pay for upgrades. Quite often, they have to fund large volumes of storage, but they know that is the process and they deal with it. That is a process I have been involved in. I know how well it works, and that makes it even more incredible that it has not been adopted in England. I urge the Minister to think carefully about the right to connect.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle touched on sustainable urban drainage. Again, Scotland has led the way in that regard; such drainage has been part of regulations for the best part of 20 years. Not only does a developer have to apply for the right to connect to a sewer; they have to implement sustainable urban drainage schemes, so that there is not additional surface water going into our combined sewer system. Once more, that should be in the regulations. In Scotland, Scottish Water is a statutory consultee in the planning process, which is something else that the Minister should consider, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested.
The Minister and the Secretary of State can demand drainage improvement plans and they can talk tough on fines, but the reality is that if the right to connect issue is not resolved, all that talk counts for nothing, because developers will continue to connect to sewers, overloading them and causing problems. Hopefully the Minister can address that point as well as the other points that have been made.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I congratulate you, Ms Elliott, on the way that you have chaired this debate and on getting everybody in, which has been excellent. What a task!
Secondly, I welcome the Minister, because this is the first time I have debated with her. She is the third Minister I have shadowed since I became the shadow Minister last December; I am quickly running through Ministers. However, I would not say that I am a veteran, because the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), has spent many more years on this subject than I have, as we just found out.
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for reminding us that section 1 of the Environment Act 2021 legally requires the Secretary of State to set long-term targets for air, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction, and that section 4 requires the statutory instrument to be laid by 31 October. I reinforce her question about whether that requirement will be met in the next 19 days. I would welcome an early opportunity to sit in a Committee to consider that SI with the Minister. Perhaps some former Ministers would like to be on that Committee too.
I come now to the pressing issue of the day. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. It is such an important and timely debate. He rightly said that Sussex beaches regularly see sewage being discharged into bathing water, as do coastal communities up and down the country.
Something that has not really been explored in the debate before now is how coastal businesses are affected, particularly leisure and tourism businesses. I was formerly the shadow Minister with responsibility for tourism and I have seen directly how badly coastal discharges and poor water quality can wipe out a day’s business in the summer, and businesses have already had so many shocks recently.
There is clearly wide interest in this issue right across the country, as can be seen from the number of speakers in this debate, who come from every region and nation. That shows how widespread the problem is. So many Members have cited shocking sewage outflow and spill figures. This is an issue that we probably need to explore further in other debates.
The Secretary of State says that we need our watercourses and beaches to be safe and sewage free. Although I of course agree with him wholeheartedly, the reality is that the Government’s policies will be no more than a drop in the ocean when it comes to dealing with what the media—not we in the Opposition, but the media—are now calling “a Tory stink”.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Environment Act 2021 does not apply to Wales, where his party is in government and where there is no equivalent legislation forcing Welsh Water Dŵr Cymru to act. The Government are taking action in England. Will he tell me why his party is not taking equivalent action in Wales?
Alex Sobel
Of course, there are not any shareholders in Welsh Water; it is owned by the people of Wales. On some of these issues, Welsh Water is performing exceedingly well as a water company. The hon. Lady knows that this is a devolved matter, so I will not comment any further on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) made an excellent point about faecal E. coli and how that affects human and animal health. In my constituency, people have basically had to swim through sewage and dogs have unfortunately passed away because of exposure to it.
Over the last six years, Tory Governments have allowed a million discharges of raw human sewage into our watercourses. Last year, they were given an opportunity to place legal duties on companies to reduce discharges. It was just that—legal duties to reduce discharges. I know that there has been a lot of heat in this debate about this matter. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), was involved in that and he made an excellent speech today, as usual. Most of the MPs on the Government side voted against it, but I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and others present for being among the 22 Conservative MPs who voted with us for the amendment. There will be future opportunities to bring in that legal duty—if not in this Parliament, I certainly hope in the next one, when we will have a change of Government.
It is naive to think that these watered-down policies will be enough to end the epidemic that we currently face—an epidemic in which there is a sewage spill every two and a half minutes. We have been in this debate long enough for at least 30 spills. Crucially, if a spill is not monitored, a fine cannot be issued. Water bosses will continue to get off scot-free, with no incentive to install comprehensive monitoring. Yes, some discharges come as the result of storm overflows, but we know that others are a deliberate corner-cutting exercise by water companies that prioritise profit over the natural environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) said that our rivers are now open sewers, and he is right. He made the excellent point that water companies are monopolies, but the Government treat water like a market. By contrast, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), has clearly outlined Labour’s strategy for cleaning up our waterways. Under a Labour Government, there will be no hiding the problem. We will ensure that there are mandatory monitors on all outlets—every sewage works—and introduce automatic standing charges where this requirement has not yet been met. We will ensure that we get the real-time data that a number of Members have called for, and give the Environment Agency the power and resources to properly enforce the rules.
Again, I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for securing the debate, and I urge him to consider whether the current Government and his party are genuinely committed to dealing with the crisis. Are they serious about stopping more sewage releases on to Sussex beaches, Bexhill beach and beaches around the country, or are they simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while water bosses laugh all the way to the bank? Some £72 billion in dividends has been given to those water bosses over the lifetime of the companies. These are the bosses who fail to properly invest in our water infrastructure yet still receive enormous payments and bonuses, all paid for by the customers—our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made the point that many of our sewage treatment plants have insufficient storage. The current minimum storage that the Environment Agency stipulates is probably insufficient and, in many cases, is being breached. We need to see significant infrastructure investment in that storage, which will reduce overflows. My hon. Friend has also been a doughty champion of banning plastic wet wipes. When will we see that legislation introduced? I hope the Minister responds to her on that.
The Government make grand environmental claims, yet the Prime Minister did not bother to meet a single water company to discuss sewage spills during her time as a DEFRA Minister. Instead, she allowed water bosses free rein while cutting the DEFRA budget by £24 million, which could have been used for monitoring raw sewage. We saw sewage-dumping events skyrocket into the millions during that period. When Labour comes back into government, we will hold water bosses personally accountable. We will strike off directors who fail, and even introduce prison sentences for the most serious crimes. The Government have increased the fines, but we will introduce unlimited fines and cap bill increases to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) made an excellent point when he said that we are seeing dividends being given out, debt being built up and our constituents’ bills going through the roof. I know that his water company has increased them significantly. Labour will ensure that any failure to improve is paid for by eroding dividends, not by adding to customers’ bills or cutting investment. We will fix the broken system whereby water companies rake it in while neglecting their customers and the environment.
Which plan will better protect beaches from sewage spills: ours or the current Government’s? How can we trust the Government to clean up our water, when their track record is one of allowing our rivers and beaches to be treated as open sewers? Only Labour can clean up our water. We will introduce a legally binding target to end 90% of sewage discharges by 2030, taking every necessary step to ensure a fairer, greener future for everyone.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister to respond, I remind her to allow time for Huw Merriman to wind up at the end of this extensive debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in my position in DEFRA, Ms Elliott. I thank all colleagues for showing such interest in and passion about a subject that I know we all care deeply about. Most of all, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing the debate.
I also pay tribute to the two Ministers who were unable to speak in the debate but have listened intently: the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). I am very grateful for support.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the two previous Ministers who have done so much in this area: my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and, of course, my wonderful predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebeccab Pow), to whom I pay particular thanks. They have not only taken up this issue professionally as Ministers, but campaigned pretty much their entire lives on it. That hard work has paid dividends: I am able to stand here today and talk about the improvements that this Government have made, and the pragmatic steps that enable monitoring. It is uncomfortable to hear the results of that monitoring, but without it we would not know where or how much we need to improve. To put some numbers on that monitoring, we have improved the systems from 5% in 2016 to 90% today—a tremendous improvement.
We are absolutely clear that we will not tolerate the failure of water companies to reduce the amount of storm sewage discharges. It is completely unacceptable. When it rains heavily, as has been discussed today, rainwater lands on roofs and impermeable surfaces. It is uncharacteristic of me to agree so much with the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), but he has experience in this particular sector. We recognise that combined sewers are part of the problem, particularly during heavy precipitation, when all of that run-off from non-permeable surfaces flows with the foul water into the sewage treatment plant. We hold water companies to account for improving that situation, for splitting those systems and for a whole raft of other infrastructure changes, but that will take time.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) raised the possibility of water companies being statutory consultees when planning applications that add pressure to existing sewerage systems are made. Had they been so, developments in Weston, in my constituency, that will put unbearable pressure on the existing drainage and sewerage system would not have gone ahead.
Trudy Harrison
My right hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Reforms are taking place in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to look at the plethora of opportunities for speeding up some of those planning processes, with no regression in environmental protections. He raises the issue of nitrogen and phosphates in our water system. Nutrient neutrality has caused significant delays—in fact, entire blockages—for many house builders across the country. That is exactly why we are coming up with systems to ensure that those developers contribute to environmental processes that improve the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous in water, and enable those developments to go ahead.
I have talked about the challenge of combined sewers. The options are both intolerable as long-term solutions: either to allow water, including foul water, to back up the system, flooding into people’s homes and businesses—I was flooded, and I agree with other Members that it is an incredibly unpleasant situation to be in—or to discharge sewage into watercourses. Neither of those options is acceptable or tolerable.
In August, the Government published the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which found that achieving complete elimination could cost up to £600 billion and increase annual water bills by up to £817 by 2049. It would also be, as suggested by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, highly disruptive and complex to deliver nationwide. Our storm overflow discharge reduction plan will see £56 billion in capital investment by 2050—the largest infrastructure programme in water company history. By 2035, water companies will have to improve all storm overflows discharging into or near every designated bathing water, and improve 75% of overflows discharging into high-priority nature sites. By 2050, that will apply to all remaining storm overflows covered by our targets regardless of their location.
There has been some talk about the Environment Agency being resourced to be able to carry out that role. DEFRA and its agencies received £4.3 billion in the 2021 spending review to do more to tackle climate change and protect our environment for future generations. In terms of the response to Ofwat, Ofwat’s investigations will consider how overall companies operate, manage their sewage treatment works and report on their performance where the investigations can find failings on obligations. Ofwat is responsible for enforcing; it will use its full range of powers accordingly to hold companies to account for their failures, and to require them to put things right in short order.
The subject of sewage also brought to the fore the Thames tideway tunnel, which is a £1.9 billion investment. Once operational and taken together with the other improvements, it will achieve a 95% reduction in the annual volume of untreated waste water entering the tidal Thames.
Ruth Cadbury
Could the Minister please remember that tideway starts downstream of Mogden sewage works, which is the second largest sewage treatment works in Greater London and, I believe, in the country. None of the sewage discharges from Mogden will be captured by tideway.
Trudy Harrison
I am happy to pick that up separately. I have not got time to go into the detail now, but I would be delighted to have a meeting with the hon. Member to go into that in the future.
The Secretary of State made our commitment to tackling sewage discharges absolutely clear on his very first day in office. He held a call with water companies’ chief executives, and we are now working with them to explore the acceleration of infrastructure projects. Water companies are investing £3.1 billion to deliver the 800 storm overflow improvements across England by 2025, but if we can go further and faster we will. The Secretary of State and myself are challenging those water companies to come up with acceleration plans to clean our water system and ensure we have the infrastructure and the supply for the future. We have also recently announced that we will bring forward plans to increase the amount that the Environment Agency can directly fine water companies that pollute the environment by a thousandfold, from £250,000 up to £250 million.
Alan Brown
Will the Minister going to invest in the right to connection issue because at the moment, as an outline, housing developers can connect a sewer, overload it and cause pollution; that must be cleaned up and paid for by other billpayers instead of the housing developer, which is making money and moving on. It is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.
Trudy Harrison
There was also reference to privatisation. There has been over £30 billion of investment in the environment by the water industry since privatisation. The improvements in sewage treatments since 1995 have secured significant environmental benefits, such as a reduction in leakage by a third since 1990. Some 70% of UK beaches are now classed as excellent, and customers are now five times less likely to suffer from supply interruption since privatisation. In the 1990s, water and sewage companies were responsible for over 500 serious incidents per year; in 2021, that number was reduced to 62. Of course, that is 62 too many, but it is a significant reduction. Sewage treatment works are now discharging much lower amounts of harmful chemicals into our rivers, including 67% less phosphorus and 79% less ammonia than in 1995.
The more rainwater that can be captured before it goes into a drain, the better. That has been echoed by Members in Westminster Hall today. The more we can separate the run-off and foul water in the network, the better. When one in 10 people does not have access to clean water close to home, access to the purest quality drinking water is something to cherish every single time we turn on the tap. However, average water use is around 145 litres per person in England and Wales, compared to 121 litres in neighbouring countries. We can all play our part by using water more efficiently in our homes, such as by harvesting rainwater with water butts, as has been mentioned, and reusing grey water, which can reduce the risk of flooding, reduce water bills and, ultimately, limit the amount of water added to the system. We can encourage our families, friends and constituents to be mindful of the impact that incorrect disposal down the drain can cause.
The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) referenced the subject of wet wipes. I agree with her, and I would be delighted to meet with her to explain some of the progress that my Department is making on reducing or banning plastics in wet wipes. I thank her for the work she has done in this area.
I have created a gravel garden at home on what was previously non-permeable concrete. After core drilling down, adding organic matter and planting the right plant in the right place, it is now a beautiful area, attracting pollinators and invertebrates. It has also reduced the likelihood of my house flooding.
These ideas are just some of the simple steps that can be taken in addition to the £56 billion that this Government are requiring water companies to invest. We will not hesitate to use all options for robust enforcement action against breaches of storm overflow, which can include criminal prosecution by the Environment Agency. Water companies must clean up their act, and this Government will not hesitate to hold them to account. I will now conclude my remarks to allow time for my very effective and hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle to respond.
Huw Merriman
Thank you, Ms Elliott, for chairing us so efficiently. I thank the Minister for the responses she has given. I thank the other two Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and all the other colleagues who have come forward with their ideas. With so many ideas having been put forward, would it be possible for the Minister’s Department to collate those in its response, so that we get a full response?
The hon. Member for Leeds North West asked whether we in East Sussex are satisfied. We are never satisfied in East Sussex! That is what keeps us here. My neighbours —my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—and I are in a car. It is the East Sussex car and we will continue to drive it.
I will say this to the hon. Member for Leeds North West: I could give him £56 billion-worth of reasons why I am happier, because this Government are the first to do something about it. No other Governments have. We should all encourage the Government for that.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West is right that I did vote with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). However, we were not voting to end discharging, as has been put out on social media—not at all. It was just discharge at certain levels. Nobody who voted the other way was doing anything but voting for improvements for the first time. It pains me to see some of the abuse that goes on. We are not campaigners here. We can work effectively together for all of our constituents’ sake to make a better environment. All I would hope is for us to stick with the facts and the ideas and be nicer to each other and to our waterways.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered sewage discharges.
Rural Healthcare
(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
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
I will call Anne Marie Morris to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in a 30-minute debate.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rural healthcare provision.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I have already provided the Minister with a copy of the report by the all-party parliamentary group on rural health and care, which followed a three-year inquiry that we undertook with the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. It contains a lot of detail about the issues and suggested solutions. It looked far and wide across the world, not just across the United Kingdom, and I certainly hope that the Minister will give it more time than I suspect he already has in preparing for this debate.
The number of people living in rural settings is not small—9.7 million people live in rural England—and they have very different needs, so the current one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work. We have a different demographic. Generally, our constituents are older, they have complex comorbidities, they live in isolation, and many are in severe deprivation, but much of that is often hidden because the data collected is at such a high level that the issues are simply not identified. If levelling up, which is a commitment of the Government, is to mean anything, that has to change.
Covering everything in the report would take me more than the time available, so I will limit myself to the Government’s alphabet. Let me go through A, B, C and D. On ambulances—A—I absolutely applaud the Government’s position that the current situation is unacceptable and that we need shorter response times, particularly for category 1 and category 2 emergencies, but I am sure the Minister is well aware that the data shows that rural and coastal areas have some of the worst response times across the country, often because it is simply not possible to reach particular parts. In Devon, there are some areas where it really does not matter how many ambulances there are and how fast the roads might be—they are not—as there comes a point where it is not possible to get further.
We have not looked at a different approach. We have not looked at how we triage this differently so that we improve, rather than reduce, health outcomes. A one-size-fits-all approach means that those in rural areas are at much greater risk than those in urban areas. There is not a specialist centre of excellence for strokes that people can get to very quickly by being popped into an ambulance.
Money is clearly an issue, but if we properly integrated our use of fire services, police, ambulances and first responders, we would get a better outcome. Let us triage the calls as they come in differently, and then let us use those individuals and organisations better. Currently, the barriers are different pay for different forces and the fact that those organisations—fire services, police and ambulances—have different lines of accountability to different Departments, which means that they do not work together.
We could find a much better and more efficient way of doing this. Fire services are vital, because they are often physically located in some of these very rural areas. There is not a lot of point trying to get an ambulance in every rural village; that would be completely inappropriate and unaffordable, and it would not work. Let us look at how we can deal with those blockages and do this differently.
B is for backlogs. The Government’s aim to reduce the backlogs is commendable, and the plan to get waits down to one year by 2025 is fabulous. However, those of us who have rural constituencies know that the resources right now are simply not available, and rural areas have a real challenge to recruit. They are seen as unattractive. Youngsters want to be near the nightlife and the fun when they are off duty. The idea of coming to a rural area is not attractive. That is well known to the Government, because there have been various planned pilots and initiatives to pay individuals more to attract them to rural areas. It simply does not work.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an important point. When it comes to waiting times for cancer treatment, 41% of cancer patients in south Cumbria and 59% in north Cumbria are waiting more than two months to get their first treatment after diagnosis. We know that is certainly costing lives. Does she agree that tackling the cancer backlog has to be the absolute priority for this Government?
Anne Marie Morris
More than that, we need to look at the different pathways in rural communities for heart, cancer and stroke treatment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there is a lot more than just cancer, and the rural pathway to care has to be reviewed to see what is realistic in a rural area.
All of this has been made worse by a funding formula that is not fit for purpose. Although there is provision to uplift for rurality, it is not enough and it has been done without any real understanding of some of the challenges.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Cornwall has more visitors outside of London than anywhere else in the country, so we have our winter pressures and then there is no respite in the summer months for our staff. We have issues with housing so we cannot recruit staff. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case to be made for extra funding for places such as Cornwall, and perhaps the wider south-west, to ensure that we have enough funding to treat all our visitors as well as our residents?
Anne Marie Morris
That is an exceptionally fine point. I have no issue with it because we have a similar problem in Devon. The solution is not just about more recruitment and doing things in the same way, because the people to be recruited do not exist. We need to look at doing things differently, by creating new career paths with shorter training periods and trying to train, so we can then recruit, locally. Generally, people will follow a career where they are trained. We need more rural training for doctors and nurses, and that training needs to be not in the local city, but in the rural areas. For example, in Plymouth we have a fine medical school— Peninsula Medical School—but the challenge is that the experience that the individual trainee doctors and nurses gain is not rural, and it needs to be.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fine point. From my experience, there is an opportunity: young doctors who are becoming GPs tend to be between the ages of 27 and 35. At that time, most people are looking to set up their family, go to school and get married. If we extend some of the career opportunities by extending training in those areas, they are more likely to bed down roots and gain a skill to become a GPSI—a GP with a special interest—in those areas. Does she believe that is a formula that the Government should look at?
Anne Marie Morris
I absolutely agree, and it is an excellent suggestion. In a similar vein, when we are asking primary care networks and others to deal with the backlog, it is important that we try to give them much more freedom in how they address the problem. I talk to many of my local commissioners, and they say that they are having to make decisions that they know are right, even though they are not currently in the guidebook as best practice. We need to give them that trust to be able to do the right thing.
C is for care. Members will not be surprised to hear that the adult social care discharge fund, although welcome, is not going to be enough. The reality is that the bed count is often low in rural areas. In the south-west, we have the lowest bed count per head of population; I think it is the lowest in western Europe, although I am happy for the Minister to correct me. It seems to me that we used to be moving towards saying, just in time, “Let’s have care in the community.” However, because of the shortage of care in the community, and the lack of proper validation that it works other than whether people are readmitted, we need to put a halt to closing community hospitals and to look at how they can be used. Some could be repurposed. Perfection can often be the enemy of the good.
Teignmouth Community Hospital in my constituency is on the closure list, but to me that is not a wise decision. There are no nursing care homes in the area. Without that residential care, and without adequate care in the community, removing the only other source of beds is not the way to solve the backlog problem.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and this important conversation. I also thank the Minister for the community diagnostic centre announced for the Isle of Wight this week. That is great, but we still have a problem similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris): unavoidably small hospitals. There are dozens of those in England and Wales, of which St Mary’s is the most isolated. We were able to work with the Government to improve the funding formula in 2019, so unavoidably small hospitals have got some more money. My concern—the same might be true for hospitals in my hon. Friend’s area—is that that is not enough to cope with the health needs and the demographics in our communities. It would be great if the Minister could meet some of us to discuss the future of unavoidably small hospitals in places such as Devon, Cornwall, Cumbria, Northumberland and the Isle of Wight to see what more we can do to support these important community centres.
Anne Marie Morris
A point very well made, which I support.
Care, as we all know, is one of the biggest challenges. If we fix care, we will fix the backlog, so we also need to look at how we train and professionalise not care on its own, but care with health. We need to give care professionals the same respect as we give others—and, frankly, for the same sort of skill, we need to pay the same salary. That is crucial if we are ever to get this to work.
D for doctors is the last letter in the Government’s alphabet. The Government are looking for the GP appointments system to improve, so that anyone who needs to see a GP can do so within two weeks. They want to provide data so that individuals may choose which doctor they go to see, and they want to increase the use of pharmacies.
Now, all that is very worthy, but unfortunately, when it hits reality, it becomes the problem. In rural areas, there are too few doctors. If we had data, choice would be great, but there is no choice, because there is not another GP practice. The problem in rural areas is not the level of data, and it is not choice—there is none. It is recruiting the doctors we need. Recruitment in rural areas is in crisis. Yes, we should make more use of pharmacists—that would be fabulous—but in many rural areas pharmacies are closing because they cannot get enough pharmacists. We have a real conundrum, and that is crucial.
If we are to address the issue, we need proper rural medical schools, shorter career courses, and proper training for new routes into medicine and care. Physician associates are a great start, but the reality is that that is only one route, and it is still quite a long training period. More broadly, primary care is mission critical; we know that training in generalist skills across the doctoring profession, if I can put it like that, is done very early but not continued. We need those skills so that we have a much broader range of doctors who, when we have something like the pandemic, are able to cope with the issue. We also need more geriatricians.
D also stands for dentists. The new contract is welcome, but it has been discussed for eight years, I think. It needs to get done. Doctors and dentists need a fair return for the work done and they need to be incentivised to provide the best treatment for the patient. As I understand it, under the existing contract, dentists are in effect encouraged to sub-optimise. They are only paid a relatively small amount, so they will do the minimum rather than what is in the patient’s best interest. We need fairness for the dentist and for the individual patient to be at the forefront of the contract.
We need to step up recruitment, we need to create rural emergency hubs, and I think we need to appoint school dentists. In the same way that a GP is in charge of a particular care home, I see no reason why we should not have a dentist who is responsible for a particular school. I am not suggesting that they should go in and do fillings, but they would at least go in and do regular checks.
Cherilyn Mackrory
My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time, and I appreciate that. I remember—she may too—that, as schoolchildren, we had somebody come into school to check over our teeth, just to see if there was anything going on. It is my understanding that someone does not have to be a dentist to be able to tell whether something is going wrong; dental technicians, hygienists and others can do this work. Does she agree that it would be worth doing pilots around the country, particularly in rural areas, to see whether that could cut down some serious dental issues with our children?
Anne Marie Morris
That is an excellent suggestion. There is quite a lot for the Minister to take away and think about.
Having gone through the alphabet, I think there are a number of things that we need the Minister and his team to do, including recognising that rural really is different and that the way we look at it now simply does not work. We need to properly understand and investigate the need in different rural communities, and then we need proper funding. We need to look at how we train locally, which will improve recruitment and retention. We need to create new, shorter courses and new professions—and we need to do that now; otherwise, we are never going to get on top of the backlog. Waiting for degree-qualified nurses and doctors will simply take too long.
We need to equalise the professionalism and pay across health and care, and we need to integrate emergency response across all resources—police, fire, ambulance and first responders. I am happy to volunteer the south-west, which I think would be up for it, as a pilot area. I hope that the Minister will go away and think about that, and that he may be willing to meet those who have raised issues today to see if we cannot find some solutions and to discuss the other issues in my rural report.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Before I start, let me pay tribute to the work of those in the NHS and social care services across England, who are delivering excellent care now and have done so throughout the pandemic. The country is rightly proud of each and every one of them.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who has been a champion not only for her constituency but, more widely, for the importance of improving health services in rural areas. I thank her for securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her work and that of the APPG, whose report I read with interest.
Although my constituency of Colchester, a relatively new city, does not share the rural characteristics of Newton Abbot, I am committed to excellent healthcare outcomes for all people in rural and urban areas across our country. I probably cannot cover every single aspect of the report, or even all the issues raised by my hon. Friend today, but I will certainly try to cover as many of them as I possibly can. Of course, I am very happy to meet her and any other colleague who would like to meet. I am proud never to have turned down a meeting with a colleague, and that is a record I intend to keep.
We certainly recognise many of the challenges caused by rurality, including the distinct health and care needs of rural areas and the challenges of access, distance and ensuring a sufficient population to enable safe and sustainable services. I assure my hon. Friend that this Government will remain committed to improving health services in rural areas, as we are committed to doing across all of England.
Tim Farron
The Minister alludes to GP surgeries in rural areas, which the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) also mentioned. Generally speaking, they serve smaller numbers of people over much larger areas. They were supported in their sustainability by something called a minimum practice income guarantee. That disappeared a few years ago, leading to many closures. In Ambleside and Hawkshead in the Lake district in my constituency, some surgeries are facing potential closure because of the removal of that funding. Will the Minister consider introducing a specific rural surgeries subsidy fund to help ensure that surgeries in rural communities in Cumbria and elsewhere are sustainable?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I am not going to make policy on the hoof, so I will not say yes now, but we are fast approaching the next GP contract, which will run from April 2024, so we have an opportunity to look at all these things in the round. I am passionate about securing access to GPs in rural and remote areas. Perhaps we can double-tag our meeting, make it twice as long and discuss that issue too. I will respond to some of the issues raised about GPs in a moment.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that we are in full agreement that the NHS needs to be flexible enough to respond to the particular needs of rural areas. That is vital, and that is why we passed the Health and Care Act 2022. The Act embeds the principle of joint working right at the heart of the system, promoting integration and allowing local areas the flexibility to design services that are right for them. Integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships give local areas forums through which to design innovative care models, bring together health and social care, and, importantly, prioritise resources to ensure that they best align with the needs of individual areas.
We are also enabling the NHS to establish place-based structures covering smaller areas than an integrated care system. That could match the local authority footprint, for example, or in some cases it could be even smaller—a sub-division based on local need. That is fully in line with the view expressed in the APPG report that the NHS should foster and empower local place-based flexibility. I think that is at the heart of the report.
As my hon. Friend knows, in establishing those models for the NHS to follow, we have set the framework but have left it to individual areas to tailor them to local needs. I think that is the right approach, because local areas know better than Ministers. We do not always hear Ministers say that, but I think local areas often know better than I do, sitting here in Whitehall, how best to organise themselves, and how to design and, importantly, deliver the best possible care for patients. While we in Westminster can support, guide, hold accountable and occasionally chest prod, it is right that we also protect local flexibility.
Bob Seely
When the Minister talks about local flexibility, I interpret that through the guise of funding. Does he accept that there is a funding issue for the 12 unavoidably small hospitals in England and Wales, and will he look at the funding mechanism that was established in 2019? It gives more money to unavoidably small hospitals, but arguably only about 50% to 60% of what is needed.
Will Quince
I have made a note of my hon. Friend’s question and I am going to come to it in a moment. The answer is no, but only because it is not my responsibility. It is the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who has responsibility for hospital funding, and in the next seven minutes I intend to commit him to lots of meetings with every single Member present.
Let me turn briefly to the question of resources, about which I know a number of Members are concerned, and which has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). It is vital that we allocate resources fairly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot mentioned. That is why NHS England asked the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to consider the issue and provide a formula for allocations to integrated care boards. That formula took into account various factors, including population, age and deprivation —but we changed it.
In 2019-20, we produced a new element of the formula, recognising the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot makes, to better reflect the needs of some rural, coastal and remote areas, which on average tend to have a much older population. With an older population very often comes complex health needs. NHS England is using that formula to make allocations accordingly, but we recognise that some systems are significantly above or below target, and NHS England has a programme in place to manage convergence over several years. We also recognise the important challenge in ensuring that rural areas have the workforce—another point rightly raised at length—to provide the integrated patient-centred services that we all want to see.
We know that doctors are more likely to stay in the places where they trained, as my hon. Friend said. That is why, as part of a 25% expansion of medical school places between 2018 and 2020, we opened five new medical schools in rural and coastal locations that historically have been hard to recruit in: Sunderland, Lancashire, Chelmsford, Lincoln and Canterbury. I am conscious that my hon. Friend would want far more; that is perhaps a conversation to have at a later date. We hope—in fact, we expect—that graduates from those schools will stay in the area and will have a far greater understanding of the lives, needs and challenges of the people they serve in the locality.
My hon. Friend mentioned ambulances. As part of our plan for patients, which we launched in July, there is an extra £150 million for 2022-23 to address issues relating to ambulances. I hear what she says about differential pay rates, particularly in rural areas, between different blue light services, and I will take that away. Ambulances fall under the remit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, and I know that he would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot to discuss that issue.
On backlogs, I completely understand the points that my hon. Friend makes about recruitment challenges. I will take away her point about incentives not working, and I will look at other measures to attract people to rural and coastal areas, because we know that is a particular challenge.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) raised cancer wait time variance. As the Minister with responsibility for cancer, that absolutely concerns me. We are opening new diagnostic centres, but we have to look at more.
Will Quince
I am conscious of time, so I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman. We are going to meet, and we can discuss that at length. I know it is a concern of his.
Will Quince
Yes—absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) raised seasonal visitors. I know that is an issue across Cornwall and Devon, and I would be very happy to look at that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) raised the issue of GPs, and extending training and career opportunities in rural areas. I totally agree, and we will soon have a date in the diary to meet and discuss that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot was right to raise community hospitals. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark will be delighted to meet to discuss that at great length, as he would be to discuss unavoidably small hospitals, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has raised with the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and others mentioned doctors. I entirely hear what she says about data. Data is important for choice, but I completely understand that in some rural, remote and coastal areas, there is no choice; there is just one GP, pharmacist and dentist, so we have to look at it differently. But data is important, because it allows the local integrated care board to identify where there are challenges and which practices are struggling. From November, for the first time, we will be publishing practice-level data on appointments and missed appointments. That is important because the patient deserves to see how their tax money is being spent. It also enables us to hold the integrated care board to account for how it is holding to account the practice and ensuring it modernises, is more efficient, and addresses the issues that its patients face. As part of our plan for patients, we are looking at that at great length.
Dentists are a real passion of mine. Dentistry is not looked at in the depth that it should be as part of wider NHS services. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out a number of reforms that were put in place in July. They are starting to take effect, and she will see more as they come to fruition. It is a top priority for me, and I am looking for areas for potential further reform. I encourage my hon. Friend to talk to her integrated care board about what more can be done on centres for dental development.
We absolutely recognise the importance of giving rural areas special consideration. They face a different range of challenges to the NHS in urban and suburban areas, and it is right that we give local systems the flexibility to respond to that. I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend and others that the current system does that. I am sure she will want to continue her work and the important work of the all-party parliamentary group. I certainly look forward to working with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Trade Deals: Parliamentary Scrutiny
(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
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am delighted that I have been able to secure this debate, and I am particularly grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to talk about trade deals and the scrutiny process that goes with them. I am also very grateful to right hon. and hon. Members, who have heard me pontificate on this subject at great length on a number of occasions over the last two years. I should say that I am a member of the International Trade Committee.
I welcome the Minister back to his position as a Trade Minister. He is a friend and an extremely able Minister, and we are all delighted to see him back in his position, where he so rightly belongs. We very much look forward to working with him, both in Committee and in the main Chamber, where we will, I hope, have more opportunity to debate our trade deals.
I should start by saying that I am universally pro free trade and in favour of the Government’s agenda in the trade deals that they are signing. Our trade agreements have been an absolute litany of successes. Not only have we rolled over 70 trade agreements since our departure from the European Union, but we have signed deals with Australia and New Zealand. There are discussions under way about joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and signing deals with the Gulf Cooperation Council, India and Canada. We have successfully signed a trade agreement with Singapore on a digital partnership basis, which is viewed as the gold standard in digital trade. We have signed a trade agreement with Japan, which is already opening up new markets and setting benchmark rates around digital concepts.
Those are all incredibly important agreements, and they matter because they make a huge difference to our economy, to how the Government interact with their allies around the world and to the businesses in our respective constituencies. They offer each and every one of us the opportunity to trade, to create global harmony and to open up opportunities for those who live and work in the United Kingdom, and those with whom we have signed trade deals. This is an important part of what was promised when we left the European Union, and I believe that we are being extremely successful in tackling the new trade agreements, although there have obviously been a few pitfalls along the way.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Gentleman and I sit on the International Trade Committee, and he is making a very good defence of the Government’s work. We heard in the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill Committee only an hour or so ago—it finished only 20 minutes ago—that British firms bidding in Australia will have disadvantageous terms compared with those of French companies, because the Australian deal weakens the global baseline.
These things are probably technical errors. They are things that were probably overlooked and that I hope are great mistakes; if they are not, someone in the Government should be hanging their head in shame. I think these mistakes would have been picked up with proper parliamentary scrutiny during negotiations, before the deal was signed or even ratified—just as happens in America and the European Union, and just as the French, Germans and most developed countries get in their national Parliaments. The International Trade Committee should be involved in the detail of the work on the negotiations before the text is published in camera, but this Government continue to refuse to allow that.
Anthony Mangnall
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on literally nothing apart from this point about scrutiny. I thoroughly enjoy working with him on this issue, because there is genuine cross-party consensus about the need for scrutiny. I say in response to him that trade deals are not static. We should not view them as static, because they can evolve and improve. To the point he just made, where there are pitfalls we should look to improve them, and to see how we can develop the agreements in the future. He is absolutely right; had we been given due process when we signed the free trade agreement with Australia, Parliament would have been able to debate this issue at length and we could have rooted out some of the issues before we ratified the agreement.
As we sign all the trade agreements, there is good news to be told, but a cloud has hung over all the excellent work. I want to raise four points—I am conscious that a number of Members of Parliament want to speak—that the Minister might consider and respond to. First, we must ensure that there is a long-term strategy for trade negotiations. We need better clarity. It is clear that the Government have a big appetite to sign new trade deals, and therefore they must consider how they will convey to Members of Parliament, trade bodies and the general public an understanding of their ambition. If we have a long-term strategy, we can at least understand the Government’s direction of travel, and we can scrutinise it to better effect to see whether the goals have been met. I really cannot think that any Member in this room is against the United Kingdom signing trade deals, but we need to understand whether we are meeting those goals and whether the Department for International Trade is improving or worsening in its ability to take on new trade agreements.
My second point is about issues on which our provision would not change in any circumstance, such as human rights. It is essential that there is a standard level of human rights clauses in our trade agreements. There is a moral obligation for us to do that.
My third and perhaps most lengthy point is about something that came into being in 1924, the whole premise and purpose of which was to give us a say over international agreements that were signed. It was updated in the late 2000s by the Labour Government in something called the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which basically said that we would have 21 days to ratify a new trade agreement. Within that, Members would be given time in Parliament to debate and vote on the issue, with a votable motion at the end of the debates. If it were rejected, there would be an extension of a further 21 days before ratification.
The previous three International Trade Secretaries have all affirmed the existence and the importance of CRaG and the need to use proper parliamentary scrutiny to get into the weeds of our trade agreements. In fact, the previous Secretary of State for International Trade said that CRaG provides a sound framework to scrutinise treaties that is less than a decade old. That is of real importance. Successive Ministers, including the Minister who is here today, have talked about the value of CRaG in ensuring that we, as Back-Bench Members of Parliament who are not in Government, can justify the agreements that we are passing and ensure that due process has taken place.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) just a moment ago, the scrutiny has taken place; the value is there for British taxpayers, businesses and residents; and we are signing good deals. Ultimately, if we get these agreements right, we will only get better at this. If Members from all parts of the House are given due process to scrutinise trade agreements, we will only make better and more successful ones.
On 9 February, the Minister said that we have a robust scrutiny arrangement that allows Parliament to hold the Government to account. Let us take the Australia-UK free trade agreement, for which we were not given due warning of the CRaG process starting. There was not enough time for Ministers to come before the International Trade Committee to discuss the terms of the Australia free trade agreement. In fact, the previous Secretary of State was invited eight times and did not attend. When the CRaG process was started, the International Trade Committee had not even had time to publish its report. That is not the way it should be.
Let me make it crystal clear that the International Trade Committee should be given the right to publish its report before the start of the 21-sitting-day CRaG period, to ensure that due process is followed and that Members from across the House can read the report, digest it and prepare to debate and vote on the trade deal in Parliament. Can the Minister guarantee that a Secretary of State will appear before the Committee to discuss a trade deal ahead of our publication of any report on it? It should not be hard for us to secure a Secretary of State to discuss these trade deals of which we should, rightly, be so proud.
The important point, from my perspective, is that I am not asking for a veto. In fact, a vote to delay ratification does not change the terms of an agreement. It just delays it, and sends a very clear message that, should we sign another trade agreement, certain principles and concepts should be thought about again. We have to take that into account. I am not an extremist about the need for Parliament to come in, rip up trade agreements and decide what goes in or out of them. I am simply making the point that we must ensure that we have a say. We must have an opportunity to be constructive in a way that allows us to justify the creation of our trade deals and scrutinise their components.
Compared to other countries, we are behind the times on this issue. America has a more rigorous system. In Canada, Parliament has an opportunity to debate and—in some instances, although not in statute—to vote on trade agreements. Let us catch up with them. Let us justify it, because it will only improve the process.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument, with which I entirely agree. The UK has not done trade deals for many years, and there seems to be a slight lack of expertise out there, which is no fault of Government or Ministers. Does he think that that is a reason to have extra time for scrutiny? Also, there is plenty of expertise in the international businesses and industries that operate in the UK. Does he think that the Government should use that expertise more readily?
Anthony Mangnall
I thank my hon. Friend for his incredibly helpful intervention. Yes, I do. The International Trade Committee has sizeable limitations, and a number of trade deals are being signed. If we are able to discuss such matters with more people, open this up, and allow people to debate and scrutinise, we will be able to improve the actual process. If hon. Members were to ask anyone in the Department for International Trade whether they had learned lessons between the signing of the Australia trade agreement and the signing of the New Zealand trade agreement, they would clearly see that lessons have been learned: the situation has improved, and we are getting better and better. From the officials that have come before the International Trade Committee, it is clear that the Department is doing a fantastic job in tackling international trade agreements. It is learning each day how to do it, in a way that we have not had to for the last 40 years. It is right that we use the expertise in both Parliament and trade bodies across the country.
My last point is around the International Trade Committee’s resources. An extraordinary, dedicated group of people works to help us, as Members of Parliament, do our duty on that Committee. We have found it incredibly frustrating to see their hard work sometimes ignored and sometimes rubbished, because we have not had the access and due process—which was always promised to us, I hasten to add—to ensure that our reports can be produced, read and valued by Members of Parliament. We must change that system; otherwise, the International Trade Committee is completely redundant. I ask the Minister to listen carefully to what we are asking for. We are asking for access to Ministers and for time to produce our reports. We are asking for CRaG to be amended to include debates and voteable motions, so that we, as Members of Parliament, have opportunities to debate trade agreements.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I invite the hon. Gentleman to offer a view on whether there might be a fifth point for consideration. What has come out of the India discussions shows us that we must have a domestic politics that mirrors the approach in international trade. Otherwise, we will not have successful trade negotiations.
Anthony Mangnall
The right hon. Gentleman caught me from a surprise angle here. I do not know exactly what is in the India trade agreement, other than the rumours that have been reported. Our discussions about it have very much been on the basis of speculation rather than the reality of it. In all seriousness, if that is the case, it is something that we need to look at further.
There is value in ensuring that we get this issue right. We can improve the system, improve the value of trade agreements and ensure that there is greater buy-in from Members of Parliament. I hope the Minister will understand where I am coming from. I am not attacking the Government’s agenda, and I am not attacking the trade deals we are signing; I am merely asking that Back Benchers are given an opportunity to have their day in Parliament to discuss these very important trade agreements.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Before I call Back Benchers in to speak, I am hoping to bring Front Benchers in by eight minutes past the hour, if you can bear that in mind while you are speaking.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing the debate. Members will know that I have a very specific interest in ensuring there is ample scrutiny of these trade deals—notably, any one with India. My constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been arbitrarily detained in an Indian prison for almost five years, and the authorities of the Republic of India seem unable or unwilling to address the allegations of torture, abuse of process and arbitrary detention that have dogged the case and my constituent.
Quite simply, as the Minister may or may not agree, this is a case that really gets to the root of both this debate and the UK Government’s ongoing attitude to pursuing these trade deals. This is a case where we see the power of the unstoppable force—namely that one of the largest supposed benefits of Brexit was the ability of the UK Government to gain unfettered access to the world’s fastest-growing economies—meet the immovable object, namely the UK Government’s clearly stated aim, articulated so well by the sadly departed Minister at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), that
“We will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights”—[Official Report, 7 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 258WH.]
It is a matter of some considerable record, because I speak about it quite a lot in both the Chamber and Westminster Hall, as hon. and right hon. Members will know.
The human rights failings in the case of Jagtar Singh Johal are manifest and egregious. Despite this, we continue with a policy where a UK-India FTA has now become probably the greatest prize in the view of the Government, as long as the US-UK FTA remains unachievable. What can the Minister say to us to demonstrate consequences for the Republic of India for its continued mistreatment of my constituent or, alternatively, what it would have to do for the UK to threaten to pull the plug on these talks? Either way, it appears unarguable that in continuing to pursue this trade agreement, the Government are setting a precedent for future deals that human rights, and the rights of individual UK citizens, are placed below the pursuit of growth. In that sense, those who seek to defend human rights can probably join that distinguished list of those that the Prime Minister has labelled “the anti-growth coalition”. We see plenty of evidence in other areas that the UK Government’s pick-and-choose attitude to human rights and free trade agreements is making any claims to democratic accountability and oversight seem quite ridiculous.
Take the glee with which the Prime Minister trumpets the UK’s determination to sign a free trade agreement with a host of Gulf states, while speaking about preventing authoritarian regimes—such as Russia and, rightfully, China—from having any leverage in the UK economy. It is a truly bizarre situation. While I and other members of the Scottish National party have long called for the UK to wean itself off Russian and Chinese investments that have made so many people in this city and this Parliament enormously wealthy, the Government seem to be seeking to replace those investments with ones from regimes whose human rights and democratic records are essentially the same, and that—as demonstrated by recent OPEC decisions—do not share our broader geopolitical agenda. While we can correctly cite Russia’s assassination of dissidents by regime-loyal criminals as a reason to sanction it, we do not apply the same rationale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia when it invites dissidents into one of its embassies and chops them up with a bone saw. While China is rightly criticised for its debt-trap diplomacy in places such as Sri Lanka, we rarely use the same rationale when we allow Emirati sovereign wealth funds to buy critical pieces of UK economic infrastructure, only for them to sack thousands of staff and threaten the Government with the closure of that infrastructure.
Quite simply, parliamentary scrutiny of these trade deals starts and ends with hard and fast rules, which this Government can use to build confidence in the House. Otherwise, I have to say: what is the point?
I would hope that my colleagues in the SNP and I—and, I am happy to wager, the vast majority of Scottish voters—would never stand for swapping the largest democratic free trade agreement and single market in human history for a series of piecemeal agreements that are, from my perspective, of dubious value. We will never stop shouting about the absurdity of leaving that single market, composed as it is of democracies with whom we share so much, in exchange for a sugar rush of cheap money and dealings with authoritarian regimes that share so few of the values that we here in Europe hold very dear.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
I am introducing an informal time limit of less than four minutes to try and get everyone in.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, I believe for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this debate.
Much of the political energy of this generation of politicians has been consumed by the fallout from the Brexit referendum in 2016. I remember visiting Washington with a cross-party delegation prior to the referendum. Ms Elliott, I believe that you were part of that delegation, so you may correct me if I am wrong, but nobody in that delegation believed that the UK would vote to terminate its relationship with the European Union. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that prior to the result of the referendum, not much serious thought had gone into what Brexit actually meant.
Following the vote, there was a political breakdown, as decision makers scrambled to interpret the result. Do people remember the period between the referendum and the 2019 general election? This place was consumed with debating different interpretations of the referendum result. I argued for the UK to stay within the European Union’s economic frameworks, for reasons that have become plain for all of us to see, as the dream of splendid economic isolationism from Europe in return for a mythical global Britain has turned to ash.
I suppose that if sensible voices had prevailed during that period, we would not be having this debate, because we would be safely within the single market and the customs union. However, the debate was won by the Brexit ultras, and the prize that they cherished above all was an independent trade policy.
We could have a long debate about how truly independent the UK’s trade policy has turned out to be. It seems to me that the British Government have been rolling over previous EU-negotiated trade deals. With the Prime Minister having admitted that there is no prospect of a trade deal with the US, I think that many of us will wonder what the point was of burning down those bridges with the European economic area.
Perhaps because we have been faced with these economic realities, we have seen the Prime Minister, in her first few weeks in power, endorse a strategy of thawing relations with the EU. To avoid being petulant in this debate, I welcome that. It is far from where the UK should be, but it might be the start of a journey back to reality.
May I therefore first associate myself with the comments of everyone who has spoken about the need for improved scrutiny of trade policy? The Great Brexit slogan of “taking back control” clearly did not mean bringing back power to Parliament. Instead, returning powers have been concentrated at an Executive level.
Each trade deal should be subject to a binding yes/no vote in the Commons; Parliament should agree the terms of negotiation before the British Government begin talks; and the International Trade Committee should—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is resumed. The debate will now continue until 5.45 pm. I remind Members to keep their contributions to around four minutes.
Jonathan Edwards
Diolch, Ms Elliott. I believe I was about to make the point that the International Trade Committee should have a stronger role during negotiations.
On another visit to Washington with an all-party group to investigate the transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the US and the EU, I recall a meeting with representatives of the US food industry. At the time, there was some dispute in relation to genetically modified organisms and hormones in food products. During that meeting, we were left in no doubt that nothing would make its way through Congress unless there was movement on the EU side in the negotiations on those specific points. The point I am trying to make is that increased scrutiny would actually strengthen the hand of UK negotiators, as opposed to weakening it.
What I really want to highlight is the need for Wales and Scotland to also be involved in that scrutiny. Trade policy will impact on devolved policy areas, so it is completely unacceptable and unsustainable that the Welsh and Scottish Governments and Parliaments are excluded from decision making. From my perspective in Carmarthenshire, agriculture is extremely important. Agriculture is a devolved matter. For coherent policy, therefore, surely the Welsh Government and Senedd Members should play a full role in trade policy, including through a binding vote on deals in the Welsh Senedd, full scrutiny by the relevant Senedd Committees and a formal role for the Welsh Government in the negotiating process.
Belgium provides a good example. Its central state cannot ratify European trade deals without the support of its so-called sub-national Parliaments. As it stands, therefore, Wallonia has more power over EU trade deals than Wales has over UK trade deals. That is not a very good look for the British Union.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing today’s debate and on his excellent speech.
The Australia free trade agreement set a precedent. Unfortunately, when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny, it demonstrated what not to do. Select Committees were given insufficient time to prepare their reports; parliamentarians and key stakeholder organisations were given insufficient time to digest and scrutinise those reports; and, crucially, elected Members of Parliament were denied a meaningful debate and vote on the agreement.
It is worth repeating what the hon. Member for Totnes alluded to earlier. The relevant Select Committees were denied sufficient time to scrutinise and advise on the agreement. There were just seven sitting days between the Government publishing their section 42 report on the free trade agreement and triggering the CRaG period. At that time, the International Trade Committee had been able neither to take oral evidence from the Secretary of State nor to finalise its report on the agreement.
That evasion was facilitated by the vague language in the Government’s commitments. For example, they said that they would “endeavour” to share the signed free trade agreement with the International Trade Committee prior to publication, “where time allows”, and that they would ensure that Select Committees had a “reasonable amount of time” to scrutinise free trade agreements and produce reports.
This is easily fixed. The Government must replace these vague commitments with stronger ones containing concrete guarantees and well-defined timelines, which provide Committees with the time they need to undertake full and proper scrutiny of agreements.
My biggest concern, however, is the failure of the Government to facilitate a meaningful debate and vote on the agreement. That cannot happen again. A desire to hurriedly chalk up deals has left farmers and fruit producers feeling sold out by the Australia trade deal, with the services industry raising concerns over the India trade deal, which none of us has seen. The Government must ensure that they do not repeat their mistakes. I urge the Minister to strengthen the Government’s commitment to the parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements and to focus on the quality, rather than quantity, of the deals that his Department strikes.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), whom I have the pleasure of serving alongside on the International Trade Committee, on securing this important and timely debate. I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union. The hon. Member and I undoubtably have major points of disagreement when it comes to not only the Australia free trade agreement, but trade policy more broadly. He has, however, raised a number of important issues and speaks for the entire Committee in expressing his frustration about Government conduct on this issue.
The UK has embarked on the most dramatic overhaul of its trading policy since its accession to the European Economic Community in 1973. The implications of the decisions that the Government make in the coming months and years for our labour rights, environmental standards and businesses the length and breadth of the country could not be more significant. It is essential that any new trade deal is subject to rigorous and comprehensive scrutiny both by the Select Committee and by Members of the House more widely. That is the model employed by our Commonwealth partners, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is exactly what the Prime Minister committed to when she promised a “world-leading scrutiny process” when she was International Trade Secretary.
I am afraid that Ministers are failing to listen to the concerns of Members, businesses and civil society in their frantic dash to conclude new trade deals. In March, our Committee Chairman warned that the Government are failing to do enough to enable timely and appropriate scrutiny of trade agreements and accused Ministers of ignoring legitimate concerns and riding roughshod over Parliament. Yet the 21-day CRaG process for the Australia free trade deal had begun before our Committee had the opportunity to publish our report and even before the International Trade Secretary had bothered to come before the Committee to defend the agreement. When we requested that the CRaG process be extended to allow time for adequate scrutiny, our request was flatly denied. That was an unacceptable assault on the rights of Parliament and the people we are here to represent. I urge the new Secretary of State not to allow that deeply flawed process to set a dangerous precedent for future trade negotiations.
Finally, I want to raise an issue that I have spoken about a number of times in the Committee. Meaningful engagement with civil society and the inclusion of key stakeholders in the negotiation process is essential to achieving a trade policy that works in the interests of British workers, industry and our environment. However, the Trades Union Congress has also accused the Government of a lack of continued stakeholder engagement during trade negotiations and says that a failure to meaningfully engage with trade unions has resulted in the Government agreeing trade deals that lack adequate protections for workers’ rights. Yet again, Ministers are hiding from robust scrutiny because they know that the deals they are agreeing are simply not delivering for the British people. This is simply not good enough.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Elliott.
I pay huge tribute to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this debate and for his excellent speech, much if not most of which I agreed with. Like him, I am a free trader. Free trade is massively important, and not just for prosperity; if we had more free trade with the markets on our doorstep, the cost of living crisis would not be as bad as it is.
Free trade is important for fairness and prosperity, but also for peace, because it integrates countries and makes conflicts between them seem much less plausible and more unthinkable. Let us remember that the European Coal and Steel Community, in its first few years in the 1950s, was about knitting together countries that had been at war. The accession of the eastern European states through the ’90s and noughties was about knitting together countries that had been enemies on either side of the cold war.
Free trade is dead important, and my criticism of the Australia and New Zealand deals is a criticism not of free trade but of deals that are not free—if they are not fair, they are not free. It is absolutely right that, as a country that has taken back control as a sovereign nation, we should be able to dictate the negotiating terms on which we go about setting up trade deals. How could Parliament have dealt with this better or be given the power to deal with it better? Most MPs on both sides of the House wanted Parliament to do its job better than it was allowed to, particularly on the New Zealand and Australia trade deals.
Better scrutiny means that Parliament should be able to sign off the negotiating mandate, and then sign off the deal itself. Surely, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said, we have a right as a country to dictate the terms on human rights, animal welfare, environmental issues and carbon reduction. They should surely underpin the negotiating mandate of any trade deal. Then, when a vote is taken, it must not be taken after the damage has been done.
The Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto stated:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
That is not true. That manifesto commitment has been broken.
Let us look in particular at the deal with Australia. The average suckler beef herd in Britain is 30 cows. In Australia, it is hundreds upon thousands of cattle. It is not that Australians are brutes and terrible at animal welfare, but the nature of farming in Australia means that it is cheaper per unit and crueller in practice. The same animal husbandry cannot be done for 1,000 cattle as for 30.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, but I urge a bit of caution on that point, because we would never sign trade agreements with other countries if we expect them to have exactly the same standards. As he rightly pointed out, we have the highest standards in animal welfare around the world. The hope is that, if we sign trade agreements with places such as Australia, they can start seeing how they can match our standards and rise up to them, rather than us lowering ours, because there is absolutely no intention of us doing that.
Tim Farron
Well, that is the theory, but the Government’s own figures and modelling show that the Australia trade deal, for the very reasons I was just setting out, will give a £94 million hit to British farming. There is no doubt that the deal has sold out and—in the words of Minette Batters, the excellent president of the National Farmers Union—betrayed British farmers. The impact of the trade deal undermines British farming and the standards and ethics of the United Kingdom in general—in particular of the way we farm. That is added to a set of assaults on British farming.
The transition to the new farm payments scheme is in complete chaos. The removal of direct payments—20% by this Christmas—will plunge many farmers into poverty. Meanwhile, many farms are trying to engage with the new environmental land management system. Two years down the road, they will change their businesses, and now they do not know what to do. The Government have sort of part-listened and have thrown everything up in the air; it is total chaos. There is chaos in farming and in the market.
The greenest thing that the British Government could do is keep Britain’s farmers farming, because without farmers we cannot deliver the environmental goods. Likewise, we cannot deliver the food that we all rely on. If we become less and less self-sufficient, that has a moral impact as we push up the price of commodities for the poorest counties in the world. The failure to conduct fair and transparent trade deals with the scrutiny of this Parliament undermines British farming in general and puts at risk our environmental imperatives, our food production and, by connection, the poorest people in the world, whose food prices will go up because we cannot feed ourselves. That is why we must get it right next time. Free trade is important, but we must not throw our farmers under the bus in the process. Free trade that is not fair is not free in the first place.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope that this is an opportunity to reset our relationship. It is no secret that the relationship between the International Trade Committee and the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), was toxic. It was bad. She held the Committee in disregard and, frankly, the Committee held her in disregard. Let us be honest about it. The officials around her gave her bad advice. They gave her arrogant advice, and she encouraged it by responding and goading them to give her that advice. That needs to end, and it needs to end now.
The advice needs to be that the new Secretary of State has to make time in her diary to make sure that we are seen in a timely manner. The promises have to be fulfilled. The Secretary of State cannot expect to get away with what has been done in the past, because it was quite frankly embarrassing for everyone. Of course, it does not have to be like that. There are many other Departments that have very good relationships with their Secretary of State. I have sat on many other Committees in this House, and I have never seen such a dysfunctional relationship.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. It is usual that if a Member is going to directly criticise or mention a Minister, they give them advance warning. I am not sure whether that has been done, but if it has not, I would certainly be putting that right after this meeting.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
None of this is new or not on the record. I think I have been even franker to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to her face in Committee meetings, including about her officials, but I will alert her to this because it is a speech that has come from my contemplation today.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not impugning officials at the Department for International Trade in that regard. I am not sure whether he was, but I am sure that he would not want to be questioning the integrity of the officials in the Department. Maybe I misunderstood him and maybe that was not the case.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
No, I think their advice to her was bad. That is my honest feeling. It was not good advice on how she should conduct her relationship with the Committee. It does not need to be like that, because other Committees that I have sat on—and I have sat on many—have had very good relationships with officials. I do not think that the relationship with the officials and the previous Secretary of State was good. I am afraid it is not just about the Secretary of State on this matter.
When I was on the International Development Committee, the relationship was such that we had private discussions and briefings with the Secretary of State every month. They were private, off the record and totally in camera. We would discuss confidential issues relating to development spending—sometimes where it had been misspent or where there were problems. The Committee would then rally around the Secretary of State, the Department and their officials when things were happening. That is the kind of relationship that we need now, and it is the kind of relationship that I think we can have now.
We need to review CraG, and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I also sit on, is doing that now. We need to strengthen CraG and we also need to have the following things, which I will list quickly and then finish. We need to ensure that heads of terms are presented to the Committee and signed off by the House, just like in America, the European Union and most other advanced democracies. We need to have private briefings at every single stage and on every single chapter. That is what the EU and the US get. If it is good enough for them, it needs to be good enough for us. We need to have embedded people in some of the key negotiations. Again, the US Senate has that, and that is what we should be expecting. It is not good enough for Ministers or the Department to tell us that these are confidential discussions. They are in the national interest and they must include the Committee. It is unacceptable for them to think that the Committee is not trustworthy.
We need a proper set of trade commissioners who give impartial advice to the Committee. The Committee needs to be given the resources for a set of sub-committees and staff. The Committee could then look at broad issues and the sub-committees could look at trade-by-trade issues. It is not good enough that the Committee is having to do all the trade-by-trade issues, which means that we are not looking at any of the broad issues in our scrutiny.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
May I remind Opposition spokespeople that in one-hour debates, the convention is five minutes? I call the SNP spokesperson, Anum Qaisar.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Elliott, I believe for the first time. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this important debate and for his reasoned contribution.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) about the importance of ensuring that Parliament can scrutinise trade deals. After exiting the European Union, the UK finds itself negotiating trade deals for the first time in over 50 years, yet with minimal scrutiny by this House.
Trade deals are no longer simply focused on tariffs and border crossings, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said. They touch on every element of our daily lives, from jobs and environmental protection to food safety and public services. Given that these trade deals will have a lasting impact on our constituents’ lives, the lack of scrutiny is disappointing.
The measures that do exist to scrutinise trade deals are simply not up to scratch. Recent trade deals with Australia and New Zealand exemplify the disregard for proper parliamentary scrutiny, with those deals effectively signing away the livelihood of Scottish farmers. Under the current CRaG procedure, Parliament is granted little power in the scrutiny of trade deals. It cannot block or amend deals, but simply delay them. Despite the Government promising that this Parliament would have a full debate on the impact of the Australia trade deal, that has not taken place. It appears that the new Government wish to continue with this lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny.
On the topic of India, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) spoke incredibly eloquently about his constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, and I associate myself fully with all his concerns.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, scrutiny of trade deals by legislators is not uncommon. From an international perspective, the UK is an outlier in its lack of parliamentary oversight of international agreements. Our EU counterparts require parliamentary ratification for any deal negotiated, effectively giving them a veto over trade deals. A similar system is also in place in the US, with Congress outlining the objectives that the Government must follow in any negotiations. By allowing Parliament greater scrutiny over deals, we would be strengthening our system of oversight to match that of our international counterparts.
As has been said by hon. Members from across the House, parliamentary scrutiny matters. There was a refusal to enshrine basic animal welfare and environmental standards in the Australia deal negotiated by our current Prime Minister. As I have said, that effectively signed away Scottish farmers’ livelihoods. There is much concern in Scotland. Trade deals would greatly benefit from consultation with the devolved Administrations. The agreements have completely disregarded devolution and eroded the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Scotland has its own legal jurisdiction over the environment, procurement, farming and health, yet it was not properly consulted about how the trade deals would impact those areas. It is vital that the Scottish Parliament has a greater role in scrutinising and approving agreements. It is unacceptable that the Scottish Parliament is effectively being ignored and lacks the power to delay or amend the terms of a deal that has huge ramifications for Scottish agriculture and industry.
The UK should follow the approach adopted in Canada in its recent negotiations with the EU. The Canadian Government consulted each of the provincial administrations and involved them at every stage of the negotiation. Similar systems, involving regional and devolved Administrations, are commonplace internationally, and the UK should look to emulate that by involving the Scottish Parliament in all future negotiations.
It is vital that we get the negotiation of trade deals right. Parliament must have a greater say in all trade negotiations, and the devolved Administrations must be involved. Once a trade deal has been ratified, it is incredibly difficult to amend the terms. We must therefore ensure that the negotiations are done correctly the first time. That can be done only if better mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the UK Government are properly scrutinised in their negotiation of trade deals.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this important debate on scrutiny of trade deals.
The Government have simply failed to ensure that parliamentarians, businesses, non-governmental organisations, sector representatives, devolved Administrations—as the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), said—and civic society can scrutinise our trade policy adequately. Trade can and should be a force for good: it supports well-paid jobs here in the UK and overseas, it can reduce poverty around the globe and it can be a vehicle for tackling the evils of our world, from human trafficking to environmental degradation, to name but two.
Effective trade, however, needs effective scrutiny, as all other equivalent nations have. We in the UK could learn a lot from those nations, but for this Government “scrutiny” avoids engagement. The whole process they operate avoids scrutiny and engagement and actively harms the development of effective trade policy and trade deals. We are not dealing in abstract facts. When I met NFU representatives in Wales this summer, they told me about their concerns and worries about the deal, particularly for red-meat farmers. Moreover, when they did meet Ministers and civil servants, they felt that they were being ignored.
To top that off, we have seen the sordid spectacle of the Government hiding from a debate in the Commons. Before recess, the then Secretary of State tried to deflect one and to claim that no parliamentary time was available for a debate on the detail of the UK-Australia deal. As the answer to a written question that I tabled suggested, that was not true.
Why does this matter? This is not an abstract parliamentary topic; it is about ensuring that consumers, farmers, businesses, civic society, NGOs and Members of both Houses are involved in matters of national importance. With his US example, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) showed why engagement strengthens trade deals. That is why virtually every other modern developed nation has much stronger scrutiny requirements—not just parliamentary scrutiny—for trade deals, including the US, the EU and South Africa. I met parliamentarians in South Africa to discuss this very issue, and we could learn a lot from South African transparency in negotiating trade deals.
Effective scrutiny makes for effective deals. It increases support for trade deals if consumers, workers and businesses feel that they have been listened to as well as just consulted, yet the free trade deal with Australia has a climate-shaped hole in it. The president of the NFU has warned that
“this deal simply serves to heap further pressure on farm businesses at a time when they are facing extraordinary inflationary pressure”.
That happened because key stakeholders such as farmers were not included in the process.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, trade is not free if it is not fair. On the agreements with the Gulf, there are serious human rights issues in countries there, whether on the right to protest or the rights of women, migrant labourers or many others. We now know that the Government stripped human rights and the rule of law out of their objectives for a Gulf deal.
The FTAs with India and the Gulf would have huge implications for our climate commitments. My first question to the Minister is, what assurances will he give that human rights will now be raised as part of the process and that there will be proper scrutiny for any free trade agreement with the Gulf?
The Secretary of State has been critical of the Government’s own net zero pledge, calling it “arbitrary”. Perhaps that is why they might wish to avoid any scrutiny. When the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for International Trade, she selectively released partial polling data, only to be rebuked by the British Polling Council. We saw her ignore officials’ advice about the impact of the UK-Australia deal on UK farmers.
In the past year, the former Secretary of State dodged the International Trade Committee multiple times, as we have heard today. The Department was even issued with an enforcement notice by the Information Commissioner for delays to freedom of information requests, further suggesting a fear of scrutiny and openness. That suggests that the Government are avoiding scrutiny and debate in both Houses.
I have focused on the Government’s attitude to the parliamentary process, but we need assurances that Ministers are meeting, and actually listening to the concerns of, other stakeholders. The stakeholders we met feel there is too little consultation, and even when there is they feel like they are being talked at rather than listened to.
Will the Government grant a debate on the Floor of the House on the UK-New Zealand trade agreement before it is ratified? If the International Trade Committee requests a debate on the FTA with India, will the Government grant it?
Finally, the Labour party is a pro-trade party. We want to see the Government striking ambitious trade deals. We want to see trade deals that support British business, British values and economic growth. To do that, trade deals need to be accompanied by proper scrutiny.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. It is great to be back at the Department for International Trade after a one-year gap. It is good to engage on a huge number of the issues that I used to engage on—I have had a quick crash course to bring myself up to speed after the last year.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the debate. He is a genuine champion for global Britain and brings great energy to the International Trade Committee—something I remember from when I appeared before the Committee a number of times. The Committee is extremely important to the work of the Department for International Trade, as is the Lord’s International Agreements Committee. Many important points have been raised during the debate, and I will strive to cover as many as I can. First, I will lay out a little context, but most of my speech will deal with the points that have been raised.
For the first time in nearly half a century, the UK is free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with the world’s fastest-growing economies. The rewards will be significant: higher wages, more jobs and more growth, with agreements specifically tailored to the needs of the United Kingdom. However, given that our free trade agreements equate to a significant shift in trade policy and in how this country does its trade policy, it is right that Parliament has the opportunity to fully examine them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes rightly says that the CRaG process came in during the last days of the Labour Government, in 2010. CRaG ensures that Parliament has 21 sitting days to consider a deal before it can be ratified. Only once that period has passed without either House resolving against the deal can it proceed towards ratification. The Government believe that CRaG continues to provide a robust framework, but we have added, in addition to CRaG, some important parts to this process. In both respects, the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the Government’s constitutional right to negotiate international agreements under the royal prerogative—
Anthony Mangnall
I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister is making the point that Parliament has the ability to consider these things under CRaG. Parliament only has that ability if the Government allow time for us debate and vote. We did not have that for the Australia agreement. I think most of us want the Minister to say today that, on the New Zealand agreement and the subsequent trade agreements, we will have that time allocated, as outlined under CRaG.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, I have only been back at the Department two days now, but I will carefully consider the representations that he has made on parliamentary scrutiny. As I am laying out, CRaG is a process that, I believe, works well overall. We have added elements to CRaG, on top of the situation we inherited in 2010.
I should stress that no international treaty—we saw this in the House earlier in the Committee stage of the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill—can of itself change the UK’s laws. That can be done only by Parliament. What is more, it is the long-standing practice of successive Governments to ratify treaties only once relevant domestic implementing legislation is in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes knows, the Australia free trade agreement is not actually ratified yet, because the domestic legislation is not yet in place.
My hon. Friend made an excellent speech. He rightly praised a litany of successes and the importance of our trade policy in making a difference to businesses, exporters, and consumers. Having read through quite a few of these free trade agreements and international trade agreements, I can say that there is no point negotiating just for the sake of producing a doorstep-style document. The point is to have an agreement that works for our exporters, consumers and producers, as rightly pointed out by various hon. Members.
May I give some praise to my officials? I was a little perturbed by the points raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). Whatever officials may or may not have advised Ministers in the past, it is unfair to attack them if Ministers chose not to follow that advice or did something else. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to think about that and perhaps intervene on me to clarify what he meant.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
What I should have said is that the Secretary of State hid behind her officials, claiming that it was their advice that she was following. I hope that that was not the case and I that officials were giving her good, broad advice—I am sure they always do.
Greg Hands
Let me take that in the spirit in which it is meant. I think we will agree to move on, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am just saying that Ministers are always responsible for the decisions and actions of their Departments. That is a very good rule for how our constitution works.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made various excellent points about better clarity and better comms. In my experience, there can always be better communication in the world of trade. There is always a huge amount of misunderstanding in relation to trade in general and free trade agreements in particular.
My hon. Friend mentioned outreach, which I will come back to. He also mentioned human rights clauses. The UK has an incredibly proud record—not only on our own human rights, but on the engagement we do around the world. Free trade agreements are not always the best way to engage on human rights—there are often better ways to do that—but we do make sure that, wherever appropriate, human rights are included in free trade agreements. We will certainly engage with all our trade partners on the issues that matter to the British people and the Government, be they human rights or trade union rights.
Greg Hands
Let me deal first with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raised and the specific case he mentioned. I will talk about CRaG in a bit more detail, but the other part of his speech was about respect for the International Trade Committee. I know from the times I have appeared in front of that Committee how important it is. It is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—I have mutilated the pronunciation of the Western Isles, but I have done my best. I say to my hon. Friend that our system of scrutinising international agreements and trade deals is at least as good as that in other Westminster-style democracies, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Unless something major has changed in the year I have been out of the Department, I think the UK shapes up at least as well as those equivalent systems.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who is no longer in his place, talked about a lack of expertise in the Department, but I would say quite the opposite. I was there at the foundation of the Department in 2016, and we deliberately made sure that we had the expertise and the right people in place.
I am already overshooting on time, Ms Elliott. I have not done justice to a lot of the contributions that have been made, but I think that I have dealt with human rights. There was mention of China and Russia. Of course, there are no plans to make a free trade agreement with the likes of China or Russia. Trade policy is reserved, but we engage with and consult the Scottish Government and Welsh Government through the ministerial forum for trade, which I used to chair and which I think I will be chairing again.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) talked about meaningful debate. The Department for International Trade always has meaningful debate, and we always have outreach to stakeholders. People have specifically mentioned farmers. I cannot tell you the number of outreach sessions that I did with the NFU, NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the Ulster Farmers’ Union. The number of Zoom and Teams meetings that I did with them all during the pandemic was absolutely extraordinary. We did a huge amount of outreach.
I say to hon. Members that it has been a helpful and interesting debate. It has been useful for me to get back up to speed on parliamentary scrutiny. I appreciate that Members want to see more scrutiny and more debate. I am open-minded on that, and I will have a look specifically at some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raised in relation to current free trade negotiations.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank the Minister for his response, and I will write to him with the points that I have raised. Hon. Members might like to feed into that.
I might just say to the hon. Gentleman from Scotland that if he wants to come and talk to—
Anthony Mangnall
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. If he wants to come and talk to the International Trade Committee about human rights, we will raise it when we discuss the India trade agreement. I am trying to work on a cross-party basis, and we will raise that point.
When the Minister compares us with other countries—
Written Statements
Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme: Late Applicants
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Dean Russell)
The Post Office Horizon IT scandal, which began over 20 years ago, has had a devastating impact on the lives of many postmasters. Starting in the late 1990s, the Post Office began installing Horizon accounting software, but faults in the software led to shortfalls in branches’ accounts. The Post Office demanded sub-postmasters cover the shortfalls, and in many cases wrongfully prosecuted them between 1999 and 2015 for false accounting or theft.
In May 2020, the Post Office launched the historical shortfall scheme, and applications were received over the following months of that year. The scheme was designed to compensate postmasters, without convictions, and outside of those who brought the group litigation order, for the financial shortfalls that they had to make up and the losses accrued as a result. The Government have supported the Post Office in wanting to put right these historical wrongs and are therefore providing financial support to ensure that those affected receive the compensation they deserve.
I am pleased to update the House on the positive progress that has been made to deliver compensation for those currently in the scheme. Since the Government’s last update to Parliament, a further 388 further postmasters have received a compensation offer. As of 30 September, in total 82%—1938—of eligible claimants have now received an offer, meaning that £52 million has now been offered. To date, 1,628 claimants have accepted their offers, and compensation payments totalling over £33 million have been made to them, helping to address the historical wrongs suffered by these claimants. It is the stated target of the Post Office to issue 95% of offers to existing claimants by the end of the calendar year. The Government’s ambition remains for the Post Office to have issued 100% of offers in this time.
In addition to those claimants who are currently part of the historical shortfall scheme, the Government are aware that there are individuals who, for a variety of reasons, were unable to apply for the scheme while it was open. Today, I can announce that the Government will extend their financial support to the Post Office so that it can accept eligible late applications into the historical shortfall scheme.
The Post Office will be writing out to all individuals who have contacted it about making a late application to the historical shortfall scheme to inform them of this.
The Government encourage any other individuals who may have been eligible to claim compensation under the historical shortfall scheme to contact the Post Office to discuss their position. Further details will be set out on the Post Office website.
These late claims will be managed through existing historical shortfall scheme processes, including an assessment by the independent advisory panel, to ensure claims are considered consistently with those already submitted.
[HCWS314]
Update on Recent Bank of England Asset Purchases
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Bank of England decided to carry out temporary purchases of long-dated UK Government bonds (gilts) from 28 September through the asset purchase facility (APF) on whatever scale is necessary to restore orderly conditions. These interventions will be strictly time limited, with auctions taking place until 14 October.
I have therefore authorised an increase in the total size of the APF by £100 billion. This will bring the maximum total size of the APF from £866 to £966 billion.
On 11 October, the Bank decided that that it will widen the scope of its daily gilt purchase operations to also include purchases of index-linked gilts. This was designed to act as a further backstop to restore orderly market conditions by temporarily absorbing selling of index-linked gilts in excess of market intermediation capacity, the purchasing of index-linked gilts was already covered by the existing indemnity for the APF.
The amendments to the APF that could affect the allocation of credit and pose risks to the Exchequer have been discussed with Treasury officials. The risk control framework for the APF previously agreed with the Treasury will remain in place, and HM Treasury will keep monitoring risks to public funds from the facility through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank and the APF from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. If the liability is realised, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS319]
Contingent Liability Notification: Ukraine Guarantees
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Leo Docherty)
Today, I have laid a departmental minute that describes two liabilities that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is undertaking to support the economic stability of Ukraine following Russia’s invasion in February 2022.
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.
This departmental minute sets out details of two new liabilities undertaken by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The first is a guarantee to support lending by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to Ukrenergo, Ukraine’s state-owned and sole electricity transmission system operator. This guarantee has an expected maximum exposure of €54 million— £47 million. The second is a guarantee to support lending by the World Bank to the Government of Ukraine directly. This guarantee has an expected maximum exposure of €527 million—£460 million. The guarantees will be denominated in the currency Ukraine decides to borrow in. Due to the urgency of the situation in Ukraine and unexpected disruption to Parliament’s schedule in September, we notified the Public Accounts Committee instead of Parliament before signing the first of these two guarantees. We are now presenting a written ministerial statement and departmental minute to the House for information.
The FCDO is guaranteeing both principal and interest repayments on the EBRD and World Bank loans. A UK pay-out would be triggered if either Ukrenergo or the Government of Ukraine miss a repayment by 180 days.
The World Bank and EBRD are both well respected multilateral development banks that benefit from preferred creditor status. The UK is an active shareholder at both institutions.
The exact length of the liabilities is linked to the terms of the agreed financing between the World Bank, EBRD and the Government of Ukraine. The EBRD guarantee has a maturity of five years. The World Bank guarantee has a maturity of 18 years.
HM Treasury approved both of these guarantees and the expedited notification process. Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees did not raise any objections. If any Member of the House has questions, do get in touch.
A copy of the departmental minute has been placed in the Library.
[HCWS315]
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Leo Docherty)
The House may welcome an update regarding the 10th treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons review conference, which was held at the United Nations in New York from 1 to 26 August. The conference reviewed progress and sought to reach consensus on future actions under the treaty’s three pillars: disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. While the conference was unable to achieve its overall goal of a consensus outcome document owing to Russian actions, it advanced discussion on each of the treaty’s three pillars, and agreed to establish a working group on further strengthening the review process of the treaty, open to all states parties.
We were deeply disappointed that, despite the progress made in many areas, Russia blocked the adoption of a consensus outcome document over references to Ukraine, in order to defend its unprovoked, illegal war on Ukraine. Russia’s betrayal of the security assurances it gave through the Budapest memorandum when Ukraine joined the treaty, and its responsibility for the unfolding situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, were both referenced obliquely in the President’s consolidated text. Russia’s aggression poses grave challenges to the international nuclear security architecture. The UK, and many other states, raised these concerns consistently throughout the conference, and the UK issued a joint statement with 56 countries explaining how Russia’s aggression and behaviour in Ukraine impacted the treaty.
The UK played an active role both in the preparation for the conference and at the conference itself. As part of its preparations, the UK published a revised national report setting out the action being taken to support the treaty and fulfil the UK’s commitments across all three pillars of the treaty. At the start of the conference, former Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Graham Stuart MP, set out the UK’s approach and progress against the treaty’s objectives, and led a side event on the UK’s national report. The UK’s positive agenda for the conference focused on our track record on disarmament, including reductions in stockpiles and delivery systems and thought-leadership on risk reduction, verification and transparency. The UK also highlighted our leadership in establishing the “Sustained Dialogue on Peaceful Uses”, a new effort to increase access to the benefits of peaceful nuclear technologies for development, including through meeting the UN sustainable development goals. We engaged constructively in the negotiations throughout, seeking to reach agreement and to make progress across all three pillars of the treaty.
The lack of a consensus outcome neither undermines the treaty nor changes states’ obligations. Of the nine previous review conferences, which have taken place almost every five years since the treaty came into force in 1970, only three have adopted a comprehensive final document by consensus. Throughout, the treaty has remained vitally important for the UK and for the international community as a whole, playing an unparalleled role in curtailing the nuclear arms race and keeping the world safe. The action plan adopted at the 2010 conference remains valid as a comprehensive road map for all states party to the treaty to follow to take forward action on disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear technology, as do the consensus outcomes from 2000 and 1995. The UK will continue to work closely with our partners to strengthen the treaty and make progress against this roadmap, while also building on the successes of this conference.
In particular, we look forward to contributing to the working group on strengthening the review process and we will continue to work with Norway on our initiative to clarify and apply the principle of irreversibility. We will also be launching, with the United States and 30 other partners who have joined so far, the sustained dialogue on expanding access to the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies.
The UK’s commitment to the treaty and to fulfilling our obligations, including under article VI on disarmament, remains undiminished. As a nuclear weapon state that takes our responsibilities seriously and an original party to the treaty, the UK remains committed to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. We have approximately halved our nuclear stockpile since the cold war peak and we continue to drive research and discussion on risk reduction, verification and transparency. We remain committed to working internationally to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security. The UK will continue to play its part in bringing about a safer world for all and achieving the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
The treaty is and will remain the fundamental cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and is the irreplaceable foundation and framework for our common efforts on advancing nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The conference decided to hold the 11th review conference in 2026 in New York, with preparatory committees to take place in 2023 in Vienna, 2024 in Geneva and 2025 in New York. The UK will continue to work alongside the international community at all of these meetings to strengthen the regime and to promote international stability, peace and security and will keep Parliament updated.
[HCWS316]
Covid-19 Vaccine Supply
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Caroline Johnson)
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
I am writing to inform you that while Parliament was in recess the Department of Health and Social Care has started to donate approximately 30,000 doses of surplus covid vaccines to Barbados and Antigua & Barbuda. The combined value of these donations exceeds £300,000 and the donations will be accounted for as gifts since both countries are not eligible for official development assistance (ODA).
I want to take this opportunity to explain that we proceeded with these donations as a matter of urgency. The doses were surplus to the requirements of our domestic vaccination programme and were requested urgently by the recipient countries, including to vaccinate children before schools returned during September. Donating these doses with maximum available shelf life meant that they could be used rather than expiring and having to be destroyed.
The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Care has written to the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee to notify them of these gifts. This statement provides retrospective notification to the House of Commons.
HM Treasury has approved the decision.
[HCWS318]
Criminal Legal Aid
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
Since I became Lord Chancellor, I have been keen to resolve the dispute with the Criminal Bar Association, in order get the criminal justice system working again. To that end, my officials and I have been holding constructive discussions on a package of proposals with the Bar Council and the CBA. This package was agreed as part of our overall response to the criminal legal aid independent review consultation.
I am pleased to announce that the CBA membership has now voted in favour of my offer on criminal legal aid, and has agreed to come back to work.
As a result, my Department laid a statutory instrument on 11 October which will mean the recent fee uplift for new cases claimable by litigators and advocates will also now apply to the vast majority of existing cases in the backlog where the main hearing takes place after the commencement of the instrument on 31 October 2022. This equates to an additional investment of £28 million in the fee scheme for advocates and £14 million in the fee scheme for litigators over the spending review period.
My Department will also make an additional £3 million of funding available for case preparation, such as written work and special preparation, as well as a further £4 million for defence barristers involved in pre-recorded cross-examinations, which are used to reduce the trauma of a trial for vulnerable victims and witnesses by early 2023.
The Ministry of Justice is proposing a further £5 million uplift per year for fees in the youth court, from the 2024-25 financial year, which is expected to particularly benefit both solicitors and some junior barristers.
A new criminal legal aid advisory board on criminal legal aid reform will also be created and hold its first meeting in October. This board will discuss the operation of the criminal legal aid system and make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor.
In addition to this, the Government will respond to the remaining elements of the above consultation by the end of November, including further reforms directed at solicitors. As was made clear by Lord Bellamy in his review, the profession of criminal legal aid solicitors requires immediate attention, and I am keen to work to provide further reforms and support.
I look forward to working constructively with criminal legal aid practitioners on criminal justice issues, including working to drive down court backlogs and resolve cases sooner.
After all, we share the same aim: putting the criminal justice system on a more sustainable footing for the future, to support victims and everyone who relies on our justice system.
[HCWS317]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, shall we kick off? We are expecting two Divisions in the Chamber, so I will alert the Committee when they are happening and we will suspend proceedings.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy
“(1A) This Act also applies to a service for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between—(a) a place in the United Kingdom and another place in the United Kingdom;(b) a place in Crown Dependencies and a place in the United Kingdom;(c) an offshore oil and gas installation on the UK Continental Shelf and a place in the United Kingdom; and(d) an offshore renewable energy installation within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone and a place in the United Kingdom.”
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by apologising for not being able to be present at Second Reading on 20 July. I am not just sorry to have missed your Lordships’ contributions on the Bill; it is a deep personal regret that I did not hear the valedictory speech of Lord Mackay, who was in my view one of the greatest of our Lords Chancellor. Of course, I was able to read the proceedings in Hansard and watch them on television. I thank the Minister for her Teams seminar yesterday. Again, I apologise that my equipment failed me and I was able to participate for only the first two minutes.
Naturally, the Bill is to be welcomed but it is a matter of regret that it is confined to the national minimum wage equivalent. This is just one of the nine points in the Government’s response to the P&O Ferries calamity on 17 March and, even in that regard, it may not achieve the purpose stated by the Minister in point one of her letter of 31 March, which said that this will ensure that P&O can derive no benefit from the actions it has taken in paying staff less than the minimum wage and it must reverse the decision. The fact is that, even paying the national minimum wage equivalent, P&O will in fact save money over the previous regime.
Apart from the egregious flouting of the law on 17 March, one striking feature of the P&O Ferries saga is that it also threw overboard all the collective agreements that the company had reached with the trade unions over the previous 100 years or so. These contained provisions about, among other things, procedures to achieve changes to terms and conditions, dealing with redundancies, and procedures to resolve disputes. That is why the Minister’s ninth point in the letter was so gratefully received: the creation of “minimum wage corridors” and asking unions and operators to agree a common level of seafarer protection on ferry routes. The Bill could have given legislative support to these excellent proposals and I ask the Minister, first, how the Government will achieve them and, secondly, where she and her department have got to in their bilateral discussions.
Noble Lords need not fear—I have just another couple of sentences to say before I introduce the amendments. The Bill could have gone a lot further in re-establishing terms and conditions beyond the minimum hourly rate, including those that were provided for in previous collective agreements, such as training, pensions, rostering, crewing levels, recognition, disputes, and so on. I wonder whether the Minister and the department have any plans for legislative support in that regard.
One other obvious thing the Bill could have done was to stop up the loophole in Section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, which excludes any penalty to enforce the duty of a ship operator sacking UK workers for redundancy to notify the authorities in the flag state of the vessel. We know this is a loophole because on 19 August this year the Insolvency Service said that a prosecution of P&O Ferries in this regard was not possible. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to say something about filling that lacuna.
With that digression, I turn to the first group of amendments, which concern the territorial scope of the Bill and an aspect of the application of international law. I will speak to my Amendments 1, 15 and 16, while Amendments 5, 23 and 38 deal, respectively, with minimum wage corridors, preventing breaches of maritime law and upholding international agreements to which the UK is party.
I will of course withdraw my first amendment, but it was put in on the footing that I would move an amendment to expand the scope of the Bill from dealing with not just the national minimum wage but the protection of other terms and conditions as well. However, I was advised quite properly by the Public Bill Office that that was not possible within the scope of the Short Title. I am therefore left simply asking the Minister to confirm my understanding that the national minimum wage already applies on vessels working on domestic routes, that those seafarers in the offshore oil and gas maritime supply chain are also covered by the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020 and that vessels sailing between the UK and Crown dependencies will be covered either by the Bill or existing legislation.
It is known—or so I am advised by RMT—that Condor Ferries, a low-cost operator contracted by the Governments of Jersey and Guernsey, pays less than the national minimum wage at present. It was not paying that national minimum wage up to 2014. Since then, I understand that Condor has denied union access to the Bahamas and Cyprus-registered vessels and therefore it is not known what rates of pay are operable. Presumably we are right in thinking that the Bill will apply to such vessels.
The one area where no protection is offered, as I understand it, even by the Bill is for the supply chain to offshore renewable installations in the exclusive economic zone, because they are not covered by the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020. The amendment that I propose should therefore close that loophole, but it may be that the noble Baroness has another way of dealing with that issue. Again, I am advised by RMT that there has been a recent case of a UK-flagged offshore facility utility vessel in the Port of Sunderland, where seafarers were working 12-hour days at a daily rate of €55, which comes to €4.58, or just over £4, an hour. In effect, by moving this amendment I simply ask the Minister to confirm that all those cases will be covered either by existing legislation or by the Bill.
The second of my amendments is Amendment 15, the purpose of which is to expand the phrase “territorial waters” to include
“the UK Continental Shelf and the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”,
both of which should be covered. What we are considering is the seafarers working on project vessels, floating hotels and other vessels that can be anchored at sites outside the UK’s territorial waters but within the continental shelf and UK economic zone. That is important, because the production of clean energy from offshore renewable sources and the storage of carbon in subsea facilities will see an increase in seafarer employment associated with this work, particularly in the North Sea.
My third amendment in this group is Amendment 16, which would delete Clause 5(3). Its purpose is to discourage operators of vessels from seeking to avoid the obligations under the Bill of providing data relating to the wages of their crew by registering vessels in countries or territories where not so restrictive data protection laws apply. I note that the Bill’s impact assessment does not consider the possibility of operators breaching the data protection laws of a flag state. I wonder whether that is because it was not thought to be a significant problem, but it might well become one if there are operators, such as P&O Ferries, that are quite happy to evade British law.
Those are my three amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 38. Noble Lords might remember that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and I raised the compatibility of this Bill with international agreements to which the UK is a signatory. Regrettably, the Minister did not address that issue in her reply, nor in her follow-up letters to participating Peers. It is really important that we give this issue an airing today.
There are many long-standing and recognised international conventions, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the international Maritime Labour Convention 2006, to which the UK is a signatory. Earlier this year, the International Labour Organization reached an agreement on minimum levels of wages for seafarers for 2023, 2024 and 2025. This was broadly welcomed by all stakeholders, including social partners. When the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020 was published, the department’s Explanatory Memorandum made it clear that these conventions precluded the provisions being applied to seafarers from non UK-flagged vessels, yet that is exactly what this legislation will do. I would like the Minister to clarify for the Committee what has changed between the publication of that memorandum in 2020 and today.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter how well- intentioned the legislation—these Benches do support a better deal for seafarers—a measure that appears to be contrary to the long-established norm that port states should not interfere with the internal running of foreign-flagged vessels, provided they conform with internationally agreed conventions, is something we should avoid. All these agreements were developed over many years, and they reflect the complexities of operating in multiple jurisdictions with very different legal systems and with an international workforce, with many nationalities on the same vessel.
These agreements are not really drafted like legislation —nor could they be, because they come from so many legal jurisdictions. They are about intent, and the intent is pretty clear. I hope the Government will think very carefully about whether they wish to risk disrupting these global agreements, or be seen to be thought of as disrupting them, because it would not be in the interests of the UK, or of any other country, for this established order to start to become undermined; nor would it be in the interests of seafarers.
There is a particular issue for the UK. We have enjoyed strong leadership in the maritime sector; that is something we should protect and preserve. The Government’s own impact assessment says that there is
“a reputational risk that the UK may be seen to be moving unilaterally on seafarer welfare issues rather than seeking improvements exclusively via multilateral channels.”
Does the Minister acknowledge that risk? Can she explain to the Committee what the Government intend to do to mitigate it?
Finally, many noble Lords were struck by the letter from the International Chamber of Shipping, which did not hold back on its concerns about the Bill. Again, I would be interested to hear about persuading not just Members of this House but the wider shipping community that we are still fully on board with these international conventions.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has made the case well. This is from somebody who, I imagine, has not spent her whole life in maritime as I have, so I congratulate her; her points were made well.
We have the IMO close to us here in Parliament. It is just across the way, up the river and on the other bank. We are privileged to have it. If we do not abide by, for example, UNCLOS resolutions and agreements, it will be damaging to our position. I am sure that many maritime people would agree. It is extremely important that we do not behave irresponsibly here, particularly at a time when Britain is open for business. With all the other splendid slogans we have heard, it is important that we abide by international agreements. These were carefully worked out over a long period involving all parties, so I support the amendment.
I say in passing that I also support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which is in the same space but on a more restricted, faute de mieux basis and also holds good in that situation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have any amendments in this group but I think it is appropriate for me to speak to some of the clause stand part amendments I have tabled. Basically, they result from a discussion during the International Chamber of Shipping’s briefing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred, about whether this Bill is compatible with international law.
Last night, I had the pleasure of joining many people from the maritime sector at an event in Greenwich. I must have spoken to more than a dozen experts in the field who questioned why the Government are doing this at all. They said, almost to a person, that the Bill will not deliver what the Government want. I certainly support its purpose—to protect the employment and remuneration of seafarers—but all the experts said to me that it will not do that.
One useful comment has come from Nautilus about the Insolvency Service work on assessing whether P&O had acted in a criminal manner when it did. Basically, the Insolvency Service is not going ahead with the criminal case while the civil investigation is still under way, but what it is really saying is that it does not think this Bill will deliver. This is from a union that represents many seafarers. It is worth quoting the information from the British Ports Association to put on record that it and other associations are not convinced that the Bill is compatible with the international commitments under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If we take this uniliteral action, we risk other people who are possibly less responsible than the UK—I do not know whether that is still the case these days—doing the same thing and providing justification for doing things that adversely affect our ships, our seafarers and everyone else.
I hope the Minister can explain why this is being done at all. I will go into details on some later amendments, but will finish on this matter of principle. Presumably, the Government believe that this is compatible with international law, because Governments should not be breaking the law; I am sure the Minister agrees. But two people said to me last night that, within a few weeks of this Bill receiving Royal Assent—if it does—judicial reviews will start flowing. That is a terrible thing to say at this stage of the debate, and I hope it does not happen.
As a matter of principle, whether the Government think that this Bill complies with international law or not, it would be good to hear the Minister tell us about this and particularly about Articles 21, 38 and 42 of UNCLOS, in which the British Ports Association is particularly interested. I look forward to her comments.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the territorial scope of the Bill and the vessels to which this legislation applies. Seafarers across the board deserve proper compensation for their work and I welcome the opportunity to consider whether the Bill, in its present form, achieves this. To this end, I hope the Minister will clarify that all workers on the vessels listed in these amendments are already covered. When we landlubbers think of seafarers, we often picture those who directly control vessels, but the definition is incredibly wide and covers everyone from cleaners to the administrative staff on board. I hope the Minister comments on the Government’s approach to supporting better wages and conditions for all seafarers.
Amendment 5 in my name is a probing amendment and it is key. It seeks information from the Minister on the state of negotiations, particularly those with France and the Republic of Ireland, on the corridor concept. This Bill, which we support, is one small step towards addressing the issue of seafarers’ terms and conditions.
I respect what my noble friend Lord Berkeley just said but, at the end of the day, if these international conventions have achieved utopia for seamen, I would hate to see hell. Wages seem incredibly, unacceptably low in an international world. Perhaps that is not so true in the wider world, but they seem unacceptably low in Europe. I hope the Government put all possible energy into negotiations with other European states to establish these corridors. It sets a precedent for the worldwide consideration that seafarers deserve a better deal than they are getting.
Amendment 23 would prevent the refusal of harbour access where doing so would break international maritime law. In any situation in which harbour access is refused, in framing the appropriate guidance, a Government must have considered the safety and environmental implications of refusal. It moves to the general view that we must work on the international agreements in parallel and seek to ensure, as does the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the various conventions not only exist but are universally and even-handedly implemented.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the careful consideration of this Bill by all noble Lords. I reiterate what I have already said to noble Lords in private sessions: the Government are listening to concerns and will endeavour to answer in full all the questions raised by your Lordships today. I suspect that some will certainly be in writing, and I may well try to develop on some on some of the things I am able to say today so that we have full information as we head towards Report.
I sense that there are slightly differing views around the Committee, where some people want this to go much further and others are very cautious. Of course, both of those views potentially risk the Bill itself. I therefore just want to make sure that everybody has as much information as I can get out, particularly around the Government’s intent with the Bill and why it is drafted as it is. Noble Lords will have heard the previous Secretary of State speak about the nine-point plan many times, which was in response to the P&O decision that was made back in March. We recognise that this Bill is narrow in scope and potentially also in effect, as we cannot legislate outside UK territorial waters. It is none the less an important part of the nine-point plan that this sits hand in glove with the other work that we are doing to improve the welfare of seafarers to make sure that their terms and conditions are as good as they can be.
The amendments in this first group cover territorial scope and international law and I will try to address them in turn. Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, seeks to probe the application of the Bill in various circumstances. I completely accept the way that he introduced this and that he had intended some separate amendments that were deemed to be out of scope. It is worth making sure that the different groups of seafarers who he identified in his amendment are indeed covered. To look at it in more detail, on proposed new subsection (1A)(a), seafarers working or ordinarily working in the UK, including UK internal or territorial waters if the vessel is not exercising a right to innocent passage, are already entitled to the national minimum wage. That stems from Section 1(2)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999. That change is therefore unnecessary, and I think the noble Lord would agree.
On proposed new subsection (1A)(b), voyages to or from the Crown dependencies would already be in scope of this Bill under the service definition in Clause 1. Of course, I recognise at this point that the UK Government can legislate only in the waters of the UK; therefore, it would be a similar circumstance as one would have, for example, with a journey to France.
On proposed new subsection (1A)(c), under Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999, a worker working or ordinarily working in connection with the exploration of the seabed or subsoil or the exploitation of natural resources in the UK sector of the continental shelf is treated as if they are working, or ordinarily work, in the UK. Those workers are therefore already entitled to the national minimum wage, so, again subject to the caveat about UK territorial waters, those workers are covered—ditto those who are working on services to offshore renewable energy installations. Again, I note that some of those may be far away from UK territorial waters. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
I note the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that it is not only the people who are in control of the ship. When I think about this, I do not think about the people in control of the ship but of all the other people on board, who do the really important day-to-day tasks that are sometimes forgotten. I accept that this is about making sure that we cover everybody on board, and I am satisfied that we do.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate and to the noble Baroness for her response, in particular her reassurance that all the seafarers mentioned in my Amendment 1 are covered by the provisions of the Bill. The minimum wage corridors are clearly important and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her update on the continuing negotiations. Is she able to say whether embedding minimum wage corridors in the legislation of bilateral states is under contemplation? She did not mention one matter: the progress towards collective agreements between ship operators and trade unions.
I hear what the noble Baroness said about legislating outside our territorial waters, but I wonder whether the department has considered other ways in which seafarers might be protected. It may be the case that operators in the North Sea will deliberately anchor hotel vessels and so on outside territorial waters to avoid the obligations of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she or the department will look again at the problem—if there is one—of operators with ships flagged in other states with less strict or stricter data protection laws saying, when they come to harbours in this country, “I cannot tell you what my seafarers’ wages are, because I am prohibited by the data protection laws of the state in which the vessel is flagged”.
We heard what the noble Baroness said on international law and international agreements, which everybody in the Room considers should be upheld in every way. There may be more discussion on this subject later today. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
“(c) a service performed by a ship which is not required to have a national minimum wage equivalence declaration.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the scope of the bill from the outset.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all broadly relate to the question of the ships, or the services, that are within the Bill’s scope. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is a bit of confusion around. I spent some of the summer talking to various stakeholders—sadly, not at parties. Through the conversations I had, it became clear that there are concerns about confusion and practicality.
Clause 3 will empower harbour authorities to request that operators of services within the Bill’s scope provide the declaration that they are paying seafarers the national minimum wage. The Bill also says that they cannot do the reverse: they cannot make requests if the vessel is not in scope. So far, so good, but the British Ports Association, which, after all, will be doing this, is arguing that in practice it might actually be quite difficult for a statutory harbour authority to determine with certainty whether a service will call more than 120 times a year. It is not difficult to imagine ways in which operators could perfectly legitimately alter their schedules to take them outside the scope. A harbour authority that is directed to make such a request but is not actually sure, or in a position to be sure, that the vessel is in fact in scope could be placed in an extremely difficult position and could be subject to legal challenge. My Amendment 27 is designed to deal with that: to give the Government a chance to reassure harbour authorities that they can stay on the right side of the law.
The situation is further complicated by some uncertainty that has arisen as to whether the Bill applies to vessels or to services. If it is services—from the Minister’s use of the word “services” on the previous group of amendments, I suspect it is—how does one define a service? Is it something that runs to a published timetable? How will the Bill’s provisions work where there is a regular service that occasionally makes a call to another port? How exactly is a harbour authority to establish with some certainty exactly what the position is?
The Chamber of Shipping is arguing that using “services” and not “ships” would bring into scope vessels with minimal ties to the UK beyond calling in to UK ports. I know that that is not the Government’s intention. The Chamber of Shipping’s fear is that, in a highly competitive industry, operators will simply reduce their calls to the UK, which it argues could have implications for supply chain costs and the competitiveness of UK ports. It would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify this services/vessels issue and talk about the assessment that has been made of the potential implications described by the Chamber of Shipping. Those are covered by my Amendments 2 and 6.
Finally, my Amendment 37 relates to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has looked at Clause 3, particularly Clause 3(4), which would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations that set out the form of the declarations and the manner in which they are provided. The committee had no problem with that. It was not happy with the provision by negative instrument in which the Secretary of State could restrict the circumstances in which a harbour authority could exercise its power. It says in its report:
“We consider that the Government have failed to justify the inclusion of this power in the Bill and that, even if its inclusion could be justified”,
it merits “affirmative procedure scrutiny”. It has said that because, in effect, this power could almost negate the whole Bill if that is what the Secretary of State so chose, which seems a very odd power to give under negative powers. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 9 in my name, which cover the same ground that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, outlined so well. I still get confused—I know that some associations are also confused—as to whether it is one ferry or a service. As the noble Baroness said, how do you define a service? For example, does it matter where the ship is registered? I do not think it does, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. Where the contract of employment with the seafarers is concerned, does that make any difference?
I suppose my purpose in putting down the amendment to change the number of visits to a harbour—or the harbour—from 120 to 50 was also to probe whether it matters which harbour it is and what a harbour is. I know that this Bill is designed to support ferry workers, which of course I support, but a lot of other ships go around the coast. Coasters, for one, move china clay, cement, aggregates and other things. I am a former member of the harbour board of the port of Fowey in Cornwall. These ships go backwards and forwards; their crew are probably employed in UK contracts but they might not be. Are they included? If not, should they be?
Ditto with cruise ships. We read about many employees on cruise ships not being well paid. Most cruise ships probably move internationally; they certainly do not come to a particular port even 50 times a year. On the other hand, some smaller ones go around more often. Why should those employees not be protected in the same way as ferry operators? I asked one or two people why they thought it was so important to protect ferry operators. The answer was, “Well, they’re a particular type of crew who usually go home after their shift”. That is an odd definition. I am sure that it is not true when you look at the services to Spain and up to Scandinavia; they certainly do not go home every night. It is important that the Minister sets out the limits of this clause, why it is that way and whether it relates to the ships or the crews.
In relation to ships going across the channel—P&O might have three or four going across; I am sure that the crew get moved from ship to ship—is it a matter of making sure that the ship or the captain produces the documents? How is it recorded that crews who have gone from one ship one week on to another ship another week are covered by this Bill? It is a pretty complicated solution, but it is terribly important for people who may be on one side of the fence or the other. I am sure the Minister can give me a wonderful answer on this; if not, she can write to me.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 8, which is simply an elaboration of the points that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has already made. The proposal here is to delete “the harbour” and insert “a harbour”. What lies behind that is catching those vessels that might do what I understand is referred to as harbour-hopping, where, in order to decrease the frequency with which they are recorded in any particular port, they go to a nearby port every so often to reduce the number.
My second point, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley and I have addressed, and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has a slight variant on, is whether 120 occasions a year is far too high. It will exclude a lot of vessels that do weekly ferrying, which we would want to catch. If I may speak for my noble friend Lord Berkeley as well as myself, the reason we think it should be 50 is that, quite often, a ship may be serviced for a couple of weeks a year and it may not therefore achieve the full 52 occasions, even if it is running a weekly service.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to clarify what the debate has thrown up so far. I fear that the Government are guilty of mission creep on this, which may have occurred with the very best of intentions, but there is certainly confusion as a result. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, a move from 120 calls to 52 would inadvertently bring in a much broader range of shipping.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, just touched on another issue that needs clarity, and I have three specific questions that it is important that the Minister answers clearly. If she cannot do that at this moment, we would all appreciate correspondence on this. First, on the move from “ships” to “services”, can we have absolute clarity on what a service is? How would it be covered if, for example, there is a refitting such as that just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy? I anticipate all sorts of ways in which companies will seek to avoid inclusion through the way they configure services, so we need clarity on the definition of “services”.
Secondly, in summing up the first group of amendments, the Minister again used the phrase
“close ties to the UK”.
This is at the core of the whole thing. Can we have a definition that will stand up in a court of law of exactly what the Government mean by that?
Thirdly, I am sure we would all be grateful if the Minister could address the concerns of the DPRRC, to which my noble friend Lady Scott referred.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, I apologise; I have only just arrived, because I was detained elsewhere. I want to pick up on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about ferries. Ferries have been referred to, so maybe the Minister can clarify this later. I need to read the Bill again, line by line, but nowhere does it refer to “ferries”. It refers to “ships”. In the current energy crisis, for example, you may have a service of tankers of diesel fuel coming in with the required regularity. They might be caught by the Bill, because of the frequency with which they call on the UK as part of their service, but they are certainly not ferries. The Minister will confirm this later, but I do not believe we should use the language of “ferries”, when we are in fact talking about ships.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a useful set of amendments to clarify some of the points. I hope that the Minister will either be able to provide that clarification or, if she wants to worry about the syntax of her reply, supply it in a careful letter.
I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 10 seeks to replace 120 with 52 in Clause 3(3), so I sit alongside my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. My noble friend made a persuasive case for 50, as opposed to 52, and I will need considerable persuasion not to press this point on Report, unless the Minister is able to create a very powerful argument that there would be unintended consequences from that.
Amendment 36 seeks, in essence, to stop the effects of the Bill being, in a sense, destroyed by repeated regulations. Surely the Bill’s minimum requirements are in the primary legislation, and the adjustments to them should really be only upwards, not reducing the requirements.
I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her concern about the DPRRC’s concerns. In my day, if it produced a recommendation, we used to shake in our boots and recognise that some deal or other had to be made with it because of the authority it carried. Once again, I hope the Government will recognise the authority and wisdom of that committee and accede to its suggestions.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am again grateful to noble Lords for sharing their thoughts on this group of amendments. The thrust of the amendments in this group is very much around probing the scope of the Bill in terms of the services and ships to which it applies. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, noted, I will write. I do not think he was implying that my oral replies are not carefully thought through—maybe he was—but the letter will be perfect. Noble Lords should await further information in the letter, but I will try to cover as many points as I can.
I look at this borderline, grey-area conversation that noble Lords are having, and at the back of my mind I keep thinking, “What sort of an operator are you if you will go to a different port in order to drop your frequency down to be just under or over any particular target so that you don’t have to pay your seafarers the national minimum wage equivalent in UK waters?”
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Well, because of that we will come on to why it is so important that the Bill refers to services rather than ships; otherwise, quite frankly, you could do that, and all sorts of very interesting things. I will try to go through some of the amendments and think carefully about how we make sure that we reassure operators and trade associations about what a service is. Indeed, there is a question about what a harbour is. The good thing is that we have a definition of a harbour, in the Harbours Act 1964 and the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. That is what a harbour is, so I will put that one to bed.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I just want to comment on the Minister’s last statement, which was very helpful. I think she needs to recognise that the maritime industry has probably got very good PR, but some of what goes on on the ships is highly dubious. I have been honorary president of the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots’ Association for about 25 years—heaven knows why so long, it is very nice of them—and I hear stories about what pilots find when they get on the ships. It is not just that the pilot ladder might break, which sadly does happen occasionally, but that there is a language problem within the ships, or that the master sometimes cannot control the crew and that they will do anything to save tuppence ha’penny. So, I appreciate what she is saying, and in a normal business, she is probably right, but in this sector, it may not be the ferry or the short-haul freight services, but we have to recognise that every penny seems to count and usually it is very bad for some of the crew.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, the noble Lord has much more experience aboard such vessels than me, and I will take his word about some of the conditions on ships. Indeed, we heard during Covid how what happened on ships was very distressing for some people and extremely disappointing. I take all of that on board but I go back to: I cannot fix the entire world today but what I can fix is what is before the Committee in terms of the scope of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned specific types of services, such as coasters—which apparently take English clay around the coast, et cetera—and cruise ships. This is why it is so important to do this based on the service and its frequency rather than what it is actually providing. Coasters might be caught but if they are doing only domestic work they will be caught anyway because they are in UK waters and they are caught if it is port to port within the UK, but if they are doing a run frequently—say three times a week across to France—they will be caught, and I do not see why they should not be. I have no problem with that. Let us catch them. The people working on such vessels most likely have close ties to the UK and those vessels clearly have close ties to the UK because they dock here so frequently, so it does not matter where the ship is flagged or where the employment contract is. It is the fact that it spends a lot of its time in UK waters and enters UK ports on a very frequent basis. This frequency is important.
I note that two noble Lords have tabled amendments to go down to 52 occasions from 120. We looked at this very carefully during the consultation. My current view—and of course we are going to go away and consider this—is that 52 would catch too many vessels that we did not intend to catch and would be overreach in terms of the current settlement with the international shipping community. Again, we might be entering the sort of territory where the unintended consequences would be quite significant. I go back to the fact that this is a narrow Bill, it has a narrow scope, it does a very specific thing, and I would like it to do that specific thing on services which dock here 120 times a year.
Amendments 7 and 8 refer to this issue of “a harbour”, “the harbour” or “harbours”. We have established what “a harbour” is—so that is done—and we are very clear that the service is to a particular harbour. It is not to “a harbour” within the UK because Calais-Dover is not the same as a service running from Calais to any other harbour. The route is specified. It is the same route, not using the same ships, high frequency to a specific harbour. We think that is quite clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked for a definition of “close ties”. I do not think I will ever be able to get to that but we have been able to define what a “service” is. Those services have close ties. It is descriptive language to define what these services are, but it is merely that. It is not something that will be legally defined and taken forward.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Do I understand, then, that the Government are unable or unwilling to define “close ties”?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are very willing to define what these services are and, by implication, those have close ties to the UK. I can probably come up with lots of other clever descriptors to define these sorts of services. A large container ship stopping at the UK once a month does not have close ties to the UK; it is an international container ship, shipping around wheat or whatever it might be shipping. We can think of some other language, but once we have nailed what the service is, where it goes, how frequently it goes and which ships it utilises, then we have defined it. That is it, we are done. That is the definition that works legally because it has hard boundaries and can be fairly well defined, I think.
I absolutely appreciate that Amendment 27 is a probing amendment. We intend to provide guidance to harbour authorities, and that guidance will be consulted on. We can define what the service is but we need to help harbour authorities to fully understand those definitions. We will consult with the industry to make sure that there is absolute clarity. I would not say that the guidance should be put on a statutory footing; that is not entirely necessary in this particular case.
I turn finally to Amendment 37. I have of course seen the DPRRC report. It was published only a few days ago so I beg your Lordships’ leave just to say that, at this stage, we are considering what is in it. We are taking it very seriously; I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we take all DPRRC reports very seriously. We will publish our response to it before Report so noble Lords will have the opportunity to peruse that. I have no doubt that we will be able to have further conversations about that.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely shall cover Amendment 36. My apologies, I slightly went off-beam so I thought I had already covered it.
Regarding Amendment 36, the clause as drafted does not allow a Government to amend or reduce the overall extent of services in scope of the Bill. It provides only that regulations may make different provisions for different cases, including for different descriptions of service to which the Bill applies or non-qualifying seafarers. This power cannot be used to amend the Bill and is not intended to be used to alter the scope of the Bill. I slightly thought that I would need to come back to this particular issue to make sure that noble Lords are in agreement as to what we are trying to achieve here. I will give that further consideration.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and to the Minister for hers. This set of amendments really comes down to the practicalities of statutory harbour authorities trying to manage this legislation, which, we have to recognise, is taking them into a completely new area of endeavour. They are comfortable with environmental and shipping things but we need to remember that this is new. Uncertainty at this stage about fundamentals, such as ships and services and what close ties are, is quite concerning. I hope that the Minister will ensure as a matter of urgency that the conversations that ought to take place with the harbour authorities will take place fairly soon so that we can clear up some of these issues and put them in a position where they feel a little more comfortable with what they are being asked to do.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to extend the protections given by the Bill. My noble friend Lord Berkeley will speak to the question of whether Clauses 4 and 9 should stand part of the Bill and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe will speak to Amendment 25, which seeks an impact assessment in relation to roster patterns, pensions and wages, and Amendment 26 on engagement with trade unions.
My amendments are Amendments 3, 13 and 14. I have now convinced myself that Amendment 3 is completely unnecessary. I was trying to ensure that the protection in Section 40 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which deals with residency of seafarers, or lack of it, would still be a condition for engaging the Act where the seafarer was a regular visitor to UK ports but not resident in the UK. On reflection, it seems that it is not necessary to refer to Section 40 because Clause 2(c) specifically engages the National Minimum Wage Act as a whole, and therefore Section 40.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak briefly to oppose Clauses 4 and 9 standing part of the Bill. Again, this goes back to what I spoke about earlier in terms of the legality of this legislation. It comes from the International Chamber of Shipping, which says:
“The vessel declaration requirements envisaged in the Bill … contravene the international frameworks and principles governing seafarers’ remuneration, which confer jurisdiction to the flag State. Notwithstanding the fact that NMWe”—
national minimum wage—
“payments and declarations would be limited to work done while a ship is in UK waters / ports (to address ‘extraterritorial reach’ concerns), this would still amount to an excessive claim to prescriptive jurisdiction, contrary to the fundamental principle of flag State jurisdiction, i.e., that a vessel’s flag State has overall responsibility for the employment conditions aboard a vessel. UNCLOS Article 94 (Duties of the flag State), specifies that the flag State shall ‘exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag’. It would further be contrary to the universal norm that port States will not regulate the ‘internal affairs’ or ‘internal economy’ of visiting foreign vessels (a principle that includes employment conditions).”
This may seem a long way away from ships going between the UK and close waters, but it indicates that what vessels from further afield—which may or may not get tied up in this—will do may be something that the UK finds unpalatable. In other words, if they start doing this to show up the UK as not complying with the UNCLOS requirements, it could be difficult. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on this; indeed, we may need a meeting with our legal experts to see how important this is and what can be done about it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, we do not have any amendments in this group, but I take this opportunity simply to make the point that we share the concern of those noble Lords who do have amendments in this group. These are important issues that reflect the reasonable fear that employers could use tactics that circumvent the measures in the Bill.
One thing that has been speculated on is that seafarers could be paid at a lower rate when they are outside UK waters to compensate for the higher rate that they must be paid in UK waters. There are things about which the Government can do nothing, but it is really important that the things that can be got right are looked at carefully to ensure that they are absolutely on the nail. I point in particular to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to emphasise the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of this legislation and engaging with the trade unions. P&O’s tactics—the audacity with which they were announced surprised everyone, I think—exposed the weakness of the current safeguards. However, if the Government attempt to plug the loophole but fail to do so effectively, I fear that P&O would not be alone and other owners would attempt to do something similar—perhaps not as blatantly as the way in which P&O did it, but it certainly could undermine legislation further if the Government’s efforts here are not fully effective.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments in my name in this group, but I commend the other amendments to the Minister’s study, because it is important to achieve clarity on some of these issues.
On Amendment 25, my original involvement with these sorts of issues was in an analogous industry—transport—where I was a shop steward and subsequently an industrial relations manager. In the crew situation, issues with roster patterns and pensions are every bit as important as wages. The way that rosters are handled in particular can have a serious impact on remuneration and a massive impact on quality of life. It is important that there is a proper impact report on these issues, ideally within 90 days.
This leads on to Amendment 26, because this and other issues would be much enhanced if we could develop a proper relationship with the trade unions. The importance of this from the point of view of the trade union movement is exemplified by an appeal—for want of a better term—to the International Labour Organization from the general secretary of Nautilus; the general secretary of the RMT, Mick Lynch; the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady; the acting general secretary of the European Transport Workers’ Federation; the general secretary of the International Transport Workers’ Federation; and the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation. I read those out to emphasise that this is a heavy coalition of the trade union movement. Their appeal is set out in a document that I hope the Minister has seen, which centres on what happened at P&O. It helps one to understand how broad detailing and managing the employment conditions of crew is and how important it is to get a hold of this to make sure that crews are properly looked after, both in their remuneration and conditions of work. I therefore commend Amendment 26 to the Minister.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this third group of amendments is broadly concerned with the relationship of this Bill to the domestic national minimum wage. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has already decided that Amendment 3 is not necessary; I agree with him so, if noble Lords agree, I shall just move on.
Amendment 13, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, relates to the calculation of the national minimum wage equivalence and deductions. We have been clear that this will be covered by regulation and is not for the Bill. This also allows us a little more flexibility decades hence, should changes need to be made. Nevertheless, Section 2(5)(c) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 does not prohibit deductions from pay of costs for providing seafarers’ accommodation, food or water, but simply provides for regulations on the matter. We will very much be matching up.
Regulations under the Bill will need to be consistent with the provisions within the Maritime Labour Convention, or MLC, whereby requiring seafarers to meet the cost of food and water is expressly forbidden. We therefore do not need to amend the Bill to account for this. Perhaps the noble Lord might remind the RMT about that, if it feels that seafarers out there are being charged for those things. That is clearly and expressly forbidden.
Regarding deductions for accommodation, under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, employers on domestic services are permitted to apply a reduction of up to £8.70 per day in respect of the provision of living accommodation, without that affecting the assessment of the worker’s pay for national minimum wage purposes. The MLC does not make express provision for reduction for accommodation, and shipping industry practice is not to charge seafarers for accommodation. It is not our intention that operators should be encouraged to make such reductions for accommodation to reduce their overall wage fee, so we will be considering this in the regulations in due course.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, and to the noble Baroness for her explanations and her undertaking to look at certain matters again. I share my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s regret that she could not go a little further with his Amendments 25 and 26, because we know from the experience with P&O Ferries that the collective agreements were torn up and the role of the trade unions abolished by that employer. Those amendments would have been quite useful to see what the impact would be on industrial relations and whether trade unions would be left with any role, whether over pensions, rostering or any other matter concerning terms and conditions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments also concern enforcement of and compliance with the Bill’s provisions. I have Amendments 4 and 11 but, to deal with this generally, Amendments 12 and 24 seek to impose much higher penalties—detention of a ship or a minimum £1 million fine. Amendments 31 to 34 deal with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. Amendments 20 to 22 and 31 deal with transferring tariffs from harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. Amendments 30, 35 and 39 depend on the removal of earlier clauses. Amendment 17 deals with naming the particular inspector.
My Amendment 4 is to Clause 3(1), which provides:
“Where ships providing a service to which this Act applies use the harbour of a harbour authority, the authority may request the operator … to provide a … declaration”.
I seek to change “may” to “must”, because it does not seem appropriate that the harbour should be left with any discretion at all. I appreciate that there are to be regulations later on that would give the Secretary of State power over harbour authorities, but one might have thought that it would not be unreasonable to demand in the Bill that harbour authorities demand an equivalence declaration.
My Amendment 11 is also to Clause 3, this time to Clause 3(5). As it stands, it requires that the operator must inform the harbour authority that there is an inconsistency with a declaration. I am seeking for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency likewise to be informed, because it will, essentially, be the regulator. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, this is a bit of a humdinger of a group, but a lot of the amendments are mine. Only four are of substance and the rest are consequential, so it is not as bad as it looks.
The first set of amendments I tabled concern the duty for setting a tariff of surcharges and moving it from the harbour authorities, as currently provided for, to the Secretary of State. I will explain why I think this is important. The practice of harbour authorities surcharging is well established. When I was on the board of Harwich Haven we created surcharges as a way of funding specific objectives, such as channel deepening. They are always done after a process of negotiation with the shipping companies that will pay them. I am not going to say that they are always popular but they are generally accepted. At the end of it all, harbour authorities always have to be mindful of the competitiveness of their own ports. That holds them in check.
The problem is that what is being called a surcharge is not; it is a fine. There is a danger of muddying the water by taking a tried and tested system of surcharging, which is generally positive, and then turning it into something negative when it is really a fine. As I and the BPA understand it, the rate of surcharge or fine will be set by the harbour authorities with reference to the national living wage deficit—in other words, the difference between the actual amount paid to seafarers and the amount they should have been paid under the national minimum wage. The problem with that is that it makes it impossible to do what one normally would with fines and produce a tariff in advance. In the interests of transparency, that is pretty much always the case but in this the authorities could almost make it up as they went along. This puts harbour authorities in quite a difficult position. It would be much better to have a system of fines—and call them fines—and a tariff set by the Secretary of State.
That is linked with my amendment on conflicts of interest. It is really to try to get a sense from the Government about how harbour authorities are to manage this conflict of interest, given that port ownership in this country is very much a mixed model: Holyhead is privately owned, Dover is an independent trust and Portsmouth is owned by the local authority, while it is of course quite common for shipping companies to seek ownership of a harbour or terminal. The Committee can see that there would then be a direct conflict of interest in setting the surcharge or fine, so I would be interested in hearing more from the Government about that.
Then I have a group of amendments about the consequences of a shipping company failing to meet its obligations or to pay. What I envisage is that harbours would still request the declarations and pass them on to the MCA for enforcement. The Government would require HMRC to have the power to investigate vessel operators, and the MCA could levy fines for non-payment. Importantly, in the event of repeated infringements the MCA would have the power to detain the vessel. It sounds much more draconian to detain a vessel—does it not?—rather than deny access, as proposed in the Bill. In fact it is standard practice by port state control. I would not say that the MCA does it all the time, because it rarely comes to that, but it has that power and it is a way of dealing with vessels which do not meet their legal obligations.
Denial of access to harbours is an extremely important matter. It would require a derogation from the open port duty on harbour authorities but, even then, it would be a very draconian step. The International Chamber of Shipping has cited the OECD’s Understanding on Common Shipping Principles, which refers to
“non-discriminatory treatment … in … the assignment of berths and facilities”
and so on. It goes on to promote the freedom for shipping companies to promote the interests of “maintaining a competitive environment”. Can the Minister say whether she has had specific legal advice on compliance with these OECD common principles?
Finally, I have amendments which return to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. In Clause 11(2), the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to give directions to the harbour authorities to exercise their powers, or not to do so, or to exercise them in a particular way. It is worth quoting from the report. The committee says
“it is capable of being exercised not only in individual cases but generally, so as to have legislative effect: it would allow the Secretary of State to direct all harbour authorities that they must not, for example, impose surcharges or indeed exercise any of their powers”.
The committee finds this “startling”, and goes on to say that this clause
“should be removed from the Bill”.
I would be very interested to hear what the noble Baroness says about that.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, including some clause stand part notices, but first I must say that I support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about these issues. It will be very hard for ports to be responsible for setting tariffs when they are in competition with the ports next door—it does happen. The other thing that worries me about the ports being involved in this is that, again, it is not unknown for crew members to disappear off a ship or come on to a ship when they are in harbour. We do not need to go into detail, but it is all part of the competition, the regulation and the enforcement, which is terribly important.
On the question of conflicts of interest, again, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a number of ports are owned by shipping lines, but of course there are also other parts of ports—different quays or wharves—that are owned by a shipping line or by a different company that owns the actual harbour. My question then is, who will be responsible: the competent harbour authority or someone else? Take the Port of London Authority, which is the authority for the whole port, and Thamesport, which now has two or possibly three massive quays there: will the PLA be responsible, and would it like to be seen to be going in, interfering and getting information? I do not know the answer, but there is a conflict there.
Retaining vessels, as the noble Baroness again said, is actually quite common. It happened to us in Fowey about five years ago when a Russian vessel came in. It sat there, the tide went out and I suppose it probably ran aground on the bottom. Somebody went by in a small boat and found a hole in the side of the ship, well below the waterline, into which a dirty rag had been stuffed. The harbour authority, with the MCA’s support, quite rightly prevented that ship leaving until it had blocked up the hole with something better than a rag. Okay, that is not something you see every day, but it does happen.
Things happen to affect the proper management of a port. Sometimes ports are in competition, but they do not want to get into the position where they act as policeman to their own possible part owners, possible customers or anything else. I am sure the MCA and HMRC, as necessary, ought to be involved, so I support the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled as well as my own.
I shall finish, again, on the legal questions and the scope of the UK port state control powers, which is to do with the ability to levy surcharges—these, as the noble Baroness said, are like a fine—or issuing suspensions via the SHA. The advice from the international chamber is that the Government could potentially be exceeding the powers conferred on them under the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implement the UK’s international obligations under the IMO’s Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control in UK law. It suggests that the enforcement measures contemplated in the Bill should be aligned with and adhere to title 5 of the ILO MLC convention, which relates to “compliance and enforcement”. That is the third of what might be called my legal challenges to the Minister, which I hope I have put correctly. I can send her the briefing if she would like it; I am sure it would be useful to have a discussion about this when she has had a chance to read it.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, the case for the Secretary of State being responsible for surcharges was very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. To summarise, it sits much better with the Secretary of State. We have a situation in which the port authority is normally providing a service to the owner; the owner-operator is therefore a customer. To be, in effect, levying a fine on your customer is an unnatural state of affairs. In the interests of transparency and consistency, we should have one entity in the land deciding these things. They can vary from port to port and there may be special circumstances, but it is desirable to have one authority making the surcharge across the land.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Mountevans, for joining us on some of these amendments. I will briefly underline some of the points that my noble friend and those noble Lords made.
The complexity of expecting ports to do what is essentially the Government’s job for them will undermine the effectiveness of this legislation. Think about the use of the term “surcharge”. You pay a surcharge when you use a service voluntarily; it has no implication of illegality. If, however, a company finds itself paying a surcharge according to the rubric of this Bill when it becomes legislation, it will have broken the law. In other words, it is paying a surcharge as a fine—and a fine should be called a fine. I urge the Minister to look again at the phraseology here. Let us be clear: if companies are going to be fined, let us call it a fine.
The other issue is the complexity of expecting ports to deny access to the harbour. The international law on denying access to a harbour is complex and it would be difficult for them to do so. They would have to be absolutely sure that there is no question of danger to life. As a result, they will err on the side of caution and it will not happen. As both the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lady Scott said, detaining ships is a normal course of events. It is not done frequently but it is done, and for safety reasons as well. I urge the Government to have the courage of their convictions and give these powers to the Secretary of State, because they are much more appropriately those of the Secretary of State.
It is not as if the Government do not want to be involved, because Clause 11 gives them wide-ranging powers of direction. It essentially gives them control, so the Government want that control behind the scenes but do not have the courage to put their name on the notices. That is a strange approach, so I urge them to rethink the way this is to be done. The impact would be that well-meaning and very important legislation could be undermined. At the same time, it would put our ports in a difficult position, make their relationship with ship owners more complex and create for them, as other noble Lords said, a conflict of interest.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 12, which would create a minimum fine of £1 million. Whether that is the right figure, I am not sure, but the real concern is about the size of the owners; I believe that P&O’s owners have made $721 million in the past six months. There is a real risk that, if businesses of this size take an almost doctrinal opposition to the measure—the P&O debacle showed such a doctrinal opposition to reasonable conditions on board ships—a fine that is not substantial becomes just a cost of business. That would be regrettable; I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention but I would value some feedback from the Minister. How does one assure oneself that the fines are sufficiently large to impinge on the decision-making of these companies? There is a concern that good companies do the right thing anyway. The trouble is that we have a very real example in the recent past of one of these companies not doing the right thing; that is what provoked this legislation.
The second area concerns naming the inspector or inspectors. I tabled my amendment here to draw out how the world will know that this is happening. Organisations that have either a principal inspector or someone like that as a named individual are so much clearer as to who will be held to account for appropriate levels of activity. As a minimum, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me a feel for how quickly inspectors will be appointed and how many of them there will be, as well as assure us that there is adequate inspection capability. We know that this whole issue of minimum wage enforcement is pretty difficult in a land situation; at sea, it will be much more difficult to get the details to know whether an offence or the wrong charge has been committed.
With that, I come to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding the Secretary of State having the authority to determine the tariff, which will really be a fine. I think that harbour authorities are about harbours. I can see why they perhaps must be drawn in at one level but when it comes to becoming a policeman, in essence, that is what the state should be doing. I agree with the general thrust that this should be the Secretary of State’s responsibility.
Finally, I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the amendments addressing the DPRRC’s concerns.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this fourth and final group of amendments is concerned broadly with incentives, enforcement and compliance. There is a wide range of amendments herein. It has been helpful to have this discussion today.
I will start with Amendment 4, with which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, seeks to make requesting a national minimum wage equivalent declaration a duty rather than a power that can be used with some discretion. The payment of national minimum wage equivalent would be a condition of port entry and so should be a matter for the harbour authority to decide. Furthermore, by making this a “may” rather than a “must”, we are allowing for flexibility in circumstances where there might be overlapping harbour authorities, for example where a vessel transits through one harbour authority’s area of jurisdiction to call at a port within another harbour authority area of jurisdiction. There may be other circumstances that noble Lords can think of where it is not necessary that this declaration is shared every single time. It should be noted that the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct harbour authorities to request a declaration, so there are necessary safeguards against harbour authorities not discharging this function properly.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
The noble Baroness promised to write letters. Will it be a common letter to all of us?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Yes. I tend to do one letter addressed to all noble Lords present. A copy will be placed in the Library. It will be lengthy, but it will be set out by topic and cover, with as much detail as I can, things that I have not been able to cover today and any additional information that would be helpful to noble Lords.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and to the noble Baroness for her explanation and response to the points raised in this group of amendments. I am very grateful in particular that she will look again at the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations. I should have said earlier that I am a member of that committee.
I wonder whether, having heard the almost unanimous view expressed this afternoon about the effective delegation of authority to harbour authorities, the Government would be prepared to look at that a little further. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Health Taxes
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to extend the use of health taxes in the wider fiscal system.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, given both the historically high tax burden and the cost of living pressures facing families, the Government have no current plans to extend the use of health taxes. Nevertheless, having a fit and healthy population is essential for a thriving economy and we remain committed to doing everything we can to help people live healthier lives, including by investing in sports and nutrition education to give children the very best start.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, as you would expect, I am rather disappointed with that reply, although it is not unexpected. I hope the Government are prepared to review their position on this. In 30 years, we have had 14 different strategies on health, yet we now have more obesity, more diabetes and more health problems related to overeating and overdrinking. The two factors that have had the biggest impact on behavioural change are, first, on smoking, the increase in price introduced by my party, which the Tories opposed. That was the biggest factor that changed attitudes. Secondly, I commend the Government for their work on the special levy on soft drinks introduced in 2019. There are rumours that it is to be abandoned, so will the Minister confirm that they will not abandon it? As it takes time to work these issues through, would he agree to meet with Imperial College to look at the work that has been done on taxation and how it can be brought into being without increasing the cost of living greatly?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
There were a number of questions there. Tackling obesity is a major priority for this Government and we are taking up a mixture of issues. We continue to invest in supporting public health and tackling obesity. This includes a £200 million a year programme to continue the holidays, activities and food programme. To come back to the noble Lord’s points, the soft drinks levy has had an effect. Some 44% of drinks now have a reduced sugar level and that is feeding through to 36,000 individuals being less likely to become obese.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
May I begin by drawing the Government’s attention to the food strategy published by President Biden about 10 days ago? It is a brilliant document which will, I hope, be enacted into law. Yesterday morning, on the “Today” show, at exactly 7.55 am, Thérèse Coffey said, in response to a question on why the Government are withdrawing restrictions on two for one offers at supermarkets because of the cost of living crisis, “We have a more positive approach to obesity than two for one”. Could the Minister explain what that is?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As I said, there are a number of initiatives to tackle obesity. Of course, I am aware of three for two or two for one offers. As we know, restrictions on these were due to come into force on 1 October 2022 and there are some extremely good reasons why they have been delayed.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is my noble friend aware of the independent Khan review into smoking, commissioned by Sajid Javid and published in June? It recommended a polluter pays levy on tobacco companies to fund the policies necessary to enable the Government to hit their own target of a smoke-free Britain by 2030. Can my noble friend assure me that the Treasury is giving serious consideration to that recommendation?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank my noble friend. His question allows me to bring in an answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, as well. Over the past decade, the Government have made significant steps towards making England smoke free by 2030. We have continued to provide funding to local authorities and stop-smoking services via the public health grant. We have also provided additional resources as part of the NHS long-term plan. To answer my noble friend’s question, the Government are carefully considering the recommendation set out in the independent Khan review.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that in the decade following 2010 life expectancy in the UK stalled for the first time in 120 years? When does he expect people to be able to start living a bit longer?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
It is a continuing initiative and a continuing battle to fight obesity. It is a really important issue and a cross-government initiative. I mentioned already the holiday, activities and food programme, but also bring in education, as this is also a matter of educating parents. All in all, we need to continue to do our very best to lower levels of obesity not just in adults but particularly in children.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the 40 million people in this country who are obese and overweight put fewer calories into their mouths, the NHS would save £27 billion? Could the Department of Health have a slogan: “Slim your waist and slim your wallet: put fewer calories into your mouth”?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very aware that the latest estimate of the annual cost to the NHS in the UK of obesity-related ill health is around £6.5 billion—that is the 2021 figure. I add that physical activity and a healthy diet both have important roles to play in supporting people to improve and maintain healthy lifestyles. However, for those who are overweight or obese, eating and drinking less is one of the most important factors.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Treasury said last week that it will not be changing or reviewing the three-year public spending settlement. However, last Friday, the NHS chief finance officer said that that will result in a further £20 billion of efficiency savings as a result of the increased costs that the NHS is having to pay following inflation, and two-thirds of the new integrated commissioning services started by this Government on 1 July are already in deficit because of inflation. How will the NHS will cope with pressures on top of the existing pressures it has with the backlog of cases?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Government are very much aware of the pressures that the NHS is facing. I think we will have to wait until 31 October for the fiscal plan to understand exactly how expenditure will work out in line with the OBR forecast and in line with how we intend to roll out our growth programme. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that the NHS is vital; there are a lot of pressures and issues to tackle.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My apologies to the noble Baroness. Following on from her question, is the problem still that the Treasury, when measuring the cost-efficiency of sensible policies such as the tax on sugar, does not offset expenditure in one department against gains made in another—in this case the Department of Health and the NHS? Can the noble Viscount tell the House whether that is still the Treasury’s practice?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am unable to confirm that. However, I can confirm—I think this is common knowledge—that a review on efficiency is under way and, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we will have to wait a couple of weeks or so to see how this will pan out.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does my noble friend share my concern that many people in the NHS do not keep their appointments? Has the NHS considered having an appointment fee, which of course could be repayable if the appointment was kept?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I feel certain that that has been considered but I am afraid I am none the wiser as to whether it might be taken forward. Again, I will write to my noble friend if I have any update on that initiative.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to the Minister’s answers. I wonder whether he recalls the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. In his answer he referred to “extremely good reasons” for the delay to the implementation of the previous arrangements about buy one, get one free. Can he tell us what those extremely good reasons are? I hoped he would have done so by now.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is a fair point from the noble Baroness. How long does she have? But if I may answer that very briefly, obviously, we are aware of the pressures that people are under, particularly those in the lower economic groups, so we felt it was right to effect a delay for a year.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government can send messages out to food manufacturers? They warn us of the dire consequences of increasing prices but, if they are told that there is going to be a tax, they often find ways of avoiding it and lowering the calorific content of some of these foods.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is right. It is why the Government continue to work with industry to help deliver healthier foods and to encourage healthier eating. We want to ensure that we have a system in place to deliver healthy and affordable food for all, which also takes account of our great agricultural sector.
Energy Supplies
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of (1) increased fracking and oil and gas extraction on energy costs for consumers, and (2) the time frame required for such supplies to come on stream in comparison with renewable energy capacity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, measuring the impact of any specific gas project or energy costs for consumers is inherently complex. The UK is not isolated from international markets. Shale gas can also support energy security. Renewable energy sources have a wide range of development timeframes. The process of extracting onshore shale gas can be relatively rapid and scalable but will always depend on specific development factors.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his reply; I will not call it an Answer. I am sure that he is extremely embarrassed by his Government’s ditching of one of their election promises not to frack any more. I would like a yes or no answer to a question. If local people—and perhaps even the local council—are against fracking in their area, as for example is the Tory-led council in East Riding, will the Government accept that and allow no fracking in their area?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that local support for fracking projects is very important. It is one of the factors that we will take into account.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, more than a million shale wells have been drilled in North America and elsewhere. There is no record of a single building having been shaken down by the occasional microtremors, nor of a single person being poisoned by allegedly contaminated aquifers. Is not the scaremongering of the anti-frackers as bad as that of the anti-vaxxers? Should it not be treated similarly?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. A number of scare stories have been circulating, although I would gently point out that many parts of America are much less densely populated than many parts of the UK.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is well understood that fracking will take some time to develop, and it is more expensive than many renewables. As an alternative, solar is renewable, a lot cheaper and can be implemented much more quickly. Can the Government guarantee that they will not restrict further the rollout of solar in the country during the next couple of years?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Not only can I guarantee that but we will be expanding renewables production. We need to do both. We need to roll out renewables, which have a good track record. They are relatively cheap, but they are intermittent—it is no good telling people that they can keep their lights on for only 60% of the time. The real watchword is that we need diversity of supply. We need more renewables; we need gas; we need nuclear; we need biomass production—we need all of them.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests. I welcome the Government’s movement on the planning regime for onshore wind. I also endorse the need to change the illogical charging regime for electricity generation which was announced today. How will the Government ensure that funding for research and investment in renewables is maintained, given the effective windfall tax on renewables that is being introduced, when the detrimental effect on investment in research on oil and gas was the reason for not having a windfall tax on those industries?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the first part of the question from the noble Baroness, but we do have a windfall tax on oil and gas producers: the energy price profits levy was announced earlier in the year. We do not propose a windfall tax on renewables. I welcome her support for increased supplies of wind energy.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister’s previous answer mean that the suggestion that the local people will have a say is meaningless, because the Government will overrule them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, that is not what I said—if the noble Lord would care to consult Hansard. I said that local support is extremely important. It is one of the factors that we will be looking to see demonstrated before any hydraulic fracturing licences are issued.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, as a former Member of the European Parliament for North West England, and for many months in this House, even before the invasion of Ukraine, I have been a vocal supporter of the reintroduction of shale gas extraction in the Bowland fields in Lancashire. The protesters at the time generally were not those who lived there, but people who came from outside. We are also now aware of the fearmongering propaganda against fracking across Europe and the UK, which emanated from Russia. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure this House that the process will go ahead?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that my noble friend has been a long-standing supporter of fracking. There are a lot of steps to go through. There could be potential for large amounts of shale gas. We do not yet know. Local planning will still need to happen, the licences will need to be issued, the Secretary of State will want to be reassured that it is still safe in operation et cetera, but it is certainly a potential that we are looking at.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Government of Wales have banned fracking, not just on the question of environmental impact in the conventional sense but because of the uncertainty of the underground workings in many of the coalfields and other mineral areas of Wales. In those circumstances, in the context of the possibility of fracking in west Cheshire and the Wirral, and the uncertainty about many of the underground tunnels in the industrial area of Flintshire, can he ensure that there is close co-operation and discussion with the Government of Wales before any consent is given on the eastern side of the border?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Welsh Government are of course responsible for policies, planning et cetera in Wales, and the British Government are responsible for that in England.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, many of the issues that we are discussing today could be covered in the Energy Bill. What has happened to it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, we have had some extensive debates, as the noble Baroness knows. We had an excellent Second Reading and two days in Committee. I am sure that we will want to look at when that returns to the House.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, do the Government accept that public and community support for fracking projects and others such as onshore wind could be greatly increased if it was made easier—perhaps even mandated—for companies to share the revenue directly with local consumers in the environment of the projects where they are either fracked or where the wind turbines go up?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord speaks a great deal of sense. They are eminently sensible suggestions and of course local communities will want to feel the benefit of any procedures that they consent to in their areas.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, following up that point, does my noble friend agree that energy from waste is very much the way forward, and will he ensure that any benefits go to the local community from electricity generated from waste?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to agree with my noble friend that energy from waste is an excellent production technique. There are many successful energy-from-waste projects; it is another technology that will make a contribution to our energy supply.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, a short while ago in the Commons, the Prime Minister stated that fracking would go ahead only where there was community support, and the Minister has just corroborated that. Can he categorically state that community support will be gauged neither by the fracking companies themselves, of which there is a rumour, nor by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s department, given the debacle of his consultation on imperial measurements, in which “no” was not an option?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to hear from the noble Baroness the great news that the Prime Minister agrees with me and has said the same thing, which is always good for a Minister to hear. However, the reality is that the issuing of hydraulic fracturing consents is a matter for BEIS and the Secretary of State for BEIS.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, as many speakers have alluded to, there is little evidence to suggest that fracking is the answer to the current energy crisis. However, reducing our collective energy demand would improve energy security and lower prices. Why was the Government-led campaign to encourage household energy savings scrapped?
Lord Callanan (Con)
If I can just correct the noble Lord: fracking is not the only answer; it is one of the potential answers to energy security. As I said earlier, we need a diverse range of supply. I remind the House that while we have our own domestic supplies of gas, we still import a considerable amount of very carbon-intensive LNG. If fracking gas—shale gas—can replace some of that, then that is a net carbon saving.
With regard to information, the Government will continue to promote all our energy efficiency schemes. We will continue to provide information to consumers on ways that energy can be saved and, more importantly, on how they can reduce their bills. There is one pre-eminent technology that everybody should do, which is to turn down the flow temperature of your condensing boiler: you will end up with the same temperature, the boiler will run much more efficiently, and you will save 8% to 10% on your gas bills.
Children in Care
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Laming
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the quality of life of children in care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we want to improve children and young people’s lives and outcomes, to strengthen families and to realise the benefits of establishing firm and loving foundations early in life. It was for this reason that we asked Josh MacAlister to review the children’s social care system, engaging directly with those with experience of care. This, with other reviews, has provided a comprehensive assessment, and we are committed to publishing an ambitious and detailed implementation strategy later this year.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful. The noble Baroness has vast experience and well understands that children do not come into care unless they have had an awful start to their young lives. It is for that reason that the state has to intervene and be a good parent to these children. Recent reports indicate that some of these children are having numerous placements in their young lives, which often entails a change to a different school, therefore reinforcing the instability in their lives. Are the Government willing to look at why these children are having these multiple placements and what can be done to improve the quality of their lives in care?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of stability. There is clear evidence of a link between changes in care placements and a decrease in outcomes at key stage 4. Seven out of 10 children in care have one placement a year, although the noble Lord is right to focus on the three in 10 who have multiple placements. We are using data to inform our policy, and next month will publish our stability index. I would be delighted to meet with the noble Lord and other noble Lords who are interested in this important issue, to go through that data.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the latest Department for Education figures indicate that only 13% of care leavers actually go on to higher education. That figure has not changed in five years. Many universities are already improving their offers to care leavers, but the figures have remained stubbornly low. Can the Minister tell us what the main barriers are, and what the Government are doing to improve these vital opportunities for care leavers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point, and she will be aware that, sadly, some of those figures are mirrored during a child in care’s educational experience. We are working very hard with virtual school heads to support children in the care system throughout their education, and we have support for them beyond. The noble Baroness will be aware that over half of these children have a SEND diagnosis, which also has an impact, obviously, on higher education.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What support are the Government giving to charities like the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation in their efforts to secure places in both state and independent boarding schools for looked-after children who would benefit from such places? Is it not the case that these places cost less than local authority childcare and greatly enhance the academic prospects of the pupils concerned?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The department is grateful for the work that the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation does and works closely with it. My noble friend makes a good point. A child in care obviously faces a wide range of challenges starting from their early childhood, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, pointed out. Therefore, the role of the local authority in supporting children in all those aspects is critical.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, the quality of life of children in care is clearly a matter of grave concern, but I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the Children’s Society latest The Good Childhood Report, which suggests deep concern about the continuing decline in the well-being of children generally. As expected, the current cost of living crisis is having a significant effect on families: 85% of parents and carers, the report suggests, are very concerned about the future. The Children’s Society report suggests ways forward. Is the Minister aware of them? Faster rollout of mental health support, a permanent boost to social security lifelines and extended help with school lunches are among them. Will the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As a department, we look at all those options, but on the one hand we need to recognise the extraordinary challenges children faced particularly through Covid—particularly teenagers while their schools were closed—but we also need to acknowledge that we are in an economy with more opportunity and more job opportunities than ever before. I think we need to be empathetic to their experience but also optimistic for their futures.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister will be aware that, over the past decade, an increasing number of children and young people have been put in placements outside their home area—there has been something like a 28% increase. Just imagine the trauma and mental anguish that that causes. We find that very vulnerable children often go missing. It is important that children relate to their area. Rather than more words, what can we practically do to ensure that this practice ceases?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think more money rather than more words. We have supported local authorities to meet their statutory duties through capital investment totalling £259 million, which will allow them to maintain and expand capacity in their areas.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, most children in the care system live with foster parents, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude for their dedication, but many foster parents report that they are not given sufficient information about the background of these children, many of whom have had traumatic experiences, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, pointed out. Confidentiality is often given as the reason for this, but does the Minister agree that, if foster parents are going to deal adequately with the behavioural problems that may arise, they need to be as fully informed as possible about the background of these children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. If it would help to meet some foster parents to understand those issues better, I would be delighted to do so.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Welsh Government have opened a consultation on eliminating profit-making residential and fostering provision for children in care. The Welsh Minister responsible said that
“Children … have told us that they do not want to be cared for by privately owned organisations that make a profit from their experience”.
Are the Government considering something similar for England, and have they asked children in care how they feel about profit being made from their experience?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government share the concerns that the noble Baroness raises about some providers making excessive profits, but I am sure she is aware that neither the care review nor the Competition and Markets Authority report has recommended banning for-profit provision.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, taking up the point made by the right reverend Prelate, what steps are the Government taking to reduce child poverty to prevent children having to be looked after?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think we have to be careful about too much of a causal link between poverty and a child being taken into care, although I accept that poverty puts a great deal of strain on a family. The Government have taken a wide range of measures, from support with household energy bills and others that the noble Baroness will be aware of, to support families under pressure.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Just this week, it has been reported that a vulnerable young person in crisis with multiple complex needs was held in a hospital for months on end instead of an appropriate secure children’s home because there simply are not enough secure places. Do the Government believe they are doing enough for looked-after children with complex needs?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think that we are doing as much as we can, but we absolutely acknowledge the issue. Following the different independent reviews that have been commissioned, we are considering the issues in the round at the moment and will come back, I am confident, with a very strong response.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I am a patron of a secure unit down in Exeter. One of its main concerns is a lack of funding to get sufficient staff and sufficient training. What will the strategy do about that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot anticipate exactly what the strategy with do, as the noble and learned Baroness is aware. The cost of a child or young person being in a secure unit is extremely high, and we will be looking at the detail of how we can make sure that recruitment needs are addressed.
Iran: Women’s Rights
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent events in Iran and the impact of those events on women's rights in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the death of Mahsa Amini in Iran is a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women in Iran. I am sure I join all noble Lords in commending the bravery of ordinary Iranians seeking to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in the face of appalling police violence. We urge Iran to listen to its people, exercise restraint, lift internet restrictions, release unfairly detained protesters and ensure women can play an equal role in society. The position of the United Kingdom Government is clear: through our words, our sanctions and indeed our work with international partners we will hold Iran to account.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister. The bravery of the women of Iran, especially the very young women, is highly inspiring. Does the Minister agree that this is the wrong time for the World Service to be closing its Persia radio service? It is a technology which is highly relied on in times of difficulty. As the Minister said, with digital repression, moving to a wholly digital platform will not offer the kind of support that this service does. The Government put forward emergency funding for Ukraine for the World Service in the spring, so will they step in? If the difficulties in Iran escalate then we may be in a position where we have to offer safe refuge for women in Iran. Will the Government start preparations now for a resettlement scheme, so we do not repeat the errors of previous schemes with delays in having them up and running?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the important role the BBC plays both in Iran and elsewhere in the world. Although it is operationally and editorially independent from the Government, we recognise that the BBC World Service plays a very important role. The FCDO is providing the BBC World Service with over £94 million annually for the next three years, supporting services in 12 languages. Of course, I hear very carefully what the noble Lord has said. BBC Persia itself and the journalists have suffered great suppression. We have spoken out very clearly and loudly against that suppression as well.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said about rights for women and declare my interests as in the register. When the Minister next meets a counterpart from Iran, will he point out to them that even Saudi Arabia is liberalising dress restrictions and has confined the religious police to barracks, and that Iran is in danger of becoming more restrictive even than Saudi Arabia? Will he not agree that, if the president of Iran wants it to be believed that wearing the hijab is a personal choice, he should not insist that western journalists interviewing him in New York wear the hijab?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with my noble friend but I would go further. It is not the president of Iran; Islam states that it is a woman’s choice. It is the religion that gives women the choice. We cannot have coercive practices. It is a woman’s choice as to whether she wears the hijab, the niqab, or no hijab or niqab at all. That is what should prevail in Iran and elsewhere.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, in his initial Answer the Minister said that the Government would hold the Government of Iran to account for their treatment of women. How does he propose that the British Government do so?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have great regard and respect for the noble Baroness, who has played an important role on women’s rights across the world, including in Iran. Specifically on this point, only yesterday we sanctioned further individuals, particularly those in the morality police. We are working in conjunction with our key partners, including the United States and the European Union, because acting together we can not just limit Iran but restrict it and show it that we mean business in this sense.
Lord Suri (Con)
Events on women’s rights in Iran are not acceptable to anyone in the world. Iran should learn the lesson that women have equal rights with men. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, reminded the world five and a half centuries ago that women are to be not degraded by men but looked upon as those who give birth to all, men and women, kings and the poor.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Indeed, all the major faiths put women at their heart. The first person in Islam to accept the Prophet Muhammad’s mission was a woman. He was working for her. She employed him. She proposed to him. In Christianity—my children go to Catholic school—mother Mary has an esteemed and respected status. In all religions and faiths, women are central, pivotal guides and figures. All people around the world, if they claim to follow a particular religion or faith, should live up to that living example of their own scriptures.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, with teenage girls being beaten to death in the streets for protesting, I press the Minister to agree that now is not the right time for the World Service to scrap its Persian radio service. Digital services are all very well, but if internet access is blocked or restricted, as in Iran, the radio can be a lifeline. Can the Minister say what the Government can do about the disturbing increase in harassment by the Iranian authorities of the families in Iran of London-based BBC Persian staff?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have already alluded to the noble Baroness’s second point; we have called that out specifically. I have heard very clearly from both the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness about its importance, and I assure your Lordships’ House, as the Minister now responsible for our relationship with Iran, that this is something I will take back. I will update the House accordingly.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the sanctions against the morality police, and I welcome them. He said he was liaising with other countries. Can he tell us how many other countries have adopted exactly the same policy? On his point about faith groups, and following on from the FoRB conference, what are we doing to amplify the voices he mentioned to ensure that we isolate radicals? It is not simply faith groups that are articulating these sorts of practices. Amplify those voices.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I totally agree with him. I often hear that we need to give women a voice. For God’s sake, if I may say so in this place, we are living in 2022; women have a voice. They have a clear and pivotal role to play in every society and country. When women are central to any society or country, it prospers. It is not me saying this; the evidence suggests so. The noble Lord is right: whether it is freedom of faith, of religion or of belief, we must ensure that all voices stand up and that women play the pivotal, progressive and necessary role that the world needs. Whether it is conflict resolution or society’s progress, women must be at the heart and soul of every country.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the Revolutionary Guard’s violent oppression against dissidents inside Iran has long extended beyond Iran’s borders. This summer’s attempted murder of Sir Salman Rushdie, last year’s attempted kidnapping of Iranian women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad and numerous foiled plots are only the tip of the iceberg. The Revolutionary Guard represents a present danger to anyone the Iranian regime believes is a threat. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to proscribe the Revolutionary Guard to protect civilians outside Iran as well as those within Iran?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord about the destabilising activities of the IRGC. Under our sanctions policy, about 78 sanctions on Iran are in place, including those restricting the destabilising activities of the Revolutionary Guard. I note what the noble Lord says about proscription, but he knows that I cannot give him that assurance at this time. We keep all issues such as proscribing organisations on the table. I will reflect on the noble Lord’s comments, and I am sure that others will as well.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I commend the bravery and resilience of the Iranian women, and I commend the men who are standing shoulder to shoulder with them. I welcome the Government’s sanctions on the morality police, but will they really be effective? How many of them will travel to the UK or hold assets here? Could we extend these sanctions to more senior political figures, and to other sectors—for example, by working with sporting bodies to ban Iranian athletes and sporting teams from competing in international competitions? Would that be more impactful?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first welcome the noble Baroness. I have not yet had an opportunity to answer a question from her, so I welcome her to this House. I also welcome her insights on this matter and other issues. She raised the important issue of alignment, which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also mentioned. We are working with the United States and other key partners, including the European Union, on sanctions policy—when we act together, it is more effective. The noble Baroness raised a number of other areas where we can perhaps also act. I cannot speculate, but we will keep all options under consideration.
Business of the House
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That, in the event of the Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 17 October to allow the Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.
House of Lords Commission
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 11 October. Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 11 October. Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Ukraine
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I stress once again our full support for the Government’s actions to support Ukraine against Russia’s illegal invasion. Yesterday, the Secretary-General of NATO made it clear that the recent missile attacks on many Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv, killing and injuring many innocent civilians, including children in their playgrounds, represent a significant escalation of the conflict. Can the Minister update the Chamber on the further provision of more anti-missile and anti-air capability, as requested by the Ukrainians? Can she also say how quickly that can be provided to enable the Ukrainians to deal with more attacks of this nature?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the tenor of his remarks, which is greatly appreciated. I think we all agree that what we witnessed from Russia in Ukraine was absolutely barbaric; it was brutalism, it was unforgivable, it was completely unacceptable, and indeed it constitutes a condition of war crimes. As the noble Lord will be aware, the UK has been very supportive and selective in the equipment that it has been offering. For example, we have found that artillery has played a huge part in this conflict, and we have supplied that. As he identified, air defence systems are extremely important. Monday’s attack shows that we were absolutely right to make bolstering Ukraine’s air defences a priority for UK military support. We are liaising on a daily basis with the Ukrainian Government, and we continue to respond to the requests to supply more defence and military equipment. I will be crystal clear to your Lordships: the MoD is utterly resolved to continue that support.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I also associate myself with the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench that we strongly support the Government’s response to support Ukraine from the outset of the conflict six months ago. In his response yesterday, Minister Shelbrooke gave a list of the commitments that the MoD has already made. The noble Baroness has just reiterated the MoD’s commitment to continue giving as much support as possible to Ukraine. While that is welcome, we need some reassurance that the MoD has enough ammunition and other supplies—either available or coming on stream—so that these commitments can actually be delivered. Can the Minister reassure us of that?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That is an important question about an issue which I know occupies the thoughts of many. I reassure the House that the Ministry of Defence continually manages and analyses our stock of weapons and munitions against commitments and threats, while reviewing industrial capacity and supply chains both domestically and internationally. These considerations have informed both the numbers of munitions granted in kind to the armed forces of Ukraine and their avenues of supply. We remain fully engaged with industry allies and partners, and, as I said earlier, the MoD is utterly resolved to continue with this important support in kind.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, very sadly, it is highly likely that the barbaric—as my noble friend rightly said—treatment that has been meted out in Ukraine this week could lead to more refugees and more refuges for refugees. I am told—I hope this is wrong—that there is currently no Minister specifically answerable for refugee issues in either House, following the sad departure of my noble friend Lord Harrington. Can my noble friend clarify this?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is certainly somewhat outwith my ministerial responsibility. I understand that there is an overall responsibility falling on the Home Office, and I am sure that the Government will clarify specifically how they wish to address these issues. I am aware that very positive work has been going on already in relation to the Homes for Ukraine initiative in this country, which has been very successful, and we are very conscious of continuing to support it beyond the six-month period.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, as we contemplate the possible escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, the West is strikingly united. However, the key external player is China. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House about contacts with Beijing to ensure that the Chinese are also conveying the necessary messages to Moscow?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, the whole thrust of what the UK has been engaged in has been partly unilateral with Ukraine and partly multilateral and bilateral in conjunction with our partners and allies—that is very much a western response. I quite agree with him: China could have a very important role of influence to play. We maintain diplomatic relations with China, and I am certain that, through the usual conduits, representations will be made.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what efforts the Government are making to support those—Ukrainian prosecutors in particular, as well as international efforts—who are now part of the big effort to try to prosecute, document and investigate the war crimes committed by Russian forces?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
From a fairly early stage, we volunteered our support for, and co-operation with, the International Criminal Court, which is the pivot for driving forward both the investigation of the commission of crimes and the gathering of the evidence that will be necessary if these crimes are to be successfully prosecuted. We have provided advice and expertise, and we continue to do that. We are in constant communication with the International Criminal Court, and we want to play our full part in supporting the multinational initiative to bring war criminals to justice.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the destruction of towns, cities and villages across Ukraine, as we all know, is continuing and the damage to the Ukrainian economy is getting worse. Therefore, the cost of sustaining Ukraine and rebuilding afterwards will be very considerable. I have just returned from a conference in a European Union state where there was much discussion of how we manage the very large long-term effort to support and rebuild Ukraine on a multilateral basis, through the European Union, the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and a number of other multilateral institutions. Can the Government assure us that not only will they play their full part in that multilateral effort but that the visceral hatred of many Ministers for anything to do with the European Union will not get in the way of making sure we do so?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I was finding myself largely in sympathy with the noble Lord’s remarks until that point. To be clear, I have never displayed any visceral hatred of or towards the EU, and many of my colleagues are in exactly the same position. The EU has been a very important presence in the multinational response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. I think we all recognise the fundamental values of respect for law, democracy and sovereignty of a country. That conjunction of resolve and will, including the EU’s approach and support in all this, has been extremely important. Rebuilding Ukraine will be a huge challenge, but I think every state and the EU will want to play their part.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I look forward to the forthcoming public vote at the United Nations General Assembly condemning Russian annexation of the four Ukrainian territories and, I understand, calling for a negotiated settlement. That will pass easily but, despite these recent indiscriminate attacks, as the Secretary-General described them, it looks likely that there will be a large number of abstentions from the majority of the developing world. Can the Minister say why so many countries remain non-aligned and what steps are being taken to address their concerns? In that context, would she accept that, with so many developing countries feeling the impact of the war, the Government should not look to balance their own books by cutting the aid budget further?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Although I am sympathetic to the tone of the right reverend Prelate’s questions, they are all outwith my ministerial responsibility. However, I hear what he is saying and am sure that those with influence in these matters will be listening carefully to him.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, I welcome everything that my noble friend has said. With this awful illegal war dragging on and potential escalation, have the Government made an assessment of Ukraine fatigue setting in in the public mood and mainstream media in this country?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
All the evidence suggests that the country beginning to experience depleted morale and to pose questions about the morality and wisdom of this illegal war is Russia and the advisers surrounding Putin. The morale of the Ukrainian people under the extraordinary leadership of President Zelensky is very clear to me; I think we are universal in our admiration for it. He really is a figurehead who inspires, motivates, encourages and reassures. Our job, along with our other allies and partners, is to stand absolutely shoulder to shoulder in supporting him and his people and ensure that their morale, which shows no sign of flagging, remains high.
Electronic Trade Documents Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 View all Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 View all Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 October 2022 - (11 Oct 2022)
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 View all Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (10 Oct 2022)
18:41 - Division on Amendment 28 - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 28 agreed.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(2A) Regulations under this section must, among other things, include security requirements that—(a) prohibit the setting of universal default passwords and the ability to set weak or easily guessable passwords;(b) require the production and maintenance by manufacturers of regular publicly-available reports of security vulnerabilities; (c) ensure the provision of information to the consumer, before the contract for the sale or supply of a relevant connectable product is made, detailing the minimum length of time for which the consumer will receive software or other relevant updates for that product;(d) introduce appropriate minimum periods for the provision of security updates and support, taking into account factors including the reasonable expectations of consumers, the type and purpose of the connectable products concerned and any other relevant considerations.(2B) Regulations under this section must include provision that all security requirements specified in accordance with this Act are included as essential requirements in statutory conformity assessments and marking procedures under the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1206), and in any other such assessments and procedures applicable to relevant connectable products.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expressly sets out on the face of the Bill security requirements, which this bill seeks to establish through future regulations, providing specific legal guidance regarding the individual security requirements and obligations on relevant parties.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendment 13. My noble friend Lord Fox will speak to Amendment 3 in the same group. First, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to his new role in DCMS and join others in that welcome. I am sure he has already found the company of those who speak on DCMS matters very congenial, but he will also note that there are a number of all-purpose vehicles here, so he has probably met quite a number of us already.
In Committee, we called for the three security requirements to be set out expressly in Part 1 of the Bill. At the moment they are promised in secondary legislation without any draft being available, as is, I am afraid, the Government’s consistently bad habit. Customers need absolute clarity on the support period that manufacturers will offer so that they are able to make more informed purchasing decisions. I cannot understand why the Minister’s predecessor insisted in Committee that the minimum security requirements should be stated in secondary, not primary, legislation. He said it was important that technology regulation enables the Government to respond to changes in threat and technology and to the regulatory landscape; surely, these are security principles which should endure.
As for mandating minimum security updates for periods for connectable products, the Minister said that there is no consensus among industry experts on how long security updates ought to last. This is foggy thinking—how can the Government not have taken a view? Contrast the approach of the European Union, which has recently published its own equivalent Cyber Resilience Act. Crucially, the EU has imposed a five-year mandatory minimum period in which products must receive security updates. A rigid five-year period is not necessarily desirable, but the commitment to set out in legislation a mandated period in which products receive security support is very welcome. Before Third Reading the Government really should undertake to look closely at the EU proposals and tighten up the Bill. Why should EU consumers get a better deal than UK ones?
As regards Amendment 13, on computer misuse, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, introduced this amendment in Committee and this one is exactly the same. Under regulations that will be introduced following the passage of the Bill, manufacturers will be required to provide a public point of contact to report vulnerabilities. However, without a statutory defence in the Computer Misuse Act, it is clear that cybersecurity researchers can still face spurious legal action for reporting a vulnerability to a company which can decide on a whim to ignore its vulnerability disclosure policy—a practice known as “liability dumping”. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that cybersecurity professionals who act in the public interest in relation to testing relevant connectable products can defend themselves from prosecution by the state and from unjust civil litigation.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seemed to say conflicting things. He said that the key thing is to set professional standards to measure the competence and capability of security testers, and that that is why the Government set up the UK Cyber Security Council last year. On the one hand, he said:
“We should be encouraging this rather than creating a route to allow people to sidestep these important issues.”
On the other, he said that the Government are listening to the concerns expressed by the CyberUp campaign and that the Home Secretary had announced a review of the Computer Misuse Act. The Minister said:
“The evidence which is being submitted to the review is being assessed and considered carefully by the Home Office.”—[Official Report, 21/6/22; col. 212.]
Are the Government positive or negative on this? What approach are they taking? We are past the summer now, in any event. Is there any prospect of change to the Act? I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his new role. I think DCMS will be at least as busy as his previous engagements, so we look forward to seeing him on his feet at the Dispatch Box quite a lot.
The unifying feature of these three amendments, which in policy terms are different, is that we are seeking some clarity. So, I support my noble friend in Amendments 1 and 13, and I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name. Given that online marketplaces represent the single most popular point of sale for connected products, these platforms should have responsibilities for the security of the products they are selling. That is what we are seeking clarity on today. If online marketplaces are not held responsible under the Bill, these insecure products will continue to be sold and, in all likelihood, their sale would become more prolific.
One of the last things the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did as Minister was to dispatch a letter to me in response to queries such as this raised in Committee about the status of online marketplaces—the fear being that channels such as listings platforms and auction sites such as eBay, Amazon Marketplace and AliExpress might present a loophole. The problem is the lack of clear definition for the various players that are part of the internet value chain and the fact that these players have different degrees of insight or control over what is happening online.
As the Minister will see from his predecessor’s letter, dated 21 September 2022, the department’s stated position for online marketplaces is that,
“businesses need to comply with the security requirements of the product security regime in relation to all new consumer connectable products offered to customers in the UK, including those sold through online marketplaces”.
I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm this from the Dispatch Box. It is paramount that online marketplaces are given this obligation in the Bill to ensure this security, regardless of whether the seller is a third party. It would help very much if the Minister set out what the Government’s definition of an online marketplace is.
How does the Minister’s department plan to deal with the retailers, which are far away, possibly with their real identity obscured on the online marketplaces? Will the department go to the online marketplace first and how will that process be marshalled? In other words, when a customer has a problem, who do they contact?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, before I make any comments on this group, I join noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord to his new position on the Front Bench. I think this Bill is a gentle introduction, and this afternoon will probably give voice to that sentiment. I do welcome him. We have been delighted by the general response we have had from the department on the Bill and the open way in which the noble Lord’s predecessor approached things. I am sure the noble Lord will continue very much in that vein.
This amendment was resisted when we were discussing these matters in Committee, on the basis that minimum requirements will swiftly be set out in regulations. Regulations are not always swift in coming, so perhaps it would be useful for the Minister to remind us how quick that will be. Is he in a position today to commit to a timescale for the full details to be brought forward? This is, after all, an important piece of protective legislation, as noble Lords around the House today have made clear, and, given that it is about protecting customers and consumers, it is important that we have some assurance on that point.
The questions that our noble friends on the Lib Dem Benches have asked are very important ones and they require to be answered. Although the Minister will no doubt resist these amendments, it would help us if we had some further reassurance, perhaps before we get to Third Reading. However, we are grateful for the written assurances that the Minister’s predecessor offered in relation to online marketplaces, and we hope that the current provisions will prove effective. I ask the Minister to outline how the Government would amend those provisions should that need arise in future. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was always willing to provide us with some written responses, and that would probably suffice for us for today’s debate and deliberations. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who gave me a warm welcome—and indeed those who did not. Many noble Lords will know me from my work in the previous department. In the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who was one of the first to welcome me, it is just a continuation; we seem to be inextricably linked in some way.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, for his work as the DCMS Minister. He was widely praised and I think people appreciated his engagement. Those who have engaged with me on previous legislation know that I tend to have a very open policy as well. I am happy to have as many meetings as we need and to facilitate meetings with officials, so please have no fear about asking for those meetings; I will be happy to do that as much as possible.
I turn to Amendment 1, from the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox. I thank them for retabling this amendment, which first appeared in Committee. I also thank them and other noble Lords for meeting me before today.
We think that the threat landscape is ever-changing. Security requirements that are appropriate today could change and differ in the future. Setting that out in primary legislation would limit our ability to respond to threats in the future, impose barriers to innovation and leave unnecessary regulation still on the statute book or unnecessarily complicate the regulatory framework. The vast complexity of the connectable technology landscape means that the definitions used in our security requirements need to be carefully nuanced and readily updatable to avoid imposing unnecessary or inappropriate burdens on industry as those technologies develop. For example, we set out in our 2020 call for reviews that we do not currently consider it appropriate for our intended passport requirements to apply to API queues. Connectable products may be able to access a large number of API interfaces, many of which do not have a material impact on the security of the product. Compelling the Government to extend this password requirement to all APIs key to the product, as this amendment would entail, is exactly the sort of unnecessary industry burden that we are trying to avoid while making sure that we stick to setting out the requirements in regulations.
The Government are unwavering in our commitment to bringing forward security requirements that ban universal default and easily-guessable passwords, mandate the publication of a vulnerability disclosure policy and mandate transparency concerning security update provision. My officials have been working diligently to develop regulations that realise that commitment, and we hope to engage on the regulations in draft by the end of the year. Something that I often to say to my officials, whichever department I have been in, is that there are two phrases that I do not like to see: “in due course” and “at pace”. I like to give an indicative timeframe, so I hope the timeframe of “by the end of the year” gives some assurance.
That is why we do not believe the amendment is necessary, and I hope the noble Lords will consider withdrawing it. On top of that, I am willing to have meetings in future to clarify anything that noble Lords feel has not been clarified.
I turn to Amendment 3, tabled by the same double act of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones; I think this is going to be a recurring theme in my time as the Minister here. The proposed amendment aims to define online marketplaces as “distributors” for the purposes of the Bill. I assure noble Lords that the Government are on the side of the consumer. That is why the Bill requires all—I repeat, all—UK consumer connectable products to be secure, including those sold via online marketplaces. The Bill will ensure that where online marketplaces manufacture, import or sell products, they bear responsibility for the security of those products. Where this does not happen, I assure noble Lords that they should make no mistake: the regulator will act promptly to address serious risk from insecure products, and work closely with online marketplaces to ensure effective remedy.
We recognise that as well as bringing benefits to consumers e-commerce brings challenges—the double-edged sword of technology. This is one of the reasons why the Government are reviewing the product safety framework. We will publish a consultation later this year—once again, not “in due course” but later this year —with detailed proposals on tackling the availability of unsafe and non-compliant products sold online. Consumers need clarity and better protection, and this will be a priority for our work in this space.
I hope that the ambition of this Bill, its enforcement plan and the outline of further policy engagement will provide some confidence for noble Lords not to press Amendment 3.
Lord Fox (LD)
In reference to the consultation, does the Minister include product safety and product security in the term “unsafe”?
Lord Kamall
We understand that they are two different things, but I am happy to clarify and come back to the noble Lord—I hope to do so before we come to future amendments.
Amendment 3 aims to define what a “distributor” is for the purposes of the PSTI Bill. The Bill requires all UK consumer connectable products to be secure. Where it does not happen, the regulator will act promptly. For e-commerce, given the double-edged sword of technology, reviewing that framework is important. I hope the ambition of the Bill encourages noble Lords to consider not pressing the amendment, but once again I am happy to engage further for clarification and to address any outstanding concerns.
Let me turn to Amendment 13. The Government are listening to and considering concerns that the Computer Misuse Act is constraining activity that would enhance the UK’s cybersecurity. We understand that if you want to test cybersecurity you have to be able to test its breaking point. We are trying to strike the right balance between providing suitable reassurances for well-meaning individuals who want to identify vulnerabilities and not allowing malicious actors to access devices without consent. There are risks here. It is very nuanced, and the Government do not want to rush into legislative change without clear evidence to justify any such change to existing law. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the Home Office has been conducting a review of the Act since 2021, and the proposals for statutory defences have been an integral part of this review. I can confirm that a response that sets out how the Government plan to proceed should be published in the coming weeks, and an update will be provided to this House.
I hope that this will provide sufficient assurances on these three amendments, and the noble Lords will consider withdrawing and not pressing their amendments. I repeat the offer of continued engagement and meetings for clarification and to reassure noble Lords.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those three sets of assurances. I should have thanked him too for meeting with us prior to today.
I am interested in the Minister’s change of language in the department: we have got “by the end of the year” and “in the coming weeks” rather than “in due course”. I think we are making some progress, which is very helpful.
I notice too his unwavering commitment—that was very firm—to publish the regulations by the end of the year. It is grossly unsatisfactory not to have the secondary legislation in draft when the primary legislation contains virtually nothing of the real meat. I am afraid that this Bill is not alone in that respect; it is one of the common complaints that we have whenever legislation comes forward.
As regards the online marketplaces, I am grateful for those assurances, which are accepted and are very much in line with the letter. The new consultation on a new set of regulations about unsafe products is interesting, and I hope the Minister will clarify and give us further and better particulars, and more specifics about what that actually involves.
As regards the Computer Misuse Act—I notice the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is in his place—it is satisfactory that the Home Office is going to divulge what it really thinks about this. We wait with trepidation for what it is going to say on the subject, given some of the negative responses that Ministers have given previously. We can wait and look forward to that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the affirmative resolution procedure to regulations under Clause 3.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I turn now to Amendments 2, 4 and 5, which seek to implement recommendations set out in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. I once again thank the committee for its efforts in scrutinising the Bill.
Amendment 2 will ensure that regulations exercising the power in Clause 3 to deem compliance with security requirements will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments 4 and 5 focus on the power in Clause 9 to exempt manufacturers from needing to draw up a statement of compliance. This will also now be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The powers in these clauses are vital to enabling the Government to take swift action to minimise unnecessary industry burdens, including for small and micro businesses, as the technological and regulatory landscapes change. However, I agree that, considering the necessary breadth of these powers, the affirmative resolution procedure provides a more appropriate degree of parliamentary consideration. The Government accept the recommendations in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the committee’s report.
I turn now to Amendments 6 to 12 and Amendment 14, on the enforcing functions. Once again, the Government agree with the recommendations of the committee that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise any decision by the Secretary of State to authorise a person to exercise an enforcement function. These amendments implement that recommendation and will ensure that the Secretary of State is able to authorise another person to exercise an enforcement function only by making regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
On enforcement, I shall update the House on the progress of appointing an enforcement authority for Part 1 of the Bill. After extensive engagement with suitable bodies and consideration of the existing regulatory landscape, I can confirm our intention to appoint the Office for Product Safety and Standards, or OPSS, as the regime’s regulator. The OPSS oversees product safety legislation and will enforce cybersecurity requirements for electric vehicle smart charge points. We are confident that it has the expertise and capacity needed to effectively enforce this regime. The OPSS is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so it will not be necessary to exercise the power in Clause 27, given the Carltona doctrine. However, should the threat landscape require other persons to exercise enforcement functions in the future, we will exercise this power as necessary.
I turn now to Amendment 15, which removes Clause 57 from the Bill. Clause 57 was intended to address difficulties that had arisen following Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal decisions on the meaning of “occupier” in paragraph 9 of the Electronic Communications Code. Paragraph 9 provides that only an occupier of the land can confer code rights. The courts’ interpretation of this meant that an operator already in occupation of the land was treated as the occupier for the purposes of paragraph 9.
However, an operator in this situation clearly could not enter into an agreement with itself. The interpretation resulted in some operators with apparatus on land who were unable to renew their agreement using an existing statutory process being stuck, without a process through which they could acquire new rights under the code. In addition, it meant that any operator in occupation of land was unable to seek additional code rights not referred to in their existing agreement in a new, separate agreement while the existing agreement was running its course.
The aim of Clause 57 was to provide a solution to these issues. It was drafted to ensure that all operators in exclusive occupation of the land, who could not make use of a statutory renewal route, could still obtain code rights. It would also assist operators in occupation of land with an existing, ongoing agreement. Where such operators needed additional code rights not already referred to in their current agreement, Clause 57 provided a mechanism to obtain such rights.
As I am sure many noble Lords will be aware, since your Lordships last considered this Bill, the Supreme Court ruled on this issue and overturned the relevant decisions of the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of paragraph 9 of the code, an operator’s occupation of land is to be disregarded where that operator is seeking code rights in relation to that land.
In practice, this means that where an operator is not able to make use of a statutory route to renew any type of expired or existing agreement, it will be able to seek new code rights. It also means that, where an operator requires additional code rights during the existing term of its agreement, it will be able to seek them. The effect of the judgment is therefore broad and comprehensive; the Government consider that it will ensure that any operator, whatever the nature of its agreement, will have a means through which it can seek new or additional code rights, as the case may be. As a result, the Government no longer consider it necessary to retain Clause 57 in the Bill. Its removal will, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, ensure clarity and certainty for all users of the code. I beg to move Amendment 2.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 2, 4 to 12 and 14 very much reflect amendments that I tabled in Committee, and in that regard, I am very pleased to see them reappearing with the Minister’s name on them.
The Minister was mercifully spared one of my longer speeches in Committee where the full set of concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was discussed. For that, he may be truly grateful. We are pleased that these amendments have come back, but I am disappointed that the Minister feels that the Government still need the breadth of powers claimed in Clauses 11, 18, 19, 24 and 25. These are justified, as usual, by the need for flexibility. However, if our working during the Covid crisis showed nothing else, it demonstrated that Parliament could move swiftly and that we were not an impediment to flexible action. I am sure that in his former role the Minister saw us demonstrate that across the Floor many times in dealing with statutory instruments quickly and clearly. It seems that departments have grown very accustomed to using primary legislation to create generously for themselves the ability to act in wide-ranging ways without further or significant recourse to Parliament, and we have to spend an awful lot of time reining that back.
Without sounding too churlish given that the Minister has conceded on a number of things, I think this is a generally avoidable process. I feel sure that the people drafting legislation and the Ministers know what the DPRRC will say about this almost continuous stream of legislation that seems to take power from Parliament, yet each time we do the same dance between the department, the draft, the DPRRC and your Lordships. This is an avoidable process. That said, I thank the Minister for retabling the amendments.
The removal of Clause 57 via Amendment 15 is of course very sensible given the judgment of the Supreme Court, and we support that.
I am pleased that the Minister has clarified which body will be dealing with this in terms of empowerment. On the OPSS, the Minister talked about capacity. This is a big new job for that body, and it needs not just the capacity that it has but future resources. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that that body will have the resources to be able to do what is a really big job? If you look at what is going out on the internet-enabled markets, this is a huge job. Can that body be assured that it will get the resources it needs to ensure that consumers’ security is not jeopardised?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am reflecting on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made about statutory instruments. I guess that I have heard those arguments over much of the 25 years that I have been here, and I have a lot of sympathy with them. I had less sympathy when we were in government, but I have more sympathy now.
I too am pleased to see these amendments, which in part reflect the debate we had in Committee and the amendments that were moved by our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They in turn were of course a reflection of the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and for that reason we welcome their tabling. It ill behoves any Government to ignore the wise words of the DPRRC. Not all the amendments are in response to its report—Amendments 15 to 17 are not—but they are a sensible response and reaction. We would expect the Government to do no less.
As our colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches have said, the removal of Clause 57 comes as the result of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the same topic. We are aware that operators have very much welcomed the clarity offered by that ruling. We welcome the DCMS withdrawing the clause. If it had not, we would have been left in a very confused position.
We welcome these amendments. We are pleased to see the Government being responsive. We are grateful that they have reflected on our earlier debates. With that, we offer our support for these amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the OPSS. When we considered the options, we looked at who had the potential capacity and who could bridge the gap in knowledge as quickly as possible.
The vast majority of products in scope of the Bill, such as mobile smart lightbulbs, wearables, kitchen appliances—the internet of things—are also in scope of the product safety legislation. Given that the OPSS has already introduced the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021, which impose some security requirements in relation to these products, based on the same international standard that we felt most appropriate, the OPSS’s published strategy aims to bring these product regulations together to protect people and to enable responsible business to thrive. We feel it is effective and we intend to give it the resources it needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that he was disappointed. I heard this a number of times when I was Health Minister in your Lordships’ House. I completely understand. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said he was less sympathetic when he was in government. I am sympathetic being in government. I am happy to try to push as much as we can. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asks me to remember that point, so no doubt it will be used against me one day. This is the nature of parliamentary democracy. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall
“(8A) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the affirmative resolution procedure to regulations under subsection (7) of Clause 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other Government amendment to Clause 9.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that the power of the Secretary of State to delegate enforcement functions is to be exercised by regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 27.
“(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment follows on from the first Government amendment to Clause 27 and applies the affirmative resolution procedure to regulations under that Clause.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 27.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes Clause 57.
Lord Kamall
“(4) In paragraph 9 (conferral of code rights)—(a) the existing wording becomes sub-paragraph (1), and(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to leave out Clause 57.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to leave out Clause 57.
Lord Harlech
“Power to fly lines from apparatus kept by another operator
(1) Paragraph 74 of the electronic communications code (power to fly lines) is amended as follows.(2) For sub-paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This paragraph applies where an operator (“the main operator”) keeps electronic communications apparatus on or over any land for the purposes of the main operator’s network.”(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—(a) before “operator” insert “main”, and(b) in paragraph (a), after “apparatus” insert “mentioned in sub- paragraph (1)”.(4) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) With the agreement of the main operator, another operator has the right, for the statutory purposes, to install and keep lines which—(a) pass over other land adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the land on or over which the apparatus mentioned in sub- paragraph (1) is kept,(b) are connected to that apparatus, and(c) are not, at any point where they pass over the other land, less than three metres above the ground or within two metres of any building over which they pass.”(5) In sub-paragraph (3)—(a) for “Sub-paragraph (2) does” substitute “Sub-paragraphs (2) and (2A) do”, and(b) in paragraph (a), for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “either of those sub-paragraphs”.(6) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) The main operator has the right to upgrade, or carry out works to, the apparatus mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) for the purposes of, or in connection with—(a) the exercise by the main operator of the right conferred by sub-paragraph (2), or(b) the exercise by another operator of the right conferred by sub-paragraph (2A).(3B) With the agreement of the main operator, another operator has the right to upgrade, or carry out works to, the apparatus mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise by the other operator of the right conferred by sub-paragraph (2A).(3C) Sub-paragraphs (3A) and (3B) do not authorise an operator to upgrade, or carry out works to, the apparatus mentioned in sub- paragraph (1) if the upgrade or works would—(a) have more than a minimal adverse impact on the appearance of the apparatus,(b) have more than a minimal adverse impact on the land on or over which the apparatus is kept, or(c) cause loss, damage or expense to any person with an interest in the land on or over which the apparatus is kept. (3D) An operator may not enter the land on or over which the apparatus mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is kept for the purpose of exercising a right conferred by this paragraph without the agreement of the occupier of the land.”(7) In paragraph 77 (when and by whom a right to object under Part 12 of the code can be exercised), in sub-paragraph (3), for “paragraph 74” substitute “paragraph 74(2) or (2A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confers rights on an operator to fly lines over a person’s land from another operator’s apparatus, and enables either operator to upgrade or carry out works to such apparatus for the purpose of exercising a right under paragraph 74 of the code.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, before I begin to speak to this group, I declare my interest as a land and business owner in Wales with various wayleaves.
In Committee, several of your Lordships expressed support for an amendment to facilitate the more effective use of telegraph poles situated on private land. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay explained that the Government were looking into this. Subsequent discussions with stakeholders clarified the significant benefits to which changes in this area can lead and the barriers that currently prevent apparatus such as telegraph poles being used to their best effect.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Harding, whose insightful contributions have been of great assistance. Based on these discussions, I am pleased to bring forward Amendment 18 to improve the existing regime which regulates overhead networks contained in Part 11 of the code.
Before turning to the amendment itself, I will explain how Part 11 operates. Part 11 confers rights on operators to keep apparatus on or over land. I will refer to them as main operators. The apparatus with which this part is concerned is typically telegraph poles.
The rights conferred by Part 11 permit these main operators to install and keep lines connected to their poles, which may also pass over neighbouring land. These rights are automatic but subject to specific height restrictions, a notice requirement and a right to object in certain circumstances. However, while the Part 11 regime allows a main operator to fly lines from these poles, it does not permit them to upgrade or carry out works to the poles that may be needed to deliver gigabit-capable connections—for example, running cable wire from the base of the pole to the top. Similarly, the regime does not permit operators other than the main operator to fly their own lines from the poles, creating an obstacle to apparatus sharing.
Amendment 18 is designed to address both gaps. It extends the right in paragraph 74 of the Electronic Communications Code to install and keep lines to operators other than the main operator, provided that the main operator consents to this, subject to the same height restrictions, notice requirement and right to object already in place for the main operator. Sharing the use of these poles will not only speed up the pace of deployment but reduce the need for additional installations and their associated impacts. In addition, the amendment will confer new rights on either operator to upgrade or carry out any other works to the pole so that the lines flown from them can deliver gigabit-capable connections.
Among other things, this change will ensure that, as my noble friend Lady Harding raised at Second Reading, the benefits of other rights that we are introducing to permit greater sharing of underground ducts will extend to overhead networks, by allowing upgraded fibre from such ducts to be rolled up the pole and subsequently strung between the poles to deliver gigabit connections.
The new rights will be subject to specific conditions, intended to protect the interests of individuals affected by them. First, exercise of these rights cannot have more than a minimal adverse impact on the appearance of the pole. Secondly, exercise of these rights cannot have more than a minimal adverse impact on the land on which the pole is kept. Thirdly, these rights cannot be used to carry out works that will cause loss, damage or expense to any person with an interest in the land on which the pole is kept.
In addition to the above, operators entering land on which a pole is kept, to exercise any Part 11 right, must have the occupier’s permission. This does not need to be a written agreement, but it is important that operators obtain consent before entering private land, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Harding in Committee. For main operators, access rights may already be in place but, where they are not and where other operators wish to exercise their new rights, permission to enter the land must be obtained. I beg to move.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare a new interest as an adviser on the telecoms market to Octopus Ventures. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harlech on his new role and welcome my noble friend Lord Kamall to a small, select club of people with a shared passion for healthcare and telegraph poles. One can find a number of us in the Chamber today. I thank both my noble friends, and the staff in DCMS, for the extremely constructive way that they have approached this Bill and thank my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Kamall, for his excellent work on this Bill and more broadly on the DCMS brief.
I am encouraged by this amendment and very grateful for it. It addresses the specific issue that I and others raised in Committee. With that, I also thank my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lady Stowell, the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for their work. This might be a small and technical amendment, but it has been a real team effort.
I have two clarifying questions. As we discussed in Committee, the devil is in the detail of this, and we share the same goal of being able to lay the fibre cable up the telegraph pole and from one pole to another. Perhaps your Lordships will humour my two very specific questions. First, the amendment gives operators the right to share the existing pole infrastructure
“with the agreement of the main operator.”
Can the Minister explain what proof of permission from a main operator an operator wishing to avail themselves of these provisions will be required to secure? Also, how easy will it be for them to do so? For example, will the normal provisions of PIA be an acceptable route to do that?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, to the salt mines. He knows little yet of how much work is involved in being a Whip; that is all that I can say. I would also like to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said about the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and his service as DCMS Minister. We all appreciated that very much.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who made a very powerful case for her amendment in Committee. I thank the Government for having agreed to that. CityFibre said, in its original briefing, before we had Committee, that this would make a huge impact, particularly in rural areas and in urban Scotland. I have just come back from the US and have seen, in some rural areas such as New Hampshire, the impact of being able to put these superfast fibre-optic cables on telegraph poles. It is really an effective way of delivering superfast broadband to those areas. CityFibre estimated that 1 million such poles exist across the UK, so we are not talking about a small issue.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, as ever, put her finger on the key issues in this particular new clause, about what constitutes agreement between operator and main operator, and operator and landowner. The more clarity that the noble Lord can give us, the better we will be.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, first I also welcome the Minister to his place—long may he continue to be as helpful to your Lordships’ House as he is being today. We welcome this government amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, whom again I would like to welcome to his new place on the Front Bench. Again, let us look forward to many other sensible government amendments in response to the points that have been raised. I also thank and pay tribute to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who helped get us to this stage.
This is very much an issue, as noble Lords will be aware, that attracted cross-industry support, as well as support from all across the House. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for leading the team. In view of her comments about the select group of us who have an interest in health and telegraph poles, perhaps that is an opportunity for an All-Party Parliamentary Group of some select membership.
This amendment does strike the right balance between speeding up fibre rollout and protecting the rights of landowners when upgrading and sharing pre-2017 poles on private land. It is consistent with the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, put forward earlier, which we were very pleased to sign up to when it was tabled at Committee stage. So I do welcome this very much from the Government. I do wonder why, given the considerable cross-party consensus in both Houses, it took so long to bring it before us, but we are here today. I too would welcome the clarity about whether verbal agreement from a landowner is indeed sufficient for operators to then undertake necessary works, but with that, this government amendment is one that finds great favour on these Benches.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to clarify these points and for their welcome to the Front Bench. If the House could indulge me a little, I have spoken several times in previous debates about the need for better rural connectivity and better broadband, so it is a great pleasure to actually take part in this debate.
In response to my noble friend Lady Harding’s question about proof of permission from a main operator to an additional operator, these new provisions are intended to optimise the use of existing telegraph poles. They explicitly recognise the value for UK connectivity in different operators being able to upgrade and fly wires from each other’s poles as quickly and efficiently as possible. The provision does not require a second operator to secure the main operator’s permission in any particular form. In other words, formality requirements that apply to an agreement under Part 2 of the code do not apply here. We expect the sector to make sensible, efficient administrative arrangements to make clear that the required permission is held. For example, Ofcom’s duct and pole access remedy, which Openreach fulfils through its physical infrastructure access products, requires Openreach to grant other operators access to its ducts and poles. Operators may consider that they can satisfy the condition for the permission of the main operator for paragraph 74 purposes through their usual procedures for securing access through PIA.
I welcome the opportunity to point out that we expect a similarly pragmatic approach to be adopted in relation to new rights relating to underground networks, introduced through Clauses 59 and 60, which are also intended to facilitate faster and more efficient upgrading and sharing. For example, it may be sensible when granting permission for a second operator to share the use of ducts and poles for the main operator to authorise the second operator to carry out the appropriate fixing of notices on its behalf.
Turning to proof of consent, the provision makes clear that the formalities needed for a Part 2 code agreement will not be needed for an operator to secure permission to access land in order to exercise its paragraph 74 rights. A verbal agreement can therefore satisfy the condition, but of course individual operators may wish to have proof of that permission in writing.
Finally, on the occupier giving their consent to a contractor, the occupier of land on which a pole is situated will need to give the operator permission to access the land before the operator exercises its new rights. Industry stakeholders report that obtaining consent to access land to carry out one-off activities can be achieved in significantly less time and at much lower cost than it would take for a formal code agreement to be concluded. Limiting the activities that can be carried out using these rights means there is not the same need for a formal agreement between the operator and the occupier of the land since the terms upon which the rights may be exercised are effectively prescribed by the conditions attached to them. The conditions therefore achieve the dual purpose of protecting the occupier’s interests while removing the need for a formal agreement.
The Earl of Devon
“(4A) Where the assumptions in subsection (4) cause the market value of a landlord’s agreement to decline, the consideration payable under a new tenancy granted by order of the court under this Part may not decline by more than 50% relative to the previous consideration for the period of five years beginning with the day on which the new tenancy is agreed.(4B) Where subsection (4A) applies, the consideration must be reduced in even increments over the course of five years, from the level of the previous consideration to the level of the new court consideration.”
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Lytton, I rise to move Amendment 19, to which I added my name somewhat late. I shall speak also to Amendments 20, 21, 22 and 24 in this group to which I added my name too late to appear on the Marshalled List.
The valuation provisions of the Electronic Communications Code as extended in 2017 are not working well. I think we are all agreed on that. The number of disputes coming before the lands tribunal has increased from approximately 40 to more than 120 already this year, and we have no idea how many additional disputes are taking place in county courts. This is because we have no record. The Government have not consulted on this issue before proposing this far-reaching, retrospective legislation. Indeed, the Bill has been introduced based upon a cacophony of anecdote, conjecture and vested misinformation. It seeks to address the issue not by improving the damaging “no scheme” valuation provisions but by extending their application to approximately 15,000 long-established and well-settled 1954 Act leases. This is a mistake, and it will have a chilling effect on the rollout of digital infrastructure which we will regret.
My noble friend Lord Lytton is, as I said, unfortunately committed elsewhere today and we are therefore deprived of his wisdom and subject matter expertise. I am by no means an adequate substitute and refer your Lordships to his excellent contributions in Committee.
I also remind the House of my own interests, and particularly note that while formerly a property barrister I now work as a technology litigator for a firm that represents telecoms companies as well as site owners. As a Devon resident with poor mobile coverage, I am desperate to see an increase in rural connectivity, with the social and economic benefits that flow therefrom. As a farmer, I am also a site owner of a 1954 Act telecoms lease granted many years ago. This has been bogged down in renewal due entirely to the uncertainties of this legislation. I see this issue therefore from many sides, both personal and professional.
I too welcome the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Harlech, to their new roles and thank them and the whole Bill team for their time in discussing these issues. It is not ideal to change Ministers half way through the Bill’s progress, and I am disappointed that between Committee and Report we have not been provided with information that was requested. Despite no formal consultation, I understand the Government are confident that the valuation issue is now settling down and that the provisions in the Bill are largely welcomed by stakeholders. We have not seen the information relied on to reach these conclusions because it is cloaked in confidentiality.
From recent discussions, it appears that this evidence has largely been provided by the telecoms mast operators. It is no surprise that they approve of Clauses 61 and 62, as these will allow them to decrease rents payable on historic leases by over 90%, which is a huge cost saving; yet they provide no concurrent obligation on them to pass those savings on to phone companies and their consumers. The result will be that infrastructure companies benefit financially while owners see dramatic rent decreases and are discouraged from letting sites for telecoms masts, and consumers see no financial benefit and, more importantly, no increased coverage. There is a risk that only the corporate middlemen, who often take their profits overseas, will benefit. Surely this cannot be the Government’s intention.
There are other beneficiaries: the professionals, lawyers and surveyors advising those in dispute. Judges dealing with the Electronic Communications Code have criticised the intensity of these disputes and the Institute of Economic Affairs recently noted that since 2017
“there has been much litigation, apparent ill-will, and consequential delays”.
At the 2021 RICS Telecoms Conference it was shown that, while site payments have indeed reduced since 2017, the costs of transacting for sites have more than doubled in that time, meaning that the decrease in site rents has actually resulted in no savings at all for the market.
The 2017 amendments made parties increasingly antagonistic, and the provisions in this Bill will only add to that. The amendments in this group seek to address this. Amendments 20 and 21 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seek to remove Clauses 61 and 62 entirely. Given what I have said, this is my preferred solution. Unless and until a proper consultation is undertaken and the impact of the “no scheme” valuation methodology is properly understood, we should not be extending it to 1954 Act leases and undermining long-established landlord and tenant relations. This is government by diktat, riding roughshod over private contractual interests at the behest of undisclosed and well-funded commercial enterprises. It is not in the public interest.
Amendments 19 and 22 propose alternative remedies to ameliorate the problem of dramatic and sudden decreases in rents payable under telecoms leases. As currently drafted, site owners, many of which are community centres, charities, sports clubs, farmers and small businesses, will see a collapse in rental income that could be very damaging. Amendment 19 proposes that this decrease be limited to 50% of the current rent within the first five years, while Amendment 22 requires that the rent is decreased in even increments during that same period. Neither amendment seeks to prevent the “no scheme” valuation methodology that the Government prefer, they simply soften the impacts to protect the interests of the individual landlord. These are modest and, I suggest, sensible proposals and they should be adopted if Clauses 61 and 62 are to remain.
Meanwhile, Amendment 24 seeks to avoid the invidious prospect of backdated rent decreases which may result in landlords having to pay substantial sums back to telecoms mast operators under interim orders applicable to 1954 Act tenancies. As currently drafted, rent decreases take effect from the date the notice is served, not from the date the new lower rent is determined. A contentious lease renewal can take many years to resolve and, as we have heard, the decreases in rent can be more than 90%. This means that a poor landlord may be obliged to pay back many thousands of pounds in rent previously received, which may not be possible if that money has been budgeted for and spent. This could drive small enterprises and individuals into bankruptcy. Is this what the Government intend? Amendment 24 would ensure that this will not happen, and that the newly decreased rent is not backdated but payable from the date of the court order. Backdating the rent only adds insult to injury.
I urge the House to consider and support these important amendments. If the Bill is unamended, no landowner will welcome telecoms infrastructure and our digital rollout will fail. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for moving Amendment 19. I will speak to Amendment 20 in my name and that of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, and Amendment 21 in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
At the outset I welcome my noble friends Lord Kamall and Lord Harlech to their new positions. At the same time I thank my noble friend’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, for all his efforts and engagement with us at previous stages of the Bill. I wish him well as a Back-Bencher in this place; I think we probably have more fun.
I remind my noble friend Lord Kamall that in his previous life he was well aware of my interests in rural affairs, which colour my approach to the Bill. I would like to see improvements to broadband and mobile phone connectivity in rural areas, but I cannot take the fact that telephone poles and other infrastructure should be taken for granted, as appears to be the case in the Bill. That is my reason for presenting and speaking to Amendments 20 and 21, with the desired effect that they will remove provisions currently in the Bill that give operators the ability to calculate rent based on land value rather than market value when renewing tenancies to host digital infrastructure on private land. I believe that all interested parties, whether the operators, the landowners or those of us who use these infrastructure facilities, must be treated fairly, in the way that the landowners are currently compensated.
I assure my noble friend that good connectivity is key to increased productivity and growth for farms and the rural economy. I hope he will give a commitment today, just as the Prime Minister has said many times since she took her new position that we are signed up to productivity and growth, that this will apply as much to the rural economy, farms and others who have business in rural areas as it does to more industrial areas.
I confess that I am not a landowner or in receipt of a wayleave for a telegraph pole, although not so long ago I received a small payment, shared with my brother, who is now the sole recipient. I hope that these amendments can achieve a better balance between the rights of the operators, the landowners and those who use the infrastructure.
I regret that the 2017 Electronic Communications Code has changed the way in which the new sites are valued from market value to land value. I make a plea to my noble friend that we proceed under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 rather than the 2017 code, given that, as I mentioned earlier—and as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, so eloquently described—fewer new sites have been agreed over the last few years in which we have proceeded under the code.
I echo and strongly associate myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about this not being part of the original consultation under the Bill. I hope that my noble friend Lord Kamall will confirm that and say why it was not and yet we now have these two clauses in the Bill, because I have never quite understood why that was the case. If you are not going to give the landowners and other interested parties—or stakeholders, as we now call them—the right to comment, I do not see why they should be presented with a fait accompli. But, even more than that, the Law Commission strongly concluded that it was against the introduction of these provisions into the Bill because it thought that they would lead to fewer sites and fewer renewals of sites, which is precisely the position in which we find ourselves today.
Why is this going against the Government’s previous stated intention of allowing a transition for existing agreements into the ECC, or the code? It also means that the code valuation method will be applied retrospectively. I understood that we normally do not apply legislation retrospectively in this place, and I would like to understand the reasons for seeking to do so in relation to Clauses 61 and 62.
The Government’s own impact assessment of the 2017 reform concluded that rents would drop by 40% over a 20-year period. It was therefore not anticipated that levels would fall by so much and so quickly. However, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, clearly set out that, in some cases, rents have dropped by as much as 90%, which is inexplicable and unacceptable. Clauses 61 and 62 would simply exacerbate the situation and leave some businesses and individuals facing a cliff edge, without any time to adjust in what we understood would be a transition period. I repeat that this was not part of the 2021 consultation, and, in my view, it will no doubt be entirely counterproductive, with the effect of further disruption.
Given that we now know that the 2017 code has resulted in fewer new sites being agreed, due to the much lower rents being paid by operators, I urge the House to remove Clauses 61 and 62. I urge the Government to accept that they should proceed under the previous legislation, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. I hope that the House will look favourably on my Amendments 20 and 21.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said that some of us might not welcome him here. I am sure that that is not correct; I am sure that we all welcome him and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I certainly do.
First, I apologise to the House for not participating in the earlier stages of the Bill due to circumstances elsewhere—but I have read and watched them. Secondly, I should declare that I am an unpaid director of a small farming company that has a single telecoms mast on its premises. Normally, I would not speak on a subject when I have an interest even as modest as this, and I know that a number of other noble Lords have not participated and remained silent for the same reason. However, having seen how one-sided and damaging this part of the Bill is in so many ways, including to the Government’s own objectives for rollout, and having seen how resistant the Government have apparently been to efforts to address its faults, I feel that I must speak out critically but constructively. I support all the amendments in this group but, to my mind, Amendments 20 and 21, which would leave out Clauses 61 and 62, are the starting point, with the other amendments seeking to achieve damage limitation.
There are two parties to any agreement on a site: the site owners and those who seek to occupy and operate them. Not only is this Bill crudely unjust in its valuation basis but it is already creating a breakdown of trust and co-operation between the parties. It will create and intensify conflict between them, leading to a delay in rollout—the direct opposite of what the Government intend. We, therefore, need to find a better middle ground between these two parties.
As has already been mentioned, Clauses 61and 62 would have land valued as if it were not to be used for a mast site. This is as bizarre as anything in a Gogol short story. Who would, for example, value a building plot, knowing that it is imminently going to be built on, on the basis that it would never be built on? I am sure that HMRC would never countenance that approach for tax purposes.
Amendments 20 and 21 reflect the need to remove these counterproductive and illogical clauses—but how did we get here? We need to be fair about this: previously, some owners, due to the rules of supply and demand, had a bargaining position that may have enabled rents that are higher than they would otherwise have accepted. In seeking to accelerate rollout, the Government have decided to rebalance things—so far so good. However, this Bill would swing the pendulum to completely the opposite extreme. It would strip the site owners of their legally long-established property rights—something I find astonishing from a Conservative Government—and deny small enterprises, sports clubs, hospitals and others of a vital source of income. This was raised by Labour at an earlier Bill stage, and I was astonished when the then Minister—so rightly admired in other respects, as many have said—pretty glibly told them in his reply that they should simply seek other sources of income.
These clauses will take a situation where sites were coming forward voluntarily and replace it with one of zero trust—in either the operating companies or the Government—whereby both potential and actual site owners will seek to avoid, and indeed resist, providing sites for this use. It will enable the operating and mast companies to pay peppercorn rents and thereby enrich themselves and their shareholders—with no evidence of trickle down, or even dribble down, to consumers.
When I see all this, combined with powers elsewhere in the Bill for operators to reclaim rents retrospectively from site owners—tearing up existing contracts freely agreed and entered into by professional commercial companies and site owners—I can only gasp in disbelief. So I have been asking myself how on earth we got into this situation and what could explain it. I have been urged by some of my colleagues to be temperate in my remarks, so I will not indulge in conspiracy theories, but we need to focus on encouraging sites to come forward to achieve faster rollout—something which I think we are all agreed on.
Let me therefore offer a valuation solution that is indeed in the middle ground between the past and the extortionate future foreseen in this Bill. There is a tried and tested middle ground that uses a practical and already widely accepted approach used to set rents and values for other commercial sites. I ask the House’s indulgence in describing this very briefly and simply with an illustration from another commercial activity: mineral quarrying. Where a quarry operator wants to lease land to set up a processing plant, there is a well-established valuation method whereby the database of local industrial rents is assessed and a percentage of that rent—say 70%—is paid to the site owner. There are clear advantages here. First, land agents and valuers on both sides are well accustomed to such discussions, which can therefore be swift. In the very unlikely event that they do not reach agreement, binding expert determination is available as standard. Secondly, it is based on a well-established dataset that reflects regional differences and will adjust over time to reflect the regional economic context. Thirdly, there are suitably qualified practitioners on hand across the country to carry it out.
Crucially, this would produce a balanced result and would get there using a transparent, objective and logical method. To be clear, the resulting rents would be set below what some site owners currently receive, but not as counterproductively or extortionately low as the unjust free hand that the Bill, as currently drafted, would give commercial operators. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to think again.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a site owner and NFU member. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has said. I am astonished by this piece of legislation from a Conservative Government.
Amendments 19 and 22 aim to address the issue of valuation, one of the most significant concerns with the code. As other noble Lords have said, the “no scheme” valuation methodology introduced into the code in 2017 prevents courts taking into account sites’ potential use as provision for an electronic communications network. This allows operators to drive down the rents they pay to site providers, often by over 90%.
I was involved in negotiations for one of the two masts on my land and was lucky that I had only a 70% reduction. It was not so important for me, but this forces small businesses, sports clubs, community groups and hospitals to accept derisory amounts for the use of their land. It also reduces the motivation for operators to pursue consensual deal-making, in turn slowing down rollout as they can get greater discounts through the courts. As noble Lords have said, it also reduces the incentives for landowners to offer sites for masts in the first place—not an advantageous outcome for the Government’s mobile connectivity.
Amendments 20 and 21 are rather more impactful than Amendments 19 and 22, in that they would stop the Government’s “no scheme” valuation regime being extended to cover the roughly 15,000 telecoms sites governed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. This would have the effect of ensuring that the rent on these 15,000 sites would continue to be set at market value, as is the case today. Importantly, this would prevent them being subject to the issues that have plagued sites governed by the code ever since the 2017 reforms.
Although I suspect the Minister will be opposed to these amendments, they are fully aligned with the Government’s repeated claim that this Bill does not address issues of valuation. How can the Government possibly continue to make that claim if, by their own admission, 15,000 new sites will have their rental value slashed from the moment this legislation comes into force? We are simply trying to ensure that the legislation delivers the Government’s stated policy intent. Parties on all sides of the debate have acknowledged the significant challenges created by the 2017 reforms to the code. It is only right that these changes are not imported wholesale into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, when there is no evidence whatever that the 2017 reforms have delivered the Government’s intentions.
I was very grateful, together with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to the Minister for the meeting yesterday, but one problem seems to be that information provided by the operators, for confidentiality reasons maybe, has not been disclosed to us even though we have asked for it; that is a very frustrating thing. I am also very sad that His Majesty’s Government have paid no attention to influential, independent reports from the IEA and the Centre for Economics and Business Research stating the problems with this legislation. The CEBR report says—
“The government’s ECC changes have not delivered a faster 5G rollout, and it is slower than the pre-2017 status quo. The new proposals do not remedy this. But for the 2017 reforms, 8.2m more people would have had 5G coverage by now than currently can access it. This will persist in the long-term: national 5G coverage by 2022 will be worse than if there had been no changes to the ECC at all. The government’s proposed changes to the ECC will cost UK GDP £3.5bn by 2022, and fail to bring 5G coverage to where it would have been pre-2017.”
The Government want more growth; this legislation does not seem a good way to provide it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we strongly support these amendments which support changes to the current valuation basis, the flaws in which were so expertly explained by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in Committee, and so clearly today by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Northbrook. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has said, the current provisions are a mistake—astonishing from a Conservative Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said—and the motives of many of us were reflected by what the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, said: that what we are trying to do is to ensure that the ECC delivers the stated policy of the Government. All of us are behind the 1 gigabit policy, as delayed and slow as it may be, but we want it to be delivered. It appears that the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, also said, are completely ignoring the reports of the IEA, the CEBR and others who have pointed out that precisely these changes in valuation in the 2017 changes to the code have not, and those proposed will not, ensured faster rollout than the original valuation methodology.
Under changes to the code made in 2017, a “no scheme” valuation methodology for valuing land was introduced, as we have heard, and this allowed site providers to recover only the raw value of their land, rather than receiving a market price. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has highlighted, operators have been able to use the changes made to the ECC to drive down the rents they pay to site providers, often to peppercorn rents. She also highlighted the impact assessment made by the Government which said that rent reductions should be no more than an absolute maximum of 40%. But of course, we know from the data quoted by operators that reductions have at best averaged 63%, a huge sum for many of the people who rent their land for use for telecoms infrastructure, and in many cases as we have heard today, reductions have been much higher—in the region of 90%. As I mentioned in Committee, the Protect and Connect campaign produced some powerful case studies, such as the Fox Lane Sports & Social Club in Leyland, Lancashire, to support this; and we agree that the right solution to get this market moving again is to reinstate a fair valuation mechanism, such as the one envisaged by the Law Commission.
In addition, in principle we entirely support the amendment spoken to today by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, designed to cap cuts to site provider incomes and prevent retrospective lowering of rents. I really do hope that the Government will give these amendments careful consideration, supported as they are by a very strong cross-party coalition—and indeed a country-wide campaign.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the issues addressed in this group of amendments have certainly exercised your Lordships’ House throughout the course of the Bill and have drawn much attention outside this House as well. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing their amendments with such clarity. I believe that all the amendments in this group seek to bring fairness, balance and efficiency to the task before us. The noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Northbrook, also spoke to these points, again with great clarity, in illustrating the challenge before us.
As we have outlined at previous stages, we are sympathetic to the concerns around the changes to the valuation of sites that host telecoms infrastructure. A point I have always found somewhat perplexing—I hope the Minister can assist on this—is that industry itself admits that reductions to rents have on average been far above the 40% promised by government, yet the 40% figure continues to be put before us. I would welcome some insight into that from the Minister.
We understand the importance of getting infrastructure rolled out swiftly to improve the availability of 5G and high-speed broadband and, as I have said, we all understand that a balance has to be struck. The amendments in this group would make a number of changes to the current regime to try to redress the loss of landowner rights. I certainly understand the motivation for these changes but suggest to your Lordships’ House that an independent review of the whole system would perhaps offer a more useful way forward. That is something we will return to in a later group of amendments.
Delivery, balance and fairness are key here. I hope that the Minister will take these points on board and find us a way forward, because that is what we are seeking.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for introducing some of the amendments, as well as my noble friend Lady McIntosh —indeed, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. It is quite clear that very strong views are held on this subject, which I know was the subject of much debate when my predecessor was in this role. I will try to address the issues specifically. That may take a bit of time but I hope noble Lords will bear with me.
Amendments 20 and 21 would remove Clauses 61 and 62 from the Bill. These clauses will extend the “no network” valuation model contained in paragraph 24 of the code to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, explained in Committee that some agreements to which the code applies are required to be renewed under these pieces of legislation, rather than under Part 5 of the code. When this occurs, the rent is calculated on a market value basis, rather than using the code’s “no network” valuation. Clauses 61 and 62 will ensure that, where agreements conferring code rights regulated by either of those statutory frameworks come to an end, the rental terms of any renewal agreement will more closely reflect those that apply to new agreements and those agreements renewed using Part 5 of the code.
Whatever view noble Lords take of the valuation framework, it remains the case that the purpose of Clauses 61 and 62 is to ensure that the same approach applies to all agreements conferring code rights throughout the UK. This will reduce disparities in deployment costs in different jurisdictions which could otherwise contribute to a digital divide.
I am afraid the Government cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments as they would serve only to entrench the inconsistencies in the different renewal frameworks. In fact, removing Clauses 61 and 62 but leaving Clauses 63 and 64 in place would exacerbate the situation. Clauses 63 and 64 provide that the right to recover compensation contained in paragraph 25 of the code, which is a key element of the overall valuation framework, is also mirrored in the 1954 Act and the 1996 order. Neither the Act nor the order currently makes distinct provision to compensate landowners for loss and damage arising from the exercise of code rights. Compensation for potential loss and damage is normally rolled up in any calculation of market value.
Removing Clauses 61 and 62 while leaving Clauses 63 and 64 in place would enable those landowners to recover additional amounts in compensation, which may have already been accounted for in the amount of rent, as well as higher rents. The Government believe that leaving legislation in place that allows some landowners to receive higher rental payments for longer is fundamentally unfair. It would also mean that network costs remained unacceptably high, penalising swathes of consumers and businesses who may face price increases for digital services or wait longer for the higher-quality reliable connections they want to see, particularly in rural areas, where deployment is frequently simply not cost-effective.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am following very carefully what my noble friend has said. He just said that responses to the consultation were received. The offending articles were not part of that consultation, so the Government have not actually heard any responses from the interested parties on that point.
On his point about Clauses 63 and 64 remaining part of the Bill, which is why we cannot remove Clauses 61 and 62, my reading of Clause 63 in particular relates to new tenancies. My noble friend has not responded to the points raised by both the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and me about existing agreements that are going to be renewed, rather than new agreements.
There are two points to which I would like the Minister to respond: first, this issue was not part of the consultation so the Government have not received any responses on it. Secondly, what happens to existing agreements being renewed under Clause 63? Are they to be slashed by 90% without any recourse?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for those questions. I will come to them—I am sorry, maybe I am not going as fast as noble Lords would hope me to, but I wanted to consider carefully the various points made by noble Lords, and I still have specific responses to come to. If noble Lords will allow me to talk to Amendment 24, I will come back to the contributions made during the debate.
Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, looks to prevent interim rent being backdated where an agreement is renewed under the 1954 Act, and is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl in Committee. One of the fundamental aims of the Bill is to ensure that the approach to renewing agreements across part 5 of the code, the 1954 Act and the 1996 order is as consistent as possible. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe said in Committee, this form of amendment serves only to increase inconsistency. It would create inconsistency within the 1954 Act itself, preventing backdated payments of interim rent where a site provider gives notice under Section 25 of the Act, yet would allow interim rent to be backdated where an operator serves notice under Section 26 of the Act.
The ability to backdate rent is not a new concept. It is not being introduced into the 1954 Act by this Bill, nor was it introduced in the 2017 reforms. When parties entered into these agreements, there was always a risk that the market could change between the time it was entered into and the time of its renewal and that the amount of rent could decrease. However, the Government have listened to stakeholders representing the interests of site providers and understand the potential consequences of applying the code valuation framework to the 1954 Act and the 1996 order agreements in relation to backdated interim rent. This is something that is being carefully considered in developing an implementation strategy, including such transitional provisions as may be needed to bring the different provisions of the Bill into force in a timely and responsible manner.
Let me now talk to some of the points made by noble Lords. A number of noble Lords said that the evaluation regime is not fair. The Government see the pricing regime as being closely aligned to utilities such as water, electricity and gas. The Government maintain that this the correct position. Landowners should still receive fair payments that take into account, among other things, alternative uses that the land may have and any losses or damages that may be incurred.
It should be noted that, in many of the examples of unfair rent or large percentage reductions that have been raised by campaign groups, reference is made only to the rental payment itself. These examples fail to take into account any compensation payments which the landowner may have received under the agreement. They may also have failed to take into account any capital payment which the landowner may have received upfront as part of the terms of the agreement. There have been some paid studies of raised examples of poor negotiations or rent reductions. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on ongoing negotiations in specific terms, but the Government say generally that rent is often only one part of the overall financial terms agreed, as I said earlier. As regards behaviour during negotiations and the respective bargaining positions of the parties, the Government have recognised site provider concerns and are introducing measures to encourage greater collaboration.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, and other noble Lords mentioned the reluctance to enter into new agreements. We have been told that the amounts offered by some operators are so drastically reduced that landowners are less willing to come forward and allow their land to be used. However, I have been advised that, so far in 2022, at least 107 agreements have been reached in relation to new sites, with heads of terms agreed on a further 66 sites. This is in addition to 533 renewal agreements which have been concluded this year, along with heads of terms agreed on a further 119 renewals. The Government maintain that the 2017 valuation provision created the right balance, and they are aware that the valuation framework would have resulted in some reductions, as I said earlier.
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who talked about middlemen who take profits overseas. The benefits of independent infrastructure provision are globally acknowledged. An Ernst & Young report in February this year, produced by a European-wide infrastructure association, highlighted the many benefits which independent infrastructure providers bring to both the industry and consumers. It talked about sharing towers and costs and enabling cheaper rollout. The report concluded that the scope of independent infrastructure providers overcharging for the use of the infrastructure would be constrained by continued competition between tower companies.
Government policy introduced in the 2017 valuation framework to reflect the public interest in digital infrastructure and encourage investment while driving costs down remained unaltered. That is not to say that we approached our pre-consultation engagement with a closed mind, but that engagement with stakeholders did not indicate that the valuation framework is incapable of delivering both our policy objectives and fairer outcomes for landowners. It did highlight difficulties with communication and negotiations, hindering the framework from working as intended. We hope that the Bill and the non-legislative initiatives we are taking forward will tackle this.
There have been some claims that rents would reduce by more than 40%. In the impact assessments in 2016, the Government specifically said that they did not know what effect the reforms would have on rental payments. There is reference in the impact assessment to independent analysis which predicted a 40% decrease. Some lobby groups have asserted that this figure demonstrates that the Government committed that rent reductions would be no more than 40%. The Government maintain that this was not a government commitment, but it did appear in the impact assessment and we expected the market to adjust.
As I said, rent is only one element and other variations occur in practice. We understand the various things that have been said by various companies. A number of noble Lords reflected on the CEBR research. The Government have problems with the report from the CEBR. First, the picture the report paints of government policy is incomplete and partial. Secondly, the alternative changes the report proposes do not account for key challenges, which in our view means that they would not deliver the results the CEBR suggests. The report focuses excessively on the prospective interests of landowners and we are trying to get the right balance.
On the Institute of Economic Affairs, I should be very clear and have to declare my interests. I am the former academic and research director of the institute, so I would not wish to comment one way or the other on its report, but I know that it used as its source some of the work from the CEBR’s and other reports. My successor, Dr James Forder, is an excellent analyst and economist. Indeed, he is the economics tutor at Balliol College in Oxford—I digress.
I am afraid that, while I completely understand the arguments—I have had conversations with a number of noble Lords and am very grateful to those who have come to meetings and heard the Government’s perspective—we cannot accept these amendments. Perhaps in vain, or in aspiration, I ask noble Lords to consider not pressing them.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I make the point that, in my experience, the rent is the key factor, certainly over a period of time. Frequently no or minor payments are made, and it is simply that an agreement is struck for the rent. Trying to diminish the importance of the rent in the way the Minister has is something I find hard to swallow.
The Minister prays in aid consistency. If the valuation method is unfair, what this Bill does is ensure that a consistent unfairness is imposed, so I find that slightly tautologous. Does the Minister accept, agree and support the idea that a valuation based on a site that is known to be imminently the site of a mast should be done as if there was no mast site?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am interested in the point he makes about the amount or proportion of rent in the overall agreement. Whatever happens in this debate, I would be very happy to continue that conversation with him and my officials to make sure that we can close any gap in understanding.
The noble Lord will recognise that I have to defend the Government’s position as the Minister, so I continue to say that the Government cannot accept these amendments, but we hope, perhaps vainly, that the noble Lords who tabled them will consider not pressing them.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I thank noble Lords for the unified support from across the House. It came from all Benches, it seems, other than perhaps one—and even that Bench seemed to be wavering a little at the end there.
I am surprised that a Conservative Government extolling growth want to undermine property rights and cost the economy billions of dollars. There is no explanation given other than the whispers of these undisclosed stakeholders. The Minister kindly explained that he has been listening and that there have been discussions and workshops, but we simply have not seen what those were and what the stakeholders said. I have to ask where they are holding the stake to convince the Government to persevere despite your Lordships’ consistent opposition to these provisions.
I note the Minister’s desire for fairness. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has just noted, it seems that the Government want this provision to be equally unfair to every single site owner across the country.
The Minister also noted that the Government are trying to avoid costs going up. However, as we have seen, and as the RICS report stated, costs have risen exponentially as a result of the 2017 amendments, and here we are, doubling down on those, therefore only to increase costs further.
I think I heard the Minister accept that it will impact landowners’ desire to provide sites. I think he also noted that when you enter a lease you do so with the knowledge that the market might change and therefore the rent might change. I do not think that anyone entering a 1954 Act lease in 2015 would have expected that the rent would decrease by over 90% by 2022. I am sorry, but if the Minister suggests that that was a real expectation of the parties, it is simply not true.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Refusal of application for code rights on grounds of national security etc
(1) The electronic communications code is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph 27 insert—“Refusal of application on grounds of national security etc27ZZA_(1) This paragraph applies where an operator applies to the court for an order under paragraph 20, 26 or 27 which would impose an agreement between the operator and another person.(2) The court must refuse the application if the Secretary of State gives a certificate to the court certifying that the condition in sub-paragraph (3) is met.(3) The condition is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order applied for by the operator would be likely to prejudice national security, defence or law enforcement.(4) If the Secretary of State gives a certificate to the court under sub-paragraph (2) the Secretary of State must give a copy of it to the operator and the other person.(5) In this paragraph, “law enforcement” means the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.”(3) In paragraph 21 (test to be applied by the court in determining whether to make an order under paragraph 20), in sub-paragraph (1), before “, the court may make an order” insert “and paragraph 27ZZA”.(4) In paragraph 26 (power of court to make an order imposing interim code rights), in sub-paragraph (3), at the beginning insert “Subject to paragraph 27ZZA,”.(5) In paragraph 27 (power of court to make an order imposing temporary code rights), in sub-paragraph (2), at the beginning insert “Subject to paragraph 27ZZA,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a court must refuse an application by an operator for code rights under paragraph 20, 26 or 27 of the code if the Secretary of State gives a certificate that the order applied for would prejudice national security, defence or law enforcement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government believe that a change to the Electronic Communications Code—the code—is necessary to protect the autonomy and integrity of our national security, law enforcement and defence sites across the UK.
The code allows telecoms operators to ask landowners, government departments, agencies and other public sector bodies, including those with national security, law enforcement and defence equities, for code rights in relation to land and property. Such code rights include the right to carry out surveys as well as the right to install telecommunications equipment. If a consensual agreement cannot be reached, the telecoms operator can seek a court order to impose an agreement that confers the code rights being sought by the operator subject to whatever terms that the courts deem appropriate. This means that a telecoms provider can be granted access to sensitive national security sites without the landowner’s consent.
The code works in this way to ensure that operators can deliver coverage and connectivity across the UK at pace, and this is absolutely the right approach to delivering the Government’s rollout. However, an extra layer of protection is needed for situations where particularly sensitive sites, such as those with national security, law enforcement and defence equities, are involved. This is needed to protect our national security capabilities and operations and our ability to keep people safe.
There are three types of risk arising from the present position, which our police forces and national security bodies are already grappling with. These are legal, physical security and technical security risks.
In respect of the physical security risk, surveys and the installation and ongoing maintenance of telecommunications equipment could mean access to sensitive sites by non-security cleared personnel, including engineers, site surveyors and others. This poses a risk of compromise to sensitive information and staff who work in these buildings. The police, in particular, often need exclusive rooftop access for operational reasons, especially in cities, and the presence of persons and telecoms equipment on these rooftops can pose a hindrance.
Regarding the technical security risk, the installation of 5G equipment on sensitive government sites would significantly raise communications and information security risks for such sites. Finally, on the legal risk, the current dispute resolutions and court procedures do not allow for closed material proceedings. This means that classified national security concerns cannot be evidenced and may lead to courts granting access to sensitive sites without a full awareness of the risks.
We also need to consider the significant administrative burden of managing those legal risks where national security concerns cannot properly be evidenced, drawing resources away from primary national security work. For example, we have seen a significant increase in survey requests since the 2017 amendment to the code. There have also been increasing threats of litigation when access has been denied for legitimate security reasons.
This amendment, which inserts new paragraph 27ZZA into the code, will confer powers on the Secretary of State to intervene and prevent a court from granting a telecoms operator’s request for code rights, including rights to access and install apparatus on site, where granting the request would
“prejudice national security, defence or law enforcement.”
This certification will be considered only when all other routes to a mutually consensual solution have been exhausted. This is right and proportionate. It is worth emphasising that it will not provide public sector landowners with national security law enforcement and defence equities with a blanket exemption. It is anticipated that it would be employed only rarely, on a case-by-case basis and in extremis, and that only a small number of sites would be eligible. Nevertheless, we will consider how Parliament can be updated on the use of this power so that it can carry out its scrutiny role effectively.
The Government remain committed to being the landlord of choice for telecoms operators, but we believe that the sensitivity of some of these sites will mean that they will simply not be suitable. The aim of this amendment is to address legitimate national security concerns without undermining the Government’s ambitious rollout of gigabit-capable broadband and 5G networks. I beg to move.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is wise for the Government to make this amendment, given the dangers that have been identified to national security infrastructure of unfettered telecoms operator access.
This necessary amendment highlights two key issues. First, it highlights the broad powers conferred by the ECC on mast operators to access to public and private property and undertake works on it. It is not just the national security infrastructure that is threatened by the code provisions but private and public interests of many types. Secondly, the fact that the Government have become aware of this important concern only now, in the final stages of the Bill’s passage, is a compelling illustration of how totally inadequate the consultation process has been and how essential it is to conduct a proper review, an issue that we will come back to.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has demonstrated a prodigious ability to outsource the responsibility for presenting the government amendments. We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to this Bill.
As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, pointed out, this is late to the party. It is also the first time we have heard the explanation for this Bill, though others may have been lucky in having it. We had a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. No one from the Home Office was there to give us the information we have just received, so I am absorbing it for the first time—a relatively unsatisfactory process. That said, this is an important area. I am surprised that the code has somehow been allowed to continue for as long as it has without this issue cropping up. Have there been specific issues which have caused this to happen, or is it still a hypothetical matter that the Government are seeking to deal with?
Everybody can appreciate the problems of sticking a 5G tower on top of GCHQ. No one wants to see it, but I can imagine that the reality is a more subtle set of problems. We on these Benches seek a better sense of the real-life cases which the new clause seeks to stop. The Minister singled out technical risks in particular. Those exist beyond the site itself, on the environs. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the clause deals with a 5G site put adjacent to a security site. What thresholds are the Government going to expect its security services to run when it comes to implementing the clause? It will not just be on the site itself.
I understand that quite a lot of this will be enshrined in a digital toolkit. It would help us all if the process of developing that digital toolkit was one with a collaborative approach. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, also highlighted that this problem of overriding access from the operators extends beyond the security environs. This is not just a security issue; it spreads into other places. Like many other Peers, I received a letter from the fire and rescue service. While this is not a security issue, it falls within the purview of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the Government should consider it, because it raises the problems of putting network equipment on fire and rescue service land and the fact that it would impede the training and preparation of that service.
This is even later than the Government’s amendment, and I recognise that it is not even part of this amendment, but it is a specific concern, and the Minister would do well to undertake to your Lordships’ House to talk to the fire and rescue service, to understand their problem and, if necessary, I am sure that we would all tolerate a late insertion at Third Reading. I say this without having spoken to the Opposition, but if it was an issue, I think that we would discuss it.
We understand that national security issues must be taken into consideration. We do not understand how this will work, what the thresholds will be, and what sort of cases it is seeking to avoid. More explanation is required.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We have had to deal with an increasingly large cast of Ministers, but he is a very astute and wise owl and I am sure that he will bring his insights to bear on this. I thank him for the meeting that we were facilitated to have on this issue and thank the officials for their close attention.
We on the Labour Benches entirely understand the need to protect national security and other key sites across the UK. We take the point that we should not allow equipment to be installed in places where it may interfere or enable the interception of sensitive data. However—and it is a big however—it is not desirable to introduce a power such as this at the last substantive stage of a Bill, when the elected House and our own scrutiny committees have already considered the legislation. It is not best practice. I have a bit of sympathy because I too have been a Home Office Minister. In my time I did something like 19 Bills in a two-year period. Home Office officials have a nasty habit of dreaming up late amendments which are absolutely essential for the safety and security of people at the last minute. However, it is not good practice and should not go unremarked on. We hope that the DCMS and the Home Office will acknowledge that and reflect on how this has been brought forward.
We are grateful to Ministers and officials for answering questions over recent days. That has, to a large extent, assured us that this power is not only necessary but is appropriate and will not be widely used. The Minister said “rarely” and “in extremis”, two very important guiding phrases to be used. Under this draft, the power is not subject to any formal checks. We hope that the Minister can make commitments again from the Dispatch Box. There are the possible reporting approaches to Parliament, perhaps to an appropriate Select Committee and maybe to the Intelligence and Security Committee, even if these reports are confidential. We would be grateful if the Minister could repeat, for the record, the various other steps to be exhausted before the Secretary of State would resort to this blunt instrument.
The Lib Dems made an interesting suggestion at the end of their contribution on this. I would be very interested to hear if this power will impact on adjacent sites, and whether those adjacent sites might in themselves be a security risk. It is right to draw attention to the needs of fire and rescue services, and the police service, where their services might be interfered with by adjacent-site issues.
It is not desirable, not good practice, and really not right to introduce something like this in your Lordships’ House, but we understand why and are happy to support this amendment because of its security implications.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bassam; I do not think I have ever had the words “astute”, “wise” and “owl” used in the same sentence about me before, and I am very grateful.
I will get on to the specific points that were raised. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, effectively said, “Isn’t this unfair to private landowners?”, but generally speaking the Government are in the same position as any other landowner in relation to the code. Indeed, we intend to continue our proactive work with the telecommunications sector to ensure that the public sector property portfolio is utilised, wherever possible, to support our coverage and connectivity aims. I do not believe that this is a question about fairness; it is a question about national security, law enforcement and the defence sites that I referred to earlier.
All three noble Lords who spoke have queried why this is being introduced at such a late stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows, and for the record, I agree with him: it is certainly not ideal. But before seeking to introduce this exemption, we have rigorously pursued non-legislative solutions to the identified risks, given the Government’s commitment to roll out gigabit-capable broadband and the 5G networks at speed. However, we have concluded that there remain certain situations where non-legislative options cannot be relied on to address our fundamental security risk concerns. This amendment will address that: it provides a mechanism to preserve national security objectives where necessary. But I reiterate the point: I understand where he is coming from on that particular subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked if I was able to give some indicative examples of where a Secretary of State may deem it appropriate to issue one of these certificates. I am happy to do so: the power is, as I said earlier, limited in scope, and will be applied on a case-by-case basis. Certification will be considered only when all other routes to a mutually consensual solution have been exhausted, and a telecoms operator applies to the court for the rights to be imposed. That is the last resort or, as I described it yesterday, a red card option. New Scotland Yard, for example, has received repeated requests from operators to access its main building, and operators have threatened litigation. This is an example where we would consider using this power, but other obvious examples include agency headquarters, if an operator were to approach them.
The required threshold will be considered only when all other routes to the mutually consensual solution have been exhausted, as I have just said. The newly restructured cross-government digital infrastructure toolkit will remain the primary route for determining the outcome of survey and installation requests from telecom operators. The working group supporting the implementation of the toolkit will provide a platform for regular engagement with operators. The group will also provide support to operators in assessing a site’s suitability, including a consideration of national security risks and any mitigations therein. I assure noble Lords that certification will be applied for by the Government only when it is considered necessary, and there are no other options or routes to a mutually agreed solution: for example, if the working group advises that a site is unsuitable for survey and installation based on national security grounds which cannot be mitigated, but the operator still commences court proceedings. Even then, certification will not be applied automatically. The Secretary of State will still need to make a final decision on whether a certificate of exemption is appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a very good point about digital proximity; I suppose that is the right way to put it. I am not going to get involved in that debate here. As I am sure he will appreciate, there are significant national security concerns about it, and it strays into a number of other areas. Perhaps that is a subject we can pick up in the future, because it will obviously have major implications. Finally, he also asked me about previous Home Office involvement—I remind him that I have been in post for only a week, so could not really help on that one—and the fire service. We have seen the representations of the fire service, but have carefully balanced the risk so as to not undermine legitimate national security risks. We will, of course, continue to engage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that operators engage in the alternative dispute resolution process by making it mandatory.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise what is quite a difficult situation in Amendments 25, 26, and 27. What I seek to address here is the fact that while it is welcome that there is an alternative dispute resolution process, it would be preferable that this was mandatory. I would also like to raise other issues, such as the imbalance between the funds available to operators bringing such a case and to landowners, who may be of quite modest means and modest size in being able to defend against such actions.
I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Could my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to explain why it is merely optional for operators to use it, given—as I referred to a moment ago—the disparity in resources between operators and landowners in many cases? Is he not concerned that the incentive to use such an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for operators is low, given that they have the resources to take potentially multiple landowners to tribunal? Also, while the overall market for new sites for masts has slowed down, some small landowners have been unable to afford the cost of being taken to a tribunal to seek to defend their property rights. They have essentially been forced to agree to host mobile apparatus on unfavourable terms.
I propose Amendments 25, 26 and 27 to make it mandatory for telecoms operators to engage with an alternative dispute resolution mechanism before threatening to take a landowner to court for an agreement to be imposed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As I have said, I am a litigator, and it is a tremendous help to get parties together in some form of alternative dispute resolution before a matter is litigated. Compelling ADR as step 1 in an escalating dispute is common, and indeed is often to be found within contractual obligations themselves, particularly between parties of disparate size and resource. Given all that has been said about the fractious and broken market, and the huge number of disputes that are occurring, the more that can be done to head these off before litigation costs escalate, the better.
I was referred to a decision this morning of the Lands Tribunal where a lease negotiation had been settled at the door of court: the decision focused only on the issue of costs. The tribunal awarded £5,000 in costs, but the total bill was over £100,000. Litigation costs can be huge and, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has indicated, that can keep small site owners out of litigation: they have to just roll over. ADR can occur in the form of mediation, arbitration or simply expert determination on a specific technical or legal issue in contention. It is key to greasing the wheels of these challenging transactions and, given the difference in size and resource between site owners and telecoms operators, it would be most helpful.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I was in two minds about these amendments, but I will support them in the final analysis. ADR is of course a good thing if it avoids lengthy and costly court proceedings. My concern is that it can also become a token activity, backed by the threat of subsequent court action to intimidate site owners, reflected in the inequality of arms between the parties, which others have already referred to.
I would greatly prefer an outcome where disputes can be resolved between the parties, and perhaps their respective agents, where the balance of negotiation is fair. I made a proposal in my earlier remarks on this, to which I have received no response.
The Bill, as drafted, sets site owners and operators needlessly on a collision path. No disputes will be resolved; they will simply be won by brutal compulsion that will lead to delay and protracted proceedings. If the Bill goes ahead as is, ADR should be mandatory as a first step in at least seeking some resolution. I therefore support the amendments in this group.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The view of these Benches is that throughout the passage of the Bill it has been clear that a strong case has been made for better protection for landowners against the power of telecoms operators. However, the ADR process that the Government are providing under Clause 68 is non-binding. Telecoms companies need to show only that they have considered it to avoid costs. This will not make them engage with the spirit of the process, and we expect telecoms companies to take matters to court as quickly as possible instead, with all the consequences that entails of costs on both sides.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, stated, to address this the Government should make ADR compulsory for any dispute and issue guidance about reasonable terms. Properly enforced, we believe it would reduce operators’ reliance on litigation through the courts, which sometimes takes the rather oppressive form of threats, and encourage better behaviour by both parties. Given the potential benefits to both parties and the wider public interest, it is difficult to see the case for this process remaining advisory. In principle, we very much support Amendments 25, 26 and 27, so well advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. It was an interesting debate in Committee and I congratulate the noble Baroness on retabling her amendments. I do so because I am not completely convinced by the Government’s arguments here. There are real concerns from some that the tribunal system favours operators due to the experience and size of their legal teams. They are very powerful organisations and we should not overlook that. The legal system is there to protect all from overweening power. I understand that the ADR system is intended to prevent cases going to tribunal and court, with all the costs that come with that, and, given the timescales involved, there is clearly a benefit to reaching agreements under an alternative framework. However, if it is voluntary, where is the incentive for its use?
I shall ask one final question; I think this is the most important point. If ADR as a voluntary means of dispute resolution does not work, what will the Government do? Will they step in again and reconsider this issue? Will they give careful consideration to making it mandatory, because then it would have a more powerful effect?
I do not think this issue will go away. I do not find the Government’s arguments entirely compelling and the noble Baroness has made a very good case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for this amendment and for explaining making ADR—alternative dispute resolution—compulsory so eloquently. Where there is disagreement, it is always good if there can be a mechanism, but we have to remember that ADR is not one sort of ADR. There are many different types, which I shall go into.
I shall reiterate the Government’s position of not supporting the approach and supply more information that I hope will convince your Lordships that these amendments are not only unnecessary but could be actively counterproductive. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson mentioned in Committee, ADR not being mandatory is a deliberate policy choice, made for the following reasons. First, where ADR is appropriate, mandatory ADR would compel some parties to participate in a process in which they do not want to be involved, which would make them less inclined to engage actively. This would increase the risk of failure and the parties would then have to go to court anyway. It would serve only to add an additional layer of time and cost to landowners.
On this point, I return to my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s previous comments highlighting the counter- productive incentives that mandatory ADR risks creating. There are many types of ADR with different formats, timescales and costs. For example, mediation and arbitration are both types of ADR. In a situation where mandatory ADR has forced a party into ADR against its will, the party may seek an inappropriate form of ADR to frustrate the process and force the matter to proceed to court. This would result in the parties incurring additional time and costs for no practical benefit.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the Benches opposite for their support for these amendments. I have to confess that I am disappointed by both the tone and the content of my noble friend’s reply. I think it goes to the heart of earlier groups where we, I think successfully, set out across the House the fact that there is a serious imbalance in the relations between the parties concerned, which will only become worse, given that the operators are going to have even more means and resources at their disposal.
I hope my noble friend will accept that, even where there is permissive procedural provision to achieve a change in behaviour, it will probably be only through mandatory—or, in the word of the Liberal Democrats opposite, compulsory—arrangements that we shall see a change. I think I have made the point as forcefully as I possibly can. I do not see that my noble friend is going to agree to these amendments, but I hope that he and his department will consider this going forward. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“Independent review of the electronic communications code
(1) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to undertake a review of the effect of—(a) the electronic communications code, and (b) the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021,on the deployment of 1 gigabit per second broadband and other forms of telecommunications infrastructure.(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in addition to any other matters the Secretary of State deems appropriate, include consideration of—(a) the extent to which revisions to the electronic communications code have secured progress towards His Majesty's Government's targets relating to telecommunications infrastructure,(b) the balance of rights and responsibilities of land- owners and telecommunications operators, and(c) the impact of this Act on the level of competition in the telecommunications sector.(3) The independent person may make recommendations to the Secretary of State on matters including (but not limited to)—(a) potential further revisions to the electronic communications code,(b) potential amendments to—(i) legislation, or(ii) guidance,relating to the valuation of land used to host telecommunications infrastructure, and(c) the potential benefits of imposing a requirement for telecommunications operators to report annually to OFCOM on their investment in new infrastructure.(4) Upon receipt of the report from the independent person, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish the report,(b) prepare a response to the report, and(c) lay a copy of the report and response before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to conduct a review of recent changes to telecommunications infrastructure legislation and policy. This review would consider what further changes may be required to ensure regulation in this field delivers new infrastructure in a way that also preserves competition in the sector.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 28, which we have tabled in an attempt to find a constructive way forward to perhaps the greatest area of discussion throughout this Bill which has not yet been resolved—how we bring together the balance, the fairness and the efficiency that we all say we are looking for. This amendment is an attempt to amalgamate various others that were debated at Committee stage. I am very grateful to colleagues across your Lordships’ House who have worked with us on the draft or have indicated their support for this approach. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for adding his name, and, of course, my noble friend Lord Bassam.
Since taking office, the new Prime Minister has made a lot of her commitment to rolling out high-speed broadband and 5G. We welcome that commitment and would like to see it come into reality, particularly as, regrettably, the former Prime Minister repeatedly watered down the targets. We want to see modern infrastructure installed and want that to happen quickly, but we also want the system to be fair—to operators, yes, but also to the landowners who host equipment and consumers who are in the midst of a cost of living crisis.
The Government, we understand, will say—and I hope the Minister will not be going down this road—that a review as proposed in this amendment would only slow things down. Let me deal with that. This amendment does not prevent any of the Bill’s provisions coming into force. The Government, we understand, are also minded to say that they are confident in their approach in this area and therefore no review is necessary. If that is the case, I suggest that an independent review would give their policies a clean bill of health. However, I suspect an independent review would conclude that all is not as well as has been presented, and its recommendations could therefore be a very helpful resource for the new Secretary of State and the Government.
We see no reason why the Government could not simply accept this amendment and get on with appointing somebody independent to lead a review. If the Government are not willing to do that, we will be minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment at the last minute and I am very pleased to support it. From my earlier contribution, the House will be aware of my concerns about the lack of consultation prior to the passage of this Bill. The contributions of many noble Lords and the Ministers’ responses have only increased those concerns. I did not push for a vote on the prior amendments regarding valuation and ADR because I believe those issues will properly be considered in the context of this independent review.
The Government have suggested in discussions that a review will unduly impact the market and slow the rollout of digital infrastructure. This is not possible. We have established that the market is already broken and the costs of transacting telecoms sites have more than doubled since 2017, as reported in the RICS conference, and the number of cases before the lands tribunal has more than tripled. The ECC is not working and expanding its broken application to historic 1954 Act leases will only increase the challenges. A review is urgently required, and I urge that this be voted on.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment. The noble Baroness has rightly underlined the importance of ensuring that the code is actually having the impact the Government tell us it is having.
This legislation is controversial because it proposes to erode property rights in the public interest. For this to be a viable proposition for a Government who support individual rights and freedoms, it must be absolutely clear that the public benefits considerably outweigh the private cost and the resulting redistribution is as fair and equitable as it can be. Any such policy must therefore be based on robust evidence.
A recent contentious legal ruling in a case brought by Vodafone has underlined that the Electronic Communications Code does not reach this bar. As a brief summary, the legal judgment has created significant real-world issues for the ability of landowners to develop sites, damaging local economic growth but also disincentivising site owners from agreeing to host telecoms sites at all. This risks stalling the rollout of new telecoms sites, putting in jeopardy the Government’s ambitious 5G targets. The judge said that this ruling identified a “potentially important structural defect” in the code. I am aware that this case has been brought to the attention of the Government, but they have chosen not to act. Issues such as this illustrate precisely why the review proposed by this amendment is vital.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I would have made a very similar speech to the noble Lord. As he has made my speech for me, I will not keep the House any longer, other than to say that when the big guy is versus the small guy it is beholden on us to support the small guy.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, just because it is my first opportunity to do so, I congratulate my noble friend on his new role and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, to his place on the Front Bench.
I do not contribute to this debate with any enthusiasm because, having made my points at all previous stages of this Bill through your Lordships’ House, it disappoints me that we are here where we are. I will repeat some of my points briefly. Like everybody else, I think it is important to emphasise that I, too, wholly endorse fast and full rollout of high-quality broadband to all parts of the UK.
As has been said already by others, my concern is really on behalf of the site owners. It is important for us to keep in mind, particularly if we have not been following this Bill closely, that when we talk about site owners this is not just about wealthy landowners but a whole range of different smallholdings and community property and that sort of thing. A whole manner of different people are involved. They were told that the reduction in rental income would be reinvested by the mobile network operators in delivering the rollout. It seems that there remains a lack of confidence on their part, because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the new code is working. They are expected to engage in negotiations with commercial entities on trust while fearing their loss is at someone else’s gain. We have heard the extent of this in other groups earlier this evening.
As I have said before, the benefit of rollout relies on the willingness of site holders to participate; when we rely on people to succeed, they deserve to be heard and listened to. When their concerns are about fairness, they cannot be ignored. I am concerned about not causing any delay to rollout, but the arguments and evidence we have heard today is that ignoring the concerns of site owners is doing just that.
In Committee, I said I would support an amendment—it was Amendment 50 in Committee—that simply required the mobile network operators to report annually and transparently to Ofcom on a range of performance measures, including their overall investment into mobile networks alongside a range of other things. This amendment, ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, goes much further and includes a review, as we have heard, and the potential for the type of reporting requirement I have just described to be an outcome of it.
In my view, the Government have to move from their current position if they are to bring all site owners on side—and we need them on side to get the rollout. In the absence of any willingness on the Government’s part while the Bill is in Parliament, the case for Parliament imposing this independent review is compelling. That said, I hope my noble friend will have given the points made in this debate full consideration, and I will listen carefully to what he has to say.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on her presentation of this amendment. It is an elegant composite of the discussions we had in Committee, and that is why I was very happy to put my name to it. We have heard some compelling speeches and I suggest to the Minister that they have come from 360 degrees in this Chamber, which generally indicates a klaxon for any government Minister. This really is an issue.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank noble Lords from all 360 degrees of the House for their contributions to this debate. Before I answer the specific points, I will address some of the points about relationships being broken, as it were, between landowners and operators.
A number of non-legislative steps are taking place to make sure this code works well in practice. For example, the department’s—wait for the name—Barrier Busting Task Force holds monthly workshops with a broad range of stakeholder groups with an interest in the code. These workshops are attended by network operators and landowner representative groups such as the NFU, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and the Country Land and Business Association, as well as local authority representatives, legal professionals and surveyors. The workshops aim to encourage greater co-operation and collaboration in relation to the code negotiations and agreements through identifying and implementing better ways of working. The workshops touch on key issues, many of which have been raised by noble Lords. For example, stakeholders are currently working to agree on a standard template wording for common clauses within code agreements and have agreed a pilot communications framework that sets out how both operators and landowners could approach negotiations.
Perhaps one of the most significant developments to come from these workshops—my officials call it exciting—is that a number of stakeholders, including representatives from the CLA, the CAAV and the NFU, alongside operators and infrastructure providers, have come together to form the national connectivity alliance. This alliance will bring together stakeholders from across the industry to discuss issues of mutual interest, improve co-operation and collaboration and, hopefully, share best practice. The Government welcome this development and wish it every success when it launches in November. I use that as an example to address some of the concerns and suggestions in this House that somehow relationships have broken down between landowners and operators.
While having 360-degree support, Amendment 28 would make the changes to the code in 2021 and 2017 subject to specific and independent review. As with similar amendments, I wholly appreciate the House’s determination to ensure that the Government are held accountable for this legislation and for providing updates on progress towards their coverage and connectivity targets, which are at the heart of the Bill, but the Government see three important difficulties with this amendment, which I hope noble Lords will consider.
First, and this is a key concern, having another review of the code on the immediate horizon will not help a market that is starting to settle. Officials have been gathering data throughout the passage of the Bill, and the number of code agreements already concluded this year is extremely positive. I know that noble Lords are keen to see that data—
Lord Fox (LD)
I realise that this is taking some time, but on a number of occasions the Minister has talked about the market “starting to settle”. Can he describe what settling a market is and what data he is using to make that assertion?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes a reasonable point. I know that noble Lords are keen to see the data, but all that I can do at the moment is undertake to make it available as soon as possible—I did not say “in due course”, by the way. We believe that the prospect of another review will, quite simply, create chaos in the market—I know that noble Lords disagree with that. Site providers would inevitably, and not unreasonably, draw out negotiations as long as possible, in the hope that the “no scheme” valuation regime would be scrapped. It is important to consider that.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to impose a duty to assess, in isolation, the impact of this legislation and the previous reforms made to the code on digital connectivity and on stakeholder relationships. The Government question how feasible it is to quantify the extent to which such progress is attributable to a single piece of legislation, and we all know that the market to which these provisions apply is dynamic. By the time such a review has been commissioned, the research carried out and the findings reported on, the market is likely to have moved on significantly, rendering that report obsolete. In 1996, I wrote a bestseller on EU telecommunications policy—I am sure you have all heard of it—and, by the time it was published, it was already out of date. That shows how quickly this market develops. Funding such a report therefore cannot provide good value to the taxpayer, and the amount could be better spent helping the Government reach their ambitious connectivity targets, to which I will come in a moment. But remember: the report would probably be obsolete by the time it is published.
Finally, this amendment overlooks the substantial review and reporting mechanisms that are already in place. For example, in relation to progress on gigabit-capable broadband, my noble friend Lord Parkinson referred in Committee to Ofcom’s annual Connected Nations report, which is updated twice a year and provides a clear assessment of the progress in both fixed and mobile connectivity. The Government also monitor and report regularly on their connectivity commitments, with quarterly updates published by BDUK. The Government will of course carefully consider the implementation of this legislation to understand how it is working in practice. For these reasons, I believe that the proposals in this amendment, while well-intentioned, could be disproportionate and ultimately unhelpful. I have also written about unintended consequences, and we have to be very careful of these here.
I will respond directly to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about targets. The levelling-up White Paper set out our mission that, by 2030, the UK will have nationwide gigabit-capable broadband and 4G coverage, with 5G coverage for the majority of the population. The Government are developing a wireless infrastructure strategy to set out the strategic framework for that development, and this will be published later this year.
The existing 5G target, which is for the majority of the population to have access to 5G by 2027, has been met five years early, with basic non-standalone 5G. As part of the wireless infrastructure strategy, we are establishing a new ambition for 5G. The shared rural network will see the Government and industry jointly investing over £1 billion to increase 4G mobile coverage throughout the UK to 95% geographic coverage by the end of the programme, underpinned by licence obligations.
The UK Government’s other target for broadband remains to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to at least 85% of premises by 2025 and to reach over 99% by 2030. To achieve the minimum 85% objective, DCMS is stimulating the market to deliver as much as possible—at least 80% by 2025. It has also invested £5 billion as part of Project Gigabit to ensure that the remaining 5% in the UK receive coverage. If I have not answered the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I commit to write to him—perhaps he could let me know.
I understand that there was a lot of interest, and there have been very well-made points during the debate, but I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this amendment at this stage.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is disappointing that the Minister has not found a way to respond to the very real, informed and evidenced points raised not just today but at previous stages. I am sure that the Minister knows full well that his response just will not do. This amendment seeks to find a constructive way forward—something that the Government have failed to do—and bring together people who previously were apart. It seeks to address the obstacles to the ambitions that the Government say they have, in a way that the Government have failed to do. It also seeks to bring transparency to assist a process. I have heard the Minister, but I am disappointed, and I therefore feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 11) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 14 July be approved.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House considers the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 11) Regulations 2022, and will also speak to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 13) Regulations 2022, and the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 14) Regulations 2022.
The instruments before us were laid between 14 and 20 July, under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and make amendments to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. In co-ordination with our allies, the United Kingdom continues to introduce the largest and most severe economic sanctions package that Russia has ever faced. Noble Lords will note that we continue to bring further pressure to bear on Mr Putin and his regime. Since these SIs were introduced, we have made further announcements on UK sanctions in response to Mr Putin’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian regions.
On 26 September, the UK sanctioned 29 individuals and organisations related to the temporarily controlled territories of Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, Russian Government officials, four additional oligarchs and 55 state board executives. On 30 September, the Foreign Secretary announced a new set of sanctions related to services on which Russia depends. Building on previous action, the UK will prevent Russian access to advertising services, architectural services, auditing services, engineering services, IT consultancy and transactional legal advisory services linked to certain commercial activity.
The announcement also included a new ban on the export of nearly 700 goods that are crucial to Russia’s industrial and technological capabilities. The UK also sanctioned Elvira Nabiullina, the governor of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Nabiullina has been instrumental in the Russian economy throughout the Russian regime’s illegal war against Ukraine and in extending the rouble into the Ukrainian territories that are temporarily controlled by Russia. The measures we are debating today further isolate Russia’s economy and target key industries supporting Mr Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine.
I will first cover the No. 11 regulations, which ban the export of goods and technologies related to the defence, security and maritime sectors. They also prohibit the export of jet fuel, maritime goods and technology, certain energy-related goods, plus sterling and European Union banknotes. In addition, these regulations ban the import of goods such as fertiliser, metals, chemicals and wood, depriving Russia of a key export market. Together, these were worth £585 million last year. A further import ban covers ancillary services related to iron and steel imports.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will allow me briefly to mention the No. 11 regulations. I understand from what he said that they derive in part from discussions at the G7, and I presume that all G7 countries are in the process of putting similar ranges of sanctions in place in their own countries. Part 4 inserted by these very extensive regulations deals with chemicals and equipment—it is a very comprehensive list. Is this list the same as that being applied by other European countries? When I looked at it, I thought it might be derived from the former EU regulation on REACH, which is I think the biggest piece of legislation ever passed by the European Parliament. Are we co-operating on important measures such as this to have the effect that the Minister intends?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that these measures are supported by the Liberal Democrat Benches. As when we have debated previous sanctions, I am grateful for the Minister maintaining contact and keeping us informed. He knows of our strong support for measures which aim to ratchet up the pressure on Vladimir Putin and, as is included in these elements, the wider circle of his support.
We would support moving beyond the regulations to include the United Russia party and wider elements of the Russian regime in this part of the sanctions regime. We support the Government in the extension on state entities but, as the Minister knows well enough, there has been considerable state capture of the Russian economy by the Putin regime over recent years. This means that we should include in our sanctions regime not just the political actors but, increasingly, those in the wider economy. Therefore, the banning of certain exports and the wider inclusion of some state entities is to be welcomed.
I also welcome the work of officials on the impact assessments. They are useful tools to look at what the impact could be on the wider Russian economy. This leads to my first question. We have debated many sanctions but are yet to receive what I have asked for previously: an overall assessment of the net impact of the UK sanctions on the Russian economy and regime. I understand entirely that that document will be sensitive, but we must understand what the impact has been; otherwise, we cannot judge what could well be a situation where, in the long run, we want to move away from the sanctions regime. However, that is premature, as we want to increase the pressure.
That leads to my second question, on implementation. I noted that we have seen the first prosecution in the UK of what is effectively sanctions-busting. Can the Minister indicate whether that is an isolated case or if he is aware of more areas where there are active prosecutions of UK citizens and residents who have been acting against the sanctions regime in the UK? We need to know that these sanctions are being actively policed and implemented. They are pointless unless they are implemented in full.
This leads on to my third question: no doubt the Minister will have noted, as I have when I have been travelling, that the number of Russian nationals who have been using other transport routes through the Gulf—and Istanbul in particular—to access the UK and the European Union seems to have markedly increased since the sanctions regime was put in place. Is the UK monitoring passenger levels of individuals who are coming to the UK? I know that there is live debate on visa access for Russian nationals, both to the UK and to the European Union, but I would like the Minister to reassure me that this is being actively monitored.
Turning to the particular measures, I hope the Minister will forgive me for reflecting on one of the elements in the Explanatory Notes on the No. 11 regulations, but it is connected with yesterday’s debate which he and I participated in. On Regulation 7, the Government say:
“Failure to join the international community would undermine the UK’s reputation as an upholder of international law, human rights, freedom of expression and democracy.”
The debate that we had yesterday is relevant to what we are arguing for here in relation to upholding international law, and I wanted to stress that point.
With regard to the No. 12 regulations, the Minister said that our regime is now going beyond that of the European Union. I wonder if he could say a little more, with regards to energy, on where we have departed from the European Union and have now got a stronger regime. I am not opposing this, of course, but it would be helpful to have a little more information.
With regard to the No. 13 regulations, it is helpful that there is now clarification on shipping; this was raised in previous debates, and I welcome it.
Finally, I have a broader point on which I would like the Minister’s reflections. As he will know, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I have asked how we are working with our allies to ensure that our sanctions regime is not circumvented by friends and colleagues around the world, especially with regard to Russia accessing the very technologies and goods that we are now banning. The Minister knows well enough that Russia is very active in the wider Gulf, in Africa and in India in sourcing some of the materials that we are now banning. I previously raised the issue of concern with regard to the Indian rupee/rouble swap for purchase of energy. When I raised that question, the Minister said it was premature, but that arrangement is now in place. We are apparently only a fortnight away from signing a free trade agreement with India. At the very same time that we are banning the selling of certain goods to Russia, India seems to be increasing the selling of those goods to Russia. Could the Minister say what work we are doing with our allies to ensure that, whilst we are seeking to limit the sourcing of some of these materials to Russia, our allies are not increasing them? If the Minister could respond to these points, I would be very grateful.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too would like to start by reiterating the backing of the Opposition for the Government’s support for the people of Ukraine, and of course these sanctions are a vital element of that support. I am pleased to see such a wide range of issues being covered in today’s measures, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has mentioned. We support these sanctions and measures, but it is only right that this House can scrutinise and understand whether the Government are properly resourcing them. It is one thing having the law; it is another thing to be able to ensure full compliance. I think a lot of my questions will echo those of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, regarding that question.
In the other place, the Minister Jesse Norman stressed —and I accept this—that
“the first instinct in a war situation is to get sanctions on the books as quickly as possible.”
I noticed what the noble Lord said regarding the Joint Committee, and of course we even had amendments to our Standing Orders to ensure that we could get these in place as quickly as possible. I reassure the Minister that the Opposition will do whatever they can to ensure speedy implementation and adoption of these sanctions.
Jesse Norman also argued that the sanctions
“have been effective because the Treasury Committee has reminded us of that, and we have plenty of other evidence that it is the case.”
I would echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it would be good to have that assessment in a more political context so that we can properly understand it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all three noble Lords for their contributions this evening. I say from the outset to the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins—both will appreciate this, as we are working at speed—on the effectiveness of comparisons with our international partners, that there is information readily available, but there is a sensitivity, if I may put it that way, in publicly sharing information. However, I will be happy to share certain information and briefings with both noble Lords and give them updates on where we are.
Both noble Lords raised the important issue of the effectiveness of co-ordination with our partners, and I know that this is of interest. While I mentioned the issue of energy vis-à-vis our European Union partners, I have always maintained that there will inevitably be a country leading—such as the US or ourselves, or the EU—in certain areas. The important element with respect to the granular detail—I do have the summaries available, which I reflect on quite regularly—is to ensure that where there is a gap, say, from our side, we ask the pointed question as to why that is the case so that we can address it, and vice versa. Actually, that is working very well. I can share some of that information and bring noble Lords up to date on that, specifically outside the Chamber.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, but I say on behalf of my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lord Fox, who take an interest in these issues, that if the Minister wanted to facilitate a private briefing with officials to give an update on the Government’s estimate of the impact on the Russian economy, we would be willing to take that. I wanted to make sure that was on the record.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can certainly share some of these issues, on the wider and general impact, this evening. However, particularly as we are working in very close alignment with our partners, I shall be certain to provide updates and private briefings in that respect.
I again thank all noble Lords for their strong support. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised a question on the reach of SI 11. I confirm to him that we are co-ordinating the lists of goods covered by our export prohibitions with our G7 allies, and we are working very closely on those lists. To summarise, SI 11 covers an export ban on defence and security goods and technology, including products for internal repression; an export ban on maritime goods and technology; an export ban on additional energy-related goods and oil refining; an export ban on sterling or EU-denominated bank notes; an export ban on jet fuel and fuel additives; an import ban on revenue-generating goods, including metals, wood and chemicals, among others; and a ban on technical assistance, financial services and funds. So the SI is pretty comprehensive.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On that specific point, Stephen Doughty asked at the other end about goods for internal repression and how we are introducing that ban now, when surely we should have adopted it much earlier, particularly with the invasion of Crimea. Have we been exporting equipment for internal repression before?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I said in my opening remarks, there are areas where SIs are already present and there may be a degree of overlap in the application, but what we are seeking to do with all these SIs is to ensure that our regulations are fully comprehensive. It is not that we were in the market to suddenly start exporting items which add to the suppression of domestic populations—I think we have known for a long time the challenges that the people of Russia face. As we evolve, go forward and progress our sanctions, it is important that we are as detailed as we can be. Previous sanctions may have covered aspects of those limitations, but we want to make sure that we are covering every element that we can.
Both noble Lords highlighted how those who are having sanctions imposed on them are looking at innovative pathways to overcome them. We have to be dynamic in responding to that. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the issue of other partners beyond our key G7 partners, and that is important. I fully accept that there will be issues; different countries have different perspectives, as we can see from looking at votes taking place within multilateral fora, including the one on the sham referenda. It is noticeable—I am being very up front here—that some countries are now not as forward-leaning as they were previously, and it is important that they get a consistent and consolidated sense from both your Lordships’ House and the other place of unity and purpose. Of course questions are there, but I cannot emphasise how important it is for them to see this unanimity. There are partners who are looking at this as the war continues with regard to their own domestic challenges as well. Therefore, the more aligned we can be with those partners who have sanctions regimes, the more effective we will be. However, I fully accept that there will be ways and means in which those having sanctions imposed on them will look to circumvent them.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the McFaul group. The working group is an independent group of sanctions experts. Government officials have regular contact and close exchanges with the group, but if there are specific points perhaps the noble Lord will raise them with me and I will seek to answer them more specifically.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about circumvention, which I have already addressed in part. These regulations seek to close the gaps. I come back to the whole issue of how we work with key partners. I will seek to provide more detail on the specific examples that the noble Lord raised.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 18 July be approved.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 13) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 18 July be approved.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 14) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 20 July be approved.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.