House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Defence procurement is some of the most complex in Government, but our defence and security industrial strategy, published last year, represents a step change that will see industry, Government and academia working ever closer together, while fundamentally reforming regulations to improve the speed of acquisition and ensure we incentivise innovation and productivity.
Dame Diana Johnson
It has been reported that the Ministry of Defence has wasted £15 billion of taxpayers’ money on mismanaged procurement since 2010, with £5 billion of it since 2019. Might the Secretary of State just set out in a little bit more detail how he is going to deal with that type of waste and stop it happening in the future?
Mr Wallace
I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has obviously lapped up the Labour Front Benchers’ dodgy dossier on defence procurement. Of course, over half of the figure she used was under the previous Labour Government. Labour double-counted, including in that dossier, and indeed made no reference to the fact that the top 15 projects under Labour, in its last period of power, produced a £4.5 billion overspend and a 339-month out-of-date period for projects.
As I said, these are very complex processes. We often make sure that we try to meet the demand and the threat, but some of these projects last 20 years. We have made significant steps to change and reform that, and the right hon. Lady will be glad to know that this year—or last year and the year before—the MOD came in on budget for its overall budget, with a balanced budget for the first time for decades.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Type 26 frigate is literally a world-beating design, which we have exported to both Canada and Australia, and we all want to see it in service as soon as possible. So it is doubly disappointing that, last week, the Department issued a written ministerial statement to say her entry into service is now delayed a further year from October 2027 to October 2028 and the lifetime cost to the programme will be over a quarter of a billion pounds more of taxpayers’ money. Given the defence budget is likely to come under great pressure, why does it take BAE Systems 11 years to build a ship the Japs can build in four?
Mr Speaker
Just before the Secretary of State answers, may I say that we even have the Speaker of Canada here, which is very appropriate.
Mr Wallace
First, just like in Canada, industrial complexes are facing post-covid skills challenges and indeed supply chain challenges—because our ships, just like everybody else’s ships, use international supply chains—and that has got involved in the timetable, which obviously has a knock-on effect on cost. However, where there have been supply chain problems, my team and I have personally made sure I have not only visited the manufacturer to grip the situation, but discussed it with the prime. It is incredibly important when we place these contracts, and the contracts are for billions of pounds, that the prime contractors, be they British or foreign, deliver in accordance with them. That is why, in future contracts, I have made sure not only that we do as much as we can to build in Britain, but that we get the primes to invest in the infrastructure of British yards and the skills base of British people to ensure this does not happen again.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
General Dynamics reports strong progress on the troubled Ajax programme, so can the Secretary of State confirm that a solution to the noise and vibration issues has now been found?
Mr Wallace
First, we expect General Dynamics to stick within the terms of its contract, and we will stick to our side of the contract. The user validation trials, which are the first steps in getting this Ajax programme back on track, have now been completed. We are looking at the results and hope to start the next phase soon, which is good news all round.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
What plans does my right hon. Friend have to further invest in and enhance our sovereign defence manufacturing capability, which not only provides us with a massive strategic benefit but is great for jobs and apprenticeships?
Mr Wallace
When we published the defence Command Paper, we committed to invest £23 billion in our land capabilities over the next 10 years—a significant investment in land. That was accompanied by a land industrial strategy. It has also been accompanied by a defence and security industrial strategy that puts a lot of weight on ensuring that we support a sovereign supply chain where possible, and that we invest in skills. A number of working groups in Government are designed to do just that, and to both improve the skills base, but also to ensure that, where possible, we get the best social value and indeed a British supply chain.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It was an honour to join you, Mr Speaker, the Canadian Speaker, the Defence Secretary and other Members of the House earlier today for the opening of the constituency garden of remembrance. At last week’s Defence Committee, the Secretary of State was asked when the MOD would sign a contract to make the new next-generation light anti-tank weapons that are needed both for Ukraine and to restock the British Army. He said:
“We have signed the first contract for next year.”
If the Defence Secretary was correct, Saab would have notified the market, but it has not. Would the Defence Secretary like to correct the record, and will he confirm when the MOD will get its act together and get that contract in place for new UK production, as this is day 257 of Putin’s war on Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say in my evidence that it was with Thales that I placed a contract for NLAW replacement, and many other people can give us access to NLAWs.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State confirm the amount that the United Kingdom has spent on the defence nuclear enterprise in the past financial year 2021-22, and the equal but opposite cost of that nuclear expenditure to operational capacity, conventional equipment procurement, investment in service accommodation, and all other underfunded UK defence priorities?
Mr Wallace
We need to try to ensure that we find the funding to fund all those capabilities, and we must ensure at the time of placing a contract that we have certainty in the costs overall, to make sure there are no overruns.
Dave Doogan
The Secretary of State never answered my question, because he was not listening to the question. The answer is £6.6 billion, and that is to fund what we hear is the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent. I have a fairly well honed view of what independence looks like, and it does not look like the Secretary of State going cap in hand to the United States to ask it to bring forward its development of the W93 nuclear warhead. Will he explain what is independent about the UK’s nuclear dependency on the United States, except the cost in dollars for those weapons?
Mr Wallace
Where do I start? What is independent? I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is not independent, which is the SNP Government in Scotland placing a contract for ferries in Turkey. Supporting Scottish yards? That is not very independent.
The hon. Gentleman will know, as he seems to have a real interest in the technology and development of the nuclear warhead, that under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty we cannot ask the Americans to develop a nuclear weapon for us. That has to be done sovereignly, and if he read that treaty he would understand that.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I pay tribute to our nuclear test veterans in this 70th anniversary year of our first nuclear test, and we look forward to the commemorative event at the National Memorial Arboretum later this month. The award of a medal to nuclear test veterans is first a matter for the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. The case is being considered through the well-established process for reviewing historical medal cases, and the outcome will be announced in due course.
Rebecca Long Bailey
A Cabinet Office source reportedly told the Daily Mirror that the Advisory Military Sub-Committee has recommended to the main Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals that there be no medal for nuclear testing veterans, despite a Government scientist reporting in February that atomic troops were more likely to die, and to die from cancer, than other servicemen. Given that the Sir John Holmes military medal review in 2012 states clearly that the Prime Minister can personally make a direct recommendation to the sovereign on a medal issue, will he now recommend that those servicemen finally receive the medal they deserve?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but she really ought not believe everything she sees in the pages of the Daily Mirror. The procedure is for the Advisory Military Sub-Committee to make a recommendation to the HD Committee, which will make a determination on that matter. She will know well that in June this year the then Prime Minister decided to review the case, and asked the HD Committee to look at it again. She will also be aware of all the money that the Government are putting into nuclear test veterans, in particular the £450,000 project to commemorate and build public understanding of the contribution to our country made by those important veterans.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
As we approach Armistice Day, I pay tribute to our armed forces personnel, veterans, forces families and all those lost through conflict over the years. Theirs is the ultimate public service.
As the Minister said, this month marks 70 years since the first British atomic tests in the Pacific. We are the only atomic nation that has not provided recognition of or compensation to nuclear test veterans. As well as the warm words, will the Minister commit to ending that scandal by setting out a clear timetable for nuclear test veterans to receive medallic recognition? Will he back Labour’s call for a complete review of the medals system to make it easier to recognise exemplary service personnel and veterans of unusual operations, such as those who took part in the Afghanistan withdrawal and nuclear test vets?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady has fallen into the same trap as the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). She really must not take what she reads in the press at face value. I gave the timetable in my opening remarks, and I said that it is for the HD committee to make a determination, which it will. She must not confuse commemorative coins and medallions with medals. Medals are worn on uniform; medallions and commemorative coins of the sort that other countries have issued cannot be worn.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to answer these remarkably similar questions together.
The Government are committed to supporting all households with the current cost of living through initiatives such as the energy price guarantee, cost of living payments—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I help the Minister? These questions are grouped by the Government, not by anybody else.
Dr Murrison
I absolutely accept that, Mr Speaker—I was simply pointing out that they are very similar.
Dr Murrison
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We are working at pace across Government and the service charity sector to understand how the veterans community may be impacted, including in the forthcoming national veterans survey and in the recent Cobseo-led survey relating specifically to the cost of living.
Liz Twist
With up to 80,000 veterans currently in receipt of universal credit—a benefit that was, like others, uprated by only 3.1% in April, which was far below the rate of inflation—what are Ministers doing to step up to support our veterans and their families?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is important to understand the extent of this, which is why the Government have backed Cobseo to do a deep dive in October on how the cost of living is impacting on our veterans. In advance of the outcome—the Secretary of State and I will have meetings to discuss that shortly—I point out that we have accepted the armed forces pay review body’s recommendations in full, we have frozen the daily food charge to our personnel, we are limiting the increase in accommodation charges, we have increased the availability of wraparound childcare, which is vital for families, and we intend to have a cost of living roundtable before the end of the year.
Chris Elmore
The Royal British Legion has identified a 20% increase in requests for support from veterans in urgent need—that is a deeply concerning figure. The RBL has also put forward information stating that veterans who receive sickness and disability benefits now face extra costs of £500 per month as a consequence of the cost of living crisis. What are Ministers doing to support veterans in this country, who are, frankly, being let down by this Conservative Government?
Dr Murrison
I do not accept that. I have just explained what we are doing to address that. We are trying to understand how the cost of living crisis is impacting on our service and veteran community, and we have already put in place a large number of interventions that will go some way to addressing it. I expect to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shortly, with representatives of the service community, to discuss the matter further.
Simon Lightwood
During the cost of living crisis, veterans need to access support such as the war pension scheme and the armed forces compensation scheme, but the latest veterans satisfaction survey shows huge dissatisfaction with Veterans UK, and I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are struggling to make claims. What will the Minister do to address those concerns?
Dr Murrison
There have been issues with some applications for both schemes, but I think the position has improved since last year. Nevertheless, the Government have injected further funds to ensure that matters are expedited. I urge veterans who are concerned to contact the welfare office provided through the veterans agency, to help them to fill out the claims, which can sometimes be complicated. The hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is expediting the quinquennial review on the armed forces pension scheme, which will hopefully give him some reassurance on the seriousness with which we are taking that issue.
Vicky Foxcroft
It perhaps might help the Minister if I give him a real-life example. My constituent, Leslie Constable, is an Army veteran who receives a state pension, war pension, Army pension and attendance allowance. He tells me he is finding it increasingly difficult to heat his home and feed himself when prices are rising so quickly. He relies on charity shops and a coat given to him nearly 40 years ago. What is the Minister doing to ensure that veterans such as Mr Constable are receiving the support they need for a dignified retirement, and will he finally commit to keeping the triple lock?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady will know that that is not in my gift, but I point her to the veterans’ strategy action plan published in January 2020, which contained over 60 policy commitments at a price of more than £70 million. I just think it is not right for her to suggest that the Government are not exercised by the situation faced not just by veterans, but by people across the country at this extremely difficult time in the economic cycle. We will continue to do what we can to alleviate the pressure on veterans in particular. It is just a pity that in office the Labour party did not come anywhere close to designing an action plan of the sort we published in January.
Julie Elliott
Veterans in Crisis Sunderland is a brilliant organisation that supports veterans in Sunderland, the city I represent and one that sends a huge number of people into the armed forces. The cost of living crisis is having a huge detrimental effect on the mental health of veterans, and many are using food banks. One big issue is people receiving forces pensions who then have to pay that money to universal credit. Will the Minister look at whether leeway can be given for people who have gained their pensions fighting for our country and who are having to pay it back because of the universal credit rules?
Dr Murrison
Universal credit is paid right the way up the income scale depending, as the hon. Lady will well know, on circumstances, number of children and the cost of accommodation. She mentions mental health, which is important to me, too. She will therefore presumably approve of the extra money going into the Armed Forces Covenant Trust to support people with mental health issues. She will also, I hope, approve of the £17.8 million going into Op Courage.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and gallant Friend to his well-deserved place on the Front Bench. I look forward to working with him over the years.
My right hon. and gallant Friend will know that in Wiltshire alone we have 7,000 service children in our schools and that some 96% of all schools in Wiltshire have service kids in them, many of whom benefit from the services pupil premium. That is great, but it ends at age 16. Surely there is an argument in favour of continuing to help those children from 16 to 18, as we have changed the education system as a whole and education at 18 has become the norm.
Dr Murrison
I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend and near neighbour. He invites me to ensure that Wiltshire gets more cash, in particular the excellent Wiltshire College. That is very tempting indeed. I hear what he says, and nobody is keener than I am on improving skills, particularly post 16. I am more than happy to discuss the issue with him, but I suspect that what he suggests would have a significant price tag and our colleagues in the Treasury would rather I did not commit.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Alex Chalk)
Successful innovation delivers military effectiveness and advantage, which is why the Ministry of Defence works closely with UK industry and academia, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to identify and invest in innovative technologies that address our most pressing capability challenges, as well as publishing our future priorities to incentivise investment. We are already testing and deploying those technologies, building on the work I saw last week at MOD Abbey Wood.
Andrew Jones
It is very good to see my hon. and learned Friend in his place. I welcome the world-leading investments the Government have made in new technology to combat the threats in the space and cyber realms, but can he assure me that the necessary investment in those new areas acts to complement, not replace, our conventional forces, and that they are also seeing record investment, modernisation and improvement?
Alex Chalk
Our forces must be able to adapt to meet the threats set out in the integrated review. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that includes those relating to the space and cyber domains. The £6.6 billion being invested in research and development over the four years of this spending review period provides the opportunity to modernise and adapt to meet these new threats, while complementing and in some cases even enhancing the lethality of our conventional forces.
James Sunderland
Does the Minister share my concern that any reduction in defence spending will harm our nascent defence manufacturing industry? What steps can be taken to safeguard our future innovation, development and exports?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with such authority on these matters. The UK is the largest defence spender in NATO in Europe. That commitment provides the capacity to invest in decisive battle-winning technology now and in the future. The defence and security industrial strategy sets the framework for a strategic relationship with industry, including the need to regard our defence and security industries as strategic capabilities in their own right. We are already seeing a shift towards increasing weight being given to industrial implications ahead of investment decisions.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Reductions in defence spending are not what is hampering our security and defence; it is the fact that we need an increase in defence spending to ensure that we have better security and defence in this country. That is particularly important if we are to develop and keep ahead of our competitors on new technology, not least artificial intelligence. Is the Minister confident that, through the negotiations that we discussed with the Secretary of State last week in the Defence Committee, we will get some sort of increase in the defence budget and that that will be inflation-proofed?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to allocate proper resources to keep this country safe. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear when he was campaigning and since he has been in office that he will give this country what it needs to keep our people and our allies safe. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that we are the largest defence spender in NATO in Europe. That position serves this country and our allies.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I welcome the Minister to his place. Following the Defence Committee’s findings that the lack of progress in the space domain in the UK is unacceptable, what are Ministers doing to prioritise the publication of the space-based positioning, navigation and timing programme’s conclusions?
Alex Chalk
This country is ahead of the game. We have published the space strategy. We will continue to ensure that work in these new domains—we have spoken about cyber, but space is included—is in place so that we can support and enhance the capability of our conventional forces, and we will ensure that we lead the way in space.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am pleased to confirm that commemorations across the UK will take place as normal to mark remembrance. I will attend the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday, and Ministers will attend services at war memorials across the United Kingdom and in the Falklands.
Maggie Throup
On Armistice Day, we remember generations of brave servicemen and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our democracy—the same freedoms that the Ukrainian people are fighting for today. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the Long Eaton and Ilkeston branches of the Royal British Legion and, indeed, branches up and down the country who facilitate this act of remembrance each year and who work tirelessly in support of our veterans day in, day out in our communities?
Mr Wallace
Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our armed forces have fought throughout time for the safety and security of our country and they continue to do so today against all aggressors. Each year, this country unites to remember their sacrifice. I am grateful to all branches of the Royal British Legion who work tirelessly in the community to help to keep Armistice Day in the public conscience.
Sara Britcliffe
The battle of the Somme and the wider theatre of world war one were devastating for northern communities. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of the Accrington Pals, the 700-plus strong battalion that was effectively wiped out on the first day in the Somme. I grew up at a time when living veterans still provided a direct link. As the younger generation today will not have that direct link, what can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the sacrifice and legacy of those brave men is remembered not just on Armistice Day, but more generally?
Mr Speaker
I remind the Secretary of State that the Chorley Pals were part of that Accrington contingent.
Mr Wallace
Never forget the Chorley Pals, Mr Speaker. The Accrington Pals played a hugely significant role on the frontline as part of the 94th Infantry Brigade. In many areas, they bore the brunt of the casualties that the British Army suffered. Of the 700-plus men who went over the top that morning, 585 became casualties, with 230 killed in the first 30 minutes. It is only right that that immense sacrifice continues to be remembered in communities across the United Kingdom. All of us have a role in doing that, whether that is through supporting our British Legion, buying a poppy or attending a parade, but it is also about recognising that we remember these people best by investing in today’s armed forces.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that at this time of year it is important that we honour the sacrifice of the merchant navy, which endured such a high proportion of fatalities in conflict. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Merchant Navy Association, including active branches such as ours in Newport, which does so much to commemorate and support the families of those who undertook such critical and dangerous service?
Mr Wallace
Every year, when I write my wreath, I write “Lest we forget,” not only because we must not forget the lessons of the war, but because we must not forget that war involves our whole population and all our armed services—not just the Army, Navy and Air Force, but groups such as the merchant navy and the women who helped and supported on the civil front. That is what we should never forget: that all of us—all our families, in different ways—stood to defend this country from fascism.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The United Kingdom has provided substantial support to NATO allies. We temporarily doubled our enhanced forward presence battlegroup in Estonia, with additional enhancements to that battlegroup planned for the longer term. We deployed an aviation taskforce to Lithuania, are contributing to NATO air activity across Europe, are supporting air-to-air refuelling and have bolstered our presence in Poland, as well as Army activity in Bulgaria and Romania.
Chris Clarkson
It is absolutely right that our commitments on defence spending and deployments to NATO allies change in the light of the threat posed by increased Russian aggression and the very real threat of a war on European soil. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our increased deployments show that we remain fully committed to defending every inch of NATO territory, as well as Sweden and Finland, and that that is a clear statement of intent on behalf of this country?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend invites me to make two points. First, one of Putin’s greatest failures of the past nine months is how he has reinvigorated the NATO alliance and restored the raison d’être of article 5. Secondly, through their work with many of our allies across the Baltic, the Nordic countries and the high north, our armed forces increasingly have environmental expertise on NATO’s northern flank. They are very much enjoying working with the Finns and the Swedes, every inch of whose territory, as they join NATO, is protected by article 5 just like everywhere else.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
We saw reports at the weekend that almost one third of military accommodation is in need of repair: just shy of 14,000 homes, many with leaks and rot. The Ministry of Defence has apologised but has not yet said what it will do to fix the problem. Over half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money is spent on contracts, subcontracts—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s supplementary is not linked to the question. It has to be linked. I am sorry, but we have to let it go. I call the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine has led many NATO members to reboot their defence plans. The Defence Secretary now agrees with Labour that the integrated review needs updating. Would it not be absurd to cut the Army any further when Ukraine and our NATO allies are facing such clear and rising hostility? Can the Minister tell us which cuts he wants to reverse? Can he tell us whether further Army cuts will finally be halted, as Labour has consistently argued for?
James Heappey
The integrated review is indeed being refreshed—quite rightly, because in the past nine months we have seen war in Europe and growing belligerence by China in the far east. Exactly what the shape of our nation’s armed forces must look like must be a consequence of those new threats. I am not going to rule anything in or out at the Dispatch Box today, because we need to look at what those competitions with Russia in the immediate term and China in the longer term look like, and what our armed forces therefore need to look like.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The Department, through Veterans UK, provides information and advice to our veterans on statutory benefits, pensions and jobs, one-to-one welfare support, and administers service pensions. Under the veterans’ strategy action plan, the UK aims to be the best place in the world to be a veteran by 2080.
Wendy Chamberlain
As someone who worked for the career transition partnership, I know how much many employers value veterans and the service that they provide in employment. Too often, charities are the ones left picking up the pieces, such as Only A Pavement Away, which I met a few weeks ago. It specifically focuses on getting veterans who are a long way from the job market into hard-to-fill vacancies. What more can the Government do to support charities such as that?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Given her background, she will be aware of the efforts that the Government are putting in to get people into jobs in the public sector. We start in the Departments where perhaps we have some control over: the health and care sector and the prisons service, notably, are good examples, but there are others, including the civil service. The Government will work with charities and others—the Office for Veterans’ Affairs has primacy in that—to ensure that, across Government, we are doing our very best to get people who have a great skill set into jobs.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The initial phase of awarding the contract for fleet solid support ships is due very soon. As that is market-sensitive, I will limit my response to saying that what I expect from whoever is successful is investment in our yards, in British jobs and in British supply chains.
Alex Cunningham
As a reporter for Radio Clyde in 1979, I remember standing underneath the two ships built for the Polish navy as they were launched into the river—I needed to catch the sound effects. In those days, the UK and other Governments had tremendous pride in our shipbuilding industry, but the Thatcher Government devastated it. Why do today’s Tory Government not restore that pride? Why do they not commit, as the Secretary of State suggested, to building those ships in British yards, as the Labour party would do, to provide those 6,000 jobs that could benefit communities across the country?
Mr Wallace
I will certainly ignore the rewriting of history other than to say that we still take pride in the ships that we build in this country. Some of our ships are the very best in the world. We will continue that, unlike the Scottish Government, who seem to think that they cannot make their own ships in Scottish yards and make them in foreign yards.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) to his place. I know his constituency very well, having finished a distant third there in 2005. I have only warm memories of it. I pay tribute to him; we have worked together in the past on issues such as Down syndrome, which have affected us both. I look forward to continuing to work with him.
The fleet solid support contract presents a huge opportunity to the British shipbuilding industry, as well as providing a shot in the arm for British steel if the Government commit to building British by default. However, the GMB union has raised concerns that only significant parts of the build and assembly work will be carried out in this country rather than all the work. Will the Secretary of State address what “significant” means in the practical sense? If a foreign manufacturer wins the contract, how will our sovereign defence manufacturing capabilities be protected?
Mr Wallace
If the hon. Gentleman can point to a single complex military contract, whether in air, land or sea, that has not used international or partner supplier chains, I will be amazed. Typhoon, made in Lancashire, uses partners from Italy, Spain and Germany to create one of the most successful fighter programmes in the world. Our aircraft carrier, though entirely assembled in Rosyth in Fife, will have involved the use of foreign components.
Complex military machines that keep us at the cutting edge of the world involve international collaboration. That is the difference between us and Russia, which has the Stalin taxi factory attitude and ends up with rubbish equipment. We end up with the best because I have the duty of giving the best to the men and women of the Royal Navy. I will find a contract that delivers the best and supports the civil base and British manufacturing, but I will not cut corners for party political ideology from the Opposition.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
The Ministry of Defence remains committed to delivering the planned remediation to Dalgety Bay and has worked closely with its partners in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Fife Council to facilitate this work. MOD and SEPA officials last met formally on 24 November last year to discuss this matter, and the intent is to hold another meeting before the end of the year.
Neale Hanvey
The people of Dalgety Bay in my constituency have been living with radioactive waste on their shoreline since the second world war. The Ministry promised the community, me and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that remediation would be complete by September this year, yet we continue to hear nothing from the MOD. Can the Minister update me as a matter of urgency on operational progress and ensure that the interests of my constituents are not lost in the chaos of this Tory Government?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, although perhaps not the bit right at the end. Work has begun. It was suspended to take account of the nesting season but I can say that this project, which incidentally is being undertaken at a cost of several million pounds, is expected to be completed by September 2023. I am happy to liaise with him if he wants to discuss it with me.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his excellent, comprehensive report? Families are an integral part of the armed forces community, and our evolving assistance to them includes funding wraparound childcare, supporting children’s education and the employment of partners as societal expectations evolve and change. The armed forces families strategy, published in January, sets out the Government’s response to “Living in our Shoes” and sets the framework for the delivery of more sympathetic policies in relation to armed forces families that are fit for the future.
Andrew Selous
Will the Government make public each of the six monthly service family steering group meetings and the progress that has been made on each of the 106 accepted recommendations, and ensure that we have parity of esteem in the way that we look after both veterans and service families—a wonderful group of people on whom the defence of the nation depends?
Dr Murrison
I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend. We owe so much to our families and he highlights that very well in his report. Of course we meet service families all the time and I am more than happy to meet him at any time to update him on what we intend to do as a result of his report and indeed the veterans strategy, published earlier this year, which covered many service families and members of the service community.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
With regard to the report, we learned in the pursuit of a recent constituency case that the Ministry of Defence was not able to decide whether to deduct earnings from service personnel in child maintenance cases, which is leaving some service families in a difficult situation. Can the Minister advise me on how the Ministry of Defence is ensuring that families get the support they are entitled to?
Dr Murrison
I did of course outline some of the ways in which we have been supporting families in my earlier remarks. I would urge anybody in the service community who is concerned about their situation and who wants help to contact their welfare officer through the Veterans Agency. The veterans gateway is an extremely good place to start.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
We work closely with international partners and Ukraine to ensure that Ukraine receives the right equipment at the right time. Meetings such as those of the Ukraine defence contact group and the international defence co-ordination centre help to prioritise and co-ordinate efforts. The UK and international partners also train Ukrainian recruits in the UK, and we receive regular feedback from the armed forces in Ukraine that allows us to tailor courses to best meet requirements.
Tom Randall
The whole House will have been moved by the heroic bravery of the tens of thousands of Ukrainians who have stepped up to defend their homeland, but they will need the right kit to defeat the Russians. I know that the supply of western weapons has been plentiful, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is working closely with our NATO allies and the Ukrainians to ensure that the training and equipment received is as useful as possible?
Mr Wallace
Almost within days of the invasion, I convened a donor conference. At the first conference we had nearly 30 nations, and three conferences later, when the United States chaired it in Germany, we had more than 50 nations. We constantly work on that co-ordination and we have set up the international donor co-ordination cell, which is well populated by United Kingdom forces, to make sure that we get the right equipment to the right people in time.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does our ability to resupply the Ukrainians not depend on our having a robust defence industry? Does that not depend on both facilities and skilled manpower? And does that not depend on orders being placed in this country? Does this not absolutely demonstrate the folly of the Secretary of State’s proposal to offshore the purchase of the fleet solid support ships to Spanish shipyards?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman never answered the question that I put to him at the Defence Committee. As he says, surely the most important thing is that whoever bids for these contracts commits to investing in skills in Britain. If they do not invest in skills, what is the point of awarding the contract? When I asked him whether he would choose someone who invested in skills, there was no answer from him. This is classic union-paid claptrap.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
We continue to apply an array of measures to support recruitment and retention and refine the armed forces’ offer. These include financial incentives, flexible service, and an improved accommodation offer. A career in the armed forces provides all recruits with a wide range of opportunities to succeed. As one of the UK’s largest apprenticeship providers, with over 80% of all recruits enrolling in apprenticeship programmes, we ensure that those recruits have the right skills to carry out their role throughout their career and into civilian life.
Duncan Baker
With war on the continent and a fragile peace in many parts of the world, our armed forces are more important than ever. My constituency of North Norfolk has a very proud military history, with a large number of veterans who care deeply about this. However, in the past 22 years, the inflow of personnel into UK regular forces has been higher than outflow in only six years. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that for the armed forces the retention of personnel, which he mentioned in his answer, is as important as the recruitment?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is right about this. Not recruiting is bad, but recruiting and then not retaining is even worse, for very obvious reasons. Defence recognises the need to improve matters, both for the regulars and the reserves, where the issue of inflow and outflow is pretty much the same. I have already this afternoon outlined a range of measures that are being put in place to improve retention, and I look forward very much to the Haythornthwaite review for incentivisation that we expect in the spring.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The very youngest recruits into the armed forces, the 16 and 17-year-olds, will attend the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. However, there have been very concerning reports that an instructor at the college has been charged with more than 20 offences, including at least five sexual assaults against 16-year-old girls. Can the Minister detail to Members here today how these young recruits will be properly safeguarded at the college?
Mr Speaker
I am just a little bit concerned about this. If somebody has been charged, we should not be mentioning them. It could be sub judice.
Dr Murrison
I can assure the hon. Lady that the matter is under review. I cannot comment much further than that. I hope that that will satisfy her.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
First, let me pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) who served time on the Treasury Bench for the Department. They will be greatly missed, and I thank them for their effort and passion. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham will continue to hold the Department to account on women in the armed forces. Her report is incredibly important.
I wish to announce to the House the decision to accelerate the procurement of the Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship. In the face of an illegal and unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s reckless disregard for international arrangements designed to keep world order, it is right that we prioritise delivering capabilities that safeguard our national infrastructure. It is clear that effectively to address the current and future threats, we will now invest in MROSS ships that protect sensitive defence and civil infrastructure to improve our ability to detect threats to the seabed and to cables. I have also therefore directed the termination of the national flagship competition with immediate effect to bring forward the first MROSS in its place. I shall make further announcements on our continued naval investment in the coming weeks.
Neale Hanvey
Our whistleblower has alleged that staff from HM Naval Base Clyde were recently moved from building 201 in Coulport, where warheads are managed, to building 41 elsewhere, due to a serious radiation breach. Can the Minister advise me about the following? How many such events have been registered in the past three years? How many such incidents have been reported to the public? If he cannot do so, can he please set out why the people of Scotland, who are overwhelmingly opposed to weapons of mass destruction, are ignored by the Westminster parties, including his?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member has read out a list of claims. I will be happy to write to him to answer those claims. I suspect the people of Scotland are now rather thankful they have a nuclear deterrent, in the face of a very provocative Putin.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Help for Heroes is one of our key charities, which I visited a while back in its premises near Salisbury, and I plan to meet it again very soon. It is now mandatory for all armed forces personnel leaving the services to have a structured mental health assessment at their discharge medical examination. I am pleased to say that that will highlight any unknown mental health needs and enable signposting and referral where necessary, and my hon. Friend will of course be aware of Operation Courage within the national health service.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s news that the vanity project of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—the flagship—will be scrapped, and the spending switched to purposes that will help defend the country. Ahead of the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the Defence Secretary told the Select Committee last week
“I need money to protect me from inflation”,
yet in the current spending settlement, Defence is the only Department with a real-terms cut in its revenue budget. Why did he ever agree to that?
Mr Wallace
First, on that particular question, the right hon. Gentleman will know that when I got my defence review—a year earlier than everyone else in the spending review—the figure for GDP inflation used by the Treasury was different from that used now. He will be aware that inflation has gone up since the basis of that calculation was made, which is why I said at the Select Committee that I would like to be insulated from that inflation. I will have my discussions with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister this week, and then we will see where we get to.
John Healey
When the Secretary of State agreed that budget, it was a £1.7 billion real-terms cut in the revenue budget. Now, he says that inflationary pressures on his budget for the next two years are about £8 billion. How much does Defence actually need from the Chancellor on the 17th to plug this budget black hole that has opened up on the Secretary of State’s watch?
Mr Wallace
First, I do not agree with the premise that I agreed to a £1.6 billion reduction of the resource departmental expenditure limit. At the time, it would have reduced in the fourth year of its profile—it was a four-year profile, if the right hon. Gentleman remembers—but after a £24 billion increase, which is nothing that the Labour party has ever committed to. It would have shown a reduction in the last year, yes, but a real-terms freeze. However, inflation is significantly higher than it was all those years ago, and that is why I am going to see the Treasury, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to see what I can get to make sure we protect our armed forces and our current plans from inflation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Dr Murrison
I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters. Having spent four decades occupying pretty shoddy accommodation across the defence estate, it gives me great pleasure to say that the new strategy will definitely improve the quality of life of our personnel. The defence accommodation strategy commits to increasing the quality of homes, plus a fairer allocation process, and that will be game-changing. A safe, comfortable home is paramount to people’s wellbeing, and these improvements will directly increase the quality of life for servicepeople.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
What is more important to servicepeople is the quality of homes that they occupy, rather than who runs them. I have to say that the value of the future defence infrastructure services contract is £2.9 billion, and that is just the core contract. That will sustain jobs across the UK and will most definitely improve the quality of the housing that members of our service community occupy. I hope that will come as some comfort to the hon. Member, because it represents a significant investment indeed.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him in congratulating all the UK troops and those from countries throughout NATO who participated in Exercise Iron Wolf in Lithuania. It has been fantastic to see over the past few months how much British soldiers, sailors and aviators are enjoying being part of the NATO alliance and getting to know those from other NATO countries. That alliance remains the cornerstone of UK and European security.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Dr Murrison
I am glad the hon. Lady raised this issue. She will be aware that the ONS has worked closely with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs so that for the first time we can record the number of servicepeople who have committed suicide. Her question gives me an opportunity to say that, although we are incredibly concerned about anybody who ends up in such a tragic situation—really, we are—it would be wrong to say that the statistics we currently have available suggest that the service population is particularly at risk. There may, though, be some granularity within that, which I am keen to explore.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Mr Wallace
Poland is one of our oldest allies—we have been allies for more than 150 years—and we currently have a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks and a squadron of Light Dragoons light reconnaissance based in that country. Over the past three years I have worked incredibly closely with my Polish counterparts, including by sending a squadron of Royal Engineers to help at the time of the Belarusian migrant crisis. I recently visited again to sign a multibillion-pound deal with Poland on medium-range air defence. There are also the beginnings of an agreement on the Arrowhead Type 31 shipbuilding.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Figures from the MOD show that more than half of veterans rate their experience of the armed forces compensation scheme as one out of 10. Last week, I and my co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans—the hon. Members for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord)—launched a survey to enable those affected to share their experiences of the compensation scheme. Will the Minister agree to meet us when that survey concludes?
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Mr Wallace
In recent days, Russia has made a range of allegations against the UK and other international partners that are clearly designed to distract from the attention on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I did indeed receive a letter from the Russians that seemed to demonstrate everything that has been announced by the Government either in this House or in the media going way back to the times of Op Orbital. As yet, I still await the groundbreaking evidence, but I do not expect it to come because we know for sure that Russia is involved in misinformation.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is the right thing to do to refresh the integrated review. The Minister said earlier that he was not ruling anything in or out from a capability point of view, but does he agree that it would be wise not to make any cuts to capability until the integrated review refresh reports, hopefully before Christmas?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman knows that there are lots of types of capabilities: there are numbers, there is equipment that is going out of service to be replaced by other equipment, and there is modernisation. We will look at all that in the round. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes particular interest in the A400 and C-130 fleet; I am glad to tell him that I have brought forward by more than two years the ability for people to parachute from the A400 at significant scale, at both high and low altitude. I hope we will have good news by next year. The availability of the A400 fleet is now increasing.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Campaigns and equipment rely on people, and people need to be at the centre of future defence planning. However, last week there was an urgent question on conduct towards women in the Royal Navy. The urgent priority to address unacceptable behaviour and culture has been stretched to a five-year vision, so will the Secretary of State give further reassurances that service personnel will be at the heart of the integrated review and defence Command Paper refresh?
Mr Wallace
First, let me say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for the time and effort she gave, even before she entered the Department. She will be a loss to the Department. If I had more Ministers, I would desperately have liked her to have remained to continue her work on women in the armed forces. Like her, I know that there is urgency. We are working at pace. We have already introduced some secondary legislation. We are going to set up soon all the things promised in our report, and I would be delighted if she would like to accompany me on any of those steps.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that in March 2020 Russian reconnaissance bombers entered the Rathlin sector of UK airspace. Six Typhoons had to be scrambled in order to escort those reconnaissance bombers out of our airspace. Given the likelihood of an anti-NATO Government being elected in the Republic of Ireland, and given that the UK Government had to seek Republic of Ireland support to enter its airspace in order to escort those bombers out, what actions will the Secretary of State take to ensure that a proper assessment is made of these national security interests?
James Heappey
We have an excellent relationship with the Irish Government on security matters. It is clearly not for me, at the Dispatch Box of the UK Parliament, to talk about Irish policy over the use of its airspace. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that RAF jets have deployed into Irish airspace on occasion. It is for the Irish Government to set out their policy on why, when and how.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The armed forces are a major employer across Lincolnshire—so much so that it is the ambition of the Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership to become a nationally recognised cluster of innovation-focused defence companies, and to ensure that Greater Lincolnshire and Lincoln are a highly attractive first-choice destination for defence-related industries, service leaders and their families. Will Ministers assure me that Lincolnshire, including busy RAF Waddington, which now has the Red Arrows on base in my constituency, will continue to be a key area for defence investment?
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I reassure my hon. Friend that Greater Lincolnshire continues to be a major investment hub for the MOD and the wider defence industry. RAF Waddington is one of the RAF’s busiest locations and will remain a base for the foreseeable future. I very much welcome the creation this year of the Greater Lincolnshire Defence and Security Network.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Do the Government recognise that while the practice of double-counting spending towards the targets for overseas development assistance and for NATO defence might be a neat trick, it is a false economy?
James Heappey
Maybe, but we have not accounted any money against ODA in the MOD thus far this year.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Recently I met Richard Morgan from 65 Degrees North, a charity that seeks to help in the rehabilitation of wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans by giving them the opportunity to participate in challenging adventure. Do Ministers agree that there is a need to change the perception of physical and mental disabilities through this spirt of adventure, and will they congratulate the charity on the work it does?
Dr Murrison
I most certainly do congratulate it on the work it does. I am very positive about disability in the armed forces. I point the hon. Lady to the diversity and inclusion strategy, which sets out the blueprint for how we can do much better. I would be more than happy to meet the charity that she has cited, and I congratulate it on the work it does.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The defence Command Paper states:
“China poses a complex, systemic challenge.”
But we recently learned that RAF veterans have been lured to China to assist with its own air force training, and today’s response to my written parliamentary question confirms that Chinese officer cadets have recently been attending courses at Sandhurst, Shrivenham and Cranwell. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we will update our security strategy towards China, and will the law be changed to prevent former RAF pilots from being recruited by the Chinese military?
James Heappey
It is a couple of days since I signed off the response to my right hon. Friend’s question, but from memory it related to a few years ago, albeit within the five that his question referred to. We have since revised our policy on Chinese attendance on key courses, but it is important to note that in none of those courses is anything taught or compromised that might be above the threshold of the Official Secrets Act.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In this remembrance period, does the Minister recall the two very constructive meetings held by the War Widows’ Association with our hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), when he was veterans Minister, about the 200 to 300 people who lost their widow’s pension on remarriage? Will the progress made towards an ex gratia payment for that small cohort now be rapidly brought to a conclusion?
Dr Murrison
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. I am acutely aware of the position of the pre-2015 war widows. The Treasury is absolutely against retrospection, and that has been the case over consecutive Governments. Ex gratia payments, however, are a different matter. I cannot give any commitments, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that the matter is under active consideration.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
On Friday, I had the honour of visiting the brand-new specialist veterans orthopaedic centre at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital near Oswestry. It is going to be a world-class facility built to provide NHS care for veterans across the UK, as well as working with military charities to provide other support. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating staff there on their achievement and agree to consider extending such centres across the UK?
Mr Wallace
The marrying-up over the years between the MOD, the health service and the charities has gone from strength to strength. The example that the hon. Lady has used is something that we should embrace and do more of.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Will the integrated review refresh include consideration of the resilience of the RAF’s main operating bases, particularly when it comes to dispersal?
James Heappey
As my hon. Friend knows well, although the RAF’s main operating bases are incredible centres of excellence for the aircraft they operate, there do indeed need to be well rehearsed plans for dispersing the Air Force across civilian airfields around the country. The RAF is developing and refining those plans as we speak.
Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I understand that there is a prospect of legal proceedings in relation to the centre at Manston. In any event, given the national importance of the issues raised by this case, I am allowing Members to discuss those issues. However, I ask Members not to discuss the details of any legal proceedings that might get under way.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Immigration if he will make a statement about what steps he is taking to reduce overcrowding at the Manston asylum processing facility and about the safeguarding of minors, both at Manston and in hotels.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
We have set out on multiple occasions that the global migration crisis is placing unprecedented strain on our asylum system. Despite what they may have been told by many, migrants who travel through safe countries should not put their lives at risk by making the dangerous and illegal journey to the United Kingdom. We are steadfast in our determination to tackle those gaming the system and will use every tool at our disposal to deter illegal migration and disrupt the business model of people smugglers.
So far this year, our French colleagues have prevented over 29,000 crossings and destroyed over 1,000 boats. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be speaking with President Macron this week about how, together, we can achieve our shared ambition to prevent further crossings.
Some 40,000 people have crossed the channel on small boats so far this year, and the Government continue to have a statutory responsibility to provide safe and secure accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. To meet that responsibility, we have had to keep people for longer than we would have liked at our processing facility at Manston, but we have been sourcing more bed spaces with local authorities and in contingency accommodation such as hotels.
I can tell the House that, as of 8 o’clock this morning, the population at the Manston facility was back below 1,600. That is a significant reduction from this point last week, with over 2,300 people having been placed in onward accommodation. I thank my Border Force officers, members of the armed forces, our contractors and Home Office staff, who have worked tirelessly to help achieve that reduction.
Before the high number of arrivals in September, Manston had proven to be a streamlined and efficient asylum processing centre, where biographic and biometric details are taken and assessed against our databases, asylum claims registered and the vulnerable assessed. We are determined to ensure that Manston is back to that position as soon as possible, and I am encouraged by the progress now being made. We must not be complacent. We remain absolutely focused on addressing these complex issues so that we can deliver a fair and effective asylum system that works in the interests of the British people.
Sir Roger Gale
First, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the endeavours that he has made since his appointment to reduce the numbers of people overcrowding the Manston facility? I believe that this problem was wholly avoidable. He has worked tireless, with the staff at Manston—I thank them too—who have done a superb job under very difficult circumstances.
We are now nearly back to where we need to be, with the Manston processing centre operating efficiently. Will my right hon. Friend confirm his understanding, shared with the Home Secretary and with me last Thursday when she visited the site, that Manston is a processing centre, not an accommodation centre? Does he therefore agree that the temporary facilities that were erected while he and I were both present there a week ago on Sunday will be demolished, and can he confirm that additional accommodation will be provided so that the spike in November that is anticipated—which will happen, as it happened last year—will be catered for so that we will not have a repetition of the clogging-up of the facilities at Manston?
Robert Jenrick
First, may I praise my right hon. Friend, who is an exemplary Member of Parliament? It has been my privilege to work alongside him over the past 10 days. He has consistently raised concerns expressed by his constituents, and also our joint desire that Manston should operate as a humane and decent facility that provides compassionate care to those who arrive at the United Kingdom’s borders. The population is now back at an acceptable level, which is a considerable achievement. It is essential that it remains so, and he is right to say that the challenge is far from over. Last year, for various reasons, November proved to be the largest month of the year for arrivals in the UK, so we have to be aware of that and plan appropriately. We are doing just that, and we are ensuring that there is now further accommodation so that we can build up a sufficient buffer, so that those arriving at Manston stay there for the legal period of 24 hours or thereabouts, and are then swiftly moved to better and more appropriate accommodation elsewhere in the country.
I support my right hon. Friend’s view that Manston should always be a processing centre, not a permanent home for migrants arriving in the UK. I have taken note of his comment that he would like the temporary facilities there to be dismantled. I do not think that is possible right now, because the prudent thing is to ensure that we maintain the level of infrastructure that we have in case there is a significant increase in the number of migrants arriving in the weeks ahead, but it is certainly not my intention, or the Home Secretary’s intention, that Manston is turned into a permanent site for housing immigrants.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. The Home Secretary has stated that after 12 years of Conservative government the asylum system is “broken”. We agree, and it is the Conservative party that has broken it. The Government are processing just half the number of asylum claims that they were processing in 2015, and as a result the British taxpayer is footing a £7 million hotel bill every single day. Their failure to replace the Dublin agreement on returning failed asylum seekers, their failure to crack down on the criminal gangs, and their failure to get agreement with France have also increased the backlog.
This catalogue of chaos has led to the overcrowding in Manston, for which the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has directly blamed the Home Secretary. The previous Home Secretary revealed today that on 20 October he received legal advice that Manston was
“being used, or in danger of being used, as a detention centre”,
and he took emergency measures to work within the law. However, the current Home Secretary met officials on 19 October, just before she was forced to resign for breaching the ministerial code. Can the Minister please confirm that the Home Secretary refused to take those same emergency measures, and can he explain why she ignored the advice that she was repeatedly given over a period of several weeks? The Home Secretary told the House just a week ago that she did not ignore legal advice. Can the Minister tell the House now whether he believes that statement to be correct? The key question on Manston is whether legal advice was followed or not. Given the Minister’s unlawful approval of a Tory donor’s housing project in his previous brief, is he really best placed to make that judgment?
We know that 222 children have gone missing from asylum accommodation. What are the Government doing to find those missing children, to prevent more children from going missing, and to meet their legal obligations to vulnerable children?
Robert Jenrick
For a few moments I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to approach this in an intelligent and constructive manner, but sadly that was the triumph of optimism over experience. In fact, the Labour party is trying to politicise this, and we can of course say the same. The Labour party has no plan to tackle illegal immigration. It does not want to tackle illegal immigration. The Labour party left a system in ruins in 2010, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) would attest, as he had to help to pick up the pieces. We believe in a system of secure borders and a fair and robust asylum system in which all members of the public can have confidence.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Secretary’s conduct. Let me tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has consistently approved hotel accommodation. More than 30 hotels have been brought on line in the time for which my right hon. and learned Friend has been in office, which has ensured that thousands of asylum seekers have been able to move on from the Manston site and into better and more sustainable accommodation. And look at her record over the course of the last week! The population at Manston has fallen from 4,000 to 1,600 in a matter of seven days. That is a very considerable achievement on the part of the Home Secretary and her officials in the Home Office, and I am proud of it.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The Minister will be well aware that previous student accommodation at Canterbury Christchurch University—86 rooms—has been taken up by a company called Clearsprings, one of many outsourced companies around the country that have been trying to find accommodation. He may also be aware that Thanet District Council had been in correspondence with the Home Office in August, saying how unsuitable the site would be because of its close proximity to both primary and secondary schools that were a few hundred yards away, and because it was in a residential area.
Is it not the case that outsourced companies such as Clearsprings and Serco are simply running roughshod over planning consents, local authorities and local consultation? I am very concerned about this example. The Home Office must get involved when these large sites are selected, rather than big outsourced companies just doing as they please.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I were in contact about this issue over the weekend, and I know how strongly he feels. My first duty has been to ensure that Manston can operate in a legal and decent manner, and we are well on the way to achieving that. The second task is ensuring that the Home Office and its contractors procure accommodation—whether it be hotels, spot bookings or other forms of accommodation—in a sensible manner, taking into account many of the factors that my hon. Friend has just described, such as safeguarding, the impact on the local community and the likelihood of disorder, whether there is already significant pressure on that community, and whether it is a tourist hotspot. Those criteria need to be followed carefully.
My third priority, beyond that, is our exit from this hotel strategy altogether. It is not sustainable for the country to be spending billions of pounds a year on hotels. We now need to move rapidly to a point at which individuals are processed swiftly so that the backlog in cases falls and we disperse people fairly around the UK to local authority and private rented sector accommodation where appropriate. We also need to look into whether other, larger sites that provide decent but not luxurious accommodation might be available, so that we do not create a further pull factor for people to come to the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing this urgent question and on his persistent scrutiny of these issues. Surely we have now reached the point where the Home Office can no longer be left responsible for the safety of those children. Hundreds are missing and thousands more are stuck in hotels outside the child protection system. Children are reportedly pressurised to claim to be adults and are increasingly misidentified as adults. There have been harrowing accounts of assault and rape; there is general evidence of fear and depression; and adults are not even being properly disclosure checked. Can we have a cross-Government taskforce, headed by the Prime Minister, to get children into local authority care instead of into more hotels?
Progress in moving people out of Manston is welcome, but it massively begs the question why that was not possible last month. To help the Minister to free up accommodation, will he prioritise the outstanding claims of the 15,000 or so Syrians and Afghans, who should be comparatively easy to identify as refugees and to award their status? Will he suspend the pointless process that saw staff identify just 83 inadmissible claims out of 16,000 cases? For goodness’ sake, instead of wasting their time on that, they should be looking at asylum claims and the backlog.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the UK Government pressurise any individual to falsely identify as a child. It is the people smugglers who do that; we are doing everything we can to clamp down on it. I have been to Western Jet Foil at Dover to meet the Border Force staff who try to make those assessments. At times, up to 20% of the adult males who arrive at Western Jet Foil claim to be under 18, when clearly the number is substantially less than that. We have already changed the law, which I think the SNP voted against, to change the way in which those tests are administered, and if we need to make further legal changes, we will.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is wrong that many children, in particular unaccompanied children, are in hotel accommodation. I want to change that. The way to do that is to encourage more local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to accept those individuals and to help them into private or state foster parenting arrangements. We have put in place a significant financial package of about £52,000 a year per foster carer per child to ensure that can happen, plus a £6,000 up-front payment to the local authority to help to accommodate that. The financing is available, so I want to ensure that more local authorities step up. If he can encourage those run by his SNP colleagues in Scotland to do so, I would be happy to support him.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The question for my right hon. Friend is not how many hotels we can book, but how we can stop the increasing number of migrants coming across the channel this year. We have seen more than 10,000 adult males from Albania aged 18 to 40—that is between 1% and 2% of the population—coming to the United Kingdom. We will not have enough hotels in the country if they continue at that rate. What is his view on the agreement that was entered into on 18 November 2002 between the German and Albanian Governments, which allowed Germany to deport Albanians who did not arrive in the country with a valid residence permit? That would allow us to take quick action to take people out of the country who should not be here.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. We want our asylum system to be available to those who truly need it—those who are fleeing persecution, war and human rights abuses around the world. We should not be a harbour for those who are essentially economic migrants coming from safe countries such as Albania. We need to change that. We have now negotiated a return agreement with Albania and 1,000 Albanians have already been returned home under that. I now want to see—I know my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shares my view—a fast track whereby Albanians who do not meet our asylum criteria have their cases processed quickly and are swiftly returned home. It cannot be right that we are seeing thousands of Albanians making this crossing and essentially taking advantage of the welcome and hospitality afforded to them here in the UK.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing this urgent question. Tomorrow, the Home Affairs Committee will visit Manston on its second visit, as we first visited in June. Alongside looking at the overcrowding, the safety issues and the lack of basic facilities, there is a concern about the legality of the Home Secretary’s actions in authorising individuals to be detained at Manston for more than 24 hours. Weekend media reports suggested that she was repeatedly provided with the advice that detaining individuals at Manston for more than 24 hours was illegal. The Sunday Times reported that she had received papers on 4 October stating that the Home Office had no power to detain people solely for welfare reasons or for arranging onward accommodation. Can the Minister explain to the House the legal basis for detaining individuals at Manston for longer than 24 hours?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who chairs the Select Committee, for that question. The law is clear that we should not detain individuals at sites such as Manston for longer than 24 hours, and that is exactly the position that we want to return to as fast as we can.
There are competing legal duties on Ministers. Another legal duty that we need to pay heed to is our duty not to leave individuals destitute. It would be wrong for the Home Office to allow individuals who had only recently arrived in the United Kingdom—the vast majority of those at Manston had been saved at sea by Border Force, the Royal National Lifeboat Institute and the Royal Navy—and who had been brought to the site in a condition of some destitution, to be released on to the rural lanes of Kent without great care. That is why the Home Secretary has balanced her duties and taken the required steps to procure more hotel accommodation as swiftly as we can. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) can see the work that we have already done.
In answer to the first part of the right hon. Lady’s question, the conditions at Manston were poor because there were too many people there, but a wide range of facilities are provided: individuals are clothed, they are fed three times a day, and there is an excellent medical facility. I have seen those things with my own eyes, and I hope that she sees them as well. We need to keep a sense of proportion about the state of Manston.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then. When I hear talk of sourcing housing and getting extra hotel spaces for illegal immigrants, it leaves a bitter taste in my throat. Five thousand people in Ashfield want to secure council housing but cannot get it, yet we are debating this nonsense once again. When are we going to stop blaming the French, the European convention on human rights and the lefty lawyers? The blame lies in this place right now. When are we going to grow a backbone and do the right thing by sending them straight back the same day?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is right that in sourcing accommodation for migrants, we should be guided both by our common desire for decency, because those are our values, and by hard-headed common sense. It is not right that migrants are put up in three or four-star hotels at exorbitant cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer, or that migrants who come here illegally are given preference of any sort over British citizens. That is the kind of approach that we will take going forward.
We will now work closely with our allies in France to ensure that more crossings are stopped in northern France. The Prime Minister will speak with President Macron this week while they are in Egypt, and we hope to take forward that partnership productively and constructively in the months ahead.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The second half of this urgent question was explicitly about the safeguarding of accompanied minors in the hotels. That matters because there are thousands of children—verified children—in those hotels. Last week, we learned that two of them—one a child under the age of 13—were sexually assaulted in a hotel in Walthamstow, and more cases of sexual assaults on children in these hotels have since come to light. We are all clear that those who committed those crimes must be held responsible. We all have duties to those children, just as we have to any other child under state protection.
When I asked the Home Secretary about this, she made a cheap jibe about hotels. The Minister did not even mention those children in his response. He has not yet given us a straight answer. Surely all of us in the House will be concerned about the sexual assault of children of any background. Will the Minister publish the details of all these cases, including how many incidents of violence or sexual assault against children in these hotels have occurred in the past year, what action has been taken, and crucially, what safeguarding the private companies that run these hotels must undertake? If he will not publish those details, that tells us what he thinks about those children and the responsibility that we all have to them.
Robert Jenrick
It is a pity the hon. Lady takes that approach because I take my responsibilities to children, whether accompanied or otherwise, very seriously. We have put in place a wide range of support mechanisms. I mentioned earlier the work we are doing for unaccompanied children. The hotels, most of which are in Kent, have extremely sophisticated support. It is costing the taxpayer up to £500 a night for that accommodation, which gives her a sense of the degree of the support we are making available. The best thing she could do is to support her local authority and encourage others to take more unaccompanied children and families into good-quality local authority accommodation, or to find them foster care in the community. That is the task because we need to disperse these individuals as fast as we can across the country. She may shake her head, but I am afraid that suggests she does not understand that the way to resolve this issue is to help the children out of hotels and into the community as fast as we can.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I am looking forward to my second visit to Manston tomorrow with the Home Affairs Committee. I am glad that the Minister has managed to get the numbers down at Manston. That is really important, but it strikes me that all we are doing is moving a problem from Manston into our communities. To solve this issue, we need to get through the backlogs, allow our communities to rest, and stop creating an environment where the far right can take root in constituencies such as mine and those of colleagues around the House. With that in mind, what measures is my right hon. Friend taking to surge Home Office processing capacity, so we can actually deal with the problem at the heart of this issue?
Robert Jenrick
It is essential that we accelerate decision making now within the Home Office. Over the summer, we piloted an approach that would very substantially increase decision making. That has been done in our Leeds office and we now intend to roll it out across the country as quickly as we can. That would take us from an average of around 1.5 decisions per caseworker per week to as many as four per week. We also want, in slightly longer time, to review all the red tape and bureaucracy that surround the process, so we can ensure our system is more streamlined, and to look at why, in the UK, we have a much higher approval rate for asylum than many comparable countries, such as France and Germany. That, at the heart of the issue, is why so many people choose to come here. They shop around for asylum and choose the UK when they are, in fact, economic migrants.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The House welcomes the fact that the numbers at Manston have gone down, but the Minister will be aware that the concerns, notably of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, David Neal, were about not just the numbers but the conditions. When he came to give evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, he told us that he thought there was a risk of fire, disorder and infection. Is the Minister confident that those risks no longer exist? On unaccompanied children, how many are there in Manston? What effort is being made to safeguard them? For instance, are they having to sleep next to males they do not know? When it comes to unaccompanied children in hotels, can he tell the House specifically how they are being safeguarded?
Robert Jenrick
There should be no unaccompanied children at Manston. Unaccompanied children are taken directly from Western Jet Foil. In some cases when they immediately arrive at Manston, they are taken to specialist hotels, where they are looked after with a range of support provided for them. As I said in answer to a previous question, that in itself is not a desirable outcome. We want to ensure that those young people are quickly taken to better accommodation, particularly foster carers. That relies on us being able to find more. There is a national shortage of foster carers, which is why we put in place a financial package to try to stimulate the market and encourage more people and councils to step up and provide that service.
The right hon. Lady makes an important point about conditions at the site. Conditions were poor when I last visited, but the primary reason for that was the sheer number of individuals there. The staff I met were providing a very good quality of care in difficult circumstances. The food was acceptable, and the health and medical facility was good. The clothing and other support that was provided was something I thought was acceptable and is certainly far in excess of that which would be provided in other European countries.
We have to remember that the individuals who arrive at Manston have literally been hooked out of the sea. We saved their lives just hours previously and many of them have come from significantly worse accommodation such as, for example, the camp at Dunkirk. I am not saying the UK should compare itself with that—we want to be better—but I think the right hon. Lady will find that the facility at Manston is now in a significantly better state and I would be interested in hearing her reflections when she returns.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend is aware, his Department is housing 400 asylum seekers in two hotels in my constituency, sited 50 metres apart on a busy motorway junction. With no basic amenities nearby or extra resources for local services such as healthcare and policing, their location is wholly unsuitable and I fear could lead to significant safeguarding issues. Ahead of our meeting tomorrow, which I thank him for, will he put together a timetable for their closure and in the meantime ensure that Erewash gets extra support to manage the situation on the ground?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend was swift to raise this matter with me as soon as it was brought to her attention. She has raised the issues she has mentioned on the Floor of the House today with me and my officials, and I look forward to meeting her tomorrow to take that forward. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the hotels are not a sustainable answer. We want to ensure that we exit the hotels as quickly as possible and to do that we will need to disperse individuals to other forms of accommodation. We may need to take some larger sites to provide decent but basic accommodation. Of course, we will need to get through the backlog, so that we can get more people out of the system either by returning them to their home country, or granting them asylum so they can begin to make a contribution to the UK.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We welcome the Minister’s assurances that decisions will be made more quickly, particularly since 89,000 people in the system have been waiting more than six months for a decision, but can he assure us that these will not just be box-ticking exercises, that not speed but efficiency will be the determining factor and that people will get a fair decision? We all want to see an end to this problem and everything the Government have done so far has just made it worse.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Member has my assurance that the standards of decision making will be upheld, but we believe we can do it in a far more productive manner than has been done in the past, and if we can make more decisions every week than we do today, we will get through the backlog as quickly as we can.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Government legislate urgently to deal with the obvious loopholes in the law that are exploited by people smugglers and economic migrants? And I share the concerns of my colleagues about the use of hotels in my area.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are reviewing whether further changes to the law are required. One area we are particularly interested in is the modern slavery framework. That is important and well-meant legislation, but unfortunately it is being abused by a very large number of migrants today, and if we need to make changes to it so that we can ensure that it is not exploited, we will do so.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many other Members, I have hotels in my constituency where a number of families are living in really bad conditions. The Minister outlined that he wants to look at moving people away from those hotels. One of the key problems is the fact that asylum claims are not being processed enough. Has there been any additional recruitment within the Home Office to look at the backlog of cases?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, there has. We have now recruited 1,000 caseworkers and we have a plan to recruit a further 500. Those individuals will be trained by the very best decision makers, such as those who have been through the pilot, which I mentioned earlier, in Leeds. Together, this new workforce hopefully will be able to power through the backlog and ensure that decisions are made swiftly.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that steps are being taken to rapidly address the speed at which asylum claims are being processed before we run out of hotels? The economies of remote coastal towns such as Ilfracombe and Newquay rely on their tourists. Can he assure me that those hotels will welcome visitors in next spring’s vital tourism season?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly hope that is the case. As I said, my first priority was to ensure that Manston was operating in a legally compliant and decent manner. The second priority is to ensure that, where we are using hotels, we are doing so judiciously and that officials or our contractors are applying the criteria that I and other Ministers have set down, one of which is to ensure that we avoid tourist hotspots such as that which my hon. Friend represents. Thirdly, it is essential that we exit the hotels altogether and move forward with a more sustainable strategy that ensures best value for money for the taxpayer and a fair and robust asylum system.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Minister confirm that to seek asylum is a perfectly legal thing within international law and, therefore, UK law and that loose use of the words “illegal asylum seekers” is dangerous for the individuals concerned?
Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the Council of Europe report on pushbacks across Europe of people seeking a place of safety in a number of countries, including this one? They have been pushed back and left in places of enormous danger. Will he confirm that Britain will not be involved in sea-bound pushbacks towards France that leave people in enormous danger? Instead, will he recognise the humanitarian needs of, frankly, deeply desperate people to whom we should be holding out the hand of friendship, not condemnation?
Robert Jenrick
The UK is not involved in pushbacks at sea; we uphold our international obligations in that respect. It is a right for an individual to claim asylum. We want a system whereby those who are fleeing genuine persecution, war or human rights abuses can find refuge in the United Kingdom. The issue that we are grappling with is the sheer quantity of individuals who are choosing to come here, leaving other safe countries such as France. That places an intolerable strain on our system and means that those individuals to whom we want to offer support find themselves in difficult circumstances.
A fair and robust system would not encourage people to come across the channel illegally in small boats. It would be predominantly based on resettlement schemes such as the ones that we have engineered in recent years for people from Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan. That is the system that I want to build in the years ahead.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
On Thursday, I was notified by the Home Office that the Fir Grove Hotel in Grappenhall would become an asylum centre the following day. There was no discussion with the borough council and no notification to local residents. It is in the middle of a residential area, fewer than 200 yards from a primary school. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that it is simply not acceptable for the Home Office to steamroll ahead with such a decision without the necessary consultation with local residents. I would be grateful if he would meet me to discuss that situation and how we can review and reverse that decision.
Robert Jenrick
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend so we can discuss the issue and he can represent the views of his constituents. I can inform the House that I have agreed with my officials at the Home Office that, as a matter of course, all Members of Parliament should be informed of new facilities being opened in their constituency ahead of time. All local authorities should be informed and proper engagement undertaken with them so that we can better understand the specific issues and provide the support that might be needed. It is not right that MPs and councils find out on social media or third hand and I intend to bring that to an end.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Some are heralding the horrors at Manston as the death of compassionate conservatism. The rest of us knew it never existed, or at least not for a very long time. Since the last Prime Minister took office just weeks ago, we have seen the Home Secretary describe people fleeing war as invading our country. Lethal levels of overcrowding at the Manston camp, traumatised people dumped at Victoria station with nowhere to sleep and child refugees sexually assaulted—is that the compassion that the Prime Minister speaks of? If not, how will those shameful examples be rectified?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady should pay closer attention to what is actually happening. I have visited Manston and met members of staff who are supporting those individuals at Western Jet Foil. I spent Saturday night at our immigration removal centre in west London, and in every one of those situations Border Force, Home Office, military and other personnel are providing decent, compassionate care to individuals who are coming to this country. But humanity and decency does not mean naivety, and that is where we take a different approach from the hon. Lady. Some 30% of those who have crossed the channel this year alone have come from Albania, which is a demonstrably safe country. We have to draw a distinction, or else we simply will not be able to help people who do deserve our care and support.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I was concerned to learn from media reports last week that not once but twice, asylum seekers from the Manston centre were dropped off at Victoria coach station in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must deal with asylum seekers responsibly, firmly and compassionately, and can he assure me that we will not see a repeat of what we saw last week?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend, who raised this issue with me immediately when it came to her attention, just as I did with officials when I learned of it. We have in recent times occasionally used a procedure whereby asylum seekers are asked whether they have a home of a friend or relative where they could stay, and if that is the case, they are bailed to that address. On balance that is the right approach, because it ensures that the taxpayer does not have to pay for them to stay in hotels, but we must get it right. In this case it appears that a small number of individuals were left at Victoria station due to a miscommunication. They were later taken to hotels, in Norfolk I believe, and are being cared for appropriately.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
My constituency hosts some of the hotels that are currently housing refugees and asylum seekers, and I have dealt with a number of cases specifically regarding the conditions there. Earlier, the Minister described such hotels as “luxurious”, and I have to ask whether he has ever been to one and seen what I have seen, which is whole families living in cramped conditions, given food so bad that it makes them sick, and having to deal with infestations of bedbugs and other things that are making them ill. These hotels are dire. They are not secure or safe, and they are certainly not suitable for vulnerable children. Will the Minister admit that the Home Office has received a number of complaints about that, and agree to review and assess conditions in those hotels?
Robert Jenrick
If the hon. Lady has specific allegations, I suggest she brings those to me and I will happily look into them. I have visited hotels, and in general I have been reassured that they meet the right standard of decency. As I said earlier, it is not appropriate that we are putting up asylum seekers in luxurious hotels, and numerous examples in the press of accommodation that is not appropriate have been brought to my attention since I took this role. We have to respect the taxpayer and ensure that we put up asylum seekers in sensible accommodation. Decency is important and will be a watchword for us, but deterrence must also be suffused through our approach. We do not want to create a further pull factor for individuals to make that perilous crossing across the channel, and we must make the UK significantly less attractive to illegal immigration than our EU neighbours.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Much has been made of the safeguarding of illegal migrants, which I think all Members of the House would agree with, but we are not talking about the safeguarding of our citizens. Thousands of people are coming here and we do not know their backgrounds. My right hon. Friend is being forced to put them into hotels because there is nowhere else for them to go. What guarantee can he give to all our citizens who live near those hotels that they will be safe, particularly when we hear what is going on in those hotels?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and for that reason I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) to meet her constituents on Friday morning. They have been at the sharp end of illegal migration, and it is important that we think not just of the migrants but of our own citizens who are facing pressures from this situation. I reassure my hon. Friend that on arrival we screen individuals coming into the UK. Counter-terrorism police are present at all our facilities in Dover and Manston, and they take action against those about whom they might have suspicions. When we choose hotels or accommodation, it is important that we do so judiciously, so that we do not place people in situations that might have safeguarding or other risks. Again, that is another reason why we need to move away from the hotel model altogether.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My recent written parliamentary question revealed that 220 children have gone missing from Home Office-procured accommodation. We hear reports from across the country of the difficulty in securing school places for children in Home Office accommodation. Now we hear reports of the most grave matter—sexual assaults against children living in Home Office accommodation, at least one of whom I believe to be in Home Office accommodation in my constituency. I have previously raised safeguarding concerns about that accommodation and received a response from the Home Office that can be described only as dismissive and disinterested. When will the Minister accept that the Home Office is failing in the duty of the British state to vulnerable children on these shores, and when will he take steps to address this terrible situation?
Robert Jenrick
If the hon. Lady has specific and, what sound like, serious allegations, I would be very happy to look into them for her. As I said in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the key thing is for each and every one of us who cares about this issue to go back to our local authorities and to encourage them to take more children into their care, otherwise those children will remain in hotels for far too long.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know of my deep unease about the use of a hotel in Ashford, which has been opened recently, as part of the dispersal from Manston, so I was pleased to hear him say that he wants to exit from hotel use altogether. That would be a welcome step forward. In the transition period before he can achieve that, will he ensure that the Home Office takes more account in the future than it has in the past of the relative level of pressure on public services, such as health and education, in different parts of the country of coping with extra demand from asylum seekers? In particular, the pressure has been greater in Kent than in other parts of the country, and I hope that the Home Office system can recognise that, so that we get a proper and fair dispersal around the country.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Part of our plan to exit the hotels is to ensure a fair dispersal around the country. That means every local authority in all parts of the United Kingdom stepping up and playing its part. If we do that then no area should be disproportionately affected. My right hon. Friend represents an area that has borne the greatest burden, and it is absolutely right that we work together to find ways to alleviate the pressure on Kent wherever we can. He and I are meeting Kent local authority leaders later in the week to hear their concerns. If there are ways in which we can support them, I will certainly do everything I can to achieve that.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain what discussions have been held with the Children’s Commissioner regarding this Government’s staggering levels of child neglect? Can he also say why the commissioner has not been encouraged to use her statutory powers to visit Manston and the hotels concerned to speak directly with the children there?
Robert Jenrick
It is up to the Children’s Commissioner to determine her own schedule. As far as I am aware, she has not requested to visit Manston. I have no objection to her doing so, but that is entirely a matter for her.
I object to the suggestion that the UK Government are being inhumane towards children. These are children who are coming across the channel against our best wishes. They are coming either with their families who are choosing to put them through this uniquely perilous journey, or, in some cases, unaccompanied. We are doing everything we can to support them when they arrive here. Of course it is a difficult challenge—how could it be easy for the Government to help hundreds of unaccompanied children who arrive by sea and who then require foster care and support? It was always going to be a difficult challenge. We see that in our own constituencies when we hear of the shortage of foster care, or concerns about local authority accommodation for young people. This is a national issue that is exacerbated by the sheer quantity of young people who are coming across in this way.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Home Office is accommodating 400 asylum seekers in the Metropole Hotel in the centre of Blackpool in my constituency. It lies in Claremont, the fourth most deprived ward in the country—an area with a host of social problems and a difficult history of child sexual exploitation. Those problems were pointed out by me and the council when the hotel was first commissioned by the Home Office. Those issues have not changed, and dispersal from the hotel has been slow. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to exit the strategy of using hotels, but will he make sure that the Metropole is the first hotel that he exits?
Robert Jenrick
Having worked with my hon. Friend on a range of issues, I know how deeply and thoughtfully he addresses the issues in Blackpool. I appreciate that Blackpool is one of the areas that has borne a disproportionate burden from this issue for a long time, so if there is a way to ensure that individuals are dispersed from Blackpool more swiftly than from other parts of the country, I am happy to look into that. As I said, my objective is that we exit the hotels and get people into more sustainable accommodation. That requires, in part, other local authorities to step up and play a greater role in accommodating people rather than relying time and again on our largest cities, Kent and a small number of other local authorities, such as Blackpool.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The unsafe conditions and overcrowding at Manston have been totally unacceptable, but the serious allegations of assault on our children are beyond unacceptable. We also learned last week that people seeking asylum were dropped off in Victoria, London. We know that the Home Secretary is out of her depth and failing on this, but will the Minister say how many children were left unaccompanied last week? More importantly, given the scale of the crisis, is it not time that we had an independent investigation that can look into this serious issue and robustly report back on the ongoing challenges that face the Home Office?
Robert Jenrick
As far as I am aware, the small group of individuals who were left at Victoria station were all adults. There were no children, but I will happily stand corrected and write to the hon. Lady if I am mistaken. Unaccompanied children are coming to the country and we are doing everything that we can to support them. Again, I take issue with what has been said, because the accommodation, medical care and support that we are providing to these individuals is decent, humane and far surpasses that provided by comparable European countries. We have to ensure that deterrence is suffused through our system or we will only encourage more people to make the perilous journey across to the UK and continue to make the UK a magnet for illegal immigration. That is not what we Government Members would want to see.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This whole situation is a farce. There were recent reports that illegal migrants were being put up in a luxury rural hotel—a former stately home near Grantham—that normally charges £400 a night. Surely the easier and quicker that we make this whole process, the more people will come, especially since it is a complete pushover, with a large number of young Albanian men claiming modern slavery, which is ridiculous. Will the Minister confirm that the solution is to repeal the Human Rights Act, get out of the European refugee convention and repeal the Modern Slavery Act 2015, so that people can be detained when they arrive for being involved in an illegal activity and then deported?
Robert Jenrick
I, too, was disturbed to see images of the Stoke Rochford Hall Hotel, which is a luxurious setting and not the kind of hotel in which we want to see individuals being accommodated. We want to see decent but commonsensical treatment that does not create a further pull factor to the UK. The Home Secretary and I will review whether further changes are required. We start from the basic principle that treaties that the UK Government have entered into must work in the best interests of the British people.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Contrary to some of the dangerous, disgusting, dog-whistle, right-wing rhetoric emanating from some members of the Conservative party, asylum seekers are people and we should judge ourselves on how we treat our fellow man. In that regard, the Minister will be aware that many people in hotels in Aberdeen have been in that situation for well in excess of a year, waiting for their asylum applications to be processed. When can we expect that particular issue to be resolved?
Robert Jenrick
As I said in answer to an earlier question, we are working hard now to accelerate decision making so that individuals can either be granted asylum or be removed from the country. I would say, however, that there is a marked trend in the data showing that some Scottish local authorities are taking a disproportionately low number of asylum seekers in every respect, so the first useful thing that the hon. Gentleman could do would be to go back to the local authorities that are controlled by the Scottish National party in Scotland and ask them to step up.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The town of Stocksbridge in my constituency is awaiting final confirmation of £24 million of Government funding through our town deal. That £24 million will be a transformational sum for Stocksbridge, but it equates to just four days of taxpayer expenditure on hotel accommodation for people who have arrived illegally in the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as being a complex security and humanitarian issue both for the public and for genuine asylum seekers, the small boats crisis also represents a serious financial issue in these difficult economic times? Can he expand on his previous answer about how the Government will move away from the expensive hotel model?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have spent many happy hours in Stocksbridge and I want to see the Government investing even more in her community. She is right to say that it is an unconscionable waste of taxpayers’ money to be spending over £2 billion per year on hotel accommodation. That money could be put to better use, whether helping her constituents or fulfilling our broader mission as a country to support those in distress who truly need it at home or abroad. The approach that the Home Secretary and I are going to take is to speed up decision making so that we can get people out of hotels because their application has been decided, to disperse people more fairly and evenly across the country, to see whether better value sites are available to us, and of course to do everything we can to dissuade people from making the journey in the first place.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I was not quite clear what the Minister meant in his response earlier to the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Is it his position that the Government acted legally in detaining migrants at Manston for more than 24 hours?
Robert Jenrick
The Government’s objective is to ensure that nobody stays at Manston for more than 24 hours, but we have to balance up competing legal duties. We also have to be cognisant of the fact that not everything is within our control when we deal with this situation. It was clearly not within the control of the Home Office that thousands of individuals chose to get into small boats and cross the channel in a very short series of days, and it was certainly not within our control that an individual chose to attack the Western Jet Foil on Saturday, ensuring that 700 to 800 people were brought swiftly to the Manston site as a result. These are the difficult choices that we have to balance. There are no simple choices or solutions in the Home Office, but we have to act in the public interest.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Our former Labour colleague Chris Mullin is one of the most thoughtful left-wingers I know. Would the Minister take a moment or two to have a look at his article in the press today and commend it to people on both sides of the House, given that even he feels it necessary to conclude that
“uncontrolled migration risks bringing down our fragile social systems. It is also driving politics across Europe into the hands of the extremist Right”?
Surely we have to recognise when the asylum system is being abused. If Chris Mullin can recognise it, so should people on both sides of this House.
Robert Jenrick
I read the former Member’s article in The Daily Telegraph, and he made a number of important points. Above all, he made the point that public concern about the level of migration to this country—in particular, illegal immigration—is very high and has continued to be high in recent years. If we are to be democrats, we have to listen to that and take action accordingly. We on this side of the House believe in secure borders and controlled migration, and we are concerned about the straining of community tensions and the fabric of communities if we do not take action accordingly. The wise words from Chris Mullin are ones that the Home Secretary and I will certainly heed.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I wish to raise the situation in Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency after the events at the weekend. I am grateful to the Minister for the call that we had over the weekend. My understanding from what he told me yesterday is that Harmondsworth has now been decanted. My fear is that once the renovations have taken place it will soon be filled again, because in this country we detain too many people who have engaged in no criminal activity. We detain too many for too long—unjustly, I believe, and often brutally. May I suggest that, as well as sorting out the processing situation, one way of tackling this issue would be to ensure that we have an enforceable limit on how long people are trapped in the process of assessment and on how long people can be detained in our detention centres?
Robert Jenrick
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those suggestions; I will bear them in mind. I respectfully disagree about whether those individuals who are destined to be removed from the UK, particularly foreign national offenders, should be in institutions such as the immigration removal centre in his constituency. I appreciate that that that is not all of them.
May I take the opportunity that the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me to thank his constituents, the immigration enforcement officers, the prison officers and all those who responded heroically to the disturbance over the weekend? I am pleased to say that it has now been brought under control, that all the inmates at the site have been decanted to other IRCs, and that the contractor will be making the necessary improvements to the site as quickly as possible so that it can get back up and running and we can ensure that the situation does not happen again.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My constituents are becoming sick and tired of this ridiculous narrative of economic migrants somehow being mistreated at Manston. The fact of the matter is that after a short time at the processing centre, these economic migrants will receive free food and free accommodation in hotels—something that my constituents, who are paying for all this, can only dream of. How does the Minister think my constituents who cannot get an NHS dentist, a GP appointment or a council house feel about the fact that we are spending £2 billion a year on hotel bills because we cannot be bothered to solve this issue?
Robert Jenrick
It is important that we recognise what the United Kingdom is actually doing. The vast majority of those who arrive at Manston have literally had their life saved by the UK. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Border Force and the Royal Navy have ensured that as many as 95% of those individuals are saved at sea, brought to land, given clothes, food and medical support and then processed at Manston until they can be accommodated elsewhere. We should be clear about how we are meeting our obligations as a country—in fact, we are going far beyond our neighbours. My hon. Friend is right, though, that those standards of decency and humanity must be matched by hard-headed common sense. We should not be accommodating individuals for long periods in expensive hotels.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In an exchange last week relating to the situation at Manston, the Home Secretary told the House:
“I have never ignored legal advice.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 639.]
Has the Minister been briefed, seen any information in his Department or been told by any colleagues any information that would show that that was not a correct statement to this House?
Robert Jenrick
I have no reason to believe that the Home Secretary has misled the House. The Home Secretary was advised that we needed to procure more hotels, and we have procured more hotels—dozens of further hotels, so that thousands of migrants were able to leave Manston over the course of this week alone. That is exactly the right approach.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
This issue is important to my Guildford constituents and important to me. Does my right hon. Friend agree that by controlling illegal immigration we can ensure that we have the capacity and the facilities to offer safe and legal routes for vulnerable people across the world, as we have done for people in Ukraine, Hong Kong, Syria and Afghanistan?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that has been done over the past year by this Government, supported by local authorities and tens of thousands of our fellow citizens, to help people from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and elsewhere to find safety and, in some cases, a new life in the UK is something of which we should all be proud. Our system should be based on safe resettlement schemes, rather than individuals crossing the channel illegally in small boats.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions, which are difficult and complex. Tensions are rising as the temperatures are dropping in the United Kingdom, and the Government are intending to pay out large amounts of money for heating, but I am concerned that ill feeling towards migrants is growing as people mistake legal asylum-seeking for illegal immigration. Will the Minister outline how his Department intends to ensure that those who have no right to be in this country are treated with respect and care, but will not be allowed to overstay beyond that which is fair, equitable and enshrined in law?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the UK wants to be a big-hearted country that welcomes those in need to our shores, but we must ensure that those who come here illegally for economic migration or other purposes are removed as swiftly as possible, because it brings the whole system into disrepute and makes it impossible for us to treat people who deserve our care in the way that we would want to see. At the moment, the system is frankly overwhelmed by the sheer number of individuals coming here, a very large proportion of whom should not come here, because they are economic migrants.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
One of the locations hosting migrants in my constituency is the Fownes Hotel, and notwithstanding the fact that I expressed concerns about its suitability, I was particularly concerned to hear from my council about a number of children being taken into care from that location. My right hon. Friend mentioned an incentive package for councils. I was told that such practice is putting an additional burden on an already overburdened children’s care system. Will he discuss with officials how to ensure that even when the children were not supposed to be at a particular location, support flows through to councils? The impression I have been left with by Worcestershire is that it is trying to do the right thing, but either was not aware of or was not receiving that support.
Robert Jenrick
I will certainly ensure that local authorities are better communicated with about the location of children to their area and the support that the Government are making available. I am holding a teleconference later this week with all local authority chief executives and leaders to listen to their views and to advise them of our steps. On the back of that, if we need to make changes to our processes, I will certainly try my best to do so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Inhumane centres and overcrowded, let alone unsafe hotels are no place to put these very vulnerable families. In light of the success of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, why will the Home Office Minister not undertake to have a homes for refugees and asylum seekers scheme, so that people can be settled in communities, supported and kept safe?
Robert Jenrick
There is already a community sponsorship scheme available for community groups that want to bring refugees to the United Kingdom and care for them appropriately. I would like to see more community groups take part in that, and if there are ways in which we can simplify it and ensure its success, I would be happy to do so. The hon. Lady mentions the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which I personally feel passionately about. That is now facing some challenges, because a number of individuals are coming up to the end of their six-month process, and we need to encourage more families to come forward and take them in. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to establish a rematching service, so that we can ensure that those families are properly looked after.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I appreciate the challenge that my right hon. Friend and the Department are facing, but we can solve the problem of accommodation by stopping illegal entry into this country in the first place. Therefore, will he please, on behalf of my very frustrated constituents, leave no stone unturned in finding a solution to this problem and stopping illegal entry?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is right that we have been debating the symptoms of the problem today, rather than the cause, which is the sheer quantity of individuals crossing the channel illegally. We will tackle that on multiple fronts, whether through the National Crime Agency and our security and policing resources ensuring that we bear down on the criminal gangs, by gathering the best possible intelligence on the continent diplomatically with France, Albania and other partner countries, or ensuring that how we treat people in this country, while decent and appropriate, does not produce a further draw to the UK. Ensuring that deterrence suffuses our approach is extremely important.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
It is worth reiterating that seeking asylum is not illegal, but if the Government really want to save a little bit of money, why do they not extend the right to work to people who are seeking asylum? If they did so, those people would become more self-sufficient, and could find and pay for their own accommodation. They could ease the massive labour shortages facing the country and they could pay tax to the Exchequer.
Robert Jenrick
I have listened carefully to the arguments on both sides of that issue. I appreciate that colleagues will respectfully disagree with me, but it is extremely important that we do not create further pull factors to the UK, which is arguably a more attractive destination for illegal migration than our European neighbours. There is a wide range of reasons for that, but I do not want to create any further pull factors that will only make this situation worse.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
My Redditch constituents are generous and compassionate, and have opened their hearts and homes to refugees from countries around the world. However, they find it deeply illogical, infuriating and completely unfair to see these small boats arriving on our southern shores. Every sovereign nation should have the right to control its borders, but we are seeing that it is possible for an Albanian male, under our modern slavery legislation, to become a confirmed victim of modern slavery. That is not what this world-leading and compassionate legislative framework was set up to achieve. It has rescued many vulnerable people from awful situations, so when will the Minister introduce a review of that legislation to make sure that it is fit for purpose and can do what it is intended to do, rather than being a fast-track route for Albanian males?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has spoken on this on a number of occasions, and she draws on her own experience at the Home Office and elsewhere. She is right that modern slavery laws, while important and well meant, are now being abused, particularly by males who are here for economic migration purposes. We have seen many cases in which young males from countries such as Albania, as she says, have their asylum claims processed. Those claims are rejected, quite rightly, so then they immediately make a claim under modern slavery laws. That is wrong, and we intend to review it, as she says, and make any changes that we need to make.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
What the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and what the Home Secretary told the House last week balanced breaking the law by leaving asylum seekers in Manston for weeks against breaking the law by abandoning them on the streets without means, and then—Victoria station aside—they decided to commit the first piece of law breaking. Will the Minister publish the advice that led him to that unusual legal opinion?
Robert Jenrick
It is not the convention for the Government to publish legal advice, but I have made it clear today and in other public appearances that it is absolutely essential that Manston, like other sites, operates within the law. In this case, that means ensuring that individuals are treated decently and humanely there and stay for 24 hours unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary. In this case, it was right that the Home Secretary balanced that among wider concerns to leave individuals destitute. It was also the case that this is a site that took at short notice large numbers of migrants who crossed the channel illegally, which put huge pressure on our facilities there. We also had to deal with the aftermath of what is now being treated as a terrorist incident, which led to 700 individuals being evacuated to the site. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have made huge progress over the course of the week. We are now at the right level of capacity and we are working to ensure that individuals do not stay there any longer than 24 hours.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is extremely disappointing that we continue to see the Home Office pursuing hotels in Stoke-on-Trent, particularly given the concerns that we have raised about the risks associated with doing so and the fact that more than 800 refugees have already been resettled in Stoke-on-Trent. Will my right hon. Friend look at measures to ensure that other parts of the country that have done little to nothing to help to provide accommodation are told to do so?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the burden of migrants in hotel and other accommodation has historically been borne by our cities, and that Stoke has disproportionately borne a significant quantity of migrants. We have now tried to disperse individuals more broadly, and some of the issues that we have heard about today are a result of migrants being placed in hotels in locations where that would not previously have happened, so it is a new issue for those local authorities to cope with. We need to ensure that we provide the right support to those local authorities. We now have a dispersal strategy to encourage individuals to be placed more fairly across the country, which we hope should in time provide a fairer settlement for places such as Stoke-on-Trent.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
If the dispersal strategy is to be successful, local authorities must be engaged in a conversation before they are told what is happening in their own local authority. That way, we can ensure that the correct support, services and funding are in place. Otherwise, does the Minister not just risk fuelling the increasing intolerance and bigotry?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is right. My first priority was to ensure that the Manston site was operating legally and appropriately, which meant that the Home Office had to procure accommodation at pace. We are now moving into the next phase, which will involve ensuring that we have better communication and engagement with local authorities, so that we can hear their concerns; that we provide them with the support that they might need; and that we choose locations together that meet sensible criteria in terms of safeguarding, community cohesion and the availability of public services. It is also extremely important that we work closely with local authorities on issues such as child protection and the appropriate dispersal of children and families across the country.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
We have heard about international law and how we cannot break it, and about the European convention on human rights, but in 2005 and ever since, we chose to ignore the ECHR and an EU diktat requiring us to give people in prison the vote. In other words, we ignored international law because we respected our people’s wishes. Why can Italy and other EU nations do the same today, and we do not, when it comes to foreign criminal gangs and people smugglers arising from illegal immigration? Why do we not protect our borders and our people?
Robert Jenrick
We will do everything in our power to protect our borders. I have already set out that we will do that on a number of fronts, including through law enforcement and robustly tackling the criminal gangs on the continent. We will also do it through better diplomatic relations with our nearest allies, such as France; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is having one of those conversations this week with President Macron. We will work with countries such as Albania that are demonstrably safe and where economic migrants in particular should be returned swiftly. If further legal changes are required, we will consider making them, because treaties to which the UK is a signatory should work in the best interests of the British people.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Many people will have tuned into their TVs yesterday to see people living in tents and eating food that many would find vomit-inducing—not in Australia, but elsewhere in mainland Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is therefore insulting to hear the Opposition say that the accommodation and hospitality offered by this country is not good enough? Many of my constituents would be grateful to be afforded such luxury.
Robert Jenrick
We should treat individuals coming to the UK with decency; those are our values. My hon. Friend is right to say that the standard to which we look after those arriving on our shores, in almost every case, easily surpasses that of other countries. We only have to compare the standards of Manston, which I have seen in the last week, with those of the camp in Dunkirk to see the difference. We should be proud of the way we support individuals coming to the UK—that is the British way—but we should do so in a common-sensical way that looks after the best interests and value for money of the British taxpayer.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It was not too long ago that the Opposition brought forward a motion to oppose the use of Napier barracks for illegal immigrants, but I would much rather have that than the use of the Novotel in the centre of Ipswich, where 20 constituents’ jobs have been lost as a result. Ultimately, however, does the Minister agree that the Rwanda policy is the right policy that will create one of the most powerful deterrent effects? Can he give me some clarity about when that is likely to be implemented and how the new Bill of Rights could help to bring it to fruition?
Robert Jenrick
As I have said in answer to many questions this afternoon, deterrence has to be suffused through our entire approach so that we do not make the UK a draw for illegal migration. The Rwanda policy is one element of that, and it would produce a significant deterrent effect. It is currently subject to legal action—we expect to hear more on that shortly—but as soon as we are able to proceed with it, my hon. Friend can be assured that we will do so.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to stop the flow of people across the channel, we need to do two things? First, we need proper legitimate routes for people to claim asylum before they arrive in the UK, and we should also prioritise those who come here with community sponsors who can help them, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has suggested, which we have already done for 100,000 Ukrainians. Secondly, we need to ensure that if people break into this country, they are not able to live here or to work, but will be detained and deported, and if we need to change our laws or, indeed, the terms of our membership of the ECHR, we should do that.
Robert Jenrick
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the good work he did at the Department for Levelling Up in helping to establish the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That scheme established the principles that he has set out, which I think would be a better way forward for our asylum system, whereby asylum to this country would be predominantly through resettlement schemes like those for Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Individuals came here through safe and legal routes, enabling the UK to prioritise those truly endangered, and ensure that those who come here illegally—for example, in small boats—find it more difficult to find safe harbour here and are returned to their home country.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
During my brief tenure this summer as the Minister for tackling illegal migration, I visited Manston. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the staff working at Manston deserve our praise for the excellent care and attention they give in their work, particularly as it often takes place in very challenging circumstances?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend for his important short service commission this summer. We are very grateful for the work he did. He is right to say that the staff at Manston have behaved heroically. I was hugely impressed by the Border Force officers I met, the contractors, the cooks, the armed forces personnel and my Home Office officials. They have moved heaven and earth over the course of the past week to ensure that that site is returned to a safe and legal method of operation. They have always treated people with great care and courtesy, and we should all be proud of that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and answering questions for one hour and 20 minutes.
RETAINED EU LAW (REVOCATION AND REFORM) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 25 October (Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: In paragraph (2) of the Order (conclusion of proceedings in Public Bill Committee) for “Tuesday 22 November” substitute “Tuesday 29 November”.—(Michael Gove.)
Question agreed to.
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]
Monday 7th November 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 View all Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Oct 2022)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, which was, of course, first introduced in the other place, is one of a number of steps that the Government have taken in the aftermath of the dreadful tragedy that occurred at Grenfell in 2017. Everyone in the House was shocked by what happened on that night, when 72 people lost their lives in one of the most horrific civilian tragedies that has ever occurred in these islands. The suffering of the victims of that tragedy is almost impossible to relate, and the testimony, forbearance and endurance of the survivors and the bereaved, of relatives and residents, is very much in all our minds as we consider how we can appropriately learn lessons from the tragedy, put right what went wrong and ensure at last that those who suffered receive justice.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to his position. I say that because I think he did make some progress on the cladding issue when he was Secretary of State previously. He will be aware that there are still no personal evacuation plans for disabled people, although the former-former Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would take up all the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please look at that?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who, as well as doing fantastic work on the Select Committee in trying to ensure that appropriate progress has been made on matters such as building safety, has been a very effective advocate for her constituents in this regard. Let me emphasise that in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy the Government have to undertake a significant body of work, and the hon. Lady is right to hold us to account for the speed with which we do it. There is work that needs to be done on building safety overall. We have introduced legislation—the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022—in order to take forward some of the recommendations that were already being generated by the inquiry, and indeed in some cases we did not have to wait for those recommendations to know that we needed to act.
The hon. Lady mentioned a very important factor: the personal evacuation plans. Again, this is a difficult and sensitive question. A number of those affected by the Grenfell tragedy were individuals living with disabilities. It is critical to ensure that the correct regime is in place for those individuals so that they are safe in the homes in which they live—and they deserve to be safe—and also to ensure that were disaster to strike, the fire and rescue services would be able to ensure they could be evacuated safely.
I have heard some of the concerns expressed by residents and others about the Home Office’s response to recommendations on personal evacuation plans. I think it important for me to work with the new Home Office Minister dealing with this issue—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines)—in order to ensure that we listen to what residents have said and, I hope, do better. Listening to what residents have said is critical to our whole approach to what happened in Grenfell, and to broader concerns about the quality of social housing and the safety of those in social housing that that tragedy underlined our need to act on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am more than happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who did so much to put these things right when he was a Minister. I will give way to everyone else in due course.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It was an absolute privilege to work with the Secretary of State and to be tasked with converting the Social Housing White Paper into the robust legislation that we see before us today. Having listened to the podcast on the Grenfell Tower inquiry, may I ask whether the Secretary of State agrees that one of the overriding ambitions of the Bill is to ensure that social housing tenants are treated with respect at all times, and that we remove any stigma that is associated with such tenure?
Michael Gove
As ever, my hon. Friend is 100% spot-on. Even before the Grenfell tragedy, it was clear that the way in which tenants were being treated in social housing in far too many cases, and—it pains me to say this—particularly in Kensington, was simply not good enough. We have vivid documentary evidence of the fact that the tenant management organisation that was responsible for the refurbishment of Grenfell simply did not listen to tenants and behaved in a high-handed fashion. Their safety was not given the importance it deserved. A number of residents, including Ed Daffarn of Grenfell United, a survivor of that night, were very clear about the risks that were being run, but they were not listened to. One of the most powerful lessons of the tragedy is the need for us to ensure that social housing tenants feel that their voice is being heard. As my hon. Friend for Walsall North said, any high-handed and aloof behaviour exhibited by some towards people who are the most deserving of our protection should end, and I hope that it will.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State back to his position. May I return briefly to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) about personal evacuation plans for disabled people? As the Secretary of State knows, the Home Office did not expect that recommendation. Is it his view that those plans should be in place for disabled people living in high-rise blocks?
Michael Gove
We do need to look again at the position. I have to be careful because the Home Office is a separate Department and I am not the Secretary of State there, but I do know that the new Home Secretary and the new Minister responsible for fire safety appreciate and understand the need to look closely at the concerns that tenants expressed on the previous position. I have to say that the previous position was taken in good faith, but we need to pay attention to the concerns expressed.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am sure that we all want social landlords, and indeed all landlords, to be held to account when they fall short. Does the Secretary of State accept that there may be a problem with some financial penalties? We may end up punishing tenants twice: once for having a bad landlord and again by having funds withheld. I can give a specific example from my constituency. A social landlord is failing financially so is penalised by not being able to bid for the building safety fund, with the consequence either that fire safety works do not get done, or that properties are not sold or developed and new properties are not built. Will he look at that specific instance and see whether we can avoid penalising tenants in that way?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that there are lots of pressures on registered social landlords and housing associations. The Bill is there to ensure that all emulate the best, but I appreciate that with pressures to increase supply, pressures on building safety and pressures to deal with the poor-quality stock that many have inherited, we need to be sensitive. I am sure that the regulator will be, in the application of any fines, if the correct action is not being taken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State and welcome him back to his position; I look forward to his significant contribution to this issue. Obviously it is good for lessons to be learned, but it is also good to share them. Northern Ireland does not have the same number of high-rise apartment blocks as London or elsewhere across the United Kingdom, but we have some—Housing Executive, housing association and some private. Has the Secretary of State on his return been able to share the information about better safety with all the regions, particularly Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. This legislation applies to housing associations and social landlords in England, of course, but in my other role as Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, I have talked to Ministers and officials in the devolved Administrations about some of these building safety questions. We all have a shared interest in getting those right. Of course we respect the nature of devolved competence, but we also want to make sure that some of the insights, particularly about how we deal with developers, can be operationalised UK-wide.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Post what the Secretary of State rightly described as the absolute tragedy of Grenfell, if he were to be presented in this debate this evening with evidence that a housing association continues to take a complacent attitude to the fire safety of its tenants, would he regard that as a very serious matter indeed?
Michael Gove
I certainly would. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that housing associations and other social landlords have to take safety incredibly seriously. This legislation is intended to ensure that they do. If housing associations or other social landlords are not taking safety, and particularly fire safety, seriously, I would be most grateful if he and others would share such information with me. He has been a uniquely assiduous constituency MP and his concern for the vulnerable and voiceless is such that he will raise his voice on their behalf. We will do everything we can to act.
Before going on to the meat of the Bill, I should say that, as a number of Members have rightly pointed out, a range of issues need to be tackled in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy. As well as legislating on building safety, we need to make sure that there is action, particularly from some of those with direct responsibility for fixing the problems that they helped to create. I am grateful to the two Secretaries of State who succeeded and preceded me here, my right hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). In office, both accelerated the efforts we were undertaking to ensure that developers who were responsible for buildings that were not safe accept the responsibility for remediating those buildings.
There have been some indications from some speaking apparently on behalf of developers that, because of the global economic headwinds we are all facing—there may be an impact on supply; there may be an impact on their bottom line—they feel that the weight of obligation that has been placed on their shoulders should perhaps be lessened somewhat. Let me make clear from the Dispatch Box that it cannot be the case that economic conditions, which affect us all, are being used by developers, or anyone else, to shuffle off their obligations.
Similarly, there are freeholders who have direct responsibility to the leaseholders in the buildings they ultimately own to remediate those buildings—that is their legal obligation. This Parliament passed laws to ensure that they fulfil that obligation. There are some freeholders—organisations of significant means—that are, again, trying to delay or dilute their responsibilities. That is simply not acceptable. I hope that across the House we make it clear that, yes, these are tough economic times, but they are very tough economic times for the most vulnerable in our society, and there is no way that plcs and other organisations with healthy balance sheets and surpluses, and CEOs who are earning handsome remuneration, can somehow use global economic conditions as an excuse for shuffling off their responsibility. That just will not do. All of us across the House will work to ensure that the work of remediation is done and that there will be no hiding place for those responsible.
In bringing forward the Bill, I want to thank, first of all, all colleagues in the other place who contributed to improving it while it was there. I am sure that in Committee there may well be amendments from Back-Bench colleagues across the House that can contribute to improving it. My colleagues in the other place were grateful to those noble colleagues who contributed to the enhancement of the Bill. In particular, I want to thank Lord Greenhalgh, who, as building safety and fire safety Minister, introduced the Bill and served with such distinction in the Department.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North for all the work he did, and not just on this Bill but on legislation on the private rented sector and on homelessness. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his work, when Secretary of State, on the White Paper that preceded the Bill. In particular, I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Her actions in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy, along with the moral leadership she has shown, set in train a programme of reform to ensure that those in social housing got the full attention of the Government. That has ensured the Bill is before us today.
I also want to thank two campaigners who, in the course of the last year, have shone a light on some of the worst conditions in social housing, and have reminded us all how important it is to ensure that our regulator has teeth. First, Kwajo Tweneboa is a young man who I think all of us in this House have seen campaigning with eloquence and passion. Having grown up in social housing, he has acted as a voice for those who may have been overlooked and underserved in the past. Secondly, Daniel Hewitt for ITV News has worked with Kwajo and others to ensure that registered social landlords who have not been performing their duties adequately are held up to proper scrutiny.
It is of course important to acknowledge that there are a number of different aspects of the social housing debate that the Bill does not cover. It does not cover the whole question of future supply. We will have an opportunity to debate that in this House in the weeks and months to come. It is also important to stress that the overwhelming majority of those who work in social housing are doing a fantastic job. The overwhelming majority of those who work in housing associations and in all the arm’s length management organisations that help to provide social housing are dedicated professionals. They have nothing to fear from the Bill and, indeed, everything to gain. It is the case, however, that some 13% of homes in the social rented sector do not meet the decent homes standard, and that is simply too high a figure. We need to make sure action is taken to deal with that. I should say, by contrast, that the proportion of homes in the private rented sector estimated not to meet that standard is 21%, which is why legislation to improve conditions in the private sector is so important and, again, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North and others has been so critical.
A series of steps are taken in the Bill to ensure that we can more effectively regulate the sector. First, the Bill makes sure that what has been called the serious detriment test no longer applies. In the past, a very high bar had to be met before the regulator could investigate complaints. We are removing that test, lowering the bar and making it easier for tenants to feel that their concerns are being investigated.
The second significant measure is that we are ensuring that the cap on fines under which the regulator hitherto operated—just £5,000—is lifted so that unlimited fines can be levied. I know that the regulator will take account of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and others to ensure that fines are targeted and proportionate, but the potential for the regulator to levy unlimited fines will concentrate minds as few other things will for some of the significant players in the sector that need to up their game.
We will also shorten to two days the period of time for inspections, which was hitherto four weeks, to ensure that tenants who have concerns can feel that they are being addressed more quickly. We will require performance improvement plans from housing associations and others that are found wanting. Critically, safety will become a fundamental objective for registered social landlords and a named individual in each RSL will be responsible for health and safety, thereby making sure there is clearer accountability where it has been fudged in the past.
Thanks to amendments tabled in the House of Lords, we are introducing a new standard for competence for people who work in the field. There has been a lively and important debate about the need for higher professional standards in housing. I completely agree; evidence from what happened in the run-up to Grenfell showed that some of those who were responsible for safeguarding and improving social housing did not have the basic standards of professionalism that are required.
We need to proceed with sensitivity, because the standard of qualification and degree of professional training required for someone at the heart of a major registered social landlord may of course be different from that for someone who is operating a small alms house or other charity provider, but there is a clear need for greater professionalisation. We will work with colleagues to ensure that we have fit-for-purpose legislation.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for his comprehensive speech. It has become apparent from things we read in the paper and from television programmes that some of the councils responsible for enforcement in respect of safety in properties are finding themselves financially stretched to deal with the massive issues that come their way. Does the Bill provide some help, whether by financial or other means, to ensure that councils can deal with the enormous issues that they have to deal with? I can understand why they are sometimes overwhelmed.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Indeed, local authorities have in the past been found wanting when it comes to building control. The most recent spending review included significant additional sums for local government, but we are all aware that inflation and other pressures are putting considerable strain on local government finances. It is my commitment to work with local government, particularly in England but, of course, throughout the United Kingdom, to make sure that the most vital statutory functions can be well funded. I will of course work with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association and others to make sure that we can provide the support that is required.
The legislation will make sure that the voice of tenants is more effectively placed at the heart of regulation and policy making overall. The establishment of an advisory panel will draw widely to ensure that the regulator and the Department understand the concerns of social tenants. Indeed, the regulator will be in the vanguard of a greater level of transparency in respect of the level of service provided by individual social landlords.
Legislation on its own can achieve a lot but not everything, and I am conscious that my Department has a responsibility, as Grenfell United and others have pointed out, to make sure that there is wider awareness of the power, and path, for complaints. I am glad that there has been greater awareness of the way in which complaints can be made, that those complaints are being acted on more quickly, and that registered social landlords such as Clarion, which have been on the receiving end of complaints, have responded more quickly. My Department has been responsible for making sure that there is a wider awareness of how to deal sensitively with examples of anti-social behaviour. It continues to work with local government and with registered social landlords—alongside the work of the ombudsman—to ensure that there is a better appreciation of what tenants require.
The legislation was originally conceived of, generated and brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead as one of a number of measures to ensure that we do right by the bereaved, the survivors and the relatives of those in the Grenfell tragedy, but there is still much to do. I am very conscious that more than five years on from that tragedy, work is still in progress and we need to expedite it, but I know that the inquiry, which formally concludes this week, will be in a position—thanks to the testimony of so many brave people—to hold us and future Governments to account.
Across the House, the spirit in which we will take the legislation forward and examine it in Committee will be one of commitment to honour the memory of those who lost their lives and of a determination to ensure, “Never again”.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
May I be the first to welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his place. I very much enjoyed sparring with him over the Dispatch Box last time. I also particularly enjoy these very rare moments when the House can come together in political consensus to deliver on something of enormous importance to people outside this place. I look forward to working with him and the team to make good on the promises that we made to people all those years ago.
Apparently, when the right hon. Gentleman arrived back in the Department, he told civil servants that he was getting the band back together. The Department has now had seven line-ups since the Bill was first promised—amazingly, that is officially more reinventions than the Sugababes. I look forward to us going “Round Round” again. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), is shaking her head. I gather that she is a Taylor Swift fan, so I promise her that I will try to get some Taylor Swift references in next time.
The Secretary of State will know that since he last held office, the job has got much harder, but the Bill, which the Labour party strongly supports, has got much better, in large part thanks to Baroness Hayman and our colleagues in the other place, who have worked together in genuine cross-party spirit to strengthen the hand of social housing tenants.
For 120 years, social housing has provided the foundations of a decent, secure life for millions of people across Britain—a home for life, handed back into common ownership to be passed down through the generations. Labour believes that that is part of our inheritance and an ideal—one that empowers people to live the richer, larger and more dignified lives that they deserve—worth fighting for.
It should, then, shame a nation that in 2020 one in seven social homes in London, along with many others across the country, do not even meet the Government’s decent homes standard. As the Secretary of State knows —he paid tribute to the incredible work of Dan Hewitt at ITV—the reality is one of children growing up in squalid, damp and overcrowded homes that would not be out of place in the Victorian era.
When people in social housing have tried to sound the alarm, they have too often been completely ignored. Nothing has brought that into sharper relief than the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower and the treatment of the residents who—along with many others—tried to sound the alarm over many, many years. Today, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives on that day, and those whose lives were changed for ever and who live with those memories. We pay tribute to the work that they have done to get us this far. But they want more than remembrance; they want justice and a lasting legacy. That includes setting right a system that has failed them and failed many, many others. It is a system where concerns were repeatedly ignored, where the value of lives was weighed against the value of profits on a balance sheet and could come out the poorer, and where, in one of the wealthiest cities in the world, just a few miles from the centre of power, those concerns could be rendered completely invisible by decisionmakers just a few miles away.
For far too many people in this country and for social housing tenants, the reality is that they too often hold none of the cards. That is simply wrong. When they challenge bad practices, they should not have to fight the system. They should feel the whole system pulling in behind them.
That is why we welcome and support the Bill. It is also why we believe that tenants deserve the strongest legislation that this House can provide. Let me take three areas where we know the Bill can be improved and strengthened. We welcome the establishment of an advisory panel, but tenants should be at the centre of that, setting the agenda, not just responding to it, and we will bring forward measures in Committee to seek to ensure that that is the case. We welcome, too, the progress that the Secretary of State referred to that was made in the other place on the professionalisation of standards in the social housing workforce, but we know that that could be further improved and further strengthened. I was genuinely interested to hear the Secretary of State raise concerns about the impact that that might have on smaller providers. It is a very different reason than the one given in the other place for why the Government felt that it was not possible to strengthen those provisions. Perhaps that is something that we can work together on to resolve. Finally, rights are no good without the means to enforce them. The regulator must have the resources necessary to do the job, and we will be bringing forward measures in Committee, which we hope the Government will support, in order to ensure that that is the case.
Most of all, we want to see the Government get on with the job. It has been five years since Grenfell, four years since the Green Paper, and three years since promises were made in the Conservative party’s election manifesto. How can it possibly be the case that we are approaching the end of 2022 and we still do not know when the measures in the Bill will come into force? This is a short Bill addressing an area of clear political consensus. We have a Secretary of State in post again who has a reputation for getting things done when he sets his mind to it. It took him seven months to scrap court fees, six months to ban microplastics, and three months to pass the entire Academies Act 2010, using powers normally reserved for passing anti-terrorist legislation. It has been well over a year since he was first appointed to this post. Why is this less of a priority?
The Bill is an important part of solving the housing crisis, and we need to get on with it, but it is only one piece. It seeks to address the imbalance of power in social housing and the appalling conditions in social housing that too many people have to endure, but there are 1 million people languishing on the social homes waiting list, struggling with those same power imbalances and squalid housing conditions in the private rented sector and watching their rents soar completely out of control. The only way to deal with that is to build more social homes, but the record has been indefensible. Every year since this Conservative Government took office, an average of 12,000 social homes have been lost from our housing stock. The Secretary of State knows it, and, to give credit to him, he has acknowledged that we need more social homes.
“The availability of social housing is simply inadequate for any notion of social justice or economic efficiency.”
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As she has correctly said, the biggest problem with social housing is that there is not enough of it. The past 12 years have seen under-investment in the social housing grant and many properties being lost to the system—many associations are selling off properties because of the multiple demands of having a development programme that they cannot fulfil, of having poor conditions of properties and of having overcrowding in their stock. That means that, increasingly, they are looking at more and more desperate measures. Although the measures in the Bill are welcome, what we really need is to see social housing restored to its pre-eminence as the first port of call, rather than the last port of call, for people in housing need.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the work that he has done over many years to highlight the housing crisis in this country. He is absolutely right; it is not just that we are not building enough, but that far more social homes are being lost from the social housing stock. I pay tribute to the many Labour councils that are seeking to do something about that, even in very tough times. In Salford, Ipswich, Southwark and Doncaster, house building has continued and the social housing stock continues to grow. When Labour was in Government we built double the amount of social homes than are currently being built. When we come back into Government, whether in a few months’ or a few years’ time, we will finish that job and restore social housing to the second largest form of housing tenure, where it belongs.
The Secretary of State acknowledged the problem in his speech. I agree with him, but that was back in February and still very little has been done. That is why I press him on the urgency of passing the Bill and getting this done. There is much more to turn our attention to. He sat in the Cabinet in 2010 that cut the budget of the affordable homes programme by 60%. He has served multiple Prime Ministers who cut local authorities’ budgets to the bone and imposed social rent cuts that have hampered their ability to build and invest. It is time to finally get this legislation on the statute book so that we can turn our attention to tackling the housing crisis.
Nothing matters more than a home. Security in your own home, the right to make it your own and the right to live somewhere fit for human habitation are non-negotiable. Housing is not just the market—it is a fundamental human right. Any Government worthy of the office would take action right now to mend that deliberate vandalism of our social housing stock, restore it to the second largest form of tenure and finally get developers to sign fire safety pledge contracts. The deadline for that passed months ago.
We must get on with this and release people from the misery of not knowing whether they live in a safe home. Leaseholders face appalling charges and uncertainty, trapped in homes that they thought were forever homes but have become a prison. We must abolish the feudal, archaic leasehold system and replace it with a commonhold system fit for modern Britain. We must make good on the promises to hand power back to private rented tenants, starting with abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions and proper, decent home standards fit for the 21st century.
Families across this country are desperate to escape their housing conditions. Many are desperate to get on to the housing ladder, but a few weeks ago their Government crashed the economy and mortgage payments were sent through the roof. For hundreds of thousands of people, the dream of home ownership has gone up in smoke.
Surely, the absolute bare minimum that any Government worth their salt ought to deliver is for every single person in this country to have a decent, safe, warm home and the power to drive and shape the decisions that affect their lives—and nowhere more so than in respect of the housing that they inhabit. The Government have recognised the need to empower social housing tenants and to improve safety and standards in social housing, and they will get no complaints from us about that.
There is, finally, political consensus that the scandalous conditions in which far too many families are forced to live are not just unacceptable but a stain on modern Britain. We welcome that recognition, even though it has taken too long to get here. There is so much more to do. We need to now get on with the job.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities back to his role. I thank him for the understanding that he previously showed and continues to show of the importance of social housing issues, and for the kind remarks he made about me.
I welcome the Bill, which has been a long time in the making, but which, critically, responds to the concerns about social housing, the attitude of some social housing landlords and the interaction between social housing tenants and landlords. Those concerns have existed for too long, but they were brought into sharp focus by the terrible tragedy of the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017.
In the immediate aftermath of the fire at Grenfell Tower, one of the things that became very clear to me in talking to people from the estate, survivors and others was that the people responsible for managing the homes in Grenfell Tower—not just the council, but the tenant management organisation—simply failed to listen to the comments, remarks and concerns that tenants were raising about safety issues. It was not just a one-off comment that a tenant might have made; it was comments, remarks and concerns being raised time and again by the tenants, and no action was taken.
Of course, that was not confined to Grenfell, or even the wider North Kensington estate. Particularly when Housing Ministers were listening to tenants across the country, we saw and heard that that experience was mirrored up and down the country. As has been referred to, my Government published the social housing Green Paper in 2018 and launched a call for evidence as part of a review of social housing regulation. That led to the social housing White Paper in late 2020 and now, at last, we have the Bill.
What was clear throughout that process was that, while many tenants had a positive experience to report, there was a problem at the heart of our social housing system. That is why I welcome the Bill as a means of strengthening the regime of social housing regulation. By the introduction of the new consumer regulatory regime, which will be more proactive, and in enhancing the economic regulatory role and providing new enforcement powers to strengthen the regulator’s role, it aims to ensure that landlords do not just listen but, critically, act when problems are raised. Crucially, the Bill puts the emphasis on making the tenants the focus of landlords’ work, with a particular priority rightly given to safety issues. By enhancing transparency and accountability, the Bill will help to set a different balance between the interests of the tenants and those of landlords, and emphasise the delivery of services to the tenants.
So far, all well and good, but there is an area where I hope the Government will accept there is a desire from many that they should go further. It is an area that the Secretary of State has already referred to: the question of the professionalisation of the sector. I am aware that the Government introduced amendments to address this issue in the other place, and that an amendment from Baroness Hayman of Ullock to go further was narrowly defeated, but I am not convinced that the Government’s proposals fully address the issue.
The Government have introduced requirements for the social housing regulator to set regulatory standards on staff competence and conduct. Once in force, the regulator, in the words of the Minister in the other place, would
“proactively seek assurance that providers are meeting them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1029.]
That was an alternative to the other approach, which has been supported by Grenfell United and others, of the Government mandating professional qualifications.
I have looked at the Government’s arguments. The Government have said that the sector is so diverse that mandating a set of qualifications or a single qualification would be too restrictive, that there is no single qualification that would meet the diverse needs of the sector—the Secretary of State referred to that—and that landlords need to have the flexibility to determine what qualifications their staff need. It was also argued that this would make it harder to recruit staff and that there was a risk that it would lead to staff who did not have the right attitudes and behaviours. I find all those arguments extraordinary. Social housing is provided for those in need. Why is it that in other social professions staff are required to be suitably qualified and to be prepared to accept an ethos, a code of ethics or values, yet we are not willing to require that of those employed to manage the homes, particularly the safety of homes, that social housing tenants are living in?
What is more, it is all very well saying that professionalisation would lead to the wrong attitudes and behaviours, but the very reason that we have the Bill today and that we are discussing it is that there are too many people managing social housing with the wrong attitudes and behaviours. I fail to see how making the management of social housing professional—requiring people to have qualifications, saying it is a valuable and worthwhile career, ensuring people have the knowledge and skills needed to do the job—leads to worse outcomes. Professionalising social housing management would, over time, mean that the perception of the role would change. It would come to be seen as a worthwhile career, and would attract more dedicated people interested in what would be seen as a valued profession.
As for the argument that one qualification could not cover all the roles, I am sure the Secretary of State, with his intellect, will soon be able to destroy that argument. There are many ways that that can be approached. We can limit the role that we initially set the qualifications for—to, say, senior management—and allow further qualifications to be developed. We could set up a range of qualifications. They are many ways in which that issue can be addressed; it is not insoluble.
Behind these arguments lies something critical to providing a better future for social housing and social housing tenants, and it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes): we need to remove the stigma of living in social housing. Those who live in social housing should be able to feel proud of where they live, and not feel that people are judging them because they live in social housing. Ensuring the professionalisation of the management of social housing would send a clear message of the value that Government attach to social housing, and the importance of ensuring that those charged with looking after the homes of others have the skills necessary to do that. If we do not care who manages social housing, it is easy to think that we do not care about those who are living in social housing. If we care about those who manage social housing, we show that we care about those who are living in social housing.
Mr Francois
I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. Friend has done in relation to Grenfell, which has been of great importance. I declare an interest as someone who grew up in a council house. I have great sympathy with the argument she makes. Does she agree that as well as qualifications a key thing is attitude, and that people who run housing associations need to have a positive attitude to their tenants and not, as is sometimes the case, a negative one?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree. The problem we have seen, and that we saw at Grenfell, was that the attitude was that negative one of just ignoring tenants and not listening to what they were saying. It is essential that people have the right attitude, and see social housing tenants as people who are living in those homes. If people have concerns about their homes and their safety, those concerns should be listened to.
Another objection has been raised about the possibility of professionalisation requiring qualifications for those managing social housing: it would lead to the reclassification by the Office for National Statistics of all social housing providers as public bodies. None of us wants that to happen, and I know the angst that the issue causes in Government, having been there when the last change in the classification of social housing took place. However, no one knows definitely that the ONS would reclassify it in that way, and no one seems to know where the tipping point is regarding how much extra regulation would move such providers into the category of public bodies. Can the Government achieve professionalisation in a way that does not lead to reclassification? Can the regulations be rebalanced to ensure that professionalisation can be brought in and that tipping point is not reached? I welcome the commitment that the Secretary of State made in his speech to work across the House to find solutions and see whether we can find a way through this. I hope that, during the remaining stages of the Bill, the Government will have that conversation with the ONS and will actively seek to table amendments that allow for proper professionalisation of the sector without reclassification.
This important Bill aims to deal with inequities that have been there for too long. It should lead to deeper concern for the needs of social housing tenants, and a greater willingness of all those who are managing social housing to listen to their tenants. However, we should also all aim to remove the stigma that is attached to social housing. That would be of real benefit to all involved. I believe that the professionalisation of social housing management would be a real legacy for the 72 who sadly lost their lives on that fateful night in June 2017.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The need for secure, genuinely affordable social housing is one of the biggest issues facing my constituents. It forces too many of them into the instability of temporary accommodation, it blights the health of constituents forced to live in damp, overcrowded accommodation and it holds back children and young people who are unable to fulfil their potential at school because of the conditions at home. So I support the principles of this Bill, the strengthening of regulations that it will deliver and its potential to improve the quality of existing homes, but it is not a solution to the whole of the housing crisis that we face—a housing crisis that deepens and worsens with every passing year. Without central Government investment in new, genuinely affordable social housing and the proper regulation of the private rented sector, my constituents will continue to suffer.
I want to speak today about an amendment that I will be tabling to the Bill, which I hope the Government will support. The amendment, which is supported by Shelter and the National Housing Federation, seeks to ensure additional protection for secure social housing tenants who are forced to move home due to a threat of violence. My constituent Georgia found herself in those circumstances. Georgia and her children were happy in their housing association home, where they had lived for nine years, when her oldest son was threatened by gang members who came to the flat one Saturday afternoon while Georgia was at work. She worked for the NHS. Georgia went to the police, who told her that her son’s life was at risk and she had to move immediately for his safety. Her whole life and those of her children were turned upside down in that instant.
Georgia’s local council provided temporary accommodation in another borough, but it was really poor quality and without enough space for her sons to study properly. She had been there for a year when her case came to my attention. The move and the place that they were forced to live in took a terrible toll on Georgia and her children. Having referred her to the council for temporary accommodation, Georgia’s housing association began steps to end her secure tenancy, essentially sending her to the bottom of the housing list, facing a wait of many years before there would be any chance at all of being offered another secure tenancy.
My amendment would create a new obligation on social landlords, whether councils or housing associations, to protect the tenancy rights of secure tenants who have had to move due to a risk of violence, and create a new duty on them to co-operate with each other when a tenant needs to move area for their own safety. These simple measures will mitigate the already serious and traumatising effects of serious violence, particularly gang- related violence, on families. It will help to prevent one moment in a young person’s life from destabilising their whole family and help them to focus on getting the support they need. It will stop families needlessly entering an already overwhelmed social housing waiting list and minimise the time spent in temporary accommodation.
In the end, after more than a year in temporary accommodation and following my intervention, Georgia and her children were rehoused by their housing association within a week, but not before they had suffered horrific consequences. There are some details of this case that it is not appropriate for me to share in this Chamber. I hope that colleagues will believe me when I say that Georgia and her family suffered consequences that no family should ever have to bear as a result of the destabilisation that they faced.
I have encountered similar cases in which families know that their secure tenancy will be at risk if they move due to a risk of violence, so they avoid that by sending the young person who is at risk of violence away to live with family or friends. Again, the amendment would give security to those residents: there would be a limit to the instability they face and help to prevent a crisis from turning into a tragedy. There are too many families in my constituency who are suffering the trauma of serious violence in our communities, and it is the responsibility of all of us to do everything possible to mitigate its impacts. This amendment would do that. Georgia’s law would help to ensure that other families did not suffer as Georgia’s family have, and I commend it to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to his position. He was once described as a member of the Notting Hill set. I will be saying a lot about Notting Hill Genesis housing association this evening, but—to paraphrase Emperor Hirohito—not necessarily to its advantage.
I am grateful to have been called to speak on this new Bill to improve the regulation and safety of social housing, not least because I have raised concerns about the issue before. In reiterating them, I declare an interest of sorts as someone who grew up in a Basildon council house in the 1970s and 1980s.
In my experience, registered social landlords such as housing associations vary greatly in quality. Some are really rather good, with sound management, attention to detail and a commitment to pay close attention to the welfare of their tenants. Others are very different. As a constituency MP, I have had some very poor experiences—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), it would appear—of how they have treated my constituents, their tenants.
In fairness, regulators vary in quality, too. Some of them—such as Ofsted, which inspects schools, and the Care Quality Commission, which inspects hospitals, other medical facilities and care homes—are clearly taken seriously and even respected by those whom they seek to regulate. I believe that we need an organisation that displays equal rigour in the regulation of social housing. It must be a good thing to have a tougher regulator with greater powers to hold to account housing associations and the people who run them, some of whom are extremely well paid, for the service that they provide. That is why I am happy to support the Bill tonight.
The military have a concept called ground truth. In simple English, the term describes what goes on in reality—on the ground—rather than on a general’s PowerPoint presentation, perhaps thousands of miles away. In other words, it is what really goes on in practice, rather than in abstract policy or theory. I will illustrate my argument by sharing with the House three examples of ground truth from my constituency that relate to social housing.
The first example concerns the quality of housing maintenance, or rather the lack of quality. Basildon Borough Council, including the town of Wickford in my constituency, has a relatively large social housing stock, including several thousand properties that were transferred across when the Commission for the New Towns was dissolved in the 1990s. In 2016, the council signed a highly valuable contract with Morgan Sindall, a major corporation, for the maintenance of its social housing stock. According to its latest annual report, the group chief executive of Morgan Sindall, Mr John Morgan, received a total remuneration package last year, including a bonus, of some £2.7 million.
Morgan Sindall’s housing maintenance arm, Morgan Sindall Property Services, has been maintaining the properties for about six years with relatively few complaints. A year or so ago, however, I suddenly started to receive a torrent of complaints from Wickford constituents about the timeliness and quality of their repairs. In some cases, it has taken Morgan Sindall many months and multiple visits from numerous employees to carry out even basic repairs for social housing tenants.
The situation is clearly completely unacceptable. I have received complaint after complaint from constituents over the past year or so, particularly about the poor response from Morgan Sindall to requests for assistance. The principal reason appears to be that Morgan Sindall restricted its visits to undertake repairs during the covid-19 pandemic to emergency or highly urgent cases. That has allowed a considerable maintenance backlog to accumulate, totalling thousands of cases, which it is obviously now struggling to clear—hence the massive increase in tenants’ complaints.
In fairness, last week I met Mr Alan Hayward, the managing director of Morgan Sindall Property Services, who personally assured me that the company is negotiating an improvement plan with Basildon Council to return its service to something more akin to its pre-covid performance. We agreed that in future I would report all complaints directly to him and copy in the council to seek much swifter redress for aggrieved tenants. We will have to wait and see how the situation pans out, but clearly things cannot continue as they are. My rent-paying constituents deserve a much better service from Morgan Sindall; I am seeking to ensure that they receive one, including by raising the matter this evening.
Secondly, on competence, I have raised in the House the very poor management provided by Notting Hill Genesis—a housing association that needs much tighter regulation or, ideally, to be taken over by someone else who knows what they are doing. Notting Hill Genesis is run by a chief executive who, according to its annual report, earns total remuneration, including pension emoluments, of more than £300,000 per annum, which is almost twice that of the Prime Minister. Some housing association chief executives earn considerably more than that.
In particular, I have highlighted the poor management of a sheltered housing unit in Rayleigh named Sangster Court, which has been nicknamed “Gangster Court” by locals because of the way in which Notting Hill Genesis extorts money from its tenants for what they believe—as residents have told me—is a very poor service in return. On my last visit, I was especially concerned to hear complaints from the residents about fire safety—so much so that I wrote to our very proactive police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, to urgently request a fire inspection by Essex County Council Fire and Rescue Service. The results of the subsequent inspection, which I will send to the Secretary of State, were damning, with multiple serious deficiencies identified that Notting Hill Genesis has had to rectify and comply with.
One of those deficiencies included having to replace inadequate fire doors in the building. The company has just written to me to confirm that that will take some 16 weeks. Post the Grenfell tragedy and with the subsequent Grenfell inquiry drawing to a close, I would much rather that those vital safety improvements were undertaken in 16 days. That illustrates the tin-eared approach that, in my experience, is characteristic of Notting Hill Genesis and its senior management. I wonder whether the non-executive directors of that organisation are content with the lacklustre and complacent reply that I received, especially concerning the fire safety of their residents. I am intrigued to know what, if anything, they intend to do about it and what the Secretary of State is minded to do about it.
I hope that the tougher social housing regulator that is envisioned in the Bill will prove much better at holding failing housing associations such as Notting Hill Genesis more firmly to account; or, even better, will help to encourage someone more competent within the sector to take them over and materially up their game as a result.
Thirdly, again on safety, the Secretary of State will appreciate that a facet of substantial modern housing developments is that they now often include a sizeable portion of social housing, usually administered by housing associations. One such development is the new Bloor Homes development, off Ashingdon Road in my constituency. That has a highly complex and controversial history, which I shall not attempt to recount here in detail, as it could take literally all evening. Suffice it to say, Bloor won on appeal despite intense local opposition, including from me as the local MP. Although it has planning permission, it is seeking to fell a 100-year-old oak tree to create an entrance to the new estate directly opposite both an infant and a junior school, which between them, accommodate more than 500 staff and pupils.
As clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill relate directly to safety, including, presumably, that of the tenants in the new development whose children would be likely to use the schools that are just opposite, the House should know that the headteachers of both schools issued a joint letter last Thursday that included the following statement:
“We experienced a frightening glimpse into the future, when on Friday 21st October the pavement access was reduced in readiness for the tree removal. The situation was carnage, and it was only through our dedicated teaching staff actively marshalling pedestrians and on-coming traffic that there was not a serious accident.”
Safety must be paramount. With the tree occupied by protesters and the local community up in arms, the whole sorry episode is rapidly degenerating into a public relations disaster for Bloor Homes, which is repeatedly described by my constituents as “arrogant”, or often far worse, and which appears to have desperately little regard for the feelings of the local community, its locally elected councillors or, indeed, its local MP.
Despite its uncompromising attitude, I genuinely appeal to Bloor in the House of Commons tonight, even at this 11th hour, to reconsider its approach and facilitate a redesign of the junction to save the tree and, even more importantly, to ensure the safety of the pupils—some of whom are as young as five—at both the schools. A company with even the slightest regard for its public reputation would surely attempt to do so, but this is Bloor Homes, so we shall have to wait and see.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill because it seeks to create a tougher and more effective regulator for the social housing sector, in which many of my constituents, as well as the constituents of colleagues across the House, continue to live. In my experience, some housing associations, such as Sanctuary, which is under new leadership and is actively considering requiring tenants to sign off repair work so that the contractor is not paid unless and until the repair is completed satisfactorily, are gradually getting better, while others such as Notting Hill Genesis appear to be getting worse.
Having spoken to headteachers post Ofsted inspection, or hospital managers after a visit from the Care Quality Commission, I have no doubt that when their regulator turns up they take the visit extremely seriously indeed. I would like to see a similarly powerful social housing regulator whose objective is to ensure a better and safer service for tenants, and which housing associations and the like dare not ignore. I wish this important Bill and the Ministers in charge of it Godspeed and good luck.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The issue that we are discussing is quite personal for me. I think back to when we lived in temporary accommodation. We were placed, from Brixton, in a B&B in King’s Cross. My late mother was one of those women who made sure that you never missed school. We always had to take the tube from King’s Cross to Brixton to go to school. When we were finally rehoused—my mum, my two sisters and me—it felt like the fairy tale, with the security of our own home, somewhere that was safe, somewhere that was warm, somewhere where we could push the key into the lock and know that this was our home, which was vital for the stability that we had growing up.
It saddens me that many of the constituents I now represent in Vauxhall do not have that. It saddens me that, as the MP for Vauxhall, the majority of my casework relates to housing. It saddens me that, many years after I grew up on a council estate in Brixton, the conditions and state of some of the properties in which my constituents live has not improved. It saddens me, because I know that as a country we should and can be doing better for those tenants living in social housing. It saddens me that there is still such a big stigma for people who live in council housing. When I visit them, I see them taking so much pride in their home: they are people who decorate their home, and they lay out their pictures so I can see their children and families. They are people who have so much pride in their home, but the way in which they are discussed by some councils and housing associations shows that they are treated with disregard. They are treated as the lowest form of people because they live in social housing. That should not be happening, and the tone in which we debate and talk about social housing tenants really matters.
A number of people living in social housing continue to pay their rent and service charges on time. A number of those people are always in credit, as my late mother was, yet when they contact their landlord or housing association they are sometimes met with a barrage of abuse. They are told, “Why are you complaining?”, and meet a barrage of annoyance. We need to change that, and one way in which we can do so is by introducing regulation. The Bill is long overdue, and it contains really good measures, which I welcome, but the reality is that this long-awaited regulation will not happen if we do not have the right funding.
Another area that we need to look at is safety across the social housing sector. Tenants living in social housing raise these issues time and time again, but they are often dismissed until there is a fatality—we know that that has happened in some cases. We have seen what happened when residents living in Grenfell Tower complained about fire safety. I have consistently raised issues relating to fire and the evacuation of disabled people. My inbox is filled with messages from so many people in my constituency who to this day have unsafe cladding and fire defects in their property. Imagine the mental toll it takes on someone’s mindset when they go to sleep every night with their young child or elderly family member that they care for, knowing that there are safety defects in their property.
There is also the mental stress that people are facing. A number of my constituents are unable to remortgage. Every time the Bank of England base rate goes up, their mortgages go up. They are stuck, prisoners in their own homes that they have saved for and worked two or three jobs in some cases to buy. They dreamed of owning their own home, only to see it all shattered, because that dream has now turned into a nightmare, whether it is leasehold legislation, service charges or bills for unsafe cladding—all things that it is within our power to tackle.
Coming back to the key issue of the state of some of our social housing, it is important to say that over the past 12 years, sadly, we have not seen that investment going into social housing. The repairs and maintenance contracts have been divvied up by different landlords. With some of those repairs and maintenance contracts, they even have the audacity to charge my local council, Lambeth, and not actually carry out the work. We hear stories of tenants waiting two or three hours on the phone trying to get people to come out and do repairs. We hear stories of tenants missing a day’s work, only for the people not to turn up to carry out those repairs. When tenants complain, they are met with the same disdain. This cannot go on.
I hope that we can move forward on this and make sure that we recognise that tenants living in social housing deserve the best standards of living, deserve to be listened to, deserve to be able to challenge their housing associations and landlords, and deserve the compensation that, in some cases, they should have received long ago, if we look at the state of their housing.
My only question to the Minister in discussing this matter is this: can she commit to allocate those urgent resources to the regulator to allow it to perform effectively its inspections and any other new duties that arise from the Bill? If not, I know that many tenants I represent will continue to write to me, because all of this discussion will be in vain. Many tenants will be watching this debate today, hoping that the Minister will give them that reassurance, and I hope that we do not have to come back here in a year’s time to discuss and debate the same thing.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
In welcoming this Bill on behalf of all my social housing tenants in Dudley, I wish to acknowledge and place on record the hard work of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) while he was a housing Minister. I know that he approached that work with a great deal of passion and dedication. I also note the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—and, indeed, her contributions today—with whom I very much agree.
If there is one thing that I know will unite this House, it is the desire of all our constituents to have a safe home, receive high-quality services and be treated with dignity and respect, but for too long I have received many emails and letters from social tenant constituents complaining of long delays for repairs, poor communication with their landlords and housing officers who are seemingly not interested. I think of a recent communication with one of my constituents in Dudley whose internal wall plastering collapsed on her child in April. We are now in November and still no repair has been made.
I am not here to criticise all social landlords or housing officers, as many do exemplary work to ensure their tenants are treated with dignity and respect and are assisted in a timely manner. I know that officers in the Dudley homelessness team work extremely hard to ensure constituents have a roof over their heads and they do not find themselves on the streets.
While the House would usually see me standing here arguing for less state intervention, I believe this Bill is in fact necessary. It goes a long way to driving up standards and ensuring that social landlords fulfil their obligation to a high standard and in a timely fashion. The Bill grants the regulator power to issue social landlords with performance improvement plan notices if they fail to meet standards or if there is a risk they will fail to meet standards—much like Ofsted does in schools. Tenants will be able to request to see copies of their landlord’s improvement plan, and if the landlord fails to comply with improvement plan notices, they could be issued with enforcement action or a fine, or have to pay compensation. In any other situation, this process would be commonplace, so it is right for that to be introduced for social housing.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). I think all hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that everybody should have a home that is safe, warm, of a decent standard and genuinely affordable, yet we know that many people live in homes that are not safe and certainly fall way short of even the Government’s decent homes standard.
Years of funding cuts to local authority budgets, as well as the four years during which the Government imposed a 1% social rent cut on local authorities, have inevitably taken their toll. The pandemic also hit housing revenue accounts hard, which has led to a huge issue in relation to the standard of social housing, but it is fair to say that the standard of most social homes was falling long before the pandemic—it has been going on for years.
In my constituency, housing and housing repair make up my biggest casework issue—every month, when I do my reports, it is always housing repair—and the same housing associations are always in question. More than 5,000 properties in my constituency are managed by housing associations. Many constituents raise issues about the standard of housing and about the poor customer service. Tenants are being made to feel that they should be grateful to have a home, and that the poor, substandard conditions and the management of those homes are not things that they have any right to question or even complain about. If this Bill goes some way to alleviate the challenges that they face, that can only be a good thing, because those challenges have had a devastating effect on tenants’ mental health and wellbeing.
One constituent has spent more than two years trying to get repairs to his home. He has been making complaints, but there has been no resolution, so he has had to live with a hole in his kitchen ceiling since January 2020. It really should not have taken an intervention from me to have that rectified. It should never be down to our offices, which can make things happen, to ensure that social housing providers fix the problems that their tenants face. Providers have a duty to ensure that the housing that they provide is of a decent standard because, as all hon. Members would agree, people do not live in those homes rent free; they pay rent and, in many cases, service charges.
The Grenfell fire made us all aware of the consequences of inaction when people living in social housing are disregarded and their complaints are consistently ignored. Such a tragedy should never have happened in our country in 2017—the year that I was elected. I pay tribute to Grenfell United and all the bereaved families and survivors of that tragic event. The Government promised justice and committed to ensuring that Grenfell would never happen again, but more than five years on from that tragedy, they have still not secured justice and no one has really been held responsible for what happened.
Many people, including my constituents, still live in unsafe homes that are not fit for habitation. It is right that we are debating the Bill, but it is long overdue, because the Government have failed in that. The Government’s Green Paper on a new deal was published in 2018—four years ago—so we are still going very slowly, at a snail’s pace.
The Bill is very important and should have been introduced earlier. If we want to deliver transformational change for social housing tenants, improve the quality of housing and ensure better regulation of the sector, the Bill needs to be improved. I am pleased that will happen in Committee, but I want to make a few points about the Bill as it stands.
There is nothing in the Bill to address the low levels of supply of social homes. There are thousands of people on the waiting list in Battersea. The reality is that for 12 years the Tories have not only failed to build social homes, but overseen the loss of homes at an unprecedented scale. Between 2010 and 2021, more than 134,000 homes for social rent were either sold or demolished, without any direct replacement. On average, that is a net loss of over 12,000 genuinely affordable homes every year, which is scandalous.
As has been said, it is over five years since the Grenfell fire. The Bill is too late for those people, and that is why I want the Minister to provide commitments on the timings for introducing the necessary regulations to ensure that the measures are enforced. Although the sector could act in response to the Bill’s changes, the Government should not and cannot rely on good will alone.
I mentioned earlier the issue of customer service, which many of my constituents continue to raise with me. Baroness Hayman was right when she said in the other place that
“housing management is no more complex than other professions that have legal requirements for training and development”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1032.]
The Bill as amended in the other place still does not guarantee that staff will be appropriately qualified or engaged in training and development so that they can provide the best level of service. Why will the Government not commit to ensuring that all staff are properly trained?
The regulator’s inspections, which we all welcome, are a vital part of the Bill, and they must deliver the change that tenants so desperately need. They are the main way to check that providers are abiding by the law and responding to concerns. Although I welcome the amendment agreed in the other place, I believe that more information is needed on how the regulator will conduct routine inspections on all its landlords to ensure that consumer standards are always met. Will the Minister give more detail on how the new inspections regime will actually work and be delivered? I would also like her to commit to sufficient new resources, because this will only work if investment is made and resources allocated to allow the regulator to effectively perform its inspector role and any other new duties that may arise as a result of this Bill. The Secretary of State talked about fire safety. I would like the regulator’s remit to be expanded to make sure that it will monitor building and fire safety.
As I have said, there are a lot of good things in the Bill and it is welcome, but it needs to be improved. It is a shame that it has taken so long, but we are where we are and I hope that, as the Bill continues its passage through the House, it can be improved in many ways to ensure that tenants, regardless of whether they are in social housing or the private rented sector, are at the heart of it, because they are the ones who really matter.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I too welcome the Secretary of State back to his position. I also broadly welcome the Bill. Above all, I congratulate everyone who has campaigned so effectively for these improvements following the terrible tragedy of the Grenfell fire, more than five years ago now, on their tenacity and tirelessness. However, I must repeat the question asked by Members on both sides of the House: what has taken the Government so long? Providing fairness and accountability for people living in social housing should have been a much higher priority, and we would have liked to see the Bill much, much sooner.
I want to say something about local government funding. The pandemic has significantly increased the financial pressure on local authorities, and that is being exacerbated by rampant inflation and high interest rates. While everyone is committed to improvements in the rights of tenants in social housing and their ability to hold their landlords to account, there is an urgent need for clarity on how that will be delivered and funded, given the stressed state of many council budgets. It is essential for the Government to find ways of filling the funding gap for local authorities to ensure that the most vulnerable people are protected.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the Conservative Government promised that no one would lose their home as a result of it, but now there are nearly 1.2 million people on council housing waiting lists. According to research carried out for the Local Government Association and its partners, every pound invested in a new social home generates £2.84 in the wider economy, with every new social home generating a saving of £780 a year in housing benefit. It makes sense to allow councils freedom to deal with the social housing need in their communities, and I urge the Minister to consider this as a matter of urgency.
A study published last December by the National Housing Federation found that one in five—about 2 million—children in England were living in homes that were cramped, unaffordable or unsuitable, and that 8.5 million people in England were facing some sort of housing need. However, that urgent need is not being met by the provision of new social housing in England, not least because local authorities do not retain 100% of the proceeds of houses sold under the right to buy.
As a brand-new MP at the beginning of this year—and with an inbox full of emails about social housing issues—I was astonished to learn, on meeting members of my local housing association, that homes bought by tenants under the right to buy were often immediately let by their owners into the private rented sector. When there are nearly 12 million households on social housing waiting lists, that is, in my view, a failure of policy. Measures to support home ownership should not lead to a reduction in the overall number of affordable social rented homes. Any loss of social rented housing risks pushing more families into the private rented sector, as well as driving up housing benefit rents and spending, and compounding the homelessness crisis. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to allow local authorities and housing associations to retain 100% of the proceeds of houses sold under the right to buy, in order to maintain and build the stock of social housing as appropriate for the needs of their communities.
We have discussed the urgent and pressing issue of the cost of living crisis on many occasions recently in this place. It seems that the Government have missed an opportunity to ensure that homes provided in the social housing sector are not unnecessarily expensive to heat or unnecessarily cold to live in. Moreover, about 21% of our carbon emissions come from our inefficient homes, of which social housing is often the worst offender. On the basis of personal experience, I can testify that the windows are easily the most problematic element.
In 2015, the Conservatives abandoned the Liberal Democrats’ zero- carbon homes policy, as a result of which 1 million homes have been built that cost more to heat and emit more carbon dioxide than they need to. So where are the provisions in the Bill to retrofit our social housing with insulation, and ensure that newly built social housing is warm and affordable? While including energy efficiency in the regulator’s objectives is a welcome step, it is clear that more could be done to reduce fuel poverty and help us achieve our net zero objectives.
There are some other items on my wish list—they may be for future legislation, but I would like to mention them. Along with colleagues on both sides of the House, I want to hear a firm commitment to ending no-fault evictions of those in both private rented accommodation and social housing. I also want the dangerous cladding that still affects much of the social housing stock to be dealt with as a matter of urgency, and I want to see an extension of the safeguards applying to faulty electrical appliances to online marketplaces, so that we can ensure that a terrible tragedy like Grenfell does not happen again because of unsafe appliances in people’s home.
In conclusion, the direction of travel in the Bill is certainly welcome, albeit a little overdue, and I urge the Secretary of State to work with parties across the House to improve it further.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I broadly support the Bill, but as it stands its scope is clearly too narrow to address the crisis in social housing, as I think the Secretary of State accepts.
I would like to focus briefly on one issue. The Bill proposes a new access to information scheme, which would make social housing providers more accountable to their tenants and regulator. However, it appears that the scheme falls short of making social housing providers truly accountable as council providers have to be, as it does not bring social housing providers under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Without being subject to that Act, social housing providers can refuse and have refused to be transparent about important elements of their business practices, even though they are receiving public money through rent and support.
Indeed, in 2021 Greater Manchester Law Centre ran an investigation into covid evictions in which it sent freedom of information requests to 23 social housing providers across Greater Manchester. It found that six social housing providers claimed not to be classified as public authorities and that they were therefore not subject to freedom of information requests—they refused to answer. Some 13 failed to reply at all. It is clear that the Bill must be amended to make social housing providers subject to the 2000 Act. I hope that the Secretary of State and Minister will make that simple yet necessary amendment as the Bill proceeds to Committee.
More widely, I have serious concerns that the Bill fails to address the crisis. When the news broke of the shocking and tragic death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in Rochdale, I am sure that, like me, many Members were shocked to their core. Little Awaab’s lungs had been exposed to damp and mould in the flat where he lived with his family, and it was found that his death was directly linked to those poor living conditions. The court recently heard that Awaab’s family battled the problems at their home for a number of years, even before Awaab was born. Indeed, they had filed a disrepair claim against the housing association.
What is clear is that Awaab’s death should have brought great anger to this country—one of the richest economies in the world. It should have been a moment of reckoning: the instigation of a national mission for decent homes that would have seen the rapid deployment of Government funding to build new homes and bring existing ones to a decent standard. But sadly, I do not think we have yet seen such promises from the Government—indeed, we face threats of further austerity over the coming weeks. Although the Bill suggests a regime of routine inspections of social housing, we have yet to see any detail about how that will actually be delivered and funded.
Along with other Salford MPs and our city Mayor, I wrote to all our housing providers because we were extremely worried. We asked for urgent reports detailing the quality and condition of each of the properties that our housing associations manage, evaluated against the decent homes standard. But the fact is that years of effective cuts and freezes on rents without Government funding to match have meant that housing associations often do not have the resources to inspect properties routinely, let alone upgrade them regularly to the standard required.
Let us also remember that in 2010 funding for new social rented housing stopped completely and that an affordable rent tenure was introduced, in which homes are rented at up to 80% of their market rent. As Inside Housing has reported, although many housing associations tried to use their own funds to keep building some social rented homes, in 2010 nearly 36,000 social rented homes were started; the next year, after funding cuts, that number reduced to just over 3,000. The National Housing Federation and Crisis have shown recently in their research that 90,000 new social rented homes need to be built every year, but a lack of funding has meant that only about 5,000 are being built.
In the meantime, how can any of us in this House be sure that our local residents are not living in the same conditions as little Awaab’s family, stuck in old, unsuitable properties that are riddled with issues? The fact is that at the moment we cannot be sure, because unless our residents come to us directly we do not know. When that occurs, it is usually because they feel they have not been listened to. They have tried everybody else first and felt that every single door has been shut firmly in their face.
Although we of course all have positive success stories of issues being addressed quickly by housing associations—I have worked with some brilliant housing association personnel in Salford—we also have myriad cases in which they have not been dealt with, there is not enough funding to deal with the issues, or the resident needs to be rehoused and there is simply nothing suitable available for them.
It would take me many hours to go through my list of cases, but let me give a few examples. I have cases of young families living in high-storey tower blocks without baths for their children because there are no suitable properties for their needs and they have been put in properties that are suitable for those with medical needs and given wet rooms instead. I have residents who have been told that they cannot open the windows at their properties properly because the window is too heavy and might fall out.
I have residents living in freezing buildings this winter where all the cladding has been removed but not yet replaced because the Government at first refused to fund its replacement. The local housing association had to secure a loan to carry out the works, and now structural issues have been identified that need urgent repair. Not only were the residents refused Government help during the fire safety crisis in the first instance, but there is now no additional Government support for them as they face a winter of sky-high energy costs because their buildings have no cladding. Many report to me that they are now just not putting the heating on, which is quite frightening.
I also have reports of people battling mice and rats. They should be moved out of their properties but there are no other houses available to put them in. I have elderly people with mobility issues who have been placed in upstairs flats when they need a ground-floor property to have any semblance of quality of life. Again, no suitable properties are available.
The list is endless. Social housing has been fundamentally crushed by this Government over the past 10 years. In the city of Salford alone we have almost 6,000 households on our housing register and there are 108 bids per property advertised. What does that mean? It means that families are crammed into unsuitable accommodation because there is simply nothing else available. Those who do get properties are supposedly the lucky ones who should be grateful for what they have received, while the housing team creaks under the volume of people who have not been so lucky and are desperate to find a decent home to live in.
As the cost of living crisis bites, a crisis is coming down the tracks this winter in the shape of social housing rent affordability. The Salford City Mayor and deputy mayor, along with Salford MPs, recently wrote to the Government to request a social rents freeze across the board and that they make available the funding to deliver this locally. We have yet to receive any semblance of a response from the Government.
Yes, I support the Bill. It goes some way towards regulating the sector, but it does not tackle the root causes of the problems that my local residents face, it will not provide the homes and repairs that they need now, and it will not ensure that a decent, warm, safe and secure home should be a right for all. Only a change in Government will do that.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey).
I should say at the outset that I welcome this Bill—but my goodness, it is long overdue. As always, context is key. Here we are reinventing the wheel after the coalition Government battered our social housing system from pillar to post. They abolished the Audit Commission and the housing inspectorate in the bonfire of the quangos and slashed the social housing budget by 50% overnight. The idea that the former right hon. Member for Tatton has been seen in Downing Street fills me with fear.
But reinvent the wheel we must. I have said many times in this House that my inbox is filled with social housing and disrepair cases, but now it is bursting. There is even a weekly meeting of my office staff and Clarion Housing Association to monitor disrepair cases one by one. I sometimes feel as if I work for Clarion Housing Association.
The spark was the appalling disrepair of the Eastfields estate in Mitcham, which made national news last year thanks to the tireless campaigning of my constituent Kwajo Tweneboa. He lived in a property overtaken by mice, cockroaches, damp and mould. Tragically, his father passed away of cancer while still in that house. Kwajo says that he asked for help before he died, but nobody listened.
Before focusing on the measures in the Bill, it is important to put them in context. Let us take the example of a tenant living in a home in disrepair, with a leak in the roof. The tenant starts by raising a case of disrepair with their landlord. They take a day off work to wait for a knock on the door that does not come. Frustrated, they follow up with a call centre, but no one there knows their name, their case or their home. Meanwhile, their roof continues to leak. They enter a multi-stage written complaints process in which they are careful not to mention the threat of legal action, which would shut their case down immediately. Throughout each stage, the roof continues to leak.
Still no joy? The tenant could turn to the ombudsman, but it will look at the process, not the disrepair. The next obstacle block is the need for a signed form from a designated person such as an MP or a councillor, or an eight-week wait if such a form is not secured. More hurdles, more bureaucracy, more leaking from the roof. Eight weeks on, the ombudsman is not looking at whether the leak has been fixed, but at whether the process has been correctly followed. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) honestly say that she would have the patience to follow that process if she had water dripping through her ceiling electrics? I certainly cannot.
The tenant instead takes their complaint to the housing regulator. As it stands, however, the regulator states that it
“can only take action against a landlord when it has made significant, systemic failure that breaches the standards we have set”
and that
“Although our role is not to resolve individual disputes between tenants and landlords we signpost tenants, or their representatives, who have individual complaints, to the Housing Ombudsman Service.”
That is the same ombudsman that is checking whether the process has been followed.
Can the Minister imagine how frustrated tenants must be by this point, and how bad the leak has become? The whole process requires the patience of a saint, the tenacity of a five-star general, an endless amount of mobile phone data, a laptop to email, and a postgraduate degree in bureaucracy. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill because a strengthened regulator could not be more urgently needed.
Will the Minister commit to allocating sufficient new resources to the regulator to allow it to perform its inspection role effectively as a result of the Bill? Can she give any more details on how the new inspections regime will be delivered and funded? Let us be under no illusion: the measures in the Bill do not build a single new socially rented home. We now have 1.15 million households on social housing waiting lists across the country, but just 6,566 new social homes were built last year—one of the lowest numbers on record—and at that rate, it will take 175 years to give everyone on the waiting list a socially rented home.
I welcome the Bill, which I will follow closely as it passes through the House. I hope we pass it quickly, because the roof is still leaking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a joy it is to sew into this debate? Any Member who runs a very busy constituency office will know what a huge chunk of their appointments and casework is taken up by social housing. I fully support the Bill that we have before us tonight. I thank both the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her contribution in pushing the Bill forward, and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who is not in his place, for playing such an instrumental role. I also thank all the Members who have contributed to the Bill as they have played a significant and helpful role in taking it forward.
What we have before us tonight is a consensus of opinion. The tragedy at Grenfell, which so blighted the United Kingdom, brought this matter to a head. The fact that the Bill is in front of us tonight indicates just how important it is to deal with what happened.
I declare an interest as chair of the healthy homes and buildings all-party parliamentary group. I have a deep interest in this issue and in how we can do things better not just because it is a constituency matter for me back home, but because it is important in this place, too. I understand that the Bill is for England and Wales and not for us in Northern Ireland, but I seek from the Minister an assurance that whenever the Bill is completed it will be shared with all the regional Administrations, especially the Northern Ireland Assembly, where it could be instrumental in making things better. The same is true for Scotland as well. Making things better is the purpose of the Bill and it is what I would love to see happening.
I wish to give a Northern Ireland perspective on the matter, although I am ever mindful that the Minister has no responsibility for that. Let me explain what the Bill is about, how it can be replicated in Northern Ireland and why it is important. The facts are clear. There is a social housing crisis before our very eyes. We do not have enough housing—enough suitable housing for families, for vulnerable children with special needs who cannot share a bedroom with a sibling. We do not have enough warm well-built housing in areas with schools, shops and all the necessary parts of life within walking distance, or with good infrastructure links for those who do not drive or cannot drive and for those who cannot afford to keep a house. We do not have enough affordable apartments for young people needing to move for a job or for their mental health—this in a society that is coming down with mental health issues. That applies to my constituency anyway. We simply do not have enough housing stock, and what we do have unfortunately does not cut it.
Let me give a snapshot of Northern Ireland and of social housing in my own local council area. I recognise very clearly, as others have said, the importance of social housing. For many people, it is probably the only option they have, so it has to be a good option.
The snapshot of social housing in my area shows that approximately 650 units of temporary accommodation were acquired to meet the significant increase in demand, and that 150 void properties were brought back into use as furnished hostel accommodation. At the end of March 2021, there were around 117,000 live housing benefit claims. Again, that shows us why social housing is so important. Housing benefit enables people to get that social housing, and so it is really important for us in Northern Ireland. There were 18,000 new housing benefit claims assessed in the year to 31 March 2021. In the past year, almost 110,000 emergency home repairs were carried out. Again, many Members, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) who spoke before me, have talked about that leak in the roof. We deal with leaks in the roof every day not just because of the rain, but because they are a fact of life.
The number of applicants on the waiting list and in housing stress in the borough increased during 2020. By March 2021, there were about 3,100 applicants on the waiting list for Ards and North Down Borough Council, with 2,144 in housing stress. The social housing market does not meet this need. The difficulty we have in my area is that a number of landlords have decided to sell their rental properties to make the most of the bump in house prices. Of course prices are coming down now—by 10%, according to the figures in the press last week. Some people think those prices could fall by as much as 30%. Whatever value has been made in housing over the past two years could evaporate very quickly. Houses have been sold and potential rental accommodation has been sold as well. That and the inevitable increase in rent means that a lack of one or two-bed suitable housing sees a single person paying £625 per month—that is the figure in my constituency—for a terraced home. Local housing allowance or housing benefit is just over £404, so a single person has to find another few hundred pounds to make rent, never mind pay for gas, electric and food. That comes at a time when energy prices are going through the roof.
The Bill cannot alleviate all our problems, but it can go some way to making them better. Those who are working and not entitled to housing benefit are in an awful predicament; there simply is not the affordable housing for the low-income person or family. There must be a push to getting housing stock in the market up to scratch.
I agree with the Bill, but my fear is that, while public sector housing landlords will bid for more money to meet their obligations, private sector landlords will simply decide that selling is their best option. I can understand that someone wants to make a profit on a property that they have bought, or wants to let a property go because they can no longer afford to keep it, but perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of how we can prevent that from happening and build our stock, rather than lose it.
The Government must ensure that, along with the rights and proper regulations contained in the Bill, there is support for those landlords who let affordable housing and want to meet their obligations, but do not want to spend more than the house is worth. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) said that not every landlord is a bad landlord—we must remember that they are not. Many are committed to making properties better. Sometimes we have to work with the landlord to see how we can help them to move forward.
We must provide help for social housing tenants to access improvements and schemes that are part funded by a designated fund, and ensure that those who simply cannot get social housing can find affordable housing that is fit for standard. That must be done in co-operation with landlords who are not making a killing, charge an affordable rate, yet simply cannot bear the entire cost of double-glazed windows or anything else that is essential.
I understand that the Bill will be discussed and regulations will be brought forward in the near future. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) referred to an amendment that she will table. It is an excellent amendment and, if accepted by Government, it will be a positive step in the right direction. I ask the Minister to consider the scheme that I have outlined, which cannot be abused and will retain affordable housing stock, rather than cause the sale of yet more housing stock.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close this debate for the Opposition. I thank all those who have contributed and echo the sentiments expressed at the outset by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) about the other place. As they always do, their lordships brought a considerable amount of expertise to bear in scrutinising the Bill. As a result, it has already been improved in several important respects. I thank them, in particular our friend Baroness Hayman of Ullock, for their efforts and for the constructive, cross-party approach adopted throughout the proceedings.
It would be remiss of me if I did not also use this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of the Opposition, to the work of Grenfell United and the Grenfell Foundation, who have pushed at every turn for this legislation to come forward and to ensure it is made as robust as possible. Lastly, I commend the contribution of all those who have been a voice for social housing tenants over so many years, including campaigners such as Kwajo Tweneboa, ITV’s Daniel Hewitt and many hon. Members in the Chamber this evening.
There have been a number of excellent contributions in the debate. In total, I counted 10 speeches from Back Benchers, some of them incredibly powerful, and all of them in complete agreement that the Bill should proceed, and at pace. That such agreement exists across the House reflects a shared understanding that the lives of far too many social housing tenants are blighted by poor conditions, and far too many social landlords fail to treat their tenants with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, made clear, given the scale of the problem, the Opposition regret how long it took the Government to bring this legislation forward. It is now more than five years since the horror of Grenfell, more than four since the Green Paper was issued, and nearly two since the White Paper was published. Surely, time could have been found earlier to pass what is, after all, a short and uncontroversial Bill, but one of real significance for millions of social housing tenants across the country.
That criticism aside, the Opposition welcome the Bill and what it contains. We are determined to see it strengthened in a number of areas, so that standards in social housing markedly and rapidly improve, tenants are able to pursue effective redress and we can better respond to pressing issues such as the problems of serious violence highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). We will work with the Government to secure its passage today.
As we have heard, the Bill has three distinct aspects: first, it introduces a new consumer regulation regime; secondly, it overhauls the existing economic regulatory regime; and, thirdly, it provides the social housing regulator with new powers to enforce both. The second of those parts is entirely unproblematic, and as such I will only speak to the first and the third.
The provisions that relate to the new consumer regulatory regime comprise the bulk of the Bill, and they have understandably been the focus of many of the contributions in this debate. In general terms, we very much welcome the stronger and more proactive consumer regulations the Bill provides for. There are specific issues in relation to each that we intend to raise in Committee, but we welcome changes to the housing ombudsman powers, the introduction of new duties for social landlords relating to electrical safety checks, the requirement that registered providers nominate a designated person for health and safety issues, and the measures relating to the provision of information to both tenants and the regulator.
We support the expansion of the regulator’s current fundamental objectives to include those of safety, transparency and, following the well-deserved success of Baroness Hayman’s amendment on standards relating to energy demand, energy efficiency. There would, however, appear to be a difference of opinion between the Government and ourselves on whether it may be appropriate to add additional objectives, not least the monitoring of building safety remediation works, and we will seek to explore that matter in Committee.
We very much welcome the establishment of the advisory panel to provide independent and unbiased advice to the regulator and to proactively raise wider issues affecting social housing regulation. However, we are clear that the role of the panel should be enhanced, and we will press in Committee for its composition and functioning to be revised in order that it provides a more effective conduit for the voice of tenants and gives them a greater role in shaping national policy.
Lastly, we welcome the concession made by the Government in the other place in relation to professional training and qualifications, and the resulting inclusion of clause 21. However, and here I reference the very strong argument made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), we believe the Government need to go further if we are to be certain that the Bill will expedite the professionalisation of the sector, and we will be seeking in Committee to strengthen the Bill to that end.
The provisions that relate to the regulator’s enforcement powers and strengthening them are critical to ensuring both the consumer and the economic regulatory regimes function effectively. Again, while there are measures that we will press the Government to consider—for example, giving the regulator the power to order compensation to tenants—in general terms we very much welcome what is proposed in allowing for unlimited fines for non-compliance, the deregistration of social landlords, performance improvement plans, emergency repairs in instances where a tenant faces an imminent health and safety risk, and the removal of the serious detriment test.
We support the introduction of regular inspections, and I commend Lord Best on his work in the other place to strengthen the Bill in relation to them. However, the Bill still does not set out the scope of such inspections or how frequently they should take place. We are convinced it will need tightening in Committee if tenants are to have confidence that landlords will be monitored appropriately. We also remain concerned, and this is a point that several hon. Members made in the debate, about the very real risk that the regulator will struggle to discharge its new functions given the volume of individual tenant complaints it is likely to receive once its remit has been expanded. In particular, we are concerned it will not be adequately resourced to perform its new inspections role. That is why we are convinced that the Government must consider more carefully how they can help to ensure the regulator is not overburdened—for example, by doing more to enable tenants to enforce repairs themselves—and that it has the resources it will require to carry out its enhanced role, such as by allowing it to retain the proceeds of any fines levied to help fund its work.
Before I conclude, I want to touch very briefly on an issue rightly raised by the shadow Secretary of State in her remarks, and that is social housing supply. By means of reduced grant funding, the introduction of the so-called affordable rent tenure, increased right-to-buy discounts and numerous other policy interventions, the Government have engineered the decline of social housing over the past 12 years, presiding over an average net loss of 12,000 desperately needed, genuinely affordable homes each and every year throughout that period. We fully appreciate that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for reversing that decline, but we are also very clear that it cannot be silent on the issue. Provisions could be included in the Bill to help to identify the precise level of need that now exists across the country for social rented homes, and to make suggestions about how a Government serious about tackling the housing crisis can meet that need. We intend to explore that in Committee because, despite the fine words in the White Paper and the usual comforting but ultimately hollow rhetoric deployed by the Secretary of State, the Government are doing nowhere near enough to deliver the volume of social homes our country needs.
To conclude, the Bill is long overdue but wholly necessary and we are pleased it will progress today. Those currently living in poor-quality, badly managed social housing need a better deal. Just yesterday, I received an email from Nicola, a constituent living in Woolwich whose landlord is a member of the G15 group of London’s largest housing associations. She felt she had no other choice than to contact me as her MP because for nearly two weeks she has had water pouring down her walls and over her plug sockets, without any meaningful action on the part of her landlord. As we have heard in the debate, cases like Nicola’s are not a rarity, but an all too frequent occurrence. The Grenfell community know more than anyone that poorly managed and underregulated social housing can have fatal consequences. Only last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned, details were published about the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak following prolonged exposure to damp and mould in the social home his family rented in Rochdale. We must overhaul the regulation of social housing to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of tenants across the country because everyone has a basic right to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home.
We will work constructively with the Government on the Bill, but we will also do everything in our power to further strengthen it because tenants deserve the most robust piece of legislation that this House can possibly deliver. For today, we welcome its progress in the hope that it will mark a turning point in the protection, empowerment and de-stigmatisation of those living in England’s 4 million social homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I sincerely thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions to the debate, but also for the constructive nature in which they have engaged with this crucial legislation. I was pleased to hear that Members from across the House support the principles of the Bill. It is imperative that we get it on to the statute book quickly, so it can deliver the change the sector needs and the change we all know tenants deserve.
It is right that I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and many other Members across the House: Grenfell United and the community as a whole have displayed incredible courage and determination over the last five years, turning their own terrible experiences into important and lasting change. Their tireless endeavour has helped to bring this historic legislation before Members today and I wholeheartedly commend them. The Bill is part of their legacy and the legacy of the 72 who sadly lost their lives. The residents in the tower were put in an appalling situation that never should have occurred. We have a duty to ensure that it never happens again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) is no longer in his place, but spoke passionately about the fact that all social tenants should be treated with respect, a sentiment that all of us across the House certainly share. I put on record my thanks for all the work he did in this particular policy area.
A few Members spoke about the stigma around social housing. We absolutely need to reduce it. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). I particularly thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for sharing her own story. It is clear that she is incredibly passionate about this issue and I hope she will continue to campaign on it with the vigour she has shown to date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) rightly praised those working in the social housing sector and I share that praise. We have heard tales today of bad practice, but that is very much a minority of people working in the sector. We need to recognise the hard work and dedication of those across the sector to ensure their tenants are in safe and secure housing and are protected. He was also right to say that social landlords must fulfil their obligations. He rightly raised improvement plans and the new fines that will be put in place as part of the Bill.
We have heard from across the House examples of bad practice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised examples from the experiences of their own constituents. I must add my voice in praising Kwajo for his tireless campaigning. Stories like his prove why it is so crucial that we pass the Bill today.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke of Georgia’s law. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult Georgia and her son’s experience must have been, but I would be grateful for the opportunity to sit down with the hon. Member to discuss that further before we get to the Committee stage.
A number of Members discussed whether we should go further on the professionalisation of the sector, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. I add my sincere thanks to her for her steadfast campaigning since the terrible tragedy occurred in June 2017. The Government firmly believe that the housing sector should have competent and respectful staff who can meet tenants’ needs and deliver high-quality services. That is why we ran a professionalisation review from January to July this year. It brought together tenant representative groups, including Grenfell United, trade bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Housing, landlords, and housing academics to consider the optimum approaches to staff development in the social housing sector. The review was informed by independent research that mapped the current qualifications and training landscape. The review concluded that there was no one-size-fits-all qualification that encompassed every facet of the social housing sector’s requirements, although I note the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead about whether it is possible to develop a slightly more detailed set of proposals on those qualifications.
My right hon. Friend also raised a point about potential reclassification by the Office for National Statistics, and rightly outlined a concern we have in Government about the risk that could bring to taxpayers, particularly the fact that £90 billion of debt could be brought on to the public ledger, which is a very real consideration for us. She asked whether it was possible to engage with the ONS, and whether any engagement had already occurred. The ONS will only make a formal classification decision on new policy or regulation once that has already been implemented. In exceptional circumstances, the Government can ask the ONS to perform a policy proposal review, but as the policy is currently still being developed, we are not in a position to request that formal review. The risk assessment that we have undertaken is based on our work with the Treasury classification team, who work closely with the ONS and have in-depth knowledge of the classification framework and its application to the social housing sector. I would be happy to sit down with my right hon. Friend and discuss the issue further before the Bill goes to Committee.
Inspections were raised by a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and the hon. Member for Battersea. The regulator has committed to delivering regular consumer inspections as part of the new proactive regime. Inspections will help the regulator to hold landlords to account and take action where necessary, ultimately driving up the standard of service delivery to tenants. The Government tabled an amendment in the Lords to put that commitment into law, which gives the regulator a duty to publish and take reasonable steps to implement a plan for regular inspections. The system of inspections will be based on a risk profile to ensure that those landlords at greatest risk of failing, or where failure might have the greatest impact on tenants, are subject to greater oversight. As part of that, the regulator will aim to inspect landlords with more than 1,000 homes every four years. We have had a positive response from stakeholders, including Lord Best and Shelter, since we placed that measure in the Bill.
Let me touch quickly on supported housing. The Government are investing £20 million in a supported housing improvement programme to drive up quality in that sector. My Department is actively engaging with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the charity Crisis, which is campaigning passionately on this issue, to see how we can address the problems raised. Social housing supply was raised by the hon. Members for Wigan, for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Battersea, and for Salford and Eccles. The provision of affordable housing is an existing part of the Government’s plans to build more homes and provide aspiring homeowners with a step on to the housing ladder. Our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will deliver thousands of affordable homes for both rent and to buy right across the country. The Levelling Up White Paper committed to increasing the supply of social rented homes, and a large number of the new homes delivered through our affordable housing programme will be for social rents.
Mr Francois
I congratulate the new Minister who is admirably summing up what I thought was a remarkably thoughtful, consensual and non-partisan debate. On a slightly lighter note, can we do something about the name of the social housing regulator? It does not have to be off-roof, or even roof-off, but could we have something a bit snappier that might strike fear into the hearts of complacent housing association chief executives, of whom there are sadly still too many?
Dehenna Davison
I will certainly take that suggestion on board. If my right hon. Friend has any ideas, I will accept them on a postcard or via WhatsApp. He now has a mission to come up with a snappy name.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) raised the subject of energy efficiency. Baroness Hayman tabled a successful amendment in the other place that ties the Government into producing a strategy on energy efficiency in the social rented sector within 12 months of Royal Assent. We are considering how to address that new provision in the Bill and will update the House shortly.
The hon. Members for Vauxhall, for Wigan, for North Shropshire and for Mitcham and Morden touched on the resourcing of the regulator. We are firmly committed to ensuring that the regulator has the resources that it needs not only to deliver the new consumer regulation regime but to ensure that it continues to regulate its economic objectives effectively. We have made an additional £4.6 million available in 2022-23 to support the new regime. We will potentially be introducing changes to the fee regime, which will be subject to consultation to ensure that the regulator is funded appropriately.
The hon. Member for Strangford, as always, adopted a constructive approach, wanting to ensure that those in Northern Ireland learn the lessons of the terrible tragedy of Grenfell and that they can benefit from some of the incredible measures that we are bringing forward in the Bill. He will have heard the Secretary of State speak about his engagement with devolved Administration Ministers and officials; I hope that that has provided him with some assurance.
We have heard today how a Bill with a relatively small number of clauses can have such a large impact. Addressing housing in this country is central to our levelling-up mission. It is essential that social tenants live in safe, good-quality homes provided by responsible, well-run registered providers. I am pleased to be closing this insightful Second Reading debate; seeing how passionately Members across the House feel about the Bill only reinforces its importance. I look forward to taking the Bill through Committee and working with shadow Ministers and all interested Members across the House so that we can bring real, lasting change to the social housing sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 13 December 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
Question agreed to.
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
Question agreed to.
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 and 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Licences and Licensing
That the Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 978), dated 22 September 2022, which were laid before this House on 22 September, be approved.
Sports Grounds and Sporting Events
That the draft Football Spectators (Relevant Offences) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 5 September, be approved. —(Nigel Huddleston.)
Question agreed to.
Football Clubs in England: Financial Sustainability
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the governance and financial sustainability of English football clubs. I am very lucky that Birmingham, Ladywood is home to both Birmingham City football club and Aston Villa. It is a privilege to advocate for both sets of fans, although it occasionally calls on all my skills of diplomacy—local football rivalries are very passionate things, after all.
My interest in the regulation of English football, or more accurately the lack thereof, has been engaged primarily because of the position in which Birmingham City fans find themselves. Like many in this House, I take the view that the only way to deal with financial and governance issues like those that have plagued Birmingham City over the past decade or so is for the Government to bring forward legislation for a new independent regulator of English football. The Government, of course, commissioned the fan-led review of English football. That review was undertaken by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), and I pay tribute to her detailed work and advocacy on behalf of football fans all over the country. Many other Members across the House have also long campaigned for changes to be made to protect our national game. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has done important work, as have the Football Supporters’ Association, the all-party group for football supporters, and campaign groups such as Our Beautiful Game. All of that campaigning has provided the background to the breakthrough of the fan-led review’s findings.
The Government were pushed into that review after the quickly aborted plan for a breakaway super league, which would have destroyed club football in our country. Those plans threw into sharp relief many of the issues in the game that, before then, were too easy to ignore and to leave to the clubs to sort out. We all know that things simply cannot carry on as they are. The current system incentivises teams in the premier league to spend unsustainably to remain in the premier league, and it incentivises teams in the championship to spend up to the hilt to get there because the financial rewards are so great. However, that is destabilising clubs and the whole football pyramid in our country. Too often, there are question marks over ownership and the potential motivations of those who buy English football clubs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, although clubs may feel that they are owned by us fans, who buy the gear, attend the matches and use pay-per-view, the fact is that these clubs are big businesses and like any big business, they must be appropriately regulated and managed? I therefore fully agree that the House must do more to protect clubs from bottom-line share price profit as the driving force, as opposed to the love of the game, which we all have, and the desire for a club to perform as best as it should and could.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We learned through covid that fans are the lifeblood of the game. If we take away fans, it destroys not only the business model but the spirit of football.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this very important debate. As ever, it is wonderful to be in the Chamber at the same time as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). However, his point was very much about the premier league. Many clubs are not on the stock market. Clubs like Bury football club in my constituency are small businesses that are the centre of their community. I know exactly what Birmingham City is going through. My team, Huddersfield Town, where I am a season-ticket holder, is going through something similar, although hopefully it will be not as bad as it is for Birmingham. However, there is no regulation in the game. The English Football League and the Football Association do not regulate football teams. That is the problem and it is why we need a regulator.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come to that point. Without regulation, none of football can thrive. The premier league cannot thrive, nor can all the other teams that are not in that league. It is a pyramid, an ecosystem, that depends on every part of it being well regulated to make sure that some of the smaller clubs—I hate calling them smaller clubs actually, because they mean a lot to their communities—have just as much to offer our national game as the big clubs at the top, which have much more money.
On ownership and how that can change across football clubs, too often, there are question marks over the potential motivations of those who buy English football clubs, which can become vehicles for bolstering the reputations of foreign leaders, politicians and businessmen close to politicians whose interests may run counter to our national interest. Sometimes we know who those people are, but sometimes the true ownership is disguised—a sure sign that there is something to hide. However, in those cases, and this goes to the hon. Gentleman’s point, the club, its fanbase and its value as a community and national heritage asset becomes a plaything of those who have no stake and no commitment to the community, and who do not care for the heritage value—which I consider to be the real value of football clubs—and see it only as a tool of commercial interest.
James Daly
I understand the hon. Lady’s point about foreign Governments, and so on. However, we have to understand that a lot of people with malevolent intent take over a football club by borrowing from exotic lenders to then, essentially, take every penny out of that club. These are people with malevolent and often dishonest intent. That is not about the big-picture, wider geopolitical issue that she mentions—I am talking about pure and utter greed by people who are dishonest.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is an issue at the bigger end of the spectrum, with the involvement of potentially hostile foreign Governments, but right underneath that there are a number of individuals going to great lengths to disguise where the money ultimately comes from and to disguise their identities. I will come on to that issue in relation to Birmingham City football club. The business model that that creates for football is not sustainable and should not be tolerated in something so vital to the fabric of our national life.
In the end, as the fan-led review found, it is the regulatory underlaps and overlaps in the current system that are allowing bad behaviour to fall through the cracks, meaning that some clubs are left in severe financial distress. The Premier League and the English Football League have their own owners and directors tests, but given that there are several examples of unsuitable owners passing these tests—including those with a history of bankruptcy, those engaged in legal disputes with other football clubs, and even those with serious criminal convictions—let us just say that the tests do not fill anyone with any confidence whatsoever. The fan-led review laid bare all of those issues and the need for an independent regulator and a complete overhaul of the current system in order to prevent the collapse of football clubs across the country.
I am desperate to make sure that Birmingham City football club can be rescued from its current predicament and put on a sustainable footing. It is one of the oldest football clubs in the country. It was founded in 1875 in Small Heath, which much of the country will know as peak “Peaky Blinders” territory, and which is also the part of Birmingham that I was born and raised in. It acted as a rifle range for training soldiers in world war one, and like much of Small Heath it was bombed during world war two. It is steeped in history and has a heritage that Brummies across the city are proud of, but for many years Blues fans have watched with devastation as financial and professional mismanagement has driven their beloved club to the brink.
In 2009 the club was bought by Hong Kong-based businessman Carson Yeung, who was sentenced to six years in prison on money laundering charges just two years later. The club was then bought out of administration in 2016 by the current owners, Birmingham Sports Holders Ltd, a company that is backed up by a convoluted network of shell companies and overseas stakeholders. With a crumbling stadium and a far removed invisible ownership, points deductions and crippling debts, the club continues to swing from crisis to crisis. The once premier league team has not finished higher than 17th for six years in a row.
How did our beloved club get to this point? The first issue is debt, which the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) has also raised, which has put the club’s finances under significant strain. The 2021 accounts reveal that the Blues spent £37 million more cash than they generated from day-to-day activities and that they are grappling with over £120 million of debt.
It is well known why and how clubs can get themselves into such eye-watering levels of debt. As the fan-led review notes, our current system creates misaligned incentives, with clubs spending to the hilt to get promoted to higher leagues in order to secure bigger TV deals and financial rewards. This creates an incredibly destructive cycle. The current lack of regulation also means that football clubs can find themselves hostage to malevolent forces acting with intent other than the sustainability of the football club that they have acquired.
What compounds those issues in the case of Birmingham City is its significant reliance on parent companies to bail it out of financial trouble. Birmingham City’s loss would have been much higher had it not been compensated by major shareholder and chief executive officer of Oriental Rainbow Investments, Vong Pech. The club now owes his company more than £22 million, raising serious questions about its financial position. The club’s own accounts state that there is
“a material uncertainty casting significant doubt about company’s ability to continue”,
but
“the directors remain in the view the company can obtain required funding from parent or ultimate parent.”
The fan-led review evidences how it was that these exact practices led to the collapse of Bury football club. As soon as an owner is no longer interested or able to invest, the club faces ruin. This is the worst-case scenario that Blues fans dread, but it shows that across English football a completely unsuitable business model has been allowed to take hold, and it is not sustainable.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for what she is saying about Birmingham City. When football clubs fail or are badly mismanaged, it is to the detriment of the whole community. I wonder whether she is aware of Birmingham’s tie-up with a crypto firm, Ultimo GG, earlier this year, which it promoted to its fans in February. Only two weeks later it collapsed, taking advantage of the fans’ love for the club. Does she share my concern that too many football clubs, and indeed the Premier League itself, are getting involved in crypto-promotions to their fans that can only end in tears? If she does, perhaps she would like to come to Westminster Hall tomorrow and join my debate on that?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for his invitation. I will certainly try to make time to get to his debate—I feel that there is a quid pro quo going on here; we are certainly keeping the Minister busy. He raises an important point that goes to the ethics with which football clubs are run. Fans turn up because they love their football club, and nothing should be promoted to them that results in their being duped by financial practices that might ultimately be found wanting. They should not be put in a position where they trust their football owners and their football leaderships and then end up losing money. Fans should not be taken advantage of, and everybody who is involved in football should be able to sign up to that.
In addition to financial uncertainty, Blues fans are contending with a home stadium that is in a dilapidated and sorry state. The Kop and Tilton Road stands have been closed for two years because their steelwork is badly corroded, meaning that significant works are needed to make them safe again. That would cost upwards of £2.5 million to complete. Despite being repeatedly assured that the stands would be fully operational again by the start of this year’s season, the works remain incomplete. The latest update from the club states that work will resume during the World Cup break in November and December, with an aim to finally complete all works in the summer of 2023. In the meantime, stadium capacity remains significantly reduced, slashing the number of tickets that can be sold and further depressing the club’s revenue.
The saga of the stadium gets worse. Following the club’s points deductions for recording excessive losses, Birmingham Sports Holdings sold its 75% stake in St Andrew’s stadium, the home of the Blues football club, to a British Virgin Islands-based company called Achiever Global in June 2021 to try to improve its accounts. The deal generated £10.8 million, but a news report at the time stated that most of that would be used to repay external Birmingham Sports Holdings debts, leaving a working capital of only £2 million.
According to the Football Supporters’ Association, more than 60 clubs have lost ownership of their stadium, their training ground or other property in the last 25 years. Clubs that lose ownership of their ground have also often been forced to relocate away from their home town, which was a serious concern for Blues fans when they learned of their stadium sale. In Birmingham City’s case, it complicates the offshore ownership structure further, making accountability about stadium repairs even harder to assign.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The hon. Lady is giving a quite interesting talk, and I will intervene on the Minister in relation to Torquay United at some point. She will appreciate the slight irony in talking about St Andrew’s, because that is where, due to stadium dispute, Coventry City football club ended up playing for a number of seasons. That was a real wrench for many fans, and it just shows why there is a desperate need to reform the system of football regulation.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I well remember having to mediate between the competing views of the different fans as well as the residents in the area who suddenly had more traffic to content with and so on. This speaks to the point that football is at the heart of our communities. It is part of the fabric of our national life and it is very much tied to the places in which those clubs were born, where they have grown, and where they are part of the history and the heritage. You cannot just pick a football club up and move it somewhere else and retain the same thing you had to begin with, and matters relating to stadiums make fans fearful about what might happen to the places they call home. I would be devastated if anything happened to St Andrew’s or Villa Park, because they are so much a part of the fabric of our great city and our region.
In the normal run of things, when these sorts of problems arise, the football club would sit down with the owners—the ultimate source of the money—and work out how to resolve them, but working out who is the ultimate owner is a huge task in itself. To say that it is complicated is an understatement. Within Birmingham City’s ownership structure, Birmingham Sports Holdings Ltd has a 75% stake in the club, but BSHL itself is owned by a total of five other companies, all with shares ranging from 2% to 28%. This structure of shell companies creates murkiness, confusion and a complete lack of transparency, and makes it impossible to track down the ultimate owner and to establish who bears responsibility for resolving problems at the club.
That came to a head earlier this year when it emerged that an individual who Birmingham City had not declared to the English Football League was actually the beneficial owner of a company called Dragon Villa—one of the companies that owns 17% of Birmingham Sports Holdings and therefore 12% of the football club. That individual goes by the name of Wang Yaohui but is also, according to press reports, known as Mr King.
Wang is a Chinese-Cambodian national who has served as an adviser to the Cambodian Prime Minister and as a diplomat in Cambodia’s embassy in Singapore. He was previously detained by the Chinese Communist party’s anti-corruption watchdog on allegations of bribery and money laundering regarding a state-owned Chinese bank. Although he went uncharged, his associate was hit with corruption charges and sentenced to life imprisonment.
It appears that Wang has gone to great lengths to conceal his undeclared commercial footprint. Documents uncovered by Radio Free Asia show that Wang was the beneficial owner of Dragon Villa and concealed from the Hong Kong stock exchange and the English Football League his substantial stake in Birmingham City football club. That is a potentially criminal offence, punishable by up to two years in prison.
The EFL is now investigating these claims. It told me that it is a complex matter and that it has made applications for the disclosure of documents, from not only the club but individuals linked to the club. It confirmed that an investigation is taking place but told me on the eve of this debate that, as the investigation remains ongoing, it is unable to comment further.
The fact that the club failed to declare Wang as an owner demonstrates how easy it is for individuals to avoid scrutiny and bypass the current owners’ and directors’ test, which in my view—a view that I know is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—is completely unfit for purpose. Takeovers of the Birmingham City football club have previously been mooted and come to nothing, but it is now subject to an ongoing takeover.
A consortium led by Maxi López and Paul Richardson is looking to acquire a 21.64% stake in the club after paying a £1.5 million deposit. That takeover went to the English Football League for approval in July 2022, and as part of the process the EFL is now investigating whether the club breached its rules after it emerged that it has been receiving funding from the prospective owners without EFL approval. I must say that I truly sympathise with the Blues fans—whenever they have a little bit of hope, it is quickly dashed with yet more regulatory and governance concerns.
If Maxi López and Paul Richardson are as they say they are, and wish to acquire the club and run it in the way that such things should be run, of course I wish them well and hope that they are transparent and open about their funding source and what they intend to do with the club. Although I am keen not to prejudge the outcome of that process—we all wish to see Birmingham City thrive—I would have more confidence in the English Football League’s investigations and approvals process if its tests were up to scratch.
Regardless of where we stand on potential takeovers of the club, or any other club in a similar position, we can all agree on the absolute need for transparency. When someone is looking to buy such an important community asset, they should not be hiding their financial sources or income streams. They should be open and transparent about them, so that we can be sure that our football clubs will be protected. As one Blues fan told me:
“hidden in the dark, these owners need to understand they’re guardians/guests of the club. 147 years of history, it isn’t just a pop up throw away company”.
I could not have put it better myself.
I pay tribute to the Blues fans, who have shown such commitment and dedication to their club. As much as I love to hear from them, I also dread it, because they get in touch with yet more problems at the club. I despair that unless and until we have an independent regulator of English football, we will not be able to solve the problems that we see at Birmingham City football club.
As we have heard in some of the interventions, the issues at Blues are not unique; they are happening in stadiums and clubs across our country, and in proud towns and cities such as Derby, Oldham, Bury, Wigan and many more. All of those fantastic clubs—all those amazing heritage and cultural assets—could face ruin unless we see decisive action and a regulatory overhaul from the Government, exactly as we were promised earlier this year.
Will the Minister, in his response, explain what he thinks about the predicament of the Blues fans, and what he would say to fans across the country about club ownership structures and stadium difficulties? We all know that there is no overnight solution to the problems at the Blues, but the long-term future of the club and many others like it can be secured only if the Government implement the recommendations of the fan-led review in full. They have long promised a White Paper, which would pave the way for legislation to create an independent regulator for English football.
The time for delay is over. The Government agree that there is a problem, and the fan-led review has given us the solution. The Government say that they agree with that solution, and I say to the Minister that this is literally an open goal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I am pleased to respond to this debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for securing it. She opened her speech by discussing the challenge of representing two football clubs, and I imagine that that is quite a tightrope to walk. She rightly highlighted the long history of concerns that many of the fans she represents have expressed. I, too, want to pay tribute to their commitment. It must be incredibly difficult for them at times. She rightly pointed out, too, many of the complexities of the structures of some of those football clubs.
The interest and passion shown in this evening’s debate—and, in fact, since I took on this role only a few weeks ago—is testament to the huge importance that the House attaches to securing the long-term sustainability and governance of English football. I, too, want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for the amazing amount of work that she did, along with many other fans, in delivering that report.
Football clubs have an enduring importance in the lives of the people of this country. Many Members have spoken in this debate, and to me personally, of historic and local clubs woven into the fabric of their communities that have simply ceased to exist or have been relegated because of reckless decisions made by owners and appalling financial mismanagement.
We have heard—I have heard about this endlessly in recent weeks—of the poor or non-existent governance practices in some of our clubs, with fans locked out of key decisions that affect them, which threatens clubs’ long-term health and sustainability. Others have spoken of the clear need for a fundamental change in how money is distributed throughout the football pyramid to ensure the long-term health and competitiveness of our national game.
We have heard how English football clubs make significant contributions to all the local communities in which they are based. They are at the heart of local communities, but they also provide many jobs and support for local businesses that rely on them. Fans are the lifeblood of those clubs: they bear the brunt of the fallout of bad ownership decisions; they see where the structures are not working for the good of the game; and they can articulate most clearly how to set that right.
One of my urgent priorities when I became Minister for sport was to hear first hand from fans—I wanted to hear from them first—about where the problems lay in our national game and how we could address them, to ensure a sustainable and thriving future for football in this country.
Kevin Foster
I agree with the tribute that the Minister paid to fans. Certainly Torquay United Supporters Trust has made clear its views to me over a long period, and it engaged directly in the fan-led review. Can my right hon. Friend give us an update on when the Government will respond?
Stuart Andrew
I will certainly come to that in a moment; I am sure that is the bit everybody is waiting for—do not hold your breath. [Laughter.]
As I said, one of the first things I wanted to do was to meet the fans. They are the ones who are most invested in their clubs and who go and support them day in, day out, whatever the results, the weather or their fortunes. Without them, football in this country would simply not be the fantastic game that it is.
James Daly
Football is obviously all about its fans; does the Minister agree that it has a potential that is untapped by the state? What with the delivery of frontline services at community stadiums, the groupings and support and everything else that goes with that, the added social value is immense.
Does the Minister also agree that it has been an absolute pleasure to sit in the Chamber with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood? She should be incredibly proud of the passion she has shown for her community and her football team, and every single Birmingham City fan should be proud of what she has done today because it really does matter. Does the Minister agree?
Stuart Andrew
How could I possibly not agree with my hon. Friend? He is absolutely right. In the short few weeks I have been in this job I have really noticed the passion that everybody has for the sport. Fans sometimes get frustrated with their club’s performance, but their passion and loyalty are to be admired. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood for securing this debate.
As I said, I was keen to hear from the fans first, which is why they were the first people I met when I took on this role. I met representatives from the Football Supporters’ Association, Fulham Supporters’ Trust, Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust and Blackpool Supporters Trust to hear their stories. All those clubs had suffered at the hands of owners who used and abused their stewardship. This relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Some of the stories I heard were frankly shocking, and some of the sacrifices that the fans had to make to make their point were astounding. The fact that Blackpool supporters boycotted their own club for four or five years really does show the strength of their feeling.
Too many clubs have been lost to the cycle of unsuitable owners taking over clubs, stripping them of their assets, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood said, and leaving them as empty shells, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) said. Too many clubs have been brought to the brink, with owners refusing to fund them any more. We are committed to breaking the cycle of inappropriate ownership, financial instability and poor governance practices. I look forward to the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) has secured for tomorrow. He mentioned the issue of cryptoassets; I am sure we will be having that conversation for a good few months.
Since my meetings with fans, both the Secretary of State and I have met representatives from the football authorities—the FA, the Premier League and the English Football League—to understand their perspectives on reform, too. The policy is complex and it is important that we get it right. We are talking about matters of finance and governance, and I make no apology for taking the time to ensure that I have properly considered all the issues before me. That is why we continue to engage and hear views from a wide range of stakeholders, including the football authorities and, most importantly, the fans’ groups.
Shabana Mahmood
I totally understand that when we are trying to build a totally new regulatory regime, we have to make sure we have thought of every possibility and any unintended consequences, but will the Minister confirm that the end position he is trying to get to is an independent regulator and that he is trying to make sure that the regulatory regime is fit for purpose? The end state we must have is an independent regulator of English football.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady tempts me to go a bit further than I can at this stage, but I can tell her that I am currently doing all the deep work on the White Paper because I want that to address many of the points she has raised.
Football can take forward some of the reform measures—such as financial redistribution throughout the leagues—now, and I strongly urge the relevant authorities to act and to do so quickly. Meanwhile, we have a new set of Ministers so we are taking a little time. We recognise that clubs are at the heart of many of our communities. Were I not to do the due diligence, I am sure that clubs would not be happy with me for not double-checking that everything is right. We are taking the time to consider the policy and consult the numerous stakeholders. We remain committed to publishing a White Paper setting out our detailed response to the fan-led review of football governance, but let me make it clear: the case for reform is not in doubt.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2022. Maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe is a top priority for the Government. That is why deprivation of citizenship where it is conducive to the public good is reserved for those who pose a threat to the United Kingdom or whose conduct involves very high harm. When passing deprivation measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the House agreed that in cases where the Secretary of State intends to make a deprivation order on the ground that it is conducive to the public good without prior notification, an application must be made to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which will consider the Secretary of State’s reasons for not giving notice.
To implement that process, we must first amend the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, which are made and amended by the Lord Chancellor, but to create the necessary power to amend those rules we must first amend the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which is the purpose of this technical instrument. Today, we take a significant step towards implementing the safeguards that the House has agreed to. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Cummins.
Powers to deprive someone of their British citizenship in certain circumstances were initially introduced in section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Those powers were subject to a requirement that the Home Secretary provide written notice to anyone subject to a deprivation of citizenship order. In recent years, some high-profile legal challenges have been brought against the Government by people who were deprived of their citizenship without having received the requisite notice.
During parliamentary consideration of the Nationality and Borders Bill, Ministers explained that under existing law written notice had to be sent to a person’s last known address, and in some cases it might not be possible to reach them at that address, including in cases where the individual in question was known by the Home Secretary to be abroad in a war zone. On that basis, the Government argued that there should be exceptions to the requirement to give notice. Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act provides for such exceptions to be made, primarily based on security concerns.
The Opposition were not convinced by all of the Government’s arguments and worked in the other place with colleagues on a cross-party basis to secure important safeguarding amendments, the first of which established a far more restricted range of circumstances in which notice could be withheld. The original clause would have allowed the Secretary of State to withhold notice whenever that appeared to be in the public interest. Amendments removed the subjective element and provided that notice may be withheld only if the Secretary of State does not have an address for service, or if she reasonably considers it necessary on one of four exceptional grounds.
The second amendment was about judicial oversight. If the Secretary of State wishes to withhold notice, she must apply to a superior court of record, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in advance or within seven days. The SIAC, applying judicial review principles, will examine her reasons and decide whether or not her assessment is obviously flawed. The same test is applied to the making of terrorism prevention and investigation measures under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. If she does not succeed on her first attempt or on a subsequent application, which must be based on a material change of circumstances or further evidence, the Secretary of State must either give notice in the normal way or revoke the deprivation order altogether.
Thirdly, decisions must be reviewed regularly. The Secretary of State must consider three times a year for two years whether the reasons for non-notification remain valid. If, after the sixth review, she still resists notification, she must make a further application to the SIAC, which will once again give independent scrutiny to her decision.
As mentioned, the second of the safeguards is the reason we are here today, and we welcome the specifics of the instrument. The Act also stipulates, in schedule 2, that the Secretary of State should apply to the SIAC when making an order to deprive someone of their citizenship without notice. The commission may then determine whether the Secretary of State’s reasons for not providing notice are valid. If the commission determines that the reasoning is obviously flawed, the Secretary of State may appeal that determination to the appropriate appeal court.
What the draft regulations do is enable the Lord Chancellor to make rules setting out details of how the process should work. The rules will need to be approved by Parliament before coming into force—a process that we think is vital. Governments have had the ability to revoke British citizenship in certain cases for decades now, so the concept is not new, but the specific measures introduced through the Nationality and Borders Act give the Secretary of State significant new powers. I am sure the Minister agrees that those powers should never be used lightly; their use should be the last resort, where there is no alternative, and there should be safeguards to ensure that the system is fair and subject to independent oversight. The regulations are the first step toward establishing mechanisms for that.
The Minister will be aware that some people have voiced concern about the proposed role of the SIAC, given the secrecy of its proceedings. Protecting sensitive material on security grounds is of course crucial. I have two questions for the Minister. First, what reassurances can she give that the new rules will strike the right balance between safeguarding national security and an individual’s right to appeal? Secondly, setting up the new process and establishing rules for how it should operate may take some time; can she indicate how long it might take and when the new system might be up and running?
Miss Dines
I am pleased by the welcome for the measures. They were carefully thought out and have been considered by both Houses now.
To set out the historical context, which is always interesting, the powers have existed for over 100 years. It is only right that we modernise and make sure that the powers are subject to rigorous scrutiny. There are safeguards of course, and lots of checks and balances along the way.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about secret decision making, and I want to be clear that there is to be no secret decision making in deprivation cases. Appeals against deprivation of citizenship are heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission where there is reliance on sensitive material that could harm the public or individuals if it were revealed in open court. However, appellants are appointed special security-cleared lawyers for the task, so their interests are appropriately represented. The process is robust, as we would all expect. The changes made by the regulations strike just the right balance to protect the security of the nation and the rights of those going through this process.
On the question of timing, I will write to the hon. Member for Aberavon to say when the measures will be introduced. As usual, we are grateful for the co-operation to protect national security that we have received from the Opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, in my first statutory instrument debate. The purpose of this order is to give the Government the powers that we need to implement in UK law amendments to the International Maritime Organisation’s 2001 convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships, which I shall now refer to as the convention. The order relies on powers under section 128(1)(e) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The draft order was laid before the House on 17 October this year. If approved, the powers in the order will be used to make a new statutory instrument next year to implement the convention amendments. The order will also allow the convention to be entirely re-implementable in regulations should that be necessary.
Before continuing, I would like to give a small amount of background about what the Government have done regarding the convention and to outline the Government’s reasons for wanting to implement amendments to it. In doing so, I remind hon. Members that our purpose here today is to discuss the use of this order as a mechanism to provide the powers for implementation of the amendments to the convention, rather than to discuss the detail and implementation of the convention itself.
The convention entered into force internationally on 17 September 2008, and the UK acceded to it in 2010. It aims to protect the marine environment and human health from the adverse effects of anti-fouling systems used by ships. An anti-fouling system is a coating, paint or surface treatment used by a ship to control or prevent the attachment of unwanted organisms to the ship’s hull. The convention addresses the harmful impacts of anti-fouling systems by prohibiting the use of certain substances in those systems. In 2021, the IMO adopted amendments to the convention to prohibit the use of a new compound in anti-fouling systems, and those will come into force on 1 January 2023.
As the convention took effect 14 years ago, hon. Members may ask why we are now seeking powers to implement amendments to it. The reason is that the convention was implemented in the UK through a combination of a European Community regulation and the Merchant Shipping (Anti-Fouling Systems) Regulations 2009, but both instruments derive from EU powers and now comprise EU retained law. Consequently, implementing the convention amendments through the instruments would now require primary legislation. Therefore, to implement the amendments more efficiently in UK law, we will need to introduce an Order in Council to provide the powers required for this purpose.
The Government consider implementation of the convention amendments in UK law an important step to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to comply with its international obligations and that our waters continue to be protected from the use of prohibited substances in the anti-fouling systems of visiting ships. The convention and its subsequent amendments were negotiated at the IMO by representatives of the Government, the shipping industry, and environmental interest groups. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency played an active role in negotiations at the IMO throughout the development of the convention and its amendments.
The Government’s proposals for implementing the amendments to the convention by way of a new statutory instrument will be the subject of public consultation. The MCA will refine its proposals on the basis of any comments received. The amendments to the convention cannot be efficiently implemented into UK law unless the Government have the powers to do so. The draft order provides those powers.
I will provide some information about the power we are relying on to make the draft instrument and, in turn, to implement the amendments to the convention. Section 128(1)(e) of the 1995 Act provides that His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom and relates to the prevention, reduction or control of pollution of the sea or other waters by matter from ships.
The draft order will authorise the making of regulations by the Secretary of State to give effect to the convention, including amendments to it. Section 128 only allows for an order to be made in respect of a convention that has been ratified by the United Kingdom, which has acceded to the convention. To ensure that the United Kingdom can fulfil its international obligations, the amendments to the convention must be implemented. To ensure that the United Kingdom’s domestic law implements its international obligations, the Government intend that the United Kingdom will submit the draft order to the Privy Council. That will ensure that the regulations can be made.
I have highlighted the importance of the Order in Council so that we can implement the amendments to this important convention for the environmental protection of our seas and waterways. The draft order is intended to ensure that the Government have the powers to implement the convention amendments into domestic law. It is fully supported by the UK Government. I therefore propose that the order be approved. It will enable the United Kingdom to play its part in protecting the biodiversity of our oceans and seas.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I had a few nice, dulcet things to say about the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but we do not have him in the Chair, so thank you for stepping into the breach; it is good of you.
I welcome the Minister to his place. North West Durham is a beautiful part of the world, and I know Lanchester well. I am sure Members agree that in his first outing at an SI Committee, the Minister has done extraordinarily well. I am also sure that we all came into politics to discuss statutory instruments about barnacles on boats. I might have to take some anti-fouling measures myself; I will check my deodorant, because the Minister is about the fourth or fifth on my watch as shadow spokesperson for aviation and maritime. I wish him well in his time in office.
That is enough of the niceties. The implementation of the convention will protect United Kingdom waters from harmful effects occurring from the use of prohibited substances, not just on UK ships but on non-UK ships visiting our waters. We will be supporting the draft order, as it is vital to take every step within our power to reduce the leaching of toxins into water.
There are two major and interlinked environmental challenges in the marine industry: reducing emissions, and preventing the transfer of invasive species through biofouling. The formation of barnacles and other unwanted attachments, such as molluscs and algae, increase the consumption of fuel and slow ships down. In order to address that, ships’ hulls are coated with anti-fouling paints. Historically, coatings such as lime and arsenic were used to coat the hulls, but advances in chemistry enabled that problem to be resolved in a modern and effective way using metallic compounds.
Bulk carriers, tankers and general cargo ships can spend long periods in ports being loaded and unloaded. Some might also be prevented from berthing for long periods by neap tides. In such cases, shallow water and temperate environments can lead to accelerated fouling. Many shipowners must deal with those challenging operations on a regular basis. Only today, there was an interesting article in The Times about the sequestration of Russian yachts and the need to keep them moving to stop their deterioration.
Many ships have unpredictable trading patterns and must find cargoes where they can. That can mean that after operating in an area such as the north Atlantic with a coating chosen for that environment, the ship is switched to tropical zones and operation in different climates. The lower the predictability in operations, the higher the risk for fouling on the ship’s hull, potentially leading to increased fuel consumption and higher environmental impact.
Coatings are usually developed for specific operating conditions, meaning that their anti-fouling performance is highly problematic. Any changes to the expected operating conditions mean that the coating will not perform as expected. The main factors that increase the probability of fouling are unfavourable conditions such as location and duration during long idling periods. Modern coatings have also been proven to leach into water, and the results have been devastating for marine ecosystems.
As people have tried to do the right thing by coating ships to prevent the formation of barnacles and the attachment of other undesirables, and thereby reduce fuel burn, the issue has recurred with the newer metallic compounds. Those compounds have been proven to cause sex changes in whelks and deformation in oysters, and they may have entered the food chain.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
This issue has a huge effect on the environment and on those who reside in our seas, particularly turtles, whales and larger fish, as well as whatever is attaching to ships. Whatever we do in our seas will ultimately have an effect on the food chain, as my hon. Friend said, and on those who inhabit that environment. Perhaps the Government will come back with something more concrete on the environment and the seas.
Mike Kane
Pope Francis reminded us in “Laudato Si’” that we are leaving an enormous pile of filth on this planet, so anything that we can do to reduce that filth and to ensure that it does not leach into the food chain of marine life is extraordinarily important. My hon. Friend is right to intervene to make that point.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
With your indulgence, Mrs Murray, I want to identify the problem of industrial fishing, which you will know a great deal about. It has precisely the same effect on the ecosystem that the hon. Gentleman talked about, and particularly on smaller sea creatures of the kind he mentioned. That is an aside, but it is relevant, given what we are discussing. I know that you will want to bring us back to the subject in hand.
The Chair
Absolutely. I think the shadow Minister would like to stick to the confines of the draft statutory instrument.
Mike Kane
Indeed I would, Mrs Murray. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right that marine life is important, and the draft order is part of that. The Minister knows of the marine biology problems along the coastline of North West Durham, although we do not know what the issue is just yet.
A team at the University of Oldenburg’s Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment conducted a study on the matter, which was published in February 2021. The group is continuing its research, having found that most of the plastic particles in water samples taken from the German Bight—an area of the North sea that encompasses some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes—originate from binders used in marine paints. The hypothesis is that ships literally leave a kind of skid mark in the water, and that as a source of microplastics, it is of a significance similar to that of tyre wear particles from cars on land. I am sure that that will cross the Minister’s desk as part of his new portfolio with responsibility for roads.
Of all plastic entering the ocean, 94% ends up on the seabed, where it will take centuries to degrade. In the process, it will release chemicals, microplastics and nano-plastics, all of which are harmful for marine life and for the ecosystem balance. With that in mind, will the Minister apprise me of which, if any, of the anti-fouling coatings are proven not to leach microplastics into the sea? We do not want to replace one pollutant with another.
I notice that no consultation was done on this draft statutory instrument, but we broadly support its intention. However, we do not want to find ourselves here again in 20 years debating the leaching of microplastics into our waters.
Mr Holden
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will address a couple of issues directly and will certainly write to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East about the points that he raised. I will also put them to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which will look at the measures.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr made an important point. As the Durham miners put it, “The past we inherit, the future we build”. I am sure that we all, on both sides of the Committee, want to build proper regulations for international waters to address the issues he has raised.
With that, I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft order, which is intended to ensure that the Government have the powers to implement the convention and its amendments into domestic law, thereby protecting the UK’s marine environment and fulfilling the UK’s international obligations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
The UK emissions trading scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions, contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme replaced the UK’s participation in the European Union ETS, and the 2020 order applied existing rules on the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions, with modifications to ensure that they work for the UK ETS. The purpose of this order is to amend the 2020 order to enable the inclusion of flights from Great Britain to Switzerland within the scope of the UK ETS.
The UK ETS currently covers domestic flights, flights from the UK to the European economic area, and flights between the UK and Gibraltar.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. When did the Government realise there was an omission and a lack of agreement with Switzerland? Are there other countries that the UK should have agreements with that have dropped off since we left the EU?
Graham Stuart
That is an excellent question. We seek to find the right partners and optimise the system going forward. We always keep that under review. If I have further information, when suitably refreshed I will happily share it with the hon. Gentleman.
Alan Brown
Is the Minister willing to write with the relevant information on the question I raised?
Graham Stuart
I am indeed; I will be delighted to do so.
Since our departure from the European Union, flights between the UK and Switzerland are not covered in either the UK or the Swiss emissions trading systems, creating a gap in ETS coverage. The Government consulted on the policy in this draft instrument between May and July 2019 as part of a consultation called “The future of UK carbon pricing”. In the 2020 Government response to the consultation, we committed to include UK-to-Switzerland flights in the scope of the UK ETS if an agreement could be reached with Switzerland. The agreement has been reached, and Switzerland has amended the relevant domestic legislation to ensure that flights from Switzerland to the UK are included in the Swiss ETS from 2023. This instrument amends the 2020 order to include flights from Great Britain to Switzerland in the scope of the UK ETS for the start of the 2023 scheme year.
In 2019, UK-to-Switzerland flights amounted to approximately a quarter of a megatonne of CO2—less than 0.2% of the UK ETS cap for the 2023 scheme year. The policy intent is to include flights from across the UK to Switzerland in the scope of the UK ETS. As the Northern Ireland Assembly was not able to consider affirmative legislation at the time this instrument began the legislative process, this legislation only brings GB to Switzerland flights within scope of the UK ETS.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. It is ironic that we have been able to reach agreement with Switzerland, but not with Northern Ireland. Leaving that aside, can he enlighten the Committee on how many flights will be covered by the scheme? I do not know whether there are flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland, but what impact might the order have? I apologise if the shadow Minister was going to ask the same question.
Graham Stuart
It is a most excellent question. When the hon. Member for Southampton, Test asks it later, I am sure I will be able to give a definitive answer, but it is a pretty small percentage. I look forward to sharing the exact percentage with the Committee.
Once the Northern Ireland Assembly is functioning, equivalent legislation will be proposed to the Assembly as soon as possible to ensure that all flights between the UK and Switzerland are covered.
In conclusion, the SI will close a gap in the coverage of the UK ETS, fulfilling the commitment set out in the Government response to the consultation on “The future of UK carbon pricing” and upholding the agreement with Switzerland. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
This statutory instrument does something fairly simple, which should have been done quite a long time ago. It regularises the arrangements relating to the 2020 UK ETS system with Switzerland, which, being a member of the single market but not of either the European economic area or the EU, fell outside both provisions when the UK ETS was set up. It may have been possible to spot that at the time, and it has taken rather a long time to fill that gap, but it will now be filled.
What that means, if we agree on this afternoon’s SI, is that, while stating, in principle, that all flights from the UK are international flights—because we are no longer in the EU—the UK will have a parallel system to that of the EU. The EU ETS supplies both-end emissions arrangements to all members of the EU, and those of the EEA, which are, of course, Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein. I think that that is a partial answer to the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in that we now have a fairly seamless arrangement, as far as all of Europe and the EEA is concerned, regarding two-ended emissions-trading arrangements for flights throughout Europe in general.
That is except for one flight—the six-days-a-week flight between Belfast and Geneva—which is uniquely not covered by that arrangement. Therefore, it is not quite right to say, as the explanatory memorandum suggests, that there was a gap that has been filled by this measure; there was a gap, and it is now smaller, but it is still a gap. I am sure that those people who do take that flight from Belfast to Geneva, and/or back again, will be discomfited to know that they are the new exception.
I am a little concerned about that gap, because the explanatory memorandum to this SI states that:
“Further legislation will be brought forward in relation to Northern Ireland to Switzerland flights when feasible.”
Is the Minister saying that it is not feasible because the Northern Ireland Assembly is not in operation, and, therefore, it will become feasible when the Assembly returns? Alternatively, is he saying, “It’s not feasible because we haven’t got time to do it at the moment”?
As we know, we are regularly legislating. Indeed, the Minister and I were talking this morning about seven pieces of secondary legislation coming forward regarding the energy price support mechanisms. All of those have two pieces of legislation each—an SI for England, Scotland and Wales, and a parallel SI of the same nature for Northern Ireland. The argument for that is precisely because there is no Assembly in Northern Ireland, so we have to do it ourselves in the UK Parliament. I would have thought that that was perfectly straightforward and could have easily been done under these circumstances, so that people flying from Belfast to Geneva would feel much happier about how their flights are dealt with as far as offsetting and carbon trading are concerned.
Can the Minister tell us what is meant by “feasible” under these circumstances, and whether he intends to speedily introduce an SI that regularises the position? By the way, that would help considerably with allocating the payments for emissions, which will take place between flights to Switzerland generally and may have to be further amended when the Belfast-Geneva flight is brought into the process, so an administrative good could be done in the fairly short term if legislation, which I imagine would be as brief as the draft order we are considering, were to be introduced.
The Minister might also briefly comment on the fact that the UK will now have a system of two-ended ETS flight arrangements across the whole of the European economic area. The UK is now in a position parallel to that of the EU, which makes a distinction between flights that are effectively regarded as domestic for the purposes of emissions trading and international flights, which are governed by the UN carbon offsetting reduction scheme for international aviation, known as CORSIA. The scheme does not impose an emissions cap, but simply requires any aviation emissions above the level in 2019 to be offset.
However, the EU proposes to go further than that. Indeed, the European Parliament recently voted to extend the EU ETS from intra-EU flights—that is, within the European economic area—to all departing flights, subject to an adjustment to reclaim the cost of offset unit purchase for the same flights under CORSIA, which is the arrangement for international flights at the moment. That needs to be agreed by the European Commission, but it is well under way.
The UK has never defined the relationship between CORSIA and the UK emissions trading scheme as far as aviation is concerned. Now that our playing set is complete, is it the Minister’s intention not only to define the relationship with CORSIA, but to undertake the same sort of arrangement for international flights outside the EEA that the EU is looking at, in order to create a much better system of international flights outside the European economic area?
I am sure the Minister now has inspiration for all my questions and will be able to give us a full account of how these things are to proceed, but I would be particularly grateful to hear about the progress with the poor, sad missing Belfast-to-Geneva flight that I know we are all concerned about.
Kevin Brennan
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for answering the question that I put to the Minister. I assume that is correct, and that the Minister can confirm officially that just that one flight, which takes place six times a week between Northern Ireland and Switzerland, is absent from the provisions of the statutory instrument.
I have two other brief questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. In paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government indicate that they did not prepare an impact assessment for the SI because
“it is not a regulatory provision.”
Can the Minister explain in what sense the SI is not a regulatory provision, and what that means?
In lieu of providing an impact assessment, the Government signpost Members to the document, “Analytical Annex to Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS)”, published in March 2022. That annex does not add very much to what is provided today, but the annex to chapter 5, which deals with aviation, says that the Government propose to
“permit verifiers of aviation activities to conduct remote site visits, provided that an appropriate risk assessment has been carried out and any precautionary conditions have been met.”
Does the statutory instrument we are considering today have any impact on that proposal? Who would be the verifiers of aviation activities referred to in the annex to chapter 5?
Graham Stuart
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate, and I am grateful for the broad support—so enthusiastic, so driven, so loud—for the proposals.
In answer to the various questions that have come up, I should mention that flights between the UK and Switzerland fell out of scope of ETS coverage following the UK’s withdrawal, although those flights were previously covered by the EU ETS following the EU-Swiss linking agreement, which came into force in 2020. We are looking to restore coverage of that gap. The majority of international flights departing the UK are covered by the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation—CORSIA—and the UK continues to play a leading role in the work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, negotiating for ambitious global action to tackle international aviation emissions, including protecting and strengthening CORSIA.
In 2019, flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland made up just 76—my maths is functional, if that, but six flights a week would appear to amount to rather more than that—or 0.28% of the total 26,813 flights from the UK to Switzerland. That represented 1,081 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 0.39% of the total 277,814 tonnes. The impact of not including those flights is therefore small, but not negligible. As such, we aim to include those flights in the ETS as soon as possible.
As to why we cannot currently do so, legislation for the UK ETS is made under the Climate Change Act 2008. The powers are devolved, and therefore exercisable only by the Secretary of State for England and by the respective devolved Administrations for the other nations of the UK. Where all agree, joint legislation can be made for the whole of the UK by the Privy Council. The heart of the matter is that under the terms of that Act, scheme expansion requires an affirmative instrument. The Northern Ireland Assembly has not been able to debate and approve instruments, so it is not currently possible to make legislation that extends to Northern Ireland. The draft order has already been approved by the Scottish Parliament and by the Senedd. If approved by both Houses of Parliament, the order will be submitted to the Privy Council to be made covering Great Britain. Therefore, it is a function of the legislation.
Kevin Brennan
I understand that point; presumably, if an affirmative instrument is required, Ministers cannot make that legislation in the absence of the Assembly’s meeting. However, if I heard the Minister correctly, he said that there were 76 flights in 2019, whereas the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, said that the actual figure is a return flight six times a week. My maths is not bad—I got a grade A O-level back in the day—and that is a lot more than 76. Will the Minister clarify that point and write to the Committee with the actual figure and, if there is a disparity, the true level of emissions?
Graham Stuart
I am sure every member of the Committee will be waiting to hear that, and I am happy to write to confirm it. As it is, it is a relatively small number of flights, given the overall number that go from the UK.
Dr Whitehead
My checking process was probably not as accurate as the entire civil service was able to muster, but it looks to be the case that there is one direct flight between Belfast and Switzerland, and a number of flights that stop in other places. If we believe Skyscanner, that is where the six flights a week come from. But I stand to be corrected; there may be flights that I have missed out that come under that umbrella, and it may be that some of the stopping flights are included.
Graham Stuart
I have agreed to write with further information, notwithstanding the ability that any of us has to check Skyscanner, and I am happy to do so. However, it was 76 flights in total in 2019, so we are talking about a pretty small issue.
On CORSIA, which I know Members will be keen to hear more about, the UK Government, led by the Department for Transport, consulted on implementing CORSIA in 2021, including six high-level options for how CORSIA could interact with the UK ETS on flights in the scope of both schemes. We are carefully considering the approach to CORSIA implementation and will consult further in due course, seeking to have all legislation for CORSIA in force by 2024.
The UK ETS is regarded in legislation as a fiscal measure, not a regulation. We published an analytical annex with the initial Government response in August 2022. That examined the impact of applying the UK ETS to UK-to-Switzerland flights, so I think that only direct flights are affected. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West: it is hard to be more arcane than his hon. Friend the shadow Minister, or to have a more detailed grasp or inspection of the factors behind legislation, but on this occasion I think he has achieved it, and I know that he will be pleased to continue the discussion even further.
Kevin Brennan
To save me making another speech—of course, I could—I will just intervene on the Minister. Unusually for him, because he is always very thorough, he has left one loose end, which is my question about who the verifiers will be. I am perfectly happy for him to tie up that loose end later by writing to the Committee, in order that we can have that question answered and we can have properly and thoroughly scrutinised this particular fiscal measure.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am sure that, like me, when he was a small boy he was terribly excited when he received a letter addressed to him. I know that other members of the Committee will have a similar childish excitement when they get my letter, in which I will answer that point too, because the verifiers need to be identified properly and effectively.
With no further ado, and with what I can see is the great expectation of the Chair, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Caulfield
NHS England has commissioned a system-wide investigation into the safety and quality of services across the board, particularly around children and adolescent mental health services. I am pushing for those investigations to be as swift as possible.
[Official Report, 3 November 2022, Vol. 721, c. 1020.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield).
An error has been identified in my response to the urgent question on abuse and deaths in secure mental health units.
The correct response should have been:
Maria Caulfield
NHS England has commissioned a system-wide investigation into the safety and quality of services at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, particularly around children and adolescent mental health services. I am pushing for those investigations to be as swift as possible.
Petitions
Ramsgate Town Council and Manston Airport
Windfall tax
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
Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I have been advised that the petition debated today was started following the sad murder of Jade Ward last year. Sentencing in that case has now concluded. However, I remind Members that they must not refer to cases that are currently before the courts and should be cautious in referring to any cases where proceedings may be brought in the future.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 614893, relating to suspension of parental responsibility for people convicted of serious offences.
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. The petition calls for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility for any parent found guilty of murdering the other during their period of imprisonment. I want to place on record my thanks to Jade Ward’s family and friends and, in particular, Edwin Duggan for their dedication and work in putting together this petition, which has received more than 130,000 signatures. That is a remarkable achievement.
At the heart of this debate is the life and memory of Jade Ward. Jade was an enormously loved mother, daughter and friend. She has been described as the sunshine in the lives of all who knew her. She was bubbly, kind and caring, and truly devoted to her four sons. The last days of Jade’s life were spent caring for her grandmother as she recovered from surgery, laughing with her friends in her garden and providing for her children. These final moments typify the life that Jade led and the kind person she was.
On 26 August 2021, Jade was brutally murdered by her estranged husband, Russell Marsh, in a premeditated attack. On 12 April 2022, Marsh was given a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. After Jade ended their relationship a week before her murder, Marsh had reportedly told friends that if he could not have Jade, no one could. Marsh was a controlling figure throughout their relationship, who would tell Jade who she could see and speak to, and what she could wear and do. When Jade stood up to him, she was killed as punishment.
Jade was just 27 and lived in Shotton. She had four children with Marsh, who were sleeping nearby as their mother’s life was taken away from her. Jade’s family were horrified to learn that, despite these utterly distressing circumstances, they face the prospect of continued contact with the man who murdered their daughter. Although Marsh will obviously not have custody over the children while he serves his time in prison, despite all his appalling actions, under law, he retains parental responsibility. Jade’s mother, Karen, said that she was “absolutely gobsmacked” to hear that her daughter’s killer could still have a say in the boys’ lives. If you walked down any street today, Mr Hollobone, and told people how the law works on this matter, I think they would be gobsmacked too.
What exactly does the law say about this matter? When a child does not have a parent to care for them, local authorities have a duty to safeguard the child and find an interim or permanent care arrangement. The child’s relatives can seek a court order to care for them, local authorities can initiate proceedings with a view to providing for the child’s upbringing and carers can achieve parental rights through a special guardianship order.
Importantly, where two parties have parental responsibility, one party cannot make decisions unilaterally; they must seek the other party’s agreement. Responsibility is automatically equal so, in law, neither party’s parental responsibility is considered more important than the other’s. That stretches to even the most extreme cases, in which one parent has been convicted of murdering the other.
I understand that Jade’s parents have been told that if they want to take their grandsons on holiday abroad, they need permission from the father. A convicted parent must also be consulted on issues such as where the children go to school and the medical treatment they receive. Effectively, Marsh has the right to veto decisions made by Jade’s parents and pursue a family court hearing.
We can only imagine how traumatic that must be for Jade’s parents. They have already suffered the terrible pain of losing their daughter in that way, yet the process as it stands compels them to interact with their daughter’s killer. It acts as a constant reminder of surely the darkest moment in their lives. As with Jade’s boys, the children are often in the care of the family of the deceased parent. The current process effectively grants the convicted parent the means to continue the control and coercion of the family in the way they did prior to the murder of the victim.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful speech. Does he agree that “re-victimisation” is not too strong a word to describe what would happen to the family in such circumstances?
Mark Tami
I agree, because it just does not stop and there is no chance to move on—not that it would ever be easy to move on. It gives the convicted person even more weapons to use against the family of the deceased.
It must be extremely traumatic for the children to know that the person who killed their mother or father knows so much about their lives, particularly if they witnessed the murder. The law surrounding parental responsibility is clearly not fit for purpose and facilitates further unnecessary emotional trauma. It helps perpetrators with a history of domestic abuse to practise their controlling and psychological abuse from inside their prison cell. We often think of domestic abuse as physical violence, which it is in many cases, but at its root is control. It is about the perpetrator controlling their so-called partner, and having control from their prison cell must give them a real buzz.
If parental rights are by default retained, even in the most horrific of circumstances, when can they be restricted? The Children Act 1989 allows the guardian or holders of a residence order to go to a family court to bring a prohibited steps order against a person with parental responsibility, but the onus is still on the family to prove that parental rights should be revoked. It is expensive and time-consuming, and is an emotionally draining process for the families, who have to come to terms with the tragic loss they have just experienced. That is why Jade’s family—Karen, Paul and Pip—and their friends are campaigning to have the parental responsibility of a parent who is found guilty of murdering the other parent automatically suspended.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
I am very moved by the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. As someone who brought up a child on my own, I often worried about what would happen if something happened to me. Does he agree that the current system fails to put the child at the centre of the legislation?
Mark Tami
I agree with the hon. Lady. I will go on to talk about family courts, including some of their problems and the lack of connection between what happens there and in other courts. In this case, and indeed in many other cases, children can be effectively weaponised by the person who has committed the offence, who can carry on their control and abuse.
Currently, the onus is on the family to prove why Marsh’s parental responsibility should be revoked or restricted, whereas Jade’s law calls for parental responsibility to be automatically suspended in circumstances such as these, putting the onus on the killer to go through the legal hoops of proving they deserve parental responsibility, freeing the victim’s family of the traumatic burden they currently carry. As Jade’s mother said:
“We are going through enough without having him looming over our heads.”
That really sums up the situation we find in the law today.
Unfortunately, Jade’s family are not the only ones. Ahead of the debate, the Chair of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), spoke to survivors of domestic abuse who are experiencing ongoing issues relating to the retention of parental responsibility by ex-partners. Their experiences highlighted just how far our laws on parental responsibilities and the family court system are failing children and victims of domestic violence.
One issue that came out strongly from the discussions was that violence committed against a parent is not distinct from violence against a child. Indeed, allowing a child to witness or be surrounded by violent behaviour is inherently abusive in itself. A parent’s willingness to subject their child to that surely calls into question their ability to act in that child’s best interests.
Yet women who spoke to the Committee felt that family courts do not recognise that. Despite all the convictions for traumatic sexual, physical and emotional abuse, the threat those men pose to their own children’s welfare does not seem to be acknowledged. Over and over again, the Committee heard that the abuser’s right to be a parent was prioritised over the children’s right to safety. A woman whose former partner was convicted of sexual abuse offences asked what I think is a perfectly reasonable question: why should he be allowed to access their children when he was considered too dangerous to work with or be around other people’s children?
For victims of domestic violence and for families who have lost loved ones to an abusive partner, the criminal justice process is often just too traumatic. Not only are they forced to relive harrowing experiences, but they have to come back into contact with the person responsible for them. One might think that once proceedings have ended and a criminal charge has been made and proven, they could begin to move on, but since family and criminal courts are distinct from each other, victims are forced to restart the emotional and burdensome process to restrict parental rights.
One of the women who spoke to the Chair of the Petitions Committee found the family court system itself to be abusive. With renewed contact with her ex-partner, it became a new avenue through which he continued his controlling behaviour. A common opinion was that family courts are not equipped to deal with traumatic cases of murder and domestic abuse.
Both Jade’s family and the women who spoke to the Committee also emphasised the financial pressure imposed on them by the current system. Pursuing a case in the family court is expensive, and the lack of funding for legal aid is a longstanding issue, as we all know. Victims and their families are forced into thousands of pounds of debt to restrict parental responsibility, or they face compromising on the safety of their children.
Since the beginning of the family’s campaign, the Government have stated that there is already scope for courts to exercise powers
“to effectively remove all parental powers and authority in appropriate cases.”
However, the Government are missing the point. Jade’s family and friends are already aware of the law as it stands and the current process of restricting parental responsibility, but they, and we, are saying that the process is wrong. The onus should be on the convicted murderer to prove they should have parental responsibility, rather than the family having to make the case for why that person should not. Jade’s law would be a simple, common-sense way of shifting the burden away from a victim’s family and friends, who have already suffered the anguish of the murder of their loved one. Jade’s law would put an end to the endless cycle of psychological torment, lengthy and costly court processes and the constant harrowing reminders that the current system puts on a victim’s family and friends.
Let us be clear: Jade’s law does not demand the automatic removal of parental responsibility for cases such as these; it demands an automatic suspension, giving the perpetrator the opportunity to go through the legal hoops themselves to prove that they should be entitled to those parental powers. The perpetrator will have to prove they have changed their ways and admitted to their crimes, and that they have gone on a long journey to have the right to be involved in their children’s lives, not the other way round.
The petitioners recognise that there are nuances. For instance, they recognise that there are specific circumstances where it would be right to exempt someone convicted of killing the other parent from an automatic suspension of parental responsibilities. These would include where a convicted person could prove that there was a history of domestic abuse in their relationship and that, although the murder cannot be condoned, the murder trial concluded that provocation was a mitigating factor. However, the principle of shifting the burden of proof is the key message that we are sending the Government today.
Rob Roberts
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. To expand on this interesting idea, does he envisage this measure being akin to a parole board, where somebody fights their case for early release, or would there be some kind of additional legal process, such as requiring them to go back to court and fight for their rights?
Mark Tami
As I said, I believe the process should be turned round, so that it puts the onus on the convicted person, and they would have to go through the same process that the victim’s family are effectively forced to go through now.
I am delighted that Labour supports this change, but I do not want it to be a party political matter because it is not. I do not think that anyone in this room, regardless of their party, would stand up and defend the current system or say: “It’s absolutely fine. I don’t know what the fuss is about.” As I have said, if we went out on the streets, almost everybody would say, “That seems to be the correct thing to do”. I hope we can move forward across the House and add a mechanism to existing legislation, such as the Children Act 1989, whereby one parent found guilty of murdering the other parent would have their responsibility rights automatically suspended throughout their term of imprisonment—which, again, would impose the burden on the convicted person.
I am not prejudging what the Minister will say, but I am sure his officials will say, as they always do: “This is very difficult. It’s going to take a long time. We can’t do this; we can’t do that”. I have always believed that where there is a will, there is a way, and I am sure that the appropriate legislation can be amended to ensure that this change actually happens. The implementation of Jade’s law would not add additional costs to the public purse. In fact, it might save local authorities money, because they would no longer have to send social workers to visit convicted parents to obtain permission for things. It is a cost-free or even money-saving reform that would relieve the traumatic burden that the families of victims currently carry, and it is the morally right thing to do. To me, it is simple and common sense.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I had a similar, horrific case in my constituency that related to the parental rights of someone who was convicted of sexual offences against my constituent’s children. This is a cross-party issue, and I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who at that time made change happen and was very supportive. I urge the Minister to make change happen today for Jade.
Mark Tami
I share in those words.
To conclude, I read a statement issued by Jade’s parents after their daughter’s killer was sentenced:
“Jade was the sunshine in our lives, she was the glue that held us all together. She was also a devoted mum who would do anything for her children, a much-loved friend, daughter, sister, aunty, niece and granddaughter. Jade’s whole life was ahead of her, and her death has left a void in all our lives.”
Sadly, it is now too late for Jade. But her children, and others in the same situation, still have their whole lives before them. We owe it to them to ensure that the system is on the side of the victims.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the petitioners for bringing us this important debate. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Jade’s family, and thank them for their bravery in advocating for change at such a tragic time.
Looking at the list of petition signatories by parliamentary constituency, there is clearly a strong geographical centre of support in north Wales and just across the border, with strong pockets of support in Delyn, Vale of Clwyd, Ellesmere Port, Chester and, of course, Wrexham. Some 878 people in Wrexham signed the petition, but I have no doubt that support for its aims extends right across the country, across parties and borders.
Let me touch on a few points. The Government’s initial response states that, under the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility can already be lifted by the court. There is a mechanism in the Act that allows for a member of a child’s family to care for that child if there is no parent to do so on a day-to-day basis. I am pleased that that safeguard and option is already in law, as it should be, but the law could go further.
My concern is that the process of obtaining that legal status is lengthy and expensive, and that, as a direct result of that lengthy process, parental responsibility remains with the perpetrator of a crime until the process is complete. If the process of obtaining what I understand is called a special guardianship order was less time consuming, less expensive and less onerous for family members who honourably try to do the right thing in difficult circumstances, we might not be seeking the automatic removal of parental responsibility.
Although it is different from Jade’s law, I do have some experience with the case of constituent who is trying to obtain an order to take over parental responsibility for their grandchildren in the absence of parents who are present and able to parent. My constituent’s case constituent highlighted to me how difficult and expensive it is to obtain the guardianship of grandchildren.
Obtaining a special guardianship order can cost thousands and thousands of pounds, and that is assuming that the parent gives consent in the first place. That is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to achieve; where a family member is willing and able to take care of children, we should support them to do so, not put barriers in their way. We should not be making it more difficult for children to be looked after by their family rather than the state. First, being cared for by their family is the best and safest option for children, as they already know them and their routines. Secondly, a child being looked after by the state should never be the preferred first option. The process currently makes it easier for children to be looked after by the state, at significant cost, than by members of their family. In my view and that of the constituents of Wrexham, that is wrong.
The safety and wellbeing of a child are always paramount. I was a nurse and social worker for 27 years, so I have first-hand experience of children being removed from their homes and placed in temporary accommodation that lasts year after year. From many years of seeing this, I know that there is no substitute for a child being raised by their family in a safe and loving home. If all necessary safeguards and checks have been done, and this arrangement can be accommodated, it absolutely should be. Of course, there should be a presumption that if one parent murders another, parental responsibility is removed.
My concern with automatically removing parental responsibility is that we need to have processes in place to deal with the gap in care and decision making. At the moment, the process for handing parental responsibility to family members is too laborious, costly and stressful. We need to make allowances for that or make the process easier, so that children are not automatically cared for by the state when they do not need to be. Local authorities need to be more supportive of families applying for a special guardianship order. However, where the state is needed—remembering that health and social care is devolved in Wales—the Welsh Government need to ensure that councils are adequately funded, so that children always have timely and appropriate care and do not fall between the gaps. Where there are family members who are fit, willing and able to make decisions for the children, that option should always be the priority.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as always, Mr Hollobone. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) made some interesting points; the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care has done a lot of work on these issues, which chimes with some of the points she made.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and for sharing the experiences of Jade Ward’s family. There are no words to describe the pain that those close to Jade have been through, but my right hon. Friend did an excellent job of articulating their calls for action. It cannot be easy for those of them present here to have to listen to this debate, but I hope they feel some reassurance. People who have been through difficult experiences often get some strength from the idea that something good may come of the pain they have been through.
It is often assumed that when one parent is sentenced for a serious offence, a legal mechanism is automatically triggered to assure the safety and wellbeing of their children and those looking after them. As we have heard, that just does not happen. When a parent goes to prison and they have parental responsibility, they retain it by default. Care givers must consult them ahead of key decisions concerning the children’s names, where they go to school, their religious upbringing and any medical procedures they undergo before their 18th birthday. Where parental responsibility is concerned, the law does not differentiate between parents who commit non-violent offences and those guilty of serious offences, including murder, rape, sexual offences against children, gang-related violence and so on. As we have heard, that is even the case where one parent has killed the other, or where the parent in prison has killed another family member.
Understandably, the petition is focused on parental or interparental homicide, which is where we should start in terms of reviewing the law, but there are many other cases that involve similar scenarios. Far too many parents have to keep in contact with their abusers for their children’s sake. I say “for their children’s sake”, but that is based on a default presumption that it must always be in the child’s interest for the parent in prison to retain contact, and quite often that presumption is wrong.
The only mechanism a child’s primary care givers currently have to challenge the perpetrator’s right to parental responsibility is through the legal system. A court can terminate a father’s parental responsibility on the grounds of their behaviour, but that happens only in exceptional circumstances, where there is proof that the father’s retention of that responsibility—I say “father” as a shorthand—would be detrimental to the child’s welfare. As I understand it, that has only ever happened four times in England and Wales.
Families are not always willing to put themselves through the extra trauma of attending a court hearing and having to relive the worst time of their lives, with their version of events placed under the microscope yet again. Facing the person who killed or abused their loved one—or abused them—and looking that person in the eye is often very difficult. They might also be fearful that the perpetrator will retaliate in whatever way they can if the court removes the rights, especially if they will be released from prison before the child turns 18. It takes a lot of courage to take a violent perpetrator to court while knowing the risks, and it is easy to see why many would be put off attending court at all. As we have heard, spiralling court backlogs and cuts to legal aid make the process more agonising for the families.
The main thing I want to talk about today is the work of the charity Children Heard and Seen, which supports children with a parent in prison. The primary focus—this is what differentiates it from other charities—is on the interests of the child. A lot of the organisations that work with prisoners’ families focus very much on the rights of the prisoner, and there is an assumption that contact with the family is in the prisoner’s interests; because we know, for example, that such contact means far less risk of reoffending.
It often shocks people to learn that there is no system for recording when a child’s parent goes into prison. Sometimes it is picked up in pre-sentence reports, although the parent will not always admit that they have a child because they worry about them being taken into care. Social services might already be involved with the family, or they might become involved if they suspect that the children are the direct victims of the parent’s crime, such as child sexual abuse, but we often find that social services—once they realise the children were not the victims and perhaps other children were—just disappear from the scene.
There is no system for routinely informing children’s services at the council or the children’s school, or for monitoring the children’s wellbeing during a parent’s imprisonment. The data is also hard to come by. One figure is used quite a lot—that 312,000 children are affected from year to year. I think that is probably on the high side, but it is impossible to tell. Many children are off the radar, despite potentially being at risk, or very vulnerable and needing support.
Children Heard and Seen runs a support group for carers who look after children affected by interparental homicide. It also supports families who continue to experience harassment or coercive control, despite the perpetrator being in prison. That includes domestic violence cases. I have heard from the charity about the strategies that domestic abusers use to manipulate their ex-partners while in prison, from using illicit burner phones to breach restraining orders, to refusing divorce papers and getting friends or neighbours to harass and intimidate them.
Services supporting victims might tell them they are safe once their former partner is in prison, but that is not always the case. Children Heard and Seen says that allowing a violent offender parental responsibility gives them the opportunity to control their child, ex-partner or family from within the prison walls. On the Children Heard and Seen website, there are quite a few blog posts by people who have been affected by a parent or a partner going into prison.
To cite one case, a mother applied for passports to take her children on holiday after a difficult few years that led up to the father’s imprisonment. Because both parents had parental responsibility, she needed his signature to complete the application. He was given the paperwork by the prison officers, but refused to sign it, which meant the family could not travel and the mother lost every penny she had paid towards the holiday. Of course, the father would not have been able to join them on holiday, but it was not about the children at all; it was just another way to pull the strings in his family’s life and exercise control over his former partner, despite the physical distance between them.
A perpetrator of domestic abuse might be restricted from contacting their actual victim—such as the mother, in this case—if there is a restraining order in place. However, if they have children together, it is easy for the perpetrator to use that child as a way to stay present in the abused partner’s life. Little can be done to stop them calling or writing to their children. As has been said, family services often encourage prisoners to stay in touch in such situations, as it is seen as being in the prisoner’s interest. There is also a belief that a child must want to see their parent who is in prison and must be missing them dreadfully, despite having witnessed a lot of abuse at home, and actually being fearful of the parent, and, in some ways, relieved that they have been removed from the household.
The perpetrator can use this contact to say that they will only see the children if the mother brings them to the prison, which, if the child wants to see the parent, is a way of exercising control. They can also make veiled threats through written letters. I cannot imagine how chilling it must be for an ex-partner to have to read out letters from their abuser to their children, in which the abuser may say he is getting stronger in prison and counting down the days until he sees their mum again, or which contain drawings of the children’s favourite film characters holding knives. We need a case-by-case approach, where services work with families to take a more active role in determining when contact is appropriate.
As of 2019, men made up 95% of the prison population. A far higher proportion of men are in prison for serious offences, so it is fair to assume that far more fathers are in prison than mothers. The flipside of that is the extra layer of complexity if a mother is arrested for a serious offence. Societal expectations about a mother’s natural role as a primary care giver can lead to the assumption that they should automatically keep parental responsibility. As I understand it, courts cannot legally terminate a mother’s parental responsibility, although it can, in rare cases, be limited.
It is important to remember the key principle of the Children Act 1989, which is that the welfare of the child is paramount. A child’s right to safety and protection from harm overrides all other legal considerations. How can the welfare of the child be paramount if their imprisoned parent can use contact with them to manipulate or control other family members?
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Although she is talking about people in prison, we have probably all seen instances in our casework—thankfully at a much lower level—where relationships have broken down and children are weaponised by one or both partners. I have always found it very strange that a father might not pay towards the children’s upkeep but still has the same rights as someone who does pay. I do not understand that, although I know why it is the case: the two are not seen to be connected. However, I have always had the view that if someone does not support their children, they should not automatically think they should have exactly the same rights as somebody who does.
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely agree. I think we have all seen cases where contact with the children will be supervised and the family will have to go to a centre due to the relationship between the ex-partners, because the mother is fearful of being alone in the same room as the father. I have seen so many examples where that has been manipulated and the father does not actually want to see the children, but instead wants to use the visit as a way of putting fear into the heart of the mother, who is bringing the children along.
Until the laws around parental responsibility change, families will continue to suffer. As we have outlined today, suspending parental responsibility for those who commit serious, violent crimes—at least on a temporary basis—would certainly be a start. The right to parental responsibility could then be reviewed and re-established if the families consent and new evidence indicates it would be appropriate.
It is important to re-emphasise that this is not a matter of removing a prisoner’s right to parental responsibility in all instances; it is about protecting children and families caught up in the most extreme circumstances. We need to consider it on a case-by-case basis. Care givers need more input into the process of determining parental responsibility from the start. The police and other authorities need more training in spotting the signs of coercive control within families. Above all, children’s best interests and safety must be put first.
It is difficult to keep up with personnel changes in this Government, but I have had meetings with Justice Ministers and the Minister for Children and Families, and I have raised this issue in various debates. We need data on how many children have a parent in prison. Anecdotally, I know that there is a huge number out there, and unless we can identify how many there are and find a way of recording them, we will never be able to give them the help and support they need.
I again congratulate Jade Ward’s family for fighting for this change. I hope today’s discussion takes us a step further in resolving these issues.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important and solemn debate, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I commend my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for securing this debate on such a vital issue for our Flintshire community. I will also take this opportunity to butter up the Minister a bit and welcome him to his portfolio. I am sure he is the right person in the right role at the right time to drive this forward and obtain the justice that that family and families across the country deserve.
Crime will always exist in communities. Whatever we do in society and whatever laws we pass in this place, there will always be various crimes of varying degrees of severity. Rarely—thankfully, it is rare—there is a crime that the headline writers say has rocked the community. In August 2021, the Deeside and wider Flintshire community was rocked. This is north-east Wales; this type of thing does not happen in our communities.
The words we use in this place to debate things are important. “Erskine May” tells us that moderate language is of the utmost importance in parliamentary discourse, so I always do my best to keep within the boundaries of that principle. I try to avoid extremes such as “evil” and “hate”. But when Russell Marsh—for the record, that will be the last time I do him the courtesy of using his name in this speech—killed Jade Ward, the egregious act taking place in her home in Shotton, the nature of his crime could quite easily and fairly be described as evil. In the aftermath of that horrific event, Jade’s friends and family, and indeed our entirely community, could certainly be justified in having feelings of hate. It is fair to commend the North Wales police and the court system for bringing him to justice, as he was handed a minimum 25-year sentence in April. For all the delays and issues we hear about in our justice system, the investigation, trial and sentencing took only seven months. I say “only” seven months, but it was no doubt a lifetime for Jade’s family and friends.
Justice was served and was seen to be served swiftly. But was it? Of course, seeing that vile wretch of a human carted off for at least 25 years is justice in one respect, but a lingering problem remains, which we must address. I commend Mr Duggan, the family friend who set up the petition. I am not sure whether he is aware that it attracted signatures from every single one of the 650 constituencies in the UK, from the far reaches of Orkney and Shetland off the north coast of Scotland, down to St Ives in the south of England, on its way to more than 130,000 signatures, including 2,808 from my constituency of Delyn. Considering that Delyn’s numbers for national petitions are normally in their low teens, that is a great indication of the depth of feeling in our community about the issue.
Jade’s sons are now in the loving care of her family. I do not think there is a single person among us who can comprehend not only having to attend the funeral of their child, as Jade’s parents had to, but having to somehow hold everything together in the aftermath and provide a stable, loving home for their grandchildren.
The difficulties of being faced by the nature of the crime itself are compounded by the fact that the perpetrator has rights. We hear a lot about rights in this building, and how one person’s rights are being infringed in favour of someone else’s rights. In this case, the perpetrator’s rights are being held to have, in some way, some relevance. He has to be consulted; he can take decisions about where the children live, go on holiday or attend school. and he is kept up to date on their progress.
Just to be clear, we take away parental responsibility in cases of serious neglect and in cases of serious cruelty. What more neglectful action could there be than depriving four children of their mother? What more cruelty would we need to see than taking a young lady and murdering her in a brutal and vicious way while her children slept in their bedrooms next door?
I read the Government’s response to the petition when it passed 10,000 signatures and I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), in expressing my disappointment with that response. I appreciate the statement that we already have the means in existing law to take these steps, but as has already been mentioned several times, that is time-consuming and expensive, and puts even more strain on the victim’s family, who have to deal with an already impossible situation.
In a case in 2013 when parental responsibility was terminated because a father had been convicted of violently attacking a mother, it took years to terminate his rights—something that would have been obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense about them. In this case, we are talking about a violent murder. It should be an absolute no-brainer that the perpetrator should forfeit his parental rights immediately when convicted of such a horrific crime. There can be no greater cruelty. He should play no further part in the lives of these children. If I had my way, he would play no further part in society for the remainder of his natural life; for what he did, he should have been given a whole life sentence, not 25 years.
People might think that this happens extremely rarely in society, so I did a bit of digging. The House of Commons Library tells me that there were 542 homicides —murders—recorded in England and Wales in the 2020-21 fiscal year. In 414 of those cases, the relationship between victim and offender was known and of those cases, 67 were recorded as being committed by a partner or ex-partner. Assuming that figure carries through to the other cases where we do not know the relationship between victim and offender, that is 87 murders per year by partners or ex-partners where there may be children. To be clear for the record, that is not the number of confirmed cases where parental responsibility is a factor; it is just an estimate of the number of cases where it might be a factor. Potentially, there are 87 cases a year where the nightmare of a murder is compounded by the additional cruelty of the perpetrator controlling from prison the lives of the children. That is absolutely unconscionable. The statistics do not matter though. I would be making all the same arguments if there was just one family or 10,000 families who are affected. Currently, the law allows the status quo to persist unless a long and laborious process is carried out to change it.
A switch of priorities is required. As the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said earlier, put the burden back on the murderer. If someone is found guilty of murder, the suspension of parental rights should be made automatic at the date of conviction. Make him fight to get those rights back, rather than make the victim’s family fight to block him. Social services and the local authorities will already be intrinsically involved by that point, as there will inevitably be months between offence and conviction. The children will already be in the care of the remaining family or in a suitable foster placement, where that is appropriate. The law simply needs to be changed to give social services the power that they would have if, for example, both parents died.
I come back to the opening words of my speech. I try to avoid extremes of language, but in cases such as this one, in which one parent has unlawfully killed another, the perpetrators should be counted, for the purposes of parental responsibility, as having died as well. It seems to be a complete no-brainer that, rather than put the victim’s family through a horrendous process of trying to get parental responsibility removed, re-victimising them and keeping a killer in their lives, we should automatically remove the perpetrator.
We need to bear in mind that according to the Sentencing Council the starting point for the minimum time to be served in prison by an adult guilty of murder ranges from 15 years to 30 years, before taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the vast majority of cases will lead to a minimum of 15 years in prison for the perpetrator. By the time that sentence has been served, most children are likely to be over the age of 18, so I see no reason not to say that the perpetrator’s parental rights should be taken away at conviction and never restored, unless there is a specific and significant reason to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister can work out what “specific and significant” might mean—we will leave that up to the law writers. Should the children decide upon reaching adulthood that they want to have contact with the perpetrator, that of course remains their right, because there will no longer be an element of control over their lives.
The families of victims have suffered enough; there is no reason to prolong their suffering. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) said about some of the potential pitfalls that may occur in cases such as these. This is one of those instances where unintended consequences can have wide-ranging implications. We need to keep in mind that the best interests of the children are paramount every time. That said, I believe the change proposed is a simple one, steeped in common sense, that could be made through a relatively short Bill, and I implore the Minister to make it happen with all due speed.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I thank Edwin Duggan for creating the petition and the 130,000 people who signed it. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for moving the motion, and the Petitions Committee for scheduling this debate on an incredibly important issue, about which Members have spoken so movingly.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) talked about the re-victimisation of the families. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) talked about the current system failing children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the brilliant work of Children Heard and Seen, which is based in her constituency. Every Member across the House has spoken about parental responsibility being used as a form of control and a continuation of abusive behaviour, and about the weaponisation of children.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke beautifully about his constituent Jade Ward, and how she dedicated her life to her four sons. He also comprehensively set out the legal framework that underpins Jade’s law. As we have heard, at just 27 years old, Jade was stabbed and strangled to death in her home by her former partner as their children slept. When Jade’s murderer was given a life sentence in April, the judge described the attack as “merciless”. Like my right hon. Friend, I have met Jade’s mother Karen and her father Paul. They are devastated by the loss of their daughter, and their grief is without end, as it is with all murders. A close and loving family, they are determined to give Jade’s four boys the best life that they can, but they are held back in this because Jade’s murderer remains present in their lives through his parental responsibility to the children, even though he is in prison for their mother’s murder.
There can be few things worse for a child than to lose their mother to violence, but that trauma can only be magnified when the person who robbed them of their mother is their own father. While we have no official figures on how many children lose their mothers in this way, we do know that two women are killed by their partners or former partners each week. That is a tragedy, but these deaths are not random; they are not accidents or an uncharacteristic loss of control by a perpetrator. All too often, they are targeted killings taking place in the context of domestic abuse. Indeed, the most common time for a woman to be murdered by a partner is when she tries to leave, usually after years—sometimes decades—of coercive control and physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse. The act of murder is the abuser’s way of taking back control once the woman has attempted to break free, but it is not always the end of the abuse.
In cases where there are dependent children and the perpetrator has parental responsibility by virtue of being married to the mother or having signed a child’s birth certificate, his rights towards the child remain. Even a life sentence does not put an end to the offender’s parental responsibility. As we have heard, that means he has a say in where those children go to school or if they need medical treatment, or if their carers—often kinship carers—can take them abroad. This offers the perpetrator another means of control through which they can continue their abuse.
In especially harrowing cases, fathers have been able to block maternal family members from gaining residency with the children, with the children sometimes ending up in foster care instead. The fact that, once acquired, a murderer’s parental responsibility cannot be suspended without protracted legal battles is an injustice. What greater dereliction of duty towards a child can there be than to rob them of their mother and burden them with a lifetime of trauma?
The House will recall that every year, on International Women’s Day, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reads out the names of the women killed by men during the last year. It is perverse that in some of those cases, having removed the mother’s right to life and the right to bring up their children, the father’s parental rights are not automatically suspended.
What about the rights of the children? Many will have witnessed violence and sometimes the murder itself, but at present they must be raised knowing that the perpetrator retains knowledge of and access to their lives. For some that results in fear that they may themselves be in danger, and for others it results in decisions being made not in their best interests, but to deprive them of opportunities out of sheer spite. Children Heard and Seen, a charity that supports children impacted by parental imprisonment, reports that the continuation of their father retaining rights over them is a significant traumatising factor in those children’s lives.
For the families of the deceased, the instinct to protect the children from the person who devastated their family is strong, but so is the feeling of despair that they cannot keep that person from doing further harm. Jade’s law would change that. It would reverse the situation in which the onus is on the victim’s family to prove, through protracted legal proceedings, why the perpetrator’s parental responsibility should be revoked. Instead, parental responsibility would be automatically suspended and the onus placed on the killer to go through the legal hoops to prove that they deserved that responsibility.
Let me be clear: this is not about punishing perpetrators. The criminal courts take responsibility for that. It is about doing what is right for the children left behind, safeguarding their rights, protecting them from further abuse, and trying to give them the best possible means to thrive.
As Jade’s parents have said, they want to stop another family going through what they have been through. I pay tribute to them for their tireless campaigning efforts and for getting this issue as far as they have. Jade’s law is a simple solution that would end the current injustice, and I am proud that a Labour Government would put Jade’s law on to the statute book. Nothing can make up for the loss of Jade, but we can make sure she did not die in vain. We can make this change and ensure that the rights of children and of victims’ families are valued over those of the abuser. I hope that we have the Government’s attention today and that the Minister will also commit to making this change.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for his work, and to the Petitions Committee for securing the opportunity for us to debate this very important subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to refer to him almost as a conduit for the work that has been done by Jade’s family and by Mr Duggan, who I pay tribute to for his campaigning work on this hugely upsetting and challenging issue. I think it was the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) who highlighted that the petition has attracted signatures from every constituency across the country. I do not know if that is unique, but it is a pretty high bar to pass. There were over 100 signatures from my constituency in rural north Leicestershire. That reflects the impact that the issue has had across the country, and the strength of feeling among people from all walks of life. I offer my most sincere condolences to Jade’s family on the loss of their daughter and mother, and to her friends on the loss of a friend, in such horrific circumstances, at the hands of someone whose name I—like the hon. Gentleman—do not propose to use.
The thoughts of everyone in this Chamber will remain with Jade’s family. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside did something quite extraordinary: he managed to articulate the circumstances, their impact, and the feelings of Jade’s family in an incredibly moving and clear way; I am sure I could not have done it. That does not happen as often as it should in this place, especially in the main Chamber, but in this Chamber we sometimes adopt a more measured tone that does more justice to the subjects that we discuss. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—this is not about party politics—are extremely lucky to have such a dedicated and caring Member of Parliament representing their interests.
I stand here with mixed emotions. In one sense, it is a pleasure to be back in this Department. For almost a year and half, between 2018 and 2019, I was the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for victims and witnesses. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) in her role at the Home Office to commission the rape review, bring forward a victim strategy, get rid of the “same roof” rule for compensation, and look at the victims code. We worked closely with victims of violence, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, and coercive and controlling relationships.
Rob Roberts
I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is about to give us a reason why he is not able to commit to legislation, so I thought I would intervene to give him a few more seconds to reconsider, and to think of extra ways in which he might squeeze this change into a bit of legislation.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to gently nudge me. When I held my former brief, working cross-party, I saw the lengths that people will go to in their attempts to manipulate, coerce and control, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), highlighted. Even when a victim or their family are told that they are physically safe because the perpetrator is in prison, that does not address the challenges that they face in feeling psychologically safe. I think the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that children are victims too. Those who witness these events, and those who may not have witnessed them but who live with the consequences, are also victims of the crime.
Mark Tami
I thank the Minister for his kind comments. Does he agree that in an abusive relationship, victims often start with the perception that the perpetrator really loves and cares for them, and that that is why they have that controlling behaviour? They tell them, “I really care for you, so I need to monitor your mobile phone. I need to know exactly where you are going.” That turns into an abusive relationship. We have all known about relationships that we worry are not on an even keel. This is one of the most tragic cases that I have come across, but there are many other cases out there. This abuse is still there, is still prevalent and, in the worst cases, can lead to what we have seen.
Edward Argar
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the nature of coercive and controlling behaviour, and of domestic abuse and violence. As he says, we are dealing with highly manipulative people who, in some cases, will seek to make the victim feel as if they bear responsibility. Of course, in no way do they; the only responsibility rests with the perpetrator. He is absolutely right to highlight that point.
The legal issue that we are debating falls under the ministerial responsibilities of my colleague the noble Lord Bellamy KC, who covers matters such as family law, but it is important that I respond to this debate, not just because he is in the other place, but because there is clearly read-across to my responsibility as victims Minister.
The issue of parental responsibility is fundamentally important. It can shape the development of and relationship with a child. As the right hon. Gentleman and others highlighted, under by the Children Act 1989, “parental responsibility” refers to all the rights, duties, and responsibilities of parents or carers towards their children. That includes deciding where the child should go to school, live and go on holiday. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) said, the Act starts from a presumption that the child’s welfare and interests are paramount, and, to a degree, from the assumption that a child’s being with their parents, or that there is parental contact and responsibility, is the preferred approach.
As hon. Members have highlighted, legally, mothers and fathers automatically have parental responsibility. Courts can make orders to restrict their parental responsibility where that is in the child’s best interests, and depending on the circumstances, but it cannot be simply removed. I do not propose to reiterate at length the legal context, which the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside set out very clearly.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ arguments for changing the law so that that a parent convicted of the murder of the other parent has their parental responsibility automatically suspended during the period of their imprisonment. There is no doubt that, legally and emotionally, this is a complex and challenging topic, and I sympathise with the view that more should be done to ensure that the courts can better support bereaved families in such circumstances. I hasten to add that today is only my 11th day back in the Ministry of Justice, but I have reservations, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham alluded to, about whether an automatic suspension—the reversal that the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside talked about—is necessarily the best way of achieving the outcomes sought, given the legal context of the Children’s Act. I will unpick that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Bristol East and I may not have the same political perspective on everything, but throughout my time in this House, her contributions have always been thoughtful and considered, as were her remarks today. I will look up Children Heard and Seen, but I would be grateful if she sent me anything that she wanted to about that charity. In a previous role at the Ministry of Justice, I was responsible for pushing through the female offender strategy, which sought to reduce the use of prison when people—particularly mothers—were given short sentences for minor offences. There is cross-over with the work I am currently doing, so I would be grateful for anything she could share with me.
Kerry McCarthy
I am happy to do that, and I can give the Minister details of meetings we have had with Children Heard and Seen, attended by the previous children’s Minister and the previous prisons Minister. I agree with what the Minister just said, but he touches on something that Children Heard and Seen rail against. Quite a lot of work has been done, including by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my predecessor, Baroness Corston, to try to ensure that women, particularly those with young children, are less likely to be imprisoned, but that, again, is prisoner-focused. The difference between that and Children Heard and Seen is that the latter is not about the prisoner. It is about the children and putting them first, so there is a slight difference.
Edward Argar
The context for what I said was this: the presumption behind the strategy was that the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration. I am going down the rabbit hole slightly here, but previously, a number of mothers would be sentenced for what would be deemed relatively minor offences—offences in which there was no violence against the person or similar. That would happen in circumstances where the mother had a functioning relationship with their child that was at risk of being broken. We sought to provide a little bit more discretion around that, to understand where it was a functioning relationship, and where it might work more effectively. Over the years, the tool that was being used had become blunt.
The hon. Lady asked how many children have a parent in prison. I do not know how many of my predecessors she has had this conversation with, but I will endeavour to find that data, because it would add to the debate.
Edward Argar
I will make a little progress, and then I will come to my hon. Friend. The Children Act 1989, as hon. Members will know, starts from the presumption that the child’s welfare—the interests of the child—are paramount. Courts consider that when making decisions.
There are various safeguards already in place to protect children, and they have been set out by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. They include the duties of local authorities, and the private law orders available to family members in such circumstances, as well as mechanisms that courts can employ to restrict parental responsibility and prevent repeated and unreasonable court applications, or applications that pose a risk of harm. Courts have discretion, through the permissions hearing, to restrict the ability of a perpetrator—a convicted offender—to use the court process in a vexatious way. Finally, I will set out what more can be done to support families in such tragic cases, and the actions that the Government have taken so far.
Sarah Atherton
Going back to the female offender strategy that the Minister mentioned, I understand that there will be a pilot unit in Wales—a residential women’s centre. I have been a strong advocate of ensuring that there is some sort of families unit there, so that as women progress towards the end of a sentence, they can be reintroduced to their family and learn parenting skills, and there is a seamless transition to living in the community when they are released. Will the Minister drop me a line on what is happening with the children’s unit? I do not know whether he knows the answer now; if he does, that is great.
Edward Argar
I will answer briefly to avoid straying too far from the premise of the debate. Although I am no longer responsible for the female offender strategy, I will certainly ensure that the Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation is made aware of my hon. Friend’s point.
As the hon. Member for Bristol East said, we must look at the issues case by case; there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Each case is different. That is one of the reasons why there are reservations about having an automatic presumption, rather than letting the courts consider each case. It is important to note that under the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child, rather than the views or interests of any adult, is the uppermost consideration in cases that come before the court.
In determining a child’s welfare needs, the court will have regard to the factors set out in the welfare checklist in the Children Act, including the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, the impact on the child of any change in circumstances, any harm that they have suffered or are at risk of suffering, and how capable an individual with parental responsibility is of genuinely meeting that child’s needs and best interests.
In tragic cases such as Jade’s, where one parent has been convicted of murdering the other, the responsible local authority has a duty to protect the child and ensure that they are safeguarded from harm. That may include initiating care proceedings to provide the child with a permanent or interim care arrangement. Such arrangements, as has been set out, can include family members such as grandparents being granted parental responsibility for the child, for example through the granting of a special guardianship order by the court.
The process needs the involvement of the court. Under the principles of the Children Act, and also under our law’s underpinning principles, only a court can restrict or change parental rights. When it is in the child’s best interests, and appropriate given the circumstances of the case, there are mechanisms whereby the court can restrict the parental responsibility of a parent, but that must be done through the court.
Rob Roberts
The Minister is being very generous with his time. On that point, he will know better than I do whether there is any mechanism to ask, for example, a bunch of family court judges or High Court judges whether they would be in favour of making the suspension of parental responsibility apply automatically. That would mean that if they hand down a conviction for the murder of another parent, it would automatically form part of the sentence. Could we ask judges that and see what their opinion is, or is that not something that we do?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is kind to presume that I am as expert 11 days in as I was when I had held this brief for many years, but there is a fair amount that I have kept close to. It is challenging. We must recognise the independence of our judiciary and the very clear delineation between judiciary and politics, but we routinely seek the views and advice of the judiciary. In a moment, I will turn to something that we may be able to do in this space.
Mark Tami
That sounds all well and good, but it ignores the reality of where we are and what the family have been through. They have suffered the loss of their daughter in horrific circumstances; we have not gone into the detail today. Asking them effectively to go through that again to get something that they rightly, in my view, assumed would be the case anyway puts a hell of a strain on them. In many cases, people might decide not to go down that road, because they cannot put themselves and their family through it.
Edward Argar
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that. I would find it difficult to articulate as eloquently as he did not only how horrific the original events were but how horrific the possibility of reliving them, in a sense, by having to go through a court process, is. It may disappoint him, but I will seek to move things forward a little later in my remarks. We come back to that point in the Children Act 1989: the presumption of the role of the court. There will always be an element of that court process necessary under the presumptions that were built into that groundbreaking piece of legislation.
I also highlight that, as I mentioned, under section 91(14) of the Act the court can prevent a parent from bringing or making applications to the court without the court’s prior permission, in particular where their doing so may cause harm or distress to the children or other parties involved in the case. That may not entirely remove the problem, but it gives the courts a route to prevent the vexatious use of the legal process to try to re-traumatise or re-victimise a family. Judges would consider that, and would have the power to prevent such an application where multiple applications were being used to cause harm and upset.
As I said, I have heard the calls today to change the law so that a parent convicted of murdering the other parent would have their parental responsibility automatically suspended during imprisonment. I think the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside characterised it as essentially a reversal of the presumption in this case. I have to say I am truly sympathetic, particularly given the case at hand. I cannot imagine anyone not being so, having heard the right hon. Gentleman and being aware of the circumstances of the case. However, the courts have mechanisms both to make orders to give parental responsibility to family members and to restrict it significantly in appropriate cases, but always through the prism of their interpretation of the child’s welfare and best interests. Every family is different, as is each set of circumstances that families find themselves in. Our view is that it is important that courts continue to have the flexibility that the Children Act gives them to make decisions that are tailored to the unique life of every child.
The legal challenge to the concept of automatic suspension is that it risks not aligning with the existing principles underpinning that key piece of legislation—the 1989 Act—and the way it works. There is a genuine risk that if we set up a mechanism to suspend parental responsibility automatically in certain circumstances, without affording the court the opportunity to hear all the arguments or evidence in the case, that would undermine the fundamentals of the framework in the Act. I recognise that in situations where one parent is convicted of the murder of the other, the process of obtaining the legal redress and the orders that I have set out today can be time-consuming, and that making or responding to court applications and attending multiple court hearings on related issues can be psychologically horrendous for those involved and can re-traumatise people who are just beginning to rebuild their lives.
I therefore want to outline an offer: two measures that the Government are taking to improve matters for families in such circumstances. I fear I may not go as far as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside might wish, but I hope it might be a further step forward. I know him to be a reasonable man, so he may, without prejudice and without in any way resiling from his clear view on what needs to be done, take up the offer of these measures—I suspect and hope he will.
First, the right hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue about cost and he will be aware that on 17 October we laid before the House secondary legislation to expand the scope of legal aid to applications for special guardianship orders. That means that when a private individual such as a family member wishes to become a special guardian, they can receive legal aid advice and representation to help. A successful application to be a special guardian will result in that individual having parental responsibility for a child or children.
Secondly, having heard the arguments made today and having read and carefully reflected on the petition and my predecessor’s response to it, I will ask the family procedure rule committee to consider what opportunities there will be for procedures to be expedited or otherwise adjusted so that, in circumstances such as these, applications for special guardianship or other orders as well as applications to restrict parental responsibility can be made with as few procedural burdens, and as swiftly, as possible. It will be for the rule committee to consider that request, but it is a request that we will make. That would have the benefit of maintaining the Children Act and existing legal mechanisms and principles for courts to assess matters on a case-by-case basis, tailored to the child, but it would, I hope, reduce the trauma and burden that those processes can place on people.
In short, we believe that it is right to limit the parental responsibility of those who hold it if that is deemed to be for the welfare and in the best interests of the child, and that it is right that that power is exercised by the courts and that they have the powers at their disposal to make these orders. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside for securing it. I suspect he has spoken to many Ministers, but I will consider very carefully the points that have been made. If he wishes to take me up on my offer, I will meet him and Lord Bellamy, who is the lead for family law in the Department. If he will allow me to join that meeting, as the victims Minister, I would be happy to further discuss the points that have been raised this afternoon and how we can best deliver on our commitment to safeguard children while ensuring that their best interests remain the utmost priority.
Mark Tami
I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), and my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) for their contributions. It has been a good debate and we have addressed a lot of the issues.
Clearly, I would have liked the Minister to say, “Yes, we will do this straightaway,” but I recognise that these things never quite happen in that way. I will certainly take him up on his kind offer of a meeting, and I hope we can move forward.
I certainly welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge, who said that a future Labour Government would introduce this change. I hope we can do so before that, because I do not see this as a political issue. The vast majority of people in this House and the vast majority of people out there believe change is needed now. I once again thank Jade’s family and Edwin for all the work they have done to bring this issue to the House today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 614893, relating to suspension of parental responsibility for people convicted of serious offences.
Written Statements
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stock of UK Government bonds (gilts) and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the Asset Purchase Facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities.
On 28 September 2022, in line with the Bank’s financial stability objective, the APF carried out purchases of long-dated gilts to restore orderly market conditions. This was then expanded on 11 October to include index-linked gilts. As noted in the written ministerial statement of 12 October 2022[1] the authorised total size of the APF was increased from £866 billion to £966 billion at the time to allow for a time-limited intervention.
Total gilt purchases under this financial stability operation reached £19.3 billion when the daily auctions ended as planned on 14 October. I have therefore agreed to reduce the authorised maximum size of the APF from £966 billion, as was agreed on 28 September 2022, to £886 billion. This reduction reflects the unused portion of the recent £100 billion financial stability related APF expansion.
The Governor and I will continue to jointly agree the authorised maximum size of monetary policy related asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces, to reflect the size of the portfolio. This month a further reduction in the authorised maximum size of the APF will be agreed in relation to the ongoing unwind of assets acquired for monetary policy purposes.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund (BEAPFF), from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. If the liability is called, 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.
[1] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-10-12/hcws319
[HCWS359]
Arts Council England 2023-2026 Investment Programme: Announcement of National Portfolio Organisation
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)
Further to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on 23 February 2022, I would like to update the House on Arts Council England’s 2023-2026 investment programme. The provisional outcome of this competitive funding round has been communicated to applicants, and will see 990 national portfolio organisations and investment principles support organisations offered £446 million per annum in funding over the next three years.
These provisional offers fulfil the ambitious and challenging targets set for Arts Council England by my predecessor. Specifically—including national lottery funding—these offers would see nearly an extra £45 million in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25 invested outside of London, rising to nearly £53 million extra in 2025-26. This will result in 215 new organisations being funded outside of London—a net increase of 135 organisations. This extra investment outside London is supported largely by the overall uplifts agreed by the Government at the comprehensive spending review, and Arts Council England decisions about its use of national lottery funding.
DCMS worked with Arts Council England to agree on a list of 109 levelling up for culture places, which are areas identified as having historically low cultural engagement. The provisional funding offers that have been announced will increase the number of funded organisations in levelling up for culture places by 79%—from 107 to 192 organisations—and will increase the level of investment in levelling up for culture places by 95%, or £21.2 million per annum. This funding will play a vital role in fulfilling the Government’s intention to tackle cultural disparities, and ensure that everyone, wherever they live, has the opportunity to enjoy the incredible benefits of culture in their lives.
Funding agreements will be finalised over the next few months, so are subject to change, but alongside the levelling-up progress that has been made, I would like to highlight the following:
10% of all library services in England are now national portfolio organisations;
20% more organisations will be funded to deliver work for children and young people, with a total of 79% of the portfolio delivering activity specifically for children and young people, up by six percentage points from the 2018-2022 portfolio;
Improved diversity on boards;
Overall more days of cultural activity provided.
Finally, it should be noted that these are preliminary decisions which will be negotiated further with organisations. Arts Council England will need to work closely with organisations to review the aims previously submitted in their applications for this programme to ensure they are still achievable in the current economic context. In particular, my predecessor asked all organisations receiving more than £2 million per annum to work to increase their outreach to levelling up for culture places by 15% as a cohort. Given the economic challenges, this target will not apply for this funding round, noting the considerable outreach work these organisations are already doing.
Arts Council England will also support organisations leaving the portfolio by providing transition funding, and I am glad to inform the House that it has been able to more than double the budget for this. This means that any organisation currently in the portfolio, but due to leave, will have the opportunity to apply for funding to support them until next October while they adjust to their changed income.
I am sure Members across the House will be interested to see the outcomes in their local area, and I would direct them to the Arts Council website where all the provisional offers are listed.
[HCWS357]
Just Energy Transition Guarantee: South Africa
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the statement, except in cases of special urgency.
I have today laid a departmental minute outlining details of a new liability being undertaken by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to support South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). This guarantee will reduce the impact of climate change and support an important legacy of the UK’s COP presidency, the Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa. The $1billion guarantee facility will support projects in South Africa’s JETP investment plan, which has been drafted by the South African Government with the input of international partners—the United States, the UK, the European Union, France and Germany. The investment plan sets out areas for investment in renewable energy, hydrogen, electric vehicles and the coal mining region.
An announcement on the South Africa Just Energy Transition Partnership is expected to be made at COP27, which is between 6 and 18 November 2022. Any announcement on this UK guarantee will note that the guarantee is subject to the parliamentary notification process being completed. The Public Accounts Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Development Committee have been notified of this.
FCDO Ministers and HM Treasury have approved this guarantee proposal. If, during the next 14 parliamentary sitting days, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS358]
Second Reading Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is on his feet in the Chamber. We will start the Committee as soon as he gets here.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the Bill be considered, I remind noble Lords that the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the Bill. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motion to give the Bill a Second Reading will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way, with the expectation that it will be taken formally.
Electronic Trade Documents Bill [HL]
Monday 7th November 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 View all Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Committee’s understanding. I have just finished answering a Private Notice Question in the Chamber.
The Bill allows for the use in electronic form of certain trade documents, such as bills of lading and bills of exchange, which currently have to be on paper and physically possessed. It implements the recommendations made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in its report on electronic trade documents, which was published earlier this year. The Bill is not mandatory: it is a permissive and facilitative piece of legislation. Though it is only a small Bill, of seven clauses in length, its impact will be huge. It will help to boost the UK’s international trade, already worth more than £1.4 trillion, by providing benefits to UK businesses over the next 10 years of £1.1 billion.
In short, the Bill will allow businesses to use electronic trade documents when buying and selling internationally, making it easier, cheaper, faster and more secure for them to trade. It is fully supported by the businesses and industries that it is designed to help. The Government’s role here is simply to remove an obstacle to progress and to pave the way for international trade and trade law to be brought up to date.
The Law Commission published its recommendations and draft legislation in March this year. In its report, it made recommendations for legislative reform to allow trade documents in electronic form which can satisfy certain criteria to have the same legal effect and functionality as their paper counterparts. The Law Commission undertook significant consultation on the aim and contents of the Bill throughout the development of its recommendations. It spoke to a wide range of interested parties, including academics, lawyers, trade experts and industry representatives.
No previous attempts have been made to legislate in this area, which is one of the factors that makes this Bill unique and novel. While the Law Commission’s recommendations are for the law of England and Wales, we have worked with the territorial offices and devolved Administrations to ensure that the Bill can be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that businesses across the UK can benefit from this important development.
Business-to-business documents such as bills of lading, which are contracts between parties involved in shipping goods, and bills of exchange, which are used to help importers and exporters complete transactions, currently have to be paper-based. Existing laws, such as the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, did not envisage the digitisation of these documents. This Bill seeks to modernise the law, enabling this move to digital trade documents. Under the Bill, digital trade documents will be put on the same legal footing as their paper-based equivalents, giving UK businesses more choice and flexibility in how they trade.
The impact of the Bill cannot be overstated. Whether it is lowering transaction costs associated with trade by reducing resourcing and operational costs and increasing productivity; whether it is increasing efficiency and encouraging business growth by facilitating the development of digital products and services; whether it is delivering environmental benefits through a reduction in paper documents and emissions from couriering the paper documents; or, critically, whether it is increasing the security, transparency, traceability and transactional data of the flows of goods and finance—the Bill has the potential to revolutionise UK businesses’ ability to trade across borders.
To illustrate this, the process of moving goods across borders involves a range of actors, including those involved in transportation, insurance, finance and logistics. One trade finance transaction typically involves 20 different parties using between 10 and 20 paper documents, totalling over 100 pages. Research carried out by industry and academia has produced the following illuminating statistics and figures.
The use of electronic trade documents will reduce trade contract processing times from between seven and 10 days to as little as 20 seconds, according to the industry publication Trade Finance Global. The Digital Container Shipping Association estimates that, if 50% of the container shipping industry adopted electronic bills of lading, the collective global savings would be around £3.6 billion per annum. The International Chamber of Commerce estimates that small and medium businesses could see a 13% increase in international business if trade is digitised, and the World Economic Forum has found that digitising trade documents could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions from logistics by as much as 12%. Electronic trade documents also increase security and compliance by making it easier to trace records.
The Bill will lay the foundations for the future digitisation of our global trade approach and ambitions. I hope it receives strong support from your Lordships and I look forward to noble Lords’ contributions to this debate. I beg to move.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister intimated that this is a milestone, innovative Bill, so with the leave of the Committee I intend to follow that theme and be equally innovative.
One of the essential ingredients to make progress with the global trading community is to combine innovation, build efficiency and create sustainability and to do so by joining the dots—putting the jigsaw into place, if you will. Currently there are different excellent components that could usefully be harnessed into a unified approach, rather than being taken in isolation. Over the past months, I have been reflecting on a possible global trade blueprint and will take the extended opportunity afforded today to put into context three ingredients that could dovetail with the Electronic Trade Documents Bill, which would be a key component. However, none is dependent on any other.
The first lends itself well, as the Commonwealth is fertile ground given the commonality of common law and language, which is the bedrock of this Electronic Trade Documents Bill. It is a free trade agreement template initially targeting Commonwealth member states, excluding the two that are members of the EU as they are responsible to internal protocols, that can be adjusted by country to address any specific anomalies. I was originally approached some time back by a well-meaning US interest to stitch together a US/Commonwealth agreement, including the UK, of course, that would unlock the UK/US circumstance, given that the bilateral free trade agreement is moribund. This Commonwealth approach would consist of making a template of what is expected to be covered in a trade agreement with language options built in. To fast forward to the week before last, I was delighted to learn at first hand that our very own noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who is not in his place, is also running with this ball with his Institute for Free Trade, in a most welcome development.
The second is a dedicated, big-data analytics platform to encompass advanced data analytics and modelling for foreign trade data relating to supply chains in order to consolidate multiple datasets already used by the International Trade Council. These datasets, with additional overlays into a single database, could be used for analysis of markets and supply chains, forecasting and predicting market behaviour. This would enable corporates to validate their supply chains, understand market pricing, monitor competitors and forecast the market and would allow Governments seeking to assist their exporters to find new markets, identify priority investment FDI targets and model future market demand, growth, customers and suppliers. A UK entity is in the making to transition this data for global consumption.
Thirdly, and this brings me full cycle to the Electronic Trade Documents Bill, the magic is that it is all the more beneficial for being an enabler process, free for the world to join up to—just follow the provisions. If the answer to today’s ails is in the timing, this initiative hits the spot with the legal enactment necessary to a more competitive world to the benefit of all. Passing this law would be a victory for global trade and for the United Nations, as the legislative work is led through the UN Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records—MLETR. By allowing electronic documents and physical documents to be used in parallel, the transition to paperless trade can be made an evolutionary process where the adoption of electronic trade documents will take place when different stakeholders in trade and trade finance are ready to take the step to paperless trade.
Radical change in removing paper-based trading documents will make for a faster, lower-cost, more resilient and more liquid world of trading, leading towards transparent digital supply chain management. It will be especially good for small businesses. While all problems cannot be solved at once, recognising a practical step-by-step approach to solve one would be an excellent beginning.
The Bill is core to the success of improving logistical flow that will address the impediment to the speed of payments, and the current need to move paper to discharge goods and receive payments, bringing more opportunities as we align with the MLETR and benefit from digital trade corridors and individual country compliance, to which I have referred. This will allow for documents that carry value and promises to be drawn up and signed in digital form, provided that the system or document fulfils the listed requirements of the Bill.
A number of trade documents with which domestic and cross-border trade would become significantly more efficient and affordable for all are listed, but small and medium-sized entities would benefit the most. This will create significant opportunities for smaller importers and exporters globally, one reason being that the law of England and Wales is often used when parties have difficulties agreeing on the jurisdiction in which to settle disputes.
Therefore, the Bill brings benefits not only for the United Kingdom but for importers, exporters, carriers, brokers and bankers internationally. It should be recognised that the Bill is a stepping-stone towards enabling the modernisation of domestic and international trade, but more needs to be done to reduce friction in trade and trade finance.
Four questions come to mind which illustrate this and I would be grateful for the Government’s view. Are they satisfied that: international digital identities are sufficiently harmonised; international digital signatory laws are harmonised; international freight tracking systems with a lack of interoperability are a hurdle that needs to be overcome; and legal entity identifiers are accepted universally?
Significant work is being done and progress is being made in these areas by industry organisations but this needs to be supported by Governments to pave the way for international harmonisation and adoption. It will be a balancing act to create international standards in such a way that creates legal certainty on the one hand without hampering further adoption of new technologies or innovation on the other.
The United Nations Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records is a very well-designed framework, balancing the need for commercial certainty, relying on current and internationally well-harmonised substantive laws, with allowing for electronic trade documents, providing that the provisions in the MLETR are met.
The Bill will play a pivotal role when other countries revise their bills of exchange acts and other trade-related legislation when promoting alignment to the MLETR. I anticipate that this will become a global trend, with law changes already taking place in North America, South America, the Middle East, Asia and Europe.
The Bill does not change the function of the instruments listed in the Bill. All the safety mechanisms these instruments have and cater for remain intact. Allowing them to be in electronic format means that they will become more efficient and significantly safer. I underline, however, that the Bill does not address the quality of signatures or how to establish identities, other than to say that they need to be “reliable”. The European Union has a list of trusted digital signature sites and for trade it is important that different parties can use simple verification processes to trust the documents coming from another party, but it is up to the contracting parties to define the method to ensure reliability.
What is reliable today, however, will differ tomorrow as new technology evolves. Legislation that is principles-based rather than technically prescriptive is more favourable. The adoption of the EU regulation for eID and other electronic trust services has been slow in cross-border trade, the main reason being that these have not been readily available and easily accessible as technical solutions. The result has been paper-based trade rather than electronic. Although not perfect, in some cases a lower standard is the stepping-stone for adoption, especially in cross-border dealings, provided that the parties have agreed on where to settle disputes.
The Bill does not resolve the development and standardisation of eID and signature technologies, however, which must continue to evolve. We will also see new payment and settlement solutions, possibly decentralised, as we realise that large players such as MasterCard and Visa will come to have a large degree of global systemic risks associated.
The Bill will help to encourage the development of solutions that will address deficiencies. To take some examples to illustrate progress, Trace:Original, a product of Enigio of Sweden, is producing the means by which electronic documents that will be trade finance-enabled yet functionally equivalent to a paper document, which will render documents paperless using existing processes and international practices, provided that this Electronic Trade Documents Bill passes. I am informed that Lloyds Bank is showcasing the technology available and that the efficiency gains are significant for all concerned. There is also noteworthy development with Contained’s BlueRing platform as a technology solution advancing the process.
It is essential that there be a key role for the Commonwealth Secretariat in informing and encouraging Governments. We should also look at a mix of the Institute of Export and International Trade—with which I am also discussing the role of secretariat to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Trade and Investment, which I co-chair—with additional support from the International Chamber of Commerce, as an architect of this Bill, together with a secondee of HMRC of this electronic trade initiative. A trade advisory to Governments, International Economics, might also be well suited to act as a global co-ordinator.
These are early days, with much to do and no time to lose. This enabling Bill is, however, the beginning of an exciting journey that ticks the boxes and I commend it accordingly.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. He is, as he mentioned, co-chair of the all-party group for trade and export promotion, of which I am a member—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Indeed—I am a vice-chair. I thought the noble Viscount made some interesting points, and I very much join him in welcoming the Bill.
Sometimes, we are wont to criticise Bills that are in the form of a framework but, in this instance, there is an understandable structure here from the Law Commission. In the adoption of electronic trade documents, it encountered the legal constraint of the possession of electronic trade documents as a common-law principle and, rather than try to codify and put into statute everything relating to the common law in this respect, it said, “Let us at least try to equate electronic trade documents to paper documents in statute.” This will allow us to see how some of the courts’ decisions over time enable those established principles in relation to paper documents to be extended into electronic trade documents, which would be very helpful.
We are, therefore, dealing with a Bill that is technology neutral. I know that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond knows far more about the technology of these things than I do; I hope he will agree that a technology-neutral Bill is a good structure for us to work with.
I want to talk about a number of other things. I am a member of the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House and we have had the opportunity to look at some of the agreements that we are now entering into; for example, on digital trade with Singapore and the free trade agreements that we have entered into with Australia and New Zealand, as well as the prospect of entering the CPTPP agreement, which, in the context of regional, international and plurilateral agreements, is probably the most advanced in its promotion of digital trade. There is no point having such agreements that open these opportunities for digital trade if we do not put the literal building blocks of digital trade in place.
Last October, the G7 group of Trade Ministers agreed digital trade principles. I think the United Kingdom was instrumental in enabling that to be brought together; it is therefore terrific that we are implementing it rapidly in our legislation. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, I hope other countries will take similar steps to put their jurisdictions into a similar framework. I hope we will look toward the framework of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, to which the noble Viscount referred. The more that jurisdictions across the globe can structure their legislation domestically on an international template of that kind, the better.
We have a particular responsibility because, for so many of these international trade documents, in so far as they have a legal base, they have it in English law. I am advised that 80% of bills of lading, if they were challenged, would be challenged in an English court. We really need to make sure that our law is a leader in this respect. I hope we will find that during our work on this Bill.
I entirely applaud the Bill’s overall structure and intentions. My noble friend the Minister very well and happily set out all the substantial benefits that can accrue from this, in trade, economic and environmental terms. I very much look forward to our achieving those. However, there are issues we need to discuss, notwithstanding this being a Law Commission Bill; by its nature, we need to examine it—it is our job as a revising Chamber to look at it very carefully and ask all the questions, not least so that the other place can be confident that it can pass it happily and quickly.
I will refer to a range of issues. Underlying this is the fact that, if we are not trying to structure the legislation around the concept of the possession of electronic trade documents, we are none the less trying to adopt what is referred to as exclusive control in the singularity of electronic trade documents. It is difficult. The explanatory notes to the model law in UNCITRAL captured it rather well at paragraph 82, which says that
“a paper document, as a physical object, is by nature unique and, furthermore, centuries of use of paper in business transactions have provided sufficient information to commercial operators for an assessment of the risks associated with the use of that medium, while practices relating to the use of electronic transferable records are not yet equally well established.”
We need to be sure that we understand where the risks emerge. There are potential benefits associated with the use of electronic documents, as my noble friend will doubtless explain, including those in security and reliability, but there are also risks.
I hope the House will establish a Public Bill Committee to examine this Bill so, before I stop, I will raise a number of issues. I do not ask my noble friend to reply to them in this debate; they are more appropriate for the committee, but I thought it would not hurt to flag them up, simply because in my preparation for today I encountered a number of issues that I thought would be interesting to discuss.
First, there is a reference in Article 13 of the model law under UNCITRAL to time. Provisions relating to the indication of time and place are found in many trade documents; there may well be mechanisms through which we can make the time of documents electronically secure, but not necessarily in the same way as we do with paper documents. This concept of “reliability” will have to be extended to time on documents as well as to other factors. Since Article 12 of the model law is transposed almost literally into this Bill, for example, I wondered why we have not transposed one or two other aspects of it in the same way.
Secondly, on the question of acting jointly, when one is dealing with paper documents, one knows who has possession of them. In the context of electronic documents, not least because of some of the technological aspects, such as the number of people who have access to a private key, we may deal with people who have to act jointly in circumstances that would not be evident for paper documents. We need to understand the safeguards associated with the intentions of people acting jointly, because the Bill rests upon that understanding and how it will be achieved.
Thirdly, there is a whole process in Clause 4 by which documents can be transferred from paper to electronic or electronic to paper forms. The Bill is clear that this has to be in circumstances made evident in the respective documents. However, if I recall the Explanatory Notes correctly, it is clear that, while that should be the case, if it is not, it does not automatically follow that the electronic trade document concerned is not valid. It may still meet the criteria to be a valid document for these purposes. I would like to explore in Committee how that is the case and what happens in circumstances where documents are transferred from one form to another, not least because there is greater risk of duplication in such a case.
Clause 1(2) lists examples of documents. This is not the same as the list in the model law. I know that this is not exhaustive—it is indicative—but I do not understand why, in paragraph 38 of the explanatory notes to the UNCITRAL model law, for example, there is a reference to
“bills of exchange; cheques; promissory notes; consignment notes; bills of lading; warehouse receipts; insurance certificates; and air waybills.”
This is not the same as the list in the Bill. Why is it different and what are the justifications for those differences?
A question we need to follow up and explore further in the debate is the intention of the Law Commission. It says it is going to come on to the interaction between these changes and private international law, but we need to think particularly about the transitional issues—I hope they are only transitional—associated with our jurisdiction creating valid electronic trade documents when other jurisdictions do not. How do we deal with those connections? From our point of view, similar to the discussion on a single trade window, we want interoperability. We want our borders to be frictionless and other borders to be frictionless. That means they need to be aligned in various ways, including in those jurisdictions.
I want to make two final points. First, I want to explore what the voluntary industry standards are for the purposes of the reliability standard. Secondly, in paragraph 36 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, there is an expectation that documents are original, but there can of course be multiple original documents. There can be multiple paper documents that are treated as original. The explanatory notes for the model law make it clear that this is something that electronic trade documents do more readily. We have to understand that these documents are not necessarily singular and how to deal with them when they are not, but are multiples that are original.
I hope that gives your Lordships a sense of the discussions we might have in Committee. I very much share what I hope is the collective view of the House: I support this Bill and want to see it make good progress quickly.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading consideration and to follow my noble friend Lord Lansley. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his return to the Front Bench. He is back in physical form and was not in digital form for very long, but it is great to have him back on the Front Bench. I also congratulate him on the way in which introduced this small but incredibly significant piece of legislation.
I would like to set out the problem, the solution and the potential benefits. Before I do that, it is worth also giving thanks to all those who have got us to this stage, not least Professor Sarah Green at the Law Commission, those at the International Chamber of Commerce, not least Chris Southworth, and many others who have worked to get the Bill into condition for our consideration this afternoon. The problem is pretty simple: to have possession of goods—if they are under a bill of lading, for example—you must be able to possess that document. It is much more than a contract merely setting out terms; it is a possessive document. Possess the paper and you possess the goods. How is it possible to take this ownership into a digital and intangible, and as yet in so many ways so contested, world?
Fortunately, because of new and emerging technologies —the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution—we now have such an opportunity. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley that although distributed ledger technology, or blockchain, currently offers great possibilities in this space, in no sense should the Bill be anything other than neutral about technologies. What we can be absolutely certain of is that a plurality of technologies will be coming through, which potentially—not inevitably—can do great service for us in this and other areas.
The solution is the legislation before us. It is the digital standards initiative, worked upon by the ICC and the WTO. That technology, not least because of its ability to enable immutability and interoperability, is why I undertook research to report on distributed ledger technology in 2017. I wanted to highlight the potential public and private good for the nation from that technology. Had I not done that, the fear, which is as clear and present a danger today as it was back in 2017, is that all too often blockchain is seen as bitcoin, which is seen by many as suboptimal. Thus all the potential public and private benefits—potential, not inevitable—of distributed ledger technology could be lost even before we got beyond proof of concept. Those three elements—legislation, standards and technology —give us the opportunities which we are discussing today.
I turn to the benefits. The economic benefits were well set out by my noble friend the Minister. There is £1.4 trillion of business in international trade in the UK currently; if just 50% of bills of lading were put in this format, there would be a £3.6 billion annual benefit for the UK. Respondents to the Law Commission’s consultation asserted a potential 5% saving in transaction cost as a result of this.
Perhaps even more important than the economic benefit, and certainly pertinent today, are the environmental benefits. The World Economic Forum calculates a 10% to 12% reduction in carbon from the logistics business if these measures are fully implemented. At the moment, if a cargo comes into Singapore, for example, without the paperwork as it is in London, someone has to board a plane to go to Singapore to deliver the document because, remember, “possess the document, possess the goods”. There is the economic waste and an environmental impact of those actions. As result of this Bill those seven to 10 days are potentially reduced to a 20-second process with no travel requirement. This could give us the transparency and accountability that we require in our supply chains. Recent history has shown us in painful ways that we do not have the supply chains we currently need or transparency, accountability and sustainability in our supply chains. This legislation could combine origin, ownership and payment liabilities in the same data ecosystem, with all actors being able to access broadly the same data for economic, social and environmental benefits.
The Electronic Trade Documents Bill is in many ways one of the most important Bills, yet currently so few people know about it. It is one of the most important Bills heard of by so few. It has the potential to eliminate over time the 4 billion-plus pieces of paper currently circulating around the world. Crucially, the Bill as drafted is rightly facilitative and permissive. It is not mandatory, and that is quite right. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that even after the passage of the Bill that means a continuing need for industry-led, government-supported efforts to ensure that we continue to provide that combination of legislation, standards and technologies to enable all in this ecosystem to avail themselves of the potential benefits which it enables?
Other issues have already been touched upon which are incredibly significant in this space. What is my noble friend the Minister’s view on where the current work is in terms of the 2025 border strategy and the technologies being deployed there, not least in the potential for atomic settlement at the border and how that could transform the experience for our traders, and on how the current work on digital ID in the UK can lead and interact internationally and ensure that there is that work on standards and that there is interoperability? It is fruitless for any nation to have tip-top digital ID if there is no interoperability. What other work is currently going on in my noble friend’s department and across Whitehall on the deployment and potential use of distributed ledger technology and all the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution? What potential problems is his department currently looking at putting such technologies to?
The Electronic Trade Documents Bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation which most people have not heard of. It is trade-transforming, tech-enabling, economic growth-generating, carbon-cutting legislation. The UK has such an opportunity when tied to common law to lead, connect and collaborate in this space, not least across the G7, for the benefit of all nations right around the globe. I wish this legislation a safe Second Reading and swift passage into statute.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to make a short contribution in the gap. I greatly welcome the Electronic Trade Documents Bill and, in doing so, declare an interest as chairman of the government-appointed national accreditation body, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service—UKAS. It is in that role particularly that I commend this Bill for the downstream benefits it will bring. They include greater transparency, digital verification and mutual recognition of third-party testing, inspection and certification—all of which are critical to reducing technical barriers to UK and global trade.
More generally, in echoing my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, I welcome the Bill’s purpose to make trade more efficient and sustainable, as well as the important opportunities it will enable in respect of international co-operation and interoperability in digital trade.
Our current paper-based processes are part of a labour-intensive trade system that will benefit from moving to quicker, digitally based transactions. This will be especially welcomed by SMEs, which are often affected most by the complexity and associated costs of trading systems that are heavily paper based. They are likely to be among the largest beneficiaries of a move to digitally based transactions. I wish the Bill well through its further stages.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when I used to run events to which not many people turned up, in justifying the occasion, I used to tell my boss, “The quantity doesn’t matter; the quality of the people is important.” This debate has demonstrated that and the quality of the speeches that preceded will indicate how low-quality mine is—but I will do my best.
I join the chorus of people welcoming the Minister back to his position. He was hardly gone at all. This in no way disparages his successor and predecessor, who did a sterling job on the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill, as I can personally attest. I wish him well, too.
However, this is a difficult Bill for the Minister because, although it is cast as a digital Bill, it is turning out largely to be a trade Bill. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in saying that some questions may be answered during the Public Bill Committee, rather than by the Minister—although noble Lords are always happy to hear his responses.
These Benches welcome the Bill. On the face of it, it is a technical Bill that has broad support from the industry. As we heard, the Government have said that it can bring great improvements in speed and efficiency, such that it reduces costs and cuts the environmental impact of trade. As we know, the Law Commission’s report suggests that the industry generates 4 billion paper documents a year and that the changes could cut the processing time of these to 20 seconds, which is almost no time at all. Never mind the carbon and cost reduction; think of the efficiency and smoothness of this. Getting it right is important because, as the DIT tells us, international trade is worth more than £1.4 trillion to the UK.
But there is another, potentially more significant element to this very slim Bill. It is being viewed by many in the legal world as the first legislative attempt to solve the “possession problem”. It seeks to address the idea that the traditional understanding of what it means to possess something is no longer adequate in our digital age. The noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Lansley, alluded to that. The principles of English law that underpin the use of trade documents are based largely on historical mercantile practices. Here I have a vision of coffee shops, with Dr Johnson looking on, as insurance and bills of lading papers march in and out. Frankly, that was happening and it is what we seek to transpose with this Bill. Most trade documents rely on physical possession to be legal and, in this country, there is no legal recognition of electronic trade documents, which this Bill seeks to fix.
The Explanatory Notes put this well—I put it on record because it is the nub of the Bill:
“a bill of lading is a document used in the carriage of goods by sea which, when transferred to a buyer (or any subsequent lawful holder), gives that holder constructive possession of the goods described in the bill, and a right to claim delivery of them from the carrier.”
The document equals the goods, so that is what we seek to reproduce in electronic form. The way in which the law, as it stands, treats that permission is premised on the idea that electronic documents cannot have the same relevant legal properties as physical pieces of paper—to whit, exclusivity or the ability to be associated with a single person. However, as we have heard, technology has now reached a point where electronic documents can be created which have these properties. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on expertly setting out the properties, for example, of distributed ledger technology in this regard although, as he points out, we must remain technology-neutral in the legislation.
We have also heard that a number of countries have taken steps to recognise the use of electronic documents as legally valid. The most obvious example was set out by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, the beautifully named MLETR. This is supported by major stakeholders such as the International Chamber of Commerce as an international solution to the possession problem and, I am told, has been implemented in Bahrain, Singapore and Abu Dhabi. To be recognised as legally valid under the MLETR, an electronic document must, through a reliable method, be capable of being subject to an identifiable person’s exclusive control. I repeat: a reliable method.
With this backdrop, and at the Government’s behest, the Law Commission looked at this. The Government have acted on its final recommendations, made in March 2022, and brought forward this Bill, which proposes three criteria that electronic trade documents should be subject to, reflected in Clause 2. I will not read them out, but they are independent existence, exclusive control and that the document must be fully divested on transfer.
As I have said, we support the Bill and its aims. However, it has implications around solving the possession problem and we think the committee must focus on that when we discuss it later, as it will need some careful consideration. For example, in its consultation response, the law firm Linklaters considered the issue of control and argued that it is not completely clear whether the Bill refers to legal or factual control. The Law Commission proposals suggest the concept of control should be limited to factual control, but this is not specified in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, went into deep technical detail but there is a high-level issue, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Linklaters highlights the practical issues that arise from the requirement that only one person has control. As we have heard, digital keys can be shared to multiple people, so restrictions on sharing could exclude much of the existing technology for moving documents around. Requirements for verification may interfere with the concept of control, especially if this is done through third parties. The committee should also consider this.
As has been said, the Bill does not establish
“what constitutes possession of an electronic trade document”
so it seems to us that the concept of control—and, through that, possession—needs to be more tightly defined. In the end, this Bill’s scrutiny should aim to establish whether the aim of ensuring that paper and electronic documents achieve “equivalent” effect has been achieved.
This Bill is almost identical to the draft Bill from the Law Commission with two obvious exceptions. First, in Clause 5, “Exceptions”, the Law Commission made explicit reference to bearer bonds being exempt from the Bill. This is not referenced in the Government’s Bill; rather, Clause 5(2)(b) says that the Secretary of State can exempt document types by regulations. Why is there this variation between the Bill and what came from the Law Commission?
Secondly, this Bill also varies from the Law Commission’s in the extent that it applies. The Minister referred to this in his opening speech. The Law Commission consultation applied to England and Wales, whereas this Bill applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. The Explanatory Notes state that
“DCMS, in discussion with the Territorial Offices and Devolved Administrations, has extended the extent of the Bill to the whole of the UK.”
The Minister referred to discussions with Scotland, but I do not think that he mentioned Northern Ireland, so I am interested in how that fits. The Scottish law officers said that Scottish law differs from the law of England with respect to possession, so how will the differences in the approaches of the two countries’ laws on possession be covered by this one Bill?
In his opening speech, the Minister talked about the traceability and transparency afforded by digital documentation. I draw a parallel between digital money and cash as an example. However, this sets a number of hares running, because it clearly offers great opportunities for HMRC and indeed law enforcement agencies. How does the Minister see the traceability and transparency to which he referred working? Surely those wishing to conceal what they were doing would continue to operate with paper documentation, so I wonder how far forward we would really get.
As I draw to a close, I would like to address how this Act will be implemented. Like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I hope and trust that it quickly becomes law. The Bill allows for documents to be converted between paper and electronic forms, which is key as international trade requires reciprocal recognition of documents and different jurisdictions will recognise electronic documents to varying extents. What consultation are the Government doing internationally to encourage other countries to implement the recognition of electronic documents?
This Bill also presents the potential, as we have heard, for huge cost reduction and environmental benefit, but that is dependent on take-up of digital trade documents. The Minister said that there was potential for £3.6 billion of savings, but that relied on 50% of documents going from paper to digital. What plans do the Government have to advertise this change to business and to help business to take it on? Will the Government monitor the use of digital documents to see how take-up is going, and will they be able to make an assessment of whether further changes are needed to encourage future take-up?
Finally, this is a legislative attempt, as I have said, to solve the “possession problem”. While there is a narrow focus on trade documents in this Bill, it may—and, I think, should—inform government thinking on wider policy in relation to digital assets. In November 2019 the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce published its Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts and suggested that crypto assets should be treated as property under English law. This principle has since been underlined in case law, but the law is not comprehensive and is still grappling with the particular issues raised by digital assets.
The Law Commission launched a separate consultation on proposals to ensure that the law recognises and protects digital assets in a digitised world. That consultation closed last week, on Friday 4 November. When can we look forward to the results being published? Can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government’s view that this Bill sets a precedent for how future law will cover the possession of crypto assets? I look forward to the Minister’s response and to Committee stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, like all other Members of this Committee I welcome the Minister back to this modest piece of legislation, although it has a truly massive import, as all previous speakers have said today. I have drawn one or two points from their comments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made the point that this was a major innovation in legislation and an important part of a jigsaw that needs to fall into place if we are to ensure that our place in the trading world is maintained. The noble Viscount asked four important questions; I shall listen for the answers to them with great interest. As he said, this is part of an exciting journey and one which we obviously need to follow closely. I was deeply impressed by his contribution and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who accurately described it as an important framework Bill—that is what it is, at seven pages long. With his enormous experience in international trade, I am sure that he will focus laser-like attention on it when we get to Committee. The major issue that he identified was interoperability, which is key to what we are trying to achieve here. Overcoming obstacles around that will be extremely important.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his comments because he brought the debate into the real world when he said that the Bill could achieve something like 5% savings in transaction costs. In itself, that does not sound like an enormous amount, but when you think about the value of international trade it is vast. Another important point that he made was about the environmental benefits that this legislation could bring. I think we are all very conscious of those now, but he also talked about the importance of accountability and transparency and we, too, on our Benches, very much share that.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, made the important point that SMEs will be the big beneficiaries from this. That is without doubt or question, because clearly it is of enormous advantage to an SME when its transaction costs are reduced and ability to trade speedily is very much underlined. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about the Bill being technical, and it is, but the big problem it has to solve is that of possession. We should all focus on that.
The Labour Benches fully support the introduction of the Bill. We see it as a long overdue reform, which allows for the legal recognition of certain types of documents used in trade and trade finance in electronic form. This will finally mean that parties can use the law that currently applies to paper trade documents when transacting with electronic trade documents.
As we know, the Law Commission does invaluable work in advising on the reform of long outdated legislation. Despite the size and sophistication of the international trade market, many of its processes, and underlying legislation, are based on practices and frameworks developed by the nation’s merchants hundreds of years ago. It is the Bill’s intention that electronic trade documents, when capable of possession, should be treated in law in a manner equivalent to their paper counterparts—a simple notion but one that is obviously complex to implement.
The Bill represents for us a most welcome opportunity to further modernise trade transactions. In theory, it should speed up transactions and bring business into the modern world, where electronic interactivity is commonplace. The Law Commission report said that
“there is an existing set of complex private international law rules that determine which courts have jurisdiction over a dispute, and which country’s laws should be applied to resolve it … these rules are complex and fact specific”.
It then said that electronic trade documents may give rise to
“novel issues … that require further consideration”.
For instance, it continued, there are “inherent difficulties” in ascertaining “the geographical location” of digital assets, including electronic trade documents. Similarly
“questions may arise as to how an electronic trade document issued in England and Wales would be treated by a country that does not recognise the validity of electronic trade documents”.
The Law Commission also recommended that private international law aspects of electronic trade documents should be dealt with in a separate commission project that deals with digital assets more broadly as part of its 14th programme of law reform. I think it was supposed to be completed in mid-2022. Can the Minister advise on what steps will be taken in the meantime to mitigate issues that may arise affecting the operation of trade transactions? Can the Minister undertake to report back to Parliament on the operation of the provisions within a year of the date on which the Act is implemented?
We on our Benches believe it is important that parliamentarians are kept advised of progress in this field. I have nothing much more to add, except that we thank the Law Commission for its critical work on the Bill which we see as largely uncontroversial and of great value in ensuring that the world of trade and commerce operates smoothly and efficiently as possible and that UK businesses are not disadvantaged in any way. This Bill eases those processes and transactions that we need for us to continue to be competitive in a highly competitive world of trade.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate, including my noble friend Lord Lindsay, who spoke in the gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, rightly said, it is quality not quantity that counts. I am glad that noble Lords who took part were unanimous that although the Bill may be small its potential impact is significant.
In my opening remarks I touched on that transformative impact, and I am keen to emphasise the elegant way that the Bill achieves its goal. It is a simple Bill, although I hesitate to use that word because a great deal of consideration and work has gone into making it so. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is right to pay tribute by name to some of the people who have been involved in that important work. The Bill achieves what it sets out to do in a minimalistic way. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, it is also an enabling Bill which leaves people free to sign up to use it if they wish. The opportunity it presents to bring trade law up to date is immense.
English law underpins the laws of global trade, and all eyes will be on us in the UK as we take this legislation forward. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, the benefits will be there for others to accrue beyond these shores. The objective of the Bill is for the UK to take the lead in setting an international standard for how electronic trade documents can be defined and recognised under domestic law with the intention that other jurisdictions will adopt similar laws. The more that other countries harmonise their domestic laws to recognise electronic trade documents, the less it will matter whether UK law and this Bill in particular apply, and that is the case with paper trade documents today.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for highlighting some of the areas that he intends to probe in the Special Public Bill Committee. He is right that the Bill requires that scrutiny there.
I will deal with some of the questions that were raised. I hope it will be useful. I will, of course, look to see whether it is worth writing on further points ahead of the Special Public Bill Committee, although I would be grateful to noble Lords for recognising that that is the place to go into some of the deeper detail. I am always happy to speak to noble Lords ahead of that committee if it would be useful.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Holmes that there are many opportunities for technological solutions. One of the underlying principles of the Bill is that it is technology neutral. It would run counter to the objectives of the Bill if it were to prescribe or mandate a particular electronic trade document system. That would be likely to stifle innovation and risk excluding participants on the basis that their system does not satisfy the Bill’s requirements. The Bill does not specify what constitutes a reliable system or mandate a particular type of system. Rather it sets out various factors that a court may take into account when determining reliability. The Bill therefore offers some guidance on how to assess the reliability of electronic systems. We have been working closely with industry, which is developing standards to ensure reliability and verifiable authentication of electronic trade documents.
Lord Fox (LD)
One issue that is worth investigating further is who is the arbiter of reliability when it comes down to a system. Is it the buyer, the seller, a third party or some accreditation body that says it is reliable?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If I may, I will accept the noble Lord’s invitation to look at this in Committee because it is worthy of the deeper scrutiny that that affords.
A number of noble Lords understandably referred to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, or UNCITRAL, and its Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, or MLETR, which is the international attempt to provide a legal framework for electronic trade documentation that can be adapted and adopted by individual jurisdictions. In developing its recommendations for reform, the Law Commission was particularly cognisant of this model law. The recommendations have been developed with a keen awareness of it, aligning with it where possible and integrating its spirit and objectives into the particularities of the law of the UK. As such, the provisions of the Bill are broadly compatible with the MLETR, but are drafted to cater for the nuances and specificities of UK law.
For example, the Bill expressly and clearly provides that electronic trade documents are capable of possession, while the MLETR provides that control is a functional equivalent to the fact of possession. It is clearer and more direct to extend the application of the concept of possession itself, rather than to use control as a functional equivalent to the fact of possession. That is something that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, touched on in his remarks about restrictions on control.
Within this Bill, control is a question of fact, as reflected by Clause 2(3)(a), which did not feature in the Law Commission’s draft Bill. The Bill does not define possession; it is a common law concept, which is highly flexible. Again, noble Lords will want to discuss this area in Committee, but the Law Commission’s advice, based on extensive research and consultation, is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to set out in legislation what constitutes possession of an electronic trade document because possession is a fact-specific concept that has always been notoriously difficult to define in abstract terms. Furthermore, it would be impractical to frame legislation to cover the full range of possible solutions that could arise in relation to possessing electronic trade documents, particularly given the potential for technology to develop and give rise to different forms of control and therefore possession. I look forward to discussing this in greater detail in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the territorial extent of the Bill, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The Bill is intended to apply UK-wide, as the issues concerning the legal blocker to possessing electronic documents are broadly the same. Apart from the provision in Clause 3(4), which extends only to Scotland and relates to the interaction between the Bill and the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill, the Bill extends UK-wide. It is reserved in relation to Northern Ireland on the basis that the Bill deals with the reserved matter of trade with any place outside the United Kingdom. We have agreed with officials in the Northern Ireland Executive that the legislative consent Motion process is not therefore engaged.
Lord Fox (LD)
Is this Bill compatible with the Northern Ireland protocol? Is it compatible with the unique position that Northern Ireland has within the United Kingdom in having an open border with the EU?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We do not expect the Bill to have any impact on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. It is a measure to digitise business-to-business trade documents. It will allow businesses to use electronic trade documents when buying and selling internationally, and the benefits will be realised irrespective of whether trade is internal to the UK market or is global.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked some further questions about other jurisdictions. DCMS and the Department for International Trade agreed the digital economy agreement with Singapore, which includes a memorandum of understanding that put in place a pilot project to explore and text the interoperability of electronic trade documents.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked about digital ID and e-signatures. I certainly agree that digital signatures and digital ID are areas that would benefit from harmonisation. As noble Lords stated, this Bill is merely the first foundational step towards digitisation and interoperability. The Bill is very specific in removing the legal blocker to possession of electronic trade documents; that really is its core purpose. We want to remove an obstacle for UK businesses that trade internationally. In giving electronic trade documents legal effect, we can unlock their current and future potential.
I will of course consult the Official Report of the debate to see whether there are any further points on which it might be useful to follow up before Committee. I look forward to the further scrutiny that this modest but important Bill will receive then. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their remarks and the questions that they have raised today.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Swire
Introduction: Lord Sahota
Oaths and Affirmations
Death of a Member: Lord Boyce
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, on 6 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble and gallant Lord’s family and friends.
Family: Protective Effect
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Durham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Children’s Commissioner for England Family and its protective effect: Part 1 of the Independent Family Review, published on 1 September; and in particular, what assessment they have made of the definition of the ‘protective effect’ and its implications for future policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner’s review is centred on the protective effect of families. We agree. A strong and safe family home helps children to meet their full potential in life. That is why we have announced over £1 billion for programmes to improve family services, including family hubs and the Supporting Families programme. The Children’s Commissioner’s review will help to inform ongoing work so we can be sure to support all types of families.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the Minister for her reply. The Children’s Commissioner’s excellent report reveals a strong correlation between close familial relationships formed through shared experiences and both the immediate well-being of children and their long-term outcomes. Families are the primary way that families support one another but sometimes, outside support is required and the report reveals that often, families struggle to access this and that it is unequally available across the country. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure equal access to and availability of family support services across the whole country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate will have heard me say already the scale of the investment we are making in family services and the importance we place on them. In particular, the Government are committed to opening 75 family hubs in areas which need that support most. But I agree with the right reverend Prelate and stress the striking point in the report regarding who families in need turn to: namely, their families and friends, far, far before any statutory service.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, we have a new Cabinet since my own Question on this review, so I ask again whether a Cabinet Minister has been appointed to co-ordinate every department’s policies to strengthen families? Also, acknowledging the 75 hubs already mentioned and my registered interests, will the Government bring funding forward for the remaining 75 local authorities to develop family hub networks, given the huge pressures facing families and the test-and-learn approach taken to hubs in the first 75 councils?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend knows that working to strengthen families is a key priority across several government departments and although there is not currently a designated Minister, we will be actively considering this. We share my noble friend’s aspiration to see family hubs across the country and it is crucial that we deliver really well in the selected local authorities, so we will be building on the evidence and learning from this investment to improve services across the country.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Following on from the right reverend Prelate’s Question, the commissioner highlighted that nearly all the children her team helps have significant mental health issues and struggle to access timely and consistent support from CAMHS, so will the Government seriously tackle better access to mental health services as a priority to prevent these problems escalating?
Baroness Barran (Con)
A significant part of the investment we are making in family hubs and the Start for Life programme is specifically related to mental health. Some £100 million of the almost £302 million is for parent-infant mental health support, starting at the earliest possible opportunity.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I know the Minister understands that the intervention and support of kinship carers is essential for many of the most vulnerable children and their families. There were some significant indications of the support that kinship carers need in the Josh MacAlister review earlier this year. Can the Government confirm that they will bring in measures to better support kinship carers, so that families really can care for the most vulnerable?
Baroness Barran (Con)
More than 150,000 children live in kinship care, so the noble Baroness raises an incredibly important point. The Government recognise the need to support kinship carers more, and we have made early progress. We have invested £2 million to develop 100 kinship peer support groups for kinship carers; this summer, we set up the first dedicated policy team in the department focused on kinship care; and obviously, we will be responding to Josh MacAlister’s recommendations on that point.
Lord Bird (CB)
Will the Government be looking at the full costs of knocking £50 billion out of the social economy when we move into this period of austerity? Removing £50 billion could well cause hundreds of billions of pounds-worth of damage, especially to our families.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises a much broader point. Bringing it back to the review, the Government are very excited about and look forward to the second stage of the Children’s Commissioner’s review on the protective effect that families can offer.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Dame Rachel de Souza’s report makes the very valuable point that family policy should not be restricted to any one department or policy area. What are the Government doing to ensure different departments and teams are incentivised to break down silos between them—including local government—so that we can spread awareness of the support available to families and make it far easier for families themselves to navigate?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Government departments already work very collaboratively in this area—my own department works closely with both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health and Social Care. The real way that we want to deliver for families is by listening to the recommendations from the Children’s Commissioner and making sure that our policy is led by that vision of a family test and its protective effect.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge that the state cannot do all of this itself? It needs to work not only across government departments but with civil society organisations, particularly neighbourhood civil society. Can she enlighten us on some of the work that her department is doing with local civil society?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point. Dame Rachel points out in her report that 11% of families in need turn to council services, but almost the same number—10%—turn to the exactly sorts of community services that my noble friend refers to. I know that the majority of the work to support them is done through DCMS, but my department is very much aware of their work and grateful to them for it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, another of the findings from Dame Rachel de Souza’s report was that the most common worries for families were financial, due to the increase in the cost of living and particularly the cost of childcare. If we ever want to achieve sustainable growth in this country, we must prioritise a complete overhaul of the childcare system to make it affordable, high-quality and easier for people to navigate. What can the Government do to help?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government are committed to improving parents’ access to affordable and flexible childcare. We will set out these plans in more detail in due course.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am a patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Will my noble friend give a big shout out for child contact centres, which play a phenomenal role, relying primarily on volunteers to run them? Cafcass used to provide the service, and the NACCC has not received any money since September, which is obviously putting it in dire straits. Could my noble friend use her good offices to intervene on its behalf?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will certainly take the point that my noble friend has raised back to the department. I am delighted to express my support for the incredibly important, difficult and sensitive work that child contact centres carry out.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
To take the Minister back to the answer she gave on the subject of mental health services, particularly for young people, she will be aware that the real difficulty in providing those services is that there is an insufficiently large workforce. There are simply not enough professionally qualified people to deliver the kinds of services that young people very badly need. In what way are the various funds that the Minister has referred to going to help with that problem?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a fair point, and I am happy to write to her setting out in more detail the Government’s strategy on expanding the workforce. She will appreciate that this falls more within the Department of Health workforce strategy, but I am happy to expand on that. Also, there are a number of very sophisticated and helpful digital applications that can help support young people in addressing the mental health challenges they face.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Developed Countries
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the recent flooding in Pakistan, what steps they are taking as president of COP26 (1) to acknowledge, and (2) to address, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
First, I express my heartfelt sadness at the horrifying events resulting from the flooding in Pakistan. The UK has committed £26.5 million in humanitarian funding to help support the people of Pakistan as they rebuild from this terrible event. At COP 26, parties recognised that loss and damage are already impacting lives and livelihoods and agreed to scale up support to address this issue. An agenda has now been agreed for COP 27 this week and next, with a specific item on loss and damage. New news today is that the UK Government will commit to triple funding for climate adaptation, up from £500 million in 2019 to £1.5 billion in 2025, which will of course help countries such as Pakistan and Somalia.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. The World Meteorological Organization reports that greenhouse gas emissions are at historic highs, with a worrying, unexplained spike in methane—a greenhouse gas which is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Countries such as Pakistan, those of east Africa and low-lying island states are responsible for a minuscule amount of current emissions and practically none of the historical emissions, yet they are in the front line of the extreme weather events that are a direct consequence of those emissions. First, now that the Prime Minister is going to COP 27, will the Minister urge him personally to intervene and make sure that the loss and damage agenda sees some progress there? Secondly, does she regret that we have missed our own target for the Green Climate Fund this year by $288 million?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The good news is that the Prime Minister is at COP 27 today. He has been speaking and will make announcements, one of which I have just mentioned. While I cannot go into the detail of what kind of negotiations will go on on loss and damage, we have announced funding of £5 million for the Santiago network as a demonstration of our commitment to this issue. The points the noble Baroness makes about the particular circumstances of Pakistan are interesting ones which I will take away.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
The Pakistan situation is clearly appalling. However, would my noble friend agree that at COP 27, rather than concentrating solely on reaffirming targets, which, frankly, may never be met, or loss and damage grants, which may never be decided, let alone paid, and while emissions worldwide continue to rise very rapidly, there is a much stronger case for focusing on innovative new world schemes for extracting carbon out of the atmosphere and absorbing it directly? Will she reassure us that the UK Government will look at these new schemes and take the lead where they can in a full and constructive way?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his constructive suggestion. I believe in the power of technology. The point he makes about carbon capture and storage is absolutely on the money. We have seen leaps forward which have helped us with tackling climate change on everything from electric vehicles to wind turbines, solar power, LED lighting, hydrogen and new nuclear. Carbon capture and storage are in the same category. Areas like these are where businesses can come together with Governments to innovate, drive things forward and then get them copied in lots of different countries around the world. Climate change is an international phenomenon; sadly, carbon and greenhouse gas emissions have no borders.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, last week we had a briefing from the President of the Maldives. He pointed out that, of the 100% of GDP, they spend 30% on adaptation due to the fact that the islands are being trashed by hurricanes and sea-level rises, and they are spending a further 25% on debt relief—the debt that they incurred in building infrastructure, roads and hospitals, which are now being washed away by the climate crisis. Do the Government think that there is any value in trying to work towards debt relief for nations such as this, given that the international community cannot yet come up with the £100 billion that we agreed last year in Glasgow for situations just like this?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We are open to innovative solutions. This is another one that has come forward from the Maldives, which I have only just heard about. It is obviously right that hurricanes and monsoons and things make it difficult for countries such as the Maldives and other small islands to deal with their debts; in any financing, we would need to make sure that the result helped with climate change alleviation, but I am very happy to learn more.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Question points the finger of blame solely at developed countries. Does the Minister agree that it is not just developed countries, but also countries such as China and India, whose leaders have failed to attend the conference at Sharm el-Sheikh? Does the fact of their non-attendance suggest a lack of commitment and engagement on their part?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The attendance of the UK delegation—which includes the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Environment Secretary, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith from our House, Graham Stuart MP, and, indeed, a former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson—shows the seriousness of this matter. To be fair, we have these big COPs, as we had in 2015 and as we were honoured to chair last year, and not all world leaders go to every COP every year. Of course, if action on climate change is going to work—for exactly the reasons that I have already articulated, in terms of there being no borders for greenhouse gas emissions—it is absolutely essential that China, India and other big emitters step up to the plate and deliver on what they have promised and, indeed, even more.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned Boris Johnson. What has happened to Britain’s global leadership since Glasgow? Boris Johnson said today that he is there in a purely supportive role, but he also said that Britain should not pay reparations for climate change. This was in complete contradiction to the Prime Minister’s announcement today that we should enter into discussions about this question. Can the Minister tell us what the Prime Minister needs to do to make sure that his words are credible?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not like the direction of that question. However, we have encouraged discussion on loss and damage. Obviously, the Labour Party has come out with a big initiative on reparations—which is not funded—and it is very important that we join in the discussion of loss and damage to try to find a joined-up way forward, with support from around the world. The whole problem about climate change, as I have said in the House so often, is that it is an international challenge as well as a domestic challenge.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the question on loss and damage, the Minister said that it was really important that there is discussion. Have we not utterly arrived at the time when we need action, given that loss and damage was kicked into the long grass, taken out of the Glasgow climate pact and put into the Glasgow dialogue instead? Denmark has promised loss and damage money; Scotland has promised loss and damage money; and the Belgian region of Wallonia has promised loss and damage money. If the Government want to be world-leading, when are we going from discussion to actual action and a promise of money? It is not the same thing as adaptation finance.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
In my experience, you can only get action, especially in an international context, if you have constructive discussion. In terms of our contribution, the UK spent £2.4 billion on our international climate finance between 2016 and 2020 on adaptation and investment in areas that needed to address loss and damage. The Scottish Government fund is £2 million.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there is no point in offering the least-developed countries support for loss and damage if our Government are removing funding from other areas of that community. For all the figures that the Minister has stated today from the Dispatch Box, how much is new money and how much of it is simply reallocated from the arbitrary cap of 0.5%?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We made very generous commitments to funding on climate change last year. We are sticking to those; the Prime Minister made it clear on the steps of Downing Street that he regarded protecting the environment as very important. Sometimes you change the priority which you give to different aspects of the climate change matter, but that is the way to move forward and do things better, and the announcements that have been made today are directed exactly at that. I am delighted at the progress that is being made today, but the question is whether the discussions will deliver what we want over the next two weeks. We look forward to reporting on that when COP 27 ends.
Education Technology: Oak National Academy
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vaizey of Didcot
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of funding for Oak National Academy on the education technology market in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, as an integral part of the process to set up Oak National Academy as an arm’s-length body, the department produced a business case which passed internal government clearances. It included an assessment of the potential market impact and was published by the Government on 1 November of this year. Monitoring market impact will be a priority throughout Oak National Academy’s lifetime and will be factored into its ongoing evaluation and two-year review.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests, in particular my work with ScaleUp Capital and Perlego. Fifteen years ago, the BBC decided to provide free education material to schools but, quite rightly, the BBC’s regulator, the BBC Trust, closed it down as an unacceptable market intervention. Given that the creation of the Oak National Academy is opposed by publishers, multi-academy trusts, the educational technology sector and even the teaching unions, can my noble friend tell me why the Government have decided to nationalise the education technology and publishing sector? Can she tell me why they have decided to spend £45 million on a quango employing 80 people that nobody wants? In short, can she explain why the Government want to be the BBC?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is tempting to try to answer the last part of my noble friend’s question but I will resist. I would like to set the record straight. My noble friend suggests that nobody supports Oak National Academy and that MATs were resistant to it. That is not an accurate representation of the facts. There are two big reasons why we think this is important. First, we know that our teachers spend a lot of time preparing curriculum, and we want to reduce their workload and the burden that they face to allow them to focus on their pupils. Secondly, we are clear that the quality of the curriculum can still be further improved, and Oak is one simple way of doing that.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my interests in the register, particularly as a member of the board at Century Tech. The Government are splurging £43 million on Oak, which is used by only just over 5% of England’s teachers but which allows Ministers, in the words of Jon Coles, the chief executive of one of the largest MATs, to promote their own preferred curriculum model. I now regularly hear from private equity investors that they are put off investing in education resources in this country because of the distortion caused by the Government clumsily entering the market at scale. Please can the noble Baroness tell the House what competitor analysis the department has undergone and why it thinks this significant investment will aid growth and choice for teachers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I have to say it sticks in my throat to have private equity investors who are responsible for considerable distortions in the children’s home market lecturing the Government on distortions in the edtech market. More importantly, the Government are not distorting the curriculum. The Government are striving—I know that the noble Lord knows that this is true—to have the best curriculum for children. We know that teachers will make the best judgment on what curriculum their students need. That is why, apart from the curriculum from Oak’s own partners, which will be on the platform, it will also showcase more than 80 other curriculum models for providers so that teachers can make those comparisons.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, however good the materials from the Oak Academy may be, I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said about other materials. I would like her to reassure the House that there is no intention, and never will be, that Oak Academy materials will become mandatory in schools, or even be perceived as required on the basis of support for those materials from Ofsted, to the exclusion of other curriculum materials and pedagogical style.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am delighted to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that Oak will never be mandated; it is an optional resource for teachers.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests. Will the Government assure us that if we are using this to support teachers, it will be an example of the style of help that can be used in areas such as better education around special educational needs? If so, when will we get an idea of how this will fit in—possibly through the reaction to the review, for which we are all waiting?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The procurement of materials for key stages 1 to 4 is largely discrete from the review. Oak will be providing resources only for key stages 1 to 4, and only digital resources. That procurement has just gone out, and we will wait to see what is delivered as a result.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the honorary president of BESA, the British Educational Suppliers Association, whose members have grave concerns about the Oak proposals, and who are mainly highly motivated and innovative small and medium-sized enterprises. Has my noble friend had time to read today's Times Educational Supplement, which points out that four out of 10 of all lessons on Oak started by pupils are not finished, with the worst take-up in disadvantaged areas? Can she comment on that? Could not the funding allocated to Oak be better spent working with tools on solutions that they know work best for their pupils?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will look at the numbers to which my noble friend refers. I wonder whether she is referring to lessons delivered by Oak during the pandemic, when they were online and children were working from home. Obviously, the resources that the department is funding Oak to develop in future will be for teachers to deliver in the classroom—although it also provides a back-up and support in the event, God forbid, of another pandemic.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness and her mention of the Times Educational Supplement article, the analysis also shows no clear trend between Oak usage and a school’s Ofsted rating in schools overall. Therefore, why is this investment being made if it is not improving Ofsted ratings and school performance?
Baroness Barran (Con)
These are very early days; this is strategic investment for the next many years. I challenge the House to think of the questions it would be posing to the department if we were not investing in digital resources for children.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome and associate myself with the Minister’s comments about private children’s homes.
It has been reported that Oak National Academy is considering allowing private companies to sell its lessons on for profit. I remember that, when it was first set up, it was envisaged that no individual would be able to profit from the activities of the new body. However, now facing legal challenge, the Department for Education has add to row back on geoblocking Oak outside the UK and make users aware that alternatives are available. Can the Minister update the House on this ongoing legal challenge and her department’s progress towards establishing the promised “thriving commercial market” for Oak National Academy?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In relation to geoblocking, Oak will not be internationalising its content; materials will be geoblocked. The noble Baroness is right that the department has received a challenge from BESA and the Publishers Association. We have responded to their recent concerns about the future operations of the ALB and we are looking at all the different models of licensing going forward. I am happy to update the noble Baroness in due course when those are decided.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Is my noble friend aware of the results of a recent report that found that, notwithstanding the concerns raised by noble Lords, the Oak Academy had a positive impact on the workload of teachers using its resources, saving nearly half of them three hours a week, the equivalent of three weeks during a school year? Will my noble friend and her fellow Ministers continue to champion a range of ways to improve educational access and resources for schools, because this immeasurably helps reduce the burden of our hardworking teachers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree entirely with my noble friend. She is absolutely right that almost half of teachers who used Oak reduced their workload by three hours a week. She is also right, and I reiterate, that we trust teachers and that the department supports them to have a choice of materials that they use.
Trading Relations: USA, EU and China
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
To ask His Majesty’s Government which of the world’s three largest economies—the United States of America, the European Union, and China—they will prioritise in seeking to improve trading relations.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we are engaging with all three trading partners to remove trade barriers. In the year ending June 2022, the US was our largest single trading partner, accounting for 16% of total UK trade, worth £234.7 billion. In this period, the EU remained our largest trading partner overall. We exported goods and services worth £298.1 billion, which is 42.9% of our total trade. China was our fourth largest single trading partner, with £92.9 billion of bilateral trade, which is 6.3% of total UK trade.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that trade with the EU makes up around half our imports and exports, it is vital that FTAs with larger non-EU markets, such as the US, China and India, are advantageous to the UK economy. In recent departmental questions in the other place, Ministers seemed unable to put an estimated net value to any future trade deals that the Government are pursuing, including CPTPP. Is this because the estimates do not exist or because the Government are unwilling to share them? Will the Minister therefore provide an estimate of net values to the UK of trade agreements currently being negotiated, either now or in writing if he does not have the figures at his fingertips?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly will. I will read Hansard tomorrow, in terms of what I am about to say. We have agreed trade deals with 71 countries, plus the EU—partners that accounted for £814 billion of UK bilateral trade in 2021. As the noble Lord will know, we have signed FTAs with Australia and New Zealand and a digital economy agreement with Singapore. We have in progress India—a long way to go—Greenland, Canada, Mexico, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Israel.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, what does the noble Viscount say about having a trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China of some £40 billion, when China is upgraded by the Government themselves as being a threat to the security interests of the United Kingdom, and about spending some £10 billion—the size of our entire overseas aid and development budget —on items associated with Covid, not least 1 billion lateral flow tests, bought from the People’s Republic of China? Is it not time that we increased our own manufacturing capacity to ensure that such items could be made in the United Kingdom by British workers? Surely we must see that the lack of resilience and too much dependency at a time like this, given what has happened with Ukraine and Russia, is not something that this country should follow.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I always listen carefully to the noble Lord. He makes some good points. I start by saying that 61,000 jobs in this country are reliant on Chinese companies. However, human rights are a major issue; I hope that chimes with the remarks made on many occasions in this Chamber in providing evidence of the extent of China’s efforts to silence and repress the Uighurs and other minorities. It is important that we create a balance between continuing trade with China and the fact that we are not looking at forming an FTA with China at present.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we were promised that there would be no friction in our trade with Europe. There is enormous friction. We were also promised by now a full FTA with America that would mop up any slack in our trading relations with Europe. That has not happened. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, we now have the largest trade deficit in our nation’s history with one country—China—making up £40.5 billion. Is it not now in our strategic interest to reduce the barriers between us and our nearest neighbours—democratic countries—and to make sure that our economy is no longer wholly dependent on imports of goods from China? Why are the Conservative Government making the UK dependent on goods from China?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not believe that we are doing that. On the noble Lord’s points, I say that our free trade agreement negotiations with the US—it is, as we know, a very important market—are paused at the moment for reasons he will know. On the EU, we know that progress is being made. Obviously, some extremely difficult and sensitive negotiations are ongoing, but we are firmly of the belief that we will be able to resolve these.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, with all the talk about deficits and the mercantilist mood in the House, will my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to remind the House that imports are a prize, not a concession, and bring prices down—especially for people on low incomes? As Adam Smith pointed out as long ago as 1776, there is no point in amassing great surpluses except in so far as they pay for imports. Would it not be a good thing if we cut some of our own tariffs unliterally to stimulate this process further and grow our economy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, it is imports versus exports. My noble friend makes a good point: the Government’s vision is to create a UK that trades its way to prosperity. We will achieve this by championing free and fair trade multilaterally, plurilaterally and bilaterally through engagement at the WTO, our free trade agreements and our bilateral market access work. As I said, this allows us also to export using our great skills in services, digital, science, technology and advanced manufacturing.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister says that an agreement with India is some way away, just 10 days after the target date for completing the negotiations. Can he explain why that target date was not met?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I understand that the target date tied in with Diwali rather neatly, but I am sure that the noble Lord, with all his experience, will tell me that it is right to have a date that people can work towards. India is a huge prize for this country. It is a dynamic, fast-growing trade partner and offers a terrific opportunity to deepen our already strong relationship, which was worth £29.6 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 2 in 2022. However, there is a lot of work to be done on this deal. It is right to have a deadline but we certainly need to work hard on the deal.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Can the Minister give any details of work that the Government have undertaken, or ensured that others undertake, to ensure that no products coming into this country from China contain cotton grown in Xinjiang? During our debates earlier in the year, two Ministers stood at that Dispatch Box and agreed to check products containing cotton, such as mattresses and nurses’ uniforms, to see whether the cotton was grown in Xinjiang. You can do that from the product. What have the Government done about that, because they have never reported any results?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. The Government are committed to tackling Uighur forced labour in our supply chains and are taking robust action. Over the past year, we have introduced new guidance on the risks of doing business in Xinjiang, introduced enhanced export controls and announced the introduction of financial penalties under the Modern Slavery Act. These followed the Government’s announcement in September 2020 of an ambitious package of changes to the Modern Slavery Act.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, will easing border formalities be in the sights of the Government? They serve as a major barrier to trade, particularly in relation to the European Union. While the sentiment behind the Question is clearly understood, does the Minister equally recognise that emerging markets present great opportunities for British companies and government? What strategy is there to persevere with those opportunities?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I mentioned earlier a number of countries that we are actively in discussion with. However, we also have 32 hard-working trade envoys covering even more countries. Now that we are outside the EU, our aim is to reach out wherever we can. We cannot do it all at the same time but, wherever and whenever we can, we aim to agree deals with as many countries as we can that are in our best interests.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister not accept that it is misleading the House, and his headquarters is misleading the country in its leaflets, to say that the Government have signed 71 new trades when the only two new deals have been with Australia and New Zealand? In the other 69, “the EU” has been Snopaked out and replaced with “the UK”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
No, it is right that we say that we have agreed trade deals with 71 countries plus the EU. That is a fact, that is what I meant to say and that is what I will stick by.
Online Safety Bill
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Prevention of Future Deaths Report published at the conclusion of the Molly Russell inquest, what plans they have to bring forward the Online Safety Bill in sufficient time to ensure its passage during this parliamentary Session.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice, I declare my interests, particularly as founder and chair of 5Rights Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the arrangement of parliamentary business is, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, a matter for business managers through the usual channels. However, the Bill remains a priority. The Secretary of State committed on 20 October to bringing it back to Parliament shortly. We will continue to work with noble Lords, Members in another place and others on the passage of this important legislation.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the Minister for that reply and am happy to see him back in his place. However, after four years of waiting, I am afraid his Answer was not quite good enough.
Coroner Walker’s landmark judgment that Molly Russell died after suffering negative effects of online content, and his Prevention of Future Deaths Report, deserve to be met with action. That action should be finally bringing forward the Online Safety Bill. Molly Russell died five years ago, the same five years in which we have been working on the Online Safety Bill, in the absence of which children suffer an aggressive bombardment of material that valorises self-harm, body dysmorphia, violent porn and, of course, suicide— real harms to real children. Does the Minister agree that it is time to stop this suffering and commit to bringing the Bill to this House before the end of this month, which is the date by which we have been told we need it to ensure correct scrutiny and its passage in this Session?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this important legislation has indeed been a long time coming. I was a special adviser in the Home Office when it was first proposed and was in Downing Street when it was first put in the Conservative manifesto in 2017. Like the noble Baroness, I am very keen to see it in your Lordships’ House so that it can be properly scrutinised, so that we can deliver the protections that we all want to see for children and vulnerable people. The noble Baroness is tireless in her defence of these people. She served excellently on the Joint Committee, which has already looked at the Bill. Like her, I am very keen to get it before your Lordships’ House so that we can continue.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I register an interest as an adviser to Common Sense Media. I am delighted to see my noble friend the Minister in his place, although I am sad to see that his predecessor has lost his place. Anyway, he is in and he is out.
I regard the Online Safety Bill as the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. Mindful that the excellent chair of Ofcom is in the Chamber, I say this: is it not time to get on, expedite the Bill and allow Ofcom, finally, to start to regulate these platforms and social media sites? We have seen Elon Musk taking over Twitter—we need some action now. The Bill is effectively being scrutinised in the other place, and it is ready to come here. Let us get on with it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, as one of many voices in your Lordships’ House who will help us in the important scrutiny of this Bill. We are very keen for that to take place. Of course, the other place has to finish its scrutiny before this happens. Once it has done that, we can debate it here.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, business managers will be listening. I hope they will make sure that we are given sufficient time in this House to give proper scrutiny to a highly complex Bill.
If part of the compromises that may have been made in the department are to remove aspects of the Bill, particularly around “legal but harmful”, could the Minister also consider—and have conversations across government—about finding time in a subsequent legislative Session for us to finish the job if the Bill that he brings to this House does not do a proper job?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Regarding future legislative Sessions, I will restrict myself to the debate on the current one. The noble Lord is right: the business managers will have heard how anxious your Lordships’ House is to see the Bill and begin its scrutiny. The decision will be communicated in the usual way.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that he, the Minister here and the Minister in the other place, will take advice from all the NGOs and other expert groups that have been working on this crucial issue for so long?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I absolutely can. Ministers have had meetings with such groups and officials have continued to have those meetings, even with the change of Ministers in recent weeks. These have informed the scrutiny and improvement of the Bill to date.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, when I sat on the Puttnam commission 20 years ago, there was some excuse for not taking action for the real harms being caused on the internet. There is no such excuse now, as has been indicated. This House and the other place have been working on this for five years. The regulators are very well tooled up and ready to move. It is inexcusable, and there will be no excuse for leaving things undone due to backroom deals at the last minute. I do not doubt the Minister’s integrity on this but there must be no deals by No. 10 to weaken the Bill at this point; there is too much at stake. I do not think the Government will be forgiven if they renege on past promises to deliver a Bill worthy of the challenges that we are facing.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right. Members of your Lordships’ House and another place will be vigilant. The Bill is being laid before Parliament so that noble Lords and Members in another place can see what is being proposed and inform the debate on it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the tragic inquest on Molly Russell illustrated that the greatest crime of the 21st century has been the progressive destruction of childhood innocence? Will he therefore talk to business managers to ensure that a carry-over into the next Session happens if it is necessary? As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, we must get the Bill on to the statute book after thorough scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The inquest into the heartbreaking death of Molly Russell highlights the importance of holding technology companies to account to keep their users, particularly children, safe online. That is why we are bringing forward the Online Safety Bill, why the strongest protections in the Bill are for children and why I look forward to debating it in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to the Front Bench. His former boss, Theresa May, launched the online harms agenda, which we on these Benches supported. Yet, three Prime Ministers later, we are still waiting for this crucial legislation to reach your Lordships’ House. Other noble Lords have noted that the Bill must be completed in this Session, as it has already been carried over. If repeated delays mean that the Bill’s passage conflicts with plans for winding up this Session, will the Government extend the Session to get the protections on to the statute book or simply drop the Bill?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her words of welcome. She will appreciate that her final point is one for business managers rather than for me but I reiterate, having been there at the genesis of the discussions that led to the Bill, that I am very keen to see it in your Lordships’ House and to give it that thorough scrutiny. It has already been well improved because of the work of the Joint Committee of both Houses, but it needs to come to your Lordships’ House so that we can scrutinise it properly.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the original aim of the Bill was to tackle harm to children, which we can all agree on, but it has expanded enormously and some say represents a real threat to freedom of speech for adults. Will the Minister ensure that he not only sees stakeholders working with those interested in online safety for children but meets free speech organisations and civil liberty campaigners to ensure the Bill does not become a legislative piece of censorship?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Bill contains strong safeguards for freedom of expression. No platforms will be required to remove legal content and all services will need to have regard to freedom of expression when implementing their safety duties. Of course, although Ministers have met such groups throughout the passage of the Bill so far, I would be very happy to continue to do so to ensure that aspect of the Bill gets proper scrutiny too.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Bill has been extended. One of the extensions was to financial harm caused online. Will the Government assure us that they remain committed to including strong measures on financial harm? This can hurt people as much as the other forms of harm that we find online.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The context shows the importance of preventing financial harm to people, particularly in the current economic climate. When the Bill comes forward from another place, it will be open to scrutiny by noble Lords on this aspect and many others.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister obviously has a very difficult brief to bring before your Lordships’ House. He has barely opened his folder of notes during the course of this Question because all he is able to say is that it is a matter for the business managers, but is it not the case that this is a Bill about which there has been extensive consultation? There is very broad consensus. The only thing now holding it up is an internal row within the Conservative Party. It is not a question of waiting for the business managers. Could he tell his colleagues in the Conservative Party to stop arguing and enable the Bill to be brought forward?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Bill is being scrutinised in another place by Members of Parliament from all parties. It is important that they complete that work before it comes to your Lordships’ House, but it has benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee, which again drew on people from all parties and none. I am keen to see that scrutiny continue in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Could the noble Lord suggest to business managers that if further time is required for the Bill and is not otherwise available, it would be available if the Government were to abandon the ridiculous plans to bring back the Bill of Rights Bill, which the Lord Chancellor appears keen on?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will pass the noble Lord’s message on to business managers, but he will understand that it is not for me to respond.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, this seems a classic example of the people we want to protect not getting a voice. Five years’ worth of children have been damaged because of the lack of this. Please can we and the business managers put the children first?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Your Lordships’ House gives voice to those voiceless victims through the right reverend Prelate and, not least, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has rightly asked this Question today. I am keen for all those voices to be joined in the debate on the Bill as soon as possible.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
To go back to one of the earlier questions about financial harms, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems facing the Bill is the way in which things keep getting added to it? Once the Bill arrives in your Lordships’ House—the sooner we can get on with scrutinising it, the better—it is important that we all remain self-disciplined, try not to add things to it and just focus on child safety.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend makes the sort of wise point that one would expect from a former Leader of your Lordships’ House. I think that is the case with any Bill that comes before Parliament. With this one, which has benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, Members of both Houses have been able to look at it and wider issues. I look forward to thorough but targeted debates when the Bill comes forward.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords and I were fortunate to attend a round table organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with some of the children’s charities. What we heard there, even from my noble friend Lord Gilbert, who believes strongly in free speech, is that when it comes to child protection there really is no debate; there is consensus across the House. The real challenges are some of the harms that may conflict with free speech, for example, but also the issue of harms themselves. Clearly, some definitions of harm suggest that some harms may well be subjective rather than objective. How do my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues intend to deal with some of these subjective arguments over harms?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for his work on this Bill while in office. I saw him at this Dispatch Box answering questions that reflected your Lordships’ eagerness to receive it and begin that scrutiny work. He is tempting me to stray into debates on the Bill itself, which we will have plenty of time for when it comes forward. As I say, the strongest protections in the Bill are for children and nothing in the Bill is designed to harm freedom of expression. The Bill holds those in balance, but I know that is one area that noble Lords will want to scrutinise during the Bill’s passage.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, not precisely made the point by pointing out that what we need to do now is talk about the Bill? We are prevented from talking about the Bill for reasons that may be clear to a number of your Lordships but are certainly not clear to me. Is it not time that we get a chance to have the discussions implied in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall? Although Molly Russell was the most—how can one say it? The noble Lord used the word “heartbreaking”—example put before us recently, there have been many others and there will be many more before the Bill gets on to the statute book.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. There have been too many such cases, and we want to get this legislation on to the statute book to prevent as many of those preventable harms as we are able to. I too want to have that debate to continue the scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, but it is important that the other place concludes that before we are able to do so. I hope that it will be engaged in that very swiftly and that the Bill will soon be before your Lordships.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Order laid before the House on 7 September be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I would like to reflect for a couple of minutes on the Bill and its passage. This legislation, although necessarily limited in scope, is a key part of the Government’s nine-point plan to improve seafarer welfare and working conditions. The Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to ensure that employees with close ties to the UK are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while they are working in the UK or its territorial waters.
I reiterate the Government’s intention to continue working closely with ports, the shipping sector and unions as the Bill continues its passage through the House of Commons and, crucially, as we develop secondary legislation. We are very grateful to stakeholders for their constructive engagement and interest in the legislation so far and are keen for this to continue.
I will also take this opportunity to clarify a point I made in Committee about seafarers servicing oil and gas platforms. I had previously stated that seafarers on services to offshore renewable energy installations were also covered by virtue of Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999. I would like to correct the record and confirm that they are not entitled to the national minimum wage under existing legislation but are considered to already be in scope of the Bill if calling at a UK port more than 120 times per year.
As ever, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Randerson, for their constructive approach to each stage of this Bill and to all other noble Lords who contributed, many of whom brought deep and specific expertise. Last but definitely not least, I pay tribute to the work of the parliamentary counsel as well as the House staff, the Bill team, my excellent private office, and my noble friend Lord Younger for his support.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will comment briefly. The Bill is an important first step in the nine-point plan. I am very pleased that the Minister has reiterated her commitment to proceed on that plan; we all wait to see early progress. I will be studying the words relating to the clarification. I thank her and her support staff for the way that she has conducted the Bill. I do not have as many people to thank on my side, but I thank my adviser—who wrote some excellent speeches that the House heard—for supporting this work, and all noble Lords who took part.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are absolutely committed to the Government’s aim of improving the pay and conditions of our seafarers. During the passage of the Bill, we heard some egregious examples which gave evidence as to why we need the Bill.
However, we do have concerns about the Bill that remain, falling broadly into two categories. One is the issue of compliance with international conventions, a number of which are potentially challenged by this legislation; the second is over issues around implementation and enforcement, which have been raised by the chambers of shipping, the British ports authorities and the trade unions. All of these have been thoroughly debated; although we continue to have reservations, we saw no point in bringing forward any amendments at Third Reading. I know that the Minister is committed to dialogue with the stakeholders and, therefore, we still hope that some practical ways of dealing with some of these issues may yet emerge.
The general health of the shipping industry is addressed in the Government’s nine- point plan. I was encouraged to hear the Minister on Report talking about the annual report prepared jointly with industry; we can all look forward to reading and potentially debating that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has been affected by the rail strikes today and is therefore not here, and the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, as well as the Minister’s private office and her team of civil servants for her constructive and always helpful engagement with us.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Monday 7th November 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 View all Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-IV Forth marshalled list for Committee - (3 Nov 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Before the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, moves his amendment, I advise the Committee that I will not be able to call Amendments 37 or 38 should Amendment 36 be agreed to.
Amendment 36
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the Minister’s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I move Amendment 36. As with previous amendments of a similar character, I am grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Clause 18 was neatly described by the former Treasury counsel Sir Jonathan Jones as the “do whatever you like” clause. It was unclear in Committee in the Commons what the Government’s intention behind the clause was. Michael Ellis, the then Paymaster-General, said that the Government needed Clause 18, which is a power to give legal effect to a Minister’s conduct in carrying out their duties. He said:
“It simply makes clear, as would normally be taken for granted, that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/22; col. 1004.]
It is a great relief that we need a Minister to state that. It was quite telling that he said that they needed this power to make their conduct lawful, which would normally be taken for granted.
However, the seriousness is that there has been little explanation on what that “conduct” would be. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum did not explain it. Perhaps that is because they consider this not to be delegated power. The Explanatory Memorandum did, however, give some examples, including issuing guidance. As Michael Ellis indicated, it would also be instructing civil servants. The concern is that we have many other examples where legislation frames the conduct of providing guidance. As the Hansard Society and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have highlighted, this is one example of disguised legislation. Powers on providing guidance can, in effect, have legal effect. For example, my reading of this clause suggests that it is so broad that it would allow a Minister to issue guidance, which is non-statutory, but also issue instructions that that guidance needs to be followed—which, in effect, is statutory. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is not within the scope of this clause.
The Hansard Society has sought an exhaustive list of how conduct can be described. If we are to be avoiding hidden legislation, the Government need to be clear in what they seem to do. In the UK Internal Market Act, which has been referred to previously in Committee, I tried to find some equivalent—and there is some equivalent when it comes to the powers of Ministers to provide guidance. However, there are a number of subsections on that power which restrict the Minister’s ability to provide that. Crucially, there is a statutory duty for Ministers to consult with those who would be in receipt of the guidance on the operation of the Act.
Finally, the DPRRC said:
“Despite its being highly unusual and its breadth, the exercise of the power in clause 18 will have no parliamentary oversight since it is subject to no parliamentary procedure.”
Previously in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that this is not what we do when it comes to breaking international law. This is not how we should be making laws—so broad, and with potentially few restrictions. The Minister simply says that this is about what they do already. If that is the case, why is it necessary? If it is necessary, what they intend to do with it should be spelled out exactly. I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I just wonder what Clause 18 is supposed to mean. Does it really mean that the Minister of the Crown may do whatever he likes? Yes, it does; that was what we were discussing on Wednesday, when noble Lords and the Government listened to me. I had a dream over the weekend that the Minister today is going to get up and say, “Lord Judge, you were entirely right on Wednesday. We have changed our minds: we are going to put this Bill into proper shape”.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister what discussions there have been with the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments as to the process that will be used if these regulations are brought forward.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 36 and 38 for the reasons that have been so eloquently set out already—I do not think that I need to repeat them. The idea that Parliament is passing a law to allow a Minister to do whatever he likes without coming back to Parliament seems to be quite breathtaking. That is nothing to do necessarily with Northern Ireland or Brexit; that is to do with our parliamentary democracy. On the question of whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill, I would certainly support its removal.
I confess that I find it difficult to accept that just changing “appropriate” to “necessary” will actually sort out the problem that is inherent in so many of the measures in this Bill, because a Minister could easily just say that they are doing it because they think it “necessary”. Who is going to be able to challenge that? The law would still be changed.
I support the idea put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, of at least having approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly. This would once again be an example of the British Government doing something with Northern Ireland, rather than to Northern Ireland—as the current wording would imply.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who highlights quite clearly the central proposition in Amendment 38, tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. It is about limiting the control of Ministers under the Bill by ensuring that the Northern Ireland Assembly is given necessary approval of the conduct in relation to the provisions within the Bill.
Amendment 38 seeks to amend Clause 18, “Other Ministerial powers”, to ensure a limitation of delegated powers to Ministers—the very issue that was discussed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—and to ensure that
“the exercise of the Minister’s power to engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol that is not otherwise authorised by the Act to a motion approving the conduct in the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
It throws up the accountability issues relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly—I hope that all the institutions will be up and running eventually—and would ensure that devolved regions and nations have particular control in relation to this issue.
It is worth noting that there were two important developments in the long road of the protocol. Today, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, met in the margins of the climate conference in Egypt and agreed to work together to end the turmoil in relation to the protocol. Also today, at the meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in this building, Vice-President Šefčovič said that if this Bill were to become law, the UK Government would put Northern Ireland’s unique access to the EU market of 450 million customers at risk.
I again urge the Government to put this Bill into cold storage and ensure that there is renewed political vigour given to the negotiations. It is only through joint negotiations that all the issues around the protocol in relation to east-west issues and to trade between GB and Northern Ireland can be satisfactorily resolved to the benefit of all businesses and people in Northern Ireland.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, when the purpose and the intended effect of a clause are unclear, it sometimes helps to look at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. These are produced, of course, by the Government, and are designed to explain. But if we look at the Explanatory Notes to Clause 18, we see that the confusion and uncertainty are even more manifest.
Look at paragraphs 96 to 98 of the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 96 tells us that:
“Clause 18 clarifies the relationship between powers provided by this Bill and those arising otherwise, including by virtue of the Royal Prerogative.”
That is what Clause 18(2) says. Paragraph 97 deals specifically with Clause 18(1). It says:
“Subsection (1) provides that Ministers can engage in conduct (i.e.”—
and I emphasise that it is “i.e.” and not “e.g.”—
“sub-legislative activity, such as producing guidance) relevant to the Northern Ireland Protocol if they consider it appropriate in connection with one or more of the purposes of this Bill.”
If that is the intended purpose of Clause 18(1), why not say so? Why not limit the scope of Clause 18(1) specifically to say that Ministers can produce guidance? We could then have a debate about whether it is properly drafted, whether it is too broad or whether there should be some controls. I am afraid that what we find in Clause 18(1) bears no relationship whatever to what the Explanatory Notes tell us that Clause 18(1) is designed to achieve. My conclusion from that is that there must be real doubt here; that Ministers know what Clause 18(1) is designed to achieve and are reluctant to be specific because they do not want proper controls on the scope of their powers.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
To follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I wonder whether one route might be for the Minister to give us a glimpse behind the veil. What were the instructions given to parliamentary counsel? In other words, what were they asked to achieve by means of Clause 18(2)?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have added my name.
My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed has already spelled out in great detail the potentially huge increase in power that Clause 18 could grant to a Minister of the Crown, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has further explained the total lack of clarity as regards this clause.
I was reflecting on the many debates we had on this Bill last week and on the general and frankly astonishing lack of clarity from the Government as to why such sweeping powers should ever be deemed necessary—the Rumsfeld “unknown unknowns” clauses, as my noble friend has coined them. Later this week, I believe we will be hearing a Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on progress—or, indeed, lack of progress—in bringing back the Northern Ireland Assembly and a functioning Executive, and whether there will be elections imminently in Northern Ireland to overcome this impasse.
The Government and other noble Lords have stated that one of the Bill’s main purposes was to deal with the understandable concerns of the unionist community, particularly the DUP, about the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol. One can hope that the talks taking place in Brussels and at the climate summit in Egypt will lead to genuine negotiations and a potential framework for agreement. It has also been stated that one of the Bill’s purposes was to facilitate the DUP’s return to the Northern Ireland Executive, yet it remains far from clear that passing this legislation in and of itself would achieve this. It is therefore increasingly hard to understand why we are pushing ahead with this very bad Bill, which sets so many dangerous precedents, if it does not, in itself, achieve even one of its so-called “main objectives”—namely, a much-needed return to a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.
When the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, replies to this group of amendments, I would be very grateful if he confirmed that re-establishing the Northern Ireland Executive remains one of the Bill’s primary purposes. If it is, does he not agree that other much more productive approaches, such as genuine negotiations and a change of tone, could be taken that would achieve exactly the same goal, but more effectively?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, here we are again. I could not disagree with anything that has been said by anyone who has spoken. I would like the Minister, for whom we all have real affection and high regard—
Lord Cormack (Con)
Of course, everything is discerning and discriminating.
I would like the Minister to give us two reasons, or even one, why it is sensible to carry on with this Bill. We have heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that sensible talks seem to be taking place on the fringes of the great COP meeting in Egypt and there are other signs of talking going on, so what is the point—I have used this expression before, and I make no apology for using it again—in Parliament putting government and negotiators into a straitjacket? It is just nonsensical. We all hope the negotiations will result in certain changes to the protocol, but why drive this Bill through at this very time?
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, talked about the DUP. I have always felt that it is bad to pay danegeld. That, really, is what is happening here, and it is mixed up with treaty obligations—I underline the word “obligations”—and with opportunities which many people in Northern Ireland wish to take advantage of, suitably amended.
We are on our fourth day of debate on this very bad and, in my view, wholly unnecessary Bill. Let us pause it. Let us watch the negotiations with—I hope—acclamation and welcome their results. Let us not waste parliamentary time on such a badly drafted Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us, even the explanatory clauses do not explain it; they obfuscate and make it worse. Let us get on with some proper business and leave this rubbish in the heap where it should be.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have reached the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but via a slightly different route. I heard the noble Baroness and the noble Lord refer to talks proceeding amicably and constructively. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, has regularly assured us from his own involvement in the talks that they are proceeding satisfactorily and are in no way being derailed by this Bill.
I am miles away from the action, of course—like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, I would be very grateful if the Government could find the time to give us some reports on the talks from time to time—but I get a rather different impression of the view in Brussels. My impression is that there is not a great deal going on in these talks, and that the officials involved do not have the kind of instructions which give them discretion to do any negotiating. My impression is that British Ministers are not particularly hands-on, that they are not very closely involved in the talks and that, in fact, no real political input and impetus has been given as yet.
On the EU side, I think there is a natural tendency to wait and see whether the arrival of a new Government and a new Prime Minister in Britain will bring about any changes in the British position. The Commission has succeeded in persuading the member states that the CJEU cases against us can be left in limbo for the moment; a number of member states would have preferred to proceed to having these cases heard, but they stay in limbo and there seems to be a sort of consensus on that. But there is absolutely no pressure that I can detect among member states for any softening of Šefčovič’s mandate or any change in the instructions he is getting, perhaps partly because they are waiting to see whether there is some change in the instructions our people have. I detect no sign of anybody believing that Šefčovič’s instructions will change while the threat of this Bill hangs over the negotiations.
In my view—I repeat that I am miles away from the action, so I may be quite wrong—the only real debate among member states is whether contingency planning should be started on their side and whether it is this Bill reaching the statute book or actual use of the powers it contains that should trigger resort to action. The action would of course be the end of the talks and the necessary review of the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement. I think everybody believes that in Brussels. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us on our last day of Committee, we committed ourselves in the TCA to carrying out our obligations as in the withdrawal agreement, which include the protocol. So if we were to use the powers in this Bill or, as some say—I am among them—put this Bill on the statute book, we would be in breach of not just the withdrawal agreement but the TCA.
So I think the debate is about contingency planning for that eventuality, rather than for any change or softening of the EU position in the talks. Therefore, it seems to me, we should recognise that what we are doing here, if we were to pass this Bill, is setting ourselves up for a rather serious trade war with the EU and for the return of all the problems in Northern Ireland that will result from Northern Ireland no longer being a member of the single market. We will go back to a different form of frontier problem, from which the protocol was designed to have us escape.
So I reach exactly the same conclusion as did the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but by a slightly different route. I do not think that the talks are going particularly well, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will act on the promise that he made on our last day in Committee to see if he could ensure that we receive progress reports on the talks. Though I am miles away from the action, it seems to me that, if we proceed with this Bill, we are heading straight into a thunderstorm that will sink the ship.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he go one step further and ask my noble friend the Minister, in responding to this debate, to say whether he agrees with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, which I do, that we would be in breach not only of the withdrawal agreement but of the trade and co-operation agreement? It would be very good to get that on the record at this stage. Will he just go so far as to press the Minister, in summing up, to say whether he agrees with his analysis?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, Amendment 38, among others, refers to the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in approving the conduct of Ministers. I suppose that a parallel would be a legislative consent Motion; it is the same kind of principle. It is good to hear that negotiations are taking place, but the people who are most directly affected not just by this legislation but by the protocol itself are excluded from this process. Noble Lords should bear in mind that, if a trader brings a vehicle into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the first person whom that trader will deal with will be an employee of a Northern Ireland government department, responsible to a Northern Ireland Executive Minister.
The people who are the most directly affected and who have a direct responsibility for the implementation of any of these processes—that is, the politicians in Northern Ireland—are spectators in a matter that most directly affects them. Of course, it is a national issue and an international issue; but when you drill down, as Amendment 38 is attempting to do, the people with their hands on the problem on the day, every day, are out of the frame altogether.
Now I do not care what the issue is, but have we learned nothing in this place over the last 30 or 40 years? If you exclude people from something that directly affects them—and we had the Anglo-Irish process in the mid-1980s, when we followed the same principle that you negotiate over somebody’s head and shove a piece of paper in front of them and say, “There you are: implement it”—it will not work.
Amendment 38 is just one example. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to engage the politicians in Stormont directly in this process? That could be part of a solution. When we were part of the EU, it was not unusual for Ministers from Westminster to include devolved Ministers with them in their delegations. That was quite a normal process. Can we not adapt that principle? One Minister said a week or two ago—he meant well, I have no doubt—“Leave it to us. We’ve got your back here. We’ll look after it for you.” I have to say, with the greatest respect, that our backs are so full of dagger holes that we know all about that. We will believe only what we see and hear ourselves. Bring our politicians into the picture; bring them to the table with you so they are not your enemy.
I accept, of course, that we are dealing with an international issue, and foreign affairs and related matters are not devolved—I get that. But have we not enough flexibility to bring people along as part of our delegation so that they can see persons and papers? We do not have to break any rules. What is so secret?
Before he left office, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is in his place, a Question about all the committees that have been set up under the agreement and who populated them. I think he left office before he was able to reply to that Question, but who are they? I do not know who they are. Where are they? How many of these committees do we have? All I can tell you is that nobody of political significance in Belfast is engaged. It will not work—fix it. Let us make these discussions meaningful. Let us get the people who have to deliver what is agreed, at the table. We would never have got the Good Friday agreement had we not done that by bringing everybody in.
I have listened at some length to the arguments about the legality of the legislation and its role. I am not a lawyer, but I respectfully invite colleagues to review the evidence submitted to the Sub-Committee on the Protocol in Ireland/Northern Ireland by Professor Boyle and another colleague from the University of Cambridge on what they consider to be the legal position of this legislation. They came to the joint conclusion that the Article 16 process would have to be involved in order to make it legal. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but I refer Members to that piece of evidence. The transcript is available, it was a public investigation by our committee, and I commend it to colleagues. I ask them to look at it and see what merit there is for us.
There is a solution here; we can find a way through this. However, I can tell colleagues from years of experience—other people in this Chamber can do the same—that, with the process that we have chosen to take, we are going about things the wrong way. I understand where the Government are coming from with the legislation, and I do not wish to see the UK Government’s negotiating position weakened, but I want success. We are facing the worst crisis economically in many decades. Northern Ireland’s community is facing increased costs, in part as a result of the protocol, obviously we have the lowest levels of income, and we also have a different energy system to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Basically, our political class is out to lunch. We are not contributing anything to the solutions, because of the stand-off at Stormont. I do not want to see Sinn Féin’s argument that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity justified, and that is the risk we are taking. My appeal to the Minister concerning any—indeed, all—of these amendments involving support and approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly is that one of the ways to get the Assembly going again is to engage the people who have to operate the outcome of the negotiations, so that they are part of the solution and have ownership of it.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that in Northern Ireland, when we have a democratic vacuum, the men of violence fill the gap? Is he aware that only last week, because there was a call from Dublin for joint authority in Northern Ireland—government by both Dublin and London—a bomb was planned to be planted in a government building in the Republic of Ireland, which was called off, hours before it was due to explode, only when the Government here announced that there would be no joint authority?
Lord Empey (UUP)
The noble Lord is correct. I agree that history tells us that a vacuum will be filled, and it will not be filled by people who are committed to the democratic process. That is well established. There is no legitimacy for joint authority. The manifesto of the Government was clear in 2019 that it was explicitly excluded, although it was interesting that at this weekend’s Sinn Féin conference, its plan B was specifically aimed at some form of jointery. That is why I say we can see where the road is leading us.
I come back to the Minister and ask him to prevail on his colleagues to open the door to the people of Northern Ireland and the elected Members, so that they can participate in the process of negotiations; they will not be sitting in the front row, but they can be in the room, they can be advising Ministers, they can be contributing and they can feed that back to their supporters. It will have a calming effect if they can see that, and if the people who have to implement the thing on the ground are part of the solution. Surely that makes common sense. What is the point of having devolution if the people who have responsibility for delivering parts of this are not even at the table?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, we have ranged once again, in a debate on one of the amendments, far and wide across the whole gamut of the protocol Bill and the protocol itself. In that context, I want to follow up on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who talked about the state of the negotiations, the technical talks, the discussions, the conversations or whatever they may be. As he rightly said, we are not au fait with the detail, and those of us whom the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referenced who deal with politics in Northern Ireland and represent people in Northern Ireland are not privy to the details either.
I think that it is correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr said, that there appears to be no difference in the negotiating mandate of Commissioner Vice-President Šefčovič so far as the EU side of the negotiations is concerned. Indeed, that has been confirmed to me and, I am sure, to other noble Lords informally by people who are closer to the talks than many of us are. Of course, the Government’s position has been set out in the Command Paper, published in July 2021, and in the Bill, but so long as the negotiating mandate of the European Union negotiator is not changed, there can be little prospect for any positive outcome from the discussions, certainly not in the short term.
We can all agree that we need to solve this problem, and there are only two ways that it can be solved. It is either by negotiation or by action on the part of His Majesty’s Government. The danger of saying, “We’re not going to get anywhere in the discussions and we should pull or pause the Bill” is in what happens in Northern Ireland. What happens to the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement? What happens to the institutions? I have heard very little reference thus far from noble Lords who do not have a direct connection with Northern Ireland about the implications on the political and peace process in Northern Ireland.
The longer we do not have any outcome from negotiations, and if nothing is happening on the Government’s side on legislation, then the institutions will not be reformed, because there is not the basis for power sharing, when you have trashed one of the main strands of the agreement—strand 3, the east-west dimension—and when you have undermined the Northern Ireland Assembly through the removal of the cross-community consent principle. We have to address these matters.
While people may focus on what the outcome may be in terms of the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement—I entirely understand that—we also have to examine the implications on the Belfast agreement, on the St Andrews agreement, and on the peace and political process in Northern Ireland, which is in a very fragile state. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, highlighted a recent example of where these things can go.
I urge your Lordships to examine and bear in mind the implications, if we do not get a negotiated outcome which is satisfactory. I share the analysis of noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it does not look as if that is going to happen—certainly any time soon—and if we at the same time do not proceed with the Bill, where on earth does that leave the political process in Northern Ireland? It leaves it in a continuing state of limbo, which we have all agreed can be filled only by dangerous people—men of violence. We need to address these matters urgently.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
May I clarify something? My position is that there will be no progress with these talks until there is the involvement of high-level politicians from this country. I remember in the 1990s the attempt to move Congress from its support of the wrong side—in the British Government’s view—in Northern Ireland. I was ambassador and made a certain amount of progress, but the real progress was made only when Prime Minister Major and the then Minister of State, now the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, took an active involvement in helping me to see the people one had to convince on the Hill. We need the involvement of senior British Ministers. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that we need the involvement of people from Northern Ireland. This must not be an agreement, if one is achieved, that is imposed on Northern Ireland. It has to be one that is owned by Northern Ireland.
However, my view is that there is no chance of persuading the Council of the European Union that it should modify Mr Šefčovič’s mandate while technical talks are going nowhere and there are no signs of any movement, or even active involvement, by the highest levels of the British political establishment. I do not mean that I think the talks are bound to fail; I mean that, at present, they are not succeeding.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I maintained a Trappist silence throughout all the earlier debates on this Bill. I may be prominent among those wishing I had maintained it when I sit down in a moment or two because I recognise that I speak from a position of having less knowledge of the political and economic background to this debate than perhaps anybody else here—certainly less than anyone who has spoken.
What has driven me to my feet is what seems a striking absence of any reference to Article 16; again, we heard it in earlier debates but not today. To my mind—I speak in this respect simply as a lawyer—it is custom-built to meet any legitimate needs, which there are, to adapt processes in the Province today. What is required of the protocol by way of rewriting treaties is in doubt, but the protocol does not pre-empt the Belfast agreement obligations and commitments on all sides. On the contrary, Belfast is the primary one of these two treaties, which are enforceable under international law.
Those who know much more about this than I do emphasise—rightly, to my mind—the third strand of Belfast, which concerns east-west trade within the UK internal market. Far from the protocol pre-empting what we as the UK are entitled to insist on under the Belfast agreement, surely it accommodates the crucial argument—let the politicians in Northern Ireland make, refine, emphasise and urge this—that the regulatory controls that the EU currently exercises under the protocol, as well as the intensity of their policing, are in fact quite incompatible with its obligation to observe the Belfast agreement. You have only to look at the Belfast agreement to see that we, the UK, are duty bound to fight against the long-term alienation—I forget the precise language—of any community. We did it for the nationalists in respect of language in Northern Ireland. Now we owe the unionists some obligation to try to reinforce the critical importance of the east-west trade link here.
I therefore have no brief for this Bill. The unionists say, “You need this to get back into the Assembly”. That is nonsense. They open their mouths far too wide but their legitimate interests should be—indeed, must be—protected. Do it under Article 16, which meets any imperative need of the day, and let the people of Northern Ireland specify precisely what is required by way of adapting the processes under the protocol. If there needs to be any adaptation of the language, let them deal with that too. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said in an earlier debate, do not be too theological about the language—just get the agreement to do what is necessary.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, this has been unusual in the debates that we have had so far in that far more has been said that I can agree with than that I disagree with. I even found myself agreeing with two-thirds of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, which is unusual. He is undoubtedly right that the negotiations cannot really be going as well as we would all like to hope, and as so many commentators and Ministers imply they are, as long as the EU has not been prepared to change its negotiating mandate. It will not allow a single jot or tittle of the protocol to be changed under its existing mandate, even though the protocol itself envisages the possibility of it being changed in part or in whole. That surely has to change. Maybe it has de facto; maybe the EU is agreeing to talk beyond its mandate. Let us hope that that is the case.
The disappointing aspect of the debates so far is that I have been waiting throughout for any coherent response from noble Lords, in their very powerful speeches about the illegality of what we are doing, to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in particular as to what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, implied that there is between the obligations that we have under the Belfast agreement and those that we have under the protocol. I have not heard any direct response to that question: what do you do when you have conflicting international legal obligations?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord but the Committee has heard repeated explanations of what the answer is. The answer is that the protocol contains Article 16, which allows for a process to commence by which disputes can be resolved with an arbitration process. That is the answer. There is no conflict because the protocol provides a mechanism for addressing conflicts.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for sidestepping the question by saying that he does not need to answer it because there is an article in the protocol that means you do not have to answer on what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations. Clearly, however, the Government and many noble Lords from the Province who have spoken think that there is a conflict and it cannot be solved just by invoking Article 16. If it can, fine; that is wonderful.
The other related question that we have not had a response to is the point made by the Lord Chancellor in the other place that Article 1 of the protocol specifically says that in the event of a conflict between the Belfast agreement and the protocol, the Belfast agreement takes precedence. I have not heard any response to that, nor to the point, which I might be alone in making, that the whole protocol is intrinsically temporary. We know that because the EU told us that it could not enter into a permanent relationship with us because we were then a member state and it could not, under Article 50, enter into a permanent relationship with a member state; it could be only temporary and transitional. That is why the protocol itself contains provision for it to be superseded, but I have heard no response to that point from anyone.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I heard the responses given to my noble friend so far, which he seems reluctant to accept. If he does not agree that the Article 16 process would be a way of resolving some of these conflicts that have arisen and caused problems, in what way does he feel that the passage of the Bill would itself resolve those conflicts, or indeed support the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I certainly do not say absolutely that Article 16 is not the way to proceed, but I have spoken to lawyers much respected by people in this House—unfortunately I do not have their permission to give their names—who told me that we should not go down the Article 16 route because it would be a nightmare.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I will put the two in touch discreetly and thereby not betray confidences.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and I am grateful for his patience, but it really is not good enough, when this Committee is debating these matters, for him to say that there are problems in using Article 16 but not tell us what they are.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am saying that there may well be problems. Indeed, I asked the noble Lord the other day, down the corridor, whether he was of the opinion that Article 16 could be used to solve all the problems. If it can be, fine; I am not ruling that out. However, if it cannot be, then the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is there on the table, and the issue raised by the Lord Chancellor is there on the table. Whatever about that, the protocol is intrinsically temporary. The whole basis of the negotiations that we entered into on the withdrawal agreement was that a permanent agreement could not be entered into in the withdrawal Act with the United Kingdom covering trade or other matters; that could happen only after we had left. Therefore, anything in the withdrawal agreement was intrinsically transitional and temporary.
Again, I have not heard a response on that today. I wait to be interrupted with a response to the point. Usually, it comes from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who wrote Article 50, but he has forgotten what the alternative is.
These are important issues. We need to know why we were told one thing, that this was temporary, and now are told another thing, that it is permanent. Until we get an answer to those questions, I do not know that our debate can proceed as productively as it ought to. There are other more general points which I would like to make but I will save them for another batch of amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has indeed been a very wide-ranging debate, but I will comment specifically on the amendments themselves.
The DPRRC refers to the power contained in Clause 18 as “strange” and notes that
“Despite its being highly unusual”
there will be “no parliamentary oversight” whatever. This was the subject of some debate in another place, with much head-scratching as to what the Government were trying to achieve. Indeed, we cannot know that, because they have not offered a clear justification. A former head of the government legal service, Sir Jonathan Jones KC, described this as a “do whatever you like” power, but why is it needed in the first place? We have no definition of “conduct”. Can the Minister have a go at giving us a definition today? If that is not possible, can we have a detailed explanation ahead of Report?
In the Commons, the Minister tried to insist that concerned MPs had misconstrued the intent and that Clause 18 simply makes clear that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation. I cannot remember any other legislation where the Government have felt it necessary to clarify that Ministers are acting lawfully. Until recently, we took it for granted that this was always the case. Therefore, is this power an admission that the Government’s approach to the protocol is incompatible with international law and, as a result, in conflict with the Ministerial Code’s requirements to comply with the law?
There were a number of very interesting contributions in this debate. I highlight that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which was very constructive, about bringing into the process which is being embarked on by the UK Government respected people from Northern Ireland. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to the proposals made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, gave a rather chilling example of the stakes we are dealing with and how important it is that we take every opportunity we possibly can to resolve the current position. This has been an interesting debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the amendments and the wider context. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I always look down the list to see when the first group in Committee will be. We know that the clock will strike an hour because of the context that will be set in relation not just to the amendments in front of us but opinions on the particular Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I will focus on the specific amendments. Where I can add a degree of Ahmad colour, I will seek to do this in the best way possible.
As I and my colleagues have said, to pick up on a key point on the ultimate nature of the Bill, the reasoning behind the Government’s approach is that the Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law and supports our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as has been said in various parts of today’s debate—and very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lilley.
I will begin with Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the issue of the powers. In the Government’s view, Clause 18 is not an extraordinary power. It simply makes clear, as would normally be the case, that Ministers are acting lawfully in this case. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others and I will attempt to put some colour on this—I do not know whether it will be to noble Lords’ satisfaction. Clause 18 is included because the Government recognise that the Bill provides, in a way that is not routinely done for other legislation, for new domestic obligations to replace prior domestic obligations that stem from our international obligations. Those international obligations are currently implemented automatically by Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That conduit pipe currently constrains—and in the Government’s view could cause confusion in the future—how Ministers can act in support of the Bill. The Government put forward that Clause 18 is to provide clarity on that point.
I note the DPRRC’s view on the issue of delegated powers, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, highlighted again in his contribution. However, it is the Government’s view that the power being proposed here is within the normal scope of executive action. To provide a bit more detail, this would include, for example, direct notifications from Ministers to the EU. While I am sure—I am going to hazard a guess as I look around your Lordships’ House—that I may not have satisfied every question on that, I hope that that has provided a degree more detail.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Can I press him for a moment on what I understand to be his explanation for Clause 18, which is that otherwise there may be some concern that the exercise of powers is not consistent with Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? I think that is what the Minister said.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I would put it slightly differently. That is the section I referred to, but it is to provide clarification in that respect. The noble Lord will interpret that in the way that he has, but I have sought to provide clarity on why the Government’s position is that this should be included.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Could I complete my point? I am very grateful to the Minister but I am puzzled by that explanation, because the Bill already deals specifically with this subject in Clause 2(3). I remind the Minister that it states:
“In section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 … after subsection (3) insert … This section is subject to”
this Bill. Therefore, with great respect, I do not understand why one needs Clause 18 to address exactly the same point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I suppose that, with any Bill, the challenge for the Government is often to provide added clarification. That is exactly what we are doing, perhaps to emphasise the point that the noble Lord himself has highlighted from other elements of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord will come back on these issues, but if I can provide further detail on the specific actions that this would thereby permit, I will. As I said, it is a point of clarification, and I will write to the noble Lord on this point.
The best way I can sum up Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is that it is a well-trodden theme in the context of the Bill. The positions and different perspectives on this issue are noted. All I add is that the Government’s intention is to ensure that the powers—the ability for a Minister of the Crown to issue guidance to industry or provide direction to officials in relation to the regime put in place under the protocol—reflect their ability to carry out their responsibilities. In this case I can see no reason why Ministers should be able to issue “appropriate” direction in relation to trade with the EU via the short straits but only “necessary” directions over the Irish Sea.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
The Minister just indicated that discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations. Maybe he can give us a little more colour about the type of discussions that have taken place. In that regard, I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that there is a need for the Northern Ireland parties to be involved in the negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that these discussions have certainly taken place at an official level. My understanding is that the Foreign Secretary has also written to the devolved Administrations on the issue of seeking consent, but if there is more detail I will update the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness also rightly mentioned the importance of understanding the issues on the ground. As I have indicated, I believe passionately that, irrespective of where you are coming from on the Bill—whether you are from Northern Ireland itself or wherever you are sitting in this Chamber—our ultimate objective in the discussions we are having is to ensure that the protocol, and indeed any other arrangements put in place after the negotiations and debates taking place, work in the interests of all communities in Northern Ireland. That is the premise of the Government’s approach.
The amendment the noble Baroness has tabled would require an approval Motion to be passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly before a Minister may act in accordance with Clause 18
“in relation to any matter … in the Northern Ireland Protocol (where that conduct is not otherwise authorised by this Act)”.
However, in the Government’s view, the amendment is unworkable in practice, because it would require the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass a vote every time any number of actions were taken in connection with the Bill. That could be as innocuous as providing instruction to civil servants or guidance to industry. Such a situation would clearly be prohibitive to the implementation of swift solutions to the problems caused by the protocol, and therefore would not work. Nor would it be appropriate or in line with the devolution settlement for actions—
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt but I am most grateful to my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a very powerful and constructive speech. I listened to what my noble friend said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, but would it not be possible for informal invitations to be issued to Northern Ireland politicians to attend talks, particularly if the talks themselves are informal?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I will certainly take back his comments and constructive suggestions and will, of course, advise the House if there is more scope in our current discussions with the European Commission.
I listened very carefully to all contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised the issue from where he was seeing it. As noble Lords know, when I have come to the House, I have reported. I was certainly involved in one discussion last week and, as I said, it was constructive and positive in both tone and substance. I am sure that all noble Lords who have served in government will appreciate that there are limits to what detail I can share.
Subsequent discussions have taken place, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, alluded. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that they are not going anywhere. If they were not going anywhere, we would not be meeting and talking. I also challenge the premise that they have not engaged the highest level of the British Government. Last time I checked, the Foreign Secretary was among those counted in the highest levels of the British Government. I therefore say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that that is definitely not the case. The lead person dealing with Commissioner Šefčovič is my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who is a senior member of the British Government.
Returning to the amendment, for the reasons I have given, we cannot support it. However, I also point out that the Bill is needed because the Good Friday agreement institutions, including the Assembly, are not operating as they should be. I know that the noble Baroness will return to this issue. I welcome her valuable insights in this area, but I hope that, given my response, particularly on the important issues raised by her and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, she sees that we will certainly seek to further enhance our engagement with parties in Northern Ireland.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, focused on Clause 18, which simply provides the power for a Minister to engage in normal non-legislative contact where they consider it appropriate in connection with one or more of the purposes of the Bill. The clause also clarifies the relationship between powers to make secondary legislation under the Bill and those arising by virtue of the royal prerogative. It will ensure that actions not requiring legislation, such as issuing guidance for industry or providing direction to officials, can be taken in a timely manner by a Minister of the Crown. Clause 18 simply makes clear, as would normally be taken for granted—we just had a brief discussion with the noble Lord on the Government’s position on this—that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation. The Government’s view therefore remains that it should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to those who have taken part. I felt that I was agreeing 100% with the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but then I started to have doubts when the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said he agreed with two-thirds of it. I will come back on that in just a second.
In all seriousness, I am concerned about what the Minister said. If this power, which is not framed and not specific, is guidance for industry then that is now in direct contradiction with the requirement on Ministers to provide guidance on the operation of the internal market, under the internal market Act, for Northern Ireland. Section 48, which I understand is being repealed by this Bill, as we have discussed, has a requirement on Ministers to consult before guidance is published. Under Section 12 of the internal market Act it is a legal duty for Ministers to consult Northern Ireland departments before guidance is issued. Draft guidance must be issued first. To some extent, that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made about inclusiveness before measures.
If Clause 18 can be used by Ministers—guidance for industry, as the Minister said twice—that is far weaker than the legal requirements, and I do not understand the interaction between the two. That is a significant problem. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to explain how guidance for industry will be operated under other parts of the legislation whereas they can simply decide to do it under Clause 18 because there are no restrictions, requirements or oversight of that whatever—there is no requirement for anything in draft.
That is important, given the subtext of this serious debate and the fact that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, indicated—Vice-President Šefčovič is in London at the moment. The Minister did not state whether any Ministers are meeting the vice-president on his visit. I am happy to be intervened on if wishes to clarify whether, during the vice-president’s visit to London, any senior Ministers are meeting him.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
This was the subject of conversation, but the noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend is currently in Sharm el-Sheikh on government business with the COP. We certainly sought to see whether they could meet on this particular occasion, but I will update the noble Lord as and when it happens.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister.
When the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says that he is miles away from the situation, I have known him long enough to suspect that there is a wee bit of code there. He is probably actually pretty close to knowing what is going on, and I suspect that he is right. I worry, because the Government are not engaging widely, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, or consulting. We have not had sight of what is on the table; we know what the EU has put on the table but not what the UK Government have put on the table. My fear is that, if the Government told us what was on the table, many people would be disappointed that they are only technical talks. Some people want them to be negotiations.
That comes on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I respect and understand his disagreement with the Government’s position—the Government want to mend it, not end it, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord thinks there is a more substantial issue with that. Ministers have said they want to fix it, not nix it. If you want to mend it, not end it, there are mechanisms, but there are also mechanisms if you want to end it. As Article 13 of the protocol states, it lasts as long as it lasts:
“Any subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom shall indicate the parts of this Protocol which it supersedes”—
so, if there is another treaty, this ends. There is nothing special about that; that is every treaty. A treaty lasts for as long as it lasts, and if there is a subsequent treaty then there is a subsequent treaty. So the noble Lord’s beef is not with us; it is presumably with the Government in order to open up the element of the withdrawal agreement and the associated TCA that he thinks are in contradiction.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Would the noble Lord deal with the Article 50 point? If it is intrinsically temporary and transitional, can it last for ever?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That is the point. We have now legislated for it, and the element we have legislated for includes Article 13.8, which is the process by which it would be superseded. I do not think there is any doubt about it; the noble Lord may have doubt in his mind about it, but in the other agreements there are mechanisms if we wish to open them.
The difficulty with this process taking such a long time is that if we were in grave and imminent peril—the Government have invoked the defence of necessity—then we would have anticipated some urgent, high-level talks to have resolved this by now. Regrettably, we are back to a situation where the stakes are getting higher because expectations are higher, but the reality, perhaps, is that some of these talks are technical.
With the greatest respect for the Minister, who I know tried to offer clarification, I am worried about what this power could be used for, and we will need to return to this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits a Minister’s ability to use a delegated power when they consider it “appropriate” to cases where it is “necessary”.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will allow a couple of seconds for people who have obviously got it off their chest during the first group to leave, in the hope that we do not go through the whole thing again.
Clause 19 is very short, at only a couple of paragraphs, but it is quite interesting, as it pleasingly addresses the situation we may find ourselves in where the Government have been successful in reaching an agreement with the European Union. Many of us have said, time and again, throughout this Committee, that we hope to see that. We have been challenging Ministers, as we have seen in the previous group, to show visible political leadership. The visibility has been lacking. I take on board what the Minister said about his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary playing an active role, but visibility and political momentum have been lacking. I like to think that, had one of my right honourable friends been leading these events, we would have seen a far more outward-facing presence, if I can put it that way, through this process—but never mind.
Clause 19 looks at the eventuality of there being an agreement. The amendment I have tabled is one that will be familiar by now to noble Lords who have been taking part in this process from the first day of our considerations. The first line of the clause, as it stands, says that:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.
I have asked that “appropriate” be changed to “necessary”, and I will explain why, in this particular instance, that is sensible.
This clause gives Ministers the power to implement an agreement that they hope to reach with the EU. Obviously—and we accept this—Ministers will need some flexibility in that event, and things may need to be done as a consequence of having an agreement. But I would have thought that an agreement, by its nature, would be clear and specific, and that things would be agreed that are not currently in place that would need to happen. In that instance, surely the things that need to be done by Ministers will, by virtue of the fact that they have just been agreed to with our negotiating partners, meet the test and be necessary.
It troubles me that the Government feel they should have “appropriate” there instead. That seems to give them much greater scope than is ever going to be needed in the event that this clause is used—and we hope that it will be. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s thinking is there, beyond thinking that “necessary” is too tight and just wanting to allow themselves a bit more room—of course they do; who would not? But this clause deals with the fact that there may be an agreement, and I do not think it is justified for the power to be as widely drawn as it is.
While I am on my feet, I note that I support the stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this case as well. The DPRRC believes that the powers in this clause are just too widely drawn, though there is obviously merit in discussing what powers are needed in the event of an agreement and what the role of Parliament should be in that situation. We think that a deal can be struck—we have said that many times—and also believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any agreement, as other Parliaments will. I just note that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 was passed in a day and the TCA was ratified without direct parliamentary process. We accept that Ministers need the ability to act in the event of an agreement and we appreciate the Government demonstrating their anticipation of such an agreement in this clause, which is notable, but surely a Bill to enact an agreement would be better. That is what we have been asking for.
This is a discussion we have had with the Government on many occasions and on other agreements, when we have talked about the unsatisfactory process we still have in this country for parliamentary involvement in agreements. We do not think we have got it right yet; that is understandable, and it is perhaps going to take some time to get to that point. We have not had to engage in this for many years, but I do not think that many people in Parliament are satisfied with the way this works at the moment, and it would be helpful if the Minister could acknowledge that.
Without being too cheeky about it, we want to help the Government, given just how unsuccessful they have been so far in settling these issues. We do not see why they would be so resistant to involvement from people who are being very positive and cheering them on in their endeavours. We really do want to see a resolution to this. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name and express my support for the stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
We support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. In supporting it, I want to make two points. First, this clause effectively turns the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act principles on their head. We have well-established mechanisms, which are set down in statute, on how we approve new international agreements. If this is a mechanism to replace the Northern Ireland protocol, an internationally made agreement, with a new agreement, then why is the CRaG process, which allows parliamentary scrutiny, debate and, unlike this, an ability to have enhanced approvals or indeed vetoing by Parliament, not going to be the route for it? I do not understand why.
Secondly, it also sets on its head every commitment that has been provided for every trade agreement: namely, that if a trade agreement requires any primary legislation to bring it into effect in domestic law, primary legislation is brought forward—this is not done by regulation. But, again, this is being set on its head. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is coming up, which is primary legislation—not regulation —implemented with agreement. The two Bills contradict each other really quite glaringly.
I think that this is significant because of an interaction I had with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on one of the previous days in Committee. I asked him whether he had given consideration—if there is, as a result of these talks, an agreement with the EU—as to how that should be put in force. The Government are saying “by regulations”, which are unamendable and could even be under a negative process; they could use Clause 19 to do this. If the noble Lord’s concern—as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—was about the need for consent, this is not the means by which that would be secured. Yet this is the means by which the Government could enforce it. There is a very jarring comparison between what consent of any new agreement would be and how the Government are seeking powers under Clause 19 to enable them to put this into force. Clause 19 should not be the mechanism by which we have sustainable support for any agreement. An order-making power for a Minister is simply not the route—and that is in addition to the fact that they are turning on their heads long-standing practices by which we put international agreements into domestic legislation. For this reason, I do not think that Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to support Clause 19 not standing part of the Bill. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, have very eloquently explained some of the problems with this clause. Equally, I have a concern about just changing the word “appropriate” to “necessary”, because we had a relevant agreement with the EU—the withdrawal agreement, part of which is the Northern Ireland protocol—and we have passed extensive legislation for that agreement. Yet government Ministers consider both this Bill and this clause “necessary”, even though it may break international law and may tear up the agreement that we have enshrined into our law. So were this clause to stay—and, indeed, were this Bill to become an Act—there would simply be the possibility that a Minister would no longer need to come to Parliament, Parliament would have no say and our whole parliamentary democracy would be turned on its head, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, described. I would like to hear from my noble friend the Minister how this is consistent with our normal constitutional safeguards in our democracy.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this brief debate. I turn first to Amendment 39. I welcome the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman; I was scribbling down some of them, including the phrase, “Cheerleader for the Government”—we look forward to that. I recognise that these are serious times in terms of our negotiations. Of course, it is right that we are being challenged, but contributions have also been made which are helpful in ultimately strengthening the role we want to see for all discussions: a successful conclusion in the interests of all communities in Northern Ireland.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Does Clause 19 not replace CRaG in respect of amendments to the protocol?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already said that the Bill does nothing to affect the procedures applying under the CRaG Act 2010. I have been clear on that and it is specifically in front of me as I speak.
Lord Pannick (CB)
If that is the case, would the Minister be sympathetic to an amendment on Report that puts that in the Bill?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I think my priority is to complete Committee. Of course, I look forward to Report and the amendments proposed and that is when we will have further discussions on this matter—
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, can he tell me whether there are any other circumstances in which the Government have promoted a clause containing terms such as these that he now urges upon us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will excuse me if I say that I do not have an instant response to that, but I will certainly talk to my officials and, if there are details to provide, I shall of course provide them to the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
There is nothing in Clause 19 on consent. If there is an agreement, what is the Government’s position on securing consent for it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My understanding is that we would certainly abide by our previous commitments in that respect. In the interests of clarity, I will confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think we are very happy about this. The Minister says that he wants to address stability in Northern Ireland, yet this whole process goes over the heads of people in Northern Ireland. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others just how unsuccessful they expect that to be. There are so many issues here, I just do not understand why Clause 19 is required when there are processes available to the Government to do this. We shall come back to this, but the only thing about saying that we shall come back to it on Report is that we do not know whether we will actually get to Report, given the amendments that we discussed before we started our formal consideration of the Bill. We still have not heard anything from the Government on that. Obviously, we shall leave it for today but the discussion we have had leaves a few more questions than answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Suttie
“but this section does not have effect unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Bill’s proposed departure from the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, or from any related provision of the EU withdrawal agreement, in respect of the previously agreed role of the European Court (CJEU) unless Clause 20 had first been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 40 in my name is co-signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Like so many of the earlier and similar amendments, it aims to ensure that the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly would have the final say on whether Clause 20 is to be implemented. In many ways, this is a probing amendment following what I felt was a very constructive and useful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I am very glad to see back in his place after an absence. In doing this, it is incredibly important that we make sure that there is greater involvement of the Northern Ireland political parties at every stage. Perception is all in politics and, whether or not the Minister says that meetings are taking place, the representatives here from Northern Ireland do not feel that they are taking place. Therefore, they are obviously not working as they should be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is not in his place, spelled out so clearly on an earlier group of amendments, Clause 20 would mean that domestic courts and tribunals cannot refer any matter to the European Court of Justice in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, also spelled out very clearly the potential impact of this clause on the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. My honourable friend Stephen Farry MP, when speaking in the House of Commons about a very similar amendment, made the point that if the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is removed, Northern Ireland’s ability to access the single market for goods will be jeopardised or destroyed. A level playing field overseen by the European Court is surely in the interests of many Northern Ireland businesses and can protect access to the market in years to come. It will also protect such businesses against situations that may arise in future if any EU member state were to attempt to refuse goods coming from Northern Ireland.
Politically, it is worth stressing once again that the majority of businesses in Northern Ireland have adopted our somewhat pragmatic approach to the protocol and that the jurisdiction of the European Court has not previously been seen as a major area of concern. It is therefore hard not to draw the conclusion that Clause 20 has more to do with Conservative Party divisions and the ERG than it has to do with genuine political and business concerns in Northern Ireland. For those businesses that primarily deal with north-south trade or with the EU, any reduction of the jurisdiction of the ECJ would potentially have a profound impact on them. It is for that reason that it is very important that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to have its say on these matters. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 40 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and will refer to Amendments 42 and 43A in my name.
In many ways, Amendment 40 seeks to protect the role of the European Court of Justice and to ensure adherence to the accountability mechanisms of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Adherence to the provisions in the GFA—the Good Friday agreement—are of vital importance, and any change in the protocol with respect to Clause 20 can go nowhere unless approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
While this is a probing amendment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I go back to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about the role of Assembly Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Absolutely no account, recognition or acknowledgement has been taken of the role of locally elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to this Bill. He is absolutely right when he says that, if they have buy-in and ownership, there is greater likelihood that the UK Government and the EU will achieve a degree of resolution on many of these vexatious issues.
Many elements of the protocol are already working well for business in Northern Ireland; for example, in relation to dairy, beef and agri-food industries. But it is important to note, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords have said—and I think the point has been made by my noble friend Lord Murphy—that negotiations succeed in Northern Ireland only when the parties are sitting around the table with the UK and the EU. So I ask the Government, in their discussions with the European Union, to try where possible to exercise a degree of flexibility that would facilitate such discussions taking place in a more all-encompassing manner.
I move on to Amendment 42, which seeks to ensure that, when the UK-EU joint committee has discussed regulation of goods in connection with the protocol, there is a full report to Parliament detailing those discussions within 21 days of the meeting. In the previous discussion on the first group of amendments, when queries were put by noble Lords about the nature and content of the negotiations with the European Union, I am afraid we did not get very much back about the actual content or level of solutions. Therefore, we are left with a query in our minds about what progress is actually being made in those technical discussions; hence the need for renewed vigour in continuous, senior political engagement at a UK/EU level.
Amendment 42 rightly emphasise the role of the Assembly and the north-south institutions of the Good Friday agreement. That is further emphasised in Amendment 43A, which requires adherence by a UK Minister in the UK-EU joint committee meetings
“to respect, reflect and support proposals made by the Strand 2”
GFA implementation bodies. That goes back to the fact that many of the implementation bodies are inextricably linked to membership of the European Union—I am thinking of InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland. It is important that Ministers support proposals on the regulation of goods made by the strand 2 bodies in the joint committee meetings.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I hope to be able to be present for the unveiling of the portrait of the late John Hume. It is a pity that our recently departed colleague Lord Trimble is not able to be there for that extraordinary occasion.
It seems to me that what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said was wholly in tune with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said earlier in our debates: how important it is to involve the politicians in Northern Ireland. It is also important to do something else, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, in his speech just half an hour ago. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, is in the Chamber at the moment, because the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about the crucial importance of involvement at the highest possible level. We would never have had any agreement without John Major and Albert Reynolds, built upon by Sir Tony Blair, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and others. It is very important indeed.
No one appreciates more than I do, I hope, the tremendous tasks facing our new Prime Minister, and I wish him every possible success. However, as soon as it is possible, he should involve himself. He should go over to Belfast and meet the Northern Ireland politicians, the Taoiseach and others, because there has to be involvement at the highest level. The success of such talks would be increased if this wretched Bill were at the very least paused.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I want to make a brief comment on Amendment 40, which is about approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In support of this amendment, it has been stated that adherence to the spirit and intention of the Belfast agreement is vital. But if we are to be faithful to that agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement, and to its spirit and intention, then the amendment is defective in that it does not include cross-community consent. Is this a resolution by cross-community consent?
The point that I have made—and as other noble Lords who are aware of the details of the Belfast agreement will know—is that every major decision in the Northern Ireland Assembly is made on a cross-community consent basis. That means a majority of nationalists, a majority of designated unionists and a majority overall. Anything that is not specifically a cross-community vote is capable of being turned into one by a petition of concern. If you are using the argument that you are defending the Belfast agreement, as amended, then why is the cross-community element of resolutions in the Northern Ireland Assembly left out? Why is that the case? Why is it not required to have the support of unionists and nationalists? That is the basis on which the Belfast agreement was written.
My second point is about the involvement of Northern Ireland parties. I have a lot of sympathy there, but it is worth bearing in mind that in the run-up, between 2018 and 2020, when we had all the discussions about the backstop and negotiations overall, the Irish Government made it clear on a number of occasions to us that they did not wish to have any engagement directly with political parties in Northern Ireland on the issue of Brexit. They did not see a role. Nor did Michel Barnier see any role for the political parties in Northern Ireland; I put that point to him directly in his office in Brussels.
Lest we move to the position that the British Government have prevented this or not done enough, I say that the Irish Government and the Brussels Commission were very clear: “This is a matter on which the EU is represented by Monsieur Barnier. He speaks for the EU.” Leo Varadkar was very clear when we met him in Belfast and urged him to encourage a more imaginative approach that would involve the Northern Ireland political parties and the Irish Government talking directly to political parties about Brexit—and the UK Government, of course. That was rejected: “No, Michel Barnier speaks for the EU. It is between Her Majesty’s Government”, as it then was, “and the EU. There is no role for anyone else.” That was spelled out explicitly.
While I have a lot of sympathy with the proposition, this is not as straightforward as it would appear. I think some of the problems we have seen might well have been made easier to resolve had there been more flexibility on the part of the EU and the Irish Government, but it needs to be put on record that it was and, as far as I understand it, remains, the position both of the Dublin Government and Brussels. It would be very interesting to see whether Leo Varadkar maintains that position when he takes over as Taoiseach in a few weeks’ time. It would be worth exploring that with the Irish Government, because the portrayal that this has been a one-sided exclusion is not accurate.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to come in at this stage—there are further amendments later that I am interested in making a contribution to—but I agree with an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said. Over the last year or two, I have been complaining that the real difficulty in this negotiation, if that is the right word to use for it—and I do not think that it is, by the way—lies in the way the protocol was born. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the protocol, or of the Bill—and I think there is an awful lot wrong with it—I am not at all convinced it is doing what it set out to do: in fact, it has failed to do that, because the DUP has not moved considerably because of the nature of the Bill. One reason is that the negotiations have been almost exclusively between the European Union on one hand and the British Government on the other, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said. That is a fundamental problem.
I understand why the Irish Government feel that way. They are part of the European Union; the European Union negotiates on their behalf. I thought it would be a good idea if that were reversed: the Irish Government could have negotiated on behalf of the European Union because, as we have heard a number of times this evening, the issues we are dealing with reflect two international agreements. The first and overriding one is the Good Friday agreement. That is an international agreement lodged at the United Nations and it overrides everything, so far as we can see, with regard to the future of Northern Ireland. How on earth can officials from the European Union understand the issues facing Northern Ireland in the way that the Irish Government could?
That reflects too, of course, on how you involve the Northern Ireland parties. If anybody thinks that this whole issue is going to be resolved in Brussels, that is for the birds. The issue is to be resolved in Belfast: that is where the impasse is. The impasse is: why have we not got the institutions of the Good Friday agreement up and running? It is simple. It is because people have not talked to each other. There have not been proper negotiations.
I spent five years of my life negotiating in Northern Ireland so I know how intense those negotiations have to be. There were negotiations involving the European Union at some stage, but nothing like the negotiations between, on the one hand, the two Governments—the British Government and the Irish Government—and, critically, the Northern Ireland political parties on the other. In the end, they will have to decide this.
One of the great tragedies of all this—it was not the fault of the DUP; it was the fault of Sinn Féin, in this case—is that the Assembly and the Executive were brought down over the then Irish language Bill. The result was that there was no proper Executive comprised of the parties in Northern Ireland, who could have discussed all the issues we have been discussing for the past three weeks. Had there been a proper Executive and Assembly up and running, we would not—I hope—be here in the way we are. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said.
I still hope that, over the next few months, the Irish Government can discuss meaningfully with the British Government. I particularly hope that there are proper, meaningful negotiations involving the political parties in Northern Ireland. By that, I mean negotiations; I do not mean going to Belfast for a couple of hours, meeting the political leaders, and then coming back again. That is not going to work. You have to get people around a table. You have to involve all the political parties in Northern Ireland. You have to do the things that we have done over the past 10 or 20 years to achieve a real, lasting solution to this issue. What we are doing now is a sham. It will not solve anything at all. The only way we can do it is through negotiations that involve the Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I want briefly to follow what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Dodds, have said. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, may be right about the European Union not wishing to negotiate with regional politicians. It has a long-standing position on that; the EU-Canada trade agreement got bogged down because of the Wallonians, I think, who blocked it for quite some time. But never mind what the European Union or Dublin thinks. This is what matters: what our own Government decide on who is going to speak for the United Kingdom at these talks. If our Government decide to involve people and politicians in Northern Ireland, that is our business. It is not the European Union’s business. At the end of the day we know what its stance is, but that is neither here nor there if our Government decide that they are going to create their own negotiations. Who they take advice from and consult in the United Kingdom is entirely up to them, so I do not see that as an obstacle.
I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that the first decision in our amendment to the Belfast agreement at St Andrews was to remove the necessity for cross-community consent for the election of the First Minister. Had that remained as it was, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson would be First Minister, not Michelle O’Neill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I shall make a short comment on Amendment 40 proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It says that
“this section does not have effect unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Surely that is not an honourable reflection of the Belfast agreement, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, told us, overrides all the international agreements. The spirit, and a fundamental pillar, of the Belfast agreement is cross-community support. If what the noble Baronesses are saying is that the amendment actually means “by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly with cross-community support”, I challenge them to put that in and make that clear. However, I know from the previous contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that she does not mean that. She means a simple majority and going back to majority rule, which has disappeared in Northern Ireland over the past 50 years—much at the behest of her former colleagues.
I therefore challenge the noble Baronesses to state clearly: do they desire recognition and an honourable reflection of the fundamental pillar of the Belfast agreement? When they speak about
“a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly”,
are they clearly stating that that is with cross-community support? If they are not, then they are not upholding the Belfast agreement and all the pretension in this Committee is only empty rhetoric.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to the suggestion that Clause 20 should not stand part. During these Committee debates, we have addressed a number of extraordinary provisions in the Bill that give exceptional powers to Ministers, but Clause 20 really does take the biscuit, if that is a parliamentary expression. Let me emphasise what it provides. It provides that the role of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg is excluded, which we will all have a view about, but it goes on to say that Ministers can, by regulations, recreate the role of the European Court of Justice. Is it not quite extraordinary that a Minister should be able, by regulations, to confer a power on an external body to sit as the final judicial body determining issues that are relevant for the purposes of English law? Whether you agree with the role of the Court of Justice or disapprove of it, it cannot be constitutional for a Minister of the Crown to have an exceptional power to decide who and what is the final court of appeal for this country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, and add that it seems quite astonishingly narrow-minded and short-sighted to want to be rid of the European court in these circumstances. We heard at length last week about the effect on electricity, but there is a wider effect.
May I just put in a word of defence of the European court? I happened to visit it on numerous occasions. It has made some extraordinarily sensible decisions that have affected this country and particularly women, which is one of the reasons I support it. It is quite extraordinary that a Conservative Government, who I always thought had a broad view, should be quite unbelievably narrow-minded, and that some quite erroneous view of sovereignty should be taking over from the crucial role that the ECJ has to play in the work we are considering.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I echo, from a non-legal point of view, the points made by the previous two speakers but, when looking at the European Court of Justice and its role under the protocol, I imagine that even the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would not contradict the point that I am about to make, which is that the properly constituted British Government, supported by the properly constituted British Parliament, entered into a treaty that gave a role to the European Court of Justice. That is a simple fact. It is there, written. It is another simple fact that there is no provision in the protocol to remove that role of the European Court of Justice—none.
What we are talking about is a breach of our international commitments. I am sure one of the noble Lords on the Front Bench will again hotly deny that this is the case because, like the Red Queen in Alice, their only argument is, “It is so because I say it is so”. Fortunately, that is not a terribly convincing argument in this place, where occasionally—not all the time—reason has a way of prevailing. I should like to suggest that we recognise this reality, which is that the Government’s attempt to remove the European Court of Justice unilaterally from two international treaties, which they entered with the consent, support and approval of Parliament, is a breach of our international commitments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we had a brief debate on matters relating to the European court last week, which largely focused on the earlier parts of the Bill. It is helpful to have this opportunity to deal with some of these issues in more detail.
The agreement reached with the EU on the status and role of the CJEU in relation to the protocol and other parts of the withdrawal agreement was carefully crafted and informed part of the oven-ready deal the Conservative Party was proud to call its own. There is some logic in what Clause 20 seeks to achieve. If the protocol no longer functions as intended, the legal processes cannot either, but that is only if one accepts that it is acceptable to tear up a binding international agreement in the first place.
The power for Ministers to introduce some form of referral process is interesting and a little surprising. It seems to contradict the earlier power in subsection (2). From a practical point of view, would not any referral scheme work only if the EU and European court agreed to engage in the process? Would this point not need to be negotiated?
There has been a wide-ranging debate on these issues, but it seems that there are some very practical consequences of trying to put into place a new referral process while at the same time needing to negotiate with the organisation one has just torn up a formal agreement with. How would that work in practice?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their participation in this debate. I will first address Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I am delighted to see her in her place and will do my utmost to address her points, as I turn to the first group.
The amendment would require a positive resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the provisions of Clause 20 can be brought into force. I point out, and it is a matter that the whole Committee is seized of, that we need to see the restoration of the institutions as quickly as possible. It is because of the breakdown of those institutions that the Government consider that the Bill is needed.
Clause 20 engages a complex combination of the transferred, devolved and reserved matters relating to foreign affairs and the court systems of the United Kingdom’s three jurisdictions. It would not be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate, even if that legislation relates to a reserved matter.
Clause 20 is a key part of the Bill. It addresses how we treat CJEU case law, principles, and references, including in relation to those parts of the protocol that we are excluding in domestic law. I will come back to this point, but to reiterate matters taken at earlier stages before your Lordships, this is not a ripping up or tearing up of the protocol, but a recognition that parts of the protocol are not working and parts are. We seek to retain those parts that are working and dispense with those that are not.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he not agree that it would be much better to undertake such discussions through negotiations themselves to correct those parts of the protocol that may be causing concern at this moment in time?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I stress, not for the first time from the Dispatch Box by myself or my noble friends on the Front Bench, that the Government’s preference remains for a negotiated solution.
The Chamber and the other place have heard from representatives of the unionist community that the presence of the European Court of Justice in the protocol is at the heart of the democratic deficit issue. Absent the provisions of Clause 20, we could end up in an incoherent position whereby substantive provisions of the protocol are disapplied but new CJEU case law associated with those provisions continues to apply. For that reason, and the others I have outlined, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I emphasise that bringing back the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland is the Government’s priority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, my noble friend Lord Cormack and others raised the matter of engagement with Northern Ireland politicians. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as well, on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, touched upon it too in his submission to your Lordships at this stage. This is an important point. The Government have committed to ensuring that representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive are invited to be part of the United Kingdom delegation in meetings of the specialised and joint committees discussing Northern Ireland matters, which are also attended by the Irish Government. Also, when the Northern Ireland Executive was functioning, the then Foreign Secretary regularly met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to discuss the protocol.
However, to reiterate the principal point, the point which brings this Bill before your Lordships’ House, the institutions are not functioning, and precisely because of the protocol. We will continue to engage, but the protocol has made things that bit more difficult.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Advocate-General will have had the opportunity to reflect on a previous day in Committee, when concerns about the single electricity market were raised. A key component is EU law, which is not in question. How does the Advocate-General anticipate that the joint regulatory system operating under our approach and that of the EU can operate if EU law cannot be interpreted?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, interpretation of foreign law is a matter with which all three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom are familiar. With the noble Lord’s leave, because my remit does not extend to the operation of the single electricity market, which, as he said, was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in an earlier group, I will defer to my noble friends on the Front Bench and will write to the noble Lord on that point. I am grateful to him for his forbearance.
I cannot properly address the possibly important proposition raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in his submission to your Lordships, anent having the Government of Ireland lead the European Union in terms of negotiations. That matter will have been heard by others in the Government and given appropriate significance. It is a novel proposition expressed with the noble Lord’s customary force. I am sure that the Government will look at it.
The noble Lords, Lord Dodds of Duncairn and Lord Empey, gave us the historical background and again laid emphasis which was valuable to us all regarding the importance of the cross-community aspect of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I have said, briefly, the CJEU’s position has been identified as a major obstacle.
Your Lordships’ Committee heard something about the value to be given to polling; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised that as an earlier stage, contrasting polls with actual democratic exercises. However, I can say to the Committee that polling carried out by Queen’s University in Belfast has indicated that with people who have concerns about the operation of the protocol, the CJEU and its presence and status was identified as a significant problem.
Lord Pannick (CB)
If the role of the court of justice is, as the Minister puts it, a major obstacle because of democratic deficit, as he describes it, can he please explain to the Committee why Clause 20(3) would give an express power to Ministers to make regulations which would provide for a role for the court of justice? Surely that is inconsistent with what he just said.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point. The Government have always anticipated that the United Kingdom courts will be the final arbiter. The clause to which the noble Lord just referred your Lordships provides for the creation of a reference mechanism, but United Kingdom law would ultimately prevail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, addressed us on Amendments 42 and 43A. I argue that those proposed new clauses are in some respects unnecessary and in some aspects of their drafting inappropriate. Article 14(b) of the protocol already requires the specialised committee to
“examine proposals concerning the implementation and application of this Protocol from the North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation bodies set up under the 1998 Agreement”.
That is an appropriate and valuable role. We submit that, by contrast, the noble Baroness’s amendments would create a statutory obligation for the United Kingdom to support
“proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North/South Ministerial Council and other North-South implementation bodies”.
That would cede control over the United Kingdom Government’s stance in the joint committee to a council in which the Irish Government sit. We consider that that would be inappropriate. The Government already ensure that representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive, as I said, are invited to meetings of the joint committee which discusses specific Northern Ireland matters, and which is attended also by the Government of Ireland. Therefore, we submit that there is already ample opportunity for representations to be made at the joint committee from both north and south.
We submit that the aspects of new clauses obliging the Government to lay reports before Parliament are also unnecessary. The Government have committed already to lay Written Ministerial Statements in Parliament before and after each meeting of the joint committee, and already do so. We also provide explanatory memoranda on matters to be discussed at joint committee meetings.
There is a more fundamental objection yet. The Bill is designed to restore the balance across all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The analogy with the milking stool has already been made: the three legs are of equal importance. To further empower the north-south dimension to the comparative detriment of the east-west dimension, as the amendment would do, will, we submit, exacerbate the problems facing Northern Ireland and undermine that delicate balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In that spirit, I urge the noble Baroness to not move her amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can I just ask the noble and learned Lord as a lawyer what he was meaning when he gave an explanation on Clause 20(3)? I may be very stupid, but I could not understand a word of it.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness doubtless speaks rhetorically. I have the utmost respect for her intellect, as does the whole House. My position, which I sought to express, was that the clause will provide a mechanism by which a reference could be laid before the Court of Justice of the European Union, but that ultimately British law, in whatever of the three jurisdictions it is operating, will prevail over that. It is a reference procedure.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am following up what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said. The implication of what my noble and learned friend said from the Dispatch Box is that there is nowhere at all for the European Court of Justice. Is it really a total sticking point in the negotiations? Can he tell me whether this is negotiable? If it is not, we are doubly wasting our time.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
With the utmost respect to my noble friend’s question, I do not feel I can go further from the Dispatch Box on what has taken place or what I consider likely to take place in negotiations from this point.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Before I do, I say that, in response to an earlier point on which I undertook to write, I am notified from the Box that the matter of the single electricity market and the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction is covered in a letter being sent to the noble Lord today.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That gives me an opportunity to thank the Minister for his efficiency. I look forward to reading the instant letter that is on its way.
I have a point on Article 2 and the rights associated with it. I seek some reference from the Dispatch Box, because the concern that exists, as I understand it—and I am not a lawyer; that is my declared interest—is that the directives providing the rights under Article 2 are interpretive. Therefore, if there are changes to those founding rights—or updates, interpretations or case law—there needs to be a mechanism by which we will adopt that, otherwise those rights under Article 2 are not being upheld, as I understand it. But if under the Bill the court is prohibited from having that role, what will be the mechanism while we interpret those European directives, which are protected under Article 2?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the courts of the United Kingdom are fully competent to interpret and apply the law. The Government’s intention is that the laws of the United Kingdom should prevail and that the Court of Justice of the European Union should not henceforth have a role, unless a reference is made to it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
In relation to the European Court of Justice and access for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland to the EU single market, how will that be facilitated if there is no ECJ? It has legislative control there.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I think this perhaps overlaps with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised, but I reiterate our commitment to Article 2. That will be covered in a letter we are presently framing to the noble Baroness. At an earlier stage, she raised the point and gave the Government until the commencement of Report to furnish her with an answer. That answer is now being drafted.
There is a Clause 20 stand part notice. I will summarise what I have said. This clause allows for the proper functioning of domestic court proceedings following the removal of the domestic effect of CJEU jurisdiction under Clause 13. Domestic courts will no longer be bound by CJEU principles or decisions when considering matters relating to the protocol. I emphasise that restoration of these democratic institutions is what we seek to accomplish. Subsection (3) provides a further power to make new provision in connection with this. Regulations made under this power could set out how the UK courts are to regard CJEU jurisprudence or provide a procedure to refer questions of interpretation of EU law to the CJEU if a domestic court considers it necessary to conclude proceedings. The clause is important to ensure that the Government can provide legal and judicial certainty for domestic courts considering proceedings relating to the protocol without being subject to CJEU jurisdiction, in line with the general principles of the Bill. For those reasons, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister—not least because, as a fellow Scot, he pronounces my name correctly. The constant repetition of “Baroness Sooty” at the beginning was very pointed. Unfortunately, the rest of his reply was somewhat disappointing. However, I am very pleased that he now has on record that the pronunciation is Suttie, not Sooty.
This was a very interesting debate. It split into two distinct sections. There was a powerful debate about the negotiations taking place in Northern Ireland. The noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Cormack, expressed the frustration that many of us feel, that this has to be done at the highest possible level. When the Prime Minister returns, I agree that he must go to Northern Ireland. I am sure that we will return to these matters on the Statement that we expect later this week, perhaps tomorrow or on Wednesday, where we can look at these issues in more detail. The points are very relevant, and there were some extremely good speeches.
The second major concern is around Clause 20. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but it seems very unclear to me how the clause will protect Northern Ireland businesses, especially those that work north-south, and the single market in the future. I did not feel that we got an adequate reply to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his DUP colleagues raised the important point about consent. That is part of the wider principle of how we make sure that Northern Ireland politicians feel that they are involved and included in this process.
This was a probing amendment. The wording is not necessarily right. However, we should look at this again on Report, perhaps in a broader amendment on the general principle of consent. We would want to look at exactly how that was worded. None the less, on the basis that we may return to it on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“UK-EU Veterinary Agreement: report to Parliament
Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the progress of negotiations with the European Union regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol which may result in a UK-EU Veterinary Agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister of the Crown to report to Parliament on the progress of any negotiations with the European Union that may result in a UK-EU Veterinary Agreement.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to make two important changes to the Bill: it removes the unworkable and discredited notion of dual regulation, and it mandates the Government to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU and to report back.
The protocol has facilitated the uninterrupted movement of livestock and livestock products, including milk, across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. By removing parts of the protocol without a veterinary agreement in place, dairy farmers will bear the brunt of the Government’s dogma.
We are not talking about insignificant trade: farmers in Northern Ireland produce around 2.5 billion litres of milk every year. Of that, around 800 million litres, with a value of £600 million, need to move across the border into the Republic of Ireland for processing. This arrangement is not just economically beneficial but built on necessity, because there is insufficient capacity in Northern Ireland to process all the milk produced there, putting at risk the viability of a £1.5 billion industry and the livelihoods of tens of thousands who depend on it.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for introducing the amendment; much that she said is extremely pertinent.
It is useful at this point to remind the Committee of quite why we are in this predicament over veterinary matters. From one point of view, you can acknowledge it as a simple function of our departure from the European Union. However, the protocol, in both the May and Johnson versions, contains a way of handling veterinary matters, which is essentially to say, “We will not accept UK veterinary testing. Pirbright is gone and you are out of the system. The only form of veterinary testing we will be able to accept is that within the European Union itself”—presumably, in the case of Ireland, in Dublin. In the EU documents of the time, there are rather interesting green pictures with little arrows showing power departing from the island of Ireland to the EU, which has now taken control of this area.
There is an obvious basic problem with that. The Good Friday agreement, whose importance has been increasingly acknowledged and accepted, was not accepted as the prior agreement when we began this debate, but I notice with pleasure that it is increasingly accepted as the key agreement; that has some significance, as it was not when we opened these discussions. The Good Friday agreement established food safety and animal health boards. For the life of me, I have never known why, in the negotiation, it was quite so necessary to have the approach of extraction of powers from the island of Ireland to the EU that the protocol, lodged by the May Government and signed by the Johnson Government, contains.
That is another example of why what the Good Friday agreement suggests, and obvious pathways that follow from everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, should be followed, rather than a strict obsessive acceptance of the fact that, “We signed it in this protocol and therefore it can’t be changed”. A negotiation is going on and it is bound to touch on these matters. In this case, as in so many others—including, I dare say, the issue we have been discussing for the last half hour—the canopy for the settlement is acceptance of the Good Friday agreement and the way in which it approached this problem. Then you get into the possibility of consensus and agreement.
It is not all the UK Government’s fault that they find themselves, to put it mildly, on the back foot. It is arguable that they have not behaved particularly effectively in sorting this problem out, but it is not all their fault. The root of the matter is the failure of the EU to understand—and how could it?—the north-south dimension of the Good Friday agreement. That failure is radically revealed in Michel Barnier’s memoir in these documents. The explanation has been given in various books and articles by the officials involved on the Irish side in Dublin in the negotiation on the 2017 agreement, which then set the template for the two later agreements. The explanation is that the Irish Government appropriated a particular version of the Good Friday agreement—their version—and sold it to the EU, and it was accepted in Europe and by us. We cannot revisit any of these issues in any simple sense but it remains an intellectual reality that is the clue to understanding how we can redress these processes.
All these problems that seem so insoluble—I absolutely respect the spirit in which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, moved the amendment—are much more easily resolved if we follow what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, accept the prior importance of the Good Friday agreement and realise that the institutions and the concepts to be found there are the institutions and concepts that provide the basis for a benign compromise that both the UK and the EU can live with.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment because it goes to the heart of the protocol and the protocol Bill issues in relation to the need for an SPS veterinary agreement. The dairy and farming industries on the island of Ireland require an SPS agreement. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, today, following last week’s debate on this issue following further discussions with elements of the dairy industry. The bottom line is that unless there is an SPS agreement, that could very much interfere with our dairy industry and totally undermine it.
I shall give a short explanation from the letter. Those in the dairy industry acknowledge the issues that the Northern Ireland retail sector is dealing with regarding the protocol and support for a dual regulatory regime, but such a regime would not work for the dairy industry because we are looking at the very survival of Northern Ireland dairy farmers. Approximately 30% of all Northern Ireland milk is processed in the Republic of Ireland because there is not the capacity to do so in Northern Ireland. It may be worth visiting some of the processing factories in Northern Ireland that are part of a greater co-operative group to see what they do and what they are trying to tell us.
If you create a hard border for milk, which the dual regulatory scheme outlined in the Bill will, there will be enormous environmental issues. Northern Ireland does not have the capacity to dump 30% of its milk, and milk has special regulations for its disposal. You could then move to the culling of perfectly healthy animals which, in a cost of living crisis, is inconceivable. Finally, this would lead to devastating consequences for the economy of Northern Ireland, as the agri-food industry is its bedrock.
So I say to the Minister that those in the dairy industry have looked at the impact of a 30% reduction in sales to an average Northern Ireland farmer. When you consider their average interest on loans and their loan repayments, this would result in an annual negative cash flow. In other words, their costs would be greater than their income.
In summation, it is vitally important that the negotiations achieve an SPS veterinary agreement. From what I have read in the non-papers from the EU of October last year, it is very prepared to enter into such an agreement as part of the negotiations. However, the dual regulatory regime will not work for the agri-food sector. Maybe a bespoke arrangement is required for the retail sector where some of the problems lie.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment because it roots our discussions in the real world of farmers and manufacturers and focuses our minds on jobs and prosperity. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, as usual, got it completely right and explained the impact on the dairy industry very powerfully. I will not repeat some of what she has already said, although I was intending to.
We ought to be working towards an SPS agreement. We on these Benches have thought that we should be working towards that sort of agreement for the whole of the UK and we have held that position for over a year because of the very clear benefits it would bring to food and drink manufacturers. I think the food and drink industry is still our biggest manufacturing sector in England, so there would certainly be significant benefits to the whole of the UK of this approach.
One benefit would surely be to assist—not to resolve completely—in overcoming some of the issues experienced by producers, hauliers and those wishing to trade east-west. We are reminded quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that we need to be concerned about this. It would be hugely beneficial to our industries in Northern Ireland and beyond. We understand that not every problem will be solved this way and we know that some SPS checks were there prior to the protocol, for other reasons. That seemed to work fairly well for quite a long time, so that may still be necessary. It will be interesting to see what the Minister thinks about that.
At this stage, we think we need this to help with the costs and administrative burdens faced by producers, distributors and retailers. A couple of examples have been referred to. I will briefly refer to the Swiss deal. They have an agreement where regulations are aligned, eliminating virtually all documentary, identity and physical checks. New Zealand, as we have heard, has an equivalence model that has made processes simpler and reduced checks. We probably would not want to replicate either of those models directly. Obviously there are differences, such as the volumes coming from New Zealand and the fact that many of the loads going east-west in our situation are mixed, that make neither model directly replicable. We think we probably need a bespoke agreement and the door to that seems to be open with the EU, so it is curious that the UK Government seem quite so reluctant to explore that option.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In particular I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling her amendment. I was saying to my noble friend Lord Caine that I think we are getting into some of the reasons. Irrespective of people’s views on the Bill itself, the fact is that businesses are facing problems and challenges that need resolution. I will come on to the specific point that the noble Baroness tabled so ably.
Amendment 43B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asks the Government to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations on the veterinary agreements between the UK and the EU. Let me say right from the outset that we have always been very serious about our negotiations on the protocol, and we remain so. Our preference remains to resolve the issues with the protocol through negotiations, and the Bill provides a power to implement any agreement which follows those negotiations—indeed, we had quite an extensive discussion on that particular point. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government have engaged quite extensively with the EU on reducing the burden of SPS checks and controls under the protocol, which she also highlighted.
Where we are right now—I am seeking to provide detail while also acknowledging what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said—is that, currently to date, the EU has proposed that any veterinary agreement should be based on dynamic alignment; the Government believe that this would compromise UK sovereignty over our own laws, including our ability to strike trade deals. However, on the specific points that the noble Baroness raised, we remain open to broader negotiated solutions, and we hope that the talks taking place currently can secure a bespoke biosecurity assurance—I welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in this respect—which maintains our high standards for animal, plant and public health. I know that resonates with all noble Lords.
I will also provide some detail on where we are on both the Swiss and the New Zealand agreements. Of course, the EU has a precedent for making such agreements with other countries—as all noble Lords acknowledged, and I am grateful for that—either through stand-alone agreements, such as the EU-NZ veterinary agreement, or as part of wider agreements with trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. The UK proposed an SPS model predicated on equivalence and similar to the EU-New Zealand model in the TCA negotiations last year and, indeed, in earlier negotiations and discussions with the EU on the Northern Ireland protocol. However, the EU rejected the possibility of an agreement based on equivalence. The Swiss-EU SPS arrangement is the model that the EU has put forward repeatedly to agree with the UK and is based on dynamic alignment. There is a difference here, but at the same time I appreciate both the tone and substance of this debate, and I want to assure noble Lords that we remain open to these specific points because they address the practical problems being experienced.
Let me say a brief word on the issue of statutory reporting, although I think I have already covered this point previously. As with any negotiations, this is a matter of the foreign affairs prerogative. As I said previously—and I have sought to provide a bit more detail on some of the context in my response—I will certainly seek to update noble Lords, and I appreciate the insights that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has brought to this debate.
Turning now to the other contributions, including those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Chapman, I will discuss Amendments 58, 60 and 63 together. These amendments would also place a number of requirements on the Government relating to various specific sectors within Northern Ireland, notably the publication of draft regulations and a sector-specific impact assessment, as well as to engage in consultations with representatives from those sectors. Let me say immediately that I entirely sympathise with the desire to ensure that we are properly considering the impact of legislation on all businesses within Northern Ireland. It is for this reason that we have engaged extensively with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the UK and internationally—I know that my noble friend Lord Caine will speak to this in subsequent groups; indeed, he covered this in our previous debates in Committee.
In addition to routine engagement, during the summer the Government held over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators to inform the details of how the dual regulatory and trade boundary models should work in practice. In this respect, I can share with all noble Lords—and, in particular, with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—that we gained a lot of practical information from that, and we are reflecting on the wealth of feedback received as we continue to develop the details of the underlying regime. The regulations themselves will be the product of this very engagement with business to ensure that the implementation of the new regime is as smooth and operable as possible. Your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Although what the Minister has just said is very welcome, ordinarily there would be engagement so that the Minister could make well-informed suggestions. Then, of course, a period of consultation on whatever ideas the Government intended on implementing would follow. Is the Minister saying that that process would be followed in this case?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness, and other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, among them—have pressed me on the issue of the detail of the draft regulations. That is, again, very much the process we have adopted to make sure that we are speaking to industry and businesses and reflecting those in the draft regulations that will be published. The regulations will be reflective, as I said earlier, of the wealth of the feedback we have received. The scrutiny of the regulations will be done in the usual fashion and, of course, the Government will provide all the usual accompanying material under parliamentary procedures. The full details of the new regime will be set out in and alongside the regulations made under the Bill, including any economic impacts where appropriate. This will allow Parliament to be informed in its scrutiny of the new regime when it has been put in place.
On the issue of a statutory duty to publish such material, as suggested in the amendments, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to place a statutory duty on the Government. The legislation is needed to tackle the urgent problem we have sought to identify with the workings of the protocol in Northern Ireland. While we do not anticipate any issues with providing information before regulations are brought forward, we do not want to tie our hands unnecessarily in this respect.
Finally, I say to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate that I welcome these specifics, and I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I have sought answers and am listening during the course of Committee, as are my colleagues. I am seeking to provide a bit more detail on what we have but, while asking the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I do value the insight and the practical and constructive nature of the amendments that have been tabled.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way he has accepted what I have said. It is very important that there is an agreement—it is absolutely critical. I do not for one moment underestimate how difficult it is for a negotiation at this level, but I urge the Government to move heaven and earth to make sure that at the end of the negotiations there is a veterinary agreement. We simply cannot allow the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people to be put at risk; it is just not an option. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability for regulations under the Bill to make changes that could normally only be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Bill).
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 44, in the name of my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington, concerns Henry VIII powers and general rules regarding regulations. This amendment removes the ability for regulations under the Bill to make changes that could normally be made only by an Act of Parliament, including modifying this Bill. I also support the clause stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, which seeks to oppose the inclusion of Clause 22, which sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in this Bill.
Clause 22(1) has the effect of making every regulation-making power in the Bill what the DPRRC has referred to as
“a super Henry VIII power.”
Ministers would be able to make any provision that would normally be made by an Act of Parliament, as well as modifying the Bill once enacted. The DPRRC’s report included a helpful comparison with the powers afforded by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. It felt those powers were too broad, yet Section 8 of that Act was subject to a sunset clause and a number of clear and important restrictions.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I keep hearing the words “democratic accountability” and then I look at the Bill and I cannot find any. We have listened as Clauses 4 to 21 have been debated in this Chamber. If we add those clauses together, we have a lamentable lack of democratic accountability. I expect it will be said, “Ah well, as always, the House of Commons can reject any regulations” and so on; and, “We have a long history of how there are 16 different ways in which the regulation-making powers can be exercised.” To that, I will say: but they have not exercised that power since 1979. This is not democratic accountability; this is quite extraordinary legislation, passing huge amounts of power into the hands of the Executive. Others have spoken. Clause 18 creates tertiary power—guidance—which is not quite a regulation of the sort we are talking about but can create matters that require compelling attention from those who have to abide by the guidance.
Let me just look at Clause 22(1), because it makes what has gone so far rather trivial. It states:
“Regulations under this Act may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including provision modifying this Act).”
I then add the words “and any regulations made under it”, because that follows. What it means is that the Bill, having been successfully enacted, could be dismantled by the Government two weeks later. It could be dismantled by a Government three years from now or by a Government 10 years from now. It could restore the very thing that the Bill says it is trying to get rid of—all in the hands of a Minister making regulations under the Act. That is not Henry VIII. I have lost count; I have tried to add it up in different ways. Is it Henry VIII plus Henry VIII for Clauses 4 and 5? That comes to about Clause 79. It cannot be. Is it Henry LXIV, because it is Henry VIII squared? This is an extraordinary power when the Bill is already riddled with Henry VIII powers. I am not jesting about this. The Bill provides for its restoration at any time that the Government of the day choose, or any part of it, or some of it along with other legislation. That is not how we should legislate. Should we not be ashamed of ourselves?
Parliament gave Henry VIII the power to bastardise his first and second children, to say that he was the Pope in England and that he was God’s messenger on earth, to decide the succession, and to say that the monasteries should all come down—the widest act of criminal damage this country has ever seen. Then he produced a Bill giving him the power, by proclamations, to create new laws. I shall not read it all out. What did the successor to that Parliament do? It said no. There was a battle, but in the end that power had this proviso to it put in by the Commons:
“nor that, by any proclamation … any acts, common laws (standing at this present time in strength and force) nor yet any lawful or laudable customs of this realm … shall be infringed, broken or subverted, and specially all those acts standing this hour in force which have been made in the King’s Highness’s time”.
He was not allowed to modify an Act of Parliament by proclamation.
We do not have proclamations anymore; we have statutory instruments. We have regulation-making powers that amount to a modern form of proclamation. We must not agree to clauses of this kind in any Bill. Those that we have agreed to—shame on us. We must not agree to this one. We must insist on the determination and, in its case, the courage shown by the 1539 Parliament not to give the King the powers he wanted. We must not give the Government the power they want in this clause.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, as we go through this Committee, we are discussing clauses that confound constitutional principle in ever more astonishing ways. I entirely agree with what was just said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. It is quite extraordinary that we should be asked to approve a clause that would confer power on a Minister to make by regulations
“any provision … including provision modifying this Act”.
The Committee has heard a number of powerful speeches over its four days explaining why it is wasting parliamentary time in analysing the Bill when it is a sideshow to the need to resolve the dispute with the EU. Whatever view you take about that issue, what is a manifest waste of time is for this Committee, and for Parliament on Report, at Third Reading and in the House of Commons on ping-pong if it comes to that, to debate, amend and approve legislation after lengthy debate, only for Ministers to have the power to say, “I don’t care about that. Parliament might have agreed it, but I’m going to set it aside. I’m going to substitute something else.” What is the point of parliamentary debate if that is what a Minister can do?
Indeed, such is the breadth of this provision that a Minister would have a power to substitute in the Bill something that he or she approves of that has been specifically rejected by Parliament. Parliament might have passed an amendment against the views of the Government, yet, under this clause, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, two weeks or three years later the Minister can say, “That may be what Parliament has done, but I’m going to insert something different”. As the noble and learned Lord said, we really have to take a stand. This cannot be right in principle and it cannot be acceptable to Parliament.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I want to add to the two speeches that have just been given, with every word of which I agree. The Minister may say that we are being hypocritical, as was said earlier, because there have been earlier Bills where we have allowed Henry VIII clauses; but I have been in this House since 2006 and in my time I have never seen a Bill anything like this one, with enhanced Henry VIII powers—or Henry LXIV powers. To my knowledge, in my time we have never had a Bill that has gone so far beyond what one might almost call the “normal” Henry VIII clauses. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. It really is time that the Government stand back and ask, “Is this actually reasonable? What is it that we are trying to do?” It is utterly unacceptable.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is very hard to follow those three eminent contributions. The egregious nature of this clause and its subsections goes beyond parliamentary affrontery because they impinge on the devolved Administrations as well. Not content with abusing this Parliament, Clause 22(6) will abuse the other Parliaments in the UK as well by creating new powers for Ministers of the Crown over those of devolved authorities. As the delegated powers memorandum blithely puts it:
“Where a matter would normally fall within the legislative competence of the devolved administrations and the passage of devolved primary legislation would not be appropriate”,
as the Minister of the Crown would say, “or timely”, on a timetable that the Minister of the Crown would set,
“it may be appropriate to create a new devolved delegated power by exercise of this power.”
It is a Trojan horse for abusing not only Parliament but Parliaments.
I have not been a Member of your Lordships’ House for as long as the noble and learned Baroness but I have been here nine years and I was a member of a devolved authority. This is not how we should be making legislation at all. This is the clause about which Sir Robert Neill said at Committee stage in the Commons,
“this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 370.]
The serious issue is that I do not know what limits the Government expect there will be on these powers. Could there be new criminal penalties? If not, they should not be within this. How about new tax powers? If that is not the intent, it should not be made possible by this Bill. Could it affect any part of the withdrawal agreement on other rights and freedoms? If that is not the Government’s intent, they should say so, but there are no such restrictions.
This is a Trojan horse, and in looking at some of the clauses a side of me wonders whether I should oppose it. It is so broad that we could rejoin many of the EU institutions we have left—just from this wee clause in this wee Bill. That might suit our Benches, so perhaps we had better not complain too much. Through Clause 22(6) and other sweeping regulation-making powers, we could rejoin the customs union and many of the institutions. If that is not the Government’s intention, the Minister should say so at the Dispatch Box. If he does not, we could use it for that purpose.
More seriously, and I will close on this, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has been consistent since the outset in using a phrase that has struck me: this is not what we do when it comes to international law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, hoped over the weekend that this was all a dream and that he would arrive here on Monday to find that, like Bobby Ewing in “Dallas”, these three days in Committee never really happened. I arrived back in the country this morning from speaking at a parliamentary gathering in Buenos Aires—a network of parliamentarians supporting the International Criminal Court—in the presence of the president of the ICC. I have to say to the Minister that there have been very few times that I have been embarrassed to say that I am a British parliamentarian, but the knowledge of parliamentarians from across the world about what we are doing with this legislation shocked me. They know what we are doing. There are international gatherings about how Parliaments can support the international rules-based system, the ICC and international standards in law. This is not what we do. But it is even worse than that because our Government tell other countries what they should not do, but we are doing it at home. This is an opportunity to stop it. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and just stop it.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I wish to add for a moment or two to what has been some pretty powerful gunfire from those who are eminently qualified in making the serious submissions they have made.
My attention has been caught by Clause 22(6), which seeks to interfere, one might say, with devolved authorities. Looking at my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, it occurred to me that, were he part of a devolved authority in Northern Ireland and there was the exercise of a power under subsection (6), he would take pretty short shrift with it, I am sure.
To introduce perhaps a rather vulgar political point, we in Scotland are concerned constantly with the movement towards independence. Part of that movement is, often by fiction, offered to the potential electors in a referendum on the basis that Westminster wants to interfere with Scotland. It seems to me that subsection (6) might provide rather more substantial evidence of an intention of that kind.
I know that there are honourable men sitting on the Government Front Bench, but do they really believe in their hearts that it is right to urge upon this Committee the contents of this particular subsection? Surely they must realise that it is inimical to every principle upon which Parliament is founded and this House operates. If I may be forgiven for my impropriety, it is time for the Front Bench to fess up.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I take the point that he made about Clause 22(6). As a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for many years, I know how much Members of the Assembly value their right to make laws in the areas that are devolved to it. However, I must say gently to your Lordships that, in recent times, there have been a number of examples of this House and the other place interfering in the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland. Although some of us have pointed that out, it has been with your Lordships’ positive assent and approval that the overriding of the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland has taken place in a number of areas. I would like to see a consistent approach to the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland, not this pick-and-choose approach where something being okay appears to depend on the issue of the day but, if you do not like what the Assembly has done, you can interfere—as seems to have happened on a number of recent occasions in this Parliament.
I want to highlight Clause 22(3). On the face of it, it appears—I am open to correction by those who are much more learned and have more legal expertise in these matters than me—to put some kind of restriction on the wide Henry VIII powers that are given under this particular clause. The one thing that it is apparently not possible for regulations under the Bill to do is
“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which feature at the border … physical infrastructure (including border posts), or … checks and controls, which did not exist before exit day.”
Having listened to the debate, I think that may well be able to be swept aside at any point. However, why is emphasis put on the one thing that is mentioned? I look to the Government Front Bench as to why it is mentioned, given that it really has no effect. Of course, we do not want any extra infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and it has never been the desire or wish of anyone in the Northern Ireland political parties, or the Irish Government, the British Government or the EU, to have such infrastructure. But it would be quite helpful and an acknowledgement of unionist concerns if there were a similar provision which acknowledged—under strand 2, the north-south approach in the Belfast agreement and the importance of that relationship, but also strand 3, the east-west dimension—that regulations may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I am following the noble Lord closely on this point. Does he realise that today Maroš Šefčovič talked about the need for fewer border checks and, in fact, that they could be invisible on the Irish Sea border. Does the noble Lord agree that if they can be invisible on the Irish Sea border, they can be invisible at the frontier, where of course checks should happen between one country and another independent country?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Of course. It appears that things may have moved on, because once all these ideas were dismissed as completely fanciful. Indeed, “unicorns” were brought into play and all sorts of dismissive language was used. I am glad that now there is at least an acknowledgement that some of these checks can be done in the way that the noble Baroness has described Maroš Šefčovič as talking about.
The important point here is that we have been told throughout the Brexit process that there cannot be a single check or single piece of infrastructure on the Irish border because otherwise that will lead to violence—it will be attacked and that will undermine the Belfast agreement—without anyone, hardly, making the obvious point that, if that is unacceptable north-south, then it is doubly unacceptable between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. What does that say to the unionist population?
One of the reasons we have the alienation of people in Northern Ireland is the one-sided approach and interpretation of the Belfast agreement. I would just like an explanation. Whatever its actual import or ability to be enforced, or the fact that it can be superseded by a ministerial direction, why do the Government highlight that issue and not the fact that the reason why we have such a problem in Northern Ireland with the political institutions is that we have this similar kind of infrastructure and checks between one part of the United Kingdom and the other?
On the point that has been raised very powerfully by noble Lords on the legal issue, I fully understand why they take the position they do and, as has been said, it has been raised in relation to other Bills and Acts. I would love to see the same outrage and anger expressed more widely; it may well have been during the passage of the then Bill, before my time in your Lordships’ House.
You can imagine therefore that if there is such outrage about powers being given by Parliament to the Executive and UK Ministers, how citizens of Northern Ireland—British citizens, fully part of the United Kingdom—feel about powers being not just taken from Parliament and given to Ministers but given to foreign officials of the European Commission to propose law. They are totally unaccountable to anyone in the United Kingdom. They do not have to answer to anyone or answer any questions. There is no parliamentary process whatever within the United Kingdom that can even challenge the directives and regulations that cover 300 areas of law affecting the economy of Northern Ireland. Therefore, while accepting entirely the points made about delegated legislation and Henry VIII powers, I would like to see reflected some of the same concerns about how we in Northern Ireland feel about the way that laws are now made by a foreign polity in its own interest. It is not in our interest; it is made in its own interest.
The Bill is part of an effort to try to remedy that problem. People have said we will have negotiations. But given that we have already had communicated to us that the EU is not open at this stage to changing the mandate of its main negotiator, certainly, how else are we going to get to a situation where that outrageous situation in Northern Ireland is remedied?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank—I think—all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. There were some highlights. I have to go home and explain to Lady Ahmad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, dreamt about me over the weekend. That is a moment to ponder and reflect on, as any good Minister would, from the Dispatch Box.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I have the opportunity to travel, although I was asked today as I came into your Lordships’ House, “Tariq, why aren’t you in Sharm el-Sheikh?”. I said three words—“Northern Ireland protocol”—which put that colleague in their place. I heard what the noble Lord said about international law and the rule of law. Notwithstanding the challenges, it is right that we have this level of scrutiny. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I agree with her. We are all talking about time in Parliament, et cetera. The other day, I was informed that I am now second only to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in term of my time on the Front Bench. Let us watch that space as well. With the nature of reshuffles, you never know what will happen when.
In all seriousness, we have a lot of respect internationally. That is why, in successive elections in the ICC, three major positions have been held by the UK. Again, in the ILC, a successful campaign was run. I feel very strongly that, irrespective of the nature of the discussions we are having, the United Kingdom has a very strong reputation internationally and I, for one, am very proud to be not just a British parliamentarian but a British Minister representing these interests abroad.
I come to the specifics now, the nitty-gritty of the amendments themselves. I first say again that on the issue of the Henry VIII clause—specifically on this clause, but more generally across the Bill—of course the Government are listening very carefully to the contributions being made. We have had legislation in the past where we have equally had this level of scrutiny. It is a reflection of our democracy that it allows us to have these challenges to the Government.
I turn to Amendment 44. The Bill provides specific powers to make new law in certain areas, as noble Lords have pointed out, including where we are disapplying the EU regime in domestic law and where such laws are required to make our new regime work. To give effect to the new regime set out in the Bill, amendments to domestic legislation may be required, including Acts of Parliament where appropriate.
Moreover, certain sectors in Great Britain are currently also regulated by retained EU regulations which have protected status under Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and cannot be modified except by an Act of Parliament or certain specified subordinate legislation. An example is retained EU regulation 2016/425, which currently regulates personal protective equipment in Great Britain. It may be appropriate to amend such legislation for the purposes of the dual regulatory regime to ensure that the UK regime applies appropriately also to all of the UK and appropriately to Northern Ireland.
We recognise, of course—and I have heard it again today—the seriousness of amending legislation, and also proposing new legislation. The noble and learned Baroness pointed to legislation already passed, where Henry VIII clauses have been included. I will not challenge the fact we have had quite challenging discussions in this respect as well, but Parliament has already considered and put on the statute book these particular issues of amending legislation. While it might be somewhat of a small recognition of the powers, these particular powers to amend Acts of Parliament will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing Parliament to scrutinise and review any changes to existing legislation, even where these changes are consequential, or technical. I recognise, of course, the depth of the challenge that has been put to the Government and, in all respects, respect the seriousness of the contributions that have been made.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The example he cited with regard to the operability of the red lanes is covered earlier in the Bill, so the regulation powers were debated. So I do not understand why they are needed in such a broad manner under this clause, which does not even have any of the restrictions of the previous ones. If they need powers for the operation of any of the new red lanes, they are there in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. We have debated these; they exist.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I was merely emphasising. I did refer to earlier clauses as well when I was giving one specific example in this particular group. But I hear what the noble Lord says, and, of course, I recognise that there are issues, particularly in this clause, about the powers that are being proposed. In coming on to that particular point, in relation to the concerns raised by the breadth of powers, each individual power that is being proposed in the Bill is being constrained by its purpose. None of them is a “do anything” power, and Clause 22(1) does not make them so: it merely ensures they can fully fulfil their purposes.
Lord Judge (CB)
The clause says that regulations under this Act may make
“any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including provisions modifying this Act.)”
The words are completely expressed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I said, we are seeking to put a power in the Bill, and I will provide clarification on that. Each individual power that we are seeking to take in this respect is being constrained by its purpose—but, if I may, on that point, I will write to the noble Lord once I have talked to officials specifically about this aspect of the debate.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Perhaps I could invite the noble Lord, when he writes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to explain why it is appropriate for Ministers to have the power to make regulations to modify this very Act. Can he specifically address how Clause 22(1) fits with the clause mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, Clause 22(3), which contains the express exception:
“Regulations … may not create or facilitate border arrangements”?
Yet, as I understand this Bill, Ministers under Clause 22(1) could simply disapply Clause 22(3). It would be completely otiose. What is the point of having a restriction in the Bill that a Minister, by regulation, could simply disapply?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I shall of course cover the specific point the noble Lord has highlighted, as well. I appreciate that it is for the Government to make the case on the specific provision contained in the Bill to ensure that we can, as far as possible, satisfy the issues and the questions being raised.
Clause 22 sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in the Bill. This will ensure the powers have the appropriate scope to implement the aims of the Bill. The clause sets out that regulations made under the defined purpose of the powers in this Bill can make any provision—this was a point noble Lords made—for that purpose that could be made by an Act of Parliament. This includes amending the Bill, as the noble Lord has just pointed out, or making retrospective provision.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the clause confirms that regulations under this Bill may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that feature, at the border, either physical infrastructure or checks and controls that did not exist before exit day.
Subsection (6) provides that a Minister can facilitate other powers under this Bill to be exercisable exclusively, concurrently or jointly with devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised a specific point just now, which does require clarification on two elements within the clause. I will make sure that they are covered.
A concern was raised about the ability of the Government to work with the devolved Administrations. As I said on an earlier group, the former Foreign Secretary wrote to the devolved Administrations and we are engaging with them on the implementation and provisions of this Bill. It is the Government’s view that these new powers are necessary to make the regime work smoothly and to provide certainty to businesses.
While recommending in Committee that this clause stand part of the Bill, I recognise that, while we share moments of humour in Committee, it is right that these detailed concerns were tabled in the way they were. This allows the Government—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am very grateful to the Minister before he sits down. He sort of glossed over Clause 22(3) by, in effect, reading out what it says. But I respectfully seek an explanation of why that subsection has been inserted when there is no similar provision on checks and infrastructure between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On that point and the earlier issue of why this is specific, we want to avoid a border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in any shape or form. That is the specific nature of this and we have all desired that in our discussions, but I take on board and understand the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also pointed to this and how the operability of the border is causing challenges. This is inherent in the protocol, which provides this de facto border between two different parts of the same sovereign nation. That is the problem that we are wrestling with and seeking to resolve—so I acknowledge the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Before the Minister is allowed to resume his seat, I understand and accept that the Secretary of State may be engaging with the devolved authorities. On that basis, may we take it that their responses to that engagement will be publicly available?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will not go into the speculative nature of what each devolved Administration will say, but we have great resilience and passion within our devolved Administrations and I am sure that, as discussions and negotiations progress, both the Government and your Lordships’ House will be very clear about what the Administrations think.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The constitutional point is clearly the huge point here; mine is a minor addition. Would the noble Lord look at Clause 22(2)(a) and (b) and put himself in the position of an EU negotiator? Would he willingly come to an agreement with the British if they had just given their Ministers the power, without any parliamentary oversight, to make any provision they wish, notwithstanding that it is not compatible with the protocol or any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement?
As the negotiator contemplates trying to find practical solutions to make the protocol less burdensome, the negotiator is confronted on the other side of the table by a Government who are taking to themselves the right to change anything in the withdrawal agreement without consulting Parliament. I think as a minimum—and I put this very mildly—that does not improve the chances of the negotiations succeeding, which is why I think so many in Brussels believe that if we proceed with this Bill, the talks, the negotiations and the consultations will not succeed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
That was almost a rhetorical question being posed to me. What I can say in response is that the engagement we are having with the European Union is—as I have said before, and I would be very up front and honest if this was not the case—being done constructively. The EU understands and appreciates the basis of why we are seeking to do this. It also understands that this Bill is being scrutinised, as is happening this evening, and that we are continuing to work in terms of constructive engagement.
As I have said before, with the Commissioner visiting the UK, the engagement between my right honourable friend and Commissioner Šefčovič is in a good place in terms of the level of engagement, in both tone and substance. I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord is very experienced in all things diplomatic and, indeed, is a veteran of the EU Commission. I am not going to speculate on what an EU Commissioner or an EU negotiator will say because I have never been one.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister is being patient with us and I know everybody is hungry. As the Minister has generously said he is going to write to Members taking part in the Committee, will he add something for my benefit, which is giving examples of other legislation that we have passed in which any and all parts of it can be amended by regulation immediately on commencement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
This is turning into a very long letter. I think I am going to get something from the Box which says, “Minister, do not commit to writing anything ever again.” But I know what the noble Lord has asked of me.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been put in an impossible situation. I thank all noble Lord who have spoken in this debate. It is a hard act to follow. We have had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, talking about extraordinary legislation and quoting from the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talking about wasting the Committee’s time and then using that very legal words “otiose” when comparing Clause 22(1) and Clause 22(3). We have had the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talking about never seeing so many Henry VIII powers in her time in Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked a number of questions, including one we have heard just now, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, very relevantly asked about the reason that there is an exception in Clause 22(3) about border infrastructure on the north-south border, so I look forward to seeing this letter as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hoey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents a Minister of the Crown making provision by regulation which has the effect of repealing, subordinating or otherwise interfering with the United Kingdom’s foundational constitutional statutory framework.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also, in some detail—I apologise, but I have not spoken very much in Committee—make a constitutional plea to the Government on behalf of British citizens in Northern Ireland.
This amendment is very simple. It seeks to remedy an important gap at the heart of the Bill. I believe the Bill is good. It creates the framework for a fair and balanced solution and, if the powers it confers are used appropriately, will restore Northern Ireland’s place within the union. Clause 1(c) is clear that one of the Bill’s primary purposes is to remedy the present subjugation of the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, which together are known as the Acts of Union.
The Prime Minister before the previous Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons, claimed that the withdrawal Act was not intended to affect the Acts of Union, yet a few months later senior counsel, on behalf of the then Government, went to court in our protocol case in Belfast and argued exactly the opposite. As the late Lord Trimble simply put it:
“The Act of Union is the union.”
That is undeniably true. In Halsbury’s Laws, the Acts of Union are described as
“the statutory warrant for the continued incorporation of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom”.
The High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have been clear—we should not really need a court to tell us this—that the Acts of Union remain in force and together have the status of constitutional statutes.
There has been some commentary suggesting that the Acts of Union were somehow repealed or overridden by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or later statutory provisions, but that is simply not so. The 1920 Act simply made provision for separate devolved arrangements in two parts of Ireland, each of which remained fully part of the United Kingdom and subject to the United Kingdom Parliament. There was and is nothing in the Acts of Union to prevent the creation of subordinate legislatures, provided that the King in Parliament remains sovereign.
Section 1(2) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 provided that the southern parliament be dissolved, and the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 provided that the 1920 Act no longer had effect beyond Northern Ireland. This has the effect of a non-textual amendment to Section 75 of the 1920 Act, maintaining the untrammelled authority of Parliament over Northern Ireland. In consequence, southern Ireland no longer remained within the UK but Northern Ireland did, and therefore remained firmly under the constitutional protections of the Acts of Union. These legislative events in 1922 at most altered the territorial extent of the Acts of Union but did not alter the fundamental constitutional foundation of the union itself.
Here is the simple question I pose to noble Lords. Article 3 of the Acts of Union creates our Parliament, and Article 6 prescribes the economic constitutional framework—essentially, the UK internal market. Could a majority in Parliament constitutionally abolish Parliament, and thus our democratic constitutional system itself, and in its place usher in new authoritarian arrangements? If noble Lords think not, because Parliament is a constitutional fundamental, then that constitutional fundamental is derived from Article 3 of the Acts of Union. If Article 3 of the Acts of Union is a constitutional fundamental, as a matter of simple logic there is no reason to give some lesser status to Article 6. Why should one receive greater constitutional deference or protection than the other?
In our largely unwritten constitution, something may be unconstitutional—that is, offensive to or subversive of our constitutional order—without being necessarily unlawful. Our constitution, however, is entrusted primarily to us and our colleagues in another place. We are here as guardians of the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom as much as we must be guardians of the rule of law. But if a law, even one made by Parliament, is unconstitutional, it is our duty to stand against that in discharge of our functions in this House. In my view and that of many others, Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which brings the protocol into domestic law, is unconstitutional, given that its effect is the subjugation of the Acts of Union and thus the fundamental constitutional basis of the union itself.
While this Bill may well conflict with international obligations under the protocol—although I think that Article 16 of the protocol itself makes any such claim doubtful—any such obligations must yield for two reasons. The first is the doctrine of necessity, which has been set out by the Government and dealt with expertly by many Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I need not repeat those contributions but, in so far as I have heard them relate to international law, I support them.
The second, which I think needs to be gone into a little more fully, is that the protocol subjugates the fundamental constitutional foundation of the United Kingdom. The Government have an overriding constitutional obligation to remedy that and, if that requires acting against a previous treaty, so be it. The Bill as it stands would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union if Clause 4 were brought into force via commencement order. However, there still seems to be a hole. Although the Bill, in line with its intent in Clause 1, would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union by removing the most offensive elements of Article 5 of the protocol from having effect in domestic law, it does not prevent a Minister of a Crown using the Henry VIII powers that we have heard so much about to replace the current arrangements with new arrangements that would again breach the Acts of Union. The superficially attractive answer to that point is to say that Parliament could legislate again to subjugate the Acts of Union if it so wished. As a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, it could—notwithstanding the validity of my point around how it is constitutionally improper.
The distinction here is that Parliament, with all the checks and balances, could do it or try to do it. As it stands, Clause 22 permits—or, to put it another way, does not prevent—a Minister of the Crown by regulation to alter the foundational constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. If it were to stand, it would mean that a Minister of the Crown, in exercising powers as specified in Clause 22, could again subjugate the Acts of Union and thus act in a manner contrary to what is, superficially at least, a fundamental aim of the Bill, which is to restore the Acts of Union.
It is notable that Clause 22 prevents a Minister of the Crown doing anything by regulation that would create a north/south border. This inherent imbalance, which my amendment seeks to remedy, once again eliminates the entirely one-sided nature of the so-called “peace process” in Northern Ireland. A Minister of the Crown, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, earlier, is prohibited in exercise of these powers from doing anything to facilitate or create a land border where it should be, but there is no such constraint on creating a border in our own country and subjugating the Acts of Union. That simply is an absurdity. I know that the Minister could not really give a reason why this had not gone in but I trust—being very naive, perhaps—that it was simply an oversight on the part of the drafters.
There is no reason why the Government could not adopt this amendment. In answer to a question posed in the House of Commons by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP, the then Secretary of State—the previous Secretary of State, not the current Secretary of State; it gets a bit confusing—gave an assurance that the exercise of powers under the Bill would have to be in a manner compatible with the Acts of Union. He made that assurance in the House. If that assurance, given to Parliament, is to be worth while, why would the Government not give effect to it by way of a straightforward clause in this Bill?
I therefore ask again for clarity from the Government. I know the Minister may well need to go back and discuss whether they will perhaps be able to adopt this amendment, so I do not expect an answer right now, but I do pose a question—and, if possible, I would like a response in the wind-up—about the commitment made by Brandon Lewis MP. Is the Minister willing to reaffirm to this House that any new arrangements to be made by regulation will have to be compatible with the Acts of Union?
This is fundamental. If the Government cannot do so, they will be saying to pro-union people, who the Conservative Government continue to urge to trust them, that the promises made to them about the restoration of the Acts of Union are in fact hollow and that once again they may well be being tricked. There seems to be little point in remedying the Acts of Union breach via the commencement of the relevant provision in this Bill and then replacing that which has been removed with another breach of the Acts of Union. It brings us back to the same place, because no self-respecting unionist will support arrangements which occasion a breach of the Acts of Union.
The fundamental issue for unionists—the clue is in the name—is that the Acts of Union must be restored, and the Acts of Union require equal footing in matters of trade. Let us be clear: the restoration means an end of EU law applying in Northern Ireland. If it continues to apply in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom then the Acts of Union are breached. A breach of the Acts of Union is also a breach of the principle of consent because it fundamentally alters the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the union.
That brings me to another pertinent point. Last week, after a lot of procrastination, the Northern Ireland Office ruled out lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland for Dublin. It did so correctly, on the basis that this would breach the principle of consent. Can the Government therefore explain how they reconcile the plainly correct position that lawmaking powers being handed to Dublin would breach the principle of consent with their continued entirely illogical claim that handing lawmaking and judicial powers to Brussels does not? What, tell me, is the difference between Brussels exercising lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland and Dublin doing the same? In truth, I do not think that there is any coherent answer to that.
This amendment would offer protection to the fundamental constitutional basis of the United Kingdom. We do not want any more trickery, clever footwork or compromising that ends up with Northern Ireland’s constitutional position not absolutely restored—not just in the present but protected in the future—to being an integral part of the United Kingdom. Amending Clause 22 would provide some measure of constitutional safeguard, which I am afraid is necessary. A little under two months ago, the Government again went before the court in Northern Ireland and argued that the territorial extent of the United Kingdom should be interpreted as meaning only Great Britain, with Northern Ireland instead treated as part of the EU’s territory. That was the Government’s case. Noble Lords can see why so many pro-union citizens in Northern Ireland have voted in huge numbers to give the DUP the mandate to take nothing on trust. I am really sad to say that this Government are increasingly losing the trust of those who cherish the union.
Over the years, unionists and loyalists in Northern Ireland have been betrayed by Conservative and Labour Governments, again and again. They had courage in times of war, fighting for the UK, and through 40 years of terrible terrorism, and their loyalty has been rewarded by being treated like second-class citizens, with constant appeasement to the Irish Government and those who are dedicated to destroying the union and the very birthright of unionists to live as equal citizens under the protection of His Majesty’s Government. They were betrayed during the home rule crisis, betrayed after the First World War and betrayed in 1985, and, sadly, many in Northern Ireland now feel that, even in the 1998 agreement, the unionist community was deceived. That is partly why many of us are determined to get rid of those injustices and ensure that what was promised by the sovereign Government of this country to its British citizens in Northern Ireland is upheld.
Of course, the final betrayal was the Northern Ireland protocol. It was said that no British Prime Minister could allow a border in the Irish Sea—and yet we saw what happened. When such a border was put there, subjugating Northern Ireland and its citizens, it was an historic wrong. There is no justifying or explaining it. It plunged a knife into the back of British citizens in Northern Ireland, the part of the United Kingdom which I call my home. The historical record will show those who stood up for our country, the United Kingdom, and those who stood with the EU and a foreign Irish Government.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for this amendment. She knows from many discussions and from what I have said in this House that, despite the distinguished legal heft behind her argument on the Acts of Union, I do not accept it. By the way, I do not accept the argument that the protocol subjugates the Acts of Union, but I do not want to repeat things that I and others have said during this debate.
However, the noble Baroness’s speech is very important for a particular reason. I look over at the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and remember that we were all in exactly the same place in April 1998—in favour of the agreement. All of us were determined to get that agreement going. The speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, reflected a significant degree of disillusionment, largely provoked by events since the protocol.
The issue that the noble Baroness homed in on was the Acts of Union. The White Paper which preceded the Bill does not reference the issues around the Acts of Union, whereas the Bill does. It is more briefly than the noble Baroness would like, but it none the less references upholding the Acts of Union. That reflects the deterioration that has occurred in public opinion in Northern Ireland, even since the publication of the White Paper. The Government decided—I understand for tactical reasons—to include a reference to the Acts of Union in the Bill.
We have listened tonight to quite a lot of esteemed legal opinion, but the truth is that this is a political problem. It has to be faced up to. The truth is that we are in a very difficult moment when it comes to the possibility of making the Good Friday agreement’s institutions operate as we head toward its 25th anniversary. The strong conviction that I have—I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, also feels this—is that there is no other show in town, and so that is what we should be working to do.
One of the reasons why I am a little uncomfortable about the eloquent discourses on Henry VIII powers—I have been in this House long enough to have heard many such—is the point forcefully made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, tonight. The House gets very excited about Henry VIII powers when it suspects that the uses will not be loved by the House but, when it is a Henry VIII power which is pretty unpopular with large sections of opinion in Northern Ireland, the House has no qualms. We have seen it most recently on the abortion issue. What matters is not Henry VIII powers but the purposes to which they are put, and in this case the purposes to which these powers would be put would be essentially dealing not with a sea of anonymity but with EU interventions of one sort or another in the laws of the United Kingdom.
The way in which the House approaches this really makes me uncomfortable, because it is an attitude of mind that does not reflect the political nature of the problem. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, as a very esteemed legal mind in this House, actually faced up to what the Good Friday agreement, an international agreement, says quite clearly at Article 1(5). He used the expression: “You cannot live with long-term alienation.” The British Government—the sovereign Government—have a responsibility to address the long-term alienation of a community, as they did only recently on the Irish language. There is no question about that. “Alienation” is a perfectly fair translation, but that piece of legislation actually says that the British Government as the sovereign Government have to deal on the basis of equality of esteem with the long-term aspirations of both communities. There is no question but that the protocol as it now stands is seen by the unionist community as a whole as flouting its long-term aspirations.
I suppose that just after Brexit came into our lives—unhappily, for many—former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who was present in 1998, came to this House and addressed the House of Lords Select Committee. He said, “You can talk all you like about Europe but there is the little matter of the Good Friday agreement, held as an international agreement in the United Nations.” The House has tended to forget that. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the fundamental legal thrusts at the beginning of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the fact that many people in Northern Ireland will see her case as, if anything, too soft and too moderate is a sign of how we are losing control of public opinion in Northern Ireland and our ability to intervene in that public opinion. That is extremely worrying.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, who was in his place earlier this evening, is quite right: we cannot afford to give the impression that Northern Ireland is an ungovernable entity. There must be a return to power sharing. I will be clear about this: it will not occur on any other basis than a renewed form of historic compromise. We should take the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, as a warning about how public mood is evolving away from compromise, and all the lectures on Henry VIII powers in the world are not anything like as significant as that fact for the political history of this country.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group but, before referring to them, I say that obviously this set of amendments really deals with the restrictions on the use of ministerial powers. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to the kernel of the issue, which is about the politics of Northern Ireland. I think that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also said. Obviously, as a democratic Irish nationalist I come from a very different position, and I make no bones about it. In the fullness of time, subject to agreement and to consent, I would like to see the island of Ireland politically united, but that is united according to the principle of consent and united by agreement. The land is already united, but I mean the uniting of people on the island.
In this discourse, we must not forget that we have to move towards compromise and achieve it. I go back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Murphy: the most important thing is that there is an urgent need for the parties in Northern Ireland to be directly involved in the negotiations with the UK, the Irish Government and the EU. Unless that happens, we will go down the road of technical negotiations and discussions ad infinitum but they will not solve the political issues that exist, and those political issues urgently require to be resolved if we are to have the restoration of political institutions.
In that context, I pose this question: do all parties and all peoples want those political institutions restored? For my part, I would like them restored because they are based on the principle of consent and it is all about power sharing and co-operation. Because of the nature of the divided society in Northern Ireland, it cannot go any other way and the only solution is via the Good Friday agreement. I hope we will get back to that, and the best way to do it is through negotiations between not only the UK and the EU but the parties in Northern Ireland that are most directly affected, representing all the people, and of course the Irish Government, who could take on the role of the EU or work in partnership with the EU as a member state.
Amendment 46 seeks to circumscribe and limit the regulations to ensure adherence to Northern Ireland Assembly approval for a legislative consent Motion. The regulations are referred to only in the Bill; they are not specified and will be subject to secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to Henry VIII powers. If this were just about Henry VIII powers then it might be quite simple, but it comes back to the overarching umbrella of the political situation and the need for a political solution. Here, there is a total disregard for the democratic consent of the Assembly and the importance of what it is there to do as an organ of the Good Friday agreement. It is important that that is built into this legislation, although obviously I would prefer that the legislation was not there and that it was replaced totally by negotiations.
Amendment 54 seeks the agreement of the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly on behalf of the Executive or Assembly. In that, I am building in joint accountability. There is a case for reverting to the appointment of the Ministers jointly as joint First Ministers. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to the earlier situation where, at St Andrews, that principle was undermined. Appointing Ministers and calling them joint First Ministers would emphasise power sharing, co-operation and jointery. It would recognise the principle of consent as prescribed by the Good Friday agreement, and it would get away from the idea of one side saying, “Make me First Minister”, and the other side saying, “No, make me First Minister”. We have to ensure that equality and parity of esteem are recognised in the Bill if the Bill is to go ahead.
Amendment 55 proposes a new clause requiring the Minister yet again to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to exercise the power to make regulations conferred by the Bill. It would also require a Minister to obtain the consent of the Assembly for the continued application of the regulations beyond the relevant period. It would therefore require the consent and the accountability of the Assembly. There should be no imposition of these unspecified regulations without the agreement of the Assembly. The fundamental point is that the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives in the Assembly are key and fundamental to the whole process, and should be directly involved in the negotiations in deciding the way forward.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I have just a couple of small points before dealing with some of the wider issues raised by the amendments tabled in this group.
First, on the negotiations, I do not disagree with the involvement of Northern Ireland parties, as I said previously. It was suggested earlier—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I regret is not in his place at the moment—that it did not matter what the EU thought as long as the British Government involved the Northern Ireland parties, but we are not talking about consultations; we are talking about negotiations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, put his finger on it: it is about getting people around the table. If you are going to negotiate, you need the EU and the Irish Government to be on board. The fact is that, regrettably, they have not changed their position from their previous utterances, where they said that this is entirely a matter for the EU, not for regional parties or any individual member state Government; they have said it is for the European Commission, negotiating under the mandate given to it by the Council of Ministers.
My second point is on the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised about the joint First Minister nomination, which was also raised on the previous set of amendments. It should be remembered that the Saint Andrews agreement took place towards the end of the 2000s, in an effort to restore devolution after years in which it had been brought down—again, by Sinn Féin, given the fact that it was out murdering people in the streets, and had not decommissioned its weapons, despite promises that it would do so. There was the famous quote by the late Lord Trimble, who said, “We have jumped, now it is your turn.” Of course, Sinn Féin never did reciprocate. As a result, we had the Northern Bank robbery, and the institutions were down for three or four years. They were eventually restored as the result of Saint Andrews, and that was a cross-community agreement which made the arrangements in relation to the nomination of First and Deputy First Minister. That was the result of a cross-community agreement, so the idea that that is contrary to the principle is simply wrong.
I fully endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about her amendment. It is an important amendment which deals with an issue that has caused considerable concern and anxiety in Northern Ireland, which is the fact that thus far the courts have ruled that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, Article 6 of the Act of Union, has been subjugated by the Northern Ireland protocol. That is a legal ruling. If we are paying such close scrutiny to the legal technicalities, the legal position set out in the Bill and all its intricacies—which is perfectly proper—we cannot then simply dismiss the ruling of the courts in relation to the Act of Union as neither here nor there. This is an important matter for unionists. It is the foundational constitutional document of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, so this is no small matter. It is something that is being challenged by unionist political leaders right across the board, and it is therefore important that it is addressed.
That is why the Belfast agreement, as amended by St Andrews, is in some considerable difficulty, because the protocol has this effect on our constitutional position. The fact is that we have another series of amendments, tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, about “consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly”, which does not include the cross-community element—the cross-community vote. Again, this says to unionists that, while some are prepared to defend and speak up for the Belfast agreement, and say that this is all about protecting it, when it suits them they just change it. The Belfast agreement provides for votes like this on a cross-community basis, yet time and time again we see things being tabled in this House which undermine the agreement. We are told that we should respect the agreement and its spirit, yet here we have amendments that go against what is in the Belfast agreement—never mind the issues about the east-west relationship and strand three of the agreement, which are trashed by the protocol, and the removal of the democratic consent mechanism for the protocol itself, which means that the Assembly had absolutely no say at all before the protocol was introduced. So we are in a very difficult situation.
There is no doubt that unionists have lost a large degree of confidence in the institutions of the Belfast agreement. On what was agreed in 1998, many of us opposed those elements which released unrepentant murderers back on to the streets of Northern Ireland after serving only two years for some of the most heinous crimes imaginable of murder and depravity—people from both sides of the community were allowed to walk free from jail. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was consigned to history, and there were all sorts of issues about Sinn Féin being admitted into government while the Provisional IRA was still murdering people in the streets, as I said, and were still fully armed. Those of us who opposed these things were told, “You’ve got to accept all these things in the name of peace.” Many people did accept them; there was a referendum, it was passed, and the institutions were set up. But unionists had to accept into government people who parties here in Westminster—and, ironically, the parties Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the Irish Republic—would not accept into coalition with them. Northern Ireland is lectured all the time about democracy and accepting Sinn Féin into government—and we have accepted Sinn Féin into government, as per the votes of the people who gave them votes and demanded a coalition arrangement. However, the same people who lecture unionists refuse to have anything to do with them in terms of a coalition in the Irish Republic—and I imagine that neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party would admit them into a Government here.
We are seeing that the basis of the settlement in 1998 is now continually undermined. The principle of consent has been breached as a result of this protocol. We now have increasing clamour, including recently from the Irish Taoiseach, about changing the rules of the Belfast agreement and how the Assembly should operate. Indeed, I understand that the Taoiseach went so far as to say that it was a matter for the Irish Government, the British Government and the parties. I am sorry, but strand one is a matter for Northern Ireland parties and the UK Government; it is not a matter for the Irish Government. They are entitled to be involved in strand two and strand three issues, but not the internal government of Northern Ireland. This is causing real concern among unionists. We are in a dangerous situation, and not just because of the protocol but because we are seeing that the Belfast agreement is now going to be completely undermined if some people get their way. Majority rule, which, as we have heard, has not happened and has not been the case in Northern Ireland since the early 1970s, is something which has been railed against for over 100 years. However, as a result of boundary changes and the rest, as soon we have a non-unionist majority in the Assembly—it is not a nationalist majority; unionists are still the biggest designation—and because that now does not suit Sinn Féin, the SDLP or even the Alliance Party, some say, “Let’s change the rules.” If unionists had been suggesting such a thing in the late 1990s, during the 2000s or up until 2019, we would have been howled down as being in breach of the very fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement.
The more talk there is of that; the more talk there is about joint authority in the event of no devolution—something that, again, is entirely contrary to the Belfast agreement—the more talk there is about the protocol being rigorously implemented or not changing the protocol in the way it needs to be changed to get unionist consent; the more we are in danger of seeing the restoration of the Assembly and the institutions of the Belfast agreement receding further and further into the distance. That is the reality. We do not want that to happen. We need to get a grip. The more delay there is, either in negotiations or in the UK Government taking the action needed to restore unionist faith in the political process in Northern Ireland, the longer the institutions will be down. This Government cannot have a situation in which Northern Ireland is left in limbo, where no decisions are taken by anybody, where there are no Ministers and where civil servants do not even have the powers they had the last time. We need Northern Ireland to be governed. The UK Government, who have sovereign responsibility under the Belfast agreement and their constitutional responsibilities, need to take responsibility and act for the good government of Northern Ireland.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I shall add a few remarks. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is a very important issue for many people in Northern Ireland, and certainly for the unionist population. There is no doubt whatever that the protocol is undermining and has undermined Northern Ireland’s position. I believe it is a vehicle to continue to undermine the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The protocol has brought a profound constitutional change to the very heart of the United Kingdom, because the courts have now ruled that the meaning of the Act of Union, the foundation of the union, has been changed by the protocol, courtesy of it being given direct effect in UK law through the withdrawal agreement Act, with the effect that this subjugates the meaning of Article VI of the Act of Union to the protocol.
I was asked this afternoon how many years I had been in public life in Northern Ireland. It is hard to believe, but in May next year, it will be 50 years: 37 years in the council, 25 years in the other House as a Member of Parliament, 16 years in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and so it goes on. And then in this place here. Now, over the years, I have seen and witnessed, sadly, Northern Ireland’s position being pushed on to the ledge of the union, as it were—pushed to the side. Our position in the United Kingdom has been undermined.
I have to say to your Lordships’ House that the unionist people are very suspicious of both Front Benches, and indeed other parties in this House. When it comes to defending positions, Dublin will defend the nationalist and republican position, but who will defend the unionist position? You would expect the United Kingdom Government to do that, but it is sad to say that successive Governments have not been very good at it. As my noble friend Lord Dodds mentioned a moment ago, certainly strands 2 and 3 give Dublin the right to have a say. But when it comes to strand 1—last week we had the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in conference with the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic to talk about whether there should be a poll in Northern Ireland and an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, yet the basis of the Belfast agreement was that Dublin has no right to a say on such matters. That once again makes people suspicious.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
For the avoidance of doubt, and for the information of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, when I say “consent and agreement” I mean consent, and it must be the consent of all the people—unionists and nationalists.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Baroness. That then begs the question: why is it not in her amendment? Why is it simply the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which in fact removes it from cross-community consent? That is not what they are talking about here. If it had been, it would be in this. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, saying that this would be looked at on a later date. I trust that this will be taken on board. We will not move forward unless there is cross-community consent, and there is no cross-community consent and no unionist consent for this protocol, which they believe is a vehicle for taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this is an extraordinary clause. The speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, introducing this group, proved the point. She argued that Ministers could, under this clause, act in a way that is incompatible with the Act of Union. My interpretation of this clause is similar to that described by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the discussion of the previous group, in that it gives Ministers the ability to do pretty much anything. There is no restriction on powers. Maybe the Minister had been briefed that there was. Clearly, in this clause at least, that is not the case. That is the point that many noble Lords have been trying to get across to Ministers, and it is the underlying reason for much of the unhappiness with this Bill.
It is probably a bit tedious for the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to listen to us wittering on about this again and again. I completely understand that, as it does seem rather separate from what is happening on the ground and the political issues that he quite rightly says the Bill is really all about. I totally agree with him on that. Nevertheless, the method that the Government are choosing to deal with these political issues is one which gives them these quite unprecedented powers. We have come across this sort of thing many times, but we have never seen it quite as blunt as this. That is why they are getting a sort of two-pronged dissatisfaction with this approach.
The amendment in my name refers specifically to subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). This is the bit where Clause 22 makes it clear that Ministers would be breaking international obligations and gives them permission to do so. Obviously, if the Bill became law, Ministers would not be breaking domestic law because it would be domestic law, but they would be breaching their international obligations. Ministers’ answers on this issue have been far from convincing. How is passing the Bill responsible if we do not know what the Government are going to do? We do not know that because they are giving themselves such wide powers. If the powers were in some way restricted to issues relating to the problems that the Bill tries to solve, perhaps the Government would be on a firmer footing. However, we are at such a precarious point; for example, there may be elections and there may not be.
I am trying not to have a dog in this race but, from the discussion we have just heard, it is absolutely clear that the problems being described are real and need to be dealt with. They need a Government who are properly engaged and will deal with them seriously. A clause such as this one says the opposite to all communities. Who knows where this will go? There is obviously no trust in the Government on this issue. We have heard it; it is very clear. Even the people who broadly support the Government’s approach do not trust them to do this correctly and do right by them. That is a big problem. It is a problem here in getting support for this clause, but it sure as heck is also a problem on the ground in Northern Ireland.
The Government have got themselves into a real mess on this issue. The powers in the Bill are not constrained to a particular purpose. I just do not know how the Government will deal with this. We have been told that we will get a letter, as if this is a discussion that the Government could not have foreseen, anticipated and had proper answers for. While we are doing our job of going through this Bill, the Government do not have an answer on what was foreshadowed well by noble Lords’ contributions at Second Reading but have to go away and write us a letter. It is not good enough. We need to know the Government’s response to that issue, and particularly on this clause, before we can properly proceed.
I completely agree with everyone who said that we must have the restoration of the political institutions. Some people seem to think that the Bill will help but we disagree. We think that it is bad politics and will lead to more disappointment, probably disappointing the very people who have come here tonight to support the Government in this endeavour. This clause is a problem; the Minister has learned that very well, I think. I am afraid that listening to tonight’s exchanges has made me more convinced than I was before that we on these Benches cannot support this clause unless something shifts dramatically before we reach Report. I just do not know where we go with this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I rather hesitate to say this in front of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who was taught at Cambridge by the great Tudor historian Sir Geoffrey Elton, but as we go through these debates, I feel I am becoming increasingly isolated in being a Member of your Lordships’ House who might still have a sneaking admiration for the reign of Henry VIII. Indeed, I confess that I have a portrait of Thomas Cromwell in my office. However, I will go no further because I do not want to provoke a debate with noble Lords about the 1533 Act of Restraint in Appeals and its preamble. I will therefore fast-forward, if I may, to 1800 and the Acts of Union, referred to in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Let me say at the outset that I entirely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s position and amendment. Clause 1, as she pointed out, explains that the Acts of Union are not to be affected by provision of the protocol that does not have effect in the United Kingdom. I agree with her and noble Lords who have pointed out the fundamental importance of the Acts of Union as the bedrock of Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the United Kingdom.
However, I am sorry to point out to the noble Baroness that her amendment has the potential to risk the exercise of the powers under the Bill. For example, the red lane in our new model will continue to apply EU rules to goods moving through Northern Ireland into the European Union and single market. This is crucial to ensuring that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland and to upholding the overall objectives of the Act of Union regarding the free flow of trade in the United Kingdom. The restrictions imposed by her amendment could risk the implementation of this revised operation of the protocol, which is designed to uphold our commitments to the union.
I know the noble Baroness is very supportive of the Bill, but this amendment could undermine the certainty that it seeks to provide. She and my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn made a very large number of points around subjugation and so on. I hope she will appreciate that I cannot go into great detail at the Dispatch Box because, as she knows since she is a party to it, this amendment treads very much the same territory as is the subject of a live case in the Supreme Court, which I think is expected to be heard very shortly.
I reiterate my and this Conservative and Unionist Government’s—a label I proudly wear in your Lordships’ House—strong support for the union and Northern Ireland’s integral position within it. I have no hesitation in reiterating what we said at the end of last week about joint authority; it is simply incompatible with the provisions of the Belfast agreement and we will not countenance it. I assure the noble Baroness that we are determined to resolve the issues to which she alluded in her amendment this evening and, on that basis, urge her to withdraw it.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It has been said many times and in much detail, but I feel I have a duty to remind the House again that it is because of the operation of the protocol that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not been sitting since February, and the Bill aims specifically to restore political stability in Northern Ireland and facilitate the reconstituting of a fully functioning Executive and Assembly in line with the Belfast agreement. In the absence of functioning institutions, creating a legal requirement—as the amendment from the noble Baroness would do—that consent from the Assembly be granted before regulations can be made under the Bill risks in these circumstances setting a test that simply cannot be met, because there is no functioning Assembly.
This amendment would also be constitutionally problematic, effectively limiting the UK Government’s ability to exercise their powers in excepted and reserved areas of policy such as international affairs and trade, respectively. Given that it would also apply to the commencement power, it would make the coming into force of legislation of this Parliament subject to a veto by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would affect this Parliament’s right to legislate for Northern Ireland, something the Belfast agreement makes very clear is unaffected; as such, the Government cannot accept it. For that reason, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her Amendments 46 and 55.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and particularly for his reassertion of the United Kingdom Government’s commitment to the union and to Northern Ireland’s integral place within the union. I do not accept his reason for not accepting this amendment. I will look at what he said and I hope he will reflect between now and Report.
I thank noble Lords who spoke. The noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Dodds, both gave a very serious warning about the situation in Northern Ireland. The comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this is no small matter is something we should all reflect on. I am actually very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did not speak. I will take that as a sign, and hope that the Lib Dems will support this when it comes to Report. But I do not assume the same about the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who also did not speak on this amendment.
Seriously, this is an important issue and it is not going to go away. I hope that, at this stage, we have given everyone a bit of thinking to do before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty to seek an agreement on outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol
(1) Before a Minister of the Crown may exercise any of the powers in sections 1 to 20, His Majesty's Government must—(a) seek an agreement with the European Union regarding outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol, or(b) pursue and exhaust all legal options under the EU withdrawal agreement.(2) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and every month thereafter until—(a) an agreement is reached, or(b) a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that an agreement cannot be reached,a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a statement outlining what progress has been made in negotiations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it a statutory requirement for the Government to seek a negotiated outcome with the EU, and to exhaust legal routes under the EU withdrawal agreement before availing itself of the powers in this Bill. The amendment would also require Ministers to provide regular updates to Parliament regarding the ongoing UK-EU negotiations.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 56 deals with the
“Duty to seek an agreement on outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
This amendment would make it a statutory requirement for the Government to seek a negotiated outcome with the EU and to exhaust legal routes under the EU withdrawal agreement before availing themselves of the powers in this Bill. The amendment would also require Ministers to provide regular updates to Parliament regarding the ongoing UK-EU negotiations.
In this amendment, we seek to bring together two issues in a single text: the negotiated settlement and the regular updates. This would ensure that the extraordinary measures in this Bill could not be used until all legal routes are exhausted. We know that the Government will say this amendment is unnecessary, yet the very existence of this Bill highlights the lack of good faith displayed by Ministers. We have been asked to trust in the new negotiations, but we have not yet had an update from the Foreign Secretary—although we are told we may get one later this week, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Colleagues such as the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, often remind us of the Commission’s duties to the European Parliament, so why, after all this time, does the Conservative Party continue to sideline what they call the mother of Parliaments—this House? If the Government really are acting in good faith, they should take no issue with this amendment. It is a restatement of their own policy, coupled with a request for further information. I beg to move Amendment 56.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I have spoken on a number of previous occasions about the fact that we are fumbling around in the dark. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made a noble attempt at an earlier stage in today’s debate to say something about what was going on but I am sorry to say that, if I was being impolite, I would say that what he said was the square root of nothing. Are we going to get something more than that? We ought to. That has been the practice of previous British Governments in negotiation as a third party when we were outside the European Union and in many other negotiations. I think it is pretty shocking that we are not getting that.
It also underlines a point which all our debates illustrate: that the Government have put the cart before the horse. Surely the right sequence would have been for the Government to enter into a serious process of negotiation from last February onwards; but they did nothing—absolutely nothing. We now know that nothing happened after February. As that process went along, they should have reported it to Parliament. At some stage or another, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to say that we cannot go on like this for ever and, if we cannot get a negotiated agreement to sort out the implementation of the protocol in order to cure it of some of the imperfections which none of us contests, then we may have to go down a unilateral course.
If the Government had done that, I suspect that we would have had an agreement by now—but the lady who was Foreign Secretary at the time and who had her eye on higher things, which, alas, turned out to be a flash in the pan, went down another course, which was to put the cart before the horses. And that is where we are: with the cart firmly before the horses. Here we are, spending hours and hours discussing what we are going to do if this process of negotiation, which the Government say is their preference, fails. Well, the time to do that is when it has failed, when the Government have made a full and detailed report of why it had failed, and when we can see what the other side in the negotiation says about whether those reasons for failure are justified. Then Parliament can take a view on what to do next.
Instead of which, we are being asked to do all this now in the, alas, totally futile belief that this will somehow put the frighteners on Brussels. Well, it does not look to me as if Brussels is terribly frightened; nor has it been for many months. So I wish we could just get away from this and leave the process of deciding what we do if the Government’s preferred option fails, and then we will deal with that when we get to it. We will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I too support my noble friend’s amendment. When we look at this pointless and rather daft Bill, we realise that it has achieved absolutely nothing. They would have been more influenced by the man in the moon than by this Bill.
The Bill might have done something, but so far has done nothing, to achieve progress in Northern Ireland. I would be very interested if the people negotiating on the European Union’s behalf looked at a video of the last couple of hours’ debate in this Chamber. They would then realise that these are not the “technical issues” that we are told are being resolved at the moment. It is not about oranges, sausages and the rest of it; it is about people’s identity in Northern Ireland, whether they be unionists, who feel that their own British identity is threatened by the protocol, or nationalists, who feel that they are threatened in some other way.
The first thing the Government should understand is that in some ways the negotiations now have to be parallel: a negotiation between the European Union—with, as I said earlier, a much bigger involvement by the Irish Government—and the United Kingdom Government on the protocol itself, in parallel with negotiations to restore the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. Those institutions have effectively collapsed and there is a case for looking at them again. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the Taoiseach’s comment about changing the rules on the way the Assembly and Executive operate—remembering, of course, that the St Andrews agreement changed the rules of the Good Friday agreement. But they were changed by agreement. That is the issue: they were not changed unilaterally by one side or the other.
In the next six months—I will come to that in a second—there should be a structured negotiation on the one hand with the European Union and on the other between the political parties in Northern Ireland and, where appropriate, on strands 2 and 3, with the Irish Government. I do not think that has entered the Government’s head over the past eight to nine months. For all sorts of reasons, which everybody knows about, they have not really been bothered; they have let things drift. There have not been proper negotiations. It seems to me that one of the Government’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that Northern Ireland does not go backwards 30 years—and it is quite possible that that could happen.
I think the European Union sometimes does not understand the absolute uniqueness of the Northern Ireland situation, of the Good Friday agreement and of the identity issue. There is no comparison anywhere within Europe, perhaps even in the world, with what has happened in Northern Ireland, and it seems to me that that has not been appreciated by the people doing the negotiating.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps I may pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I listened carefully to his earlier contribution and those of others, and the Government’s position is very much about negotiations with the European Union and having a very informed discussion also with all the parties in Northern Ireland. I know that my noble friend Lord Caine and I have listened attentively and carefully to some of the constructive proposals the noble Lord put forward about effective engagement.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, makes a notable point about the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement as well. He knows far more than I about the ways that we can make the agreement—whatever agreement is, one hopes, negotiated with the EU—work for all the communities of Northern Ireland. I am sure this will be an ongoing discussion that we will have in the days and weeks ahead.
I turn briefly to Amendment 56 and the reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. It would prevent a Minister of the Crown exercising regulation-making powers under the Bill, unless the Government have sought an agreement with the European Union regarding outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland protocol, or all legal routes under the EU withdrawal agreement have been exhausted. It also commits a Minister to outline specifically to Parliament the progress on negotiations. Let me say once again—I have said it a number of times and will continue saying this—that the Government’s primary intention is to secure a negotiated agreement with the EU. That is why we have been engaging in a constructive dialogue with EU officials over recent weeks and engaging at a political level, as I said earlier this evening.
However, we feel that linking the exercise of regulation-making powers in the Bill to progress in the negotiations and an exhaustion of legal routes in the withdrawal agreement, which I suspect was the intention behind this amendment, would hinder rather than improve the chances of a negotiated settlement. It risks drawing the UK into a never-ending dialogue with the EU, whereby it could always be claimed that an agreement is constantly within reach but never materialises. As such, we are not supportive of this amendment. The Government have also outlined that in our view the Bill is consistent with international law. This is of course without prejudice to other legal mechanisms existing under the withdrawal agreement that we have discussed previously.
On the central point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about updating the House, we are of course both listening carefully—I was discussing this with my noble friend Lord Caine—from a Northern Ireland Office perspective as well as from that of the FCDO. We will look to update the House on negotiations and discussions at the appropriate time. I hope that at this time the noble Lord, on behalf of his noble friend, will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a short debate which has gone over some territory that we have covered a number of times already. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to putting the cart before the horse and my noble friend Lord Murphy described this as a pointless and daft Bill—but je went on to give some very constructive suggestions about how to move forward with proper negotiations as we come up to the 25th anniversary of the agreement.
I will withdraw Amendment 56, but I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was diplomatically opaque when he said that he would update the House at an appropriate time, whereas we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, earlier this evening that it may well be later this week.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
While there are discussions going on, I do not want to anticipate which department will give a Statement. I want to be definitive, so I do not in any way want to give misleading information or information that is not yet correct. That is why I was being “diplomatically opaque”, as the noble Lord called it.
“Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) A Minister of the Crown may make regulations under section 19 only if—(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—(i) a statement that a relevant agreement as defined in that section has been reached, and(ii) a copy of the agreement,(b) the agreement has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the agreement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown.(2) A Minister of the Crown may make regulations under sections 4 to 17 only if—(a) they have laid before each House of Parliament a statement that—(i) His Majesty’s Government have been unable to reach an agreement with the European Union regarding outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol, and(ii) they are of the opinion that His Majesty’s Government have exhausted all legal options under the EU withdrawal agreement,(b) they have laid before each House of Parliament an assessment of the likely impacts of the regulations, and(c) they have consulted Northern Ireland business organisations on the contents of the proposed regulations and laid a report regarding that consultation before each House of Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
In the event of a negotiated settlement being achieved with the EU, this amendment would require both Houses to debate that agreement, with the Commons having to approve it. In the event that no agreement is achieved, Ministers would have to follow various steps before being able to make regulations under parts of the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I do not want to spend too much time on this amendment. Essentially, what we are asking for is a process in Parliament in the event of an agreement being reached. We want the Government to succeed in getting an agreement and think it is a helpful safeguard to allow the elected House to express its view and for this House to debate a draft of the agreement. It would be especially useful, I suggest, if the Northern Ireland Assembly is not restored in time. It would be helpful because if it is not and there is no debate in Parliament, who knows what they might be agreeing to? There would not be an opportunity for anybody’s elected representatives anywhere to have a debate about what is going to happen, and we think that is not ideal, given the history of how we got to where we are.
If Ministers are unable to achieve a deal and have exhausted legal routes under the protocol and wish to use the powers in the Bill, they should have to follow the steps in subsection (2) of this amendment, which would include a detailed impact assessment and proper consultation with Northern Ireland businesses on proposed regulations.
We have had many of these debates already and I do not propose going over each element of this in great detail now. Ministers know how we feel about consultation, draft regulations, the involvement of Northern Ireland and listening to businesses. So I think I will just leave it at that and I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment and her explanation. On her second point about consultation, I think the Government have rehearsed this point several times and the record of the Government’s position stands. It totally resonates with us. I have sought to the extent that I can to give reassurance of continued consultation in that respect.
Turning specifically to Amendment 57, on the supremacy of the House of Commons and giving the vote, I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from on this. However, I once again state quite clearly that the procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—CRaG 2010—will apply to any qualifying treaty that needs to be implemented by regulations made under the Bill. The Act already provides for appropriate scrutiny and I hope that, while she may not be totally satisfied, based on the fact that she has tabled this amendment, I once again give her that reassurance. I am sure that we will return to several aspects of this, particularly as we move through to other stages of the Bill.
Again, I note the point she is making about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, but I hope at this time she is minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not really feel the need to reply. I think we have said everything that can be said on this topic through these debates, so I beg leave to withdraw.
“Impact assessment: construction
(1) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and before a Minister of the Crown may exercise any of the powers in sections 1 to 20, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an impact assessment pertaining to the construction sector in Northern Ireland.(2) In preparing the impact assessment under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—(a) publish any draft regulations they intend to make under this Act, and which may be reasonably expected to relate to the sector,(b) consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate representatives of the sector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to the construction sector, prior to using the powers under the Bill to make regulations affecting that sector.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Similarly, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to various sectors of the Northern Ireland economy—including construction, electronics, energy and manufacturing—prior to using powers under the Bill to make regulations affecting those sectors. We want to see these draft regulations. They keep coming up. We have made our contentment with going to Report conditional upon them; they are very important to us and, I believe, to sectors in Northern Ireland.
We have previously had interesting debates on the merits of a UK-EU veterinary agreement and the importance of proper consultation with food-focused sectors of the economy, but it is important to remember that Northern Ireland businesses operate in every imaginable field, so these amendments cite a variety of sectors. We could have gone further—it is not an exhaustive list by any means—but we wanted to highlight to Ministers the unique challenges faced by businesses in Northern Ireland. Manufacturing, in particular, is having a tough time at present, with supply chains still experiencing disruption and inflation adding to business costs. In August, the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group said that using the powers under the Bill would
“create a myriad of reputational, legal and commercial risks for many of our businesses”,
putting at risk Northern Ireland’s position as
“a top performing region in exporting goods”.
My noble friend Lord Hain has previously spoken about the challenges facing the energy sector in Northern Ireland, and the ongoing uncertainty around future trade terms is creating its own difficulties for the other sectors mentioned in these amendments.
We continue to hope that the protocol can be made to work but, if the Government are to insist on their unilateral action, they need to fully involve the businesses that are operating on the ground, trying to fill and satisfy their order books. It is an incredibly difficult time for businesses anywhere in the UK but you cannot listen to the debates that we are having and not understand how much more difficult it is to plan and run your business in Northern Ireland. Some of the problems are caused, of course, by the protocol that we all want to see fixed; others, I am afraid, are caused just by the continuing uncertainty that has been brought about by this situation. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 59. Again, I suppose the final thing is about approach. There is nothing the noble Baroness has said that I disagree with, in that, yes, we are seeking to provide clarity to Northern Ireland businesses. I totally subscribe to what the noble Baroness said about problems arising from the operation of the protocol but that, equally, there are wider issues that businesses across the United Kingdom, and indeed globally, are facing.
I fully sympathise and align myself with the desire to ensure that we consider the full impact of our legislation and its practical application for businesses. My noble friend Lord Caine previously detailed some of the groups that we are working with; indeed, the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is one of them. We will continue to engage with them. We have had quite extended discussions and debates on the publication of regulations, and I have acknowledged that I fully recognise the desire to do so, and to ensure the scrutiny of these regulations in the usual fashion. Equally, our view is very clear that these regulations also need to be fully discussed—a point agreed on by all noble Lords—to ensure that businesses can make them operable in a practical sense. Notwithstanding that, I hope the noble Baroness will be minded at this time to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am obviously happy to withdraw the amendment. I note what the Minister just said about understanding our desire to see the draft regulations and his desire to make sure that they are worked up—I think he said “consulted on with business” or words to that effect. However, we had asked for draft regulations before we moved to Report. Before I sit down—that is the phrase we use here—can he indicate whether he anticipates that the Government will be able to provide that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will have to disappoint the noble Baroness on that point. I cannot give a specific commitment. The material will be published in due course. I fully recognise and note what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes most regulations under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 65 and 66 would make most regulations under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure and strip out supplementary provision which would become redundant as a result.
As we discussed in earlier amendments, most powers in the Bill could be exercised with little or no formal scrutiny. These amendments would make the bulk of regulations made under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that the SIs had to be debated and justified. Of course, I understand that this is no silver bullet and this House never makes a habit of voting down statutory instruments.
Last week, I asked the Minister what planning had been undertaken in relation to the powers in the Bill. Have the Government decided on a sequence yet? Do we know how many statutory instruments we may be dealing with? If the Minister is unable to comment at this time—we have received no correspondence on this matter—is he in a position to update the Committee on the likely number of statutory instruments that the Bill may generate? I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment. I also recognise his point about these instruments being affirmative. I note that we recognised that in an earlier debate today on another issue. Of course, affirmative statutory instruments allow for those debates to be taken forward.
My colleagues and I have said before that we want an opportunity to scrutinise all regulations under the Bill. The Government will provide all their usual accompanying material under normal parliamentary procedures. I can commit at the current time that any regulations that amend Acts of Parliament will be subject to the affirmative procedure, although there will be some technical and detailed regulations under the Bill that may be subject to a negative procedure. That does not in itself mean that there will be no scrutiny, but I note what the noble Lord has said.
There are obviously details still to be determined around the volume of the SIs that would be coming, but I will see whether there are further details that I can share with the noble Lord and inform him appropriately. For now, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 65.
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may not bring any such provision into force before 31 December 2026.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment delays the coming into effect of most of the legislation until 31 December 2026.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to move this simple amendment. Basically, I am suggesting that the Bill, if it were to carry, would not enter into force before 31 December 2026.
On a number of occasions my noble friend Lord Ahmad has repeated that it is the Government’s firm belief that by proceeding with this Bill on the Northern Ireland protocol, they are not jeopardising our relations—particularly our trade relations—with the European Union. Personally, I agree very much with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who said earlier that the Bill not just breaches the EU withdrawal agreement but would breach the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement agreed with the EU following our departure.
Today we hear from Egypt that the Prime Minister had his first meeting with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. At the same time, we have also heard that European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič—apologies for my pronunciation —has stated that there would clearly be ramifications for trade should the Government persist with this Bill.
This amendment is, if you like, a get-out clause for my noble friend if he were to follow my advice and better judgment and pause the Bill at this time. There are other ways of dealing with the very real sentiments raised by my noble friends on the DUP Benches and others, and I do not believe that the Bill is the right vehicle to do that. It is my firm belief that the best way forward is through negotiation, not intimidation. I am sure my party would wish to distance itself from any form of intimidation, in whatever shape or form it comes.
That is my plea to my noble friend the Minister and the Government at this time: if they persist with the Bill, they should agree with Amendment 71 that the Act would not come into effect before 31 December 2026. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment. I understand and acknowledge that she wishes to create the space for negotiations, but the Government have passed the Bill through the other place and introduced it to your Lordships’ House because of the situation in Northern Ireland. For more than four years the situation has continued in a very challenging way. Furthermore, it is the Government’s view that this amendment, if agreed, would remove their ability to rapidly implement any new agreement via Clause 19.
As my noble friend will be aware—we have discussed it several times during the passage of the Bill in Committee and at Second Reading, and it was a point made by several of our colleagues and my noble friends from Northern Ireland—the Assembly has not sat since February and there is ongoing business disruption across the economy. Much of this can be aligned to the unworkability and lack of operability of the protocol.
From our perspective as the Government, it would be a sad dereliction of our duty if we were just to let the current situation continue. Although I hear what my noble friend says—she expressed her opinion about my right honourable friend meeting the President of the European Commission and our continued discussions with the EU Commissioner leading the negotiations—there is nothing more I can really add to what I have said already.
From my perspective and that of the Government, we do not feel that this amendment would be helpful to our current position. Therefore, we cannot support it and I hope my noble friend will be minded to withdraw it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his response and I will consider what to do between now and Report. I believe this amendment would give the possibility of reaching consensus and agreement in Northern Ireland, so that democratic legitimacy can be returned, and enable us to meet our international obligations. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations under this section so as to bring sections 1 to 20 into force until both Houses of Parliament have approved a mandate for negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that core provisions of the Bill cannot come into force until Parliament has approved a mandate for negotiations between the UK and the EU regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, brought about some cross-community consensus earlier when she said that she was glad that I had not spoken. As I am trying to ingratiate myself with all colleagues, it may assist if I speak to the last two groups together, if that is acceptable to the Minister and the Committee, just for efficiency’s sake.
I found it curious earlier when the Minister said that he rejected an earlier amendment because it might give the impression that agreement was in reach and talks would go on. That does seem to be the Government’s approach and, at some stage, we will need much greater clarity about not only the status of the talks—or negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, indicated —but what they are about. We know what the mandate of the EU is, but we still do not know what the position of the UK is. The purpose of Amendment 72 is to indicate that, before any regulations come into force, we would need to know exactly what is likely to be agreed.
Amendment 73, the final amendment in Committee, relates to the points that were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, regarding the fact that there will be a stage when we need to see the regulations, and I need not rehearse that argument again. We cannot do our job without seeing drafts or indications before Report, and it really should be impossible to commence the legislation unless we have seen the regulations. That is the purpose behind Amendment 73, but I beg to move Amendment 72.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to make it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I love listening to him speak and I have no aspersions against him whatever. I was just pleased that perhaps he felt that my amendment was worth considering enough to not contribute.
On this, I know it is extremely difficult for the Minister to do so, but could he give us some idea of how long he visualises—he is smiling, so I think he knows what I am going to ask—the negotiations going on before someone actually says that this is not going to work? One of the reasons I am very keen to get this Bill through as quickly as possible is so that we have it there as a safeguard. It would be helpful to know if there are any discussions going on behind the scenes on timing and just how long we can keep negotiating if we are not getting anywhere.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, because I think I heard him say earlier that he returned from Buenos Aires this morning and then went straight into this debate on the Northern Ireland protocol. It is very appropriate that he is the proposer of the last two amendments. I commend him on his stamina. I agree with the idea that regulations should be published as quickly as possible.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for combining the last two groups, which means that I cannot actually say I did 13 groups in total today. I am really grateful for the contributions that have been made.
To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the time of negotiations, I would put my career as a Minister—and indeed that of any negotiator—on the line if I were to determine the length of negotiations. As I said, I have shared as much as I can. I have heard the desire to know more and I fully recognise that; if I were sitting anywhere else in the House but in this position, I would be pushing in the same manner for more details of the discussions and negotiations. I am pressing colleagues across the Government to see how much more we can share about discussions taking place both in Northern Ireland and, importantly, within the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister, as always. I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, the Advocate-General, for their courtesy in Committee, which is very much appreciated. We look forward to the correspondence.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her kind words. I was just teasing but, as the Minister well knows, silence from me is not always tacit approval. Still, the question that she asked is valid; we were told in July that talks had been exhausted, but now they have not been. Before we come back for consideration of what we decide about Report, we will need much more information on that.
I very much enjoyed contributing with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in Committee. These issues do not tire me because I find them intellectually stimulating, but we owe the people of Northern Ireland our effort, our interest and our scrutiny, because these are the lives of people of our country that we are legislating for and it is an important job that we do. The conference that I was speaking at was with many MPs from different countries who are struggling and fighting for the ability to do what we have been doing in Committee, and I am very privileged to be able to do it.
But, ultimately—the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, always stick in my mind from a previous day in Committee—this is still a pig of a law, with apologies to the Minister. It has lipstick on now, and we have given it a nice frock, but it is still a pig of a law, and that has not changed. It is illegal, it is a power grab, and it will not work. Fundamentally, those three aspects are what we will have to decide on in deciding whether it even goes to Report. Until that point, and with those considerations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.