House of Commons
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Between April and June 2022, the average waiting time for benefits appeals in Northamptonshire was 46 weeks. In England it was 28 weeks. Waiting times can fluctuate due to a number of factors, including volumes of benefit decisions made locally, the complexity of the case, the availability of panel members and venue capacity.
Mr Hollobone
When I asked the same question three years ago, the figures were 21 weeks for Northamptonshire and 33 weeks across England. While there has been improvement across the country as a whole, clearly things are going backwards quite severely in Northamptonshire. Does the Minister share my concern that this is clearly an unacceptable situation, and will he outline plans to tackle it?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend is spot on: it is not acceptable that his area is going backwards. I have commissioned officials to report in detail on the exact problems affecting his area, and I will report to him in the next four to six weeks.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
We have rolled out the Common Platform at 173 criminal courts in England and Wales and 76% of courts are now live. It has improved the format and timeliness of outcomes of hearings generated and shared with our criminal justice partner agencies and removed the need for staff to re-key information across different IT systems. If we are to reform the criminal justice system, we need to press ahead and reform the IT that underpins it.
Kate Hollern
The Common Platform has been nothing short of a disaster—one quarter of a billion wasted on a project that was fundamentally flawed from the start and designed primarily to slash thousands of highly skilled legal jobs. Even the Lord Chief Justice has raised serious concerns recently to the Justice Committee. Is it not time the Minister held up his hands, admitted this was a mistake and told His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to build a better system that focuses on delivering justice instead of wasting money in such a damaging and short-sighted way?
Rachel Hopkins
Last month, staff at courts across the country, including the magistrates court in Luton, went on strike—not over pay or pensions, but because the Common Platform IT system is so flawed that it is effectively unusable. That should have been enough to make the Government sit up and take notice, but if the Minister will not listen to his own workers and their trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, maybe he will listen to the judges who are speaking out? One judge called the Common Platform “completely unsuitable” and “not fit for purpose”. Does the Minister agree?
Mike Freer
No, I do not agree. All new IT systems take time to bed down and officials continue to work with user groups, both staff within the criminal justice system and judges. The system replaces eight legacy systems that are at the end of their lives, support for which is being withdrawn. If we do not reform the IT system underpinning the criminal justice system, we will not be able to make the progress we wish.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister is of course right to say that we need to modernise and improve IT systems and replace the legacy systems, but will he sit down and talk in some detail with users of the system, both judges and practitioners? For example, a platform that is unable to record whether a case concludes in a guilty plea will not be very much help in tracking the progress of cases or improving listing at a time when we have massive backlogs. Practical changes are surely what is needed.
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am always happy to speak to staff groups and my legal friends in the justice system to iron out any particular issues, but the roll-out of the Common Platform needs to continue.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Oh dear, dear, what a mess: our courts systems were in chaos before the pandemic, and now it is much worse, with some cases taking years to come to court and remand numbers at record levels. The Common Platform was supposed to make courts more efficient, but fails in everything from recording criminal convictions to getting crucial data to the Registry Trust on time. Worst of all, it is having an adverse effect on people’s lives, including those who use it. Costs have soared from £236 million to more than £300 million, with Ministers ready to pay an IT firm another £20 million for product enhancements. Will the Minister tell us where the money has gone, why the system has not been sorted and whether he will pause the roll-out until it is?
Mike Freer
I point out that the backlogs were on a downward trajectory until the Criminal Bar Association action. The roll-out of the Common Platform is a necessary part of modernising our systems, and I am confident that we will ensure that the system is delivered for the benefit not just of users, but of everyone who touches our criminal justice system.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—it is nice to be back in the Ministry of Justice after an absence of a little over three years.
Data is collated on the ethnicity of defendants who are prosecuted and convicted of a criminal offence, but not on whether that crime was part of joint enterprise. We are, however, considering whether such data could be collected as part of the Common Platform programme. The Common Platform aims, as Members will have heard, to provide a single case management system that will enable the sharing of evidence and case information across the criminal justice system.
Kate Osamor
Members have been hearing for nearly a decade that the data will be released soon, but nothing ever comes of it. What possible excuse can there be for not being open about which prisoners have been convicted under this discredited and biased doctrine and which have not? It is that the data would clearly show how joint enterprise has been used to target black people disproportionately, particularly young black men.
Edward Argar
On the hon. Lady’s first point, we are unable at this stage to give a firm timescale for that data because capturing data on joint enterprise will depend on the level of change needed to the Common Platform and on the cost and work required to develop, test and implement it. On her broader point, the Government recognise that convictions based on joint enterprise appear from some studies to affect black, Asian and minority ethnic groups disproportionately. However, I assure her that the Crown Prosecution Service can only apply the law when making decisions, and race or ethnicity should play no part in any such decision making. We recognise the importance of the law of joint enterprise, and the consequences it can have for defendants and their families as well as for victims and their families.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
We established the family mediation voucher scheme in March 2021 to help to reduce the number of private law cases coming into court. We have invested nearly £9 million to date and issued more than 12,800 vouchers to support families. In 2021, family sitting days were at their highest level ever. In July, we introduced a regional virtual court pilot to allow deputy district judges from other regions to sit virtually in London and the south-east so that they can hear as many cases as possible.
Duncan Baker
We all know that there are significant backlogs in the family court system. However, what some might not know is that it is having real knock-on effects on families, single parents and children across the country. The sooner those cases can be heard and dealt with, the better for everybody involved. What does my hon. Friend intend to do to address those backlogs, and what specific measures is he taking to ensure that there are enough judges and adequate funding for our family courts?
Mike Freer
My understanding is that the voucher scheme has been successful, and that about 65% of families who have used it say that it kept them out of the court process. It is our intention to ensure that the voucher scheme continues, with additional publicity. To address some of the other issues relating to capacity, using the virtual courtroom is a possibility, and the general recruitment of more than 1,000 new judges should help.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Government figures show that, as of last week, the backlog in the family courts now stands at more than 110,000 cases. Given that the Ministry of Justice budget will go up by about half the rate of inflation next year—meaning a real-terms cut of hundreds of millions of pounds—does the Minister think that this and other backlogs will go up or down?
Mike Freer
Our intention is to ensure that the backlogs go down by ensuring that as many families as possible are kept out of the court system through the use of schemes such as the family mediation voucher scheme.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
We have introduced the Bill of Rights and look forward to bringing it forward for Second Reading shortly so that we can strengthen quintessential UK rights such as freedom of speech, as well as deporting more foreign national offenders and restoring some common sense to our justice system.
Gavin Newlands
Given his last stint in the role, the entire legal sector was—how should I put this?—rather surprised when the Secretary of State was reappointed, and they are not alone. The former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) called his Bill of Rights “worse than useless”. The former Northern Ireland Secretary, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) called it “wrong headed and regressive”. Other Ministers described it as “a complete mess”. If that is what his friends think, the House can only imagine what we in the Scottish National party think about this measure. Can the Secretary of State tell us why his own colleagues do not think his pet project is required or desirable?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. I am confident that—[Interruption.] He can quote anonymous sources, and there are some well-known differences of opinion, but I can confidently predict that on Second Reading, the Bill of Rights will have overwhelming support in this House. He cited academics, but I point to Lord Faulks KC, Oliver Sells KC, Jonathan Fisher KC, Steven Barrett KC and John Larkin KC, former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, all of whom have very much welcomed the proposals.
Kirsten Oswald
Four out of the five parties in the Scottish Parliament are committed to protecting the Human Rights Act. That view is shared by the party of Government in Wales, it constitutes the majority position in Northern Ireland and it is shared by more than 40% of MPs here, who collectively represent a clear majority of the electorate. Does the Secretary of State not see that by pushing his proposed Bill, he is trampling on the will of the devolved Administrations, but also on the views of the majority of the public?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid I do not accept that. It was a manifesto commitment. The Human Rights Act is a UK-wide piece of legislation and a protected enactment under the devolution settlements. Amending it is therefore a matter for the UK Parliament. I have been to all the devolved Administrations and talked to all the Executives. I have had roundtables with all the relevant stakeholders, as have fellow Ministers. We continue to be committed to working with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and elsewhere to ensure that the reforms work well and benefit people across the UK.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government pointed out this month that the Human Rights Act has a 22-year record of delivering justice, including for some of the most vulnerable people in communities across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Given how the Act is woven into the very fabric of the constitutional settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and how it benefits us all, will the Secretary of State accept that it is not in his power or that of his Government to unilaterally unpick that on behalf of the other nations of the United Kingdom?
Dominic Raab
What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that this was a manifesto commitment. We are not removing the European convention on human rights—indeed, it will stay, as it was under the Human Rights Act, in a schedule to the Bill of Rights—but I do think that the idea that the Human Rights Act was the last word on human rights in UK constitutional history is daft. Actually, there is an opportunity to strengthen things such as free speech to the benefit of people across the United Kingdom, but also to deal with problems and abuses of the system, particularly things such as foreign national offenders abusing the right of article 8—the right to a family life—to avoid deportation. I suspect that that is as popular in Scotland as it is across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is carers, victims of domestic violence, disabled people, trafficking victims and people with mental health issues who are among those who have vindicated crucial rights and tackled Government discrimination using the Human Rights Act. Their victories could not have happened under his Bill. As we face up to the cost of living crisis, should we not be strengthening our citizens’ rights rather than undermining them? Why does he want to put people in the UK into a second-tier system of rights protection?
Dominic Raab
A series of cases have been put about that either would not be affected by the Bill of Rights or were not the product, in terms of the remedy, of the Human Rights Act. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s assertion; I want to work with hon. Members from all parts of the House. There is a great opportunity to strengthen the UK tradition of human rights—I think we should be proud of that as one United Kingdom—but to deal also with the elastic interpretation of rights and the shifting goalposts that have undermined the credibility of human rights and put huge pressure and strains on our ability to protect the public.
Stuart C. McDonald
The only thing undermining human rights protections in this country is the Justice Secretary’s proposed Bill of Rights. The reality is that a nursery class could have designed a more sensible piece of legislation than his Bill of Rights. Everybody from human rights campaigners to big city lawyers are saying so—indeed, even the disastrous Truss Administration understood that fact. Given the universal criticism, what exactly is it that makes him think he can just carry on regardless, without even a further consultation?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid I do not accept that characterisation. I think that on Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman will see the level of support. There has already been consultation on not just the policy proposals but specific clauses. We have looked at this at length. It is a manifesto commitment dating back to 2010. It remains one today, and we are going to deliver it for the British people.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
As my hon. Friend knows, HM Prison Camp Hill in his constituency was closed in 2013. We are currently exploring options for a number of decommissioned prison sites, including Camp Hill.
Bob Seely
Do Ministers agree that one way the Government can drive economic growth is through quicker decision making? As the Minister has admitted, we have waited nearly a decade for an answer on Camp Hill. Do Ministers understand, and have they taken on board, that our preferred option on the Isle of Wight is for the Camp Hill site to be sold to the council at a price it can afford—we have done that with the Columbine building in East Cowes—so that we can use that land for jobs, housing and development, taking pressure off greenfield sites and creating wealth on the Island, rather than having this valuable site stand empty for such a long time?
Damian Hinds
First, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of making timely decisions on all such matters. I also hear what he says; transferring that site to Isle of Wight Council is one of the options being looked at, among others. I know that MOJ officials have been speaking to the council, and I commit to my hon. Friend that they will continue to do so.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
In May, we published our landmark draft Victims Bill and a wider package of measures to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. We will respond to the Select Committee’s scrutiny of that shortly.
Judith Cummins
The victims of crime matter, but it has been seven years and six Justice Secretaries since the Victims Bill was first promised, and it still has not made it to the statute book. Why are the victims of crime not a priority for this Government?
Dominic Raab
I say gently to the hon. Lady that I do not accept that characterisation. The Victims Bill had to go through pre-legislative scrutiny; it was right that it should do that. We are now ready to bring it forward, as and when parliamentary time allows. We will also be including a victim surcharge. Alongside these measures, we are increasing the funding for victims and witness support—we are actually quadrupling it compared with the last Labour Government, which ought to show that it is the Conservatives who are standing up for victims and the public when it comes to fighting crime.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am actually reassured by my right hon. Friend’s comments about the Victims Bill. We need this Bill, and he is aware of my long-standing support for it. With this Bill, the victims of crime cannot be forgotten, including my constituents who have been let down by the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service, which must be held to account when it comes to securing compensation for victims of crime, because the perpetrators are getting off too lightly. These are fundamental areas that the Victims Bill must put forward. May I urge him to give me a commitment today that these areas will not be forgotten?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to her for all the work we did together on these issues, and what a stalwart, doughty supporter she has been. The Victims Bill will place the victims code into law. It will increase oversight of how the criminal justice agencies work, both at the police and crime commissioner level and in the national inspections. I mentioned the increase in funding for victims. The increase in the victim surcharge will mean that we have more restorative justice, with offenders paying for the wrongs they have done and victims getting extra compensation.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), whose Government, of course, have been in power for 12 years. The court delays are a real problem for victims. One of my constituents was violently attacked and given a court date three years later. Her seven-year-old witnessed the attack, and the perpetrator keeps pestering her, breaking non-molestation orders, leaving the police pretty powerless, because he knows there is no traction. The Public Accounts Committee has looked into this. The backlog is not going down and will not be lower than pre-pandemic—it is not about covid. What is the Secretary of State doing to get a grip on his Department and make sure the courts deliver justice for victims?
Dominic Raab
I say to the hon. Lady that the Crown court backlog reduced from more than 60,000 cases in June 2021 to under 58,000 cases at the end of March 2022—[Interruption.] Hold on. The increase and the reversal of that trajectory were the result of the Criminal Bar Association’s strike action, which was unwarranted—[Interruption.] I am looking at Opposition Front Benchers. When we announced our proposals on the legal aid review, they agreed with every single one. Yet again, when it comes to the justice system, as with many other things, they are on the side not of the public, but of those who take disruptive industrial action.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The best way to support victims is better criminal law. The Government have done much to tackle violence against women and girls, but the law still fails anyone who discovers a fake or real nude image of themselves that has been posted online without their consent. I suggest that my right hon. Friend looks at including in the Online Safety Bill, which is hopefully about to come back to this place on Report, an amendment to address that once and for all, particularly in the light of the Law Commission’s recommendations, which were finalised some five months ago.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible work in this area. As ever, I listen to her carefully. I reassure her that I am looking positively and actively at bringing forward legislative changes in this area, and I will confirm the vehicle for that shortly.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State will share my concern about a local case whereby a man who had pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two girls was given permission by the judge to go abroad on holiday while awaiting sentencing. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is totally unacceptable and that measures must be taken to stop it happening again?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on individual judicial cases, but I understand the concern in such cases. Of course, if he wishes to write to me with the details, I will be happy to look at that very carefully.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Two of my constituents who were subjected to a vicious, unprovoked knife attack, as well as many others in the bay, felt let down by the justice system due to the level of sentence that was applied. They continue to feel let down by not getting information about someone who was connected with that series of offences. Will my right hon. Friend, or the relevant victims Minister, meet me to discuss that case and what we can do about it?
Dominic Raab
I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the victims Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). I will not comment on individual cases, but we have increased sentencing substantially through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, against which Opposition Members voted. In individual cases, however, it is of course for the judiciary to decide and that discretion is important.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My constituent Sarah was sexually assaulted. After a three-year wait and a hugely traumatic trial, the defendant was found not guilty. Of her experiences in the criminal justice system, she said:
“I felt like I was being publicly beaten and humiliated. I wouldn’t advise anyone to go through it, they destroy you.”
Can the Secretary of State tell me how survivors such as Sarah are supposed to trust the Government when, seven years on, we are still waiting for the victims Bill and he is under investigation for bullying?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid that the hon. Lady rather demeaned the important point that she was making by trying to score political points at the end. Let me answer directly: we appreciate the concerns that there are for any victim, particularly female victims of crime, whether that is sexual violence or non-sexual violence. That is why we have rolled out section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which provides the opportunity to give pre-recorded evidence, and why, when we have the Victims Bill—
Dominic Raab
It has been going through pre-legislative scrutiny and it is important to respond to that. It will increase the oversight of all elements of the criminal justice system, both at the PCC level—the local level—and at the national inspectorate level. One thing that, notwithstanding the fiscal event, I am committed to protecting is the quantum leap in support and funding for victims, which has quadrupled under this Government compared with the last Labour Government.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the General Register Office on the implementation of a statutory medical examiners scheme, which will provide an additional layer of scrutiny on cause of death in non-coronal cases. We are also working with the General Register Office to consider how families might play a greater role in the registration of their loved ones’ deaths following an inquest.
Imran Hussain
I thank the Minister for that response. For many of my constituents, a swift burial is a core tenet of their beliefs and faith, but in many cases this swift burial is held back by bureaucratic legal difficulties in formally registering the death, particularly when GPs cannot be reached, there is a bank holiday or it is the weekend. I think the whole House will agree that no one wants their relatives to be held in a mortuary any longer than is absolutely necessary. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care to discuss what can be done to break down these legal barriers and address these issues so that everybody can be afforded dignity in death?
Mike Freer
First, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed this specific issue of how faith communities are dealt with by the coroners service. I have discussed it with the Chief Coroner, and I have a meeting next week with representatives of both the Jewish and the Muslim faiths. Once I have had those meetings, I would be very happy to meet him so that, having looked at the issue in the round, we can discuss how we can move forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
Yes, I certainly will. I agree about the effects that parental imprisonment has, and I certainly agree that it is important to understand the number of children this affects.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for that response. I have previously had meetings with former Justice Ministers, Children’s Ministers and so on. We absolutely need this data because we think there could be hundreds of thousands of children affected over the years. Not only is it really traumatic for them, but it puts them at risk themselves. Once we have the data, we can look at support services, but may I urge him to do what he can to work with prisons, schools and local authorities to try to make sure there is a comprehensive database?
Damian Hinds
I agree. I have spoken to one of my predecessor Ministers—my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—about the conversation she had with the hon. Lady. I was also reading with interest the hon. Lady’s speech in Westminster Hall the other day, and about the work of the charity Children Heard and Seen. She is absolutely right that the first step and the basis has to be the data, and there is important work under way, including changes to the basic custody screening process, and then the big cross-Government project called “Better Outcomes through Linked Data”, and we will continue to work hard on that.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
The Government are taking a range of measures to tackle violence against women and girls. The number of convictions in rape cases has increased by two thirds in the last reporting year, but we are restless to do more at every stage of the process from Operation Soteria, linking up police and prosecutors, through to the current national roll-out of pre-recorded evidence in all Crown courts in England and Wales.
Dame Angela Eagle
Rape Crisis statistics show that only 3% of cases saw charges brought last year, CPS figures show that only 1.3% of reported rapes are charged or summonsed, and there was a 21% increase in rape reports from the previous year, so what on earth is the Secretary of State going to do to reverse these serial failures and to deal with this epidemic of rape, which on his watch is going unpunished?
Dominic Raab
I can reassure the hon. Lady, first, that police referrals and the number of suspects charged have gone up over the last year, and Crown court receipts of those actually arriving in court are going up, but she is right to be restless to do more. We have rolled out national and local data dashboards for crime, but also specifically for rape, to provide greater transparency and to spread better practice in how we secure those vital convictions. As I have already mentioned, we have quadrupled victim funding support since 2010. We have expanded so-called section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination, which is now in place for sexual and modern slavery offences in all Crown courts in England and Wales. I think Operation Soteria is probably the single biggest thing, as we get to a national roll-out next year, because it will get prosecutors and police working more collaboratively together, but also get the focus not on grilling and interrogating the complainant—the victim—but on making sure the balance does not shift and that the focus is predominantly on the suspect.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Opposition are wrong in their characterisation and narrative of this issue, and the Justice Secretary and his colleagues across the Home Office are to be commended for the leadership that they have shown in driving up rape prosecutions across the whole system, holding independent partners to account. Will the Justice Secretary update the House on how the data are trending in the latest reports? What is he doing to hold the independent court system to account to tackle backlogs in the system, so that rape prosecutions do not have to wait longer than they should to see their day in court?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her for the incredible work she did at the Home Office. She was involved in the meetings on this, and I know how committed she was and how much impact she had. On the results—those are what female victims of crime and the whole country want to see—between April and June 2022, police referrals were up by 95% from the 2019 figure. The number of suspects charged was up by 65% compared with 2019 figures, and Crown court receipts were up 91% from 2019 figures. There is much more to do, but that shows the trajectory and progress, and all the hard work that my hon. Friend and others have done.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Responsibility for ending violence against women and girls is a key role of Government, yet we have a Justice Secretary who could not get the definition of misogyny right, who is accused of bullying, and who is desperate to scrap the Human Rights Act—law that has helped to protect women against male violence. When domestic violence is up and rape charges are at 1.5%, does that send a message that tackling violence against women and girls is not a priority for the Justice Secretary?
Dominic Raab
Amid all the bluster and political point scoring, the hon. Lady is losing the opportunity to pay tribute to the important work being done across the justice system, which will give female victims confidence to come forward. That is what we need to see: improvements in police referrals and in the number of suspects charged, improvements in Crown court receipts, and the ability for victims to opt for pre-recorded evidence, so that they go through what must be a harrowing experience without being in the glare of the courtroom. Those are all positive steps. We are restless to do more, but we have made progress, and I do not think it helps to instil or improve confidence in the justice system if inaccurate characterisations of the progress we have made are asserted in this place.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
The Ministry of Justice publishes information on the number of people sentenced to immediate custody, along with other sentencing outcomes, in the criminal justice system statistics publication. The latest publication is for the year ending June 2022. The custody rate was 6.6% in the year ending June 2022 for all offences, 33% for indictable offences, and 1.1% for summary only offences. Although sentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts, it is right that those who commit serious crimes should expect to receive a custodial sentence. This Government have ensured that courts have the powers they need.
Liz Saville Roberts
These data are significant. Cardiff University has uncovered the fact that courts in Wales imprison more people per head of population than England, and I am sure the Minister agrees that we need to know why. That is nigh-on impossible, however, when England and Wales are treated as identical for justice, even though key services are devolved. For justice to be best served in Wales we need to know what is happening in Wales, and who is responsible for what. Will the Minister commit to publishing Wales-specific data annually from now on?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and she tempts me a little. I appreciate the point she makes but, as she will appreciate, the English and Welsh justice systems are one justice system, and it is not a simple task to disaggregate the data depending on whether someone is sentenced to imprisonment and serves in England or in Wales. I am happy to meet her to discuss the issue, but I would not underestimate the complexity of what she asks.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
In March we consulted on our approach to recommendations made by the independent review of criminal legal aid, and we published our interim response in July. We have introduced a 15% uplift across most free schemes, in line with the recommendations. That means an additional annual benefit of up to £63 million for solicitor firms, and up to £39 million for criminal barristers in a steady state situation. Uplifts for solicitors and barristers have already started being paid, and we have also applied fee uplifts to the vast majority of existing Crown court cases, to address concerns that the uplifted fees did not apply to ongoing work.
Karl Turner
Well before the Criminal Bar Association took action to strike, I warned the Lord Chancellor that that was inevitable unless he sat down with the association and worked constructively. He accused me of being its shop steward. Now, criminal defence solicitors’ firms are on their knees. The Justice Secretary is not known for working constructively, but will he sit down with the Law Society and representative groups of criminal solicitors to come to an agreement on parity of funding between the criminal Bar and criminal defence solicitors?
Mike Freer
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor meets all stakeholders on a regular basis, and I think he has a meeting coming up to address those very concerns. I am sure that he will sit down and discuss those concerns in the next few weeks.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor’s successor and predecessor was able to achieve more in a few days than the current Justice Secretary ever has by agreeing a deal and ending the CBA’s strike action. The Law Society has warned that it may be forced to advise its members to stop working in criminal practice if Bellamy’s recommendations are not met. Will the Lord Chancellor get his priorities straight and honour the Government’s own review by giving legal aid solicitors the funding they need to avoid collapse and make our justice system sustainable?
Mike Freer
I know that the Lord Chancellor—he is his own predecessor, as was pointed out—has been committed to ensuring that the system remains correctly funded within the spending envelope. He will continue to address the concerns raised by all stakeholders in the criminal justice system. We are entirely committed to working with the advisory board to address all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
In response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, the Government’s inclusive Britain strategy sets out a clear commitment to tackling race and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. We are reducing the number of individuals from ethnic minorities entering the criminal justice system by expanding the use of diversionary initiatives such as out-of-court disposals to divert towards treatment or drug education courses. For those in contact with the system, we are providing funding for grassroots ethnic minority-led and specialist voluntary sector organisations to provide rehabilitative services.
Mr Dhesi
The disproportionate representation of black children in our justice system starts with arrests, with black children over four times more likely to be arrested than white children as of 2019. We must address the deep-rooted causes of that, ensuring that those from ethnic minority backgrounds are not discriminated against and drawn into a cycle of criminality due to a bias in our criminal justice system. The Lammy review exposed that bias and discrimination more than half a decade ago, so why have the Government still not implemented its recommendations in full?
Mike Freer
We have implemented the majority of the actions that we committed to in response to the Lammy review. The hon. Gentleman raises important points regarding the over-representation of ethnic minority children in the system. There is a range of activities, including work that we are doing in two test areas, to ensure that those people who are arrested have access to and can only opt out of legal representation, to try to ensure that the issues that he raised are addressed. I am happy to meet him to go through those activities and discuss them in much more detail.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
The hon. Gentleman will know of our commitment. Following the pandemic, it is also right that we prioritise recovery in the criminal justice system.
Grahame Morris
Notwithstanding that answer, which I thank the Minister for, a little earlier the Justice Secretary referred to manifesto commitments, and I remind the House that the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment to establishing a royal commission on criminal justice, but that is looking like a pretty slim commitment. Prisons in particular are at the heart of our criminal justice system, and they are in crisis, plagued by violence, drugs, squalor and a shameful lack of meaningful rehabilitation activity. Does the Minister accept that the priority must be a full public inquiry with statutory powers to find out what has gone wrong?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is of course right about the commitment, and I referred to it in my opening response. It is true that the coronavirus changed many things, including causing significant issues in the criminal justice system and in prisons. We have published the prisons White Paper, which sets out a strategy for further improvement in all aspects of the secure estate, and I am pleased to be able to report significant progress on matters such as employment, which we know is important to reducing reoffending, and accommodation, with a five percentage points reduction in the number of individuals leaving prison who are homeless or rough sleeping.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry we did not get to the end of questions, but people were a little indulgent in the time taken.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Since my last Justice questions, we have begun construction of Britain’s first all-electric prison at Full Sutton and made apprenticeships available to prisoners for the first time. We are preparing to bring the Bill of Rights Bill back to this House for its Second Reading, so that we can strengthen free speech, deport more foreign national offenders and restore some common sense to our justice system.
Mr Robertson
To help the rehabilitation of offenders and to reduce reoffending, will my right hon. Friend support the scheme being promoted by Gloucestershire’s police and crime commissioner, Chris Nelson, to involve prisoners in the construction of eco-pods, providing much-needed environmentally friendly accommodation as well as valuable construction skills and work experience for prisoners?
Dominic Raab
It is a cracking scheme that tackles two of the key issues we need to tackle: homelessness on release, and getting offenders into work. Following the successful proof of concept at HMP Leyhill, the scheme is now operational at HMP The Mount, and we plan to expand the activity to more prisons across the estate. It is good for offenders to grasp a second chance to turn their lives around, but critical to reducing reoffending and keeping our streets safe.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to his place on the Treasury Bench. This Friday is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, but too often the news headlines are dominated by horrific crimes against women such as Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa, and now Zara Aleena. How far have rape prosecutions fallen since the action plan on rape was launched in 2015?
Dominic Raab
Because of the backlog and some of the challenges we have faced, there have been difficulties. I have set out before the House some of the initiatives, from Operation Soteria to the national roll-out of section 28 pre-recorded evidence. As I mentioned earlier, over the last year, convictions have increased by two thirds, and the trajectories of police referral, CPS charge and Crown court receipt level have all seen a substantial improvement, but we are restless to go even further.
Steve Reed
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the number of prosecutions has halved in that time, and today barely one in 100 reported rapes ever makes it to trial. As we just heard, he keeps trying, but there really can be no excuse for a failure to prosecute rapists. Will he take the opportunity of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women to apologise to rape survivors for his Government’s decision to sack 22,000 police officers, close 160 courts and slash the number of judges, when they should have been focused on caging these dangerous criminals?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman and I get on very constructively, but I have to tell him that we are not going to take lectures on standing up for victims from a party whose Members voted in this House against the recruitment of police and against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which increased sentences, and a party that provided a quarter of the funding for victims that we have provided.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the Front Benchers that topical questions are about getting other Members in? It is their time, not the Front Benchers’.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
We are working hard to ensure that we recruit over 1,000 new judges. We are allowing 80 circuit judges and 125 fee-paid recorders to sit for more days to ensure we increase capacity. We are boosting circuit judge recruitment, with about 90 new appointments, who will sit in London and the south-east, including Essex, to address the issues my right hon. Friend raised.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Dominic Raab
I understand the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke. We do not have current plans to do so, but if he wants to write to me on that issue I will, of course, look at it and reflect.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
My hon. Friend is dead right: literacy is fundamental, including, of course, to access those other parts of education. I welcome the work of organisations such as the Shannon Trust and I welcome the recent Ofsted report. We are sharpening our focus, creating a literacy innovation fund.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Dominic Raab
These kinds of cases are harrowing for the family. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with further details, I will be very happy to look at them and report back to him.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Damian Hinds
The estate expansion programme is important and fulfils a manifesto commitment. I absolutely acknowledge that my hon. Friend is a very strong campaigner. I hope she will also appreciate that a planning appeal is ongoing and, in those circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to comment further.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, which she puts with typical passion and care. My noble Friend Lord Bellamy and I are carefully considering the Justice Committee report and will respond to it in due course.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
My Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 comes into force in February. Will the Minister confirm that cross-departmental work with the relevant Departments is taking place, so that from day one teachers, social workers, police, Border Force officers and others will have had the right training and know exactly what to do when faced with a case of child marriage?
Mike Freer
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on pursuing this important issue. As she said, the law will come into effect in February 2023. I can confirm that cross-departmental work has been taking place to ensure that officials across Government, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are as up to date as possible. The Home Office has been updating its forced marriage guidance, which provides detailed advice to groups such as Border Force officers, social workers, police and teachers on what to do when faced with a case of forced child marriage. I hope that in swift order the work she has been so passionate about is enforced.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Mike Freer
I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation. The Government have invested—
Mike Freer
The Government have invested significantly in the criminal justice system, not just through the recent settlement with the Criminal Bar Association, but in the run-up to the settlement. There is continued investment in the criminal justice system. He may disagree, but those are other facts.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to increasing rape charging rates and the positive news regarding rape convictions, the facts suggest that what is happening is somewhat to the contrary. In the year ending March 2022, the police recorded the highest annual number of rape offences to date—70,330—but charges were brought in only 2,223 cases. With the split in responsibility between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, what steps can my right hon. Friend take, working with his Home Office colleagues, to make sure that more people are charged and put before the courts?
Dominic Raab
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue and the considerable experience that he brings to bear. I read out the statistics and there is clearly more work to be done, but, actually, the trajectory of the latest figures is going in a better direction. The decision making on CPS charging is independent, but it is critical that we proceed with the national roll-out of Operation Soteria, because it is proving to be a very effective tool in getting the police and the CPS to work together more collaboratively to bring forward cases that can go to court.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Dominic Raab
I totally share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment and it is good to be able to address the issue on a cross-party basis. Earlier this year, we ran a call for evidence on SLAPPs reform. I brought that together at very short notice and the Department did an incredible job in providing specific proposals. Our proposals include a new statutory definition, an early dismissal process to strike out SLAPPs claims without merit, and cost protection for defendants in cases. I intend to introduce legislative proposals as soon as possible.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
One issue with family court delays is that lawyers will advise their clients to get a court application in early. That is not the lawyers’ fault; they have to do the best for their clients and they know that delay is not in the best interests of the child. However, once a court application is in, parents go into a defensive crouch. Some parents refuse to negotiate until the first hearing and separated parents information programmes do not kick in until the court hearing has happened. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Ministers in this House and in the other place are working together for family law reform to reduce court delays?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for her continued campaigning on this issue. It is worth saying, first, that around 45% of the private family law case backlog is non-safeguarding, non-domestic abuse cases. It is important that those other cases go to court. In relation to the others, we are using mediation and the roll-out and promotion of a voucher scheme to support mediation. Where a reasonable solution has been the outcome of mediation, it is also important that we use cost shifting in the courts, so people cannot just double-dip or go from one to the other. If we do that, we will have the right balance between carrot and stick and, certainly, far better outcomes for children.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Damian Hinds
I can reassure the hon. and learned Lady that the email she speaks of was not an official Ministry of Justice or HM Prison and Probation Service email; it was from a network of staff. It does not constitute official advice. The Department is looking again at how internal communications are done. Most importantly, she will be aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s move to ensure that in future the default assumption is that if you are a transgender woman with intact male genitalia, you will not be placed in the female estate. That is an important part of the reform package.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Last June, six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky was killed as she was walking along the pavement near her home in Norton Green. Her killer, John Owen, had been drinking, was on drugs, was speeding, was not wearing a seatbelt and was on his mobile phone. He got an insulting six years and four months in prison. Will the Lord Chancellor meet Sharlotte’s mother Claire and me to urgently discuss sentencing guidelines, to ensure that justice is truly served next time?
Dominic Raab
May I express my condolences and deep sorrow to the family of my hon. Friend’s young constituent? He will know that we have increased the sentencing for driving offences, but I am happy to look at the matter again with him and meet his constituents.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
A constituent who is a rape survivor told me in tears how her phone was taken off her. I have talked to Metropolitan police officers who say that that was because the courts have stipulated it. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that phones are not taken off rape survivors? They say that it compounds the abuse they feel. Evidence could be taken very quickly and returned to them. My constituent could not afford to buy another one.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about this issue, which is one of the eight levers that we are pressing down on to improve outcomes and give victims the confidence to come forward. A new scheme is in place in relation to digitisation, which is being rolled out and increased across England and Wales. There is also the possibility of swapping, but the key thing is that a victim who comes forward gets their phone back quick sharp—within 24 hours—in order to prevent that sense of dislocation, which can only add insult to injury. If the hon. Lady writes to me about it, I will give her chapter and verse, because it is such an important issue.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
In 2018, HM Inspectorate of Prisons issued an urgent notification document setting out serious failings at HM Prison Exeter. Last week, the inspectorate, for the first time ever, issued a second consecutive notification about the same prison. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it, but will he look urgently at why the failings were not picked up in the four years in between?
Damian Hinds
I will indeed. I take this extremely seriously, as my hon. Friend knows. This is the first time that we have had two consecutive urgent notifications about the same prison. The Department will come forward with a full action plan within 28 days. As he rightly says, this is a very serious matter.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My constituents Mr and Mrs Amner sustained horrific, life-changing injuries when their motorbike was hit by a car driver under the influence of drugs overtaking a van. They are understandably extremely distressed that while they will live with the consequences of that accident for the rest of their lives, the perpetrator was sentenced to just 30 months. As the Secretary of State will know, although there has been a recent consultation on sentencing, the guideline sentence cannot be raised above five years without primary legislation. Has he any plans for a Government Bill with a clause to raise the maximum sentence for drink and drug driving?
Dominic Raab
We have relatively recently increased the sentences in relation to driving offences, but if the hon. Lady writes to me again about this harrowing case, I will look at it very carefully and write back to her with the detail.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I have a constituent who is a victim of grooming. She has been sexually abused and assaulted. The trial of the defendant keeps being pushed back, which naturally is causing a great deal of distress. We know that there are delays in the criminal courts, some of which have been exacerbated by industrial action, but can the Justice Secretary tell me how such cases will be prioritised so that justice can be served for the victims and the perpetrators can be locked away with good, strong sentences?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend and I worked together closely to increase sentences for the most serious crimes, and she is right about the impact of the Criminal Bar Association’s strike action on the backlog. I can reassure her that under the spending review settlement—something I will be keen to protect as far as I can, given the autumn statement—an extra £447 million will be going into the criminal justice system to help improve waiting times. On top of that, we are recruiting up to 1,000 judges in 2022-23 and we have removed the limit on sitting days in a Crown court for the second year in a row, precisely to get the wheels of justice turning more quickly and to give her constituents the justice they need.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The surgeon who caused life-changing injuries by inserting surgical mesh into my constituent Carol recently acted as an expert witness in an unrelated surgical mesh negligence case. The judge was highly critical of his evidence and accused him of cherry-picking parts of the evidence that were supportive of the defendant’s case. Will the Justice Secretary meet me and the victims of surgical mesh to hear directly from them how such conflicts of interest are proving to be a barrier to justice?
Dominic Raab
If the hon. Lady writes to me with the details of that case, I will certainly ensure that she has a meeting with the most appropriate Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
By their very nature, family court cases are sensitive, delicate and complex, but all are urgent. During the time for such cases to be heard, will the courts provide assistance for families who are having difficult times to get them through the process?
Dominic Raab
Yes, and if the hon. Member writes to me with the details of his concerns, I would be happy to address them in more detail, on top of the assurances I have already provided to the House about the approach we are taking forward.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
My constituent Lisa Brown has been missing, presumed murdered, in Spain since 2015, yet this morning I heard from Lisa’s family that the prime suspect, who was imprisoned in Liverpool in 2020 for 12 years for drug offences and gun-running, has absconded. Can I ask the Secretary of State or their prisons Minister to assure me, Lisa’s family and the House that their Department is doing all it can to return this dangerous criminal to prison, where they rightfully belong?
Dominic Raab
Certainly I can give the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that assurance. Absconds are actually very rare now; they have fallen by nearly two thirds over the last decade, from 235 in 2010-11 to 95 in 2021-22. The majority are captured quickly, but he will want to know that that happens in this case and I will ensure that his concerns are passed on.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Bill of Rights Bill strengthens the power of the state by weakening the ability of victims to enforce their European convention rights. Does the Secretary of State think that it is appropriate for him to be piloting this legislation when he is himself under investigation for the abuse of power and may not be in Government to complete the passage of this controversial constitutional change, for which he appears to be the only advocate?
Solihull Murders
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary or Ministers to make a statement on the Solihull murders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
Let me begin by saying that my thoughts are with the loved ones of Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem. For a mother and daughter to lose their lives in this way is truly heartbreaking. It is of course the perpetrator who bears the ultimate responsibility for this sickening act. Equally, when something like this occurs, it is right that all the circumstances are thoroughly examined. That has taken place in this case, including through an inquest and an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
The failings and missed opportunities that have been identified are clearly unacceptable. I note that West Midlands Police has apologised to the family of the victims. The force has said that a number of changes have been made since then, including increasing the number of staff specifically investigating domestic abuse offences and the creation of a new team to review investigations. None of this can undo what has happened; nor can it take away the grief and devastation that this horrific crime has caused. What can and must happen is for every possible step to be taken to prevent further tragedies. We expect all necessary improvements to be made in full and at pace.
As a former practising barrister, I want to see massive change in this space. We need action, and we need to continue the action we have started. Cracking down on crime is a key priority for me, for the Home Secretary and for the Government as a whole. That includes the wide-ranging action we are taking to address violence against women and girls and domestic abuse through the tackling domestic abuse plan and the tackling violence against women and girls strategy. The police are central to this mission, and we will continue to recruit further police officers. We have committed to 20,000 new officers, of which we now have more than 15,000, but there is more to do.
I will finish where I started, by saying that my thoughts are with the loved ones of Ms Oudeh and Ms Saleem. We owe it to them to do everything in our power to prevent others from having to suffer what they had to suffer.
Jess Phillips
I welcome the new Minister; it will be a pleasure to stand opposite her at the Dispatch Box.
Last week, an inquest into the deaths of Khaola Saleem and her daughter, Raneem Oudeh, concluded with a verdict of unlawful killing. The inquest laid out all the ways in which the two women were failed by the police, culminating in the catastrophic and heartbreaking failure to respond to 999 calls on the night of their murders. The police failed to respond to domestic abuse reported by Raneem. They failed adequately to respond to reports from paramedics and neighbours. They failed to record and investigate the crimes. They failed to make an arrest. They failed to safeguard the two women. They failed adequately to train their officers. They downgraded Raneem’s risk, and these two women were killed.
Since this case in 2018, far from improving, the number of domestic abuse incidents has risen and the number of prosecutions has fallen. This is not merely an historical case. Today, and every day, women will call the police and no one will come. The Minister has just said that she wishes to do everything in her power. Will her Government, as they have done with burglary, commit to every single domestic abuse incident receiving a police response? What will she do to monitor that?
Why was this man not being properly monitored or managed in the community? This is the case with thousands of other violent perpetrators. We are currently not managing and monitoring even the worst repeat offenders of this crime. Why not?
Following last week’s autumn statement, the Home Office will have £1 billion less to spend over three years, including on policing and domestic abuse. The Independent Office for Police Conduct highlighted that police resourcing issues were part of the problem in this case. Given the failings exposed, and given the squeezing of police budgets, how will the Minister guarantee that the service will not decline? How will the Government ensure that the police are held accountable for their inaction?
The so-called Bill of Rights poses a threat to the article 2 inquest process that helped to expose the failings in this case. Do the Government wish that these failings had remained in the shadows, unknown, to allow the deaths of further women? Will they commit to oversight mechanisms to look at police failings in relation to femicide?
In the words of Nour Norris, Khaola’s sister:
“The inquest has revealed the full horror of police failings, but there is so much more yet to achieve”.
Miss Dines
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work and her commitment on this issue, and I will continue in that vein. This case is tragic, and we have to work together to make sure we have as few similar cases as possible. I do not want to see another case, as one more death is one too many.
The IOPC undertook an extensive report and made recommendations. I have looked at it, and some of that work is already being implemented, but it is not enough. We need work at ground level, and we need better policing. Each police and crime commissioner has significant funding to make a real difference. It is about local police and crime commissioners working with police officers to implement better training.
I remind the House of the extensive £695.6 million funding settlement received by West Midlands Police. There are sufficient funds, properly managed by the local police and crime commissioner, to ensure that this does not happen again. I agree that every domestic abuse incident needs to be properly looked at by the police. We need thorough risk assessments, and they need to be followed with proper training. This Government are implementing the most significant investment in training in this area, and I look forward to further increases, with West Midlands and all other police forces taking on board the plans this Government are undertaking.
Before I sit down, I should also say that tackling perpetrators of domestic abuse is an absolute priority for this Government and for me. That is why in the tackling abuse plan we set out a strategy for pursuing those who cause these harms—more knowledge, more intelligence and more training. With this plan, we have committed £75 million for work with perpetrators, including continuing to build on our previous investment in perpetrator interventions, and we are looking to ensure that the police have all the tools they need to identify the most violent and dangerous perpetrators. Domestic abuse, which leads to death in many cases, often caused by a family member or former partner, has to be tackled, and I am committed to doing that.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I have met Khaola and Raneem’s family, and seen at first hand their quiet dignity, clear love for one another and desire to see something good come from their loss. When I visited in the aftermath of the murders, the family raised concerns with me about policing resources in Solihull. In recent years, the police and crime commissioner has systematically removed police officers from Solihull to other parts of the west midlands, despite Solihull paying more than its fair share through the precept. In addition, the previous PCC even threatened to close the main police station in the town centre. We owe it to all victims of crime to ensure that Solihull gets its fair share, and the Labour PCC should announce forthwith that Solihull will get a new police station, and quickly.
Miss Dines
I am impressed by my hon. Friend’s commitment to his community and to this cause. I would like the local PCC to look carefully at how he spends his money. We need to look carefully at prioritising the most serious worries, which are threats to life and threats to property. There can be no greater threat to life than that illustrated by these tragic deaths.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I commend my own local force and the chief constable for leading good work in Avon and Somerset. As the Minister is talking about policing, will she tell us how many forces are still not providing domestic abuse training to officers? The figure was recently nine, but has that gone up or down?
Miss Dines
I understand that more than two thirds of forces have implemented the new training. Frankly, that is not good enough, and I know that the Home Secretary is keen to work with me in this area. I wish to remind the House that for the first time we have a national policing lead for tackling violence against women and girls—deputy chief constable Maggie Blyth. Curiously enough, I was supposed to be meeting her at this very moment. I will reschedule that meeting as a matter of priority. The Government are giving the extra investment, with £3.3 million to expand domestic abuse training for police, and we need to make sure that that is implemented in each and every force.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The facts of this case beggar belief. Ten separate complaints were made to the police about incidents of domestic violence, and four calls were made on the night. I have read the IOPC report carefully, and it finds there was a failure to carry out sufficient intelligence checks, a failure to record and a failure to make the right recommendations. Ultimately, however, the outcome it recommends is increased training. Will the Home Office consider something like the criminal justice scorecards that it is pioneering in areas such as rape, to show the performance of individual police forces, so that members of the public can have faith in their local force?
Miss Dines
I am interested in those ideas and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. Training is the key. This case was heartbreaking. How many of us listened to the press meeting on Friday last week and to the tragedy of this? It simply did not need to happen. The police need to be better trained. That comes from the top, not only from Government but from the local PCC. We do need proper training in place. When a person—invariably it is a woman—says that they are in fear of losing their life and even says that somebody might be coming round with a knife, as happened in this case, the police need to take it seriously.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I would like to send my condolences to the family and loved ones of Raneem and Khaola. A report from Refuge last year identified that black women are less likely to be referred to a refuge by the police. On the night of her death, one of the victims made her 10th call to the police. Can the Minister explain why the response to black women is so inadequate? Is cultural sensitivity included in domestic abuse training?
Miss Dines
Training does include those issues. It is about time that people who work in this field do not look towards colour as being an excuse for non-activity. This Government take the matter very seriously. It does not matter what colour, creed or sex a person is; if they need the police’s help, they need the police’s help. I expect those themes to be included in proper police training.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
My thoughts and prayers go out to the loved ones of Raneem and Khaola. I am backing the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) to keep Solihull police station open. I am also campaigning to open up a front desk at Chelmsley Wood police station. Does the Minister agree that the security of our constituents has to be above party politics? The police and crime commissioner has the resources; he needs to commit to protecting our constituents.
Miss Dines
I am grateful for the question asked by my hon. Friend, who is a parliamentary and local colleague. We do need to focus on proper policing: the threat to life is just so important. I will do everything I can to ensure that this matter is not party political. I would welcome working with any Member of this House if it meant that we could stop just one death—but I want to stop them all.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The facts of this case are horrifying and heartbreaking. I echo the remarks that have been made about the need for basic policing and ask the Minister to consider mandatory training. I think that this is a reminder that domestic abuse and violence against women is still endemic in our society. What we really need is an educational approach; a public information campaign to remind us all of how bad it is and what we—every citizen, not just the police— should be looking for.
Miss Dines
The Government are doing that at the moment. The “Enough” campaign has had quite a high profile on social media, with a great deal of take-up. The work of tackling violence against women and girls is very serious. In July 2021, we published our new cross-Government programme on the tackling violence against women and girls strategy. That includes the tackling domestic abuse plan published in March 2022. As a result of that there will be specific pieces of work on education and, I hope, training within the police, but education of the population has been brought forward. I know, from discussing this with young men across the country, that they have taken up the “Enough” programme and campaigned on it really seriously. The message is hitting through, but it is just the start. I want to do more.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I associate myself and my party with what has been said. My thoughts and prayers are with Raneem, her mother and her family. The 999 calls in relation to the Solihull murders are indeed harrowing and frustrating. Raneem, 22, stated, “When I call 999, they cannot come quickly enough.” She rang 999 six times in the hours before she was killed. Does the Minister agree that the murders of Raneem and her mother were entirely preventable? Those calls should have been red-flagged. There were six 999 phone calls, but there was no answer. The police should have taken quicker action to ensure that the two victims were kept safe from the dangerous man and the abuse that he inflicted on them. We must do better. We can do better.
Miss Dines
What is worrying about this case is that there were obvious markers—not just one or two but many. I know that that is something that West Midlands police are working hard on. Nobody could fail to be moved by those 999 calls, which were on all the TV channels—the soft voice of somebody who was about to be murdered, but who was ignored. That must never happen again. The fact that a person speaks softly, calmly, or in a way that the police are not used to, should not be a barrier to listening to the words that they are saying.
Nuclear Test Veterans: Medals
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the significant contribution of the nuclear test veterans from across the Commonwealth who participated in Britain’s nuclear testing programme.
Seventy years ago, on 3 October 1952, the UK undertook its first nuclear test and in so doing confirmed our country’s status as the world’s third nuclear power. Critical to the success were those who took part in our nuclear testing programme. In doing so, they made a unique and unprecedented contribution to our national security. There is a direct line between the service of these men and women all those years ago and the safety and security of all nations today. In recognition of their service and to mark 70 years since the first test, the Government are undertaking a programme of recognition to mark the contributions of all service personnel and civilians who took part in the UK and, later, the US nuclear testing programmes in Australia and the Pacific.
The programme of recognition began yesterday with the UK’s first commemorative event for nuclear test veterans at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire to mark the 70th anniversary of the first UK nuclear test. Going forward, the programme will include recognition of the role of military and civilian staff from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and other Pacific islands, which were involved in the nuclear testing operations, as well as an acknowledgement of the traditional owners of the lands that were used for nuclear testing.
We will provide funds to support activities for nuclear test veterans and educate the public on their efforts. We are commissioning an oral history archive to ensure that the stories of the veterans who served are captured for future generations.
The Prime Minister yesterday announced the creation of a new medal, the nuclear test medal, which has been graciously approved by His Majesty the King. This important medal will recognise and commemorate the service to the nation by participants in the UK’s nuclear testing programme. This cohort of veterans, made up of both military and civilian participants, made a significant contribution to our enduring international security. In establishing the UK’s nuclear deterrent during the critical early years of the cold war, it is important that their service is recognised and commemorated properly, and a medal is an important part of that.
It is expected that eligibility for this medal will be announced in the early part of 2023, at which time related eligibility guidance and information about the application process will be laid before Parliament.
It was a privilege to officially commemorate for the first time our nuclear test veterans at the National Memorial Arboretum yesterday. We gathered together to say thank you to all those who were present and to the families of those whom we have already lost. This nation today still enjoys the freedoms and privileges afforded by their service, which started 70 years ago, and it is right that they have now finally received official recognition for their service.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for announcing the medals for nuclear test veterans yesterday. The energy that he uses to make this the best place in the world in which to be a veteran should be supported across the House. Without his support, yesterday’s event would simply not have been a success.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary whose support for this cause over many years has been noted by campaigners. I pay tribute, too, to the often unseen members of the civil service who have gone well above and beyond over the past few nights, particularly those who have worked tirelessly in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and in No.10 on this.
Primarily, I want to record from this Dispatch Box the Government’s thanks to the veterans of our nuclear tests. As one veterans’ campaigner to another, I would say, “I salute you. I salute your relentlessness, your courage and your determination. Your legacy is long and impressive.” I also wish to pay tribute to the families, friends and supporters of nuclear test veterans from all sides over the past 70 years. Their support to these men and women has been steadfast—from those who work in the media to those, from all parties, who have campaigned for so long in Parliament itself, such as the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
I salute the campaigners and I thank them, as we are now finally delivering on the long-overdue medallic recognition of our nuclear test veterans. A medal does not signify the end of that recognition; it signifies a new beginning of the official recognition of the nuclear test veterans’ service, with the initiatives I have outlined. I look forward to working with all Members of the House in the years ahead to get that right.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Yesterday’s announcement was a huge victory for our nuclear test veterans and their families. Finally, those veterans will receive the long-overdue medallic recognition they so deeply deserve. When I have spoken to nuclear test veterans and their family members in meetings and at rallies, I have found their passion for justice truly inspiring.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the nuclear test veterans campaigners specifically on the tireless perseverance that made this announcement happen: LABRATS, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, the Daily Mirror and its columnist, the relentless Susie Boniface. I was privileged to join them at the National Memorial Arboretum yesterday to witness the announcement and hear their moving testimonies. The outburst of applause was followed by deep sighs of simple relief that the medals have finally been agreed to, 70 years on from the first British test of a nuclear weapon.
Our country owes nuclear test veterans from across the UK and the Commonwealth a debt of gratitude. Their service, far away from home, ensured that the UK had a nuclear deterrent as part of ensuring our security and safety. They made that commitment to our country at great personal cost. Reports state that nuclear test veterans have a legacy of cancers, blood disorders and rare disease, while their wives report three times the usual rate of miscarriage. Their children also have 10 times the normal amount of birth defects and are five times more likely to die as infants. That was the cost of our nation’s safety.
This statement is the House’s opportunity to say thank you to our nuclear test veterans for their service and their deep personal sacrifices. On behalf of the Labour party, I thank the nuclear test veterans who served in Operations Hurricane, Totem, Mosaic, Buffalo, Grapple, Antler, Dominic, Kittens, Tims, Rats, Vixen, Ayres, Hercules and Brumby. Only around 1,500 of the 22,000 service personnel who took part in those trials are thought still to be alive, so I hope the nuclear test veterans’ families and descendants finally feel that that historic injustice has been recognised. It is completely right that these medals can be awarded posthumously and that the veterans’ dedication to our country will not be forgotten.
The Labour party has been proud to give nuclear test veterans our fullest backing. The shadow Defence team has consistently supported their campaign for justice, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was the first party leader to meet the nuclear test veterans and their families and commit his support to their campaign. To ensure this situation never happens again, we are committed to a complete review of the system for awarding medals to serving personnel and veterans. The recognition they deserve should not require people to resort to lengthy campaigns or ministerial interventions.
Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the eligibility criteria for the nuclear test veterans’ medallic recognition are as wide as possible? What resources will be put into finding living descendants of nuclear test veterans to award posthumous medals? Finally, will the Minister support Labour’s proposal for a root-and-branch review of the whole medals process?
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She is right to pay tribute to the campaigners in this space; as politicians we come and go, but these individuals have been campaigning over many years. I met a man yesterday who started campaigning for a medal 60 years ago. I pay tribute to those campaigners for their relentlessness and their ability to keep going, and I am delighted we have been able to do something, cognisant of the fact that there is more to do.
Of course the criteria will be as wide as we can possibly make them. While this announcement is one thing, delivering it to the people for whom it means so much is where the challenge lies. There are resources going into that; we have committed £450,000, part of which is for creating an oral archive, which will require us to go around and gather experiences and work with groups such as LABRATS, the BNTVA and others to get it right.
On the honours system, the Defence Secretary has been clear that he is prepared to look at how military operations fit into the bracket of medallic recognition. We need to be careful about political interference in that, but he has made his position clear on a number of occasions. In fact, that work has started: we saw during the summer how medals were awarded outside the usual parameters for Operation Pitting. That is an ongoing discussion that we can certainly have.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I congratulate the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister on the good work he has done on this issue. The House may be aware that a number of colleagues on both sides have campaigned on this for quite a while. In 2012, I was lucky enough to lead a campaign that finally saw a Prime Minister, David Cameron at the time, acknowledge the work of the nuclear test veterans and thank them at the Dispatch Box. We also managed to secure £25 million for the aged veterans fund, which is largely there for nuclear test veterans and their descendants—we should never forget the descendants, because the nuclear test veterans often are more interested in the welfare of their descendants than in themselves. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and ask him to ensure that the momentum is kept up. We still have a lot to do, but we have accomplished an awful lot, including this initiative from the Government.
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his efforts. As he rightly identified, in 2012 for the first time, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, gave official recognition of nuclear test veterans. Mt hon. Friend is also right about £25 million going into the aged veterans fund as a result of much of his work. I pay tribute to him for his campaigning over the years and agree that this is the beginning: a medal is a part of the recognition. I hope that this good start will bring momentum towards standing by our promises and making this the best country in the world in which to be a veteran.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This is great news for the nuclear test veterans. The recognition that they carried out operations in a dangerous theatre has been many decades in the making. I commend the tireless work of nuclear test veterans and their families, particularly Alan Owen of LABRATS, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and, as the Opposition spokesperson said, Susie Boniface of the Daily Mirror.
These veterans have had to wait decades with no reward. Tragically, with only an estimated 1,500 test veterans left, the medal has come too late for many. Why has it taken so long? While I welcome the decision, there is much more work to be done to recognise the extent of nuclear test veterans’ suffering, as the Minister acknowledges. In the United States, Canada and France, test veterans have been compensated. Will the Ministry of Defence now consider a financial package of compensation for nuclear test veterans who have suffered poor health as a consequence of their exposure to ionising radiation?
Will the MOD also consider compensation for families who have suffered health complications as a result of their parents’ exposure? What recognition will be given to those civilians who were involved, including those in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, such as my constituent William Caldwell, now tragically deceased, who was present during the tests? This is a great first step, but it is only a first step; I look forward to hearing what the Minister plans to do next.
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions—they are very fair questions indeed. The one about why it has taken so long is a fair question. As time has passed since the nuclear tests, our perspective and understanding of what we ask people to do has improved, and the security that they generated for our country has come more sharply into focus. That has certainly had a role to play.
When it comes to compensation, war pensions are available, and indeed, nuclear test veterans claim them from the Ministry of Defence. When I was at the MOD in 2019, we created a clearer care pathway for individuals to come forward and make those claims, but I totally accept that there is more to do. Other countries do it differently, and we are always open, as the science becomes clearer, to making sure that we look after those people. This Prime Minister is absolutely clear that we will stand by our commitments and fulfil our manifesto commitments to our veterans not only in what we say and do from here, but in how it feels to be a veteran. That is an ongoing piece of work.
Of course, the medal is open to civilians. The specific criteria around that will be laid before Parliament early in the new year.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Sadly, some of the brave nuclear test veterans are no longer around to receive their medals, so will my hon. Friend assure me that medals will be awarded posthumously, so that families can be assured that we honour every single person who played a part in efforts to keep our world safe?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his constant campaigning on veterans’ issues. When it comes to awarding the medal posthumously, the criteria will be laid out in 2023, as I have said, but families will be able to apply. I accept that whenever we do something such as this, it will come too late for many, and that is obviously a point of regret, but we will do everything we can to make sure that the families who have lost loved ones are able to apply and are looked after through that process.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I was with my constituent Laura and her granddad John yesterday as the Prime Minister made his announcement, and they cried with joy. I thank the Minister for his unwavering support and for everything he has done to make yesterday a reality. I also thank for their unwavering support the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and of course LABRATS, the BNTVA, Susie Boniface of the Daily Mirror, and nuclear testing veterans themselves.
Days such as yesterday, when politicians transcended party lines for the common good, do not happen very often, and we should celebrate them when they do, but the Minister knows that much more needs to be done. I know that he is truly supportive of the veterans, so will he undertake to ensure that the Prime Minister meets me, my constituent and other nuclear testing veterans to discuss war pension reform, financial support, the release of blood and urine records, and research and an inquiry into all that happened to those men and their families?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her relentless campaigning on this issue. Whether I have been in or out of Government, she and I have had conversations and she has continued to campaign relentlessly on behalf of veterans. I know that they are incredibly grateful for what she has done.
The Prime Minister committed yesterday, when he saw the families, to meeting those who took part in the events. I know that he was very much moved by the events of yesterday. We are committed to getting this right going forward. I have seen the stories about medical records being destroyed and so on. I do not recognise that—again, I have looked into it—but I am always open to evidence that the hon. Lady or others may have. I am determined that we get this right. The medal is one part, but it is not everything for everybody, and I am determined that the Government get right our recognition of what the nuclear test veterans did.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I commend the Minister on his statement and thank nuclear test veterans, on my behalf and that of my constituents, for everything that they have done. The work going on in Barrow at the moment to build the next generation of nuclear deterrent stands on their very tall shoulders.
Will the Minister commit to ensuring that we never forget the sacrifice of those nuclear test veterans and the critical role they have played in keeping Britain and our NATO allies safe, and, in doing so, will he make sure that the new medal is made as widely and easily available as possible?
Johnny Mercer
There is an important piece of work alongside this—it is important that people understand that the medal is only one part of it. We have committed almost half a million pounds to recording and documenting an oral archive of the experiences of the test veterans. One thing on which I have campaigned for many years is for us to truly understand what it means to go through such things. The pain of not being recognised after serving their country was etched all over the faces of many of the people who were there yesterday, and the Prime Minister certainly noted it, as did I. Going forward, we are determined to get this right.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
This announcement is hugely welcome, and I pay tribute to everyone who has made it a reality. It has been a privilege to meet nuclear test veterans and their families on a number of occasions. I am sure that the Minister is aware of issues relating to Veterans UK compensation and war pensions. That is why I and the all-party parliamentary group on veterans have launched a survey, and I hope that, when we publish the findings, the Minister will listen to them. How many nuclear test veterans have had their applications for war pensions rejected?
Johnny Mercer
I do not have that data, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady. When it comes to Veterans UK, my position does not change whether I am inside or outside the tent. There are good people there who work hard but have been underinvested in over the years by Governments of all colours, to the point that, two years ago, they were still working from paper records. Clearly, they will not get optimal results for veterans in that manner. This Government have committed £25 million towards digitising that whole space.
There are still too many people whose experiences of Veterans UK are bad. I am committed, as is the Defence Secretary, to working out why that is. It is a massively important part of getting right our veterans care in this country because lots of people deal with Veterans UK every day. We want them to feel that we are actually making this the best country in the world for veterans, and I accept that we have work to do in that space.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Yesterday was a very good day, so may I thank the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, as well as all the Members thanked by the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)? May I add to the names they listed my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), who has been campaigning on the matter since before she was elected?
I thank them all on behalf of Mr Christopher Jefferies, a constituent of mine who wrote to me earlier this year. He said:
I…served in the Royal Air Force between 1955-60. Between 1957-58 I did two tours of duty on Christmas Island as a member of 49 squadron, the squadron tasked with testing Britain’s first hydrogen bomb. Although I was not affected by radiation very many of my colleagues were. For the last 60 years we have been fighting for some recognition of our services, by way of a campaign medal”.
I am so pleased that we have finally delivered for Mr Jefferies. Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and his colleagues for all the work that they did?
Johnny Mercer
I pay huge tribute to Christopher Jefferies and all the veterans and civilians who, at that time, when the science was very unclear about the long-term effects of the tests, went through that experience for the greater good to provide a blanket of security that all nations enjoy today and that continues to be the backbone of our defence. Of course, I pay tribute to them not only for what they did at the time but, as I have said before, for their campaigning. Relentless campaigning is hard—particularly in this place—but people such as Mr Jefferies have been going at it for a long time, and I am delighted that they have finally got the recognition they deserve.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I join right hon. and hon. colleagues on both sides of the House in paying tribute to nuclear test veterans, to the Daily Mirror for its campaign, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who has been tireless in her campaigning.
Reports suggest that the Government’s own long-term study shows that nuclear test veterans were almost four times more likely to die from radiogenic cancer than any other servicemen. What plans does the Minister have to study the impact of nuclear test veterans’ service on their health and that of their families?
Johnny Mercer
There have been four longitudinal studies on that over the years, and the truth is that the science is not as clear as we would like. If the science were clear, it would have been easier to resolve this a long time ago. But it is not a closed book—the last study was only three years ago—and we will continue to look at it. Anyone who thinks they have been affected must go to Veterans UK and apply for a war pension—there are accelerated pathways for nuclear test veterans to get into Veterans UK. I would be delighted to help the hon. Lady with any individual cases.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of the advisory military sub-committee and those who participated in the UK’s nuclear testing to ask that nuclear test veterans receive medals in recognition of their dedication and service, so today’s news is very welcome. I am also pleased that the Minister has confirmed that relatives will be able to apply so that their loved ones receive the nuclear test medals posthumously. Will he come to Ynys Môn to meet some of those families and veterans and to extend his personal thanks?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning over the years. I would love to come to Ynys Môn. I know of a lot of her work up there in terms of the armed forces breakfast clubs and things like that, and I would love to come and support her in what she is doing. I am delighted that relatives can now apply for medallic recognition. It is an extremely important part of service in this country, and I would be delighted to come and meet some test veterans up in her patch when I can.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
May I join the universal welcome across the House for this statement, and I thank the Minister for his work? I also congratulate my constituent, Alan Owen, the founder of LABRATS, and all the other campaigners who have fought tirelessly on this campaign. The Minister has mentioned in his statement and in answering many questions that this is the start of the recognition. Can I therefore echo one of the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who mentioned the need to release the medical records of the former nuclear test veterans, as that would be a clear indication that the Government value their contribution?
Johnny Mercer
Absolutely. The Government and I are clear that there is no sort of deliberate blocking of anything like that. We all have to accept that the science is not straightforward—if it was, this would have been resolved some time ago. Also, different peer countries do it differently for different reasons. We are always open to those conversations. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It is the start of proper recognition for these people, and I hope, as he sees the work we undertake going forward, he will feel we are doing a good job on that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I first thank the Minister? It has been a long campaign, and the Minister has delivered, and we thank him for that, and the Prime Minister, too. I am thrilled to learn of the awarding of the medals for the veterans of Britain’s nuclear testing on the plutonium anniversary. This is a true commemoration of the service and contribution of our brilliant veterans and service personnel. Does the Minister agree that the recognition of all veterans in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Kiribati under UK command should be noted for their enduring service to our great nation. For those who have died, can the Minister confirm that the families left will be in receipt of their loved ones’ medals and that any financial compensation will also be available for them?
Johnny Mercer
We were the last of those nations to provide some sort of medallic recognition. New Zealand has a commemorative coin. It is similar in the United States, and Australia has a similar programme. We are speaking to all those nations all the time. We are also aware that these tests were carried out in indigenous lands in Australia. Indeed, the UK contributed £20 million to clear up these tests at the time. There is an ongoing discussion to be had in that place about how we properly recognise the commitment of indigenous people to this issue and the security that ultimately we all enjoy every day in this place. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When it comes to compensation, there is a war pension available, and for any veteran who feels they are owed that war pension there are clear pathways into Veterans UK. If that is not the case, if he writes to me, I would be delighted to look at it.
Disposable Barbecues
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Disposable Barbecues Bill 2022-23 View all Disposable Barbecues Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of disposable barbecues on open moorland, on beaches, in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in certain other areas designated for environmental protection; to give local authorities the power to prohibit the sale of disposable barbecues in their area; and for connected purposes.
This year has seen us reach unprecedented temperatures in the UK. Those rising temperatures, combined with the droughts we saw this summer, turned the UK into a tinderbox. We have previously operated as a cold country, but while we are working hard to limit the extent of climate change, we need to recognise that these conditions are likely to become more regular. This year saw more than 700 wildfires burning 70 square miles of some of our most vulnerable and precious habitats—for what? The right to scald a sausage anywhere of your choosing regardless of the risks. We need to adjust our approach to hot weather, and one of the products that causes some of the biggest issues to local communities is disposable barbecues.
This Bill does not propose to ban the Great British barbecue. Instead, it seeks to make sure that we can all enjoy our beautiful beaches and countryside safely without damaging them. It is difficult to ascertain exactly how many fires are caused by disposable barbecues. There is no clear identifier on the fire service’s national incident reporting system. My local fire service, Devon and Somerset, believes that is the main cause of local underreporting of fires caused by single-use barbecues.
This summer, a fire at Baggy Point in North Devon was caused by an innocuous accident. People had set a disposable barbecue on a rocky area along the coast. However, the wind picked up the lightweight barbecue and blew it up to the gorse land above. Some 20 acres of gorse land was burned, destroying the habitats and nesting sites of a number of species. Baggy Point is a site of special scientific interest, and it could take decades to recover to its former glory.
The fire took significant resources at a busy time for our services. It took 70 firefighters a full day to put out. That reflects the general trend, which shows that while there has been a slight drop in the number of fires, there has been an increase in the time and resources taken to fight them. Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service recently detailed just how much it cost to put out a significant wildfire. One of its fires cost more than half a million pounds and took 4 million litres of water to put out. While disposable barbecues only cost a few pounds, their impact can be so much more than that. Some 78% of local authorities have experienced fires caused by disposable barbecues. That is despite 49% of local authorities having bans in place, and 64% having signage to discourage use.
While fires are the most obvious issue with single-use barbecues, the intrinsic problem is the cooling period. They are impregnated with highly flammable emollients taking hours to cool down. Even when they have, they can still spontaneously relight. That means people cannot move them when they have finished with them, so they leave them still burning or carry them when cool enough to pick up, but still smouldering, to a bin. Manufacturer instructions warn against picking up the appliance until it is completely cooled—a process that takes many more hours than most consumers are prepared to give when they head out to the countryside. They are simply not fit for purpose.
Some 88% of local authorities report having to deal with litter from these barbecues. This litter can damage the grass it is placed on, harm wildlife and, if used on sand, the sand heats up and can cause injuries to children and pets. Every summer, there are reports of injuries from hot sand where barbecues have sat, as well as from those that have been buried within the sand. Companies claim their products can reach up to 400°C. While the sand is obviously inflammable, it can hold heat for hours at a time. The most serious of these injuries involves treatment by skin grafts and a long stretch in hospital. We have successful campaigns every summer to educate people about the risks of the water in hot weather. It is time that we similarly take control of the risks that these disposable barbecues cause.
The heat that these barbecues give off also causes damage when people attempt to dispose of them. Some 68% of local authorities say that barbecues have caused damage to bins, and occasionally these fires can also injure frontline waste removal workers. This year saw a barbecue reignite inside a bin lorry. Even when people try to do the right thing, they are causing damage to local amenities. Hazardous waste should not be so easily available, especially in areas of significant importance.
In Keep Britain Tidy’s survey of local authorities, it was highlighted that the use of disposable barbecues was most problematic in areas near supermarkets or high streets. That implies that it is casual use by consumers unaware of the risks that leads to most of the issues. That is echoed in the response from Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, which noted that there were fewer fires than it had anticipated nearer to supermarkets during the hot weather, and it wanted to praise supermarkets that this summer took the initiative to ban these products. However, relying on retailers to decide whether they will temporarily stop the sale of disposable barbecues is simply not sufficient. As a society, the British public have made it clear that they are moving away from single-use culture. We have made great strides to reduce our plastic, with the banning of plastic straws, the massive uptake of reusable cups and bottles, and more and more people incorporating multi-use products into their lives. However, disposable barbecues are still the predominant portable barbecue that people choose to use.
For the cost of only a few pounds, people can set up their own portable fire. While the companies that make these products are at pains to point out that each individual element is recyclable, it is complicated to separate those elements out, and that does not take into account where and when people will be seeking to dispose of them. People are not going to separate out scorching metal and coals and put them into public waste bins, and if they do, as I pointed out earlier, that is not always a safe option.
I look forward to the outcome of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ research project on sky lanterns, barbecues and helium balloons, and I understand that the Government do not want to prematurely act on any sort of blanket ban. However, this Bill seeks to ban their use in a very limited way and to enable local authorities to act where we know that there is a high risk of disposable barbecues causing serious damage.
Once upon a time, we could smoke on aeroplanes, and we used to think that was okay, whereas it is completely unacceptable now. I hope that we will look back on today and wonder why disposable barbecues, which are already banned in France, the United States and even Australia—the home of the barbecue—were ever considered acceptable.
Some 88% of councils that responded to the Keep Britain Tidy survey said they would like to see the Government intervene on single-use barbecues—the highest response to any question asked. Over 27,000 people signed a petition to completely ban the sale and use of disposable barbecues in the UK. We cannot continue to allow the right to scald a sausage anywhere, cause so much damage and destruction and cost so much to our vital public services in dealing with disposable barbecue debris. The time to act is now.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sally-Ann Hart, Mrs Flick Drummond, Jane Hunt, Simon Fell, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Sir Gary Streeter, Theresa Villiers, Dr Neil Hudson, Derek Thomas, Ian Levy, Caroline Nokes and Selaine Saxby present the Bill.
Selaine Saxby accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 196).
Ways and Means
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Autumn Statement Resolutions
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy (oil and gas) profits levy
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The Question is the first Ways and Means motion on the Order Paper. At the conclusion of the debate, the Question on that first motion will be put to the House. I will then put forthwith the Questions on the remaining Ways and Means motions and the money resolution. I remind the House that the scope of the debate is the content of the autumn statement, as well as the motions on the Order Paper.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
It is a privilege to open the second day of debate on the autumn statement for the Government. Last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor presented this House with a plan to tackle the cost of living crisis and rebuild our economy—a statement that was honest about the challenges we face and fair in its response. His three priorities, and the priorities of this Government, are simple: stability, growth and public services. The people of this country need us to take the difficult decisions on their behalf, and that is what we will do.
In yesterday’s debate, we heard how our plan leads, among other things, to lower energy bills, higher long-term growth and a stronger NHS and education system. The subject of today’s debate is sustainable public finances and taxation, and the House will understand if I focus my remarks on those aspects of the statement.
For the record, and as the Chancellor revealed, the Office for Budget Responsibility judges that the UK, like other countries, is now in recession. Overall this year, the economy is still forecast to grow by 4.2%. GDP then falls in 2023 by 1.4%, before rising by 1.3%, 2.6% and 2.7% in the following three years. The OBR says that higher energy prices explain the majority of the downward revision in cumulative growth since March. It also expects a rise in unemployment from 3.6% today to 4.9% in 2024, before it falls to 4.1%.
One of the most salient points, and an issue we cannot and will not ignore, is inflation. Last week, the Chancellor called inflation “the enemy of stability”, noting its impact on mortgages, household bills, businesses and unemployment. We are experiencing very high levels of inflation, the primary cause of which, according to the OBR, is global factors. Those who question that should remember the following: yes, inflation is high in the United Kingdom, but it is higher in Germany, at 11.6%, in Italy, at 12.6%, and in the Netherlands, at 16.8%. The reality is that the pandemic is still casting an economic shadow, with the lasting impact on supply chains having made goods more expensive. As Members will understand, this has been significantly exacerbated by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The OBR forecast the UK’s inflation rate to be 9.1% this year and 7.4% next year, although I note that the OBR has said that actions taken as part of the autumn statement will help inflation to fall sharply from the middle of next year. Tackling high inflation needs fiscal and monetary policy to work together, with the Government and the independent Bank of England acting hand in glove. It also needs the world to believe that this country will always pay what it owes. Thanks to the decisions this Government have already taken, the OBR has said that the peak of interest rates is likely to be lower than it would otherwise have been, in turn benefiting our economy and public finances.
But we cannot be complacent. That is why we are committed to rebuilding the public finances. The decisions the Chancellor made last week will mean that over the next five years, borrowing is more than halved. This year, we are forecast to borrow 7.1% of GDP, or £177 billion. Next year, it is 5.5% of GDP, or £140 billion, then by 2027-28, it falls to 2.4% of GDP, or £69 billion.
The Chancellor also confirmed two new fiscal rules. The first is that underlying debt must fall as a percentage of GDP by the fifth year of a rolling five-year period. The second is that public sector borrowing over the same period must be below 3% of GDP.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Given that the Government since 2012 have broken virtually every fiscal rule they have set themselves, why should we pay a blind bit of attention to this new fiscal rule? Why would we believe anything that those on the Tory Front Bench say about their fiscal rules, which are brushed aside as and when they feel like it?
James Cartlidge
I always enjoyed intervening on the hon. Gentleman when he was a shadow Minister and I was a Back Bencher, and I have great respect for him. The Opposition may want to airbrush from history the extraordinary events of recent years—the pandemic and now the invasion of Ukraine—but any Government would have to adjust to those circumstances. These were not minor events; they were once-in-a-generation events, and they have had a huge impact.
Overall, the autumn statement delivers a consolidation of £55 billion, with just under half from higher taxation and just over half from spending reductions. The consolidation ensures that excessive borrowing does not add to inflationary pressures and push interest rates up further. In the short term, we are taking difficult decisions to make sure that fiscal policy keeps inflation in check, but doing it in a compassionate way that still provides support to the most vulnerable.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. The OBR says that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs compliance measures and chasing social security fraud against the Department for Work and Pensions will bring in £2.8 billion, but the Green Book says that social security fraud is £2.2 billion, which suggests only £0.6 billion coming in from tackling tax avoidance and evasion. Why is that figure so low, when the estimate is £70 billion of tax avoidance and evasion?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly good question. He will be aware that we have made huge progress on closing the tax gap, which effectively means that we are making huge progress on cracking down on tax avoidance. There is always further to go, but we have scored significant savings from those measures over the forecast period.
The upshot is what the Chancellor rightly called a “balanced path to stability”. We are tackling inflation to help all our constituents with the cost of living, while at the same time providing the stability that business needs to be able to invest and grow. We want low taxes and sound money, but sound money has to come first.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
What worries me about the Budget is the lack of focus on how the economy will grow in subsequent years. If we have an austerity Budget, public investment is falling; exports are falling because of Brexit; and consumer spending is going to fall because household budgets are being crushed by the cost of living crisis. That leaves business investment. Are businesses seriously going to invest when all other areas of growth are collapsing?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The key issue for growth at the moment is inflation. What on earth do we think is causing consumers to rein back spending? The answer is that this year, this country will have to find an additional £150 billion to pay for the higher cost of energy—that is the equivalent of an entire NHS. Yes, we are taking difficult decisions, but that is the best way to ensure that we get inflation down, in partnership with the independent Bank of England, and build the platform of stability that businesses need to grow and invest. On the point about Brexit, if it was causing the problems, why do the Netherlands and Germany have higher inflation? He should think about that.
On tax, the House will have heard the Chancellor say that we will be fair by asking those who have more to contribute more, and by avoiding tax rises that most damage growth. That means, for example, that while some taxes are rising, we have not raised headline rates of taxation. Tax as a percentage of GDP, meanwhile, will increase by just 1% over the next five years.
On personal taxes, we are reducing the threshold at which the 45p rate becomes payable from £150,000 to £125,140, which means that those earning £150,000 or more will pay just over £1,200 more a year. At the same time, we are maintaining at current levels the income tax personal allowance, the higher rate threshold, the main national insurance thresholds and the inheritance tax thresholds for a further two years until April 2028.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In the summer leadership contest, the Prime Minister set out his plan to see a dramatic cut to the 20p tax rate at the end of this decade. Is that ambition still held by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor?
James Cartlidge
As I have said before, my hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents. In oral questions, he raised an important point about tax on fuel and he now mentions tax on income. We face an extraordinarily difficult position and I am sure that even he would agree that inflation is the ultimate tax. Inflation undermines savings, hits the poorest the hardest and hits the entire economy in every part of the country. We have had to take difficult decisions on income tax, but of course, in future fiscal events, we will announce what we will be doing with taxes.
The current tax changes include the fact that the dividend allowance will be cut from £2,000 to £1,000 next year and then to £500 from April 2024. The annual exempt amount for capital gains tax will be cut from £12,300 to £6,000 next year and then to £3,000 from April 2024. Those are not insignificant changes, but they still leave us with more generous core personal allowances than countries such as Germany, Ireland, France and Canada.
To make our motoring system fairer, we have also decided that electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from vehicle excise duty from April 2025. We are keeping previously announced cuts to stamp duty to support the housing market, but only until 31 March 2025, following which we will end the measure.
Moving to the all-important business taxes, we have decided to freeze the employer’s national insurance contributions threshold until April 2028, but we will retain the employment allowance at its higher level of £5,000. That means that the smallest 40% of all businesses—the ones that are crucial to our growth—will still pay no NICs at all.
On VAT, we already have a registration threshold more than twice as high as the EU and OECD averages, but we will maintain it at that level until March 2026. We will implement the internationally agreed OECD pillar 2 global corporate minimum tax rate to make sure that multinational corporations pay the right tax in the right place. At the same time, we will take further steps to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), that will raise an additional £2.8 billion by 2027-28.
Ahead of the autumn statement, there was much discussion on the merits or otherwise of windfall taxes applied to profits resulting from unexpected increases in energy prices. Our view is that any such tax should be temporary, not deter investment and recognise the cyclical nature of many energy businesses.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being generous on these points. Of the 6,000 additional staff who are estimated to be going to HMRC and DWP, what is the split between the new posts that are going to DWP and those that are going to HMRC?
James Cartlidge
In my short time in this job, I have tried to cram a lot of facts into my head, but I do not have that split immediately to hand. I will write to the hon. Gentleman after raising the matter with my officials.
To return to windfall taxes, in that context, we will increase the energy profits levy from 25% to 35% from 1 January until March 2028. We have also decided to introduce a new temporary 45% levy on electricity generators to reflect the fact that the way our energy market is structured also creates windfall profits for low-carbon electricity generation. Together, those taxes will raise more than £14 billion for the public purse next year.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister is being generous with his time. On the specific point of the windfall tax, there have been calls in this place since October last year for a temporary windfall tax on the extra profits of oil and gas companies. Does he accept that, had the Government moved more quickly to do that, they might not have faced as much blame for not reacting quickly enough to the global events that he mentioned and that people would perhaps think that the Government were managing the crisis better? At the moment, a great deal of the criticism is about not the events themselves, but the Government’s lack of reaction and poor management of them.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We introduced a windfall tax in May. When we consider the timeline relative to the invasion of Ukraine, that is pretty swift. By that point, it was clear that we had an extraordinary surge in energy prices. Of course, as a Government, we would not ordinarily want to take such steps, but I think there is consensus that, when profits are rising so sharply and consumers are having to pay such high prices, we should look at putting that kind of regime in place.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Can the Minister tell us more about what he means by “temporary”? Earlier this year, we heard that the windfall tax would be temporary. We have heard about lots of taxes, such as the 45p tax, being temporary. Indeed, income tax, which was introduced in 1799 by William Pitt the Younger, was going to be a temporary measure to deal with the Napoleonic wars, yet here we are dealing with it. What does the Minister mean by temporary, and when will it end?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; it means until March 2028.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
In response to the criticism of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) about not responding fast enough to proposals to extend the windfall tax, I would say that changing the rules of the game regarding tax for some of the biggest investors and employers in different regions of the United Kingdom is a huge thing for a Government, so proceeding cautiously in response to changing events and to the precise quarterly profits that those companies posted was exactly the right thing to do.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend puts it perfectly. These are significant changes for the industries concerned and one should not go about it in a wanton fashion. We have to try to carry the industry with us, which is why, for example, we have a very generous investment allowance in the North sea levy. As I said, I think the wider public support that but he is right that we have to go about it pragmatically to ensure that we balance the interests of investment with raising the revenue.
Let us not forget that that revenue is going to fund support for energy bills at an extraordinary level through the energy price guarantee, which the OBR now estimates will cut £900 from the typical energy bill this winter. Next year, with the new energy price guarantee, a further £500 will be cut. We are taking these difficult measures to be compassionate and help those at the bottom the most: earlier this year, the amount of energy support for the most vulnerable was £650; next year, it will be £900. We are taking serious steps to support the most vulnerable.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is extraordinary to hear that response to the question about levying a windfall tax and those comments about the pragmatic approach that the Government took when the oil industry companies themselves were saying, “We’re happy to pay more tax. Take more money from us. We’re making so much money.” So the Government were incredibly slow to act.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It’s a stock answer.
James Cartlidge
It is not a stock answer. How could it be a stock answer when I have not taken an intervention like that before?
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) will I am sure forgive me but, on his substantive point, we have delivered a significant windfall tax, but with the investment allowance that balances the interests of investment in the sector against needing to raise revenue. I repeat, where is that revenue going? It is to help families throughout the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, because we are stronger together when the support of the Treasury, at the heart of the United Kingdom, helps everyone in every part of this country.
The final issue to address with regard to taxation is business rates, which I know many colleagues feel strongly about. We believe that bills for business rates should accurately reflect market values, so we will proceed with the revaluation of business properties from April 2023. However, we will soften the impact on businesses with a £13.6 billion support package over the next five years. Nearly two thirds of properties will not pay a penny more next year and thousands of pubs, restaurants and small high street shops will benefit. Furthermore, we are extending and increasing the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme from 50% to 75% in 2023-24, showing that this is a Government committed to protecting the businesses that make our high streets and town centres successful.
These are not easy times to bring in these sorts of measures, but that does not mean the Government will shy away from difficult decisions. Our priorities, expressed through the autumn statement, are stability, growth and public services. Today, we are debating specific tax measures and the importance of sustainable public finances, but what the Government are delivering is much more comprehensive than that—an integrated response to what the Chancellor last week called
“a global energy crisis, a global inflation crisis and a global economic crisis”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 855.]
The bottom line is this: because of the difficult decisions that I have outlined today—the decisions this Government are not afraid to take—the OBR confirms we will see less severe inflation and a shallower recession, but perhaps most importantly, unemployment is forecast to be 70,000 lower than would otherwise have been the case. That is 70,000 real families who will benefit. At the same time, when growth returns, we will be in a better position to pay our debts, ensuring those are not simply passed on to future generations. That is the promise of this autumn statement—a statement that is balanced, honest and fair—and I commend it to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I notify colleagues that I do not want to put a time limit on, but my guidance is that, if everybody speaks for eight minutes, we should be able to fit everybody in comfortably. That was the guidance yesterday, so it has been equal on both days. I call Tulip Siddiq.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
This week, we have heard lots of statistics and figures flying around. The OBR has estimated that real household disposable income per person will fall by 7% over the next two years. That is the biggest fall on record, taking incomes down to 2013 levels. We have heard that our tax burden is set to rise by around £30 billion more than originally forecast in March. It is the highest level since world war two. We have heard about inflation rising to 11.1 %, a 40-year high, with food prices rising by a staggering 16.4% in the year to October.
Just for a minute, I want to explore what these statistics and figures mean in practice to our constituents and to hard-working people across the country. They mean that a single mother on the South Kilburn estate in my constituency cannot afford to buy a Christmas present for her child. They mean that a hard-working nurse in my constituency who is already struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford her energy bills will be paying more tax. They mean a young carer who is already skipping meals because she cannot afford to eat will fall into more debt and may be pushed into the arms of unethical, unsecure credit loans. In all honesty, can Conservative Members really tell me that the measures outlined in their autumn statement will help vulnerable people such as those in my constituency? Do they think it is fair that my constituents have to bear the brunt of a Tory economic crisis that was built in Downing Street? I am sure the Minister and other Conservative Members will say—
Jonathan Gullis
In Labour’s plans, are there any plans for any tax cuts and, if there are, where are they?
Tulip Siddiq
I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. If he listens carefully to my speech and pays careful attention, he will hear all our economic plans laid out, so please pay attention.
The Minister kept talking about how the Government have no choice and how they have made difficult decisions, but the truth is that there is always a choice, and if the Labour party were in government, we would be making fairer choices and better choices that would suit our constituents.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
If I am not mistaken, we have just increased substantially the national living wage, increased benefits in line with inflation and increased pensions in line with inflation, while, unfortunately and regrettably, putting up taxes on the wealthy. Exactly what does the hon. Lady not like about that?
Tulip Siddiq
The things we do not like about this Budget are the fact that the Government will still not impose a proper windfall tax, which I am coming to, will still not abolish non-dom status and will still not listen to us about private schools. If the right hon. Gentleman pays close attention and listens to my speech, he will learn about the things we do not like in his autumn statement.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, once we get past the smoke and mirrors of this autumn statement, it is nothing more than ideological austerity on steroids?
Tulip Siddiq
As always, my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion for his constituents, speaks the truth, because when we examine the autumn statement carefully, we see what will actually happen to hard-working people in this country and how they are bearing the brunt of an economic crisis that Conservative Members created in Downing Street.
Tulip Siddiq
I will make a bit more progress, but I will come to the Members in a minute. I am happy to take interventions.
We of course welcome that, after months of kicking and screaming, the Government have decided to adopt Labour’s policy of strengthening the windfall tax on energy giants, but they are still leaving billions of pounds on the table by giving a tax break to companies drilling for new polluting fossil fuels. Labour would have raised over £10 billion more—£10 billion, at the time of a cost of living crisis, is an enormous amount—over the next three years than the Government’s proposal by closing that unfair loophole, taxing oil and gas at the same level as other countries such as Norway and backdating the tax to January of this year.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Lady paints a grim picture of the situation—undeniably, there is a grim situation—but she seemed to forget that this Government have spent £400 billion on covid. I remember that, at about this time last year, she talked about choices when Labour was advocating for another lockdown, which would have done even more damage to our economy. When she talks about choices, does she not agree that spending £400 billion to save jobs, save lives and get us out of the covid situation was the best choice? Yes, we have to pay that money back and that is what we are doing now.
Tulip Siddiq
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Tories have been in government for 12 years now and may I remind him about everything that happened during covid, including burning personal protective equipment? Maybe he has forgotten about that, and maybe he has forgotten about the amount of fraud that took place during covid. I can send him the details because he looks incredulous. Maybe he does not know how much fraud there was during covid, but we will send that to him. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, after 12 years of economic mismanagement by this Conservative Government, the UK is forecast to have the lowest growth in the G7 over the next two years, with growth stagnant over 2023 and 2024. That is not a record the Government should be proud of.
Let me return to the energy companies, because even they admit that they do not know what to do with their excessive profits. The Chancellor chose to protect that tax break for the energy giants and let the cost land on working people. He also chose to ignore Labour’s calls to scrap non-dom status, which is currently costing us more than £3 billion a year. Why will the Government not undertake that policy? If Labour was in government, we would be stretching every sinew to generate revenue for the hard-working people of our country.
Peter Dowd
When the Tories came to power in 2010, national debt was just under £1 trillion, yet I remind Conservative Members that it is now £2.4 trillion—so much for the party of sound finance.
Tulip Siddiq
As always, my hon. Friend is right, as is his point about how every time the Conservatives bring in a fiscal rule about lowering debt, they end up breaking it.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
May I ask for some clarity on the hon. Lady’s remarks about oil and gas? What exactly is the Labour party’s position on whether we should have more oil and gas? If it thinks that we do need oil and gas, what would it do to achieve that?
Tulip Siddiq
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means. Of course we need more oil and gas, but we have said clearly that we should make fairer choices and tax those who say that they have too much money as excessive profits. That is what we are saying, and the hon. Gentleman needs to listen carefully. Labour would also have ended the VAT exemption for private schools, which would raise £1.7 billion every year. That would have been a fairer and more effective way of fixing the Tory economic crisis and bringing the deficit down, instead of pushing the burden on to hard-working families.
Tulip Siddiq
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has already had his chance.
What worries me is not just that the Government are failing to adopt fair and straightforward measures to fix the mess they caused, but the fact that there is no plan for growth. I was shocked to hear the Minister say how one of the principles is a plan for growth, because I heard nothing in the autumn statement about growth. We have heard from Conservative Members—I know they will keep repeating it—that this is due only to global factors.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
On growth, the Government are protecting our investment in research and development, and innovation, which is a long-term route to growth. The hon. Lady said that the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) was correct about the deficit and debt, and it is astonishing that we are still having to educate the Labour party, 12 years later, about the difference between deficit and debt. This Government inherited a £149 billion deficit, and every measure they took to try to put that right was opposed by those on the Opposition Benches. No wonder the debt increased when we inherited so big a deficit. It is a good job we got that deficit down, because otherwise we would not have been able to cope with covid in the way we did.
Tulip Siddiq
I am not sure there was a question in that intervention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patronising lesson, but Labour Members do not need it. After 12 years of watching the Tories destroy the economy, I am afraid we do not need lessons from Conservative Members.
I am sure we will hear a lot today from Conservative Members about how only global factors are to blame for this country’s stagnant growth, but that is shameless. Everyone knows that Britain’s problems started long before covid, and long before Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Instead of endless Tory excuses, the public deserve an apology for being made to pay for the Government’s last Budget, which sent mortgage rates spiralling, and for 12 years of economic crisis from the Conservatives, which has left the UK completely exposed to external shocks, with inflation sky-high, wages stagnant and living standards in freefall.
When Labour was last in government—since the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) mentioned it—the economy grew by an impressive 2.1%. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, growth has been 1.4%. Conservative Members speak about educating the Labour party, but perhaps they should educate themselves.
The Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee last week that the US economy has grown by 4.2% since the pandemic, and the GDP of eurozone countries is 2.1% higher, yet the UK economy is 0.7% smaller than at the start of the pandemic. Let us not just blame global factors. We are not performing well as a country, and let us be under no illusions: this Conservative economic crisis has been 12 years in the making.
After over a decade of stagnation, we are not recovering. Guess what? We are heading into a recession. This morning the OECD published its projections—these are not my projections but those of the OECD. First, it believes that the UK will have the lowest growth in the G20 over the next two years apart from Russia. Secondly, the UK is set to be the only OECD economy that will be smaller in 2024 than it was in 2019. Finally, it shows that we are the only G7 country that is currently poorer than it was before the pandemic.
Labour has a serious long-term plan to get our economy growing again, powered by the talent and effort of millions of working people and thousands of businesses. At the heart of that is our promise to invest in good jobs in British industries through our green prosperity plan. From the plumbers and builders needed to insulate homes, to engineers and operators for nuclear and wind, we will make Britain a world leader in the industries of the future, and ensure that people have the skills to benefit from those opportunities.
We are also pushing forward with our start-up review, which will untangle the problems holding new firms back, and help to make Britain the best place to start and grow a business. In government we will strive to fix business rates, and replace them with a fairer system that is fit for the digital economy and does not put our high street businesses at an unfair disadvantage. Our modern industrial strategy will support the sectors of the future, and an active working partnership with business. Finally, we will fix the holes in the Government’s failed Brexit deal so that our businesses can export more abroad.
Businesses across the country are supporting Labour’s plan for growth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but he would do well to listen to the chair of Tesco, John Allan, who said that Labour is the only party with a plausible growth plan. The Federation of Small Businesses, which has endorsed our plan to fix business rates so that our high streets thrive, has warned that the Tories’ plans in the autumn statement were high on stealth creation but low on wealth creation.
Tulip Siddiq
The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities—no more giving way.
The Government’s failure to make fair choices and grow the economy has seen our public services starved of the resources they need. Not only have Conservative policies been bad for people who rely on public services; they are also economically illiterate. Weaker public services mean a weaker economy. As the OBR has set out, rising long-term sickness and a backlog of 7 million people waiting for NHS treatments is a toxic combination. It all adds up to a labour market that is more dysfunctional than at any time in recent history, with hundreds of people out of work because of long-term sickness under this Conservative Government.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The role of Prime Minister requires transparency. It may be a matter of personal choice for people not to use our national health service that others so desperately rely on, but does my hon. Friend agree that, for many, it is particularly galling that we have a Prime Minister who does not use the national health service that his party broke?
Tulip Siddiq
I hear the hon. Member chuntering, “Why does that matter?” It matters because people send us to this House to be their voice, and we are meant to represent the everyday struggles they face. If politicians do not know about the everyday struggles of the NHS, because they have never had to wait in A&E for 24 hours with their child, or hold on to the phone for six hours to get an appointment, they do not know what the NHS needs.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a top-banana speech—it is fantastic. On public services, in Norwich and Norfolk we know that the two local authorities face a combined budget deficit of £60 million, which will have a massive impact on our ability to provide social care to an ageing population. We have heard much from the Government about support for public services, including the NHS, but does she agree that if social care is cut, it is the NHS that bleeds? Everyone knows that, yet the Government have failed to recognise it.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Chancellor used to be Health Secretary, and when he left that role he said that one of his biggest regrets was not fixing the crisis in social care. It is surprising that, now he is Chancellor, he seems to have forgotten that for some reason. The Government have turned their back on all the people who need that care. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituency and he is absolutely right to point out the everyday struggles of his constituents.
We know that vacancies are a huge challenge facing the NHS right now in getting waiting lists back down. The Labour party has a plan to fix that with the biggest expansion in medical training in history, including thousands more places for nurses. The Royal College of Physicians estimates that our entire NHS expansion package will cost £1.6 billion a year. We could fund all of that and have some money left over by scrapping non-dom status. Why will the Government not accept that? A leaked email from the Chancellor reveals that he privately supports Labour’s flagship health plan to double the number of medical school places. We have seen that email. Why will he not put that into practice?
Neale Hanvey
The shadow Minister is making a forthright and passionate contribution. If I may, I urge some caution around Labour’s current policy to limit or restrict the number of migrant workers that the UK relies on. I worked in the NHS for more than 25 years and, for the latter part of that, much of our recruitment for specialist staff was from abroad because of successive Governments’ failure to plan. Will she take that on board?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will take that on board. When I was in hospital having my children, every single nurse who looked after me through a difficult labour was from abroad, and there has been a 96% drop in nurses coming to work in my local hospital. I absolutely agree with him; that is a fair point to make.
Speaking of children, I will turn briefly to childcare. There was no mention whatsoever of funding for childcare in the autumn statement. The lack of affordable options is keeping parents out of work—I am sure everyone recognises that—and having a devastating impact on our economy. Under the Conservatives, UK childcare costs have increased at twice the rate of wages, and for two thirds of families the cost of childcare is the same as or more than their monthly rent or mortgage payments. Those extortionate prices are simply unaffordable for many parents, and many people are being forced out of the labour market.
We know that 43% of mothers consider quitting work altogether and 1.7 million women are prevented from taking on more paid work due to childcare costs. That is terrible for productivity and detrimental to growth. Once again, whether it is NHS waiting times, cuts in rail investment or a lack of affordable childcare, the British people are paying the price for Tory economic incompetence through weaker public services.
The Tories have lost all claims to be the party of economic responsibility. The Conservatives have broken their own fiscal rules a total of 11 times since they came into government in 2010. They have spent 12 years weakening the economy, and they crashed the markets in the middle of a cost of living crisis, leaving working people like my constituents paying the price.
In government, Labour would do things differently. We would make fairer choices and treat taxpayers’ money with the respect it deserves. We would ensure that the single mother on the south Kilburn estate could buy her child a Christmas present, that the hard-working nurse could turn on her heating during the bitter winter months, and that the young carer I referred to could have three meals a day.
Our country is a great country. We have fantastic strengths. But because of the Government’s choices, we have been held back with 12 years of stagnant growth. It is clear that it is time for the grown-ups on the Opposition side of the House to take charge. It is time for a Labour Government.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a privilege to be able to speak in this important debate. After a number of years of not being able to speak from what was my favoured position on the Back Benches, I have chosen to do so because it is the Budget, which impacts on all my constituents and those many businesses and organisations across Aldridge-Brownhills that, for many years, I have not been able to name-check. I hope you will allow me a little indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I name-check one or two of them.
I appreciate and understand that, as a Government, we have to make tough decisions and we face some of the same deep challenges as many other countries around the world. It was right to support people and businesses during the pandemic, and the Government did a fantastic job of that, rolling out furlough, business support and benefits so quickly to help people at a time when many of us—in fact, probably all of us—felt a degree of uncertainty about what was happening. It was also right to develop our fantastic vaccination programme and roll that out. I pay credit to Walsall Borough Council for the work that it did and all the team at the Oak Park leisure centre. Today, it is absolutely right that we stand in solidarity with Ukraine against Putin’s illegal invasion. I have just returned from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where it was incredible to see the support from the UK and other NATO members. Putin cannot be allowed to continue with this illegal invasion. It must be stopped.
I turn to the Budget. I mentioned those factors because they set the scene for where we are and why we face a tough autumn statement. I welcome the confirmation from the Government that we will protect the triple lock for pensioners and increase benefits by inflation, which I recently raised in the Chamber with a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions, as it was of deep concern to my constituents. The raising of the national living wage, the commitments to health and the support for household energy bills are welcome and most needed.
I turn to education. I joined Conservative Members in writing to the Chancellor as, having spoken to my local headteachers about school budgets, I was really worried. Energy prices pale into insignificance against the many other challenges and pressures that they face. I therefore really welcome the Chancellor’s decision to allocate £4 billion of extra funding to schools over the next two years. The importance of a good education cannot—and should not—be ignored, nor underestimated, wherever someone lives and comes from and whichever school they go to. I am a proud daughter who went to a comprehensive school and later studied with the Open University to get my master’s degree.
We have some fantastic schools in Aldridge-Brownhills. I recently visited Ryders Hayes Primary School in Pelsall, which has an excellent training facility. Just last week, I was at Brownhills Ormiston Academy, where I was honoured to be part of its act of remembrance. In this place, we know that from school and education flow skills, universities, apprenticeships and employment. It is through skills, employability and jobs that we will grow our economy. It is through growing our economy that ultimately we generate the money to invest back in our great country and our people. It is through manufacturing and production that we can trade and export goods as well as services and knowledge. What I really seek from the Government and the Chancellor is more detail on the plan for growth; that is critical.
Research, innovation and silicon valleys are all to be welcomed, but what about manufacturing and the myriad small and medium-sized businesses that form the backbone of local economies—for example, Brownhills Glass, GJF Fabrication, JC Payne and Imperial Bathrooms in my constituency—and the nation of shopkeepers? We also have fantastic companies that support young people, providing training and skills for the future. The drive, ambition and personal commitment of some of those companies are enabling us to grow our local economy and jobs. That has to be applauded.
Returning to business and growth, taxes on fuel, freezing the NICs threshold, the changes to dividend tax, and indeed raiding the R&D tax credit scheme do not do much to encourage businesses and the many hardworking owners of small companies who work hard just to keep their businesses going and to keep them growing. Changes to business rates, which my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary mentioned, are absolutely to be welcomed, as is the targeted support for businesses’ energy bills in April, but may I gently urge the Government to provide as much detail as possible? We need greater clarity sooner rather than later, because that is what will give small entrepreneurs not just stability but confidence.
Small Business Saturday is coming up very soon—at the beginning of December—giving all of us the opportunity to celebrate small businesses in our constituencies. I invite my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary and his team to visit Aldridge-Brownhills and the fantastic businesses we have there—perhaps we could even find a female entrepreneur, given that we as the Government are encouraging female entrepreneurs. They would be welcome.
I could make many other points, on council tax and some of the band tax benefits. I know they will cause some difficulty to some of my constituents—the people who are juggling paying their bills with filling their car with fuel and paying the mortgage. I am conscious of the time, however, and perhaps I should not push my luck in my first outing back on the Floor of the House. It is important that we remain compassionate and that we remain on the side of these people. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight, but I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put on the record some of my constituents’ concerns.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Opening yesterday’s debate, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that this was not a return to austerity. That made me wonder what the Government call a forecast drop of 7% per person in household living standards. Over the past 12 years, we have had Tory Prime Minister after Tory Prime Minister after Tory Prime Minister—I could go on, because there have been quite a few of them—telling us that this is the end of austerity, but in that time what we have seen is growing inequality and mortgages rising, and now we have record inflation and energy costs are skyrocketing.
This Tory Government have presided over nothing but austerity, and they offer people no hope of anything else. They have presided over the continued chaotic mismanagement of the UK economy that forces ordinary people to pay the price. That view is shared by many people. When preparing for this speech, I looked at all the different resources—people who have made contact to comment on the Budget statement and the events of the past few months. It was really difficult to narrow them down, because so many people representing so many organisations across business and charities have been critical of the way the Government have handled and are handling things. I will pick out just a few. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
“The truth is we just got a lot poorer. We are in for a long, hard, unpleasant journey…that has been made more arduous than it might have been by a series of economic own goals”.
He went on to mention the disastrous mini-Budget of course, but he also stated:
“Very clearly, Brexit was an economic own goal. Economically speaking that has been very bad news indeed”.
I notice that no one else dares to speak of Brexit in this Chamber, but the damage is real and has been done. Scotland voted resolutely against Brexit; we voted to remain in the EU and were ignored, and now we are paying the price. In a very impressive speech, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) made a lot of persuasive arguments, but I noticed again that Labour dares not go there, because when it comes to Brexit, they have taken the clothes off the beach and put them on themselves. It is not good enough.
Let me go further and quote the UN Human Rights Council, which includes nations such as Brazil and which has urged the UK Government to implement an energy poverty strategy that addresses the impact of rising costs on child poverty targets. It has gone further still and asked the UK Government to
“improve food security, in particular for children, adolescents and persons with disabilities”.
Does that make the Tories feel proud? It is almost unbelievable. Scotland deserves much better than that.
The Food Standards Agency consumer insights tracker points out that the proportion of people who cannot afford to eat a healthy balanced diet rose to more than a third in October. More than a third of people cannot afford to eat a healthy balanced diet. A quarter of people reported eating cold food because they could not afford to cook. About a fifth are turning off fridges and freezers with food inside them because they reckon they cannot afford the energy to run those appliances. That is a disgrace. All the nations of the UK deserve better. The people I represent in my constituency and across Scotland definitely deserve better.
The Resolution Foundation points out that, far from the Government taxing the rich, as we have heard in this Chamber—taxing those who can most afford it—it is the people in the middle who will be squeezed by a near 4% hit on their income, which is a bigger hit than high earners will experience. The Resolution Foundation warns that the statement means nearly 20 years of wage stagnation between 2008 and 2027 due to the weak forecast for pay and the effects of inflation, hurting people in their homes, hurting families and hurting children. The foundation further points out that households living in harder-to-heat homes with larger families are particularly hard hit by energy bills—nearly a quarter of them are affected. It is worse for people who live off the gas grid—a large number of people in rural communities of the sort that I and many others represent. Look at what they have been offered. Yes, it is great to see a doubling from £100 to £200 in the support for off-gas-grid households, but that is nowhere near enough. Are Ministers living in the real world? At the moment, the minimum oil or kerosene delivery is £500. The amounts offered will not touch the sides, and people living in off-gas-grid households will pay far more than £4,000 for their average energy bill.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
In mainland UK, heating oil can be bought for 82p per litre, but we in Northern Ireland are paying £1.08 per litre. Fuel poverty is a major problem in Northern Ireland.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Member makes a good point about affordability for his constituents. This is a major issue for people in rural communities across the nations of the UK, especially Scotland, although Northern Ireland fares similarly in having a colder climate. These are big, big issues for people. There is no real acknowledgement in the autumn statement of the difficulties for people living their real lives in that type of accommodation in those areas.
The OBR pointed out that Westminster’s Brexit
“will result in the UK’s trade intensity being 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU.”
The Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said the UK has suffered a “dramatically” worse recovery than the US or the EU. Government Members like to pretend that the only things that have happened are the war in Ukraine and the global pandemic, but they must take responsibility for the economic self-harm they have imposed on people across the UK and in Scotland through their Brexit ideology, which is resolutely failing and being proved to fail on a daily basis. Scotland deserves better than that.
The CBI director general says of the situation:
“There was really nothing there to tell us that the economy is going to avoid another decade of low productivity and low growth”.
On labour shortages, he called for a practical approach to immigration and urged the UK Government—he might do the same for the Labour party—to be “honest” with people over the UK’s “vast” labour shortages, and said:
“we don’t have the people we need, nor do we have the productivity.”
Scotland deserves better than this.
Business after business ignored. Organisation after organisation ignored. Expert after expert ignored. The UK Tory Government ignore them all. We have seen non-doms protected. Bankers’ bonuses are now unlimited. Many companies are still avoiding their tax responsibilities and public services are facing their most brutal cuts. The Health Foundation pointed out that the whole health budget amounts to only a 1.2% increase in real terms over the next two years, which is well below the historic average of 3.8%. For Scotland, that means having to draw back on the services we can provide. We are focused on trying to support people with fair pay settlements, so they can navigate the cost of living crisis. The Health Foundation also shows that if spending per person had matched the EU average, the UK would have spent £40 billion more than it has done.
On the climate, where have all the good promises gone? Where have all the warm words gone on taking the global climate crisis seriously? In fact, the autumn statement undermines Scotland’s climate change goals and underlined the dangers of Scotland being held back. The UK Government are pushing ahead with nuclear, which is the most costly and the slowest form of energy to deliver, and has the highest environmental impact. The UK already has the most poorly insulated homes in western Europe. There is nothing to change that situation. They still have not delivered, after a number of betrayals, the Peterhead carbon capture and storage project. They have put a higher—higher!—windfall tax on renewable energy producers than they have on oil and gas. That is quite incredible. They have deterred and deferred the uptake of electric vehicles. At a time when momentum was growing for people to invest in an electric vehicle to be better for the climate, what do this Government do? They introduce a pretty high tax to put people off doing that. People will persevere with their petrol and diesel for a bit longer, and burn more carbon-intensive fuels.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government have been working to protect people, despite a real-terms cut of 10% since December due to inflation. Any Westminster increase as a result of the autumn statement will more than be wiped out by inflation. We prioritised public sector fair pay and are prioritising funding to help households, businesses and people to get through this period, but we are reaching the limit. In fact, the limit of what can be done, without borrowing powers and the powers we need to look after our people properly, has already been reached, in sharp contrast to this place. Under Westminster, we continue to see growing inequality, mortgages rising, inflation rising and energy costs skyrocketing. When we compare countries of Scotland’s size or smaller, we find that, for them, independence works. Compared to the UK, those countries are wealthier and more equal, and have higher productivity, lower poverty, lower child poverty and lower pensioner poverty. They have higher social mobility and higher business investment.
Scotland has not voted Tory for nearly 70 years, yet we are saddled with this. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and we do not want it. Scottish people, families and children are bearing the brunt of Westminster’s legacy. Scotland is being denied the people it needs to strengthen its communities, its businesses and our country. Scotland has voted time and time again to have its say on its future. It cannot be denied. The choice is between the toxic approach here in Westminster, or a normal independent country.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is obviously foolish for the Opposition to pretend that a pandemic and a continental war, with its associated energy shock, would not be felt economically in this country. At the same time, it is clearly preposterous for them to try to talk down the UK economy as some kind of basket case, when we compare very favourably to some of our peers on debt to GDP, employment is still very high and we have an economy that exhibits so many underlying strengths. At the same time, it is fair to say that the autumn statement was greeted with some dismay on the Government Benches. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has obviously had to make some very difficult and challenging decisions, given the economic headwinds we face.
First of all, however, I should point to one of the bright moments in the statement, which was the Chancellor’s pledge on education funding. The £2.3 billion extra on top of what is already in the baseline over the next two years was very welcome. I am grateful to the 27 colleagues who, along with me, signed a letter urging the Chancellor not only to protect schools funding, but to invest further. Our view was that one of the groups most hard hit by the pandemic and that awful disease was children. The case for investing further in their education to deal with the backlog, helping them to catch up and ensuring they can have productive lives in the future, felt to us morally strong and it would have been indefensible to cut that spending. We are therefore extremely pleased that he responded in such a positive way.
I have only a few minutes, so I want to outline three lessons from the recent turmoil, two warnings and a hope for the future. The first lesson is predicated on a phrase that does not go down well in either marriages or politics—the four little words, “I told you so.” For those of us who have been tracking the path of the UK money supply over the last 10 years, the underlying inflation, which was baked into our system and has emerged over the last 12 months, has not, I am afraid, come as any great surprise. The fact that the Bank of England has been slow to recognise the importance of monetarism and money policy over the last couple of years is a cause of great dismay, not least because a number of us consistently raised this issue with the previous Governor when he was in front of the Treasury Committee and since. The denial of the kind of Bank of England orthodoxy that the money supply mattered has come back to haunt us in a big way. The enormous growth in the money supply has outstripped the growth in our economy—yes, coming out of the crash in 2007-08, but in particular coming out of the pandemic—and resulted in the inflation in this country that is now taxing every family. It is hard to see that the Bank has moved with alacrity to deal with it—if anything, I think the criticism is that it has been a bit slow—but I hope the lesson we learn for the future, and on which this House should concentrate and focus, is that the money supply matters. When we look around the world we see consensus around a loose monetary policy for far too long and we need to bear that in mind.
The second lesson is that the Bank’s handling of the bond market really matters as well. We had assumed that that was a benign market that we could take for granted, but it became clear that the Bank’s hangover from its quantitative tightening—its declaration of sales forward into the market—had a significant impact. That was then exacerbated by the so-called fiscal event. We also bear huge losses on that market from the Bank’s dealings. Admittedly, there have been profits in previous years, but the fact that we are bearing about £11 billion-worth of losses from the Bank’s trading in that market matters. Also, within that market, we discovered to our horror that pension funds were effectively gambling with borrowed money, shorting inflation through the so-called LDI— liability-driven investment—strategy, which became so systemically problematic for the economy that the Bank had to intervene again. That points to lax supervision and comprehension of the weaknesses in the bond market.
The third lesson is that we as a House have perhaps not concentrated enough on the operations of the Debt Management Office. I have yet to see anywhere an obviously declared policy decision to move our debt more towards index-linked or inflation-linked bonds. We have moved from 6% of our debt being index-linked 10 or so years ago to about 22%. That is a near-quadrupling of the figure. As I think the Chair of the Treasury Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—said yesterday, that effectively means that the Government were shorting inflation. At a time when we had lost track of the money supply, or in fact, had decided that the money supply did not matter, that proved to be a foolish bet.
Bim Afolami
When I was on the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago, we looked at index-linked debt on the whole of Government accounts. If I recall this correctly, the answer we received was that there was no long-term risk of widespread inflation because there were global forces that were becoming deflationary, rather than inflationary. The points that my right hon. Friend is making illustrate well the poor analysis in that approach.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree. I remember well debates with Mark Carney, when he was head of the Bank of England, about the combination of a rise in the money supply and the underlying inflationary effects in our economy being masked by deflationary effects, not least of global supply chains, and the fact that we now have so much stuff made and imported from China, as well as the effect of the internet. Once the curtain was pulled back and we had problems with our supply chains—and that curve of deflation bottomed out—lo and behold, the money supply suddenly became important again. Let us hope that we learn that lesson for the future.
Notwithstanding the difficult decisions that the Chancellor has made, another opportunity is coming for us to trim the sails: the Budget in the spring. As we move towards that moment, I hope that we can look towards some positive changes in the global economic environment. Hopefully, the war in Ukraine will start to recede. International container prices are already falling, as are energy costs. We can therefore think again in the spring and I hope that we will bear two things in mind.
First, we need to bear in mind that, in a tight labour market, tax rises can prolong inflation. If we, through tax rises, give people, in effect, a take-home pay cut at the same time as they face higher costs because of their mortgages and generally because of the cost of living, they are likely to start to demand more from their employers. I am afraid that that has a possibility of sparking a wage and price spiral, particularly as we know that the secondary effects of that inflation will take some time—possibly months, if not years—to work their way through the system. I would bear that in mind when we think about possible tax rises, particularly from fiscal drag.
My second concern—I give this warning to Ministers—is that chasing debt to GDP could become a hare that they are unable to catch. If the actions taken from a fiscal and monetary point of view damage our GDP number—if GDP falls—we have to work even harder to reduce costs, or debt, against that number. If the action taken to reduce the numerator in the equation paradoxically damages the denominator, the equation becomes harder and harder to reach. If we base our ability to reach that debt-to-GDP ratio on a lower figure—particularly with a 3% GDP debt limit—through tax rises, the only way to avoid a doom loop is to tax and tax, even if we know that we can never fill in the hole that we are digging.
Finally, let me turn to my hope for the future. When we get to the spring Budget, I hope not only that the global winds that are blowing against us will have receded somewhat, but that, frankly, we can restore our belief in capitalism. My strong view is that the only way that we will get out of this hole—a number of Members have said this in the past few days—is through growth. We will not tax our way to prosperity, nor will we tax our way out of this debt-to-GDP problem. We need to inject growth into the economy. The only way to do that is to let the wealth creators free by loosening the ties that bind them and by looking at the regulation and taxation on capital, in particular, so that people are willing to take risks. One of the most dismaying choices in the statement was the proposed increase in capital taxes, not least because that changes the risk-reward ratio, meaning that it is less likely that people will go out and start a business.
Although some of the decisions about research and development, including the vast amount of money that is being pumped into that across the whole UK, are extremely welcome, unless there is a strong, pullulating, dynamic private sector out there to pick up the ball and run with it, all the intellectual property that the money creates will just end up overseas, where plenty of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs will be willing to pick that up and run with it.
Believing again in capitalism, allowing people to keep more of their money and to invest it, and building businesses for the future will be critical to our overall success in the months, years and decades to come. As we move towards the spring Budget, I hope that Ministers will look again at the five-year OBR forecast, remembering that it is there not to be fulfilled, but to be beaten and bested. It is there to warn us of what might happen so that we can take action now to avoid it. I hope that come the spring Budget, that is exactly what the Government will do.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
There is much to be outraged by here. The Prime Minister was the Chancellor and has been in government for most of the past 12 years, yet the Government blame others for the mess that we are in. They blame economic headwinds, but never turn the blame on the Members who caused the trouble in which we find ourselves.
It has been a political choice to govern like that—to run the economy into the ground; to slash living standards through economic mismanagement; to under-invest in the NHS; and to blame nurses, who are now paid less in real terms than they were when the Chancellor took over the NHS. For 12 years, the Government have under-invested and let stock market speculators make millions and tank the pound. The only growth we have is in inflation.
Real wages in 2022 are still lower in than they were when Government Members came to power in 2010. Families in my Ealing, Southall constituency cannot afford any more of this Government. They need a general election to be able to afford school uniforms, heating and travel.
The Government do not make decisions; they delay. When they had the opportunity to close valuable tax loopholes enjoyed by the richest private schools and private equity fund managers, they did not. Families are now paying the equivalent of over £4,000 more in taxes than they were before the Prime Minister was Chancellor under the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). We can see where this Government’s priorities lie. While untargeted tax breaks for oil and gas giants will cost the taxpayer £8 billion over five years, the tax burden for ordinary working people is set to rise to the highest level since the second world war. That is not growth. It is stagnation, and it is shameful. According to the Financial Times, last month’s stand-in Tory Government cost the country £16.8 billion in increased borrowing costs. The country cannot afford this Tory Government—not at the fuel pumps, not in the supermarkets and not with mortgage costs.
We are not safe with the Tories either. Under the last Labour Government, the UK was spending 2.5% of GDP on defence; the Tories have not matched that in the 12 years they have run the country. No wonder the Defence Secretary looked so cross after Cabinet last week. On the energy independence that we need to stay secure from Russia, the Chancellor again risks our safety. The measures announced in the statement risk the very future of our solar industry, and the Prime Minister insists on holding to his ban on onshore wind. We cannot afford this Tory Government.
This autumn statement is a wasted opportunity. The chance for a fresh start after the Budget that broke the pound has been squandered. This Government are holding Britain back. We need my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) at the wheel. The current driver is asleep. With a vision for green energy independence, investment, equality and growth, only one party has a plan, and it is on the Opposition side of the Chamber.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you would never imagine from listening to Labour Members that we had just been through the biggest public health emergency in a century, the biggest European war for three quarters of a century and the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s. That is not a light task for any Government to deal with. Yes, of course, as the Prime Minister said, some mistakes were made in the handling of things back in September, but the reality is that this is a challenge facing Governments across the western world. Despite all the rhetoric that I hear from the Labour party, there is much in this country to feel that we can benefit from—it is not universally a bad news story. None the less, like other countries across the western world, we face enormous challenges in turning things round.
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) about the need to drive growth. He was absolutely right to look back over the discussions of recent years about inflation and whether it had gone away. A simple lesson of economics is that the moment somebody says that something will never come back is the moment we need to start worrying that it will come straight back. Inflation is here and we have to deal with it. It has been driven by a huge increase in energy costs, the destabilisation caused by the war in Ukraine, the collapse in global supply chains in the wake of the pandemic and the continued lockdowns in China, which have created real issues for businesses here and internationally.
I want to focus on three things. One of them is very much a UK problem, which we have to deal with as a matter of urgency: the number of people who have left our labour force in the past few years. This country is much more seriously affected than other nations. We have to get to grips with the problem. The explanations for it are multifarious—it is not simply about long covid or backlogs in the NHS—but if we do not solve it, it will be a continuing issue.
I call on Conservative Front Benchers to look back at what we did in 2010. As the Labour party has conveniently forgotten, we inherited unemployment at nearly 3 million and rising, and real difficulties in our labour market. The programmes we put in place made a real difference to the long-term unemployed and to people who were sick, off work and claiming employment and support allowance: they helped them, step by step, back into the labour market. Over the years, they made a real difference to the situation that the long-term unemployed in this country face.
The reality is that the longer someone is out of the workplace, the more difficult it is to get back in. People need support and guidance. I was very encouraged by what the Chancellor said about increasing Access to Work coaching, but we need to go much further. We need to learn from what was done in the Work programme and other programmes and look at how we can put support back in place for the long-term unemployed. If we do not do something about it, they will become further and further away from the workforce.
Stephen Crabb
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the trend that he highlights is the increase in younger people being signed off as long-term sick, often with mental health issues? They are not being treated effectively by our NHS and are not getting effective employment support either, so they are at the greatest risk of spending the rest of their life cut off from the labour market.
Chris Grayling
Absolutely—that is a crucial issue. We need to start working with those people to help them back into a workplace environment. They are better off there: if people are out of work, they tend to have poorer health, live less long and have mental health problems. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We must now put back some of the conditionality that, for understandable reasons, was taken away during the pandemic. There cannot be an expectation that people will simply stay on out-of-work benefits indefinitely. Our welfare state should be a ladder up which people climb, not a place in which people live.
My second point is about energy. There is no doubt that we have to do more to drive energy independence in this country. I have listened to Labour and SNP Members: they seem to think it is better for this country to ship gas all around the world in great tankers, with much higher emissions as a result, than to generate it from the sources available in this country. We need UK gas and we should develop it. The tax measures that have been put in place to encourage investment in the North sea are the right thing to do.
It cannot just be about fossil fuels, however. It is also right to develop nuclear. I completely disagree with the SNP on the issue: renewables are an essential part of our future, but the reality is that the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. We need a core capacity to generate electricity in this country, and nuclear will be a crucial part of that. We also need to drive more progress on the renewables front. The most obvious missing piece is to ask why we do not have an obligation in this country, as a matter of rule, to put solar panels on the roofs of new houses and commercial buildings. I say to Government Front Benchers that that should be central to our policy. I have supported it for a long time, and I know other Conservative Members support it. We really need to get on with it.
Thirdly, a project that commands support on both sides of the House and that must drive future growth is the expansion of Heathrow airport. When we voted on it in this House four years ago, it had a majority of nearly 300. There was support from Labour and from the SNP—not the party, but individual Members. There was support from Northern Ireland, from Wales and from across England. It is a project that would lead to better regional connectivity, helping the levelling-up agenda, and would strengthen our trade ties around the world. It is essential. It is a project that has somewhat lost its way because of the pandemic’s impact on aviation, and there are clearly issues to address around aviation emissions, but this is not a project that will happen overnight. It will take a decade to bring to fruition, and by the time we get into the 2030s we will have short-haul planes coming on to the market that will be driven by new generation fuels such as hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel.
We cannot simply say to future generations, “We are going to can this project. We are not going invest in our main gateway to the world; we are going to leave this to one side.” Those on the Labour Benches, the Northern Irish and Scottish Benches and the Conservative Benches all voted for it, and there is a duty on all of us to throw our political weight behind the project to get it back on the agenda and moving forwards. We need to take a symbolic step that would send a message to the world that this country is focused on growth. I say again to those on my Front Bench: please bring the Heathrow expansion project firmly back on to the Government’s agenda. This country needs it. We have needed to take difficult decisions. It has been essential in the short term to take decisions that are going to be difficult and unpopular, but now we have to focus. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is absolutely right about the Budget in the spring. We need to focus on getting the economy growing again.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The autumn statement last week failed to put forward a serious plan for growth. Instead, the Government have put the cost of their economic mismanagement on to families, and those who will suffer the most will be the middle and lower wage earners.
This is a pattern we have seen from the Tory Government since they took office 12 long years ago. Since then, we have seen five Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors. We have also heard different promises being made to the country about a long-term economic plan, a strong and stable Government, getting Brexit done and an oven-ready Brexit deal. We have also heard about “growth, growth, growth” and about being ready to rebuild, ready to unite and ready to restore trust. Against all of that, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, living standards will fall by 7% over the next two years. I might also add that the UK is now the only G7 country with a smaller economy than before covid.
The last thing families in Lewisham East need is yet another round of austerity, but sadly that is what they are getting. This time last year, I told the then Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—that the local housing allowance was far too low, but I was ignored. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that failing to increase the local housing allowance leaves renters and low-income households the hardest hit. With the allowance at its current level, people are being left in unfit homes. Last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was anxious about the welfare of her children. They are living in accommodation with severe damp and mould, alongside infestations of mice and rats. I am deeply concerned that one of the children has a dry cough, breathing problems and nosebleeds. That is unacceptable, especially since Awaab’s death from exposure to mould shocked the nation last week. It is a dereliction of duty for this Government to allow my constituents to live in those conditions.
The heart of the problem is that the Conservatives are not what they claim to be. They are not a compassionate Government who put the needs of deprived communities and people first. A further report has stated that almost one in three children in the UK are living in poverty. That is absolutely outrageous.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I hear the plight of the families that the hon. Lady mentions, but those properties should never have been allowed to get into that state in the first place. Who is responsible for looking after those properties? Would it be the local council? Why did it not go round to fix the mould problems in the first place?
Janet Daby
The Government really need to take responsibility for cutting budgets. Local budgets have been decimated since 2010, austerity has increased and my own local authority’s budget has been cut by 50%. Councils are unable to provide the services that are so desperately needed. We see this when we look at universal credit. I am pleased about the increase in the national minimum wage, but when we look at when that is going to be put in place and at the increase in taxes, there are so many issues that make it more difficult for families.
Furthermore, children who grew up during the pandemic are going to face tougher challenges than previous generations. For instance, according to the Local Government Association, the number of children needing help from councils for mental health issues has increased by 53% in the past four years, yet the autumn statement has put nothing in place to deal with that situation. This could have been a compassionate statement. A warm homes programme to insulate people’s homes would have been a start, but the Government have chosen not to do that. Instead, the less well-off have been unfairly hit while the bankers have been given tax breaks. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister might be trying to appease both wings of the Tory party, but they are failing the country in the process. We need a general election.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
It has been clear from this debate and the previous debate that the backdrop to our economic discussion is one of continuing post-pandemic global economic disruption and the rise of global inflation, caused not least by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. If anyone still believes that we do not live in an interconnected and interdependent world, they are simply not looking at the evidence around us.
Part of the difficulty in assessing the data is the opacity of some of the figures on post-pandemic global trading and investment, but some patterns are now clearly beginning to emerge. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, in the fourth quarter of 2021, UK imports from the European Union dropped by 18%, but global imports from the rest of the world were up by more than 10% and UK exports to the European Union in July this year reached an all-time high of £17.4 billion. In other words, despite the fact that there are greater barriers to trade on the European Union side than on the UK side, British exports to Europe are actually managing to be more robust than European exports to the United Kingdom. So let us be clear: we do not need a new relationship with the European Union, Swiss or otherwise. We do not require freedom of movement, integration into the European single market or integration of EU law into the UK.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend has outlined some impressive figures. Does he recall that one of the themes of the Brexit debate was that our trading patterns should change? We said that there was a big wide world out there to which we had to look, from a trade point of view, that we had become over-reliant on the EU and that there were more exciting markets elsewhere that were growing much more strongly and that we could participate in.
Dr Fox
I entirely agree. The concept of the bloc in trade terms is very second half of the 20th century. We need to look at the growing markets that give greater opportunities for the United Kingdom in goods and services. The fact that they are not immediately geographically adjacent to us should not be our primary concern. We need to move with the trends in the global economy, not focus on what is a largely ossified view of the world based on the post-second world war consensus.
When we look at the origins of the inflation that we are facing in the United Kingdom, we see that there are several of them. They have been referenced a lot during this debate. The post-pandemic supply issues are still ricocheting around the global economy and particularly harming developing countries at the present time. Also, the central banks—not just the Bank of England but the Federal Reserve in the United States and the European Central Bank—got into a group-think on what they laughingly call the modern monetarists, which means that they are not monetarists at all. They believed that they had found some sort of monetary alchemy through which they could continue to print money faster than the economies were growing without creating inflation. I believe that is why there is higher inflation in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe than in other countries—notably Switzerland, which sits in the middle of the eurozone but did not follow the same expansionist monetary policies.
By far the greatest boost to inflation has come from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, however. That has come about in a number of ways, which I will come to in just a moment, but we must remind ourselves that inflation is not just an economic evil; it is a moral and social evil as well. The poorest people in our society are hit the hardest by inflation because they spend more of their income on non-discretionary items. It also transfers money from the savers to the borrowers in society, which is not something that a Conservative Government should want to see. The Government have done much in this statement to protect those on low and fixed incomes, including an extra £26 billion in cost of living support, particularly on fuel, on top of what we have spent already, and an extra £11 billion on uprating benefits. The Government introduced those two items to protect those on low and fixed incomes and, taken together, they are the size of the United Kingdom’s defence budget. These are not small sums. Our increased spending on education and health is hugely welcome, especially as we catch up on the post-pandemic disruption, but to be frank, even the generous sums put forward by the Government will largely be eaten up by inflation until we get it under control.
And that is before we come to the most frightening item of all, the fact that this year we will be spending £120 billion on debt interest payments. For reference, we spend only £134 billion on NHS England each year, so we are spending almost the NHS budget on debt interest payments. We need to recognise that we cannot increase our debt further. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, around 20% of our debt is now index-linked and is therefore very vulnerable to rises in the retail price index. Duncan Simpson, the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, said:
“The spiralling cost of servicing the national debt is deeply concerning. Taxpayers’ money that should be spent on frontline services or keeping rates down is instead going towards interest payments that outsize the costs of government departments.”
If we cannot raise debt any further, either we have to see spending come down or taxes go up, or we have to increase Britain’s wealth from the rest of the global economy. The latter is difficult in current global conditions and the Government have correctly, but rather disappointingly, from a political perspective, had to see taxes rise. That sets a clear way in which to see our future priorities. The first thing is to bear down on inflation. At the same time, we have to get control of the public finances and then we have to get our taxes back down.
I hope the Opposition will reflect on this point today. We have heard from the Opposition Front Bench on both days of this debate that we are facing a recession made in Downing Street. Currently, the greatest source of global inflation is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and rising global commodity prices, particularly food and fuel, which is causing potential starvation in vulnerable states, with widespread social dislocation and increased international migration.
Dr Fox
I will not give way.
Those who talk about a recession made in Downing Street might want to ask themselves how much they are absolving Vladimir Putin of the global inflation we see today and whether, in fact, they are neglecting their duty to be patriotic at this time.
Conservatives do not want to see taxes rise. If we have to see temporary rises in taxation, the necessary corollary is that, as soon as inflation starts to be controlled, we will see those taxes coming down again. I would go further than my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire in one respect: this is not just a debate about growth, because any dummy can borrow tomorrow’s money to spend today and call the increased activity “growth,” which has been central to every Labour Government since the second world war.
The Government need to focus on wealth creation, in which we turn our unique intellectual property into goods and services that do not exist today, or into better goods and services than exist today. That means dealing with the supply-side constraints on the economy, making more private capital available to scale up companies, getting more international investment in the United Kingdom and making us more competitive globally. No one in the world owes us a living, and no Government can guarantee increasing living standards to the next generation. Only a successful free-market country in a free-market world can achieve that, and the sooner we get there, the better.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
This is a cost of chaos Budget. Everyone is now paying the price for Conservative incompetence. This Conservative Government crashed our economy with their reckless, unfunded tax cuts. They have presided over years of low growth, low investment and declining productivity, and now they are eroding our public services and hiking taxes on ordinary people, all while slashing taxes on the big banks and refusing to close the windfall tax loophole that has allowed Shell to avoid paying a single penny.
The British people need a Government with a plan for a fairer economy that can secure future prosperity.
Sarah Olney
I will not give way, as the right hon. Gentleman has just spoken.
The British people need a Government who truly value public services, and who focus on removing barriers to economic growth by tackling workforce issues and rebuilding trade, yet all we have instead is Conservative chaos and incompetence. Thanks to the Conservatives’ economic mismanagement, Britain is getting poorer; we are all getting poorer.
Families across the UK are set for the largest fall in living standards since records began. The coming months will see family budgets put under extreme pressure. Mortgage payments are set to explode, doubling to their highest level on record next year. Energy bills will be almost £2,000 a year higher than they were in 2021, and the weekly shop is becoming more and more expensive. This is simply unmanageable with the tax rises announced by the Chancellor.
The Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget cost the public finances £30 billion, and now the Government have hiked taxes by £24 billion, forcing the public to clean up their mess. Everyone will be hit by unfair stealth tax rises, and more than 5 million people will be dragged into a higher band as a result, yet they will not see any benefit from the higher taxes they pay.
The Conservative Government are trying to pin the blame for all our economic woes on global factors, but the fact is these global challenges are hitting the UK harder than other major economies. We are set for the worst GDP decline in Europe next year, we are the only G7 country to have a smaller economy than before the pandemic and we have the third lowest growth forecast in the OECD.
Businesses are also really struggling right now. Conservative chaos and incompetence are forcing small businesses to suffer under crippling uncertainty, and many have already closed their doors. Last week, I spoke to a group of independent publicans in my constituency, and every single one had grave concerns about the future viability of their business. One publican told me that their current situation is 10 times worse than during the pandemic, because this time round they have no support from the Government. The business rates relief announced in the autumn statement is cold comfort to a sector that was promised a fundamental review of the unfair rates system. The previous reduction of VAT to 5% gave hospitality a lifeline during the pandemic, and the publicans I speak to say that a return to this rate would provide much-needed relief in the new year as the cost of living really starts to bite.
Publicans also need urgent clarity on energy bill support after April, as they will not be able to survive without continued assistance. I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the hospitality sector, which is so integral to business, British industry and local communities. I would welcome a statement from the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), on the steps the Government will take to support hospitality in the months ahead.
I was pleased to hear the Chancellor finally acknowledge workforce constraints in his speech last Thursday. Economic inactivity is a huge barrier to growth, and I welcome the review of the issues holding back workforce participation. In his review, I urge the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to consider the impact of our inadequate childcare system on women’s participation in the labour market.
The Conservatives must also accept that their failure to deliver effective public services has led to a dramatic increase in the number of people who are long-term sick. The OBR forecasts that an additional 1.1 million people will need health and disability benefits in four years’ time, taking the number registered as unable to work to a record high of 3.5 million.
The UK’s labour shortages cannot be filled by a review of workforce participation alone. We must also look at our broken visa and immigration system, and acknowledge the impact that Brexit has had on our labour market. Brexit has also been disastrous for UK trade. Rather than opening up opportunities for global trade, businesses have been inundated with red tape. The OBR forecasts that the UK’s trade intensity will be 15% lower in the long term than if we had remained in the EU. Trade is vital for economic growth. It is way beyond time that the Government finally got a grip and started rebuilding our trading relationships.
The Liberal Democrats are the only party with a comprehensive plan to rebuild trust and co-operation with Europe, to rebuild ties with our largest trading partner and to grow our economy. The Conservatives have no plan for future prosperity. We need a plan for an innovation-led economy aligned to net zero; one that sustains economic growth and fuels a fairer society with high-quality public services. Instead, the Conservatives have inflicted higher taxes and weaker public services on everyone, all without a proper mandate and all to pay for the damage that they caused in the first place.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I want to take a few minutes to make a few brief points, which I hope go with the flow of some of the excellent speeches we have heard. Before I do, I want to say something about the nature of last week’s autumn statement. One Opposition Member said that it was full of smoke and mirrors, but it was nothing of the sort. It was a straightforward, honest, blunt assessment of our economic situation and fiscal circumstances. Before the autumn statement, I made the point that if anybody in this House could be trusted to come up with the most “untricky”, straightforward, honest fiscal event, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and that is exactly what he did.
Opposition Members have been suggesting, yet again, that we are not spending enough and we need to spend more. I say to them that all the way through the pandemic and the lockdowns, theirs were the voices calling for further lockdowns and more restrictions. Even though we were spending hundreds of billions of pounds supporting families and businesses, Opposition Members were calling for yet more spending. Who did they think was going to pay for that? These moments of reckoning we are facing were always going to come, and the statement presented by the Chancellor last week reflected the honesty of that.
As other Members have said, the backdrop to the statement is the global energy crisis, which is fuelling the cost of living pressures that so many families in our constituencies are facing. An extraordinary number of households in this country lack basic financial resilience; they do not have the savings and reserves to enable them to withstand the shocks we have seen in the past two to three years. So I welcome the cost of living measures that my right hon. Friend has brought forward in the autumn statement.
We have heard the idea that this package lacks either compassion or financial firepower behind it, but next year alone the cost of living measures will cost £26 billion, and that does not include the extra £11 billion cost of the full uprating of working-age benefits. As one voice who had consistently been calling for the full social security uprating at this event, I welcome the clarification that the Chancellor brought, but this is a very expensive policy. We are talking about implementing the triple lock on the state pension and the full uprating of social security for working-age people by 10.1%.
David Linden
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for being one of the few voices on the Government Benches who have spoken about the need to uprate benefits. However, does he not agree that part of the problem with the cost of living crisis, which is not necessarily a new thing, is that it highlights the inadequacy of the current social security system and why we must have a root-and-branch review of what had gone wrong long before the war in Ukraine and long before covid?
Stephen Crabb
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will go on to say something about that, but I agree with the point he is making.
Over the past 10 to 11 years, what the Government have done, in essence, is hold back increases in working-age benefits while boosting the state pension for older people. That is very much part of the picture. When wages did not increase in the way we wanted them to, following the last financial crisis, we saw an increase in in-work poverty as a direct result. I wish to flag up three areas that should be longer-term concerns for this Government.
I welcome the additional spending on health and education announced in the autumn statement, but let us not forget that our spending on education, as a percentage of GDP, has been squeezed over the past 10 or 20 years; this is a long-term trajectory. As a country, we are not spending anything like as much as we should be on our skills and vocational education if we are to see increases in productivity. We are also not spending as much as we should on our armed forces and on defence. We are not spending what we should be on these other areas because three large areas are not sustainable in the long run and they are constraining Chancellors of the Exchequer in their decisions.
The first area I wish to flag up is the triple lock. I called for it to honoured during this cost of living crisis, but there are long-term question marks as to its sustainability. I asked the House of Commons Library to do some calculations for me. It found that over the past 10 years if we had increased the state pension by CPI—the consumer prices index—inflation rather than by the triple lock measures, we would have saved almost £13 billion. If we had applied the same uprating measures to the state pension as we did to working-age benefits, that figure would have become about £23 billion. The triple lock is a very expensive long-term policy. It has played a hugely important role in lifting many pensioners out of poverty—no one will forget the derisory 75p increase in the state pension that the last Labour Government made—but I want those on the Treasury Bench to bear in mind that we need a more honest discussion about that area.
The second area to mention, which has already been flagged up this afternoon, is working-age benefits and economic inactivity. Some 9 million people in this country are economically inactive. Many of them have good reasons for this, such as older people and students, but there are millions of people in this country who could work—many of them want to work—but are finding themselves increasingly distant from the labour market.
Chris Stephens
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions is looking at some of what he is discussing. Is he as concerned as I am that a good number of disabled people were in work during the pandemic but there has been an increase in unemployment among them since, because employers are moving away from home working? We need to look at incentives to help disabled people, particularly in respect of home working, and to be creative in some of our thinking.
Stephen Crabb
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. A number of trends since the pandemic should be causes of concern: the drop in the number of older workers; the increase in younger people with mental health issues who are being signed off on long-term sick; and the trend in disabled workers that he mentions. There is a lot there that the review of working-age people needs to get to grips with. We all meet employers in our constituencies who complain that they cannot hire workers and cannot find enough staff, yet we are paying millions of people to not work. There is a hugely important job to be done in this area in the longer term.
The final area I wish to flag up is NHS spending. For an increasingly large number of people, certainly in my constituency, the vision and model of the NHS is just not working. NHS dentistry is ceasing to operate for a great many families. People are emptying their savings accounts so that they can go private to pay for hip and knee replacements, which they cannot get on the NHS. That is happening under the Welsh Labour Government in Wales, but some of the same pressures and trends are at work elsewhere in the country as well.
We continue to find more and more funding for the NHS every year, but this health service is not meeting needs, particularly those of working-age people. We are not seeing people who are facing long-term sickness getting their health needs addressed. Especially important—I flagged this earlier but I will finish by reiterating it—is the crisis in mental health in our country, particularly for younger people. If we do not invest in mental health and real solutions for younger people, we are going to see increasing numbers of them signed off as long-term sick.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Last week’s autumn statement failed to address our major economic problems. We have had 12 years of cuts leading to the collapse of our public services. The Government are now proposing another round of austerity, but, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is nothing left to cut.
The Chancellor’s statement leaves people facing a winter of hardship, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies admitting that we have just got “a whole lot poorer”. It leaves our NHS, councils, schools, transport and police all unable to cope financially. It does nothing for small businesses struggling with bills and at risk of going under, or for new businesses, such as the independent vet practice, Bridge Referrals, in Boldon in my constituency, which has raised its concerns with me about soaring energy bills.
The statement also does nothing for our local government services. Councils have lost billions from their budget and cannot cope with more cuts. It does nothing for public sector workers who have seen their pay eroded—their wages are worth less now than they were in 2010. The autumn statement proposes more real-terms pay cuts, pushing more public service workers into food poverty. We have already seen reports that nurses, teachers and firefighters are now reliant on food banks. It does nothing for our NHS. As Health Secretary, the current Chancellor caused a huge amount of damage to our NHS with cuts and privatisation, leaving us with a waiting list of 7 million, 132,000 staff vacancies across our NHS, and another 165,000 vacancies in care. Now he wants to pretend that the NHS is being protected. Well, it is not. We can all see the push towards a two-tier system that prices the poorest out of healthcare.
There was nothing in the autumn statement to protect the lowest paid and most vulnerable in our communities. With average rent up by more than 8%, and some landlords asking for as much as a 15% rise, there was nothing to protect private renters. There was nothing for the 800,000 children living in poverty who do not even get a free school meal, and nothing for families who are living in fuel and food poverty.
I am in daily contact with people who are struggling—struggling not with a choice of heating or eating but because they are now unable to do either. Kathleen, a 73-year-old woman from Wardley in my Jarrow constituency, emailed me to say that she has cut back on both heating and eating and does not know what else to do. Then there is the couple living in Hebburn with two kids. A year ago, they still donated to the food bank. Now, they are using it themselves. They are turning to the food bank for blankets to keep warm and food for their kids. They have given up their car. They are both still working, but their bills and food prices have risen so much that they are now struggling and are at risk of losing their home.
So many people tell me that they cannot see any hope of things getting better. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. That is what the last 12 years of a Tory Government and the Chancellor’s autumn statement have done, and are doing, to our communities. On top of this, the autumn statement will force families such as the couple in Hebburn to pay more in tax, as the freeze in the income tax threshold equals a pay cut for millions. We have a stealth tax rise and a rise in council tax. We cannot carry on like this.
When the Chancellor said that the UK will “pay our way”, he meant that our communities will pay. When he said, ahead of his autumn statement, that
“everyone will have to make sacrifices”,
he did not actually mean everyone. The UK billionaires who increased their wealth by £55 billion last year will not be making any sacrifices. The companies that made obscene excess profits will not be making sacrifices. Those who can afford to make sacrifices are not being asked to pay for the crisis that their class has caused.
The OBR’s assessment is that this never-ending austerity will lead to a further decline of 7% in our living standards. Yet the Chancellor claims that his Government are compassionate. There is nothing in the autumn statement that shows compassion. A compassionate Government would ensure that our kids were not hungry. A compassionate Government would introduce a one-off 1% wealth tax on households with more than £1 million, generating £260 billion, but, instead, the Government are content to force people into deeper poverty while lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses. People in our communities need investment, not more cuts. In her summing up, will the Minister tell us when the Government will stop making the political choice to keep people in poverty?
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
“There is nothing in the autumn statement that shows compassion” was one of the last sentences from the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). With the triple lock protected, benefits up by 10.1%, the household energy cap extended, a £900 support package for households on means-tested benefits, £300 support payments to pensioners, £150 to individuals on disability benefits, energy bill support extended into next year, a below-inflation 7% cap on social rents that will save the average renter £200, the education budget protected at £2.3 billion—she did mention children—and an increase in NHS spending of £3.3 billion, is there anything but compassion running through this autumn statement?
I am happy to go so far on economic policy. There is a fair cop that we have made some mistakes on economic policy—that is a perfectly fair cop. But we cannot go into a different galaxy of common sense, where there is no economic credibility, and pretend that that is the reality. I have to question those on the Opposition Benches: if their solution to the economic crisis we face hinges on non-dom status and private schools and does not mention private enterprises, growth and global factors, we are in a different galaxy.
I will go back to where I was planning to start my speech by saying that I had the great pleasure of being parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor—or more accurately Chancellors—in the build-up to the statement. I must say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is a fantastic Member of Parliament and last week delivered an incredibly difficult statement both eloquently and with an underlying level of compassion that we should be very proud of.
The Chancellor set out quite firmly the circumstances we face as a country. All these factors—the pandemic we have gone through, in which we spent £400 billion trying to keep the economy on track, the supply chain issues that came from that global pandemic, the damage that has done to the businesses up and down the country and the costs they face, the increases and challenges to shipping or the 630,000 people who have dropped out of the workforce since the pandemic—are inflationary and have created huge pressures. The OBR report, which I am sure the Labour party has read with great interest, clearly identifies global headwinds as the primary cause of the situation we are in. Does anybody from Labour want to challenge that? No—we are moving on.
The second thing we must look at is Vladimir Putin’s war. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made some interesting points about patriotism and how we address these economic circumstances. We have spent £2.3 billion as a country on the situation in Ukraine, but there has been something along the lines of £150 billion of additional spending on energy within our economy over the past year. That is a huge increase; as the Chancellor would quickly point out, it is another NHS, and £55 billion of that is coming from Government coffers—again, I would suggest compassionately—to households and businesses up and down this country.
We face a challenge of inflation, of war on our doorstep and of global markets losing confidence. That has a ripple-down effect and, unfortunately, the circumstances we find ourselves in mean that the Chancellor had to make some difficult decisions. I think he did so in a way that tries not only to help individuals and families with the cost of living but to provide confidence that Britain can pay its way in the world. When Opposition Members bandy around somewhat childish policies, whether on non-dom status or private schools—it doesn’t half feel as if we are back in the 2015 election with those two; I cannot wait to see the new version of the “Ed stone”—it seems to me as if we are on a different planet.
I wanted to add some notes of caution, however, because I was not entirely happy with everything in the statement. First, there are the labour shortages we face. We increased working-age benefits—I believe there is a compassionate argument for that—and the minimum wage, but our small businesses are struggling to recruit and retain staff, and I worry about the impact that that will have on the labour market. It will have to be monitored very closely.
Secondly, more money for the NHS is of course welcome, but only if we see a proportionate increase when it comes to outputs. We have left the NHS in a difficult situation: covid restrictions are still in place in a lot of venues, and we need to remove them as quickly as possible. Hospitals have been operating at around 80% to 85% of capacity en masse. We cannot get back to previous levels and clear the backlog, which requires us to go above 100%, if we are operating at an 85% building capacity.
However, I very much welcome the Chancellor’s comments on having a workforce plan, which will help to create a longer-term, sensible solution for the NHS, particularly in dentistry and mental health, in which our workforce numbers are woefully low.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and, in particular, for raising mental health. I have been looking just today at the startling figures stating that 215 young people took their lives in 2021—the highest figure since records began. The workforce needs nurses and doctors, but also psychologists and mental health professionals going forward—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on that point. It is crucial that we address those issues to support young people and their potential.
Mark Fletcher
I completely agree. We have to be aware of the situation that the pandemic created in mental health. We talk about and acknowledge mental health a lot more, which is a positive thing for society, but our health workforce is well behind where we are as a society on conversational issues. We also have to address pressures relating to image and social media, which affect young people in particular, and the fact that, although we are all so much more connected through mobile devices, we are so much more isolated and judge ourselves in those circumstances. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point.
Jonathan Gullis
On mental health, I am sure that my hon. Friend will back the cross-party “No Time To Wait” campaign that I launched with my friend James Starkie. Our pilot from the Royal College of Nursing is ready to be picked up by the Government to get more mental health nurses into GP surgeries. We know that 40% of all GP appointments are now related to mental health. Will my hon. Friend be a doughty champion for that cause?
Mark Fletcher
Well, what choice do I have? As a note of caution, I think we get a little lost when we talk about GP practices. I am not sure that the model of primary care that we have become so used to is necessarily the most efficient. There are other models, and indeed, using online technology can sometimes be considerably better. I add that note of caution about using GP practices, but other than that, my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion and he has got his clip for social media.
I will add another note of caution, about education. The increase in the schools budget is incredibly welcome, but I am slightly concerned about the lack of mention of further education. Some of our colleges are in a very difficult situation, and I worry that we may not have addressed that in the autumn statement. That is also somewhat underlined by the investment zones and the fact that the Chancellor announced a shift towards using higher education in particular in less-well-off areas, which, I have to say, may be a mistake. If he had extended FE into that mix, it would perhaps have been a more interesting and appealing prospect.
My final note of caution is on levelling-up funding. Although the Chancellor announced that round 2 would be happening, he was silent on round 3, and I am slightly concerned that it will get lost in the mix.
There are positives, however. Capital expenditure is maintained, R&D is maintained and the gigabit roll-out is maintained. All those are incredibly important. The shift towards nuclear and the backing for Sizewell C are incredibly important. As a Derbyshire MP, I hope that we will go further on small modular reactors. We as a country need to pursue the fantastic prospect from Rolls-Royce because it will play a huge part in our energy mix. We are incredibly lucky that 40% of our energy now comes from renewables, but we can go much further. Nuclear plays a huge role in that, and we need to continue banging that drum.
I will finish on a positive note: energy efficiency. We had a policy that came out as a stimulus package. It was far from effective, actually, and if I have a note of agreement with those on the Labour Front Bench, it is around energy efficiency and the fact that we need to do more. We need to reduce demand for energy and make sure that homes, particularly for those who are less well off, are better insulated. I have seen some of that on the ground. The social sector part of that particular scheme was effective—it was the private sector bit that was terrible—and I would like to see more done on that front.
In short, with some notes of caution, I think the Chancellor did a rather good job. Tackling inflation will be incredibly difficult, but it is absolutely the right thing to solve. Alongside that, I would add, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said so elegantly, that growth and confidence are vital for the future of the economy, and if we do not have those in the mix as well, I do not know what we are doing here.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It will be of little surprise that I intend to speak against the autumn statement, because it unjustly places the burden on the ordinary people of the countries of the United Kingdom. At the weekend, I was at a performance of a show called “Kelty Clippie” by the Kingdom Theatre Company. That performance took me back to a time when our mining communities took pride in their work, when our yards built rigs, when Rosyth was a substantial naval base and local businesses were able to thrive.
While the discovery of North sea oil and gas promised an embarrassment of riches for Scotland, Gavin McCrone’s report that disclosed the fact was hidden by successive Labour and Tory Governments. Scotland’s economy and industry were subsequently dismantled. Oil and gas have kept the UK Treasury pumped full of cash, and Scotland’s industry has been decimated. I did not come here to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of Tory policy that has been rejected by the people of Scotland for all my life. I came here to argue Scotland’s case: the autumn statement places the burden on ordinary people. They already faced a cost of living crisis, but then we had the £30 billion cost of the incompetence of the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, who will now receive a stipend of more than £100,000 for blowing up the economy. That crisis is on top of 12 years of Tory austerity, and is not because of profligate public services. They are breaching the supposed core principles of free marketeers. Failure is supposed to self-regulate markets.
The public’s money has been used to bail out failing bankers. The public’s money is now bailing out failing energy companies, and the UK’s largest producer of—[Interruption.] Sorry, somebody keeps phoning me; I am going to switch it off. The UK’s largest producer of semiconductors was to be purchased by a Chinese company. That has been blocked by this Government. That is because it is an essential service, they say, and it cannot be foreign-owned, but many of the UK’s energy suppliers are foreign-owned. What is more essential a service than the provision of energy?
The autumn statement is not about fiscal responsibility; it is a frantic response to the utter incompetence of this Tory Government. There is one point on which I agreed with the Chancellor when he spoke—his slip of the tongue that this is the English Parliament. It certainly feels like it from my position. What place does Scotland have here? We have a smattering of Unionist MPs, but Scotland is shouted down from the Government Benches. Our people are ignored. Over the last nine months, £8 billion of North sea oil and gas revenue has flowed into His Majesty’s Treasury. The percentage share for Scotland was zero. The block grant gets tighter every year. The Scottish Government are pilloried. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at last week’s PMQs spoke about the renewables revolution and investment to deliver jobs and prosperity, but who for? Not for Scotland. The profits still flow to His Majesty’s Treasury and to corporate interests.
Energy for 2.8 million homes is cabled directly from Scotland’s territorial waters to England. There are no jobs for Scotland. There are no supply chain jobs. The yards sit idle. There is a continued plundering of our resources, and it sincerely saddens me that the Scottish Government replicated UK policy with the ScotWind licence, passing vast profits to corporate interests. A 25-year licence worth an estimated £350 billion was sold for a measly £700 million.
The autumn statement delivers nothing for Scotland. Scottish councils are losing out on levelling-up funds administered by Westminster. Despite the many risks of freeports for employment rights and protections, Scotland loses again. The Chancellor has failed to set out costed plans for how these freeports will operate, be funded and be essential to regeneration, job creation and trade with European and other overseas markets. This all shows that the empty promises of Brexit are exactly that—empty.
The Chancellor said that his priorities were energy, infrastructure and innovation, but Fife is losing out on all three. Where is the investment for direct ferry links from Rosyth to Europe, now that European motorways of the sea funding is no longer available? Where is the investment in renewables and the jobs bonanza we were promised to secure the future of the BiFab yards? Why are families across Fife and my constituency being plunged further and further into fuel poverty, forced to pay skyrocketing energy prices, extortionate standing charges and higher rates on prepayment meters or, sadly, forced into self-disconnection because they cannot afford to pay? There will be even less help from April next year.
One achievement of Tory policy over the last 12 years is the growth of food banks, and even they are under threat from this Tory Government. The Kirkaldy food bank is facing immense costs because need has increased vastly. Its monthly costs used to be around £2,000, but they are now approaching £20,000, and the food bank may have to close. Where will people turn to then?
The Government should be ashamed of this statement, which places the burden of their failures on the backs of the people. It is time for Scotland to take the full powers of an independent country. Our vast resources must be put to work for the common good of the Scottish people.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of this autumn statement. In the time available to me, I will talk about an issue that has come up a lot today, but I will talk about it in a very particular way to illustrate the problems we have with it. That issue is inflation.
Inflation is at the heart of our economic problem. Inflation is the reason why food prices are high. Inflation is the reason why energy prices are so difficult to manage. Inflation, as we have heard from many Members, is the core reason why the debt interest bill that the Government have to pay is now so high. We have heard a lot about the different global causes of this inflation, but it is worth making the point again that this inflation is happening in every single western country—it is happening in most countries in the world, not just western countries. We should never stop underlining that point. This is not about escaping political responsibility—I am not playing a party political game here—but we can deal with the problem only if we understand its true causes.
The first cause, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), is about central banks and the policy of quantitative easing, which pumped several trillion pounds into the economy over the last 10 years. Regardless of people’s view as to whether that was necessary at the beginning as we came out of the financial crisis, many people rightly ask whether, if we—not just globally, but the Bank of England—expand the money supply to such a degree, it is a shock that, at some point, when there is an exogenous factor such as the war in Ukraine, inflation appears to be structurally embedded and higher than it was before. The Bank of England and global central banks, such as the US Fed and the European Central Bank, need to examine their policies over the last 10 years that have contributed to the global rise in inflation.
The second global cause of inflation is what has been going on in China. Its zero covid policy means that its growth rate this year is 3.2% or 3.3%, while its growth target is 5.5%. China tends to hit its targets—at least officially—so that shows that it is not soaking up global demand in the way that it did, which is also having a big impact. At the same time, it hurts supply chains across the world, particularly this country’s manufacturing businesses as well as others, which need China to be open.
Those problems have contributed to inflation, but I do not want to focus on them. I want to focus on the cost of energy, because that underpins many other things in our economy. Indeed, the difficulties that the pound sterling, the euro and many other currencies had, and still have, against the dollar in the last couple of months were in large part because of energy prices being priced in dollars, and the impact of that on the world economy.
We are trying to decarbonise our economy, as hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, but oil and gas are still hugely significant to absolutely everything in the economy. Structurally, demand for oil and gas from the developing world—not primarily China, but India and sub-Saharan Africa—is rocketing, because the people in those countries want to have what we have. They want to industrialise and make their lives better, and they need energy to do that. At the same time, we are seeing lower investment in new oil and gas by major energy companies. That is happening for myriad reasons, but principally because the messages that we have been sending around the necessary green investment have made shareholders demand higher returns for shareholders rather than those profits going into investment.
The long and short of it is that we do not have enough oil and gas and the demand for it is rising, so prices are going up. Although the war in Ukraine has hugely exacerbated and accelerated the difficulty, it is worth saying that the problems with energy have been building for a long time. Even when the war in Ukraine concludes, as we hope happens soon, prices will still be higher than we have been used to.
Every economic expansion in the world over the last 300 years was founded on not just innovation but cheap energy. We have to be honest as a House, as a country and as the Conservative party that all our hopes and dreams about what our economy should do—all the funds that we want to put into the NHS, all the infrastructure that we want to build, all the tax cuts that we want to give—are founded on having affordable energy for individuals and businesses.
What are we going to do about that? All hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we need more renewable investment—more nuclear, more wind, more solar. We will always talk about investing more in those things, so it is about not just the investment, but our ability to get it done. I am sure many Members will share my frustration at the gap between our intentions, whether through legislation or policy, on the investments that are made and the big numbers that we talk about and see, and the slow deliverability of that on the ground. In energy in particular, the amount of time it takes to get a nuclear power station off the ground is too long. The amount of time it takes even to get a wind farm and wind terminals off the ground is too long; in fact it is getting longer. On solar, we have problems with planning in that area as well.
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying. The Science and Technology Committee, on which I sit, is currently looking at our nuclear investments for the future. Is he aware that, for example, the number of documents submitted in planning for Sizewell C is over 4,000 compared with about 1,000 for Hinkley Point C and it is basically the same design? Is that not an example of what he is talking about?
Bim Afolami
It is, and I would love to speak much more about that point, but I do not have much time. I would just say that we must start to take seriously the issues of delivering much more renewable energy on our own soil, and of exploring oil and gas in the North sea to the maximum we can. A lot of the other economic debates we have are largely irrelevant in the context of that energy challenge.
We have heard a lot today about investment for public services. I remind all Members, particularly Opposition Members, that we cannot oppose measures for the growth of our economy, and we cannot always oppose investments or incentives for investment for successful businesses or individuals and, at the same time, say that we need more investment in our public services. We need to remember that the only money spent by the Government is the money that we generate as a private sector and private enterprise. That is why we need to tackle inflation, that is why the core of tackling inflation is dealing with the cost of energy and that is why I support this autumn statement.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let me be absolutely clear: the only thing this autumn statement achieves is further inequality, further injustice and further unfairness to our communities, and that is after 12 years of the devastation of our communities through a well-thought-out, well-planned ideological agenda.
In my constituency of Bradford East—let us deal with facts; Conservative Members want to talk about facts, so let us talk about them—50% of children are living in absolute poverty. Fifty per cent. of those may not even have a hot meal today. Many of those families will be using food banks—as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said, where they can be made available—in a tragic society in which food banks are now more dominant than fast food places. That is the stark reality.
What does this autumn statement do to alleviate the poverty in my constituency? What shall I tell the children in my constituency about what this autumn statement does for them? What does it do to make sure every child will get a hot meal today? What does it do to make sure that families—including working families—will not use food banks? Those are the questions that my constituents and those of hon. Members in this House will be asking us when we go back. It is fine playing ping-pong or flashy economics across the Chamber, but that is not the question we will be asked.
This statement is a missed opportunity, just like the last statement was, the statement before that and, tragically, the statements we have had over the last 12 years. I am astonished when I come to debates such as this and see Conservative Members—they have even done it today—using that defence, as though the last Labour Government 12 years ago are suddenly to blame for all the economic problems we face today. I remind hon. Members: they may be able to use that argument for the first, second or third year, but we are four general elections forward. We are on our fifth Prime Minister. We have changed God knows how many Chancellors. They cannot use that argument today. We have to move on, accept responsibility and place it where it lies.
The fact remains that the UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. Our country is the fifth richest on the planet, yet when we leave this House and its ivory towers, and go to my constituency and those of other hon. Members, we see a country that looks nothing like one of the richest. We see ambulances backed up queuing, children crammed into bursting classes, hospital wards overflowing into corridors, GP appointments that can never be booked, trains that do not run on time, buses that do not turn up, police officers that cannot attend crimes, social security that provides very little security, rivers that are literally sewers, and homes that are riddled with damp and mould. Those are not signs of the fifth richest country; they are signs of a country that is broken and has been broken for a long time—for 12 years.
We know where the blame for our broken country lies. It lies with the party in government that has squandered and misspent over a decade in power. It lies with the party that imposed cruel austerity on our public services. But I do not expect this Government to understand. After all, they are led by a Prime Minister who is not only the richest Member of Parliament, but one of the country’s richest citizens. He is twice as rich as the King. He has never known hardship. He is supported by a Chancellor who has never been hard up or had to scrimp and save like my constituents, or choose between heating and eating like my constituents. He has never asked how he is going to get from one day to the next, as my constituents have.
If I come across as angry, perhaps it is because I am angry. I am enraged that over the past 12 years this Tory Government have robbed my constituents in Bradford of their futures, to line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends and donors. I am enraged by the fact that, despite the country falling down around their ears, with crumbling schools and hospitals, they still will not admit the carnage they have caused. Indeed, they sit there and they cheer.
Jonathan Gullis
As someone who probably speaks with the same sort of vim and vigour as he does, I always admire the passion of the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. He laid out a litany of issues across our country. Of course I am not in denial of those situations. Can he promise the House, and members of the public, that if Labour were in government, taxation on individuals—not the wealthiest, but average income householders—would not increase at all in any of Labour’s fiscal policies to help to deliver on their fiscal plans? General taxation would not in any way increase—can he deliver that promise to the House right now?
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman, who I normally have good banter with, tragically on this occasion illustrates the very point I make. His constituents expect him to scrutinise his own Government, who are not alleviating poverty even in his constituency. When he goes back to his constituency, I suggest he asks those questions of constituents and they will provide the answer to the question for him, which is this: it is his Government who for the past 12 years have made their lives a misery.
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman is making an outstanding contribution. Does he agree that gross greed and the deliberate exploitation of people lies at the heart of the fundamental problem we have in our society? We must talk about that, challenge it and eradicate it.
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Going back to my opening lines, the reality remains that what this statement does—perhaps the surest thing it achieves—is further inequality, injustice and unfairness.
Imran Hussain
I will not give the hon. Gentleman time again. He asked a question and I gave him a perfectly good suggestion: to go and ask his constituents. He will find the answer there.
What is shocking is that Conservative Members sat there and cheered and applauded when the ex-Chancellor delivered the fiscal event that crashed our economy. They cheered, and people in Bradford and elsewhere across the country now face unaffordable mortgages. They cheered at soaring energy bills. They cheered at spiralling food costs and they cheered at mounting fuel prices. That disconnect with the rest of the country, that incapability to understand the challenges that people in Bradford and elsewhere face, is why this autumn statement delivered next to nothing for my constituents and why no Tory Budget ever will.
After 12 years of failure, carnage and chaos, it is even more apparent than ever that the Tory Government have run out of ideas and run out of road. They have no mandate from the country and no support from the public. Instead of presenting this watered-down Budget that fails to properly address any of the challenges and hardships that people in Bradford face, the Government should have done the right thing—the principled thing—and called for a general election. But the reason Conservative Members—including the Prime Minister—will not call for a general election is that they know their fate. They know that, in a general election, the British people will repay them for the hardship, chaos and absolute devastation that they have brought to our communities. Let me assure them again: when a general election is called, the British people will pay them back with interest at the ballot box.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think that Madam Deputy Speaker suggested eight minutes for speeches. We have had some slippage on that with a few speakers. So could people try to stick to that figure? You will do that, won’t you, Mr Bell?
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), although I utterly reject his thesis and characterisation of the response of those on the Government Benches; that is not appropriate in respect of this statement or the previous one. These are undoubtedly difficult times and they require tough decisions. That is what we saw from the Chancellor last week. The priority is to restore economic stability and sound money and, most of all, to tackle inflation.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for talking about inflation, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). As my hon. Friend said, the inflation that we are experiencing, which is happening everywhere, is the most pernicious thing that we have to tackle right now. We have not had inflation at this level since I was in short trousers. The priority with inflation is to get on top of it quickly. If we allow it to persist, it will make everyone poorer again and again—it erodes people’s savings and the value of people’s salaries, which affects the cost of living—so we must tackle it. The measures that the Chancellor set out last week do that.
At the same time as tackling inflation, the Government are protecting people from inflation through the energy price guarantee—it is very expensive, which is another reason why we will need to make savings elsewhere—and maintaining the triple lock. A number of my constituents wrote to me about that—I have a considerably above-average number of pensioners in Newcastle-under-Lyme and had a lot of correspondence about it. I assured them that I would go to the Chancellor and fight for them. I am pleased that he listened to me and like-minded colleagues and that we will put up the state pension by inflation. We will also put up pension credit by inflation in the new year and all benefits, including in-work benefits.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that we need to restore more conditionality. In a world where we have quite close to full employment at the moment—I accept that, as the OBR said, there may be some increase in unemployment—we need to encourage those who can take on more hours or go back into the labour market to do so. We are also being fair in protecting people from inflation through our biggest ever increase in the national living wage, which is now up to £10.42 an hour for those over 23—a boost of over £1,600 to annual earnings.
It is not just about stability; it is also about credibility and being honest with people, as the Exchequer Secretary said when opening the debate. It is about being honest and credible not only with the markets, but with the country. If we are to be honest and credible in this Chamber, we should acknowledge that mistakes were made in the mini-Budget. I thought the decision on the 45p tax rate was a mistake, and I communicated that privately to the Chancellor. That decision was reversed and now, contrary to what we have heard from some, we are asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the burden of taxation and lowered the 45p rate threshold to £125,000. Overall, this statement is a mixture of spending restraint and tax rises, but we are making sure that the burden falls on those who are most able to afford it—completely contrary to what Opposition Members have said today.
The Opposition do not seem to have a plan of their own. We kept being promised one today by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), but there never seemed to be one. The shadow Chancellor herself did not offer anything in her rather over-the-top response to the Chancellor’s statement last week. Again and again, people have brought up the last 12 years, but I repeat the point I made in an intervention: we inherited a £149 billion deficit and we worked hard to reduce it, repeatedly opposed by the Opposition. The national debt has increased because borrowing each year does that.
The Opposition like to blame global financial circumstances for situation—they like to say it was made in America—but the truth is that, as the International Monetary Fund said, by 2007 we were running the biggest structural deficit of any country in the G7. The idea that we should put the Labour party back in charge of another difficult situation is for the birds.
We are genuinely dealing with a situation largely caused by unprecedented external economic shocks. The biggest of those shocks was covid—a once-in-100-years event. That cost £400 billion—money we ultimately have to pay back, and as interest rates on Government debt rise, repaying those debts becomes more burdensome. I believe that £400 billion was money well spent: it saved jobs, it saved businesses and it saved lives. We should all be proud of what we did through covid, but we have to face the fact that there will be a reckoning.
The same is true of the energy shock. We have the first war in Europe for 75 years, and a once-in-50-years energy shock has followed. I think we can be proud of our response, both abroad in our support for the Ukrainians, in materiel and training for their armed forces and diplomatic support for Volodymyr Zelensky, and at home in shielding people, households and businesses from that shock, but it is expensive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) said, that costs an extra £150 billion; the Government are bearing a third of the cost, but it is a cost for everybody to bear, equivalent to an extra NHS. We need to find ways to pay for that.
Speaking of the NHS, the Chancellor—as befits a former Health Secretary and a former Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee—has protected our NHS in these difficult times, giving an extra £7.7 billion over the next two years to tackle precisely the issues we have heard about today, which I recognise in my own constituency. It is difficult for ambulances to get into hospitals because hospitals are operating beyond capacity, and it is difficult to get people out of hospital and into social care.
The ABCD plan proposed in the summer is the right approach; we need to tackle the backlog and get people seeing their GPs again. Putting extra money into the health service, even in these difficult economic times, is the right thing to do, as is the £4 billion we are putting into schools. We are protecting the budgets that matter the most to our constituents in places such as Newcastle, and no doubt Bradford East as well. The money will put real-terms per pupil funding back up to above 2010 levels—more than the Labour party has pledged to give schools.
We are also protecting the commitments we made during the general election to level up. Newcastle-under-Lyme has secured £34 million through the future high streets fund and the towns fund. Speaking of high streets, which are critical in constituencies such as mine, the business rates package we have offered—£14 billion over the next five years—and the long overdue revaluation, which will make a huge difference to business rates in the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme, are extremely welcome, as is the new relief for retail, hospitality and leisure being extended 50% next year and 75% the year after. That will make a real difference to the viability of existing shops in my town centre and the viability of the new shops that people open.
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out clearly a number of the financial issues that have been impacting the cost of living and need to be addressed. Does he agree that, in addition, we need to look at decentralised finance? With the collapse of FTX, and the fact that almost 10% of the UK population have some kind of engagement with the cryptocurrency markets, we need to ensure that consumer protection is at the forefront of what we are doing, have a deeper look at regulation and move that forward at speed.
Aaron Bell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising cryptocurrency, FTX and so on. She may know that I recently held a Westminster Hall debate on the pernicious reach of cryptocurrency into sport, and that one of her SNP colleagues held a separate debate on it. The Treasury needs to listen carefully to the issues being raised around cryptocurrency, and particularly the damage it is doing to young men, who are very susceptible to “get rich quick” schemes.
I am pleased that the Government resisted the temptation to cut long-term capital budgets, such as Sizewell C, the levelling-up fund and our investment in R&D, which is where we will get growth from in the future.
To conclude, these are difficult times, but I think we are taking action that is appropriate and fair. We are making sure that those with the broadest shoulders who can bear the burden do so. We are splitting the cost of covid and the energy price shock between tax rises and spending restraint. The OBR itself expects our package to reduce peak inflation and peak unemployment, and the Bank of England now expects lower inflation and lower peak interest rates, which will look after mortgage holders. All the while, we are looking after the NHS and our schools, as our constituents expect us to do. I have every confidence in the Chancellor and his statement, and in our ability to steer the economy through these troubled times.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
What a fascinating 60 days it has been. We were told 60 days ago by hon. Members on the Government Benches that they welcomed the fiscal event and statement from the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). In fact, as I recall, 60 days ago they were shouting, “More!” They then demanded that the Scottish Parliament follow suit and pass on the tax cuts they were introducing—so risible, it is incredible. And now, 60 days later, they welcome this U-turn and a completely different statement.
I want to speak first on whether this autumn statement benefits the wealthy or the poorest. The key test of that is found in two books. The OBR questioned the Government’s DWP and HMRC compliance measures that raise £2.8 billion a year by 2027-28. The Green Book tells us that of that £2.8 billion, £2.2 billion will be chasing social security fraud and error. By my sums, that means £0.6 billion is being used to chase tax avoidance and evasion. What a timid way of dealing with tax avoidance and evasion. The Tax Justice Network and the Public and Commercial Services Union estimate tax avoidance and evasion to be worth £70 billion, so the Government are seeking to recoup less than one hundredth of that tax avoidance and evasion—you really could not make it up. What message is it sending to the tax avoiders and evaders that the Government will be spending only so much and seem to be able to recoup so little?
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the oil giants, such as Shell and BP, and the FTSE 100 bosses, recording record profits and pay rises, who should be shouldering the burden of the Chancellor’s austerity budget, not our constituents who are struggling to make ends meet in a cost of living crisis?
Chris Stephens
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because we should be looking at an excess profits tax across the board. It is quite right to mention the oil and gas companies, but they are not the only ones who benefited from the pandemic. We now seem to be being told by the Government that tax avoidance and evasion somehow disappeared during the pandemic. That is the only conclusion we can reach when we look at the figures in these documents.
In addition, the Government seem to be making no attempt to discuss how we tackle energy prices. People have a very real perception that the regulators are on the side of the energy companies, not the consumers. That is exactly what the people on the streets believe when they talk about energy. We should start giving the regulators more teeth and encourage them to use their powers to go after the energy companies that are making excess profits, as well as to bring prices down for consumers, because that has to happen.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the absolutely crushing effect that energy costs are having on families and communities. Does he agree that off-gas grid supplies should be regulated as well? For too long they have been ignored, and people are paying substantially more to heat their homes than people on the gas grid do.
Chris Stephens
I agree, and my hon. Friend made powerful points earlier about costs, as did the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). Poverty is a real issue across the UK—it is not just an urban, but a rural issue—and it affects all the communities across these islands.
As much as I welcome the fact that benefits were uprated in line with inflation, it has always been regarded as a political fact that that should happen anyway, so we should not give the Government any kudos just for following what should take place. However, as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) rightly argued, food inflation has gone up by 16%, and we are seeing a rise in the use of food banks and affordable food projects, which are the next level above food banks. Pantries and larders are opening up in many of our communities to help people move away from food banks, and I am involved in many such projects in Glasgow South West.
Chris Stephens
I will in a second, but I want to talk about poverty and the Department for Work and Pensions—I am on the Work and Pensions Committee.
The DWP is closing offices and laying off its workers. Incredibly, the Department that is responsible for employment and social security is saying to its workforce, “You are no longer required,” because it is closing offices. That position is absolutely risible, and it is made even more risible by its refusal of home working for people who are under threat of redundancy. One thing that did work during the pandemic was home working; it helped people to get into the workplace. As we heard in my exchange with the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), when we encourage home working, we encourage people into paid employment.
It seems daft that Government Departments are telling their workforce, “Come into the office, come into these workplaces, but you can’t work from home.” The Government have to show a bit more creativity if they are serious about dealing with long-term unemployment, turning around people’s lives and getting them into work. It seems completely contradictory for them to say to their workforce, “You cannae work from home.” The position they find themselves in is completely and utterly risible.
I hope that the Minister will answer this question: of the 6,000 additional employees that the state is going to employ, what will the ratio be between the DWP and HMRC? I will make an educated guess: the overwhelming majority will end up in the DWP chasing social security fraud and error, not in HMRC tackling tax avoidance and evasion.
Finally, there was nothing in the statement about public sector pay policy. So many workers have taken the view that they have no alternative other than to withdraw their labour because of the low pay offers that they get from employers, including many in the public sector. The overwhelming majority of civil servants are not covered by pay review bodies, yet we do not know the Government’s policy on public sector pay. Public sector workers spend that money in the economy and there could be an economic boost if we give public sector workers the pay rise that they deserve. I hope that we will get an answer to that, because public sector workers deserve better than to be treated as the Government are treating them.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Stability, growth and public services: those were the three objectives that the Chancellor set himself in preparing his statement. Overall, in the face of enormous global challenges, he can be proud of how the statement has been received by the markets and by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which estimated, after considering it, that inflation would fall by 30% next year.
I understand the attraction for the Opposition of attributing the current economic situation to the Conservative Government. I repeat what I said on the Floor of the House last week: mistakes were made in the mini-Budget. However, Opposition Front Benchers must get to grips with the fact that those mistakes were quickly corrected. Almost none of the measures that were controversial were ever implemented.
The Opposition will have to say soon why this Government are the cause of the current crisis, when every expert—from the Bank of England to the Office for Budget Responsibility to the market—says otherwise. I gently draw the Opposition’s attention to the fact that since the autumn statement was published, sterling has continued on its upward trajectory back to its March rate, gilt yields have fallen 15% from their peak after the mini-Budget, and the Chancellor’s decisive action has stabilised the mortgage market.
The Opposition do not have to take my word for it. I invite them to consider the language used by the Governor of the Bank of England when he appeared before the Treasury Committee last week. The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), asked:
“on this important question of mortgages, because it matters so much to our constituents...how much of the increase that you see in the mortgage market today has come from that independent decision by the Bank of England to tighten monetary policy and how much has been due to the disruption to the gilt market that we saw in September and early October?”
The Governor answered:
“I think the September-October thing was obviously a short-lived thing...It is pretty much on the way to being gone. That was a thing that ran from...September through to the middle of October.”
With respect, if the Opposition are going to keep parroting the line that this was a crisis made in Downing Street, it is incumbent on them to say why the Governor of the Bank of England is incorrect. It is also incumbent on them to explain why, despite everything, the Conservative party is still ahead on British trust in our ability to manage the economy.
I want to touch on three important points that came out of the autumn statement. The first relates to the cost of living. I said last week that I was pleased to see the triple lock protected and benefits uprated, costly though that has been, because inflation has a disproportionate impact on those on the lowest incomes. I have to align myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling): it is right that the uprating is balanced by a review of the workforce, because since the pandemic began there has been a 25% increase in the number of people out of work by reason of long-term sickness. It is fair that that receives some serious scrutiny from the Department for Work and Pensions. I also welcome the increase in the national living wage to more than £10 an hour: the case for a minimum wage above £10 an hour has been quite strong for some time, but it is now overwhelming.
I hope that when the Chancellor returns to the House in the spring, he will say something about childcare. I have been working on the issue across the parties, particularly with Conservative colleagues, and with think-tanks and campaign groups; only last week I met the Women’s Budget Group and Pregnant Then Screwed. One of the most important takeaways is that, whatever cuts households make to their discretionary spending on leisure, holidays or other luxuries, one area that they are not cutting is childcare. I diverge slightly from the Opposition on this point, because I think some of the solutions are not monetary and we are not exploring all the opportunities with childminders, who offer an affordable and flexible form of childcare. I hope that the Government are thinking about the issue seriously. I think they are. I would rather they came back with a comprehensive package than with something piecemeal; I hope that that will come soon.
I also want to touch on the commitment to research and development that was made for the most dynamic sectors of our economy. Science, technology, life sciences and green industries all got a mention in the autumn statement, and all of them thrive in west Berkshire, including Stryker medical technology, Edwards Lifesciences, Vodafone, Roc Technologies, Fuel Cell Systems and Anesco. They are the great innovators of west Berkshire and they employ more than 5,000 people in my constituency alone.
The decision to protect the £20 billion R&D budget is about more than just meeting a manifesto commitment; it speaks to our ambition for those sectors, our direction of travel as a nation and our faith in the private sector to really drive growth. It also dovetails with the £800 million commitment that the Government have already made to supporting new frontiers through the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which remains one of the most exciting innovations since I arrived in Parliament. It remains the case, though, that investment budgets are still stubbornly underused, and I hope that the Government will go further in this area and continue to expand the qualifying criteria of R&D for tax credit purposes, because there are real opportunities for our economy if we can do that.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this final debate on the Chancellor’s autumn statement and I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her fantastic response to the statement last Thursday. Let us not forget that this Tory economic crisis was made in Downing Street and that after 12 long years of their failure, dithering, delay and fighting for the privileged few, we are being held back by a party that does not care about people in the real world.
This statement has done nothing to help the really hard-pressed communities in Newport West that sent me here. Yet again, the Tories have loaded the cost of their incompetence on to working people in Newport West and across the country. My constituent Jenny Cloete shared her story with me, and she said this:
“My family is struggling to put food on the table, and I work full time. I struggle with everyday living costs and I’m not the lowest paid. I’m scared to wake up, scared to think past tomorrow. Scared for what’s to come. Please stand up for those of us with no voice.”
Jenny is not alone. There are millions across the country who share those worries and fears.
There were two tests for the Government in the autumn statement: would they make fairer choices, and would they grow the economy? They have failed them both, but they have chosen to fail. Fairer choices could have been made, but they will now have to be made by the next Labour Government instead. Not only did the Conservatives in government fail to make the right choices but they are seemingly unable to put forward a serious plan for growth. Only Labour has a plan to escape the Tory doom loop and get our economy firing on all cylinders. I want to pay tribute to my constituents Shaun and Julie from Bassaleg post office in Newport West, who made it clear in a recent email to me that things are beyond tough. They said:
“We are working long hours, 6 days a week with no breaks and are working for less than the minimum wage.”
So much for the Tory plan to get everyone into work. Shaun and Julie are both full-time workers, but they still cannot make ends meet.
In this statement, the Tories introduced new stealth tax rises, turning the screws on working people with 24 Tory tax rises during this Parliament and a rise in the tax burden to its highest in 70 years. Worse, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that living standards are going to be worse at the end of this Parliament than at the start, with the biggest fall on record. That is a shocking indictment of Conservative party rule in Westminster, yet we now see Tory MPs doubling down on the new Prime Minister’s high-tax, low-growth model. We have been there before, and it does not work. This is why our growth is forecast to be the lowest in the G7 and the OECD over the next two years. This is what we get with Tories in government.
I am proud that Labour has a plan. Our country needs a serious plan for growth to escape the doom loop of Conservative economic mismanagement. That is why we will scrap business rates and replace them with a fairer system that is fit for the digital economy and ensures that our businesses are not at a disadvantage. That is why we have a modern industrial strategy to support the sectors of the future, and an active working partnership with business. We will support our entrepreneurs, and our start-up review will help to make Britain the best place to start and grow a new business, creating jobs and strengthening communities. Our green prosperity plan will create good jobs across the country. From the plumbers and builders needed to insulate homes to the engineers and operators for wind and other renewables, we will make Britain a world leader in the industries of the future and ensure that people in Newport West and across the UK have the skills to benefit from these opportunities.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister took the tough decisions necessary in the autumn statement to restore economic stability and tackle inflation. The UK Government understand that inflation makes everyone poorer, which is why it is right that their No. 1 priority is to grip inflation. Like many countries around the world, as has been mentioned many times in this debate, the UK is facing profound economic challenges from the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the covid pandemic.
We spent more than £400 billion supporting 14.5 million jobs during the pandemic. It is right that we start to pay it back now, rather than leaving it for future generations to pay the price. I am very pleased, like many Conservative Members and, I suspect, many Opposition Members, that the Government are standing by the most vulnerable, by uprating benefits in line with inflation and keeping the pensions triple lock. Those decisions are of great importance to my constituents in Clwyd South, as they have said to me in person and in many items of correspondence.
Much as I respect many Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), whom it is a pleasure to follow, they have given us precious little evidence of their alternative policies. My suspicion is that, if they are honest, they probably agree with most of the autumn statement.
A key point in this debate is that Labour’s plans, as they stand, would lead to an annual fiscal black hole of £148 billion, which equates to £5,474 per household. Labour has racked up £160 billion of annual spending commitments and only £11.2 billion of annual revenue increases across a five-year Parliament. I accept that the Opposition are reluctant to set out detailed spending and taxation policies at this stage in the electoral cycle, but it is incumbent on SNP, Labour or Liberal Democrat Members to say what they would do, in clear and evidenced terms, as an alternative to the Government’s policies.
Importantly, this Government’s tough decisions allow us to increase spending on schools and the NHS. We are providing £4 billion of additional funding to schools and £7.7 billion of additional funding to the NHS and social care sector over the next two years.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) claims that Labour would run everything a lot better, particularly the NHS, and I urge her to look at what is happening in Labour-run Wales. In the Welsh NHS, one in four people is on a waiting list of one type or another, whereas the figure in England is one in eight. I am a Member of Parliament for a north Wales constituency, and it is exceptionally difficult for my constituents to have a health service with one of the lowest levels of performance in the whole UK. If that is the shape of what Labour promises across the UK, it needs to go back to the Welsh Government to say that the Welsh health service should be run a lot better for my constituents and for the people of Wales.
I am also very pleased that defence spending will continue to exceed 2% of GDP, which is critical when we are supplying huge support to the Ukrainian people. I pay tribute to the leaders of my party who, over a number of years, have put the defence of this country, and the support of allies such as Ukraine, front and centre of their policies.
I am also pleased by the Government’s fair approach to taxation, which shields small businesses from tax rises and maintains the lowest headline rate of corporation tax in the G7, after it has risen to 25%. Further reforms to employer national insurance contributions have been announced, but small businesses will be protected from these increases through the small profits rate and employment allowance. Again, that is crucial to my constituency, which has a strong sector of small and medium-sized businesses. I am delighted that the Government are protecting their prospects and all that they provide for their communities in employment and gainful work, as that is also crucial.
Windfall taxes on energy companies have been much discussed, but those have also been extended and increased. That is a crucial part of the autumn statement. It is only fair that companies that have made genuine windfall profits as a result of the war in Ukraine make an additional contribution to pay for the support we have outlined. I think everyone accepts that the energy price guarantee is crucial, and the Government have announced more than £12 billion of additional targeted support to help the most vulnerable households. That is at the heart of this statement and the compassion contained in it. It is right that the Government are continuing to provide this year’s cost of living payments. Next year, we will provide extra one-off payments of £900 for the 8 million households on means-tested benefits, £300 for pensioners, £150 for disability benefit recipients, and through the energy price guarantee the average household will save a further £500, to help with their energy bills.
The difficult but necessary decisions that have been taken elsewhere mean that it is welcome that we are able to protect the pensions triple lock in full and to uprate benefits in line with inflation. Those were two crucial things that many Members from across the whole House were keen to see included in the autumn statement and they have been fully honoured, and that is of critical importance to my constituents and to people across the country. As has been mentioned, it is welcome, including for my constituents, that the Government are increasing the national living wage to provide £1,600 extra per annum to 2 million low-paid workers. From 1 April 2023, the national living wage will increase by 9.7%, to £10.42 an hour for workers aged 23 and over. As a representative of this Government, I am proud of that.
Time is marching on, so let me say finally that of particular importance in my constituency is the continuation of the levelling-up fund, as that is a crucial help to places such as Clwyd South. We were fortunate enough to be granted a £13.3 million levelling-up fund bid, which is going to transform many parts of the Dee valley in my constituency, but I want other constituencies to benefit across the whole UK, whether they are represented by Conservatives or by Opposition Members. This must be protected and I am delighted that the £1.7 billion levelling-up fund has been protected. Round 2 of the bids will continue as planned, and at already announced funding levels. That means that at least £1.7 billion-worth of projects will be announced shortly.
In conclusion, the autumn statement delivers on stability, growth and the protection of public services, in a skilful and compassionate way. Therefore, it commands my full support.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Although the autumn statement was rooted in economic reality after the last Budget tanked the economy, the £30 billion of spending cuts and £25 billion of tax rises means my constituents are now paying for the mistakes of 12 years of Tory economic mismanagement. The Chancellor was at pains to blame our terrible financial situation on global factors, but he refused to acknowledge the permanent damage that the Government’s mismanagement of the economy has caused through a decade of anaemic growth, September’s disastrous Budget and their disastrous Brexit. Why else is the UK the only country in the G7 whose economy has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels and is not forecast to do so until around 2025?
Very difficult times now lie ahead, particularly for mortgage payers. The OBR said that rising interest rates will mean that mortgage rates are going to jump, and house prices will fall by 9% by October 2024. We were told that we would have a high wage, lower tax economy, but what we have is the highest tax burden since we finished paying for world war two and a tax package that will cost around £4,000 a year extra per family.
Jonathan Gullis
I have tried to ask this question of a few other Opposition MPs, so I will try again with the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a very good man. Obviously, he is saying that the tax burden is the highest that it has been in a long time, and I am certainly uncomfortable with that. Can he assure me and promise this House and people across our country that, if Labour were in government, there would be no further increase in the tax burden for those, not in the wealthiest bracket, but in the 20p bracket?
Mohammad Yasin
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said to him, he should go back to his constituents in Stoke-on-Trent and they will answer his question. I shall carry on.
As I was saying, we could not be any further away from the promised sunlit uplands. I am pleased that the Government have finally listened to Labour on the windfall tax and that the new Prime Minister and Chancellor also agreed with Labour on protecting the triple lock on pensions. But where is the wage increase for public sector workers? Those workers are the key to fixing the crisis in the NHS and in our public services and to growing the economy with a healthy workforce, which is desperately needed to get the country back on its feet. The Government are asking for wage restraint while the lifting of the cap on bankers’ bonuses and the non-dom status remain.
Where is the plan for social care? Three years ago, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), pledged to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all.”
I asked the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities yesterday whether he agreed with the former Prime Minister when he said that he had fixed the social care crisis. I did not see him agreeing with the former Prime Minister.
The Chancellor has kicked the can down the road for at least another two years, and, while the extra £3.3 billion funding for the NHS is an important recognition that the health service is struggling to meet demand and keep patients safe, the Health Foundation charity has found that funding will increase only by 1.2% in real terms over the next two years.
I have been asking for clarity on the future of East-West Rail for well over a year now. The Government’s shambolic handling of the project is causing a lot of distress to my constituents in Bedford whose lives have been in limbo since their homes came under threat of demolition in 2020. We urgently need to see the massively delayed consultation response and route announcement. I urge the Government to publish the business case before they proceed with full consideration of the environmental impacts. No new rail infrastructure should be built if it is not compatible with our net zero targets.
In the end, this was a Budget to calm the financial markets after the Government blew a credibility hole in the economy. While the most vulnerable may have been given some support to get through the next few years, the vast majority of us have very little protection. Few have savings to get them through the crisis. Many low-to-middle income earners cannot afford to pay for the Government’s mess. Austerity is a political choice. It was the wrong choice before, and it is the wrong choice now.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
There were things in the autumn statement that Conservative Members would rather not have to do, not least in regard to taxes, but we were always going to have to do some difficult things as a result of having spent more than £400 billion protecting jobs and livelihoods during the pandemic and as a result of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the consequent impact on energy, food, support and so on. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out, it is right that we are tackling inflation, which, as some Conservative Members have said, hurts the poorest more. It is right that we do not leave this for our children and grandchildren to pay. It is also absolutely right that we ensure, in general, that those with the broadest shoulders pay the most. When we talk about our record on the economy on the Conservative side it is worth remembering, which has not been said very much today, that we have had near record low unemployment—the lowest in nearly 50 years—and for the first time on record we have had more jobs available than people to fill them.
As much as there were difficult things in this statement, there was also a series of measures that I welcome. My constituency is home to Harwell Science and Innovation Campus and Milton Park, where some of the best, most advanced science and technology in this country goes on. They are centres of investment for great companies all over the world. What the Government have set out in relation to research and development—the biggest increase in spending in cash terms over a spending review period—is very welcome. My constituency is also home to the Satellite Applications Catapult, so the increased funding for those nine Catapults all over the country is likewise welcome.
Of course I welcome the additional money for health and education, particularly for education and schools. The IFS has said that that additional money will cover the expected increase in costs between now and 2024. I welcome that support for education, partly because my background was working with schools and running charities for disadvantaged young people, but also because it is key to our future. We have talked about skills and the need to increase productivity and our knowledge base, and that is how we will do it.
As a broader point—not for this debate, but something we need to consider—I do not personally think the balance between the increase in health spending in recent decades and the increase in education spending is right. The increase in health has far outstripped the amount that Governments on both sides have given to education. There are understandable reasons for that, and the two areas are not the same, but we need to think about that balance. Health and education are inextricably linked and we should have more money going into education over time than we have seen in recent decades.
The other basket of measures that I support is about protecting the most vulnerable and the lowest paid. The increase in the national living wage, which takes us to £10.42 an hour, just shy of the manifesto commitment to increase it to £10.50 by 2024, is a much-needed pay boost for people at a time of difficult economic circumstances. I welcome the commitment on the triple lock, which means the increase in the basic state pension will be the biggest it has ever had. Already in 2021 it was at the highest rate in relation to earnings for 34 years; now it will be even higher.
I also welcome the uprating of benefits. There are people outside this House who suggest that people on benefits are all too lazy to work, but if we look at the people who are on benefits, we see that many of them are in work and cannot get enough hours or cannot earn enough in wages from the job they have; some have children who are under two whom they have to look after; and some may be severely disabled and simply unable to work.
Of course, if there are people who could work and are refusing to do so, we have to do something to ensure that they do work. It is right that the Government are conducting a review into the people who have left the labour market since the pandemic, because we have to understand, given that they were working, why they are not doing so now. We know that part of the reason is about mental health, so let us get to the bottom of that and support those people into work. However, until we do that, the overwhelming majority of people who are on benefits are not able to increase their incomes, so it is right that we support them through the uprating of benefits.
Then we turn to the Labour party. This Government have made a series of difficult decisions, but what of the Labour party? We talk about this Government’s 12 years in power, but it is 17 years since the Labour party won a general election, and the last Labour leader to win one, Tony Blair, was fond of quoting:
“To govern is to choose.”
So what difficult choices is the Labour party proposing as part of its plan? The Government have made quite a number of difficult choices; which ones does the Labour party want to make? It seems to be in favour of every spending commitment that the Government make, against every spending reduction, and against every tax increase—unless it has the word “windfall” in front of it. If we went outside now, stopped members of the public and asked, “What do you think about Labour’s plan for the economy?”, they would say, “What plan?”
That is important because, while this Government makes difficult decisions—some of which members of public will not like—the Labour party is not making any. I listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who said that she wanted to put VAT on private school fees, raising £1.7 billion; end non-dom status, which she said would raise another £3 billion; and raise another £10 billion through a windfall tax, so we are looking at about £15 billion. The package that we are talking about is £55 billion. Where is the rest of the money coming from? Today’s Labour party, unlike Labour parties of before, wants to govern without having to choose. The British public will decide what they think of that.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
For all the talk of bringing back “compassionate conservatism”—an oxymoron—the British people have been left with more of the same: a Government whose priorities are so skewed that, after 12years, they continue to reaffirm their unwavering commitment to looking after those at the top to the detriment of everybody else. Last week, there were fairer choices to be made; there were better choices to be made; and, frankly, there were choices that would have protected all our people against an economic onslaught that the Government have played no small part in making.
Call me naive, but I had assumed that the first rule of politics was to make life easier for people, helping them get on in life so that they can provide for their loved ones and families. The OBR is predicting that, on the Government’s watch, my Liverpool, Wavertree constituents will endure a 7% hit to their household income over the next two years—that is unprecedented in modern times. I know that the Government like to deflect the blame entirely on to the situation in eastern Europe, which is undoubtedly playing its part, but the last time I checked, the Conservative party has been in power since 2010, and it should be a mark of deep shame for Conservative Members that real wages are lower than when they entered power.
Twelve years of wage stagnation, low growth and a failed austerity programme have left our towns and cities crying out for investment and support. Communities are now on the brink and poverty is rife, while those on moderate incomes also face money anxieties that they may never have experienced before. People who do all the hours God sends—the nurse, the self-employed worker at a start-up, the pub owner, the call centre worker—now all face a bleak future because of the choices this Government have made during their time in office.
The Conservative party should have its own feature on the BBC show “Rogue Traders”. Twelve years and six Chancellors ago by my count, the former Chancellor promised to fix the roof when the sun was shining. Well, they did not fix the roof when the sun was shining, nor when it was raining. Now, the hailstones are raining down and millions of people have awoken to the con. The British people have been ripped off and left with a bill for unfinished work—a botched job—and still the company is unwilling to take any responsibility. It does not matter whether it was David the joiner, Theresa the labourer, Boris the apprentice or Liz the plasterer; the whole company is responsible, and the sooner they are replaced with an organisation that can do the job, the better. In all seriousness, the Conservative party cannot pride itself on economic competency when it represents, in every facet, the precise opposite.
The human cost is grave. The people I represent cannot endure more of the same. Last week’s autumn statement reaffirmed more of the same at a time when our people deserve better.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
This has been a tough autumn statement—tougher than many of us would have liked—but it has protected the most vulnerable through the uprating of benefits; continued the welcome reforms needed, such as on business rates to support our high streets; shored up financial stability and sustainability; renewed the focus on growth, including through business capital investment; honoured the triple lock for pensioners; and protected those public services that matter most, such as our NHS and schools, all while dealing with the global economic challenges caused by the pandemic and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The triple lock is incredibly welcome. Pensioners need that support now, but it will be important to look at how it can be sustained and what it could mean for the future retirement age. We will also have to do more for working and younger generations. It is particularly welcome that we are increasing the national living wage by the largest amount ever. Younger people are crying out for the chance to own their own home, to earn a good wage and to get into a high-skilled job, particularly people in Stoke-on-Trent, and these issues should be the main focus of our levelling-up agenda.
We have been incredibly grateful in Stoke-on-Trent for the support from the Government, particularly the £56 million from the levelling-up fund, which is more than any other part of the country and is going into developing brownfield sites across Stoke-on-Trent that have been derelict for many decades in many cases, such as the Tams factory in Longton in my constituency, which will be developed and getting under way shortly. That money is also going into extra care facilities for elderly people, which are very much needed in the local area and will make a huge difference to that former pottery factory.
In particular, we need to unlock the ability to build more homes. There are plenty of brownfield sites in Stoke-on-Trent where they can be built alongside those cutting-edge technologies and advanced manufacturing jobs that we want to grow further, but we need Government support to push on with the planning reforms and investment in mitigating the costs of decontaminating those brownfield sites, including through an investment zone for Stoke-on-Trent. That could focus on ceramics or the advanced manufacturing industries, which we obviously excel at in Stoke-on-Trent. It could also focus on digital and games design, which has a growing cluster in north Staffordshire, and particularly in Stoke-on-Trent.
We have excellent universities in Keele University and Staffordshire University, which has the largest number of gaming students in the country. There is an excellent opportunity to develop that further, and we are installing gigabit broadband across Stoke-on-Trent. There is huge potential and huge opportunity to grow these fast-growing sectors. It is worth mentioning that the growth in gaming was more than all other media put together in the last year, which is phenomenal. We need to take more advantage of those sectors and that sort of economic growth across the UK.
We are incredibly proud in Stoke-on-Trent of making things, and our creative expertise in manufacturing ceramics is world-renowned. Indeed, the Potteries is one of the world’s first and leading industrial clusters and is ideal for refocused investment zones. Sadly, under the previous Labour Government, huge world-famous brands in the Potteries were swept aside by the credit bust and boom. Since 2010, the industry has revived significantly, and sector gross value added has doubled in real terms. The permanent investment allowance of £1 million is certainly incredibly welcome.
Ceramics, however, is a heavily energy-intensive industry, and necessarily so to fire products at extreme heat. That has made the industry one of the most vulnerable to the huge swings in world energy prices. It is worth remembering that our domestic ceramics industry has one of the lowest carbon footprints of anywhere in the world. If we lose it, production and our environmental responsibilities will be offshored, shutting down a key national industry. Therefore, for both economic and environmental reasons, I urge the Treasury to engage with the ceramics industry, which is 97% made up of SMEs and therefore, too often, falls through the gaps of support for wider industries.
Not a single British Ceramic Confederation member benefited from the energy security strategy, which focused only on the largest energy-intensive users. The industry is very willing to embrace and move towards net zero, but far more needs to be done to incentivise and support these sectors to invest in new energy-efficient technologies, particularly through R&D. There is a huge opportunity to focus the growth we are seeing in R&D on those energy-intensive sectors where it will be most difficult to achieve the transition towards net zero. We should be focusing R&D on those sectors and helping them to decarbonise. The review of the energy bill relief scheme needs to support and give energy-intensive sectors certainty through the short-term supply-side problems that have been caused by the covid legacy and Putin’s terrible, illegal war on Ukraine.
The further extension of Government support to help households with the cost of living and energy cost increases is particularly welcome. We need to work for greater energy independence and alternative sources of energy to address our energy security. As well as Sizewell, that must include an ongoing commitment to small modular reactors, and the consortium led by Rolls-Royce is an exciting development that could create 40,000 jobs and secure many more in the supply chain, including in Stoke-on-Trent at Goodwin International. There is much we can do over the medium term to cut energy bills without the necessary and welcome direct payments currently being made by the Government.
In conclusion, because of the global challenges we have faced, with covid lockdowns and Putin’s illegal war on Ukraine, we are far from where we would want to be, economically. The Government have taken steps to ensure that we are on a financially sustainable path towards growth, and I welcome the stability that financial consolidation has brought to markets, but we now must double down on unleashing the growth we need with planning reforms, deregulation, and investment and licensing in energy supply. The autumn statement takes a good number of steps forward, and I hope we will see many more in the weeks and months ahead.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologies; you are stuck with me. This is our third Government and our fourth Chancellor this year, and we do not get our Advent calendars until next week. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is no longer in his place, said that Opposition Members failed to recognise the issues and potentially gave Putin a foot in the door by criticising what the Government announced last week. I am an Opposition MP. It is my job to oppose the Government where I do not agree with them—that is a fundamental part of my job. I do not think anybody can say that Members across the House have not been unanimous in our support for Ukraine. These global events have been developing over the last three years, so why is there such a difference between this autumn statement and the plan for growth eight weeks ago?
The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) talked about mistakes being made, and that is the fundamental point. This is about trust, and the Government have damaged not only the trust of the public—the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said that the Conservatives were trusted more than any other party; she is clearly looking at different polling from me—but the trust of the markets, because we saw a direct impact on people’s mortgages and the repayments of Government debt as a result of the plan for growth eight weeks ago.
I would like to touch on a few parts of the statement that my constituents are particularly interested in. The first is the support for off-grid households, which several Members have mentioned. A number of my constituents in North East Fife are off-grid. They had the miserly support of £100. That has now been increased to £200, but it barely touches the sides. We know that off-grid households are facing an average increase of over £1,000 in heating costs, as the cost of oil has almost doubled in the past two months, and some of my small communities who work collectively as a group with brokers to buy oil in bulk are really seeing the impact.
Practically, it is still not clear how the Government are planning to make that payment to households. The relevant gov.uk webpage, which has not been updated since last week’s statement, tells off-grid households that they will receive the payment either through their electricity bill, which many of those households will not have, or via a fund that is yet to be designed.
When we think about the poverty premium for those living in rural communities, from the increased cost of transport to having to go to shops where people pay a premium, as opposed to being able to access some of the bigger discounting shops, we realise that is a real hardship for families who are struggling to make ends meet. I hope that the Minister will be able to set out what form the fund will take, how it will reach my constituents who need it, and when it will become operational. I also hope for more detail on how we can ensure that residents in park homes and with other energy provision, such as district heating schemes, will receive support and how we can ensure that that support is being passed on by anybody involved in those schemes.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware that during last week’s statement I raised the support that businesses receive for energy, and I wrote to the Chancellor yesterday. Businesses in my constituency are very concerned about the current economic outlook. The purpose of my letter was to say that they are keen to engage directly with the ongoing review of the energy relief scheme. They want to demonstrate the vitalness of their operations and what they are already doing to reduce their energy costs, because they are struggling to see how they can reduce their costs. Given that it was said last week that we expect the review to set a high bar for support, some of them are beginning to look at their future operating plans.
From the Chancellor’s response to me last week, I believe that the review will be done before Christmas, but it is vital for businesses to have that certainty. At this point, we simply do not know which businesses in our communities will have support from April, how much it will be and what form it will take. That will be make or break for some.
Meanwhile, the Government have imposed stealth taxes that will take money out of the pockets of businesses. The decision to freeze the registration threshold for VAT means that businesses will have to charge their customers more or potentially reduce their already small profit margins. I am proud of the number of small businesses that operate across North East Fife, from Leven to Newport and from St Andrews to Cupar. Despite the current outlook, the diversity is increasing, which is great and those entrepreneurs are to be celebrated, but I am concerned that hurting the high street hurts commerce, growth, customers and communities.
I hope that the Minister will therefore clarify what consultation or engagement there will be with businesses on energy, particularly those in critical industries such as food production and social care, and that the Minister will reassure them that a base level of support will remain in place to prevent businesses failing. I urge the Minister to rethink imposing VAT on smaller businesses that need help, not harm, over the coming difficult years; businesses that do not exist cannot grow.
My constituents really care about our place in the world. We have a world-leading university in the University of St Andrews, which was previously involved in international development funding and project delivery. There is no doubt, however, that the 0.7% official development assistance target cut has had an impact on that. Indeed, it was confirmed to me yesterday that those projects are no longer running.
The Chancellor spoke about this being an autumn statement with compassion, but I am concerned that 34.5 million HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria transmissions may become more likely as a result of those cuts. Where is the compassion in taking support away from women and girls around the world who are disproportionately affected by those diseases? We rightly focus on the conflict in Ukraine, but I hope to join students at St Andrews this Sunday as part of the rallies marking the march for freedom for Afghan women and girls. An ask of that campaign is to maintain the development budget for Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls. That is the least we can do.
The Foreign Secretary’s written statement today confirms that the 0.7% test that the Government set is not being met and will not be reinstated, but I welcome the pause on ODA spending being lifted, which is a positive step. If part of the reason we are here is difficult global issues, it is even more important that our place in the world is clear.
I am pleased that the Government made up their mind and did the right thing by uprating benefits and the state pension, which is a huge relief to many. It was clear in the recent Opposition day debate that there was support for the triple lock on both sides of the House. I reiterate what I said then: for all generations, the security of a sustainable state pension is very important. Despite that, pensioners have not yet caught up, given that the triple lock was dropped last year.
On benefits, we know how far behind people on benefits are, because we know that the removal of the £20 uplift for universal credit and the failure ever to uprate legacy benefits have had a devastating impact.
Finally, I hope that Members across the House are aware that I have a private Member’s Bill on carer’s leave. I am working closely with Carers UK on that, and I just want to bring to the Minister’s attention a letter sent last week by Carers UK, along with organisations supporting carers and people with disabilities from around the country. They ask for a top-up payment to be made to unpaid carers who are entitled to carer’s allowance without receiving universal credit. They ask that the Government raise the earnings limit for carer’s allowance to £199.50 per week, to allow people to work more—we have all talked about people who are economically inactive, and surely we want to put in place measures that will help people to work more. They also ask for a review to be carried out of all relevant benefits, to ensure that unpaid carers do not fall into poverty as a result of their role. Indeed, we will all know of many cases where that is already the case.
I have made this plea before. Almost all of us will either give or receive unpaid care at some point in our lives. That experience is unique to each person, but it is also universal. The simple step of allowing carers to work more would not even be adding to the Government’s budget, so I really do hope that the Treasury will consider those reforms.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
May I reassure the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that it is an absolute pleasure not just to have heard her, but to follow her in this Chamber and be able to talk about the autumn statement?
I have been informed that Labour’s friends in the socialist cesspit that is Twitter got very excited when the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), in response to my question about whether the Opposition can promise the British people that taxes will not increase beyond where they are now on the working people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, simply said that I should sit and listen. Well, I did sit and I did listen, and all I heard was taxes going up here, taxes going up there, tax more of this and tax more of that.
This was reaffirmed when I intervened on a number of great Labour Back Benchers, who I like to call friends. When asked a very simple question—whether they could make a promise in this House to the people of Bradford East and Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, for example, that taxes will not increase—all I was told was to go home and answer some questions about the Conservatives’ record in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, as well as the great town of Kidsgrove and neighbouring Talke.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
In my hon. Friend’s assessment, because we cannot get that assurance —I hope the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) is listening—what does he estimate Labour’s tax bombshell to be for our constituents in the west midlands, because it sounds as if there is definitely one incoming?
Jonathan Gullis
My hon. Friend, who is a fine and doughty champion for the people of Tipton and the surrounding area, makes a great point. I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), is a good man who likes to answer questions, and always with a straight bat. So I look forward to hearing him guarantee that, under a Labour Government, no taxes will go up on anyone in, for example, the 20p income tax bracket. If he can give such an assurance, I will probably have to pack my bags as a Member of Parliament and accept reality, but I am not so sure I will get that straight answer on this particular question.
I was told very clearly that I should go and get answers to questions. Well, I have come and marked my own homework, but I think it is important to give answers to those hon. Members, because they did ask for them. It is under this Conservative Government, under a Conservative-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and under a Conservative-led Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council—Conservative-led for the first time—that we have seen £56 million from the levelling-up fund, which is the largest levelling-up fund grant given to any single area. That means the great town of Tunstall is about to get £3.5 million to refurbish and bring new life to Tunstall library and baths. There is also the fantastic scheme by Stoke-on-Trent railway station—a gateway to our community—for the Goods Yard site, which is going to provide offices, homes, and restaurant and retail experiences to bring in new revenue to our area.
There is the £17.6 million Kidsgrove town deal, the first of its kind in an area such as Kidsgrove, which has seen Kidsgrove sports centre not just refurbished, but reopened. It has reopened after, sadly, the Labour party, which ran Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council at the time, chose to close it, because when the council was offered the opportunity for a single £1 coin to save it, it rejected that offer. I will make a donation of that pound coin to the Labour party, so that if it ever finds itself in that situation again, it can cough up—I am happy to register that among my donations in kind.
The £31.7 million “bus back better” investment has meant that not only are we improving bus services and introducing a new flat fare of £3.50 a day; we are also improving our road infrastructure. There are 500 brand new Home Office jobs. The site of Chatterley Valley West will unlock up to 1,700 jobs, as part of the new advanced ceramics campus—the list goes on.
Tomorrow, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will mean that rogue and absent landlords who plague our high streets and our heritage will get a fine that has increased from £1,000 to an unlimited amount for the first offence, and from £100 a day to £500 a day for the second offence. While the Labour party and my Labour opponents were standing outside buildings two days before polling day with placards to protest, I was busy looking at the law, coming up with a solution, presenting it to the House, and getting the Government on board. Tomorrow we will vote the Bill through before it goes to the other place to complete its journey. That is what Conservatism is all about in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
Let me tell the House what people know about the Labour party locally. They know that when Labour is in charge, ceramics manufacturers are closed and move overseas. They see wages stagnate or go down, unlike under the Conservatives, when people saw an 11.7% wage increase between 2015 and 2018. They saw jobs disappear, until a Conservative-led city council managed to bring 9,000 jobs to our city since 2015, 2,000 of which are linked to the Ceramic Valley enterprise zone. When the Labour party was in charge it had £60 million in Stoke-on-Trent City Council coffers. It could have spent that on the mother town, Burslem, and invested in the Queen’s Theatre, the Wedgwood Institute and Burslem indoor market, revitalising that vital, historic town. What did it do? The money got festered away on new council offices. Rather than worrying about the people of the town, Labour councillors were worried about whether their office had enough square footage to fit their egos. Sadly, they chose to go with that option instead.
It is a crying shame that for 70 years the Labour party abandoned the great people of Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke. It is a great shame that it took the Conservative party to come in for Labour Members even to realise where Stoke-on-Trent was, and to no longer rely on Google maps or a pre-paid taxi to find their way there. While they visit our city and promise this and that, the people of Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke know—they have seen the evidence in the past, and the counter-evidence of Conservatism since then.
We are talking about the autumn statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it is important that I refer to that in this important debate. It is exceptionally important to understand that we have had a global pandemic—a once-in-100-year event that I hope that my children and grandchildren never have to experience in their lifetime. That was followed by the impact of locking down the entire global economy, meaning that when demand increases supply chains cannot keep up with that demand. That is understandable, because people were being asked to stay at home, protect lives and save the NHS from being overrun.
Those were the facts of the day, and just as we were learning to come to terms with them, Vladimir Putin chose to have an illegal and immoral war against the great people of Ukraine—Slava Ukraini, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, he then used against anyone who stood up to him gas, and other forms of energy, as a weapon to try to cripple our resilience. Well, guess what? We will get through this, because we as a country are brilliant. We did it in world war one, we did it in world war two, we did it with the Falklands, we did it with Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will certainly do it again by backing the people of Ukraine. We will make sure that we have those people’s backs, because we believe in freedom, not oppression. It is a shame that when we have these discussions the Labour party tries to pretend that those things never happened. The fact is that they have happened, and they have all come at once. I hope that no one will ever have to live through such times again.
What have the Government done? They have invested £12 billion extra in support for the most vulnerable households in our community. That is on top of the £37 billion already announced, and the energy price cap guarantee. That has made a humungous difference to one ceramics manufacturer in Stoke-on-Trent North, which has told me that the price cap will save it £4 million over the winter months. Without that £4 million it could have meant jobs going or the factory having to shut permanently, because it simply would not have been affordable. This Government have given it that support.
The support we have given to individuals, including the price cap and the money given, means that the average Stokie will get around £2,000 of support over the next two years. In fact, those on means-tested benefits will get around £4,000 of direct support over the next two years for them and their household, because this is a compassionate Conservative Government, and I am proud to be a part of it.
There are other important measures. The increase in the national living wage is fantastic. Where Stoke-on-Trent has a lot of people earning the national living wage, that increase will see those in full-time work £1,600 a year better off. That is a huge amount of money. We have also got the £12,500 personal tax-free allowance and the increase in the national insurance threshold to match that, which means that some Stokies are not paying any tax whatsoever. This is a good day for the people of Stoke-on-Trent. The triple lock being protected is also fantastic.
It has not been mentioned much, but in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke we were very happy to see the freeze in foreign aid take place. We certainly believe that charity begins at home and, when we are going through hard times, people in this country should have their taxes spent on them and be protected first. I hope that one day the Government will scrap the ridiculous arbitrary target of 0.7%, which was a virtue-signalling idea brought in under a previous Conservative Government. I certainly was not a fan of it from the outside and I am proud to stand here and say that we need to move away from it. We should have flexibility to choose what we invest in, when we invest in it and how much we choose to invest each year, depending on our circumstances here at home. I do hope that Labour Members get very angry that I said that, because, if they go around and put that all over social media, that will only help me to get more votes in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. They might want to think carefully before trying to campaign against me on that one.
Let us also talk about the absolutely fantastic £4.4 billion on schools. That is great news, seeing what pressures were on schools. But two things in that are important for the Government. First, I am worried that, as Schools Week reported, there may be clawback on the national tutoring programme underspend, which is estimated to be between £100 million and £150 million. I hope that the Treasury keeps its fingers off that and instead lets the Department for Education reinvest it into the third year of the national tutoring programme so that it can increase the grant available to schools and we can hit that figure of 6 million opportunities for young people.
Secondly, the £2.5 billion of pupil premium money must be spent in the right way. Sadly, we are not tracking how it is being invested in our schools. I am proud to support Magic Breakfast schemes such as at Q3 Academy Langley in Sandwell and those in Stoke-on-Trent North, because those schemes are making sure that kids get a breakfast, which we know via the Education Endowment Foundation has a positive impact on behaviour, attendance and academic attainment, which is so vital. I do not believe in universality for these schemes—they should be targeted—and the Government must be committed to redoing the deal with Magic Breakfast and expanding it to another 10,000 schools. I look forward to working with MPs across the House on that.
I am concerned that, when we talk about taxing private schools, we are talking about taxing aspiration. Many individuals in my constituency who work in factories or even as cleaners want to send their kids to the best school because they want them to have the best start. If we followed Labour’s plan, that would mean more children entering the state school system and putting more financial pressure on the Department for Education and its budgets. Actually, that would not even bring in the revenue year on year that Labour predicts, because it assumes that numbers will remain the same. It is simply not correct to claim that £1.7 billion a year will exist, as numbers will leave the private school sector and come into the state school sector. Suddenly, we may need to find hundreds of thousands of school places that simply do not exist, burdening classrooms that are already on the brink.
We also have the health and social care increase of £7.7 billion. That is super-important and very good, but, as I have said, the “No Time To Wait” campaign, led by myself and James Starkie—it is a cross-party campaign, which I am proud that Members of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats support—has a pilot ready to go with the Royal College of Nursing looking at how we can get mental health nurses into GP surgeries. I hope that the Government will back it. I look forward to raising that at Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow.
Finally—I promise that this is finally, Madam Deputy Speaker—I turn to fuel duty. I thank the Chancellor for coming out quickly and making it clear that, despite what was in the OBR forecasts, the 5p cut and the freeze to fuel duty will remain in place, as was agreed, until March 2023. I am proud to be The Sun and FairFuelUK’s “keep it down” champion here in Parliament. I will make one thing clear to the Government: I will ensure that, as a bare minimum, that 5p cut stays in place. If we want to ensure that motorists, van drivers and lorry drivers—the 37 million people on the roads day in, day out—are on our side, we had better make sure that we have their backs. We know that cutting fuel duty cuts inflation because it means that distribution costs are cheaper, and 98% of our goods are driven on the roads to the shops. I hope that the Government will reaffirm their commitment.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Anyone who looks at the autumn statement and sees it for what it is understands that poverty will increase as a direct result. The decision to increase benefits by 10.1% next year does not match the rate of inflation, which is 11.1% in the most recent monthly data. Millions of the poorest in our country will still face a fall in spending power as inflation soars. This follows years of cuts to the real value of benefits that affect the lives of 9 million households; and, particularly for some Government Members and members of the press who like to demonise people on benefits, I point out that 7 million of those households include someone who is in work. The situation is even worse than the headline inflation data suggest. The Office for National Statistics estimates that consumer price inflation is actually higher for lower income groups—11.9% for those in the second income decile, and a truly shocking 12.5% for those in the very lowest. So as a result of the decisions on benefits, the very poorest will get even poorer.
The picture is similar for the minimum wage, which Conservatives continue to falsely claim is the national living wage. This was not, as the Chancellor claimed, a generous offer. A rise of 9.7% is also below inflation and way below the inflation rate for the poorest. The Real Living Wage Foundation says that a living wage worthy of the name would be £10.90 across the country, and in London it would need to be £11.95 per hour to take account of the higher costs of living in the capital. So the announcement in the autumn statement was in fact a real-terms cut that leaves the lowest paid workers worse off and still struggling for a wage they can actually live on.
Much of the excess—not all—relates to the cost of housing, either rent or mortgage. We all know very well the damage this Government have already caused in terms of mortgage costs, but we have yet to hear Ministers apologise for their actions during this debacle, which is their responsibility and theirs alone. The Government seem to treat people like my constituents in Streatham as though they are all junior investment bankers or recently hired City lawyers, who are taking their first steps on the housing ladder that leads to a lovely town house worth millions somewhere in central London—but they are not. They are young people living together in cramped accommodation because they cannot afford to pay rents, or families who have just seen their mortgage interest payments shoot up because of the actions of this Government; or they are simply forced to live at home, unable to pay for a place of their own.
In fact, this Government’s whole propaganda campaign on levelling up never included the poorest in London. How can there be levelling up when the poorest are made even poorer by this statement and when the cost of living is being made unbearable by the direct actions of this Government? We should not be surprised by this con, because we know what the Prime Minister thinks about the reality of levelling up. He was caught on camera boasting that he had redirected funding from deprived urban areas to well-to-do areas.
Most notably, the statement did not once mention the disastrous impact of Brexit. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), said that no one wanted to talk about Brexit, but I do. I remain proud of my decision to vote against the implementation agreement—not a deal. Contrary to what was said repeatedly in this House, no deal was put before us in December 2020. We, the representatives of the people of this country, were not given a say in the details of the deal, and we were given no meaningful vote on it. Instead, we were presented with a shoddy implementation agreement at the eleventh hour, strong-armed again into being for or against, and threatened with crashing out of the EU without a deal.
What do we have to show for Brexit? Spiralling inflation, travel chaos, labour shortages, crops rotting in the fields, a significant reduction to British exports, a loss of work and opportunities due to visa restrictions, food prices hiked up in our supermarkets, and the sharpest fall in living standards on record—and that is not even all of it. Whether people voted to leave or whether, like most of the people in my constituency, they voted to remain, nobody voted for this. We can no longer hide behind the economic effects of the pandemic when all the other G7 countries have bounced back and ours is the only country with a smaller economy now and is set to have the lowest growth in the G20 bar Russia. Yet the Chancellor was arrogant enough to come to the House and pretend that Brexit had nothing to do with the situation we find ourselves in.
If the people of this country are the most important thing in this country, then there is no patriotism and certainly no freedom in the inept economic policies the Government have inflicted on all of us. Brexit has been a complete and utter disaster, and if the Government do not address it there will be a reckoning. In the meantime, the average person in this country is left to pay the price.
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Lady is giving a very passionate defence of why she believes Brexit to be a disaster. Obviously, I think differently. If Labour was in Government, would she be giving the same speech to her Front Bench?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I believe the hon. Member does not know me very well. I would be giving exactly the same speech.
I could say much more about the reinforcement of entrenched discrimination that the Government have carried out and which the statement exacerbates, but in conclusion, the vulnerable have not been protected by the Government and the statement has made them even worse off.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), even though on this occasion I do not agree with anything she said. But it was a very passionate speech.
This is exactly the budget we needed to deal with the global economic turmoil we are facing. It was mature, balanced, considered and, above all, deeply compassionate. As the Chancellor said himself, to be British is to be compassionate and this is a compassionate Conservative Government. I have sat here amazed to hear all the comments from those on the Opposition Benches telling us we have failed to make the right choices, telling us we have been uncompassionate and telling us that this budget is full of an unwavering commitment to look after people at the top. I do not know where you have been. Can I just remind you, this is the budget—[Interruption.]
Anna Firth
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I remind Opposition Members that this budget is bringing in the largest ever increase to the national living wage—as we have heard, £1,600 on average for millions and millions of workers. These are not people at the top of the tree.
Shaun Bailey
My hon. Friend is making a very passionate speech. On the living wage, the Labour party will not commit to not raising taxes on low-end workers. How much would Labour’s tax bombshell take from those on the living wage? Clearly, we have got one incoming; we can see it over there. What is her estimate, if Labour does raise taxes on people at the lower end of the tax spectrum?
Anna Firth
I very much hope we are not going to see tax rises. On the Government Benches, we are absolutely committed to protecting hard-working people, but at the moment we have heard no clarity—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—from the Opposition. There has to be a doubt that under their policy, taxes will go up on hard-working people.
The second point is that we have heard a lot about benefits not going up in line with inflation—another extraordinary comment. I remind Opposition Members that the OBR forecast that UK inflation will be 9.1% this year, going down to 7.4% next year. So, on the contrary, rather than our uprating of benefits not being enough, our uprating of benefits to inflation at over 10% is generous. Again, that is helping the most vulnerable.
Thirdly, we are keeping energy bills down for every single household across the country. Fourthly, on top of that, we are offering direct support for 8 million low-income households to the tune of £900 per household. Then, of course, we come to the triple lock. When the Conservatives came into coalition Government in 2010, pensioner poverty was a real issue. It was one of the legacies we were left to sort out. Since then, over the last 12 years, which we are harangued about regularly, we have protected pensioners. We brought in the triple lock and we have now restored it—the biggest ever cash rise for every single recipient of state pension ever next April. But more than that, for the poorest pensioners, pension credit will go up and be linked to inflation. Again, there will be £1,470 for a pensioner couple and another £960 for a single pensioner. That is before we get to more funding for the NHS and schools. People would think that we were not funding our NHS at all when, in fact, we are increasing the spending on the NHS to £166 billion, the highest amount ever.
Jonathan Gullis
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech about the extra £4.4 billion going into schools over the next two years, but she should add that the Department for Education secured a successful spending review 2021, which included an additional £7 billion over the spending review period. We have more than £10 billion extra going into education, and we have been congratulated on that by many in the sector and by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for example.
Anna Firth
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am extremely grateful to the Chancellor for listening to all those in the sector, and my hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for schools in his constituency.
My question is this: if we have failed to make the right choices, which of all those compassionate choices do Opposition Members not like? What would their response have been if we had not made them? I think we all know: there would have been absolute outrage and we would have been roundly accused of being uncompassionate. I will take no lectures from Opposition Members about this not being a compassionate statement.
At the heart of the autumn statement is a commitment to economic stability, tackling inflation and growth. There are many paths to prosperity, but they all begin with economic stability. Without economic stability, Southend’s brilliant life sciences sector, with our globally leading companies such as Olympus KeyMed and ESSLAB, cannot innovate and expand. Without economic stability, Southend’s fantastic exporters such as Ipeco and Borough plating cannot conquer new markets. Without economic stability, Southend’s wonderful entrepreneurs, such as Tapp’d Cocktails and Adventure Island, cannot flourish. And without economic stability, Southend’s world-famous, 1,000-year-old cockle industry, based in Old Leigh, cannot invest in new plant and equipment. Economic stability is a down-payment on creating lasting economic growth, which we need if we are going to get the tax take to tackle inequality, improve our public services and provide opportunities for everyone in our society.
If we are going to drive up future economic growth and productivity, we must ensure that the UK economy is the most innovative in the world. The Chancellor was right to point out that in Britain we have a national genius for innovation, but we must invest in and encourage it. That is why I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to investing in research and development. The increase of more than a third is the largest in R&D spending ever. We know that every pound invested in R&D returns 25% every year forever, and that for every pound spent by Government on research and development, private sector R&D output rises by 20p a year in perpetuity. In other words, the more we invest in R&D, the more we create the high-paid, high-skilled jobs of the future.
If anyone is in any doubt about the importance of research and development in this country, they can consider covid. It is because 25% of the world’s top 100 prescription medicines were discovered and developed in the UK that those companies were able to use their expertise to create our world-beating coronavirus vaccine, assisted—I am proud to say—by using products developed in Southend West by Olympus KeyMed. The increase in research and development spending will allow our companies to develop new, transformative ideas, to innovate and to flourish. I would welcome a meeting with the Chancellor to explore how Southend West’s businesses can benefit from the new spending.
As well as being a fantastic example of a British city that has world-class innovation and is home to 3,700 businesses, Southend has an inspirational University of Essex campus. As the Chancellor has said, we must leverage the opportunities that Brexit has offered and build on our strengths; Southend is the perfect location for one of the new cluster-style investment zones based around universities. We are situated at the gateway to the Thames, an area with huge potential for economic development. It has the potential to double its economy and create 1,300 new jobs over the next 25 years. The new city of Southend is ideally placed to be a world-leading life sciences hub, with businesses and the University of Essex working together.
I welcome the Chancellor’s ongoing commitment to levelling up the country. I particularly welcome his commitment that funds will be forthcoming for the levelling-up projects that have been bid for, because in Southend we are set to benefit from £20 million of levelling-up money, a large portion of which is going towards upgrading the port of Old Leigh in my constituency. That will help our cockle industry, which is one of the oldest and already one of the greenest in the world, but we want to go further.
We are coming to the end of a 30-year licensing cycle, so it is now time to plan for the next 1,000 years of Leigh’s cockle industry. We need a new state-of-the-art processing centre so that our cockles do not need to be taken all over the place. Cockles landed in Old Leigh need to be processed in Old Leigh. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment on LUF2 money. May I put in an early bid for levelling-up funds to come to Old Leigh and finish the job by creating a clean, green industry fit for the next 1,000 years of shellfish fishing?
Levelling up is not just about businesses, but about our public services. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to increase the core schools budget by £2.3 billion in each of the next two years, which will benefit all 29 of Southend West’s wonderful schools. I also welcome the £3.3 billion of extra funding for our NHS in both of the next two years, which raises our NHS spending to the highest amount ever. It cannot be said that the NHS is not being looked after or that it is not safe on our watch; it plainly is, although of course there are stresses. Our doctors and nurses in Southend are doing an absolutely wonderful job and are innovating because of the pressure on A&E.
We now have the new ambulance handover unit that I and other south Essex MPs have campaigned so hard for, but I would like to press the Chancellor on one area. He has mentioned his commitment to the capital spending programme for hospitals. Ever since I was elected, as many hon. Members know, I have been pushing for the capital promised to us in 2017 to be forthcoming. Some £51 million was promised for essential renovations at Southend University Hospital. We need £7 million of enabling funding to move on to the next stage. I have been calling for that funding in every place I have managed to get into, and I do so again. I would like to meet the Chancellor at the earliest possible moment and make a plan for the delivery of that long-awaited essential funding.
I would like to finish by congratulating the Chancellor on his outstanding autumn statement, which will deliver economic stability. As the Prime Minister said in his Mais lecture earlier this year, we need an economy
“where businesses are investing more; where people of all ages are supported to learn; and, most importantly, where ideas and innovation constantly transform our lives.”
I believe that this autumn statement sets the UK on a course to delivering just that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will be relatively brief, not least because I have noticed that Ludmila Morris is in the Gallery. She recently retired after years of service as the head of the McMillan children’s nursery in my constituency, and I have invited her for tea.
It is important in this debate to reflect on what is actually happening outside this House. In the discussions so far—in the statement, in the debate yesterday and in some of the debate today—there has been little mention of wages. It is important that we understand why we are faced with the prospect of up to 1 million workers taking industrial action over the coming months. After the chaos of the last two months, the obvious aim of the Chancellor was to reassure the markets that, as he described it, the grown-ups were back in charge and that he had a plan to rebalance the budget. He especially wanted the markets to know that the Bank of England and the Government were marching in lockstep, as he put it. It is true: they are marching in lockstep, but the problem is that they now have a common agenda that combines austerity and increases in interest rates. This is pushing us ineluctably into a deepening recession.
We all hope that this will be a shallow and short-lived recession, but there are nevertheless large numbers of people out there who after 12 years of austerity just do not have the financial resilience left to avoid the hardship that this will inflict upon them. Part of that is about wages. I have listened to the various debates and heard the statistics being bandied about, but just for the record—because sometimes statistics cannot lie—wages today are lower than they were in 2007, and what is worrying me is that they are not forecast to reach 2007 levels again until 2028. That is 21 years of pay cuts.
The number of workers earning below the real living wage is expected to rise to 5.1 million next year. With inflation at 11.1%—I hope it is declining but we cannot be sure—we are experiencing the largest drop in living wages on record. Average wage rises in the private sector are 6.6%, but just 2.2% in the public sector. When the Chancellor spoke about nurses, he urged them to avoid taking industrial action, but we need to understand why they are even thinking about it. According to the TUC, nurses’ pay in real terms is £2,500 lower today than it was in 2010, so the Royal College of Nursing has asked for RPI plus 5%, which would meet inflation this year and restore some of the drop in wages that they have experienced.
I have been looking at the stats again, and what is interesting is that we think we are one of the richest nations on earth—the fifth or sixth biggest economy on the planet—but that wealth is not shared. By GDP per capita, we barely make the top 20 and we are below the average of the 19 countries in the euro and below the OECD average. As a result of that, people are suffering out there. I raised the issue of housing with the Chancellor last week. I always look at housing as the canary in the mine to judge how people are faring. When people budget, they usually prioritise keeping a roof over their head. The figures show that, last year, mortgage possession orders increased by just under 500% and landlord possession orders increased by more than 160%, which shows that people are on the edge. Unless wages increase, more will fall over that cliff edge.
The Chancellor made a great deal—we have heard it again today—about increases to NHS and school budgets, but it must surely dawn on Members that, if the wage settlements for nurses and teachers go anywhere near what they need and what they are asking for, those increases will be completely wiped out. Other departmental budgets fare even worse: they are expected to swallow inflation and wage cost increases in total.
I want the House to understand the situation people face. The energy cap is being lifted to £3,000, tax thresholds are being frozen, which will draw more people into tax, and mortgages and rents are rocketing. Many more people are asking how they will get by in this coming period. There is a growing atmosphere of frustration and, for those in in-work poverty, a growing atmosphere of absolute desperation, which is why increasing numbers of people feel they have little option but to demand a pay increase that at least matches the rate of inflation. If that means a pay offer is rejected, many of them feel they have no other option but to support industrial action. As we know, people do not take industrial action lightly.
If NHS managers, headteachers and other public service leaders try to accommodate inflation-proofed wage settlements in their existing budgets, the inevitable result will be cuts in services. Any of us who visits an A&E department anywhere in the country will see how stretched the NHS is at the moment, and how dangerous any further cuts would be. Ask any headteacher about their school’s budget, and they will say that, after 12 years of austerity—no matter what has been said today about increases—job cuts are the only remaining method to balance their budget if they are to meet pay demands.
It has been calculated that £100 billion of central Government support has been taken away from local government over the last 12 years due to central Government decisions. We now have a situation where local authorities, Tory and Labour alike, are basically saying that they are on the edge of bankruptcy and that there is no way they can accommodate increased wages to match inflation.
My simple message is that what is missing from this Budget, and has almost not been debated, is the Government’s inability or lack of willingness to inflation-proof wages in this coming period. That will almost inevitably result in escalating industrial action, which I will support because I do not know what else people can do to try to secure a pay deal that lifts some out of poverty and protects others from dropping into poverty.
The Budget also demonstrates that there seems to be a deep failure in Government to comprehend the consequences of the last 12 years. As we have heard in today’s debate, one consequence is that more and more people are on the edge and, unless there is some support, particularly on wages and benefits, they will be pushed over that edge. For the first time since the 1930s, a UN rapporteur on the state of this country is talking about destitution. So we need an alternative programme for government, which is being developed by those on the Labour Benches at least. We need a longer-term plan, rather than short-term decision making, one based on redistributive taxation that will fund our public services and address the poverty and inequality that scar our society. We need a programme for securing stable, long-term investment in our infrastructure, but also in our people, so we can mobilise our whole economy to tackle the challenges we face of poverty and inequality, and the rising challenge of climate change. I was hoping to hear that from this Budget. That has not happened. I have to agree that the only way that debate will seriously happen in the coming months is if we have a general election.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who outlined the serious situation we all face in the economy and given the pressure on household incomes. He delivered his speech in a sombre tone that was not too dissimilar to that taken by the Chancellor last week. That is unsurprising, given that the statement was delivered against the backdrop of such high inflation and low growth, and forecasts that household disposable incomes are set to fall significantly. Given such dire economic circumstances, I was pleased that common sense prevailed and measures such as the retention of the triple lock on the state pension and the uprating of many of the benefits in line with inflation were progressed at last week’s statement. I am happy to say that they will be of great benefit and support to a high number of my constituents.
Nevertheless, I wish to outline a few of my thoughts as to why the balance between addressing the immediate inflationary pressures that everyone is facing and the longer-term productivity problems that have afflicted the economy for several years was not quite right last week. For households across Wales, last week’s statement risks offering little more than a continuation of the managed decline we have sadly come to expect. That reality was underlined by the Wales Governance Centre’s calculation that, on the present trajectory, Welsh incomes will be £10,300 lower by 2027 than they would have been had pre-financial crisis levels of growth been sustained.
If we are to have any hope of reversing that trend, the Welsh economy needs concerted investment in our underlying infrastructure: our power grid; our transport links; and digital connectivity. Many Members have spoken before about the importance of digital infrastructure and transport links, so I will not detain the House on those points, but it is worth reiterating the importance of investing in the power grid.
The Welsh Affairs Committee has been undertaking an inquiry on the potential for offshore wind generation off the coast of Pembrokeshire, in south-west Wales. We received a lot of evidence from stakeholders to show that, if that fantastic potential is to be realised and we are to progress with a cutting-edge, new industry—the manufacture, production and installation of offshore wind turbines—that is centred in south-west Wales, bringing incredibly high-wage and important careers, we need to invest in the grid to ensure that a lot of that power can be connected and fed into the UK’s grid. We need to press on and be honest with ourselves that, with the current state of play, a lot of that potential cannot be realised, it needs to be looked at again by the National Grid and, potentially, it needs further Government investment.
Likewise, the Government need to be honest on the question of our trading relationship with our nearest trading bloc. The OBR report concluded again that the UK’s trade intensity will be some 15% lower in the long term because of our new trading relationship with the EU. The UK Government can take practical steps now to help to ameliorate that economic pain by removing unnecessary trade friction, which has devastated the operations of many businesses in Ceredigion, which are finding it nigh on impossible to export goods to the EU.
I know that that is a debate for another time, but there are mutual recognition agreements that we could be exploring. If that is a step too far, I would like us to see what support there is in terms of resource and advice for small businesses in particular, many of which in my constituency are finding it very difficult to navigate the new rules. They are finding it incredibly difficult, for example, to know how to get confirmation that they are using the right goods classification code before an export or, indeed, before an import arrives at port. These are practical ways that could greatly help small businesses in places such as Ceredigion to improve a bit on their trade with the European Union. A failure to address that issue now will simply pass on the burden to future generations.
The same is true on the question of energy security. We now know that, from April 2023, energy bills will surpass the £3,000 limit. To give a sense of the impact that this increase will have, it is worth recalling that, in April this year, the Welsh Government estimated that average bills of more than £1,900 a year could push up to 45% of all households in Wales into fuel poverty, with 8% thrown into severe fuel poverty.
Given the scale of the crisis, efforts should focus on permanently reducing the impact of energy bills on households across these islands. The inefficiency of our housing stock means that households are wasting hundreds of pounds a year on energy that escapes through draughty walls, leaky windows and ceilings. That issue is particularly acute in Wales given that we have some of the oldest and least efficient housing in western Europe. The Chancellor acknowledged that issue during his statement last week, yet his answer to today’s problem is to bring forward new funding in 2025.
We are already paying the price for a lack of action in this area. The New Economics Foundation recently estimated that, if all homes in England and Wales were rated EPC C, UK Government spending on the energy price guarantee would have been around £3.5 billion less over six months and households—just as important perhaps—would save around £530 over the next year. Additional funding in home energy efficiency measures should be accelerated and would be worth every single penny.
Direct help to facilitate energy efficiency improvements now can also protect businesses from similar energy shocks in future. I encourage the UK Government to look at proposals that have been put forward by the Federation of Small Businesses, which has called on the UK Government to issue vouchers worth £5,000 for small and medium businesses to spend on qualifying energy-saving products and services.
Many of my colleagues have already touched on this topic, but I make no apologies for reiterating some of the concerns with regard to off-grid households and businesses. I plead with those on the Treasury Bench to provide greater clarity on the support for off-grid homes. The Chancellor told us last week that the support was being doubled from £100 to £200 and that the first payment was introduced to coincide with the first six months of the energy price guarantee. Given that the scheme for households who are connected to the grid will be extended, albeit at a reduced rate, from April, can off-grid homes expect a second round of the alternative fuel payment?
If I can be so bold, I would like to ask a few questions. When are we expecting these payments to be brought forward? I know that households are finding it very difficult now. We have just had a bit of a cold spell, so this is very much at the front of people’s minds. It is the same for off-grid businesses. It is unfortunate that many are starting to make very difficult decisions. Any clarity that can be given by the Government as to what sort of support they will be entitled to and when it will be brought forward could go a long way in helping them with some of their plans for the next six months.
I welcome the UK Government’s commitment to uprate many benefits in line with inflation, but I am concerned that they have been inconsistent in their approach by failing to uprate some others in line with inflation. In particular, they have failed to uprate the level of support available for rental costs via the local housing allowance, which is having a devastating impact. Wales is experiencing the second fastest growth in rental costs across Great Britain, which means that the gap between housing benefit and the cheapest rents is rising at a rapid pace. Less than 1% of private rented homes in Wales are affordable to low-income renters. I regret to have to report to the House that, in Ceredigion, it means that those in receipt of the benefit will need to earn a staggering £3,382 more per year to afford the cheapest rent.
In conclusion, will the Government bring forward much-needed support for renters in my constituency by looking again at the freeze on the local housing allowance and uprating it annually to match at least the 30th percentile of market rents? I fear that failing to move on this matter will condemn a great many people to homelessness this winter.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Any Members who have taken part in the debate should really make their way to the Chamber now for the wind-ups, which will follow Beth Winter.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), who outlined the acute problems facing Wales and who, like me, is a vociferous campaigner for better needs-based funding for Wales.
Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been at pains to state their intention to deliver stability following the Tory mini-Budget that crashed the economy, but it is worth asking what kind of stability they are talking about. Stability for whom? Some 14 million people in the United Kingdom currently live in poverty, and the Chancellor has delivered an autumn statement that will force millions more into poverty, all in the name of stability.
Inaction on pay and public service funding and stealth taxation on low and middle incomes in this statement have made people’s lives more unstable, precarious and difficult. That is certainly the case for people and communities in my Cynon Valley constituency. The Welsh Finance Minister, Rebecca Evans, was clear that inflation has eroded the Welsh Government’s budget.
I listened earlier to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) commenting on health issues in Wales, and others have also spoken about health problems. The fact of the matter is that the settlement over the spending review period is worth less in real terms in Wales than it was at the time of spending review last year and includes a £1.1 billion shortfall compared with when we were a member of the European Union.
We need to see the Welsh budget increased in line with inflation, but that has not happened. The Welsh Local Government Association is clear that cuts will have devastating consequences for communities. The leader of the WLGA, Andrew Morgan, who is also the council leader for my constituency, stated that
“instead of avoiding disaster, this Autumn Statement is headed straight for the danger.”
My constituency faces a deficit of around £47 million next year. There is nowhere else to cut. People are frightened—they are at their wits’ end.
Moving to incomes, the historic fall in real incomes is due to concrete decisions taken by the Chancellor and his predecessors. The Tories are driving down pay and, to justify it, many are making false claims of a wage-price spiral. But pay is not driving inflation; it is lagging behind. The reality is that a Tory low pay agenda has existed since 2010: pay freeze after pay freeze, devaluing and demeaning our key workers. With no dedicated announcement on public sector pay, key workers now face further real-terms reductions in pay.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) outlined the difficult situation facing our key workers. To add to that, the Resolution Foundation has said that real wages should be around £15,000 higher based on past trends, and the TUC says that real earnings will not return to 2008 levels until 2027. I am repeating what my right hon. Friend said earlier, but it needs emphasising, because people are experiencing pay cuts—two decades of lost pay. It is those pay decisions that are driving industrial action, which is a last resort for workers. That is delivering instability and economic destruction.
The statement announced a range of new tax increases, but the impact again falls disproportionately on those least able to bear it. The TUC said that the hit from the 20% income tax threshold will earn the Treasury £6 billion a year compared with less than £1 billion from lowering the threshold for paying the top rate. As with austerity, that punishes those on low and middle incomes to fill a self-imposed and questionable “fiscal black hole.”
However, there is an alternative. Member after Member on the Government Benches have said that the Labour Members are not offering other solutions, but there are plenty of other solutions. We need the wealthiest individuals and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. The Budget introduced only meagre measures to levy funds from sources of wealth, and vast untaxed wealth is still being accumulated. There are numerous measures we could pursue, including abolishing non-dom status, equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates, and introducing a financial transactions tax, a one-off tax or even a new wealth tax. Hundreds of billions of pounds could and should be raised by taxing wealth and the rich in this country, and we should end the tax giveaway for the oil and gas giants’ fossil-fuel exploration.
Those measures would redistribute some of the wealth of the few to secure a better future for the many, while boosting growth. Putting more money in people’s pockets will increase spending in the local economy and boost growth, and that is why I will continue to back our trade unions. Investing in public services will ensure that people’s needs are met, and that is why I back our local authorities and the demands for better settlements for public services.
The autumn statement does not deal with the household cost of living crisis, the public service funding crisis or the climate crisis. It sets the wrong priorities, and all in the name of stability. Until a Budget robustly redistributes the money from the few to the many and gets the economy moving, the same problems and the instability we face will continue and worsen.
To conclude, I and many on the Labour Benches will continue to support the trade union-led campaigns to lift incomes, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them, with local councils and with communities for higher pay for everyone in our society and fairer taxation of the rich and powerful. Diolch yn fawr.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We come now to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up on behalf of the Opposition. I welcome the new Minister to her place and wish her well. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard many passionate speeches, appeals for different sectors—from cockles to hospitality, and from the gaming sector to many of the industrial sectors that make Britain great—and appeals for different areas. People spoke passionately about how the cost of living crisis is affecting their constituencies. We heard discussion of individual measures in the autumn statement and, of course, we have had lively debate on how we got here in the first place.
This debate, like the autumn statement itself, has covered a lot of ground. But for all the individual parts of last week’s autumn statement, in the end the Chancellor’s speech was an hour-long reckoning with the Conservatives’ 12 years in office. It was not meant to be like this. The promise was of a better tomorrow; the good times were supposed to be coming. Instead, there was a more bitter conclusion: the Government have failed. They have failed over 12 years, and the autumn statement sent the bill for that failure to the British people. With every measure, every leak and every warning of the decisions in the weeks beforehand, all the Chancellor and the Prime Minister were doing was confirming the weakness of their record and the destruction of the Conservative party’s reputation, such as it was, for sound economic management. Try as it might, when a party have been in office for 12 years, there is no one left to blame.
Let me address directly the subject that has been at the heart of today’s debate: the balance of global and national factors in all of this. Of course, the Chancellor tried desperately last week to claim it was all about global factors—a plea for the defence that was repeated yesterday by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his opening speech. There is no doubt that the experience of covid and the consequences of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine have been very costly for many countries. All major countries have had to borrow money to help their businesses and to support their citizens—no one is denying that—but only in Britain, which is among the largest economies of the world, and under the stewardship of this Government, have we failed to recover our pre-covid economic position.
The Governor of the Bank of England last week described the difference between our recovery from covid and that of our peers as “dramatic”. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s report—it was allowed to issue one this time—suggests that it will be another two years before we even recover our pre-covid position. It is here in Britain, under this Government, that we had a mini-Budget resulting in carnage, causing a run on the pound, the IMF to hit the panic button, emergency interventions from the Bank of England and rocketing mortgage rates for our constituents. This country was used as a giant experiment by a Prime Minister and Chancellor desperate to enact the pamphlet fantasies of their dreams.
This month’s crop of Ministers—in today’s Tory party, everyone gets to be famous for 15 minutes—would like to tell us that it was all a bad dream and it fell from the sky, and they want to bury it under 10 feet of concrete, but it was a Conservative mini-Budget delivered by Conservative Ministers, voted in by Conservative party members and cheered on by Conservative MPs.
I have some of the quotes. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said:
“I strongly welcome this radical and generous package of measures”.—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 947.]
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said:
“How refreshing it is to hear some Conservative policies at last.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 950.]
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) said:
“I warmly welcome…the return to the low-tax free market principles that we on the Conservative Benches know will lead to growth and prosperity for everybody in our country.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 954.]
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) declared how “refreshing” it all was and said to us, “I am excited.” All of this was days before the whole thing drove the UK economy off a cliff.
Mark Fletcher
The right hon. Gentleman is having great fun, and the whole House is in raptures—please try to find my quotes in that pile; I do not think there are any. Not so long ago the Labour party was slagging us off for too many tax rises. We tried tax cuts and they did not work, and now he seems to be in the strange position of arguing with one hand and then with the other. What is the Labour party’s position when it comes to taxation?
Mr McFadden
I will tell the hon. Member one thing about taxation: the burden is much higher under this Government than it was under the Government in which I served as a Minister. That mini-Budget was a mistake for which the country and the public will be paying for a long time. In every one of the constituencies of Government Members, the two-year and five-year rates on mortgage renewals are still higher today than they were before that mini-Budget. Their constituents are still paying the price for their economic irresponsibility. Apart from the economic effects, it also caused damage to the international standing of our country. We became a poster child for economic mismanagement—a point that the Prime Minister himself admitted at last week’s G20 summit in Bali.
But the failure is not just over 12 weeks; it is year on year. The UK economy’s growth has been consistently weaker than the OECD average, and that difference is now worth £10,000 per year for every household. We do have global pressures—no one denies them—but think how much stronger people would feel in facing today’s pressures if incomes had been that much higher. That is the ghost of growth past, and the forecast for the ghost of growth future is for the UK to be at the bottom of the OECD growth league, with the possible exception of Russia, for the next two years.
All of this is felt in people’s pockets. Income is set to decline by 7% in real terms over the next two years. That is a £1,700 per household reduction in spending power. Things people cannot buy, bills they cannot pay, places they cannot go, coping with worries they never previously had to think about—all of this is the price of lower incomes, and those lower incomes are the result of 12 years of anaemic economic growth. This is the Conservative party’s mess, and the British people are being asked to pay the bill.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury quoted Ronald Reagan in his opening speech yesterday, but there is another Reagan quote that should haunt the Government right now. He asked, “Are you better off than you were before?” and the answer is no. The Chancellor announced a series of tax rises, asking the British people to pay more, and he did so at a time when inflation is already making it harder to pay the bills.
What will the Government do to recover as much as possible of the estimated £6.7 billion lost to fraud and waste in the covid loan schemes? Why is the unit set up to chase that money, announced with great fanfare by the current Prime Minister and established in HMRC, being closed down? The Government’s own former fraud Minister described the controls as being like a “Dad’s Army operation” and said it was a “happy” time to be a crook, and still the Government are asking people to pay more. Should as much of that money as possible not be recovered before asking our constituents to pay more? What of the figure in the OBR report showing that the administration of the energy company Bulb will now cost the taxpayer £6.5 billion? Why is that cost to the public so huge? Is the Prime Minister really the hedge fund manager who forgot to hedge? Once again, the British people are being asked to pay the price.
The point of all this, according to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, is to restore financial stability, but the UK only needs to restore its financial stability because the Conservative party destroyed that financial stability. If that is all the Conservatives have to offer, then all they have to offer is managing decline. The weakness of the Prime Minister in trying to build a platform for growth was also laid bare in the autumn statement. They persist in a ban on onshore wind when the country urgently needs a transition to cleaner power in the interests of both our energy security and lower bills for consumers. They fight plans to build more houses —indeed, they might have to pull their own legislation on this—because Government Members always want them elsewhere. The previous Prime Minister talked about an anti-growth coalition—it is sitting there on the Government Benches.
On trade, the Prime Minister wants to tell the European Union that the grown-ups are back in charge and, at the same time, convince his Back Benchers that he is really a true believer—well, good luck with that. The Chancellor, who loves all things Swiss, is going to buy them all cuckoo clocks for Christmas.
The point of financial stability is that it has to be a platform for better growth in the future. Financial stability has to be a platform for hope. It has to be the basis for wealth creation, for better long-term growth and for a way to escape the doom loop in which the Conservative party has left us. That is what we must secure to make the country more prosperous and our citizens better off.
This country can do so much better through the skills and talents of our workers; through modern supply-side economics that supports help to get the hundreds of thousands of people who have left the labour market since covid back into work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said in his opening speech yesterday; through making the transition to cleaner energy a UK industrial and economic success story; not through rerunning the Brexit argument, but by having an adult and responsible relationship with our neighbours and allies; through making this country the best place to start and grow a business—the home of enterprise and wealth creation; through the reform of business rates; and through making sure that when we get economic growth, every part of the country can be part of it.
The fundamental difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that they believe that growth comes only from unleashing the animal spirits at the top, while we believe that growth comes from the efforts of each and every person who goes to work every day, from the entrepreneurs who start a business to the teachers who equip children with new skills. That is the point of financial stability; it is not an end in itself but a platform for a better tomorrow. Maybe that is the lasting verdict on this autumn statement: it was an admission that not only have the Conservatives failed in the past but they now have nothing to offer for the future.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box to respond to the many powerful and passionate contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and the sometimes incorrect contributions made by other hon. Members, and it is a genuine privilege to wind up on behalf of the Government in support of the autumn statement. We have discussed and debated many aspects of the autumn statement. We have heard some passionate and clear analyses of the situation in our constituencies as well as nationally and internationally, and of the state of the economy at home and around the world.
The autumn statement sets out our ambitions for stability, growth and public services. We say that it is a balanced plan: on the one hand, it will strengthen our public finances, bring down inflation and protect jobs, and on the other hand, it will protect standards in schools, cut NHS waiting times, fund social care, cap energy bills and support those on benefits. We have been frank, however, that that has been difficult. We as a Government are prepared to take those decisions in the country’s best interests. There is no question but that these are challenging times, but neither the origins nor the impacts are unique to this country.
To correct some Opposition Members, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the fall in living standards is almost entirely driven by rising world prices. We can see the evidence in the international figures. Inflation is high here, but it is higher in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) explained the terrible impacts that inflation can have and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made the critical point that inflation hurts the poorest the most. That is precisely why the Government’s No. 1 priority is to tackle inflation.
Interest rates have risen here, but they have risen more quickly in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) reminded the House that the Governor of the Bank of the England gave evidence to the Treasury Committee this week and said that the disruption in the mortgage market caused by the mini-Budget had subsided—indeed, that it subsided in mid to late October. I am grateful to her for that reminder.
Growth forecasts have fallen here, but they have also fallen elsewhere in the world, including falling further in Germany. The OBR says that higher energy prices explain the majority of the downward revision in cumulative growth since March. Governments do not have the luxury of choosing the context in which they must operate. Indeed, the IMF expects one third of the world’s economy to be in recession this year and next. The job is to understand what we face, address those issues deliberately and responsibly on behalf of the communities we serve and then deliver that action, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with me that the measures set out in the statement and under discussion over these last few days will mean that, when the international economy and our own start to improve, we will be in a far better place to reap the benefits of that global economic improvement than if we were just to sit here, twiddle our thumbs and pretend that everything was okay?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the OBR—the independent OBR—again confirms that because of our plans the recession is shallower, and inflation is reduced because of these very difficult decisions we have taken. Unemployment is also lower, with about 70,000 jobs protected as a result of our decisions.
Drew Hendry
The Minister is very keen to lay inflationary pressures globally, but how does she explain the OECD figures showing that, for market interest rates, the UK is at the very top of the tree?
Victoria Atkins
As the Governor of the Bank of England has explained, disruption in the markets has subsided, and the impact of that has flushed through the system. I would emphasise to the hon. Member the evidence we are seeing in other countries. I do not shy away from that; I offer it as an example of the pressures we are all facing internationally. It is precisely that international picture that the Government are addressing.
The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) laid down in, if I may say so, a rather loud speech that there was no help for his constituents with the cost of living. It was passionate, I am told. It is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) expressed astonishment at his passion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) said that some Opposition Members were living in a different galaxy.
On a serious note, I do want to help colleagues across the House understand the help that is available, because I know that hon. Members will be responding to their constituents’ worries. Any constituent who is on benefits or paid pensions will have them increased by 10.1%. Any constituent on means-tested benefits will have a one-off payment of £900. Any constituent on pension credit will have a one-off payment of £300 on top of their winter payment, and those who are living with disabilities will have a one-off payment of £150. Any constituent on the national living wage will see an increase to their salary, with the hourly rate going up to £10.42. Every single one of our constituents will see help through the energy price guarantee, which is worth on average £900 this year and will be worth £500 next year, and it helps to lower inflation by 2%.
Victoria Atkins
I will give way, but there is even more to come.
What is more—and his is an important point in relation to the very moving cases we have heard in the House today—the most vulnerable households will be able to secure help through the household support scheme, to which we have added a further £1 billion precisely to help those who are in trouble. I know that hon. Members from Northern Ireland are most concerned about people living off-grid. We have doubled the one-off payment that will be given to people living off the grid, and that payment will be given in the winter. Finally, if anyone is in any doubt as to the help they can give their constituents, they should please look at the “Help for Households” website, which sets this all out very clearly.
I am now going to race through some of the changes that we have had to make to taxes. We have tried to be fair and compassionate in these difficult times, meaning that those with the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest weights, and we have wanted to avoid tax rises that most damage growth. On personal taxes, we have reduced the threshold at which the 45p rate becomes payable from £150,000 to £125,140, which means that those earning £150,000 will pay just over £1,200 more in tax each year. We are maintaining the income tax personal allowance and thresholds, which is a difficult but necessary decision, but even after these freezes, we will still have the most generous set of tax-free allowances of any G7 country.
On business taxes, we are raising corporation tax to 25p precisely because, as has been said, we want the largest companies to bear their responsibility. Even at the increased rate of 25%, it will still be the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7. We have frozen the employer national insurance contribution threshold until April 2028, but 40% of businesses will still pay no NICs at all. The VAT registration threshold will stay which, incidentally, is almost twice as high as EU and OECD averages.
Victoria Atkins
Let me move on to business rates, and then I will come to my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady. We know how important business rates are for our high streets, pubs, shops, and local hospitality businesses. That is why with the revaluation that is needed, we have none the less got a package of nearly £14 billion-worth of help, so that nearly two thirds of properties will not pay a penny next year, and thousands of pubs, restaurants and small high-street shops will benefit.
Jonathan Gullis
The Minister is talking about taxation. I am seriously concerned that the Government have enabled council tax to go up by 5%. In Stoke-on-Trent a 1% rise brings in merely £900,000, which is the second lowest of any local authority in England, and it simply will not cover the black hole that inflation has brought. Will the Government look at areas such as Stoke-on-Trent and give additional help? If they do not, we will end up in the situation that Croydon Council has just announced: the third time it has gone bankrupt.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend. For anyone who missed it, I think he just said that Croydon Council has gone bankrupt for a third time, which is worrying, given that it is, I think, a Labour council. He mentioned the council tax referendums, and we chose that course precisely because we want to address the very real issue of social care. We have ensured that we are balancing those pressures with grants from central Government, and I will come to that in a little more detail in a moment.
Labour’s answer to these difficult sets of international and domestic problems seems, as has been pointed out, to be non-doms. Labour says that scrapping non-doms will apparently earn £3 billion in savings. Well, here are some facts. Non-domiciled taxpayers were liable to pay £7.9 billion in UK income tax, capital gains tax, and national insurance contributions in the tax year ending 2021. Non-doms have invested more than £6 billion in the UK since 2012, using the business investment relief scheme. In other words, non-doms are paying rates of tax that far outstrip the savings that Labour would make, and it is a very one-dimensional answer to a difficult problem.
Carla Lockhart
Persistence has worked. I am sure the Minister will welcome the increase from £100 to £200 for the heating oil payment in Northern Ireland, and that it will go to all households. However, for weeks now £400 has been dangled in front of the people of Northern Ireland for the energy support payment. Can she assure my hard-pressed constituents that they will get their £400, and can she say when they will get it?
Victoria Atkins
I have been nudged by the Whips, so would the hon. Lady allow me to write to her? I know how complicated it is in Northern Ireland.
I could talk about growth. Interestingly, Conservative Members were talking about growth and about how we can ensure the future of our economy for our children and grandchildren. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). They all emphasised how vital growth is if we are to get through these difficult issues and build a good and rich economy for us all.
We announced in the autumn statement some interesting and important measures, including safeguarding capital investment over the next five years, so that we have the largest investment in public works for more than four decades. Of course, innovation and education will be critical, which is why, next year and the year after, we will invest an extra £2.3 billion a year in schools.
On health, because we know how important it is to each and every one of our constituents, despite the very difficult times that we are in, we are providing £6.6 billion to the NHS over the next two years. We will be providing an estimated 200,000 more social care packages for the elderly and most vulnerable in our society, because we are increasing funding in these very difficult times.
We have had to take tough decisions now to lay the foundations for our economy for the next generation. We will not pass on our debts to our children and grandchildren, but we will provide education, skills and prosperity in the industries of the future. We are facing tough times, but we will rise again with a thriving economy, high employment and a bright, responsible economic future for us all. I commend the statement, but it also commends itself to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The amazing influence of the Whips—sometimes.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That—
(a) provision may be made increasing the rate at which energy (oil and gas) profits levy is charged to 35%,
(b) provision may be made reducing the percentage in section 2(3) of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 (amount of additional investment expenditure) to 29%, and
(c) (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for and in connection with extending the period for which the levy has effect until 31 March 2028.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Amount of corporation tax relief for expenditure on research and development
Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made—
(a) increasing the percentage in section 104M(3) of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to 20%, Friday 18 November 2022 OP No.73: Part 2 A. Calendar of Business 11
(b) reducing the percentage in section 1044(8) of that Act to 86%,
(c) reducing the percentages in sections 1045(7) and 1055(2)(b) of that Act to 186%, and
(d) reducing the percentage in section 1058(1)(a) of that Act to 10%.
3. Basic rate limit and personal allowance for tax years 2026-27 and 2027-28
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 223 - Question accordingly agreed to.
4. Threshold at which additional rate of income tax is charged
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
5. Dividend nil rate
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
6. Capital gains tax (annual exempt amount)
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
7. Inheritance tax (nil rate band etc for tax years 2026-27 and 2027-28)
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
8. Removal of vehicle excise duty exemptions and reliefs
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
9. Taxable benefits (appropriate percentage for cars with a CO2 emissions figure)
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4 to 15 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union
That the draft Cessation of EU Law Relating to Prohibitions on Grounds of Nationality and Free Movement of Persons Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 20 October, be approved.
Criminal Law
That the draft Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Offensive Weapons Homicide Reviews) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
Immigration
That the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.
Sanctions
That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 16) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1122), dated 1 November 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.
Energy
That the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 1101), dated 27 October 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
That the Energy Bills Support Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 1102), dated 27 October 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
That the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 1103), dated 27 October 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
That the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Northern Ireland) Regulations (SI, 2022, No. 1124), dated 3 November 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 November, be approved.
That the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations (SI, 2022, No. 1125), dated 3 November 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 November, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)
That the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.
Defence
That the draft Armed Forces (Tri-Service Serious Crime Unit) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.
That the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2022, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.
Service Personnel and Veterans: Rehabilitation
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to discuss in this House the rehabilitation of injured and sick service personnel and veterans. The people of our constituencies and of this country send us to this Chamber to represent them, but all too often what we discuss on these Benches seems a million miles away from the realities of those we seek to serve. We talk about the overview of massive nationwide schemes and about budgets in the tens of millions. We find ourselves talking about people as statistics—the percentage who need x, the numbers who have used y. It is only right that we talk about the big picture and the huge issues that this country faces, but I would like to use this opportunity to talk about some of the people we seek to serve: those who have served us and their country.
It is particularly poignant to speak in this House about the rehabilitation of veterans and service personnel in the week following Remembrance Sunday, when Members across the House attended services in honour of those who have given their lives in service. It is important that we all recognise that remembrance is not simply about familiar symbols and services over a few days in November, but about remembering those we have lost, honouring them by doing what we can to support the living, and recognising the reality of their lives.
Last year, I was honoured to be invited to join the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The scheme aims to give Members of Parliament like me, with no experience of serving in the armed forces, an insight into military life. I had zero insight into that world until I took part in the scheme with the Royal Navy and with Royal Marine commandos. Along with some unforgettable experiences, I had the chance to meet service personnel from all walks of life, hear from them about their experiences, see them training and see them in the field. I actually bumped into ex-pupils from the last 20 years of my teaching career, which was quite the occasion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate; I spoke to her beforehand. I fully support what she is saying and what she means. A charity in my constituency called Beyond the Battlefield offers rehabilitation for service personnel and veterans and ensures that their wellbeing is taken into consideration. As well as rehab, it offers incredible mental health support and temporary shelter while veterans get back on their feet.
In Northern Ireland, housing priority has not yet been extended to service personnel, so they are often left in housing need if they become ill or injured. Does the hon. Lady agree that a more in-depth discussion is needed to ensure that veterans are protected through priority housing if they become ill or injured while in service or out of service?
Tonia Antoniazzi
It is really important that we continue to have the conversation about housing needs, particularly in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I would like to continue to have that conversation with him outside the Chamber in my role as shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. I thank him for his intervention.
One thing that struck me about my experience in the armed forces parliamentary scheme was that there is no standard military job. The diversity of experiences and skills, and of people, was striking.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate; I commend what she says. In my constituency, there are many retired Gurkha soldiers. Unfortunately, those who retired before 1997 receive a much lower pension than other colleagues in the British Army. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important for Ministers to listen to the issues raised by the Gurkhas? Does she also agree that it is incumbent on Ministers to continue discussions with the Nepalese Government and bring them to a fruitful conclusion?
Tonia Antoniazzi
My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the conversation about pensions with the Nepalese Government continues and that he speaks to the Minister and the Secretary of State about it.
Perhaps those in civilian life, like many of us in this House, too often view the armed forces as one homogeneous group. They may have one image of the type of person who enters the forces, or an idea of military life that bears more relation to a Sunday afternoon film than to reality. It is essential that we in this House do not make the same mistake. We must acknowledge both individual needs and the unique position of those who serve and have served as they transition into civilian life, and we need to ensure that the specialised services that support them are well funded and supported to grow.
These include organisations such as the British Training Board, whose goal is to make sure that the training and skills achieved in the armed forces are recognised by civilian employers. It was set up by an Army veteran, Adrian Rabey, who on leaving the service found that the skills he had gained as a teacher and trainer were not recognised by employers, despite having been told the opposite when he was in the Army. A few years later he began to see friends in a similar position and started to work with them and looking at gaps in their qualifications, and he realised that the prior learning they had untaken in the military was not being recognised. Since then, fantastic work has been going on and the British Training Board has successfully helped thousands of serving and ex-military personnel to get recognition for their previous military and public services training and experience, and it has grown to offering career development, coaching and support, which I have seen at first hand. This is a specialist service for a unique set of people, but we cannot rely on people like Adrian alone to fulfil our obligations to veterans.
In 2011 the country made a promise, founded on the unique obligations and sacrifices of those who serve or have served in the armed forces, that they and their families should be treated fairly. The armed forces covenant is in place because we recognised the unique nature of the service given to this country by those in the forces.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important issue. We have had a number of conflicts since the Falklands in 1982, including the Gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course 30 years of troubles and violence in Northern Ireland. Our service personnel served with distinction, with many paying the ultimate sacrifice and others being left with mental and physical scars. Does she agree that, in Northern Ireland specifically, the continual glorification of terrorism is inhibiting the rehabilitation and wellness of our ex-service personnel? We have political leaders saying that it was justified and that there was no alternative, but if we continue to hear language like that our service personnel will never be rehabilitated and will continue to be retraumatised.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I would like to have a discussion about the glorification of terrorism with her outside the Chamber, and I thank her for raising it and putting it on the record.
We must recognise that everyone’s experiences and sacrifices are unique, and that the nature of the support they receive must reflect that. I commend the Government for acknowledging the need for targeted and specialist support through the introduction of the armed forces personnel in transition framework, which should ensure that seriously wounded armed forces personnel with very complex and enduring healthcare requirements who are transitioning into civilian life will continue to receive comprehensive support throughout their lifetime, although I and others would welcome assurances from the Government that integrated personal commissioning for veterans is being implemented effectively.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. I am particularly pleased that she has mentioned the integrated personal commissioning for veterans scheme—IPC4V—which I know was set up with veterans such as Ben Parkinson in mind. Ben Parkinson is a hero and I have been in regular contact with him and his family for a number of years. I am concerned that worries have been expressed recently about whether Ministry of Defence funding is still in place to enable charities to provide the vital services that veterans like Ben need, as was the case previously. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that those veterans’ needs are always met? Soldiers like Ben Parkinson have done their duty to our country, and we must do our duty to them by ensuring that they get the treatment they need for the duration of their lives.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is essential that that funding is there from the MOD, and I would like to work with him on this. I am sure that the Minister will do so as well.
I said at the start of this contribution that I wanted to talk about people, and I want to talk about a few of the people I have come to know and about their journeys, because it is important that their stories should be heard from these green Benches. I want to tell the House about Pete and the impact that his ambition has had, not just on him but on the support that service people and veterans like him are now able to access though a phenomenal organisation that I have been lucky enough to work with called 65 Degrees North.
Pete Bowker was a lance corporal in the Queen’s Dragoon Guards. When on tour in Afghanistan, the armoured vehicle in which he was traveling was hit by an improvised explosive device. As a result of the blast, Pete lost his right leg below the knee and was discharged in 2012. In 2015, Pete became the world’s first amputee to cross the Greenland ice cap unsupported. Pete was assisted by a team put together by the formidable Richard Morgan, a former Royal Marines commando. When Rich met Pete—that sounds like a film, doesn’t it?—in 2013, as part of a team taking part in a 10-day endurance challenge to raise money for wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women, Pete told Rich about his ambition to cross the Greenland ice cap and how he had struggled to get support for it, so Rich decided to help him, because that is what Rich is like. Even when he discovered that Pete did not know how to ski—imagine that!—which is pretty important for someone trying to get across Greenland, he still carried on.
The expedition to Greenland not only fulfilled Pete’s ambition; it started something bigger. Seeing the impact of the Greenland expedition, the team behind it saw the potential for adventure in rehabilitation, which is how 65 Degrees North began. In the years since, 65 Degrees North has helped more than 100 wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans realise their ambitions. Offering this community the opportunity to participate in challenging, unique and, honestly, arduous expeditions, which I do not think I could achieve, supports them to regain their confidence, change their behaviours and tackle PTSD by offering a form of participation centred on rehabilitation in which outcomes are clear, tangible and empowering—that is the word.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The message is very clear, that service and inspiration does not stop when these individuals leave the armed forces; in some cases, it only begins. My constituent Andy Reid, from Rainford, last month became the first triple amputee from the UK to reach the summit of Kilimanjaro. After being injured in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, Andy set up the Standing Tall Foundation in St Helens. It is not just about helping veterans and those he served alongside; it is open to everyone in the town and borough. People like Andy continue to be an inspiration to this very day, and we should have them in mind in this debate.
Tonia Antoniazzi
That is absolutely brilliant. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because constituents like Andy need to know about and participate in such activities. It is all-encompassing.
Listening to the testimonies of those who have taken part in such activities, it is clear that real-life feedback and learning, where they are asked to deal with new situations and to adapt to constantly changing conditions, gives them confidence and helps them to recapture parts of themselves that they felt were lost because of their injury and experience.
Perhaps the most powerful aspect of this approach is how it helps participants to challenge their perceptions of themselves. The research shows that cognitive dissonance has been created between a person’s perceived abilities and their actual behaviours, and it is summed up so well in the words of Zoe, a Royal Navy lieutenant:
“The first time I walked in the door, we had a really nice talk about how the whole idea was to get people outside, build some confidence. It is one of those moments where everyone kind of comes together and says, ‘You said you couldn’t do that and now look at you—you can do it.’ Pulling my head away from, ‘It hurts, you can’t do this. You haven’t been able to walk, let alone climb’ to climbing up a ridge that Royal Marine commandos use to train on the rock weekly essentially obliterated it, because I had no choice. It was like, ‘You’re going to give this a go.’”
When talking to people who have been involved, it is clear how this approach impacts positively on their mental health and wellbeing, and helps change lives for the better. There is no cure-all for PTSD or the other issues that these participants face, but there is clearly a need for tailored support and space for different therapeutic approaches as part of a holistic support model.
I would like to end—I say that, but I am not going to end soon, so do not get excited—with the words of the wife of one of the 65 Degrees North participants, who sums up not only the struggle that far too many service personnel, veterans and their families face when they need support, but the impact that is made when they receive it. We must not forget the families and the partners of our service personnel. She says:
“When Mark first told me about wanting to climb Kilimanjaro with 65 Degrees North I was very wary and I will admit now that I was cynical.
PTSD seems to be the new “trendy” charity cause that people want to be involved in, only to have them let you down. You would not believe the charities we both approached for help, only to find out that it was either not there, not in our area or we didn’t tick the right box to be entitled to help.
I remember the day I was crying down the phone to a certain PTSD forces charity, begging for them to help him, to be told as he is now working in the careers service he isn’t classed as serving in their eyes! So I was told there was nothing they could do, but when I then asked a charity that dealt with veterans, yep you guessed it, they classed him as still serving, so we just slipped through the cracks. I had to watch this man, who had given 28 years of his life, who sacrificed so much, be cast aside by these people, all because he didn’t quite meet their criteria.
So we tried the GP...who had no clue how to help.
After hours and hours of researching I did find someone who was willing to help and it did help…for a short time.
Unfortunately they didn’t seem to realise that PTSD isn’t like a cold, you don’t wake up and suddenly be cured. So PTSD was back...with a vengeance.
So yes, I was doubtful, cynical and feeling very protective that Mark would yet again be failed and let down. But I smiled, told him whatever he wanted to do I’d support him and just thought I’d have to pick up the pieces later. So our weekends became filled with mountain walks, treks up to Pen Y Fan (I actually had frost bite at one point and didn’t I complain).
Time quickly passed and it was time for him to leave…but he didn’t want to go. Fear of failure (like that would ever happen…We are talking bootneck stubbornness here) what if he didn’t like anyone? What if they didn’t like him? What if he got injured? What if? So I dropped him off and told him he’d be fine and did the thing every forces partner does... waited and worried.
But something happened, each time he was able to get in touch he sounded a bit different, calmer, stronger, positive and proud, feelings that PTSD takes from you. There were dark times, times he said he didn’t think he would make it. but he did... he conquered Kili and in doing so took the biggest leap towards a life (dare I say it) free from PTSD.
There are no words I can use to describe the change in Mark since his return, for the first time we can both see there is light at the end of this long, dark PTSD tunnel. That we aren’t alone, there are actually people out there who not only care, but are willing to help and continue to help.
So yes, I was wrong (hey, it doesn’t happen very often)”—
good woman—
“becoming involved with 65 Degrees North was one of the best things Mark has done for himself and for us. If anyone has the chance to help and get involved with them then please grab that opportunity. I promise you, it will change your life.”
I have brought up this charity with the Minister and he has agreed to meet people from it. I am very thankful for that and will arrange for that meeting to happen. I have been honoured to be able to stand in this House and talk about the experiences of soldiers and of these two charities that support our servicemen and women, and veterans, with dignity. For me, “dignity” is the key word.
I also wish to put on record, from my experience and from those of other Members who have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, how unique and brilliant that scheme is. It has changed my whole outlook as a Member of Parliament. It is what should be rolled out for all parliamentarians and all their staff as a matter of course, because it is incredible.
I pay tribute to the excellent work of Commander Susie Moran from the Royal Navy and Lieutenant Johnny Longbottom, who supported my journey through the scheme, which was entertaining. It also helped this Member of Parliament for Gower, in Swansea, south Wales to gain a greater insight into the challenges of our current service personnel and a better understanding of the needs and the rehabilitation of injured and sick service personnel and veterans. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his comments, which will be coming, and to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her contribution this evening. She has raised a number of issues. I think there is a great deal of common ground, and I salute her for all her efforts in promoting the welfare of the men and women of our armed forces, our veterans and, in particular, those who require the services of our rehabilitation services.
There is, of course, a raft of support available to our personnel, rightly, to veterans and to their families. In the short time that I have available to me, I will try to outline, in response to the hon. Lady’s comments, some of those as best I can.
Let me start by summarising our rehabilitation offer for serving personnel. Our aim here is to return our regulars and our reserves to active duty as soon as possible. To that end, the MOD’s Defence Medical Services, which I used to be a part of, provides a tiered service, extending from the more minor to the most severe injuries.
First, our primary care rehabilitation facilities offer physiotherapy and exercise rehabilitation—fairly straightforward things. Should additional clinical decision making and diagnostics be required, referral to one of the 13 regional rehabilitation units across the UK is possible. They offer rapid access to imaging services and residential rehabilitation for those with moderate musculoskeletal injuries. When it comes to complex musculoskeletal disorders, complex trauma and issues related to joint and soft tissue disease, patients are transferred to the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre in Stanford Hall—known to many hon. and right hon. Members as its previous incarnation, Headley Court in Surrey. DMRC also supports small groups of veterans who require prosthetics through its complex prosthetic assessment clinic.
Since May 2020, a total of 16 patients have attended this service and, since March 2022, eight veterans have undergone cutting-edge direct skeletal fixation surgery for prosthesis before receiving rehabilitation at DMRC. Notably, this clinic is a joint MOD and NHS England endeavour, highlighting how partnership is a key feature of our military healthcare landscape these days.
Another example of this partnership is our defence recovery capability. This MOD-led initiative is run in conjunction with Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and Erskine Homes. The care it provides is centred around an individual recovery plan, integrating all aspects of recovery, including medical care, welfare, housing, education, reskilling, work placements and employment issues.
Again, those with more serious conditions can access one of our specialist regional personnel recovery units, receiving one-to-one support from a personnel recovery officer. In our major garrisons, there are personnel recovery centres, such as the naval service recovery centre in Plymouth. I should be clear that these are not hospitals, rehabilitation or physiotherapy centres, but conducive military environments designed to speed up recovery. Indeed, they provide not just residential capacity, but specially designed courses and, in the case of the Battle Back Centre at Lilleshall, adaptive support and adventure training to rebuild confidence shattered by trauma, which touches on the hon. Lady’s oral question to me on 7 November.
Hon. Members will be aware that, unfortunately, the impact of covid-19 precipitated Help for Heroes’ withdrawal from the PRCs in Colchester, Catterick, Tidworth and the NSRC in Plymouth in 2021. However, I reassure colleagues that the MOD has since stepped in to take ownership of these recovery centres and will continue to operate alongside the Royal British Legion and Erskine Homes for the Battle Back Centre and Edinburgh PRC.
I briefly turn to the rehabilitation that we offer to veterans, which is the second part of the hon. Lady’s Adjournment debate today. As of 1 July 2022, some 3% of the UK regular trained armed forces were in recovery, while some 70% seen in recovery returned to duty. The medical care our people receive is world class but, inevitably, not all who receive support can return to work. Nevertheless, we retain a duty of care to all veterans who selflessly serve our nation. The offer begins with our career transition partnership, which plays a critical role in smoothing the transition from military to civilian life. The full core resettlement programme is available to all medically discharged service leavers regardless of service length and is accessible to personnel two years prior to and two years after discharge.
There is also a bespoke service, known as CTP Assist, for the most vulnerable leavers, which is tailored to the individual needs of the client. Hon. Members will be aware that, in the past, service veterans received variable levels of support due to a complex, overlapping patchwork of provision.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I appreciate the information the Minister is giving us. On the point about training, is the training subject to any kind of review or standards, such as Ofsted?
Dr Murrison
What we do in Defence is probably world-beating—I would like to think so—but Ofsted is involved in assessing training throughout Defence, including in phase 1 and phase 2 establishments. In general, Ofsted’s reviews have been pretty positive, and I am more than happy to share them with the hon. Lady if she would like me to.
I could not possibly conclude a debate such as this without mentioning Operation Courage. Launched in April 2019, the service helps veterans to recover from the hidden harms that conflict inflicts on mind and body. I know the hon. Lady is well aware of that.
Alongside Op Courage is our veteran trauma network, which offers veterans support for service-related physical healthcare problems. The network comprises 18 NHS veteran trauma centres and NHS specialist units, each with its own military and civilian expertise. I accept that that is not enough, and we are working on more to come, in particular a £5 million research fund. This area is a fruitful one for further research to improve the offer we are able to make to our servicepeople and veterans, and in particular to develop innovative surgical techniques, improve rehabilitation from blast injuries and adapt intervention technologies for mild traumatic brain injury, among other things.
I must briefly mention the creation of the National Rehabilitation Centre, which is very exciting. Working alongside the national health service, it will be a 70-bed specialist clinic unit bringing patient care, research, and training and education under one roof. I pay tribute to the former vice-chief of the defence staff, General Sir Tim Granville-Chapman, for his work in that area. I look forward to the NRC’s opening formally in 2024, but in the meantime there is much collaboration between the DMRC and the NRC.
On the point the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made about IPC4V, he seemed to suggest it was going to be closed down or downgraded, but I can assure him that is not the case. It was only launched in March 2019. He is right to mention Ben Parkinson as an exemplar, and I can reassure him about our commitment to it; we are even scoping extending the reach of the scheme, if that is of any help to him. I am more than happy to discuss the matter with him further.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Minister for the response he has just provided. I know he takes these matters very seriously. Does he recall seeing an important piece in The Sunday Times a couple of months ago, written by David Collins, which raised specific concerns about the support provided to the most seriously injured veterans? I wrote to his predecessor about it and would obviously be very happy to write to him about it too. I just ask him to look at the points flagged in that article and satisfy himself that the necessary provision is in place for people such as Ben Parkinson.
Dr Murrison
I do not recognise the piece of correspondence that the hon. Gentleman describes, but I will ask for it to be presented to me and I will certainly be more than happy to discuss it with him.
Finally, we will strive to make this place the best in the world to be a veteran while offering the gold standard in rehabilitation services for all those who serve. When the call came, they answered. In their hour of need we must do the same.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) (Amendment) Order 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) (Amendment) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. Orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 are the usual way to authorise the construction or operation of local transport schemes, such as railways, tramways or trolley vehicle systems, in England and Wales, as well as transport systems using a mode of guided transport prescribed by order.
The modes that are currently prescribed that can seek authorisation via the Transport and Works Act include road-based and track-based systems, but those are limited to systems guided by physical means, such as cables or tracks. Changes in technology mean that transport systems can now be guided by non-physical means, which might include simple sensor systems that detect paint or other road markings to direct a vehicle, or more complex sensor systems that read the surrounding environment to direct the vehicle. The draft amendment order will extend the Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992 to allow applications for public transport schemes using non-physical guidance systems to be authorised via a Transport and Works Act order.
The order will not change the process that a promoter is required to follow in seeking authorisation through the Transport and Works Act regime or the way in which such applications are decided. It will simply allow a wider and more modern range of schemes to be considered and authorised under the Transport and Works Act. In other words, should the proposed change be approved, parties impacted by a scheme that will use a form of non-physically guided technology will continue to have the opportunity to submit their views on that scheme. Any views that are submitted will be fully considered before a decision is made on whether to grant consent on a specific scheme.
Let me provide further context and background on what the Transport and Works Act covers. The Act is intended to be a one-stop consenting mechanism for all the powers needed to deliver and operate a transport scheme. An application made under section 1 of the Act can include a wide range of matters set out in schedule 1 to the Act, such as the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, demolition and removal of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other transport systems allowed under the Act.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Can the Minister assure the Committee that there will be a joined-up approach here? For example, I notice that this proposal applies only to England and Wales. What assurances can he give me that, if I decide in a few years’ time to go from the north of England to Scotland in a self-driving car, that car will not stop at the Scottish border because Scotland has introduced a different method?
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As he rightly mentioned, the order applies to England and Wales. We have sought the approval of the Welsh Administration, who are content with it. Scotland has its own Transport and Works Act mechanism. My right hon. Friend is right that the issue he raises will have to be taken into consideration when one gets to the stage of looking at a joined-up Union system. However, it will be for the Scottish Administration to move matters forward. I will write to the Scottish Executive, and I will go beyond the point that they are content because they have their own mechanism and actually inquire as to how they would see cross-border activity working in practice. I would just make the point that this is an enabling piece of legislation, so every project under it would itself have to be approved, and Scotland would of course need the same enabling mechanism. However, I will write to my right hon. Friend with the assurance he seeks.
Applicants seeking authorisation under the Transport and Works Act can apply to construct, alter, repair, maintain or demolish roads buildings and other structures, as needed to allow for the delivery of a scheme. If the order is approved, such provisions will apply equally to a guided mode of transport system using sensor technology, where applicants are required to deliver such a scheme. That demonstrates that there is currently wide provision to allow an application to incorporate any of the aforementioned matters where they are necessary and appropriate for the delivery of the scheme under consideration. That will not change as a result of the order. The power to make this amending order is set out in section 2 of the Transport and Works Act but is subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
The term “guided transport” is defined as
“transport by vehicles guided by means external to the vehicles (whether or not the vehicles are also capable of being operated in some other way)”.
The order seeks to cover transport by vehicles guided by non-physical guidance systems. These systems, whether simple sensor systems that detect paint or other road markings, or more complex sensor systems that read the surrounding environment, are external to the vehicle.
To conclude, the order is essential to support innovation in transport and to allow the use of new, more advanced technologies. It had wide support from those who responded to the public consultation on this change. As enabling legislation, it does not impose additional costs on applicants applying for Transport and Works Act orders or on the Government in taking forward and providing consent for such applications. I hope Members will join me in supporting the order, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship on this statutory instrument on guided transport modes, Dame Caroline. Since taking on this brief over two years ago I have consistently marvelled at the innovation and progress made in the transport industry. Improving safety, making efficiencies and tackling the climate crisis have long been aims of the industry, which has shown consistent innovation in bringing forward battery-operated trains, driverless vehicles and—among the more recent developing technologies—non-physically guided transportation, often using sensors.
As the Minister outlined, this statutory instrument facilitates the authorisation of applications for new transport schemes that wish to use non-physical guidance. Clearly, that signals significant potential change for our tramways, bus lanes, railways and roads, and it expands the types of guided transport modes that TWA applications can cover. Whether we are enabling buses to use road markings as guidance, or trains to monitor tracks and surroundings through sensors, it is important that legislation maintains the safety of these emerging technologies, while ensuring that our transport systems are able to take advantage of the latest developments.
I appreciate that this SI simply enables such applications and that the merits of individual applications will be considered under existing legislation in respect of their safety and the worker and passenger impact, but it would be remiss of me not to mention a number of issues. As the Minister will be aware, concerns were raised as a result of the consultation documents produced alongside this SI regarding the limits and drawbacks of sensor technology in particular. That included poor weather impacting electromagnetic contact and therefore the information a sensor is able to convey. Weather already has a significant impact on our railways, as we have seen as a result of landslides, heatwaves and debris on the track. Safety must be paramount when it comes to transport. I appreciate that this technology should mitigate some safety concerns through the detection of obstructions, pedestrians and faults, but I hope that the Minister can address any concerns directly.
We must also consider any worker impact that the implementation of these technologies and further automation may have. Any needless cutting back of experienced and valuable workers on our transport networks does not serve passengers, transport operators or the system as a whole. There will certainly be anxieties about that in the transport sector, given the current chaotic climate the Government are presiding over. Will the Minister therefore reassure me that those who have dedicated decades to our railways will not be short-changed because of such innovations, but will be better supported by them?
As the Minister knows, supporting such innovation and allowing it to develop must be a continued priority for the Government. We must ensure that we have adequate research and development spending and that we encourage the best and the brightest in Great Britain to build industries that will help us tackle future challenges. We cannot fall behind our European counterparts in particular, as we have with previous technological innovations, such as electrification. As has been noted, the technologies covered in this SI are already operational in Spain, France, Japan, and China. Without funding and support, we cannot realise these technologies on our own transport network. What steps has the Minister taken recently to ensure that there is enough research and development spending in this area and that this technology can indeed flourish?
I hope the Government are guided by industry experts, unions and developing technologies and ensure that we develop a world-leading transport network with the safety of passengers and workers at its heart.
Huw Merriman
I hope that the Committee has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting the order. Let me respond to the points the shadow Minister sought reassurance over.
On safety, I make the point again that this is enabling legislation and will just extend the perimeter to non-physical transport means. There will still be the opportunity under the Transport and Works Act to fully assess a project. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has experience—I certainly do—of constituency projects, and one project I have in mind has had a full public inquiry, which had the remit to look at all the angles. Technology, and reliance on technology, will be just another angle to be looked at, but it will be looked at more deeply because this technology is novel and a new way of operating. I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be no weakening of safety. Indeed, I envisage safety being looked at even more prominently as we deal with new technologies that come onstream.
The hon. Gentleman sought reassurance over workforce employment security, if I can put it in that manner. Again, to give him reassurance, let me say that a scheme being looked at in one part of the country would involve a bus using a sensor, but where the bus comes on to the public highway, the driver would take control—there will be a driver there at all times, and they will operate the bus at different times. Again, that is not being implemented by what we are talking about today—this being enabling legislation—but it could be put forward as part of a subsequent application. However, there will be no workforce issue. Of course, these brand-new, innovative projects and modes of transport should actually create a huge jobs market for this country, if it is at the forefront of this technology. That is why this legislation is so important: this is not just about building, or having the capability to build these things, but legislating to ensure that they can be operated in this country.
On the steps taken to deliver research and development, I should not put on an old hat, but I know that the Transport Committee is looking at the manner in which this country is innovating, and one reassuring point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the sheer amount of evidence coming from companies and organisations developing these products in this country demonstrates not only that the R&D budget is there and that there is investment from the UK Government, but that companies find the environment in this country very much to their liking. I hope the Committee will send out the message that we support that.
To conclude, the draft order will amend legislation to permit a wider range of transport to be authorised under the Transport and Works Act 1992, supporting, and allowing advantage to be taken of, new and more advanced technologies. On that basis, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I feel a bit like a jack-in-the-box this morning, Mr Speaker.
Environment Agency enforcement is at a record high, and its funding is closely monitored to ensure that it can continue to hold polluters to account. Last year, record fines were handed to water companies, making it clear that polluters will pay. The EA’s total budget this year is £1,650 million. I am always bad at reading out numbers and putting them into words. That is nearly 20% of DEFRA’s entire budget, including new ringfenced money for special enforcement activities, such as 4,000 more farm inspections and 5,000 more sewage treatment works inspections.
[Official Report, 17 November 2022, Vol. 722, c. 809.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow):
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood).
The correct response should have been:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I feel a bit like a jack-in-the-box this morning, Mr Speaker.
Environment Agency enforcement is at a record high, and its funding is closely monitored to ensure that it can continue to hold polluters to account. Last year, record fines were handed to water companies, making it clear that polluters will pay. The EA’s total budget this year is £1,650 million. I am always bad at reading out numbers and putting them into words. That is nearly 20% of DEFRA’s entire budget, including new ringfenced money for special enforcement activities, such as 4,000 more farm inspections and 500 more sewage treatment works inspections.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
It is a great privilege, as always, to be with you this morning, Mr Paisley, and to enjoy the possibility of conversing about the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The clause introduces schedule 6 to the Bill, which amends the criminal confiscation powers contained in parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—known as POCA, not to me, but to some presumably—to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to seize, detain and recover cryptoassets in more circumstances than at present. Schedule 6 will amend the provisions in each of the three existing confiscation regimes that extend to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland so that the measures apply in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is reflected in the three parts of schedule 6.
Key definitions in schedule 6, such as those of “cryptoasset” and “cryptoasset exchange provider”, are consistent with those used elsewhere in the Proceeds of Crime Act. The schedule includes powers to update those defined terms to ensure that the measures in the Bill can keep pace with the constantly evolving criminal use of cryptoassets, the rapidly changing nature of crypto technology as well as stay aligned with other legislation dealing with similar threats.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Paisley. I take the opportunity to welcome the Minister to his place; I do not think that I have done so formally, although I might well have done informally. It is good to see him in his place.
I want to make some general comments about cryptocurrencies and about the clause and schedule 6. Broadly speaking, they have some positive aspects, but we also have some questions for the Minister, and I am sure that he will explain the position with his customary lucidity once I have sat down.
Cryptocurrencies and other digital assets are not new, but how they should be regulated is still very much an open question in the UK and internationally. The Government’s decision to expand the legal framework for asset recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act is a positive development. For that to work, however, we need to be clear about what the legislation intends to achieve.
It is fair to say that the Government have sent mixed messages about their approach to regulating cryptoassets. On the one hand, they have acknowledged the need to tackle the use of cryptoassets for criminal purposes, hence the decision to extend the money laundering regulations to cryptoasset businesses, which has been under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority since January 2020. In the factsheet published alongside the Bill, the Government set out their view:
“Cryptoassets are now increasingly being used by criminals to move and launder the profits of various crimes including drugs, fraud, and money laundering. There is also an increased risk that cryptoassets are being exploited to raise and move funds for terrorist activities.”
On the other hand, earlier this year, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now the Prime Minister, said that it was his
“ambition to make the UK a global hub for cryptoasset technology”.
The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury echoed that, saying in a speech at the Innovate Finance global summit in April:
“If there is one message I want you to leave here today with, it is that the UK is open for business—open for crypto-businesses”;
and
“Because we want this country to be a global hub—the very best place in the world to start and scale crypto-companies.”
It concerns me that the Government do not seem to have made up their mind whether as a country we should value crypto firms and want to entice them to the UK, or whether we should recognise the ease with, and scale at which, criminal activity within crypto markets is allowed to happen and therefore should prioritise tightening regulation and enforcement by cracking down on the widespread use of such assets to defraud individuals and undermine our national security. Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on that strategic dilemma or ambiguity and on how the Government plan to reconcile those two apparently competing aims.
I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister will say, but I imagine that he will claim that it is possible to do both.
Stephen Kinnock
But is it not simply the case that we are not putting enough resources into the enforcement of laws and the policing of such markets? That is fundamental to achieving the regulatory aim of that side of the equation.
Crypto-expert Aidan Larkin recently told me how the US Government’s money laundering and asset recovery section brings in around $800 million a year in crypto-recovery alone, while the UK brings in close to nothing, because the UK Government fail to employ the handful of experts required simply to study the blockchains via things such as bitcoin analytics and to follow the illicit finance—“to follow the money”, as the saying goes. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the technical aspects of that, but it feels like a missed opportunity to go after illegal activity. We have surely reached a point in time when that could be self-funding, if we did it properly.
I am simply not convinced that the system for regulating cryptoassets is working as well as intended. Indeed, it is pretty telling that in response to written questions 86505 and 86504, which I tabled last week, the Minister admitted that none of the 200-plus crypto businesses operating without commission had been subject to any criminal or civil penalties.
As I mentioned, since January 2020 there has been a requirement for new businesses carrying on cryptoasset activity in the UK to register with the FCA. The requirement was extended to existing businesses the following year. The implementation of the register, however, has been beset by problems, not least of which is the fact that a very large number of the firms required to register have not done so. The FCA seems to have been unable to do much about that.
Only a couple of weeks ago, the Financial Times reported that only 16% of applications for registration have been approved by the FCA. The FCA has said that a large number of firms that failed to meet the conditions for registration have withdrawn their applications and that many of those appear to have carried on doing business without the requisite permission. Indeed, the FCA maintains a list of unauthorised cryptoasset businesses operating in the UK. As of last week, 245 firms were on that list. Will the Minister explain what is being done to prevent those 245 firms that operate outside the money laundering rules from scamming members of the public, facilitating money laundering or assisting the evasion of economic sanctions?
The Government have been aware for some time of problems involving the use of cryptoassets to defraud members of the public. In October 2018, the Government’s own Cryptoassets Taskforce published a report that identified advertising that misleads people deliberately, by overstating the potential gains from investing in such assets and downplaying the risks involved, as a significant problem for the Government to address. Only now, after four years, are new rules being introduced to expand the FCA’s remit to include consumer protection in relation to misleading financial promotions.
Despite that, however, a clear gap remains between the scale of criminal activity in the sector and the ability of the FCA and police forces to respond. In recent evidence provided to the Treasury Committee, Ian Taylor of the crypto trade body, CryptoUK, said that the recent collapse of high-profile crypto exchanges such as FTX could have been prevented had a stronger regulatory system been in place. Multiple witnesses testified to the Committee that, without additional staff with the right expertise, the FCA was unlikely to be able to regulate the crypto sector effectively.
Let me turn to the substance of the clause and schedule 6. It is clearly necessary for the law to be brought up to date to reflect the use of digital assets for criminal purposes. The clause and schedule amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, to extend to intangible assets the same confiscation powers that are already used to recover physical assets like cash. That is an important first step, but in many ways the Bill leaves open more questions than it answers.
For instance, the Bill provides new powers to seize cryptoasset-related items, but the definition of those items is incredibly vague, encompassing any item of property that may provide access to some kind of information that could be relevant to an effort to seize a cryptoasset. Given the broad scope of the powers, alongside the related provisions on the destruction of confiscated property, we need more information from the Minister about how the powers are likely to be used in practice.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I agree very much with what has been said from the Labour Front Bench. I ask the Minister about the interaction between this Bill and all the other Bills that are considering crypto at the moment, including the Online Safety Bill, which addresses some aspects of people being exposed online to financial crime. The Treasury Committee report on economic crime pushed quite strongly on having an aspect on economic crime in the Online Safety Bill, because it is important that people are not scammed online. To me and to many others, crypto seems very much a place where people do get scammed and lose all their money.
I draw the Committee’s attention to an interview by Henry Mance in the Financial Times yesterday with Stephen Diehl, who is very cynical about the crypto industry and its ability to rip people off. We have to be incredibly careful about the areas we are getting into; we are legislating for something that is moving very quickly. Given the number of Government amendment that will be made to the schedules in this part of the Bill, we need to think carefully about what we are putting in and whether it is suitable for seizing assets and for protecting people against crypto-related fraud more widely.
My other point is about expertise. I have talked an awful lot about the Government having expertise in various areas on the enforcement side, because if there is no expertise in enforcement, the laws that we are considering will just not be enforced. In our evidence session, Andy Gould said:
“We have been investigating cryptocurrency since 2015 or 2016. One of my sergeants has just been offered 200 grand to go to the private sector. We cannot compete with that. That is probably the biggest risk that we face within this area at the moment.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 24, Q37.]
If the money is not there in policing to retain the expertise to prosecute crypto crimes and to make sure that the legislation works in practice, rather than just on paper, the Government will be very much behind the curve.
I add my hesitation on the messages the Government are giving out on regulating and encouraging and on cracking down on a sector that has the potential, as we have seen with the collapse last week, of losing an awful lot of people their money and of making some people an awful lot of money out of those who have lost it.
Tom Tugendhat
If I may, I will just give a quick explanation of what crypto is because there seems to be some misunderstanding. Crypto is both a technology and a financial instrument. The financial instrument element is only part of it. Allowing for crypto technology is basically allowing for mathematics. Passing laws against crypto is like passing laws against mathematics—we can try, but it is not going to work.
What the now Prime Minister was talking about was encouraging the mathematics, the algorithms and the technology to develop in this country to create the kind of industry and the kind of infrastructure that would allow the technological use of algorithms for the transfer, sometimes of wealth, sometimes of knowledge, sometimes of contractual obligations. That is what blockchain fundamentally is.
On top of the blockchain, there are various forms of currency. There are bitcoins, which are proof of work, and then there is ethereum, which is proof of stake. These are different kinds of technologies and different ways in which cryptoassets use the blockchains and the technology that has underwritten them.
Having regulation for the currency is not the same as having regulation for the underlying mathematics. We would not say that we have regulation for the economist in the same way that we have regulation for the bank—they are different things. The Government are doing the right thing. We recognise that there is technology, and supporting it; we recognise that there are financial instruments, and are looking to work with others to make sure that those financial instruments are regulated in a sensible way. Now, that is difficult: I will be honest. It is difficult because the technology and its use are changing remarkably. The hon. Member for Aberavon spoke about FTX. As he may know, other companies such as Celsius and Gemini have stopped trading in various different ways, as well. It is not just about one instrument. It is certainly arguable that FTX got into difficulties for reasons other than lack of regulation.
The hon. Member’s point about advertising is extremely valid. There is a real challenge. That is different—it does not quite relate to this element of the Bill. We are seeing increasing amounts of financial advertising online in different ways. I do not know how many members of the Committee have Instagram accounts, but the number of Instagram messages I get advertising foreign exchange trading is frankly bizarre.
Tom Tugendhat
I do not want to know what they advertise to the right hon. Gentleman. They don’t do it by pigeon.
The reality is that there are different ways in which people are trying to hack and attack, to steal from individuals in our country and around the world. That is why the work we are doing on the Joint Fraud Taskforce, which met yesterday, and on many other aspects of regulation, such as the Online Safety Bill, which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central quite rightly spoke about, is so important. The FCA has moved forward on many of those areas, in a sensible way, to balance the need of the technology to advance with the protection of society. It is certainly true that many people have lost a lot in recent weeks and months. I do not think anybody was under any great illusion, though, that cryptocurrencies were not a high-risk item, to put it politely. Anything worth about $1 10 years ago and $60,000 a few years later is probably not a stable currency. It may be many things, but it is probably not stable. It is now worth about $10,000 or so—
Tom Tugendhat
So, $13,000. That certainly speaks to the level of volatility. It has been up and down like a yo-yo in between times, so it is not exactly as though anybody would have been recommended it as an investment vehicle. I understand the hon. Lady’s points about online safety and fraud, and she is completely correct, but that is being addressed in different aspects of Government policy. What the Bill does is make sure that those assets that are held in cryptocurrency can be seized, as other assets can. It is certainly true that they are held in different ways, as the gentleman who is going through the waste dump in Wales is discovering. That means that seizing the assets needs a certain ambiguity in the legislation in order to keep it updated for the future. The Government have made a sensible series of suggestions to balance that need for advancing the technology and protecting consumers.
Stephen Kinnock
The Minister is being very generous. On that point about seizing the assets, will the Minister comment on the feedback that Aidan Larkin, an expert in this area, gave me, which is that in the United States money laundering and asset recovery measures bring in about $800 million per year? He says that we do not employ enough people doing block chain analytics. We are missing a big opportunity to generate revenue for the Exchequer.
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman will now be supporting this element of the Bill, because that is exactly what it is for.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for sitting down even before I had intervened.
Stephen Kinnock
It seems that this is an issue around resourcing and having the people in place—the handful of experts that we need to study the blockchains. Will the Minister assure the Committee that that resourcing will be provided?
Tom Tugendhat
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the National Crime Agency, working alongside partners in places such as GCHQ, has enormous amounts of technology to look at cryptoassets in various different ways. The Bill—which I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman supports so enthusiastically—will indeed give the powers that he looks for.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 142
Cryptoassets: civil recovery
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 142, page 125, line 18, at end insert—
“(2) It also contains related amendments.”.
This amendment provides for Schedule 7 (cryptoassets: civil recovery) to contain related amendments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 51 to 64, 156, 157, 65 to 67 and 158 to 161.
Tom Tugendhat
This is a series of small wording and technical amendments that make no substantial changes to schedule 7, but simply ensure clarity and maintain consistency in the Bill’s drafting.
Stephen Kinnock
The use of enhanced powers to seize and detain digital assets, as set out in schedule 6, will be subject to a court order. Clause 142 and schedule 7 and the related Government amendments extend civil recovery powers, which may be used in the absence of a criminal conviction, to a range of organisations including the National Crime Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Serious Fraud Office, in addition to police forces. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how the Government will ensure that these enforcement powers will be used effectively in a way that avoids duplication of effort and ensures that there is a clear division of responsibilities of the different agencies. As I have said before, numerous additional powers are provided for in the Bill that require further clarification.
The Chair
Order. I encourage you to speak to amendment 121. We will come to the other amendments in the next group.
The Chair
I do not want to stop you in case you have something material to put on the record on amendment 121.
Stephen Kinnock
I have no substantial comment on the Government amendments. I should have made that clear. As the Minister says, these are technical amendments that do not have a huge amount of consequence.
I return to the issue of powers provided for in the Bill that require further clarification. I would be particularly grateful if the Minister could explain how the provisions enabling a digital asset to be converted into its equivalent value in cash might be used in practice.
In my view, there are other important issues in this area, which the Bill fails to address. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what plans, if any, the Government have to update the asset confiscation powers we have been discussing and to extend the scope of the money laundering regulations to reflect technological developments such as non-fungible tokens and the use of digital works of art as a means of disguising illicit financial transactions.
Tom Tugendhat
I was rather under the impression that we had not voted on the amendment.
The Chair
We are not voting yet—we will be coming to a vote in a moment. It is for you to now conclude the debate.
Tom Tugendhat
It feels a bit sentence first, verdict afterwards, but all right.
The Chair
We have been doing it for thousands of years. Don’t worry—you will get used to it.
Tom Tugendhat
I have nothing further to add on that.
Amendment 121 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Government new clause 23—Cryptoassets: terrorism.
Government new schedule 1—Cryptoassets: terrorism.
I call the Minister to speak to clause 142 stand part, although that might seem a bit déjà vu for some folk now.
Tom Tugendhat
It is unusual to have the Opposition argument before the ministerial one—
Stephen Kinnock
I apologise for jumping the gun, but I thought we had already debated the group.
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted to have had the position set out so clearly.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I answered some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The reality is that this part of the Bill is to allow law enforcement agencies to search for physical items linked to cryptoassets. As I said in answer to an earlier point, many of the assets are held in different ways. Therefore, seizing physical assets in order to link to cryptoassets is often necessary.
To use the proposed powers, officers will need reasonable grounds to suspect that the cryptoassets have been obtained through unlawful conduct or are intended for use in unlawful conduct. The powers to search for and detain assets are supplemented by powers to ultimately forfeit the cryptoassets where a magistrates court, or a sheriff court in Scotland, can be satisfied that they have been obtained through, or are intended for use in, unlawful conduct. The powers to seize or freeze and ultimately recover cryptoassets may be used irrespective of whether the asset holder has been convicted of a criminal offence. They are, therefore, an important tool for disrupting criminal activity.
Government new clause 23 and new schedule 1—which we have just heard the Opposition debate—mirror in counter-terrorist legislation the civil recovery powers in schedule 7 to the Bill by introducing new provisions into the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000. That addresses a gap in existing counter-terrorism legislation and ensures that the UK’s world-leading counter-terrorism framework keeps pace with modern technology.
The creation of cryptoasset-specific civil forfeiture powers in both the Proceeds of Crime Act and counter-terrorism legislation will, importantly, mitigate the risk posed by those who cannot be prosecuted under the criminal system, but who use their proceeds stored as cryptoassets to perpetrate further criminality. Key definitions in the measures inserted by schedule 7 and new schedule 1 are in line with existing legislation and with schedule 6 to the Bill. Similarly, they include powers to update the defined terms and adapt the process for forfeiture of frozen cryptoassets, if needed. With that, I believe I have answered the Opposition’s questions before they were even asked.
Stephen Kinnock
The Opposition are concerned about enforcement. As the Minister and I have agreed throughout the debate, and as his ministerial colleague has frequently said, legislation without implementation is not worth the paper it is written on. There is little point in us passing a law that cannot or will not be enforced effectively. I am, and the Opposition are, genuinely concerned about the real risk in the proposals, partly because so much detail has yet to be made clear, but mostly because of the huge gap between what we expect of law enforcement and what resources the Government are prepared to put in.
As I said about the FCA, even the most basic requirement for cryptoasset firms to register is starting to appear unworkable. Will the Minister explain, if we cannot even get such businesses to register, how on earth will we ever be able to identify which ones are breaking the law, much less impose any penalties? I look forward to his clarification.
Tom Tugendhat
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so supportive of the work of the NCA, because it, GCHQ and others have been working extremely hard on identifying the movement of cryptoassets around not just the UK, but wider areas and jurisdictions. That is enormously important for the element of seizure to which he is referring.
It is also important that the conversion powers that the hon. Gentleman spoke about are understood for what they are. A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked about market volatility. That is true at any point, including at moments of seizure. Therefore, in order to avoid market volatility at moments of seizure—particularly when assets have been taken, converted to crypto in order to be moved abroad and then seized—having control of those assets means that one needs to put them into cash in order to have a recoverable asset, so this provision is extremely sensible.
The new powers are modelled on existing powers that many law enforcement agencies use to disrupt criminal and terrorist networks. They exercise proportionality and investigatory powers that are absolutely necessary, and no more.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Cryptoassets: civil recovery
Amendments made: 51, in schedule 7, page 206, line 42, leave out “Chapter” and insert “Part”.
This amendment makes a minor technical correction to inserted section 303Z42 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which relates to the procedure for applying for the forfeiture of cryptoassets.
Amendment 52, in schedule 7, page 206, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert—
“(3) Where an application is made under section 303Z41 in relation to cryptoassets held in a crypto wallet that is subject to a crypto wallet freezing order—
(a) subsections (4) and (5) apply, and
(b) the crypto wallet freezing order is to continue to have effect until the time referred to in subsection (4)(b) or (5).”
This amendment amends inserted section 303Z42 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to provide that a crypto wallet freezing order continues to have effect until the end of any forfeiture proceedings started in respect of cryptoassets held in a crypto wallet that is subject to such a freezing order.
Amendment 53, in schedule 7, page 207, line 12, leave out “(4)” and insert “(4)(b)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 52.
Amendment 54, in schedule 7, page 211, line 24, leave out from “applies” to end of line 28 and insert “—
(a) the magistrates’ court or sheriff decides—
(i) to make an order under section 303Z41(4) in relation to some but not all of the cryptoassets to which the application related, or
(ii) not to make an order under section 303Z41(4), or
(b) if the application is transferred in accordance with section 303Z45(1), the High Court or Court of Session decides—
(i) to make an order under section 303Z45(3) in relation to some but not all of the cryptoassets to which the application related, or
(ii) not to make an order under section 303Z45(3).”
This amendment provides that an application under inserted section 303Z46 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (continuation of crypto wallet freezing order pending appeal) may be made in circumstances where a forfeiture application under section 303Z41 of that Act is transferred in accordance with section 303Z45 of that Act to be heard by the High Court or the Court of Session.
Amendment 55, in schedule 7, page 211, line 31, leave out “(1)(a) or (b)” and insert “(1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 54.
Amendment 56, in schedule 7, page 211, line 37, leave out “under section 303Z47” and insert
“(whether under section 303Z47 or otherwise)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 54.
Amendment 57, in schedule 7, page 211, line 39, leave out “(1)(a) or (b)” and insert “(1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 54.
Amendment 58, in schedule 7, page 213, line 2, leave out “with the approval of” and insert
“if the officer is a senior officer or is authorised to do so by”.
This amendment amends inserted section 303Z48 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to provide that an enforcement officer may destroy forfeited cryptoassets only if the officer is a senior officer or is authorised to do so by a senior officer.
Amendment 59, in schedule 7, page 214, line 44, after “may” insert “, subject to subsection (7A),”.
This amendment and Amendments 60 and 62 amend inserted section 303Z51 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to provide that cryptoassets may not be released under that section while forfeiture proceedings are ongoing in respect of those cryptoassets.
Amendment 60, in schedule 7, page 215, line 8, after “may” insert “, subject to subsection (7A),”.
See Amendment 59.
Amendment 61, in schedule 7, page 215, line 24, at end insert “or”.
This amendment makes a minor technical correction to the release condition in inserted section 303Z51(7) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Amendment 62, in schedule 7, page 215, line 29, at end insert—
“(7A) If an application under section 303Z41 is made for the forfeiture of the cryptoassets, the cryptoassets are not to be released under this section until any proceedings in pursuance of the application (including any proceedings on appeal) are concluded.”
See Amendment 59.
Amendment 63, in schedule 7, page 226, line 18, after “cryptoassets” insert—
“, or of property which they represent,”.
This amendment amends inserted section 303Z63 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (converted cryptoassets: victims and other owners) to provide that the condition in subsection (5)(a) of that section is met where the applicant was deprived of cryptoassets or of property which those cryptoassets represent.
Amendment 64, in schedule 7, page 227, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
“(a) if the conditions in this Chapter for the detention of the converted cryptoassets are no longer met, or”.
This amendment amends the release condition in inserted section 303Z63(8) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (converted cryptoassets: victims and other owners) to provide that the release condition is met where the court is satisfied that the conditions in Chapter 3F of Part 5 of that Act for detention of the converted cryptoassets are no longer met.
Amendment 156, in schedule 7, page 230, line 22, at end insert—
“Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
1A In section 2C(3A) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (prosecuting authorities), for ‘or 303Z19’ substitute ‘, 303Z19, 303Z53 or 303Z65’.
1B (1) Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation: England and Wales) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 7 (recoverable amount)—
(a) in subsection (4)(c), for ‘or 303Z14(4)’ substitute ‘, 303Z14(4), 303Z41(4), 303Z45(3) or 303Z60(4)’;
(b) in subsection (4)(d), after ‘303Q(1)’ insert ‘or 303Z44(1)’.
(3) In section 82 (free property)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (ea), for ‘or 10Z2(3)’ substitute ‘, 10Z2(3), 10Z7AG(1), 10Z7BB(2), 10Z7CA(3), 10Z7CE(3) or 10Z7DG(3)’;
(ii) in paragraph (f), for ‘or 303Z14(4)’ substitute ‘, 303Z14(4), 303Z32(1), 303Z37(2), 303Z41(4), 303Z45(3) or 303Z60(4)’;
(b) in subsection (3)—
(i) after paragraph (b) insert—
(ii) in paragraph (c), after ‘303Q(1)’ insert ‘or 303Z44(1)’;
(iii) after paragraph (e) insert—
(iv) in paragraph (f), after ‘10I(1)’ insert ‘or 10Z7CD(1)’.
1C (1) Part 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation: Scotland) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 93 (recoverable amount)—
(a) in subsection (4)(c), for ‘or 303Z14(4)’ substitute ‘, 303Z14(4), 303Z41(4), 303Z45(3) or 303Z60(4)’;
(b) in subsection (4)(d), after ‘303Q(1)’ insert ‘or 303Z44(1)’.
(3) In section 148 (free property)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (ea), for ‘or 10Z2(3)’ substitute ‘, 10Z2(3), 10Z7AG(1), 10Z7BB(2), 10Z7CA(3), 10Z7CE(3) or 10Z7DG(3)’;
(ii) in paragraph (f), for ‘or 303Z14(4)’ substitute ‘, 303Z14(4), 303Z32(1), 303Z37(2), 303Z41(4), 303Z45(3) or 303Z60(4)’;
(b) in subsection (3)—
(i) after paragraph (b) insert—
(ii) in paragraph (c), after ‘303Q(1)’ insert ‘or 303Z44(1)’;
(iii) after paragraph (e) insert—
(iv) in paragraph (f), after ‘10I(1)’ insert ‘or 10Z7CD(1)’.
1D (1) Part 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation: Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 157 (recoverable amount)—
(a) in subsection (4)(c), for ‘or 303Z14(4)’ substitute ‘, 303Z14(4), 303Z41(4), 303Z45(3) or 303Z60(4)’;
(b) in subsection (4)(d), after ‘303Q(1)’ insert ‘or 303Z44(1)’.
(3) In section 230 (free property)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (ea), for ‘or 10Z2(3)’ substitute ‘, 10Z2(3), 10Z7AG(1), 10Z7BB(2), 10Z7CA(3), 10Z7CE(3) or 10Z7DG(3)’;
(ii) in paragraph (f), for ‘or 303Z14(4)’ substitute ‘, 303Z14(4), 303Z32(1), 303Z37(2), 303Z41(4), 303Z45(3) or 303Z60(4)’;
(b) in subsection (3)—
(i) after paragraph (b) insert—
(ii) in paragraph (c), after ‘303Q(1)’ insert ‘or 303Z44(1)’;
(iii) after paragraph (e) insert—
(iv) in paragraph (f), after ‘10I(1)’ insert ‘or 10Z7CD(1)’.”
This amendment contains consequential and other amendments to Parts 1 to 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the civil recovery of cryptoassets.
Amendment 157, in schedule 7, page 230, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 278 (limit on recovery)—
(a) in subsection (7)(a), for ‘or 303Z14’ substitute ‘, 303Z14, 303Z41, 303Z45 or 303Z60’;
(b) after subsection (7A) insert—
‘(7B) If—
(a) an order is made under section 303Z44 instead of an order being made under section 303Z41 for the forfeiture of recoverable property, and
(b) the enforcement authority subsequently seeks a recovery order in respect of related property,
the order under section 303Z44 is to be treated for the purposes of this section as if it were a recovery order obtained by the enforcement authority in respect of the property that was the forfeitable property in relation to the order under section 303Z44.’”
This amendment contains a consequential amendment to section 278 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to forfeited cryptoassets.
Amendment 65, in schedule 7, page 231, line 3, after “may” insert “, subject to subsection (7A),”.
This amendment and Amendments 66 and 67 amend inserted section 303Z17A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to provide that money may not be released under that section while forfeiture proceedings are ongoing in respect of the money.
Amendment 66, in schedule 7, page 231, line 13, after “may” insert “, subject to subsection (7A),”.
See Amendment 65.
Amendment 67, in schedule 7, page 231, leave out lines 25 to 36 and insert—
“(7) The release condition is met—
(a) in relation to money held in a frozen account, if the conditions for making an order under section 303Z3 in relation to the money are no longer met, or
(b) in relation to money held in a frozen account which is subject to an application for forfeiture under section 303Z14, if the court or sheriff decides not to make an order under that section in relation to the money.
(7A) Money is not to be released under this section—
(a) if an account forfeiture notice under section 303Z9 is given in respect of the money, until any proceedings in pursuance of the notice (including any proceedings on appeal) are concluded;
(b) if an application for its forfeiture under section 303Z14 is made, until any proceedings in pursuance of the application (including any proceedings on appeal) are concluded.”
See Amendment 65. This amendment also replaces the release condition in inserted section 303Z17A(7) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to include changes for consistency with equivalent provisions in Part 5 of that Act.
Amendment 158, in schedule 7, page 235, line 5, at end insert—
“(20A) In section 386 (production orders: supplementary), in subsection (3)(b), for ‘or a frozen funds investigation’ substitute ‘, a frozen funds investigation or a cryptoasset investigation’.”
This amendment contains a consequential amendment to section 386 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to production orders and cryptoasset investigations.
Amendment 159, in schedule 7, page 236, line 11, at end insert—
“(30) In section 416 (other interpretative provisions), in subsection (1), after the entry for ‘confiscation investigation’ insert—
‘cryptoasset investigation: section 341(3D)’.”
This amendment contains a consequential amendment to section 416 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the meaning of “cryptoasset investigation” in Part 8 of that Act.
Amendment 160, in schedule 7, page 236, line 11, at end insert—
“3A In section 438 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (disclosure of information by certain authorities), in subsection (1)(f), for ‘or 3B’ substitute ‘, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E or 3F’.
3B In section 441 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (disclosure of information by Lord Advocate and by Scottish Ministers)—
(a) in subsection (1), for ‘or 3A’ substitute ‘, 3A, 3C or 3F’;
(b) in subsection (2)(g), for ‘or 3B’ substitute ‘, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E or 3F’.
3C In section 450 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (pseudonyms: Scotland), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘or a frozen funds investigation’ substitute ‘, a frozen funds investigation or a cryptoasset investigation’.
3D In section 453A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (certain offences in relation to financial investigators), in subsection (5), at the end of paragraph (dc) (before the ‘or’) insert—
‘(dd) section 303Z21 (powers to search for cryptoasset-related items);
(de) section 303Z26 (powers to seize cryptoasset-related items);
(df) section 303Z27 (powers to detain cryptoasset-related items);’.”
This amendment contains consequential amendments to Parts 10 and 12 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The amendments relate to the disclosure of information obtained during cryptoasset investigations, the use of pseudonyms during such investigations and offences against accredited financial investigators exercising powers in connection with such investigations.
Amendment 161, in schedule 7, page 236, line 21, at end insert—
“Amendments to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
5 (1) Section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (enforcement of UK judgments in other parts of UK) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(g), for ‘or a frozen funds investigation’ substitute ‘, a frozen funds investigation or a cryptoasset investigation’.
(3) In subsection (4ZB)—
(a) after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) a crypto wallet freezing order made under section 303Z37 of that Act;
(bb) an order for the forfeiture of cryptoassets made under section 303Z41 or 303Z45 of that Act;’;
(b) after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(da) a crypto wallet freezing order made under paragraph 10Z7BB of that Schedule;
(db) an order for the forfeiture of cryptoassets made under paragraph 10Z7CA or 10Z7CE of that Schedule.’
(4) In subsection (5)(d)(i)—
(a) after ‘(a)’ insert ‘, (ba)’;
(b) for ‘or (c)’ substitute ‘, (c) or (da)’.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment amends the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to include provision about the enforcement of certain cryptoasset-related orders in different parts of the UK.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143
Money laundering: exiting and paying away exemptions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
In a most unusual role, I shall start this time. Clauses 143 and 144 expand the types of case in which businesses can deal with clients’ property without first having to submit a defence against money laundering suspicious activity report—a so-called DAML. The changes will reduce nugatory regulatory burdens on businesses and help focus private sector and law enforcement resources on proactive, high-value activity, while removing disproportionate delays to businesses and customers.
A DAML effectively freezes a transaction until the UK Financial Intelligence Unit in the National Crime Agency—the UKFIU—decides to provide consent for the transaction to go ahead. Alternatively, the UKFIU could refuse it and pursue further investigation. If the UKFIU does not respond within seven working days, the business can assume that they have consent and proceed with the transaction. That means businesses regularly waiting seven working days before being able to proceed with a transaction. Businesses cannot inform customers that the delay is due to a DAML, as doing so may amount to a criminal offence.
The volume of DAMLs submitted by businesses to the UKFIU rose by 80% to 62,341 in the last year that data was available, which is creating a disproportionate burden on staff in the regulated sector, as well as in the NCA and wider law enforcement. The clauses will ensure that we are taking action to handle those rising volumes and that the DAML reporting system is used proportionally.
The exemption created by clause 143 will apply when a business in the anti-money laundering regulated sector ends a relationship with a customer and pays away any money or property suspected to be the proceeds of criminal conduct. The clause enables the business to pay back money or property under the value of £1,000 without first submitting a defence against money laundering suspicious activity report to the UKFIU and without committing a money laundering offence.
DAMLs below £1,000 are of limited value to law enforcement. That is because £1,000 is the minimum amount for law enforcement to pursue an account freezing order under the civil recovery provisions, and because of the need to prioritise higher volume cases. As a result, DAMLs below £1,000 are rarely refused consent by the UKFIU, but they place a burden on reporters to submit.
The exemption created by clause 144 will apply when a person carrying out business in the anti-money laundering regulated sector suspects that only part of their customer’s property is the proceeds of criminal conduct. The clause enables the business to allow the customer access to their property without the business committing one of the principal money laundering offences or first submitting a defence against money laundering suspicious activity report. This is provided that the conditions of the exemption are met, including the condition that, as a minimum, the value of the suspected criminal property in the account is withheld when allowing a customer access to their funds.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. It is not unusual to start when your name is on the clause.
Stephen Kinnock
According to the Government’s impact assessment, the purpose of clauses 143 and 144, which expand the scope of exemptions from money laundering offences, is to reduce the number of ineffective defence against money laundering reports submitted to the NCA’s financial intelligence unit. It is worth bearing in mind that the purpose of the reporting system is to enable regulated firms to notify the FIU when they are asked by a client to make a financial transaction that may amount to a money laundering offence. The FIU has seven days to review the report, and if it turns out that there is a connection to money laundering, it can ensure that appropriate enforcement action is taken.
The reports can, and often do, serve as a valuable means of identifying criminal activity. The Government’s wish to reduce the number of DAML reports is understandable, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is important for the Minister to explain to the Committee how those measures are sufficiently targeted that they reduce the number of unnecessary or unhelpful reports without causing a similar reduction in reports that might help to identify serious crime.
Clauses 143 and 144 provide exemptions from money laundering offences for certain transactions involving property worth less than £1,000, and in cases where some but not all of a client’s assets may involve criminal funds. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the Government’s reasoning in setting the relevant thresholds at the specific levels provided for in those clauses.
I want to touch on a couple of broader points. The Government are right that the SARs process is in need of considerable reform. There are many steps the Government could take to improve the quality of reporting in addition to the measures set out in those clauses. For instance, the Solicitors Regulation Authority published a report last month in which it noted that, in two thirds of the reports it reviewed, the firms making the report did not include the glossary codes that enable the NCA to triage reports effectively and ensure an appropriate enforcement response. Additionally, the SRA found that as many as a quarter of the DAML reports it reviewed failed even to describe the criminal conduct that was suspected. Those findings are clear evidence that many law firms do not have an adequate level of understanding of the laws they are expected to help enforce. The same may well be true in other regulated sectors.
Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that regulated firms have a better understanding of their obligations under the law, and how official guidance might be improved to help firms to submit better quality reports? I point out that significant improvements could be made to the speed and efficiency of the SARs process by making use of new and emerging technologies. If the FIU could use more cutting-edge software applications and algorithms to help identify the most serious crimes, it would go a long way towards addressing the problems that the Government seek to tackle. Perhaps the Minister might comment on the Government’s work in that area.
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted to respond to that. The rising volume of DAMLs being submitted has already had an impact on effectiveness. That is welcome, in that businesses are taking their responsibilities extremely seriously, and the UKFIU is responding appropriately when it receives them. Although, as the hon. Member quite rightly says, technology can help, the reality is that there is still an awful lot of work to be done. That is why these provisions are so reasonable.
The provisions are reasonable because property or criminal funds worth less than £1,000 are already exempt from asset seizures in different circumstances. It makes absolute sense to have a restriction on that in the Bill and apply the same threshold to allow the UKFIU to target, as much as possible, those serious money laundering accusations and investigations appropriately—and, indeed, to arrest more criminals.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for that response. Would he care to comment on the feedback from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which points particularly at the fact that many of the firms doing the reports were not including key information such as glossary codes and sometimes did not even describe the criminal conduct that they suspected? Is there something more that could be done so that the information at source was in a better state? Does he think that the feedback from the SRA could be a good basis on which to achieve that?
Tom Tugendhat
I am sure that having data at source in as clean and fluent a fashion as possible, so that it is complete and allows investigation, is absolutely essential. I am sure that solicitors will feel the responsibility to do that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 143 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 145
Information orders: money laundering
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Clause 145 amends the existing information order power in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to bolster the UKFIU intelligence-gathering powers. Clause 146 addresses a gap in counter-terrorism legislation by mirroring those in the Terrorism Act 2000. The clauses will align the UKFIU more closely with the international standards of the Financial Action Task Force, known as FATF—including to me, actually—and enable greater collaboration with international financial intelligence units. That aids public safety in the UK and overseas, and furthers the UK’s efforts to combat illicit financial flows entering the UK economy.
FATF is the international body devoted to developing and promoting policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. As a member, the UK agrees to promote FATF’s anti-money laundering standards, which are expressed in the form of recommendations. FATF, the global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, evaluated the UK in 2018 and rated it only “partially compliant”. That rating was affected by the UKFIU’s limited ability to conduct operational strategic analysis in cases where a business has not already submitted a suspicious activity report.
Clause 145 amends the existing information order power by removing the requirement for a preceding suspicious activity report, or SAR, before an application can be made to a magistrates or sheriff court. Clause 146 mirrors that for counter-terrorism legislation. The information order will compel business in the anti-money laundering regulated and terrorist financing regulated sectors to provide information about a customer or client. That information will enable the UKFIU to conduct its operational strategic analysis functions by proactively gathering financial intelligence rather than relying on the reporting sector to have submitted information already. Further, the clauses will enable the UKFIU to better assist international counterparts to gather information, for example, relating to sanctions evasion and maximising the effort to prevent terrorist finances from entering the UK’s economy.
The information sought under an information order is designed for intelligence purposes only. To ensure the power is used appropriately, a code of practice must be made by the Secretary of State. The person making the application must have had regard to the code of practice when applying to the court for an information order. The measure has been developed collaboratively with the UKFIU.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for including the provisions in the Bill, which should make it easier for the NCA to access the information that it needs to gather intelligence and conduct analysis of the range of threats that we face from money laundering and terrorist financing. The provisions in the clauses should also help to ensure that the UK is able to provide more effective assistance to law enforcement bodies in other countries in response to requests for information.
Given that so much economic crime is inherently an issue that cuts across international borders, it is absolutely right for the Government to do all that they can to enforce the law within our own borders and to help Governments in our partner countries overseas to do the same.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 145 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 147
Enhanced due diligence: designation of high-risk countries
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
The clause amends the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to allow the Treasury to directly publish and amend the UK’s high-risk third countries list on gov.uk.
Under the 2017 money laundering regulations, businesses are required to conduct enhanced checks on business relationships and transactions with high-risk third countries. High-risk third countries are those identified by the Financial Action Task Force as having poor controls and significant shortcomings in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes.
Currently, a statutory instrument needs to be laid several times a year to update the UK’s list each time the FATF’s own list is amended. The clause will allow for more rapid updates to the list, helping the UK to be even more responsive to evolving money laundering threats by ensuring that risks are communicated and mitigated by the regulated sector as soon as possible. By removing the need to introduce legislation for each update, the change will also ease pressures on ministerial and parliamentary time, thereby responding to Parliament’s call to streamline the process—very much like this Committee.
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 147 raises a number of concerns for us, which I hope the Minister will be able to address. It aims to change the procedure for updating the Treasury’s list of countries designated as high risk due to serious deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing systems, which was established by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The clause will enable the Treasury to update the list directly, without the need for regulations, in effect removing the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise any changes to the list.
During the passage of the 2018 Act, there was cross-party consensus on the need for any UK list of designated high-risk countries to reflect international standards, primarily by mirroring the lists maintained by the Financial Action Task Force. The problem with clause 147 is that it appears to enable the Treasury to make any future updates to the UK list, even in ways that diverge from the FATF lists, without any opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise or debate the proposals. Given the zeal for deregulation that we have often seen from the current Government, it takes no great stretch of the imagination to foresee a situation in which the Treasury determines that the FATF lists are unduly stringent and that certain countries and territories should be removed from the UK’s list of high-risk countries, even in cases where issues identified by the FATF remain unresolved.
Looking at the relevant impact assessment, it seems that the intention is to enable Ministers to update the list “more swiftly” when needed, thus making the UK’s list more “responsive” to emerging developments than is possible under the current system. But even if the aim is reasonable, the methods are questionable. For one thing, the 2018 Act stipulates that regulations updating the list of high-risk countries are subject to the affirmative procedure, under which Parliament is given the opportunity to retrospectively review changes that have already been made by the time the regulations are published. Together with the fact that updates are generally needed no more frequently than once every three months, this does not seem to place an undue burden on Ministers.
The changes made by clause 147 do not seem proportionate to any identifiable problem with the current system. The Opposition therefore strongly encourage the Minister and his colleagues to revisit the clause, on the basis that a convincing case for the need to remove Parliament’s oversight of this process has not been made.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I concur entirely with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, but I want to ask a couple of questions.
First, the Minister will know that we are considering how we can move from freezing the assets of people who are sanctioned to seizing them. One of the ways in which that could be facilitated, from the advice I have received from various non-governmental organisations and lawyers, is to have a sort of kleptocrats list. I wonder if he would take that idea away and, in considering the request for greater parliamentary oversight, look at whether we could designate particular jurisdictions as kleptocracies. All the advice I get indicates that that would make it easier to do the seizing as well as freezing. Of course, in relation to Ukraine, that would mean that some of the £18 billion that has been seized from Russia could be recommissioned and used to help us rebuild Ukraine.
Tom Tugendhat
The idea of a kleptocrats list is an interesting one. It is not one I have heard before. If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I will look into it and respond to her in writing; I have not thought about the matter, so I will have to give it some thought.
The list of high-risk third countries is based on the FATF list, which, as the hon. Member for Aberavon knows, has provided the basis for all the statutory instruments that have passed with no objection or issue. This measure will not save much ministerial time, if any at all, but it will save parliamentary time. Given how hard-pressed Parliament is to debate so many issues, I think it is a reasonable provision. Given the alignment between the UK regime and the international FATF standards, that seems to be a pretty standard change.
On the question of debating other areas, there is often cause to debate other countries’ inclusion or exclusion from such lists, and the Treasury, the Foreign Office and other Departments and organisations often have views. I am not sure this is the Bill in which to do that; this Bill is simply about correcting a slight bump in the road and speeding up the process.
The Chair
I call Neil Kinnock—I beg your pardon, Stephen. People used to do that to me and they always got it wrong.
Stephen Kinnock
Don’t worry, Mr Paisley—we could probably exchange notes on that at great length.
I thank the Minister for those points. I recall his time as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, when he pushed relentlessly and convincingly for parliamentary scrutiny of a whole range of key issues and decisions. Given that parliamentary scrutiny was built into the 2018 Act, it seems difficult to justify its deliberate removal from the process by this Bill. It seems like it would be good to have those guard rails in place to avoid the risk of somebody in the Treasury deciding at some point that big decisions should be made without any parliamentary scrutiny at all. Does he not agree that this is a real missed opportunity?
Tom Tugendhat
No, I do not. I always found that when I wanted to get parliamentary scrutiny as Chair of a Committee, I managed to find ways to do that—often through debates, in which the hon. Gentleman was a wonderful speaker—and to change Government policy by using not only Parliament, but the media and other forms of pressure. There is a difference between seeking to change Government policy on various aspects of areas that should really be considered as wider policy, and seeking to implement these changes, which are, let us be honest, rather technical and not issues of major parliamentary debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 147 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 148
Direct disclosures of information: no breach of obligation of confidence
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 122, in clause 148, page 136, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
“(1) The protections set out in subsection (1A) apply in relation to a disclosure made by a person (‘A’) to another person (‘B’) if—”.
This amendment and Amendments 125 and 135 provide that disclosures mentioned in clause 148(1) do not give rise to any civil liability, on the part of the person making the disclosure, to the person to whom the information disclosed relates. There is an exception for liabilities under the data protection legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 123 to 135.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 136 to 142.
Amendment 167, in clause 149, page 138, line 8, at end insert—
“(vi) a firm or individual carrying on statutory audit work or local audit work,
(vii) an individual appointed to act as an insolvency practitioner,
(viii) a firm or sole practitioner providing to other persons accountancy services, or providing material aid, or assistance or advice, in connection with the tax affairs of other persons, or
(ix) an auditor, external accountant or insolvency practitioner as defined in Section 11 of The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.”
This amendment includes accountants in various roles in the indirect information sharing provisions set out in clause 149, allowing them to pass on information regarding suspicious activity.
Government amendments 143 to 152.
Clauses 149 to 152 stand part.
Government amendments 153 to 155.
Clause 153 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Large amounts of financial data flow through the United Kingdom every hour. The majority relate to entirely legitimate and proper activity; however, a small proportion involve criminal activity. As hon. Members heard from several witnesses to the Committee, the sharing of information regarding criminal activity between businesses is currently constrained by duties of confidentiality. These clauses and the associated Government amendments address that constraint.
Clause 148 enables direct disclosure of information between two businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector for the purposes of preventing, investigating and detecting economic crime, without a breach of their obligation of confidence to their customers.
Tom Tugendhat
I am glad to have support from further down the Treasury Bench.
To request information, a business must have reason to believe that the other business holds information that will, or may, assist in carrying out its relevant actions. Relevant actions include deciding whether further customer due diligence is needed, restricting access to products, or terminating a business relationship with the customer as a result of the additional information obtained.
Amendments 122 to 135 amend clause 148 to expand the provisions to offer protection from civil liability owed by the person sharing information to the person to whom the disclosure relates. As the Committee heard when UK Finance gave evidence, the banking sector maintains that without greater protection, information is unlikely to be shared, as doing so creates limited benefit in comparison with the risk of potential protracted and expensive litigation from customers. Greater use of the provisions will make it harder for criminals to exploit UK businesses. We have listened to the sector and tabled these amendments.
Clause 149 enables indirect information sharing by certain businesses via a third-party intermediary, on a similar basis to elements of clause 148. A business may share information about a current or former customer whom they have already decided to take action against due to an economic crime risk—or who would have been subject to that decision were they still a customer—either by terminating a business relationship or by refusing or restricting access to a product or service. The business must be satisfied that sharing the customer’s information will assist other businesses in carrying out their relevant actions. As with clause 148, the Government have tabled amendments 136 to 141 and 143 to 151 to disapply civil liability for a person who discloses such information.
Government amendments 142, 152 and 155 extend the scope of the indirect information-sharing provisions to cover large and very large accountancy and legal businesses. The benefit of bringing those businesses within the scope of the provision is that those firms have experience of dealing with high-risk clients. Criminals are known to exploit the information gaps that currently exist between businesses in these sectors, and encouraging further information sharing creates greater opportunities to prevent economic crime.
Clauses 148 and 149 do not disapply any liabilities arising under data protection legislation. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston tabled amendment 167, which would expand clause 148 to include the accountancy sector. I hope that she is reassured that the Government amendments that I have just described achieve that objective.
Government amendments 153 and 154 make express provision for aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring in the definition of economic crime. Schedule 8 sets out the offences that are included in the definition of economic crime for the purposes of direct and indirect disclosures of information, the Law Society’s fining powers, and the objectives of regulators of legal services. The schedule is divided into common-law and statutory offences. No new offences are created by the Bill; the schedule has been included because there is no existing relevant definition of economic crime. The schedule is essential to provide clarity and certainty about the meaning of economic crime, in order for individuals, regulators and businesses to use the disclosure of information provisions effectively and to properly apply the new measures relating to legal services.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley, and to speak to this rather large group. I thank the Minister for his comments, which I find reassuring. I will deliver my own remarks for the record, but his comments, particularly on our amendment 167, were helpful.
This important group of clauses and amendments relates to supporting disclosures to prevent, detect or investigate economic crime. The Minister is absolutely right about the concerns—raised by UK Finance specifically—that the clauses go a considerable way to addressing.
Clause 148 concerns direct disclosure of information and, as the Minister outlined, disapplies the duty of confidentiality owed by a business where the business making the disclosure knows the identity of the recipient and certain conditions—broadly outlined in subsection (1)—are met. The explanatory notes contain the example of a bank that identifies a transaction that it believes is irregular and wants further information from another party—perhaps more information on the identity of the payer or more clarity on the source of the funds. We understand why such information might be wanted and the importance of being able to get such clarity. In effect, clause 148, along with clause 149, about which I will say a few words separately, removes the civil liability for an institution in sharing that information with another entity for the purposes of detecting and preventing economic crime.
Given the concerns about the difficulties with information sharing, and the resistance that there has been to sharing information because of lack of clarity about the law or about where liability lies under data protection rules, these measures are welcome. They have perhaps taken longer to be introduced than we would have liked, but they are certainly welcome, and we hope that they will increase the detection of economic crime and reduce moves by those involved in it to seek to use our institutions to launder and hide money.
Although I welcome the removal of barriers to information sharing, I wonder whether the clauses give regulated sectors or actors so-called safe harbour as comprehensively as they might. Helena Wood of the Royal United Services Institute said in her evidence to the Committee:
“Although the provisions in the Bill will go some way towards increasing private-to-private information sharing and, in particular, the risk appetite in the banking sector, they really do not keep pace with the global standard. What we would like in the next economic crime plan”—
I think we are all hoping to see that soon; shortly is the word used in this Committee—
“is something much more ambitious. In many ways, I would say that while it is welcome, the Bill is a slight missed opportunity with regard to information sharing, given that it really does not push forward to this big data analytics model that others are moving towards.” ––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2022; c. 90, Q170.]
Tom Tugendhat
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady was considered a risk to public safety, a danger or a threat to the nation in any way. She is none of those things; she is a highly valued Member of this House and a friend to many of us. I can only imagine the unwisdom of whoever it was who decided to terminate a relationship with her. I hope that the decision is being reviewed and that the person is now enjoying a holiday on the Falkland Islands.
It is worth pointing out that the comparisons that this has with other jurisdictions should be looked at carefully. Not every jurisdiction has the same application of the ECHR, GDPR or various other constraints on sharing information and protecting privacy that the UK has. In the Netherlands, the transaction monitoring scheme has so far involved only the sharing of business data, so there are various different ways in which these applications are not exactly applicable. It is worth pointing out that, under the provisions, an individual’s right to a basic bank account, as established by the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015, is unaffected.
That means that affected individuals will be able to continue to access basic accounts, providing their account is not being used or has not been used for criminal activity, or that maintaining the account would breach any other legal obligations under the money laundering regulations. Moreover, the clause stipulates that before information is shared about a customer, the sharer must have taken action against the customer, or would have if they were still a customer. As a result, no one will have information shared unless the bank has already decided to take action against them or would have decided to do so.
We do not foresee a significant increase in the number of new individuals being denied access to services. Certainly, the hon. Lady’s comments about her constituent should be viewed in that context. However, if there are individual cases that she feels that I—or, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—can help with, I would be very happy to look at them, as I am sure my hon. Friend would be as well.
The forms of redress that the hon. Lady raises are important. That is where going through the Information Commissioner’s Office or the Financial Ombudsman Service, depending on the nature of the complaint, is important. She raised many other questions, and although I will not be able to get to them right now, I will be happy to write to her on some of those individual items.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. If he is happy to write to me, I would be grateful for that. Can I clarify whether that will also cover some of the questions I raised about the expected timing of sharing information and the procedures for those who may have been caught up inadvertently? Procedurally, we need to understand how they can be dealt with. Rather than Ministers having to deal with individual cases, we want a mechanism that will make the system work fairly.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member is making a perfectly reasonable point. I agree, and I will write to her about those timings so they are clearly on the record and we understand what is being asked and what the expected timeframes are.
It is also worth saying that the warning condition is more active because a business has already taken or would have taken a decision where a person is a customer. That is different from the request condition, where it is sharing in response to a specific request. The two are not quite identical, but I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions. I will write to her shortly.
Amendment 122 agreed to.
Amendments made: 123, in clause 148, page 136, line 24, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
This amendment and Amendments 124, 126, 127, 128 and 130 extend the power to expand the kinds of business in relation to which the provision can apply, so that it can describe attributes of the person as well as the business.
Amendment 124, in clause 148, page 136, line 25, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 123.
Amendment 125, in clause 148, page 136, line 31, at end insert—
‘(1A) The protections are that, subject to subsection (9), the disclosure does not—
(a) give rise to a breach of any obligation of confidence owed by A, or
(b) give rise to any civil liability, on the part of A, to the person to whom the disclosed information relates.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 122.
Amendment 126, in clause 148, page 136, line 32, leave out ‘to’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 123.
Amendment 127, in clause 148, page 136, line 33, after ‘(a)’ insert ‘where the business carried on is’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 123.
Amendment 128, in clause 148, page 136, line 34, leave out ‘business of a description prescribed’ and insert ‘in circumstances prescribed, in relation to the business or the person carrying it on,’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 123.
Amendment 129, in clause 148, page 137, line 12, leave out ‘A’ and insert ‘The protections set out in subsection (7A) apply in relation to a’.
This amendment and Amendments 131, 133 and 135 provide that the disclosures mentioned in clause 148(7) do not give rise to any civil liability, on the part of the person making the disclosure, to the person to whom the information disclosed relates. There is an exception for liabilities under the data protection legislation.
Amendment 130, in clause 148, page 137, line 12, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 123.
Amendment 131, in clause 148, page 137, line 14, leave out from ‘request’ to ‘R’ in line 15 and insert ‘if’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 129.
Amendment 132, in clause 148, page 137, line 16, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 123.
Amendment 133, in clause 148, page 137, line 19, at end insert—
‘(7A) The protections are that, subject to subsection (9), the disclosure does not—
(a) give rise to a breach of any obligation of confidence owed by R, or
(b) give rise to any civil liability, on the part of R, to the person to whom the disclosed information relates.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 129.
Amendment 134, in clause 148, page 137, line 22, leave out from ‘applies,’ to the end of line 23 and insert ‘does not—
(a) give rise to a breach of any obligation of confidence owed by them, or
(b) give rise to any civil liability, on the part of R, to the person to whom the disclosed information relates.
This is subject to subsection (9).’
This amendment and Amendment 135 provide that use of information disclosed under clause 148(7) to enable a clause 148(1) disclosure to be made does not give rise to any a civil liability, on the part of the person making use of the information, to the person to whom the information relates. There is an exception for liabilities under the data protection legislation.
Amendment 135, in clause 148, page 137, line 25, after ‘contravene’ insert ‘, or prevents any civil liability arising under,’.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendments 122, 129 and 134.
Clause 148, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 149
Indirect disclosure of information: no breach of obligation of confidence
Amendments made: 136, in clause 149, page 137, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
‘(1) The protections set out in subsection (2A) apply in relation to a disclosure made by a person (“A”) to another person (“B”) if—’.
This amendment and Amendments 139 and 151 provide that the disclosures mentioned in clause 149(1) do not give rise to a civil liability on the part of the person making the disclosure, to the person to whom the information disclosed relates. There is an exception for liabilities under the data protection legislation.
Amendment 137, in clause 149, page 137, line 30, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
This amendment and Amendments 138, 140, 141, 142, 144 and 147 extend clause 149 disclosures so they apply in relation to persons with a large or very large UK revenue who carry on legal or accountancy services in the regulated sector.
Amendment 138, in clause 149, page 137, line 39, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 137.
Amendment 139, in clause 149, page 138, line 1, at end insert—
‘(2A) The protections are that, subject to subsection (9), the disclosure does not—
(a) give rise to a breach of any obligation of confidence owed by A, or
(b) give rise to any civil liability, on the part of A, to the person to whom the disclosed information relates.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 136.
Amendment 140, in clause 149, page 138, line 2, leave out ‘to’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 137.
Amendment 141, in clause 149, page 138, line 3, after ‘(a)’ insert ‘where the business carried on is’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 137.
Amendment 142, in clause 149, page 138, line 8, leave out from ‘provider,’ to ‘by regulations’ in line 9 and insert—
‘(aa) where—
(i) the business carried on is business in the regulated sector within paragraph 1(1)(l) or (n) of Schedule 9 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (accountancy or legal services), and
(ii) the UK revenue of the person carrying on the business is large or very large for the relevant financial year (see subsection (10)), and
(b) in circumstances prescribed, in relation to the business or the person carrying it on,’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 137.
Amendment 143, in clause 149, page 138, line 11, leave out from ‘to B,’ to end of line 14 and insert
‘the protections set out in subsection (5A) apply in relation to a further disclosure of that information made by B to another person (“C”) if—’.
This amendment and Amendments 145 and 151 provide that the disclosures mentioned in clause 149(4) do not give rise to a civil liability, on the part of the person making the disclosure, to the person to whom the information disclosed relate. There is an exception for liabilities under the data protection legislation.
Amendment 144, in clause 149, page 138, line 15, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 137.
Amendment 145, in clause 149, page 138, line 18, at end insert—
‘(5A) The protections are that, subject to subsection (9), the disclosure does not—
(a) give rise to a breach of any obligation of confidence owed by B, or
(b) give rise to any civil liability, on the part of B, to the person to whom the disclosed information relates.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 146, in clause 149, page 138, line 22, leave out ‘A’ and insert
‘The protections set out in subsection (7A) apply in relation to a’.
This amendment and Amendments 148, 149 and 151 provide that the disclosures mentioned in clause 149(7) do not give rise to a civil liability, on the part of the person making the disclosure, to the person to whom the information disclosed relates. There is an exception for liabilities under the data protection legislation.
Amendment 147, in clause 149, page 138, line 22, leave out ‘to which’ and substitute ‘in circumstances where’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 137.
Amendment 148, in clause 149, page 138, line 24, leave out from ‘person’ to ‘at’ in line 25 and insert ‘if’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 146.
Amendment 149, in clause 149, page 138, line 28, at end insert—
‘(7A) The protections are that, subject to subsection (9), the disclosure does not—
(a) give rise to a breach of any obligation of confidence owed by R, or
(b) give rise to any civil liability, on the part of R, to the person to whom the disclosed information relates.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 146.
Amendment 150, in clause 149, page 138, line 31, leave out from ‘applies,’ to end of line 32 and insert ‘does not—
(a) give rise to a breach of any obligation of confidence owed by them, or
(b) give rise to any civil liability, on their part, to the person to whom the disclosed information relates.
This is subject to subsection (9).’
This amendment and Amendment 151 provide that the use of information disclosure under clause 149(7) for the purposes of making a disclosure under clause 149(1) does not give rise to a civil liability, on the part of the person making use of the information, to the person to whom the information relates. There is an exception for liabilities under the data protection legislation.
Amendment 151, in clause 149, page 138, line 34, after ‘contravene’ insert ‘, or prevents any civil liability arising under,’.
See Member’s explanatory statements for Amendments 136, 143, 146 and 150.
Amendment 152, in clause 149, page 138, line 34, at end insert—
‘(10) In subsection (3)(aa) “relevant financial year”—
(a) for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), means the financial year immediately preceding that in which the disclosure by A is made;
(b) for the purposes of subsection (4)(a), means the financial year immediately preceding that in which the disclosure to C is made.
And, for the purposes of subsection (3)(aa), the question of whether a person’s UK revenue is large or very large for a particular financial year is to be determined in accordance with sections 55 to 57 of the Finance Act 2022 (calculation of UK revenue for the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy).’—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment include a definition of “relevant financial year” and explains how to determine if a person’s UK revenue is large or very large for the purposes of the new provision added by Amendment 142.
Clause 149, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 150 to 152 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 153
Other defined terms in sections 148 to 151
Amendments made: 153, in clause 153, page 140, line 19, at end insert—
“(ba) constitutes aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a listed offence, or”.
The amendment makes express provision about aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring in the definition of economic crime.
Amendment 154, in clause 153, page 140, line 21, after “(b)” insert “or (ba)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 153.
Amendment 155, in clause 153, page 140, line 34, at end insert—
““financial year” means a period of 12 months ending with 31 March;”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment adds a definition of “financial year” and is consequential on Amendment 152.
Clause 153, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 154
Law Society: powers to fine in cases relating to economic crime
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 155 stand part.
Government new clause 47—Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal: powers to fine in cases relating to economic crime.
Tom Tugendhat
His Majesty’s Government’s national risk assessment for 2020 assessed the legal services sector as being at high risk of exposure to money laundering. The crisis in Ukraine has highlighted that the sector is exposed to further-reaching risks, such as sanctions breaches. The Bill therefore contains measures that strengthen the legal sector’s response to economic crime.
Clause 154 removes the statutory limit on the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s financial penalty powers for disciplinary matters related to economic crime, as delegated by the Law Society. Currently, the SRA can direct a solicitor or traditional law firm to pay a penalty up to £25,000. The limit is set out in primary legislation and can be amended only by an order made by the Lord Chancellor. This measure will remove the need for the Lord Chancellor to make an order, thereby ensuring greater flexibility to, if required, amend penalty limits for disciplinary matters relating to economic crime.
New clause 47 gives the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal parity with England and Wales in respect of the fining powers available to it for economic crime-related solicitor misconduct. Currently, the SSDT may impose a maximum fine of £10,000. In comparison, the equivalent tribunal in England and Wales—the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal—has the power to impose an unlimited financial penalty. This change will provide the SSDT with fining powers that act as a proportionate deterrent against breaches of the rules and legislation related to economic crime, including offences linked to money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions. The exercise of this power will be subject to the oversight of the Court of Session to ensure that the SSDT acts in an effective and proportionate way. The changes sought in clause 154 and new clause 47 are needed to ensure that the SRA and the SSDT have the enforcement tools required in the context of economic crime compliance.
Clause 155 enshrines in legislation the duty of legal services regulators to promote the prevention and detection of economic crime. Our legal sector is internationally renowned for its high standards of excellence and professional conduct. The vast majority of the sector is compliant with its economic crime duties. However, it is crucial that regulators have the right tools to effectively promote and monitor compliance. The clause puts it beyond doubt that it is the duty of legal services regulators to take appropriate action to ensure that their regulated communities comply with economic crime rules. It will give frontline regulators a clear basis for any supervision or enforcement action they may carry out to uphold the economic crime regime.
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 154 would lift the current statutory cap on the penalties that may be imposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as delegated by the Law Society, for breaches of the law on economic crime. I am sure that Members on both sides will welcome the change if, as the Government argue in their impact assessment, it increases the deterrent effect of the financial penalties that may be levied for disciplinary matters. Although the Government provide limited evidence to support that claim, it is at least a reasonably logical conclusion.
However, the proposals raise a number of questions, principally around the degree to which clauses 154 and 155 reflect the input received from the sector in response to consultation earlier this year. Specifically, a number of serious concerns were expressed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when the SRA consulted on planned increases to its powers to impose fines.
The tribunal argued that the SRA’s powers should be limited to imposing relatively low penalties for minor technical or administrative errors. It argued that increasing the maximum level of fines that the SRA could impose would erode transparency by preventing cases of serious misconduct from coming before a public hearing, which could also remove the scope for a detailed, publicly accessible explanation of any penalties, as is generally provided by the tribunal’s decisions under the current system. In summarising its concern, the tribunal argued that the diminution in the transparency of decision making and detailed reason would be in neither the public’s nor the profession’s interest.
It should be noted that those objections were raised, not in response to the proposed changes set out in this Bill, but in the context of the increase in the maximum level of financial penalties that the SRA may impose from £2,000 to £25,000, which came into effect in July. That change in itself begs a number of questions. In particular, can the Minister explain how many and what proportion of the fines imposed by the SRA since July have been at the £25,000 maximum? Could it not be argued that the Government have not provided enough time for the effectiveness of recent changes to be adequately assessed?
Can the Minister also set out the Government’s reasoning in lifting the cap on the SRA’s fining powers, with specific regard to the objections raised by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and other stakeholders, around the transparency of the process?
Clause 155 would amend the Legal Services Act 2007 to set an additional objective for regulators in the legal sector to prevent economic crime. Given the objections that have been raised in the sector relating to clause 154, I would be grateful if the Minister provided further details of any consultation between his Department and providers of legal services, as well as the Legal Services Board, on this proposal.
Finally, it would be helpful if the Minister explained the rationale for the decision to set out, in this Bill, an explicit objective to prevent economic crime for providers of legal services, but not for other sectors covered by the money laundering regulations. The impact assessment sheds limited light on the Government’s thinking in this area, so any additional detail that the Minister could provide today would be welcome.
Alison Thewliss
My understanding is that the Law Society of Scotland has no particular objections to the amendments.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member is asking about various of the different fining elements. Clearly, the fines discussion is a matter for the individual cases, and would be determined on a case-by-case basis, but I think that removing the cap, which, in modern terms, is actually relatively low—certainly, when compared with financial abuses and other forms of regulation—is entirely reasonable.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority does not, in any way, have any power to strike off a suspended solicitor, so the SDT remains an extremely important part of the disciplinary process. There are various different aspects at play here, but the proposals make good sense and are reasonable. I will happily write to the hon. Member on the issue he raised separately and come back to him about it later.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for that clarification, and I am grateful for his offer to write with further details. On the point about using the Bill to prevent economic crime with respect to providers of legal services, but not for any other sector covered by the money laundering regulation, would he care to shed more light on the rationale for that decision?
Tom Tugendhat
The other sectors are already covered by the money laundering regulation. That element is focusing on legal services because that was a lacuna in the law.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for that clarification. There is a broader scope to economic crime, not just a specific focus on money laundering, and that covers a wider range of aspects of economic crime, although there is an explicit objective in the Bill that it is limited to providers of legal services. I wonder why that broader scope will not be applied beyond the money laundering concerns.
Tom Tugendhat
The changes are being made and the new clause is important for exactly the reasons the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. The new clause will remove an obstacle with respect to the SRA exercising its judgment and punishing appropriately those who might be committing any number of different crimes, which I hope they will not be doing. The measure will give us a provision to enable us to deal with that. The reality is that much of the money laundering regulation has already been covered, along with different aspects of financial services. The proposals specifically address legal services and particular aspects. They are an important addition, and I am happy to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 154 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 155 to 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 158
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Indeed, and I am delighted to be called to speak to it.
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to make consequential amendments that arise from the Bill. The power is necessary to ensure that other provisions on the statute book properly reflect and refer to the provisions in the Bill once it is enacted and to ensure that there are no legislative inconsistencies. If regulations are made under the clause that do not amend primary legislation, they will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. If regulations are made under the clause that amend primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This, I hope, will provide the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. May I clarify the process, Mr Paisley? In previous sittings, during each clause stand part debate the Minister has been called followed by the Opposition spokesperson. Perhaps that has had some variation, but it would be helpful to understand whether we need to do anything differently.
The Chair
No, nothing at all; it is just that the Minister did not indicate that he wished to speak. Members can speak at that point. Those clauses have been dealt with.
Seema Malhotra
I think that there was a slight misunderstanding, but we will move on.
Clause 158 confers on the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to make consequential amendments that arise from the Bill. I want to raise a general point: the Minister did speak to this, but perhaps he could say a little more about examples of where the Secretary of State might need to use the power. Perhaps it is written somewhere, but I am not fully clear whether any changes that come through secondary legislation to the Act itself—I think that is a Henry VIII power in this clause—would be taken through the affirmative procedure.
It has been a general theme of debate though our proceedings that we need to make sure that there is sufficient provision for the transparency, scrutiny and accountability of changes, as well as for accountability of the Secretary of State’s use of powers for the reporting that there should be on how well the provisions are working. The power to make consequential amendments comes at the end of the Bill in clause 158, but it is a Henry VIII power that means that amendments to primary legislation can be made. That is different from the power to make regulations under secondary legislation, which we have been debating.
The Government have said that the power is needed to ensure that other provisions on the statute book properly reflect and refer to provisions in the Bill once it is enacted. I want to be clear about what the scope of the use of this power would be, how it is intended and how it would be reported on. Would an affirmative or negative procedure be used to make any changes under this clause?
Dame Margaret Hodge
We have raised a number of amendments to the Bill during the course of consideration in Committee, many of which I consider to be technical and things that would improve the processes. All those amendments so far have been rejected. I wonder whether, rather than bringing us back at a later stage as the clause proposes, the Minister would undertake, together with his ministerial colleague, to look again at some of those amendments, which are really just practical, pragmatic amendments, with a view to bringing them back. Would he bring them back on Report?
Tom Tugendhat
I will answer the second question first, if I may. I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and I will look with great interest at the suggestions that the right hon. Lady has made. As she knows, we share many similar ambitions. We will have a look at those suggestions with officials. Certainly, there are some that we think could improve the Bill—I do not think there is any great debate about that—and I will make sure that we keep her informed. Her contribution and help, not just today and on the Bill, have been enormous, and I pay enormous tribute to the work that she has done over many years in fighting money laundering and different forms of economic crime.
On this specific power, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston raises a very important point, which is that the clause does give large consequential provision to the Government to change aspects of the Bill. I understand the concerns that she raises. The nature of the Bill, however, is that it has quite a consequential impact on other elements of legislation, as she herself has highlighted. Therefore there are knock-on elements that will no doubt require minor redrafting and changes at various different points as the Bill goes into law. I am afraid that is slightly the nature of these operations, as she understands extremely well. That is what this power is for.
It is worth saying that any significant or substantial changes that really do change the intent of the Bill should be brought back in primary legislation, because this is clearly a provision in order to enable the Bill to operate, not to change the intent that this House gives it.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comment, which puts that clarification on the record for successive generations of those who will sit in his seat—perhaps he will be promoted to higher office. It is important that that comment is on record, because we have to create legislation for not just today but tomorrow.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 159, page 144, line 21, at end insert—
“(ba) regulations under section (registration of qualifying Scottish partnerships), unless they are regulations under that section that only make provision that corresponds or is similar to provision made or capable of being made by a statutory instrument that is itself subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;”.
This provides for regulations under NC22 to be subject to the affirmative procedure unless they only make provision corresponding or similar to provision make by a statutory instrument that is itself subject to the negative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 22—Registration of qualifying Scottish partnerships.
Tom Tugendhat
Clause 159 provides that regulations made under the Bill are to be made by statutory instrument. The clause also sets outs the parliamentary procedure for how regulations under the Bill should be made, including situations in which legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure or the negative resolution procedure. The clause is a standard provision to enable regulations to give the intended effect to the measures in the Bill. It is necessary to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of such regulations.
Seema Malhotra
Clause 159 provides that regulations under the Bill are to be made by statutory instrument. To a large extent, we have had clarification that any subsequent changes will be made through the affirmative procedure in Parliament, enabling greater scrutiny and transparency over the Bill’s implementation. I am not sure if there is a list anywhere of all the regulation-making powers that have been specified in the Bill. I feel like there is probably a summary somewhere of all of those powers, and whether any are subject to the negative procedure. I think that would be a helpful review for the Committee to have.
New clause 22 allows regulations to be made about the registration of certain Scottish partnerships, and to apply law related to companies or limited partnerships. It will allow the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017 to be amended or replaced in relation to those partnerships. We welcome the inclusion of amendment 43 alongside the new clause, which provides for regulations under new clause 22 to be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they make provisions corresponding to provisions made by statutory instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. In light of my previous comments, I think it is healthy for us to clarify and have a clear summary of which are affirmative and which are negative, and the safeguards around them. That would ensure the transparency of regulation making subsequent to the passing of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I will speak briefly to amendment 43 and new clause 22, which are minor technical changes necessary due to the European Communities Act 1972 having been repealed. They give the Secretary of State the power to apply company or limited partnership law by regulations to Scottish qualifying partnerships, as well as to impose new requirements of Scottish qualifying partnerships not included in company or limited partnership law, such as identity verification. It allows the Government to retain the measures introduced by the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017 in relation to SQPs and to amend them in the future. Provisions about the registration of Scottish qualifying partnerships exist in the 2017 regulations, made using powers under now repealed section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
That has two consequences. First, there is no existing power to amend the regulations, other than by an Act of Parliament. Secondly, if not replaced under section 1 of the proposed retained EU law Bill, the 2017 regulations will be revoked at the end of 2023. This power will allow us to keep the existing requirements on Scottish qualifying partnerships and to add new ones. Without the amendment and new clause, it will not be possible to extend key measures introduced via the Bill, such as identity verification, to Scottish qualifying partnerships, thereby creating a dangerous loophole. I hope that my explanation has provided further clarity.
It is clear that regulations made under the Bill may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions and regulations under specified clauses must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure we can write to the hon. Lady to set out exactly what those situations are.
Alison Thewliss
I am glad to see any loopholes getting closed, even if the amendment is sneaking in at the end of the Bill. It is good to see it. As I have said at many points in Committee, enforcement needs to be laid down on all these things, because at the moment all things to do with Scottish partnerships are not being enforced. People are not being fined for not complying with the regulations. I hope that it will result in some tightening up and some fines being issued—and, if required, in some people being jailed for not complying with the regulations as set out.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has spoken to a lot of the issues, so I will just list clauses covered by the affirmative resolutions briefly—the others will be negative. That will include regulations under clauses 33, 35, 140(1), 141 and schedule 6, on powers to amend certain definitions relating to cryptoassets, clause 142 and schedule 7, on powers to amend certain definitions relating to cryptoassets and then clauses 143, 148, 149, 153 and 158. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady so that she has those details.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
Clause 159, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 View all UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. I will not make an autumn statement, though there are a lot of leaves about. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 22 November) meet at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 November;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 22 November. —(Andrew Griffith.)
Resolved,
That subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Andrew Griffith.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room, and circulated to Members by email.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which it relates.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
The UK Infrastructure Bank
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank Members for their work on the Committee this morning. Clause 1 is a technical clause that outlines that the company incorporated as the UK Infrastructure Bank will be referred to as “the Bank” for the purposes of the Bill, and links it in legislation to its company registration number. The clause is essential to ensure that the Bill refers to the correct legal entity. I recommend that it stand part.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Objectives and activities
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert
“, and
‘(c) to create long term financial returns to its shareholder(s).”
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to be the first Member, other than the Minister, to speak. As hon. Members look down the amendment paper, they will see that I have tabled a number of amendments. It is such a pity that so few Labour Members have bothered to show up to the Committee on such an important issue. I always thought that the Labour party thought that it was important to invest in green technologies and to level up. Clearly, the absence of Labour Members shows that that is just a paper commitment, not a real one.
This is an important Bill. Of course, in a certain regard it formalises what is already extant; however, it is important that we, as Members of Parliament, ensure that we provide the right objectives and activities to which the board and directors of the UK Infrastructure Bank should subsequently pay attention. In that regard, I have tabled two amendments to clause 2: amendments 10 and 11. If it is convenient with you, Mr Davies, I shall also speak to amendment 11.
Richard Fuller
Amendment 10 would add paragraph (c) to subsection (3), with a requirement that bank objectives should include long-term return to shareholders. To be clear, the shareholders are UK taxpayers.
Amendment 11 would add paragraph (c) to subsection (6) on the importance of the bank having regard to its role in additionality. That refers to the role of the bank in using taxpayers’ money or the power of the UK Government’s balance sheet in attracting private capital.
Why are those two amendments so important? Let us be honest. Parliament passed the Climate Change Act 2019, containing the net-zero policy, which has the potential to waste billions of taxpayers’ money. It is a policy objective with no price tag attached. It is also the case that technologies are evolving, and economies of scale can be elusive.
The UK Infrastructure Bank mentioned three things in its strategic plan that it was interested in pursuing for investment. The first was the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points. Does any hon. Member, or the Minister, know how that can be done today economically? The second was the retrofit of buildings. Does any hon. Member know how that can be done, what the right technology would be and how it should be funded? Does the Minister know? The third was the scaling of storage technologies. Does anyone know the right technology to choose for that?
The answers to those questions are crucial, because we are going to devolve the decision making about how that taxpayers’ money is spent to the UK Infrastructure Bank. There are significant risks with those technologies, and the consequences for taxpayers’ money.
The bank talks a lot about its potential for crowding in money and private capital, but there is also great potential for crowding out private capital. It is very simple. We already have a significant amount of investor appetite in environmentally sound investments. The Minister has been very successful recently in his efforts with Solvency II to release potentially additional long-term, patient capital that can invest in the sorts of projects that the UK Infrastructure Bank seeks to invest in. What reassurance can we have that the UK Infrastructure Bank is doing the right thing by crowding in private capital, rather than by crowding out?
We also need to see a little more clarity from the bank about where it is going to sit on the spectrum of risk. I draw Committee members’ attention to page 26 in the UK Infrastructure Bank’s strategic plan. Under the heading “Barriers to private infrastructure investment”, it lists four segments for investing: R&D, emerging, high-growth and maturity. It then splatters itself over three of those four segments. What sort of focus for investing is that?
What does that tell us about how we should assess the way in which capital has been allocated according to risk? Should the bank be investing more in late-stage opportunities? Is the real risk that it should be investing at an earlier stage, to stimulate the growth of technologies after they have come out of research and development? It is not at all clear what the focus should be. That gets to the root of the question that I want to press the Minister on. How comfortable is he that we and the Government have control over how the bank will invest taxpayers’ money? Is he comfortable that there are sufficient constraints on the bank to prevent it from wandering off with its own sense of purpose? Should there be provisions in this Bill to tighten it a little further?
Finally, the reason for us to focus on this is the UK Infrastructure Bank itself says that it has a “triple bottom line”. Well amen to a Government body actually having a bottom line because too often public bodies do not even worry about the bottom line, but it has three: achieving policy objectives; crowding-in private capital; and generating a positive return. It is because they have stated three bottom lines, one of which was to generate a positive return, that I sought, under amendment 10, to add that to clause 2(3).
I finally make some reference to Government amendment 1, which relates to deleting references to
“the circular economy, and nature-based solutions”.
I am interested to hear what the Minister’s rationale for this is; maybe I can see a rationale but I want to hear if that is actually the Minister’s rationale. The principles of the circular economy and the principles of nature-based solutions have the merit of being quite specific in what is otherwise quite a general set of remits for the UK Infrastructure Bank. I guess that the Minister will say, “Well yes, that is right. However, there are lots of other things that it needs to focus on. If we pick those two, we should not pick others.” But I would be very interested to know the particular reasons why the Minister does not feel that those two should be included.
Finally, I note that Government amendment 2, which relates to everything I have said about the objectives around additionality and long-term returns for shareholders, would delete clause 2(6) completely. If so, I will obviously withdraw my amendment.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Good morning to the rest of the Committee. I look forward to our debate today. I think that this will be a productive conversation. I also use this opportunity to formally congratulate the new Minister.
Before I turn to clause 2, I want to say in my opening remarks that Britain has so much potential, but right now we are facing—and I want to put this on record—a Tory economic crisis that is holding us back. To get our economy growing again, we will need to see investment in infrastructure projects and create highly-skilled, well-paid jobs and tackle climate change in a modern industrial strategy, working hand in hand with businesses.
I also want to put on record my reassurance to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire that Labour is well represented on these issues. Members will see that through our ideas and what we are proposing today, which will strengthen this Bill. Also, it is really important that we recognise that there has been a lost decade of broken Tory promises that have left much of the UK with second-rate infrastructure. That is why Labour supports strengthening the Bill, but much of the Bill as it stands relies on out-of-date thinking. That is why we are proposing amendments today.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. In terms of investment in infrastructure, the last Labour Government did invest in hospitals and schools and, through the private finance initiative, left the country with bills that were 10 times the cost of building the hospitals. On reflection, does the hon. Lady believe that was a mistake?
The Chair
Order. We are in danger of drifting outside the scope of the amendment. Please do respond, but let us not have a general debate on this.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell for his comments. However, we have had a Tory Government for 12 years. We are in the middle of an economic crisis.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Inflation is at its highest point, but I do not want to be drawn into a discussion about that. I want to focus on the Bill and I want us all to have a mature conversation about it.
Clause 2 sets out the objectives and activities of the UK Infrastructure Bank. This is probably the meatiest part of the Bill, and I can see that we have several amendments to get through, so I want to make a start on that. Subsection (3) lays out the bank’s two objectives, which are to
“tackle climate change, including by supporting efforts to meet the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008”
and
“to support regional and local economic growth.”
I welcome the bank’s first objective. With COP27, a climate conference that the Prime Minister had to be shamed into attending, ending just days ago, it is clear that there is still a way to go to ensure that our country’s emissions reach the targets enshrined in international law. I have to be honest: the Prime Minister does not get it. He is a fossil-fuel Prime Minister in a renewable age. His is a record of tax breaks for oil and gas giants and blocks on wind and solar power. It has left our energy bills higher and our country less secure. The UK Infrastructure Bank sets out to invest in projects that lower emissions, while the Government undermine those ambitions. It will be unsurprising to the Committee that Labour has no confidence that the Government will deliver the long-term investment that the country needs.
I also welcome the bank’s second objective. Labour wants to see prosperity shared and spread across the country, with the Government working in lockstep with businesses to produce the high-skilled jobs of the future—something that I will come to later. Amendment 10 would add a third objective for the bank:
“to create long term financial returns to its shareholder(s).”
Labour wants to see the bank succeed. There is a global race for the jobs and industries of the future that, under the Tories, we will not win. We know that investment in green jobs, improved rail and other transport and modern infrastructure, such as broadband, have the potential for large returns and will boost our economy. We want the bank to crowd in private sector investment and help to provide confidence for investors and businesses innovating in new technologies. We also want the bank to have the freedom to invest in projects based on their ability to tackle climate change and grow our economy.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. As recent data shows, the UK has decarbonised fastest in the whole of the G20 since 2010. Does the hon. Lady agree that a huge amount of that has been done with the investment of both public and private capital in the mechanisms to achieve it? And there is our world-leading legislation for net zero and even our commitment to reduce fossil-fuel cars. The idea that we are behind in the race on this is really for the birds.
The Chair
Order. Before the shadow Minister responds, let me just say that we do need to keep within the scope of this amendment, about creating long-term financial returns to the shareholder. I appreciate that I have allowed a certain amount of flexibility, and I respect what you are saying, but could we try to focus on the amendment rather than clause 2 stand part, which we will come to?
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble for her comments, but I do not fully agree with her, because I feel that the Government have not done enough. There has also been a cancellation of Northern Powerhouse Rail and a dismal failure to invest properly in renewable energy and to take decisions on nuclear; there has been a lack of strategy and planning. That has happened under this Tory Government in the last 12 years.
The Government’s track record does not provide much confidence. The Government set up the Green Investment Bank 10 years ago and sold it to a private equity group five years ago, with the Public Accounts Committee concluding that the Government had focused on
“how much money could be gained from the sale over the continued delivery of GIB’s green objective.”
We would not want to encourage a similar short-lived path—
The Chair
Order. Shadow Minister, I think you are straying off the point of the amendment, if I may say so.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I do not believe I am, Mr Davies. This is very relevant to the clause.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Yes. I am just going to wrap up, Mr Davies; thank you. We would not want to encourage a similar short-lived path for the UK Infrastructure Bank. To achieve its objectives, it needs to be a long-lasting institution that supports businesses and improves investor confidence. We have a different third objective in mind for the bank, and I will explain that in Committee later today.
Andrew Griffith
I thank all those who have contributed to this grouping. If I may, I will speak to clause 2, the Government amendments, and then the amendments in the name of—
The Chair
Order. You cannot do that. You must speak to amendment 10, and we will come to clause 2.
Andrew Griffith
Perfect, Mr Davies. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire is not only a distinguished predecessor of mine, but is a doughty champion for the interests of the taxpayer, and we commend him for that.
We have set out in the framework that the bank must already generate a financial return as part of the company’s operating principles. As set out in the UK Infrastructure Bank’s strategic plan, that has been set at an admirable 2.5% to 4% by the end of 2025-26. The bank, as my hon. Friend said, has a triple bottom line, including a positive financial return as a requirement across its investments.
Putting that target into law—I cannot believe that my hon. Friend is an advocate of writing everything into statute; the statute is often large enough as it is without embellishing it with additional Christmas trees of prescription—could create legal problems for the bank and undermine its core purpose, given that there might from time to time be reasons outside of its control why it cannot meet the target in relation to every investment.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is right: not everything should be written into statute, but there ought to be more clarity. Can he provide a couple of points of clarity so that I may withdraw my amendment? On the bank’s target of 2.5% to 4% return, is that a real rate of return, and above what cost of capital? And if the chief executive and the directors do not achieve that rate of return, what will be the consequences for them?
Andrew Griffith
I will write to my hon. Friend on the calculation of that return. The UK Infrastructure Bank is subject to the full panoply of disclosures, sanctions and accountability, not just to this place, as is appropriate, but under the Companies Act 2006 under which it is constituted. I do not believe, therefore, that there is a deficiency in that. For that reason, notwithstanding the very understandable spirit with which my hon. Friend advocates his amendment, I hope he will consider withdrawing it.
Richard Fuller
Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) to reduce economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom, and
(d) to improve productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards.”
This amendment clarifies that the Bank’s objective to support regional and local economic growth includes reducing economic inequalities within and between regions and improving productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 18, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert
“, and
“(c) to support supply chain resilience and the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy”.
This amendment creates a third objective for the Bank to support UK supply chain resilience and industrial strategy.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As I have hinted, Labour Members believe that the bank’s objectives need expanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North will speak later about the bank’s climate objective and the ways in which it might achieve it. I will talk about the economic objective of the bank, which is to support regional and local economic growth. After a mini-Budget that crashed our economy and an autumn statement last week that papers over the cracks, the importance of that objective is as clear as day; but we believe in growth not for growth’s sake, but because it creates jobs and improves living standards. As a result of fairer choices, we could see our economy growing again, powered by the talent and effort of millions of working people and thousands of businesses.
Our amendment 17 would make it clear that the bank should support regional and local economic growth, both to reduce economic inequalities within and between the regions of the UK, and to improve productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards. In our constituencies we see the disparities between the regions. As it stands, the bank does not have to focus its investment on disadvantaged areas of the country that would most benefit from its support. The Prime Minister has boasted about moving money away from disadvantaged areas, and so-called levelling-up funds have so far funnelled money into Conservative constituencies, rather than focusing on areas that most need the support. On its own, therefore, clause 2(3)(b) is not a sufficient objective for the bank. It relies on the tired Conservative assumption that growth and prosperity will trickle down and be spread evenly, which we know is not true.
Amendment 17 is crucial to targeting the bank’s investments and ensuring that it creates lasting change. The Prime Minister, then Chancellor, argued in his strategic steer to the bank in March that it should support the Government’s ambition of addressing
“the deep spatial disparities across and within UK regions”.
Those are his words. I find it strange that when he outlined the bank’s objectives in the strategic steer, his description of the climate objective matched that in the Bill, but his description of the economic objective did not. He said that the bank’s objectives are to
“help tackle climate change, particularly meeting the government’s net zero emissions target by 2050”.
That all seems correct, and we can see it repeated near verbatim in clause 2(3)(a). However, in describing the second objective, the then Chancellor said that the bank should
“support regional and local economic growth through better connectedness, opportunities for new jobs and higher levels of productivity.”
That wording is not in the Bill. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have abandoned those commitments? Why does the Bill include a watered-down version of that objective?
I note that in his letter yesterday, the Minister’s justification for Government amendment 2 was that
“with regards to the economic disparities component of”
clause 2(6),
“it could be overly restrictive where the Bank looks to invest in a deprived part of a relatively affluent region for example, as there are difficulties in drawing distinct boundaries on this issue.”
Before the Minister uses that as a reason to vote against our amendment 17, I hope that he will notice that the amendment has been worded specifically to avoid such restrictions: by addressing
“economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom”,
the bank will retain the freedom to target at any level. If their commitment still stands, I am sure that Conservatives will not oppose Labour’s efforts to put that in the Bill. The amendment would bring the Bill back into alignment with their stated objectives.
Amendment 18 would add a third objective for the bank:
“to support supply chain resilience and the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy”.
That seems reasonable. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the bank will have no effect on growth. With assets of 0.1% of GDP a year, the bank is dwarfed by its French and German counterparts, and the £12 billion of funding allocated over five years falls short of the £20 billion recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission. With their cancellation of Northern Powerhouse Rail and failed record on nuclear energy, the Government’s record on infrastructure is abysmal.
Labour has called for a strategic approach to infrastructure, and presented an industrial strategy that is based on evidence from around the world. Supported by the creation of a publicly owned Great British energy company, we would deliver self-sufficient renewable energy by doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and quadrupling offshore wind. We would create half a million jobs in renewable energy, and an additional half a million jobs by insulating 19 million homes over 10 years.
The importance of supply chain resilience has become particularly clear in the wake of the pandemic, and as concerns over energy security have come to the fore through the war in Ukraine. We are all concerned about it. We have an industrial strategy, and want the UK infrastructure bank to support and champion it. Our amendments 17 and 18 would clarify the objectives of the bank, and focus them on the challenges of the future.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Bore da, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Aside from one issue that I would split hairs about on amendment 17 —Scotland is not a region, but a nation, so the amendment should read “regions and nations of the United Kingdom”—I have another point to object to. The bank’s strategic objectives include tackling climate change, and it is vital that the Scottish Government’s climate change targets be reflected in the Bill, so I take a wee bit of issue with points made by the hon. Member for South Ribble about the UK’s “world-leading” climate change legislation; it legislates for net zero by 2050, whereas in Scotland it is 2045. I wanted to make that point on the record.
Given the significant overlap between the strategic objectives of the UK Infrastructure Bank and those of the Scottish National Investment Bank, a mechanism must be in place to ensure alignment on how the objectives are reached. I would be grateful if the Minister provided a little more clarity on that when he sums up. However, if His Majesty’s loyal Opposition intend to press the amendment to a vote, they can be assured of the support of the Scottish National party.
Alec Shelbrooke
On reducing economic and other inequalities between regions of the United Kingdom, I first make the point that if the bank is to be located in my home city of Leeds, in Yorkshire, and is to invest in the region, it follows that Northern Powerhouse Rail has not been cancelled.
I have risen to speak simply because an intervention on the Minister would have been too long. The Opposition parties almost seem to be tabling amendments for amendments’ sake. To state the obvious about the whole point of this policy, I do not, to use a phrase, need a weatherman to tell me when it is raining. The Infrastructure Bank will already do exactly what is in the amendments.
On the green industrial strategy, the reality is that a multi-billion-pound industry, with hundreds of thousands of jobs in the offshore wind industry, has been created since we came to power in 2010. It is simply mistaken to suggest otherwise. When we look at the track record of this Government over the past 12 years, there is much that I am exceptionally proud of. We have changed the energy strategy of this country. Sometimes, we produce well over 50% of our electricity through renewable means. All that has come about through investment in infrastructure.
I believe that amendments 17 and 18 were tabled simply to develop an argument with a weak foundation that does not stand up when we look at the physical outcomes from the past 12 years. I will finish with that—
Alec Shelbrooke
I will, because I like the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but I had wrapped up my comments.
David Linden
My stock in the SNP has just fallen through the floor. The hon. Gentleman said that we do not need a weatherman to tell us what the weather is outside, but over the past seven or eight weeks, the UK Government have flip-flopped on their policy on energy, and specifically on their fracking policy, in a major departure from the 2019 manifesto. Given the instability of the UK Government and the changes in various weather people, it might not be a bad thing to put something about this in the Bill.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s input. Personally, I believe we should get on with fracking, and I have licences in my constituency, but that is a decision for the local authority. Often with such plans, local authorities are far better placed to understand the needs and issues than people down in Westminster.
On the green industrial strategy and the increase in fossil fuels—I know we are straying slightly from the subject—the investment in the green strategy that is being made by this Government is clear to see, but we cannot let our fossil fuel supply fall off a cliff and disappear overnight, and send people’s bills through the roof. That strategy and this policy are a key plank in ensuring that we move towards where we all want to be, while ensuring that we have the investments and structures in place and are clear about the target we are aiming for. Fundamentally, this Government have a proud track record on this matter, and amendments 17 and 18 are surplus to requirements.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and the Opposition are as sincere in pursuing this amendment as they are wrong. They are adventurous in terms of scope, because they are trying to crowbar an entire—
David Linden
On a point of order, Mr Davies. I am sure the Minister is not at all suggesting that you have selected amendments that are out of scope for the Committee to vote on.
Andrew Griffith
My reference to “scope” related to the broad set of industrial policies laid out by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, not to the wording of the amendments.
The Chair
My comments were about the previous discussion. The shadow Minister was in scope on her amendments. I call the shadow Minister.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Thank you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to speak on this matter. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister’s comments. The amendments that Labour put forward are reasonable. In this climate, given the situation with covid and Russia, we know that things are different, particularly in terms of regional inequalities. The Prime Minister also talked about regional inequalities. We have all seen the speech he gave in Tunbridge Wells.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady will have the final word, but the issue is whether these amendments are in order. Obviously, they were selected for debate, and the Minister was speaking to them. I know his comments were about whether comments made were in order, but if he could make his speech, I will then call the hon. Lady to respond, and she can make similar points. I call the Minister.
Andrew Griffith
Thank you, Mr Davies. The Government think that the aim of reducing regional inequality is already implicit in the bank’s current objective. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell reminded me, the bank was constituted in Leeds, rightly outside of the overheated south-east. A number of its early investments have already seen their capital deployed to some of the most left-behind parts of the United Kingdom. Our belief is that the objective of supporting regional and local growth provides a clear direction for the bank without being overly prescriptive, which I am sure nobody would want. The strategic steer by the Chancellor in March makes clear that the bank must focus on geographical inequality, with reference to the levelling-up White Paper, which the House will debate tomorrow. That is the right place to set out the Government’s strategic approach to levelling up, but that is best done on a portfolio basis rather than investment by investment, which is what the amendment implies.
Turning to the second part of the amendment, the bank’s framework document already includes, under its regional and local economy growth objective, achieving higher levels of productivity and providing opportunities for new jobs—something the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead talked about as an important output. We think it is more appropriate to have this requirement in the framework document rather than in legislation to minimise the legal risk across investments. I am sure that we can all agree that no one wants to create more work for lawyers.
Andrew Griffith
The right hon. Lady will have to talk to her Front Bench if that is the official policy, but I assure the Committee that it is not the policy of the Government.
Valerie Vaz
The point is that this is public money. The bank has to be accountable for it. Lawyers are the guardians of justice. It is not about making more money for lawyers. It is about interpreting legislation that is put through very quickly and not thought through. That is the basis of it.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady makes a very fair point on the valiant role of lawyers in keeping us all to account. The alternative, of course, is legislation that is clear and allows the appropriate degree of discretion. The Government contend that that is what this is.
The amendments by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead would include in the bank’s objectives the improvement of pay and living standards. Economic growth in the long run is closely linked to supporting productivity, income and employment and living standards. It is implicit in the bank’s objectives. Including the amendments would make the objectives too wide-ranging for an infrastructure bank, as it could focus on anything relating to pay or standards, for example training programmes or household appliances, which do not come under economic infrastructure. For these reasons, we consider it preferable to keep the statutory objectives as they are—a balance between clarity and flexibility—while instead providing further recommendations as to the bank’s targets and areas of focus via more flexible mechanisms such as the strategic steer, which can be updated from time to time.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for his comments. We agree that the legislation needs to be clear, but I think our approach is very different. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but I want to highlight that addressing economic inequalities, particularly between regions, is really important,. We think the amendments would help the bank retain its freedom while reaching targets at any level. For this reason, we will push the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Andrew Griffith
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out “relevant”.
This amendment, and Amendment 9, would clarify that the Bank can provide loans to public authorities other than local authorities and Northern Ireland Departments (as well as to persons other than public authorities).
Andrew Griffith
The amendments broaden the definition of “public authority” used in relation to the bank’s capacity to lend. The drafting as is broadly meets the policy aims and would allow the bank to lend to local authorities and to the Northern Ireland Executive. However, given that primary legislation can be a blunt instrument, we do not want inadvertently and by implication to preclude the bank from investing in other public authorities. I hope that all members of Committee can agree on that.
Other public authorities could include existing public bodies, as well as new public bodies created in the future by local authorities or Government Departments.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendments.
Clause 2(4) describes the activities of the bank, as the Minister explained, and sets out that in addition to funding private infrastructure projects, it can provide financial support to local government. Government amendment 8 seeks to clarify that the bank can provide loans to public authorities other than local authorities and Northern Ireland Departments. Amendment 9 to clause 10 would achieve the same purpose. It would clarify that the Bill considers public authorities to be local authorities, Northern Ireland Departments and any other person exercising functions of a public nature.
I am grateful to the Minister for his letter of yesterday that set out the reasons for the Government amendments, which we will not oppose.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Andrew Griffith
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out from “includes” to “technologies” on line 24.
This amendment would remove the reference to “structures underpinning the circular economy, and nature-based solutions,” from the definition of “infrastructure”.
Andrew Griffith
The amendments would remove both the Lords amendments. Government amendment 1 would remove the addition of “nature-based solutions” and
“structures underpinning the circular economy”
from the definition of infrastructure. The bank has a broad mandate with flexibility to support a wide range of projects to help to tackle climate change and to support regional and local economic growth.
On nature-based solutions, earlier this year the Government conducted a review to consider the potential of broadening the bank’s objectives to include other areas such as improving UK natural capital. The review recognised the significant potential for increased use of nature-based and hybrid infrastructure solutions, including for the water sector, greenhouse gas removal and opportunities for the growth of ecosystems services markets. Those opportunities will be important to meet our objective to leverage private finance for nature recovery.
The outcome of the review was formally made clear to the bank and to the market through the Chancellor’s non-statutory strategic steer. As we discussed earlier, that is an alternative to writing everything in statute and is more flexible. That steer clearly laid out that nature-based solutions are in scope and are something that the bank should pursue. However, given that they are already part of the remit and are clearly covered within the non-exhaustive definition of infrastructure, we do not believe this language should be retained in the Bill.
Moving on to amendment 2, clause 2(6) focuses on improving
“productivity, pay, jobs and living standards”
and reducing geographic inequality. The effect of this subsection is to put a statutory duty on the bank to have regard to these two areas in relation to every potential investment that it considers, which would have significant impacts on the bank. On improving jobs specifically, we understand the intention of the provision and do not disagree with it as a general principle, but that is quite different from the individual investment evaluation.
Valerie Vaz
Those objectives are not set out in the Bill. Are they going to be in secondary legislation?
Andrew Griffith
As I have laid out, the Government’s position is that the steer to the bank, which is flexible and can be updated from time to time, rather than requiring primary legislation—it may be something the Labour party wishes to take advantage of in future—is a more agile and flexible way of guiding the bank as it seeks to achieve its objectives.
David Linden
Is the Minister therefore suggesting that that would only be within a policy framework rather than in the issuing of secondary legislation?
Andrew Griffith
The steer provided from time to time in the context of the wider oversight of the investment bank, under its statutory objectives—effectively, the interpretation layer—is the right place. We do not disagree with the principle, but we could sit here all day and think of various admirable principles that we would like to put into statute. It is the Government’s contention that the provision would over-fetter the discretion of the bank and that it is not the appropriate vehicle. I understand that we will debate this point a number of times as we go through the Bill. The Government want the bank to get on with its job. We want to give it the statutory clarity it needs and to allow Parliament and Government, from time to time, if they wish, to give the steer required.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as Chair today, Mr Davies. As we know, clause 2 concerns the objectives and activities of the UK Infrastructure Bank. Subsection (5) seeks to define the infrastructure and makes reference to the
“structures underpinning the circular economy, and nature-based solutions”,
which reflects an amendment made in the Lords that Government amendment 1 seeks to remove. The Government’s opposition to this measure seems to run counter to subsection (3)(a), which defines tackling climate change as an objective of the bank. I note that the Government do not oppose this objective of the bank, but they do seem to reject its delivery. We naturally oppose the amendment, which highlights how the Government seem to be all talk but unwilling to follow through on solutions to the climate emergency.
The truth is that the Government and the newly appointed Prime Minister have a record of failure on investing in green infrastructure for our country and our economy. While we welcome the bank’s focus on tackling climate change, no matter how well it plays its part, the British people need a Government with an effective plan to make the investments in the jobs, homes and energy supplies of the future a reality.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman may point to conflict between taking out from subsection (5) the words
“structures underpinning the circular economy, and nature-based solutions”,
and the objective in subsection (3) about tackling climate change, but if he looks at subsection (5)(c), he will see that
“climate change (including the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere)”
is retained. The amendment does not affect the Government’s commitments on climate change at all.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—it is a pleasure to speak with him once again following his brief tenure on the Government Front Bench. I am not quite sure from that intervention whether he supports our opposition to Government amendment 1. Perhaps we will see when we push it to a vote shortly.
Let me move on to Government amendment 2. It seeks to remove from the clause subsection (6), which was introduced by Labour in the Lords. Subsection (6) requires the bank to have regard to public interest when targeting investment that improves productivity, pay, jobs and living standards and reduces the economic disparities between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Sadly, it comes as no surprise to us that the Government wish to remove commitments to better pay and the reduction of economic disparities. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead already set out clearly the importance of prioritising job creation and putting it in the Bill. We want all parts of the country to benefit from investment in green jobs for the future, along with improved rail and other transport services and other essential modern infrastructure, including broadband.
When it comes to supporting economic growth across the country—or levelling up, as the Government used to call it—words ring hollow unless people see change. That is why clause 2(6) is so important, as it seeks to ensure that the bank has regard to the first mission of the Government’s levelling-up White Paper when exercising its functions under the Bill. We oppose the amendment because we seek to hold the Government to account on their commitment to level up our country.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Richard Fuller
I no longer wish to move amendment 11, because clause 2(6) has been removed.
Andrew Griffith
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(7A) The Treasury must consult the appropriate national authority before making provision in regulations under subsection (7) that would be within the legislative competence of—
(a) the Scottish Parliament, if contained in an Act of that Parliament,
(b) Senedd Cymru, if contained in an Act of the Senedd, or
(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly, if contained in an Act of that Assembly made without the Secretary of State’s consent,
apart from provision that is merely incidental to, or consequential on, provision which would be outside that competence.”
This amendment would require the Treasury to consult the relevant devolved authority before making regulations under clause 2(7) that would contain provision within the legislative competence of the authority in question.
Andrew Griffith
This group concerns provisions that will, I hope, gladden the heart of the hon. Member for Glasgow East, because they add a duty to consult the devolved Administrations on the use of delegated legislative powers in the Bill, including the power to amend the bank’s activities or the definition of infrastructure, and to issue the strategic steer. The amendments come as a direct result of the positive engagement we have had with the DAs to date. They specifically address a concern raised that the Government would be legislating or acting in areas of devolved competence without an appropriate mechanism to engage with the DAs.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I do not think we have any concerns about the UK Government consulting the Scottish Government in respect of their intended actions, but I think the key question is will they listen, and if the Scottish Government have any concerns, will they have a veto?
Andrew Griffith
These amendments are a proof positive of the Government having listened. If the hon. Member is so crushingly sceptical, perhaps he will oppose the amendments, which have been proffered following consultation with the DAs. It was never our intention to pursue these measures without an appropriate mechanism to engage with the DAs. That is why we are happy to bring forward these amendments today.
I would like to put on the record my gratitude to officials in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for engaging so positively to date on the Bill. I think we all support the Bill’s ultimate objectives, and I am hopeful that it will secure a legislative consent motion from each of the devolved legislatures. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.
James Murray
Government amendment 3 concerns the consultation of appropriate national authorities when using statutory instruments to change regulations pertaining to the definition of infrastructure and the bank’s activities, as outlined in clause 2(7). If changing regulations under subsection (7) fell within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Irish Assembly, the amendment would require the Treasury to consult the relevant devolved authority.
Similarly, Government amendment 4 would require the Treasury to consult the relevant devolved authority before including in a statement of strategic priorities for the bank matters within the legislative competence of the devolved authority.
Government amendment 6 simply defines “appropriate national authority” to mean the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland.
We are supportive of these amendments, as we are supportive of the Union. Labour recognises the very real importance of working closely with devolved Administrations, and we recognise the great work of Welsh Labour. Indeed, the Government could learn a thing or two from Welsh Labour, given its record for infrastructure investment. The Welsh infrastructure investment plan has already allocated more than £12 billion for key capital projects to transform and maintain the NHS estate, deliver 20,000 affordable homes and deliver rail infrastructure improvements.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 2 is of central importance to the policy remit in which the bank will operate. I think that is why we have heard so many different—sometimes contrasting—views about how prescriptive that remit should be. The clause sets out the bank’s objectives and activities, as well as an inclusive definition of infrastructure, which is central to its scope—it is the UK infrastructure bank, after all. The clause also creates delegated powers to enable the Treasury to change the bank’s activities or the definition of infrastructure using secondary legislation under the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have its say. The bank’s objectives to help the Government meet their climate change ambitions and to support levelling up across the UK are currently set out in the framework document. Clause 2(3) puts those on a statutory footing, which we hope sends a signal to the market about the Government’s commitment to these policy aims and the bank’s central role in helping deliver them.
Katherine Fletcher
Studying Parliament as he does, the Minister will have paid attention to my campaign to be Transport Committee Chair, which was unfortunately unsuccessful last week. One point that I made repeatedly as part of that campaign was about the projects that are slightly too big for local authorities and slightly too small for the Department for Transport. The objectives, while hotly debated here, must be so prescriptive as to not allow the UK Infrastructure Bank to lend to local authorities for smaller but none the less important projects in local communities. Is that fair?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I will be happy to facilitate meetings between her— expert in transport as she is—and the infrastructure bank to get into some of those potential projects in more detail. She made a significant contribution as roads Minister.
Clause 2(5) sets out the definition of infrastructure. We have taken a power to amend the bank’s activities and the definition of infrastructure, using the affirmative procedure in both Houses. Across these different areas, clause 2 is the bedrock on which the bank will operate, and I commend it to the Committee.
James Murray
We know that after 12 years of low growth from the Conservatives there is a vital need to invest in the infrastructure of the future. Across the country, we need to invest in new transport, new digital infrastructure, new sources of energy that are sustainable and secure, and new high-quality jobs with decent pay. That is why we support the establishment of the UK Infrastructure Bank, and the Bill’s aim of putting it on a statutory footing.
We wanted the bank to address the deep economic inequalities across the country, which is why we sought to amend clause 2(3). My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead emphasised that, in supporting regional and local economic growth, the bank should reduce economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards. In the same subsection, we wanted to add a third objective: for the bank to support supply chain resilience and the UK’s industrial strategy.
We wanted to retain two Lords amendments that strengthened the Bill: one that included the circular economy and nature-based solutions in the Bill’s definition of infrastructure, and one that Labour introduced to ensure that the Bill would focus on creating jobs and reducing economic inequalities. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have blocked those measures to make the UK Infrastructure Bank succeed and be fit for a modern, prosperous Britain. A Labour Government would deliver investment and loans in a way that supports the entire country, to meet the challenge of regional inequality and the commitments of our climate ambitions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Strategic priorities and plans
Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(4A) The Treasury must consult the appropriate national authority about any provision which the Treasury proposes to include in a statement under this section and which concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of—
(a) the Scottish Parliament, if contained in an Act of that Parliament,
(b) Senedd Cymru, if contained in an Act of the Senedd, or
(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly, if contained in an Act of that Assembly made without the Secretary of State’s consent.
(4B) The duty to consult imposed by subsection (4A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act.”—(Andrew Griffith.)
This amendment would require the Treasury to consult the relevant devolved authority before including in a statement of strategic priorities for the Bank any provision which the Treasury proposes to include in the statement and which concerns a subject matter within the legislative competence of the authority in question.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 3 gives His Majesty’s Treasury the power to issue the bank with a strategic steer. We talked about that earlier as a mechanism by which the Government of the day can flexibly, and in an agile fashion, give the bank some direction. That steer will set out what, in the Government’s view, the bank should prioritise and focus its activities on. The strategic steer, and any revisions of it, will be required to be laid before Parliament.
The Chancellor issued the bank with its first strategic steer in March in order to inform the development of the bank’s inaugural strategic plan, which was published in June. That gave the opportunity to share an update on the Treasury’s interpretation of the bank’s strategic objectives and to clarify the definition of infrastructure that the bank should be working with. It highlighted the role that the bank can play in improving energy resilience, as well as setting out the outcome of the Treasury’s review of environmental objectives, confirming that there is significant scope in the bank’s existing objectives for it to invest in nature-based solutions.
We do not expect a steer to be issued more than once a Parliament, which will ensure that the bank has certainty in the long term to plan its investment strategy while keeping pace with Government priorities and ensuring policy alignment across infrastructure investment.
Richard Fuller
Can the Minister tell me whether the steer will include giving a bit more specificity to the UK Infrastructure Bank about where on the investment spectrum—emerging businesses, high-growth businesses, mature businesses—it should place the preponderance of its resources? Will the steer provide clarification from the Government to help the bank?
Andrew Griffith
The strategic steer is precisely an attempt to find the right balance between prescription—I understand that my hon. Friend does not seek that directly but wants to be able to command the bank to invest at particular points of the curve from time to time—and the bank’s being able to use its expertise and motivate its leadership by having a relatively broad set of parameters. We all understand that that is a careful balance, and we do not want to move it in either direction, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the strategic steer is a vehicle to achieve the purpose he seeks.
Richard Fuller
I do not mean to dwell too much on this issue, and I certainly do not want to irritate the Minister through my questioning, but I want to make the point that the skillsets required for the bank to be effective as an emerging-stage investor are different from those required for it to be an investor in a mature business or a high-growth business. My concern is that the bank will try to spread itself too thinly, particularly in the early stages.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a very wise and informed point. The UK Infrastructure Bank is not the only intervention that the Government make; the British Business Bank has a broad portfolio of ways to support the sector. I hope that between the two of them, with the strategic steer perhaps being used as a vehicle to align them, every outcome that my hon. Friend seeks can be properly covered. Again, he makes a strong point about confidence and capability, and about how we resource against different types of investment.
The bank is required under the clause to update its strategic plan to ensure that it reflects the changes when a strategic steer is issued, once per Parliament. That will ensure that the will of Parliament is satisfied within a reasonable timeframe. Given that the bank is ultimately owned by the Government and the taxpayer, it is right that we retain a power to issue the bank with a strategic steer to set out its priorities, which is why I support the clause.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the clause, which lays out the bank’s strategic priorities and plans. It is largely administrative and requires the Treasury to prepare a statement of strategic priorities for the bank, which must be laid before Parliament and can be revised or replaced.
As the Minister said, the Chancellor—the now Prime Minister—put the strategic steer in place on 18 March. As I have already highlighted, the strategic steer included some plans that Labour do not oppose; indeed, we want to see some of them in the Bill, rather than in policy documents with ambiguous legal status. The Government must recognise that point, which is evidenced by the energy efficiency amendment that they introduced in the Lords. The Chancellor stated in the March strategic steer that
“I’d encourage you to prioritise opportunities that align with the government’s renewed focus on energy security. Examples of relevant opportunities may include helping to bring forward low carbon energy projects that accelerate the UK’s transition to clean energy and improve the energy efficiency of buildings and homes.”
It was rightly pointed out in the other place that the Bill did not include energy efficiency measures. In recognition of that, the Government introduced an amendment on energy efficiency, which Labour welcomed.
I anticipate that in much of the Committee’s proceedings, the Government will assure us that many of our asks are covered by the strategic steer or the framework document. However, if that is the case, will they put them in the Bill, as they did with energy efficiency? If they are firm commitments then they should be in the legislation itself. We are here to scrutinise the Bill, but so many key elements of it seem to be relegated to documents that are not amendable and are legally ambiguous. Labour does not oppose clause 3, but it would be useful if the Minister could clarify the legal status of the various documents that interact with the Bill.
I want to echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. In terms of the skills required, I too am worried about the bank being spread thin. I appreciate that the Minister has made comments about competency and capability with respect to particular investments, but it is important that at this stage—while we can—we look at how we can clarify the legal status of the various documents that interact with the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Lady and I reiterate that, in general, our differences are to do not with outcome, but with process and how prescriptive one should be when putting things into legislation. Philosophically, the Conservative party does not think it is always right to be over-prescriptive; the objective is to provide a flexible and agile tool that can be responsive and deliver the outcomes that we seek. Passing laws in itself does not change the outcome.
Valerie Vaz
That is the whole reason we are here as legislators. I gently remind the Minister that it is important to put things in the Bill; otherwise, there is confusion and there are too many grey areas. The Minister does not want lawyers to get involved, but it is important to have clarity. That is the purpose of legislation. Does he agree?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked me to clarify. Of course we do not put everything in legislation; that is just not the way that we work. As we have committed to doing on the strategic steer, we bring things to Parliament to provide the opportunity to debate and discuss them. How this will work will be laid down in the Bill itself. As I have explained, the strategic steer can be issued from time to time—once per Parliament. Its legal status is that the body itself must have regard to it and then respond by setting its own strategic plans.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I appreciate the time that the Minister has given me to intervene on this point. He said that we do not always put things down in legislation, but that has been done already with the energy efficiency measures. All I am saying is that if these are firm commitments, then I do not understand why they cannot be laid down in the Bill. That would avoid confusion at a later stage, and it is important that we get this right.
Andrew Griffith
I feel I have addressed this point a number of times. There is just a difference between us as to the degree to which we should embellish primary legislation, which is hard to change and inflexible to respond to circumstances. That remains the position in the House. If the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and her party are successful in obtaining a majority in a future election, she will have the opportunity to provide the strategic steer, which I assure her the UK Infrastructure Bank will have regard to under this framework. Perhaps we can then reassemble, and she will have the opportunity to hang whichever baubles she would like to on this particular Christmas tree.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Directions
James Murray
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, at end insert
“and any subsequent, consequential, or relevant correspondence between the Treasury and the Bank.”
This amendment increases transparency surrounding directions issued by the Treasury to the Bank.
I will briefly set out what the clause will do, because that context is necessary to understand what our amendment would do in turn. Clause 4 would grant the Treasury the power to give directions to the UK Infrastructure Bank about how to deliver on its objectives. Subsection (2) would require the bank to comply with those directions, but the Treasury would be unable to give those directions until it had consulted with the bank’s board of directors. The Treasury would be required to publish the directions as soon as practicable, and under an upcoming framework document the bank would have the right to publish a reservation notice in respect of the direction.
The bank has been described by the Government as operationally independent, but we know that the Treasury is the sole stakeholder in the bank. It is therefore possible for the Treasury to exert influence on the bank’s activities as a result of its ownership stake under the normal principles of company law. The Bill’s explanatory notes set out the Government’s position, stating:
“The Government’s policy is that such influence should be used sparingly in practice, and that the default position should be that the Bank is independent as regards its operations and investment decisions.”
Given that the Treasury is the sole stakeholder in the bank, however, we have concerns about the procedural transparency of the clause. We are conscious that the clause provides the procedural framework for the Government to direct the bank. As we have heard several times this morning, the Prime Minister’s infamous Tunbridge Wells speech indicates the need for an extra degree of caution.
The explanatory notes state that the Government’s use of influence will be constrained by the need
“to act rationally and proportionately”,
but the record of the Government causes us to have doubts. We therefore wish to enhance the safeguards in the Bill and ensure that the Government do not exert undue influence over the activity of the bank. Conservative Governments have recently rejected Treasury orthodoxy, and the bank may in future raise concerns about the direction of Government policy. As the bank is compelled to abide by directions given by the Treasury, it is important that we have a transparent process to allow for scrutiny in those circumstances. That is why we tabled amendment 19, which seeks to insert a requirement that
“any subsequent, consequential, or relevant correspondence between the Treasury and the Bank”
be made public. The purpose of the amendment is to increase transparency surrounding directions issued by the Treasury to the bank. It will simply require the Treasury to publish additional relevant correspondence between the Treasury and the bank, providing fuller context to any directions issued and enabling the proper scrutiny of investments made with public money.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member’s amendment is a solution in search of a problem. The bank is constituted with taxpayers’ money, for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to Select Committees, which have the power to compel information and witnesses. There is a strong degree of accountability, and it is entirely appropriate that Ministers, from whichever side of the House they may one day hail, have the ability to direct the bank as necessary, as part of the matrix of ministerial accountability. I therefore reject the amendment. The Government will not support it, simply because we consider it to be wholly unnecessary.
James Murray
I take no reassurance whatever from the Minister’s comments, so I will push this amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 4 contains a provision for His Majesty’s Treasury to issue the bank with a direction of a general or specific nature about how the bank is to deliver its statutory objectives. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North, the bank must be consulted before any direction is given, and any direction given must then be published by the Treasury. Ministers are rightly accountable to Parliament for this bank, and for any element of risk to the Exchequer or taxpayer that its activities create. That is right, even though the bank will be operationally independent for its day-to-day operations and its own investment decisions.
It is therefore considered necessary and entirely appropriate that the Government have a reserved power to direct the bank about how it is to deliver its objectives. Without a power of direction in statute, His Majesty’s Treasury could still direct the bank; however, there would be situations where the board would refuse a direction if the power were not in statute, given directors’ obligations under the Companies Act 2006. The two things could conflict. The purpose of the clause is to clarify where that conflict could arise, and the power of direction in statute removes that potential.
I assure right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House that the Government expect to use the power infrequently. Constrained powers of direction are a relatively common feature of similar institutions, such as the British Business Bank and HMRC. I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
I rise to speak briefly, as I set out our views on clause 4 more widely in the context of amendment 19, which I am disappointed that the Government chose to oppose. We were simply aiming to improve procedural transparency; it makes me wonder why the Government are so keen to avoid that being part of the Bill. Having lost that amendment, we will not be opposing the clause as it now stands.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Financial Assistance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Griffith
Clause 5 gives the Treasury the power to provide the bank with financial assistance to enable it to deliver on its objectives. Financial assistance is defined in clause 10 to include
“assistance provided by way of loan, guarantee, indemnity, participation in equity financing and any other kind of financial assistance”,
whether given on an actual or contingent basis. The bank has been operating on an interim basis so far, with £22 billion of capitalisation from the Treasury, using existing powers derived from the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 and sections 50 and 51 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. However, we believe that a specific spending power is important in ensuring that the bank is an enduring institution.
Normally, the bank borrows from the Debt Management Office through voted loans via the Treasury’s supply funding. However, subsection (2) will make it possible for the bank to receive money paid directly out of the National Loans Fund, with the terms and conditions and interest rates of any such loans being determined by the Treasury. This removes the need for the Treasury to act as an intermediary in lending money from the National Loans Fund, while still maintaining control over the terms and conditions of direct loans. That is consistent with the approach taken by the Green Investment Bank when that was established.
Clause 6 provides for the bank, each year, to provide to the Treasury a copy of its annual report and accounts, and for the Treasury to lay these before Parliament. This will ensure the direct accessibility of the accounts by Parliament. This is a common clause for arm’s length bodies; it was in the legislation for the Advance Research and Invention Agency, the Green Investment Bank and the Bank of England. We expect the bank to publish its annual report and accounts for 2021-22 before the end of this calendar year—I believe they will be laid in the immediate future. The annual report and accounts will cover, as is standard, the bank’s progress on its success criteria, which I am sure will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, including its key performance indicators, its compliance with financial services regulation and its financial accounts.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As the Minister highlighted, clause 5 concerns financial assistance to the bank and clause 6 concerns the bank’s annual accounts and reports. The Minister has already provided a detailed summary, so I am not going to repeat what he has said. As he mentioned, clause 5 allows for the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the bank for the purpose of helping the bank deliver its objectives. Clause 6 requires the bank’s directors to comply with section 441 of the Companies Act 2006, delivering the Treasury a copy of its accounts and reports each financial year. As the Minister has outlined already, such clauses are commonly used. These are clearly technical and administrative requirements, and we will not object to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Directors: appointment and tenure
Richard Fuller
I beg to move amendment 12, clause 7, page 3, line 20, leave out “fourteen” and insert “eight”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, clause 7, page 3, line 20, at end insert
“of which at least four must be non-executive directors”.
Richard Fuller
I am getting clear instructions from the Whip to be as brief as possible, so—[Interruption.] Not quite that brief. I draw hon. Members’ attention to clause 7(a). Clause 7 concerns the directors and 7(a) is about the number of directors; it says the bank is to have at least five and no more than 14 directors. It was that number 14 that caught my eye: it seems an extraordinarily large number of people to have on a board, and I do not believe that it is in accordance with corporate best practice.
Furthermore, there is no provision for the balance between executive and non-executive directors. It is a clear aspect of corporate governance that there should be a plurality and, often, a majority of non-executive directors. I want to probe the Government about why the number is 14, and why there is not more specificity about non-executive directors.
To back up my argument, I should say that the Minister will be aware that in the United States the average number of directors for the largest American corporations is between eight and 11, not 14. In its review of the FTSE 100 companies, Spencer Stuart said that the average board size is 10, and that 77% of boards are solely non-executive directors. The Minister will also be aware that the British Business Bank has nine directors, of whom four are non-executives and one is additional—he is a senior independent director. These are important points. There is a risk that the board could be full of people there to please—[Interruption.] He just told me to shush up.
Richard Fuller
No, I am not going to take an intervention. He just told me to sit down, but he can sit down while I finish making my speech.
Richard Fuller
The right hon. Lady is right about the potential here; I think I heard her use the word “cronies”. That is the concern—that with so many places the board will end up being stuffed full of people who have their own interests to play and that good governance will, as a consequence, be a victim of that large board membership.
David Linden
Unfortunately, I was unable to catch the eye of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, but I do not necessarily disagree with much of what he is saying. I only hope that the idea would extend, for example, to reform of the House of Lords and even the size of the Cabinet of the UK Government, which I think is the biggest it has ever been. I am more than happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He can rest assured of my support if he chooses to push the amendment to a Division, but I think we need a degree of consistency if he is willing to pursue this line of argument.
James Murray
Amendment 12 seeks to limit the maximum number of directors on the board of the bank, moving it down from 14 to eight. Amendment 13 stipulates that at least four of the board members must be non-executive directors. We will be opposing amendment 12, as we believe that it is important for a range of views and expertise to be represented on the board of the bank. We believe that narrowing the board simply narrows the potential for diverse insight and ideas. As we will push for in amendment 20, which I will speak to shortly, we believe it is vital that there be a workers’ representative on the board. Narrowing the maximum figure reduces the board’s capacity to gain workers’ insight. On amendment 13, we will abstain.
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for rightly raising the important subject of governance, which relates to the arms length body in scope today. It is a very important point when considering how we manage efficiency and the will of Parliament through arms-length bodies. While not disagreeing in principle, the Government will not be supporting amendments 12 or 13, but I would be very happy to engage with my hon. Friend to see if there is something practical we can do.
My concern is with reducing the maximum board size to eight in the UK governance structure under the combined code, which my hon. Friend may have views on as well. Unlike in the US, in the UK we have a large number of committees of boards—rather more than is the case in the US. The limit of eight may present the challenge of not being able to successfully staff and structure those committees. That would be a concern to me.
The amendment requiring non-executive directors to hold a majority on the board is sensible, but I believe that would be the objective of the organisation anyway, and it complies with the corporate governance code to have a majority of non-executive directors. I do not think we need a requirement in legislation, but it is something I am happy to explore with my hon. Friend to give him the comfort he seeks without us moving out of potential compliance. I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Richard Fuller
Well, Mr Davies, I am sorely tempted to push this to a vote, notwithstanding the comments from my hon. Friend the Minister. I understand his point and would ask that in his direction he would issues around governance. I am disappointed that Labour is not prepared to support my amendment. Therefore, rather than my valiant quest end in ignominious defeat, I beg to ask to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew Griffith)
I beg to move amendment 5, clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(ba) the Board is to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the Board considers the interests of the appropriate national authorities when making decisions;”
This amendment would require the Bank’s Board to include one or more directors with responsibility for ensuring that the Board considers the interests of the appropriate national authorities when making decisions.
The amendment sets out the requirement for UKIB’s board to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the interests of the devolved Administrations are considered in the board’s decision making. The work of the bank is UK-wide and it has already supported projects in each of the devolved Administrations. Given that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have strong interests in infrastructure investment in their respective nations, we, the Government, are keen to ensure that UKIB considers their views throughout its strategy and decision-making, including board discussions.
David Linden
I would not necessarily oppose that argument, but I look forward to the day when the legislation can be updated to remove any representatives of the Scottish Parliament’s view, when Scotland takes its place as a rightful independent nation.
James Murray
I will speak only briefly to amendment 5, which requires the board of the bank to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the board considers the interests of the appropriate national authorities when making decisions. Labour will not oppose the amendment as we believe it is important that the interests of devolved authorities are taken into full consideration through the administration of the bank.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
James Murray
I beg to move amendment 20, clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(ba) at any time, the Bank is to have at least one non-executive director who is a representative of workers.”
This amendment ensures there is a workers’ representative on the board of the Bank.
As I mentioned earlier, Labour is concerned about the absence of a workers’ representative on the board of the bank, especially as much of the board consists of political appointees at the behest of the Chancellor.
We are committed to a strong partnership between industry, workers and the state. Having a workers’ representative on the board of the bank is important for good governance. The UK’s corporate governance code states that a company should have a combination of a director appointed from the workforce, a formal workforce advisory panel, or a designated non-executive director to facilitate engagement with the workforce. It also states, however, that if the board has not chosen one or more of those methods, it should explain what alternative arrangements are in place and why. In the absence of such an explanation, we have tabled amendment 20, which was originally moved in the Lords. We recognise arguments made in the Lords about how the Government’s framework document, to be published after Royal Assent, provides safeguards and protective measures, however that document is not legally binding. Sufficient questions have also already been raised about the activity of the bank to require explicit assurances in the Bill.
Richard Fuller
Could the hon. Gentleman clarify to whom the clause refers when it talks about workers? Is he referring to workers of the infrastructure bank, and is he calling for a board representative of them, because most of those people will be bankers? I am not so sure that Labour has always felt that the bankers are the most in need of representation in financial institutions. Or is he referring to workers of the investee company? If so, how would that be facilitated?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
As I set out, the UK corporate governance code already has clear guidelines about the involvement of workforce in governance of boards. However, we have not had explicit assurances from the Government. We have tabled the amendment to push the Government on that. We need assurances that investments and loans made by the bank will be guided by the economic needs of the entire country. Investments made into tax havens pose a real risk to achieving that goal. Marcus Johns from the think-tank IPPR North has said that the use of tax havens
“hollows out our economy, keeps wages low, holds communities back, and enables money to be syphoned away into a globalised system of extraction”.
He argued that the bank
“must look seriously to prevent the use of tax havens and avoidance among the firms it supports.”
As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said, a Labour Government would support
“British industry, supply chains & support industrial strategy”,
and ensure that trade unions
“have access to workplaces”
and that all
“businesses & bodies receiving public money from the UK Infrastructure Bank…have a plan to create good jobs with decent conditions”.
We believe that only with a workers’ representative on the board will the bank have that critical perspective on job creation and succeed in being governed with the entirety of the UK’s economic prosperity in mind.
David Linden
I rise to indicate my support for amendment 20—[Interruption]—which I gather is also being given by Comrade Fuller on the other side of the Committee. It is very welcome that the Labour party, having recently departed from its relationship with trade unions and workers, is finally seeing the light and coming back to the idea that it ought to have a strong association with trade unions. The amendment probably could have been tidied up slightly, perhaps to include somebody from the Trades Union Congress, but on the broad thrust of the argument I very much support the idea that the Labour party is once again deciding to go back to its roots, rather than flirt too much with the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).
Andrew Griffith
I shall strongly resist the temptation to debate the fundamental merits of workers on boards, overturning the existing system of UK corporate governance, or indeed the nationality of any particular worker. Why stop at one English worker when one could have representatives of workers from all the DAs?
In thoroughly opposing the amendment, I confirm that the bank will comply with the corporate governance code, which provides, as the hon. Member for Ealing North outlined, a number of options through which a company can achieve the desired representation. The bank has already designated Marianne Økland to take on the role of facilitating engagement with the workforce. That will be set out in the annual report when published. I ask, perhaps fruitlessly, the hon. Member not to waste the Committee’s time by pressing the amendment to a vote, given that the bank is complying with the existing UK corporate governance code.
James Murray
While I welcome the Minister’s assurance about the bank’s compliance with the UK corporate governance code, I am disappointed that he feels that a vote on worker representation on the board would be a waste of time. It is an issue of great importance to the Opposition, so we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Andrew Griffith
The clause sets out the core provisions on the make-up of, and appointment to, the bank’s board of directors. The clause requires that the board has a number of directors that is broadly consistent with comparable boards. It allows for the appointment of directors to have a spread of expertise across banking, infrastructure finance and climate change mitigation, as well as the appropriate balance between executive and non-executive directors. The clause sets out that the chair, chief executive officer and non-execs will be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
All non-exec directors are recruited with reference to guidelines set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and are being appointed based on the skills that they could bring to the board around the UKIB’s mandate. Throughout the process we have been conscious of the need to ensure a broad spread of expertise, as well as cognitive diversity. Finally, the clause contains provisions on the circumstances that would prohibit a person from continuing as a non-exec director, such as bankruptcy, or mental or physical incapacitation. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
As the Minister outlined, clause 7 concerns the appointment and tenure of directors to the board of the bank. We note that it requires at least five but no more than 14 directors; that the board’s chair, chief executive officer and non-executive directors be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that the tenure of non-executive directors not exceed four years; and that a person may not be appointed as non-executive director more than twice.
The clause also requires that a person ceases to be a non-executive director as soon as they cease to be a director by virtue of any provision of the Companies Act 2006, or are otherwise prohibited by law; they become bankrupt or their estate is sequestrated; a registered medical professional treating them provides the written opinion that that person is incapable of serving as a director due to physical or mental incapacity for more than three months; or the person has resigned from the position in accordance with the notification procedures of the bank. We recognise that the number of directors is broadly consistent with comparable boards, such as the Bank of England board. We also understand that the intention behind that is to provide flexibility and a wide spread of expertise.
Valerie Vaz
One of the difficulties is that the Bank of England does not have a spread across the regions. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we should have regional expertise as well, which is the whole point of levelling up all parts of the country?
James Murray
My right hon. Friend is right: it is critical that the bank considers regional inequalities in its mission, and we are very concerned that the Government opposed earlier amendments on having a commitment to tackle regional inequalities in the Bill. The fact that there is no reassurance that the board will have that in mind either causes further concern about what the bank’s mission will ultimately be.
James Murray
I am just drawing to a close.
We understand that the intention behind the composition of the board is to provide flexibility. Notwithstanding the important comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, and our earlier comments about the lack of worker representation on the board, we will not oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Stephenson.)
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 View all Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any amendments within the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
Sunset of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 28, changes the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation would take effect to the end of 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 28, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 26, changes the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation would take effect to the end of 2026.
Brendan O’Hara
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. Amendments 26 and 28, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes, would change the date on which revocation would take effect from the end of 2023 to the end of 2026, essentially moving the date of the sunset clause by three years, from the totally unrealistic and unachievable to something that is still extremely challenging but is at least on the margins of the possible.
Before I address the amendments directly, it is worth pointing out that they have been tabled, like all the others, to try to make a thoroughly rotten Bill a little bit better, and should not be viewed in any way as we on the Opposition Benches giving any succour or support to the Bill. As we have said throughout its passage, the Bill is a dreadful piece of legislation that we will oppose at every step of the way, but if we can help to make it less awful, we will.
I have to begin by asking the Government why they are pushing ahead with the Bill. The architects are gone; it really belongs to another age, when the true believers were in charge, pushing the myth of the sunlit uplands of Brexit. We said it was rubbish then, and as we survey the wreckage of the UK economy post Brexit, it is demonstrable rubbish now. Why are the Government pushing ahead? We are in the middle of an economic crisis. People cannot heat their homes. Children are growing up in poverty. Food banks are being used by millions. Yet the Government are introducing arbitrary targets, which even if they could be achieved would consume just about every Government Department for the next 12 months, not just here but in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast too. As the former senior civil servant in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Jill Rutter told BBC Radio 4:
“If you look at my old department, they have about 500 pieces of law they need to look at…even if they worked every day to the end of 2023, they’d be reviewing whether they keep or allow to lapse a piece of law a day”.
At the moment, an eye-watering 3,800 pieces of EU legislation face the sunset clause on 31 December next year. On Second Reading a few weeks ago, that figure was considerably lower. In the intervening few weeks, no fewer than 1,400 other pieces of legislation have been discovered, and goodness knows how many more are yet to be identified. If the Bill passes unamended, all those will be added to the almost 4,000 existing pieces of legislation that will be sunsetted in 13 months’ time. Why on earth did the Government set such an arbitrary deadline for themselves? Why would they introduce a totally unnecessary cliff edge on such a vital piece of legislation about workers’ rights, environmental protections, food standards and so much more? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Like my hon. Friend, I have been puzzling over why the Government are so determined to die in a ditch over this 2023 date. Does he think it is because instead of admitting to the public that they made promises in 2019 they could not possibly keep— having realised that the promise in 2019 to get Brexit done was completely unrealistic—they are prepared to crash the economy in order to go into a 2024 election saying they have got Brexit done?
Brendan O’Hara
I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say by way of explanation. I agree with my hon. Friend. It makes absolutely no sense, unless the arbitrary deadline is purely ideologically driven and there to appease the true believers, who have now resumed languishing on the Back Benches.
In response to the sunset clause of the Bill, the Scottish warned that it
“carries an unacceptable risk that vital law, on which the smooth functioning of sectors of the economy and society depends, simply drops off the UK statute book.”
If the Government will not listen to us, perhaps they will take heed of the warning from the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who said that the Australia and New Zealand trade deals were so poor because of the Government’s self-imposed arbitrary targets. Of course, Members on the Government Benches will say that there are extensions available if they are applied for, but that ignores the fact that the relevant Departments still have to go through and identify at least 3,800 pieces of pertinent legislation, and then someone has to decide what happens next.
Even then, it is far from clear. Does the Secretary of State get to decide that an extension is allowed? Will a decision be made by the Cabinet or at a Cabinet Sub-Committee? Will a separate body be set up to specifically to examine which legislation can and cannot be granted an extension? Let us not forget that if this is not all done and dusted in 13 months, every piece of EU retained legislation will by default fall off the statute book, leaving huge holes in our domestic legislation.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Could the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he and his party are entirely happy with every aspect of EU retained law? If not, which aspects does he feel should be swept away?
Brendan O’Hara
The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. It is about a much wider area: the principle of sunsetting by the end of next year. It is a legal minefield. If we are determined to travel through it, let nobody come back in a year’s time and say, “We didn’t know”, because it is perfectly obvious. The case has been made perfectly clear; sunsetting by December 2023 is well-nigh impossible and will lead to huge dangers. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Today the Government have the chance to finally accept that the price of appeasing their true believers is a price too high. I urge them to accept our amendment.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I will start by echoing the comments of the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We do not think the Bill is fit for purpose. We will try to help the Government to improve the Bill with the amendments we will be moving, but fundamentally we think its approach is flawed, not least the subject of this amendment—the unnecessary and entirely artificial cliff edge, which is driven by political considerations, not practical ones.
I have yet to hear any justification for the deadline of 31 December 2023, other than the belief—seemingly rooted in fantasy—that unless we free ourselves of the shackles of these regulations by that date, we can never prosper as a country. That is a fantasy, because whenever a Department is asked to identify which regulations it no longer wants, all we hear is silence. We are told that we must hurry along and free ourselves of the 2,400 or 3,800 regulations—or however many they turn out to be—that are holding us back. The best I have heard any Government Minister say so far is something about vacuum cleaner power, but given the chaos of the past few months I am not sure anyone can seriously say that the reason for our current economic mess is that we do not have sufficient control over our hoovers.
I do understand the need to have a finite date. I understand the importance of having a target to work towards, but the date has been plucked out of thin air, seemingly at random, and we should not accept it unless a compelling and rational case is put forward. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that setting a deadline is not enough, and that a stronger argument is needed for choosing that particular date, and I agree. The truth is that there is no better reason for that date having been chosen than the Prime Minister of the day, or the week, being able to say, “We will have put an end to all unnecessary EU burdens by the end of next year”—never mind that the Government cannot tell us what those burdens are, or why the end of 2023 is better than the end of 2024, 2025 or 2026. What we can say for certain, though, is that there will not be sufficient capacity in the civil service for a genuinely effective appraisal of the regulations that the Bill seeks to remove. The case for the cliff edge is incredibly weak; the arguments for removing it and putting the date back are much stronger.
Let us look at the numbers for a moment—although, of course, the numbers are something of a moveable feast. If we accept the newspaper reports that 3,800 statutory instruments will come within the ambit of the Bill, and presume—because we have not heard anything to the contrary—that the Government want to keep the majority of them, more statutory instruments would need something doing to them as a result of the Bill than were passed in the whole of last year. Of course, we had many extra regulations in that year due to covid, and plenty of people think the scrutiny of those particular instruments was not at the required level, so even under the most generous interpretation, we are looking at possibly doubling from last year the number of statutory instruments, if everything is to be passed before the end of next year.
It will be in half the time, as well. Let us assume for now that the Government press on with the Bill—although there is still some doubt about that, I believe—and it gets to the Lords early next year. There will probably be a bit of to and fro, given the significant constitutional elements this legislation contains, so it will not get Royal Assent until well into the spring. At best, that gives the Government six, seven or eight months to restate all the laws that will be covered by the Bill, so will the Minister tell us how many extra staff each Department has been assigned to deal with the additional workload? Have they been given any deadlines to work to? As we know, the Financial Times reported on 27 October that the Minister’s Department, with 300 pieces of EU law, would need an extra 400 staff to review the body of retained EU law. What does that mean if we extrapolate it across the whole of Government? How many extra staff will be needed overall in anticipation of the Bill?
The Financial Times also reported that “Whitehall insiders”—I never quite know who those people are, but they obviously have sufficient insight to talk to the press—are saying that
“reviewing the majority of retained EU law by 2023 would present a massive bureaucratic burden. One senior Whitehall official estimated that between 1,000 and 1,500 statutory instruments would be required in order to convert retained EU law that was deemed necessary on to the UK statute book.”
No wonder the impact assessments are silent on the issue of the sunset date. The Regulatory Policy Committee has made clear that it believes the analysis of that sunset date is inadequate. I refer to a newspaper report in the Financial Times, which said that Government officials are considering whether to press ahead with the 2023 sunset clause. I do not know if that is news to the Minister, but it is hot off the press. According to the article, Government officials have said that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have “yet to decide whether to stick to the 2023 deadline or push it back.”
No. 10 said,
“It’s too early to say.”
I am afraid it is not too early to say because we are debating it right now. If the Government have plans to push back the sunset, it will be useful to hear. If the Minister is able to comment on that report when she responds, I would be obliged.
I remind the Committee what Mark Fenhalls of the Bar Council said in the evidence session:
“I am no expert in how much civil service time exists, but I would be astonished if it were remotely possible to cover but a fraction of this. I do not know why it is set up as anything other than a political problem.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 28, Q56.]
That is the nub of the issue. This is a politically generated deadline that is going to cause problems, but if the Committee needs further persuasion, I also refer to the written evidence of the Bar Council, which raised the alarm when it said:
“The setting of an arbitrary, and in all the circumstances, impractical sunset date, with the consequent and entirely unnecessary risk of the disappearance of rules of critical importance to business, consumers, employees and the environment (some of which, due to their sheer numbers, may only be missed once lost) without adequate consideration or any consultation, and conferring an entirely unfettered and unscrutinised discretion to Ministers to disapply or delay the sunset provision or not; as well as the attendant risk of rushed replacement legislation”.
Eleonor Duhs also told us in the evidence session:
“In order to get the statute book ready for Brexit, which was in some ways a much more simple task than this, it took over two years and over 600 pieces of legislation. The reason I say it was a simpler task is that we were essentially making the statute book work without the co-operation framework of the EU. We were taking out references to the European Commission and replacing them with ‘Secretary of State’—that sort of thing. That was a much simpler task than what we have here, and that took over two and a half years.
A lot of areas also have several pieces of amending legislation… There may be huge policy changes under this legislation, and the end of 2023 is simply not a realistic timeframe for the process.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 29, Q56.]
There is plenty of evidence of concern out there, indicating that we should look again at the sunset. If Members are reassured that there is departmental and civil service capacity to handle all that in the time required, perhaps they should also consider the scrutiny aspects of the sunset, and whether Parliament will be able to fulfil its role properly in the time available. As George Peretz said in the evidence session:
“the sunset clause does interrelate with the question of Minister’s powers. One of the problems with the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is that although one hears that Parliament has powers—in some cases via the negative or affirmative resolution procedures—the background against which it is being asked to approve legislation means that if it votes against that legislation, the sunset clause will apply and regulations disappear completely, rather weakening Parliament’s ability to do anything.
To take an example, if Ministers decided to keep the working time rules but rewrite them to make them less favourable to employees, and came up with the new regulations in November 2023, those rewritten regulations would probably be introduced under the affirmative procedure. However, when the House of Commons voted on them, Ministers would say, ‘You may not like these revised regulations very much, but if you do not vote for them, the alternative is that we will not have any regulations at all.’ That weakens Parliament’s ability to control the exercise of ministerial power.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 32, Q61.]
I do not want to be back here in a year’s time faced with a choice between accepting a reduction in the number of days of paid holiday that people are entitled to from, say, 28 to 10, and the alternative—people having no right to paid holiday at all—because we have been forced up to a precipice due to the timescale set out in the Bill. That is not Parliament taking back control.
I am not alone in my concerns. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns about primary legislation and said that
“where little of the policy is included on the face of the bill”
but where Parliament is asked
“to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of legislation to be decided by ministers”,
this reduces any parliamentary scrutiny to a bare minimum, and we are left only with
“delegated legislation which Parliament cannot amend but only accept or reject, with rejection being a rare occurrence and fraught with difficulty.”
That Committee further warned that
“the abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.
It is a shame that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), did not take his own advice on that issue before he drafted the Bill. When he was Leader of the House, in response to the Committee’s report into the frequent use of skeleton Bills during the period of the pandemic, he said that it did not
“necessarily provide a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”,
and that he would be
“encouraging them to minimise the use of delegated powers where possible”.
However, here we are today.
Finally, I will respond to the argument that there is already provision in the Bill to address the sunset. The problem is that that can apply to laws only if we know about them in the first place. There is also the prospect that we end up with a potpourri of sunset dates, because it could be any time between now and 2026. That just creates more uncertainty and confusion, and uncertainty for businesses that are trying to invest.
In conclusion, we support the amendments because 2023 is a deadline in search of a headline. It is not a serious proposition and it should be rejected. Parliament legislated, as we were preparing to leave the EU, to avoid a cliff edge. It seems illogical and reckless in the extreme to be now deliberately creating one when we are so close to the precipice.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir George, as indeed I believe it will be throughout the Bill Committee. I am sure that we will have a wonderful and detailed discussion. Government Members are laughing about that idea. Maybe that is the irony about all of this, because, when we were told that Brexit should happen, it was about “taking back control” for this place. Well, let us give some control to this place in the proper scrutiny of this legislation. I support the comments of my Front Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and of the hon. Members from further north than me—the hon. Members for Glenrothes and for Argyll and Bute—on these amendments.
Amendments 26 and 28 are critical. Let us start this debate by being absolutely clear; this Bill has nothing to do with Brexit. Brexit has happened. It may be continuing to cause many problems, but it has actually happened. However, the Bill is not what Brexit was about, because the Bill is a process and it has everything to do with a knee-jerk obsession with the idea that something with the word “Europe” in must be bad. That obsession will cause catastrophic devastation for our constituents, because the process that the Bill brings forward is incredibly destructive.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, it is a deadline in search of a headline. That seems a rather poetic attempt to say something simpler, which is that nobody quite understands why the Government are doing it in this way. After all, when we look at the amendments that have been tabled, and at the evidence that has been given, not a single piece of evidence has been provided in support of this approach. That is a startling thing to recognise. Nobody knows why these particular laws are up for abolition, all in one go, apart from the fact that they contain “Europe” at some point in their titles.
That knee-jerk reaction is incredibly dangerous because it means that we will delete things that we did not even know were on the statute book, as things stand. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of serving in a Delegated Legislation Committee—I suspect that we will have thousands more if this legislation goes through—where the Ministers were not aware of the foundations of the laws that they were trying to amend. They were technical amendments, they said, to do with pollutants, rooted in European legislation.
Now, that is not a case for staying in the European Union; as I said, we have left. I would take up the challenge of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West, who talked about other laws we would want to change. Of course, there are laws we want to change in this place; nobody ever says that the statute book is the preserve of being correct, apart from Governments who are frightened of scrutiny.
The amendments have a simple, pragmatic basis: what this Government are trying to do is too big to do in one year. It is a very simple proposition, and we want to hold the Government accountable for the consequences of trying to delete everything all at once. One might look at the amendment paper and think that there are 50 ways to leave the European Union using this legislation, given all the different amendments that have been tabled. I prefer to think of Warren G, and his debate around “Regulate”, because this Bill is ultimately about the regulations that we have in this country—everyday rules that make such a massive difference to the people of this country.
I know we will come on to those, Sir George, so I will not test your patience by listing them, but that is why this sunset clause matters. When the Government are putting up for grabs people’s rights not just to a paid holiday or maternity rights, but to compensation, to not have cancer-causing chemicals in their cosmetics, to be able to watch the Olympics free of charge, or around compensation if they are artists—thousands and thousands of regulations that have been part of the social fabric of this country for generations—it is right to ask whether deleting all of them in one year, with no guarantee about what will come next, is the right way to approach the matter.
The debate we had yesterday in a Delegated Legislation Committee on the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022 was a classic example of what the folly is. Not only was it not clear to the Minister which amendments would be deleted by the legislation we are debating, which then underpinned the Statutory Instrument that the Minster was presenting, but she could not clarify what would come next. She made a strong case about the importance of protecting us and protecting against the ways in which pollutants might be used within the chemical industry, but if we do not amend the legislation, that case will fall in a year’s time—by the sheer fact that the very legislation which underpinned the proposals, the technical amendments the Minister was trying to make, will also fall, because the Government are deleting absolutely everything.
During the passage of the Bill, let no one say that the concerns being raised are about whether Brexit should have happened. Brexit is done. This is about the folly of hitting “delete”, “control” and “alt” at the same time—then hoping we can remember what was taken out and that in a single year everything can be replaced. Six hundred statutory instruments were introduced during the Brexit process and anyone who was here at the time—I know that not everyone was—will remember the hours we spent in Committee Rooms. Here we have five times the number in a single year.
Some may suggest that Members of Parliament are lazy, that they do not do very much. Some even suggest that Ministers—current or former—might have time to go into a jungle. I know, however, that no one thinks it really feasible that we will have 167 days of non-stop Delegated Legislation Committees, yet that is exactly what this legislation will require if we stick to this particular sunset clause for everything. At the moment, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, it does indeed cover everything—and that is without beginning the process of what we want to keep and what we want to get rid of. The point of all this is that there are things the Government want to change. Those of us who are democrats believe that the Government ought to set out what regulations they intend to remove, because that is what taking back control really meant. Again, if we have only one year in which people are to understand quite how the Government wish to change their rights to paid holiday, it seems not unreasonable to expect the Minister to give us some idea of the direction of travel before we hit delete—but, again, we have nothing.
The amendment is simply about setting a calmer course of action. I think we owe that to all our constituents. I do not think there is a single member of the Committee who in recent weeks and months has not dealt with constituents who are terrified about the status quo, terrified about what is happening now and worried whether they will get through Christmas. It is not unreasonable to say that our primary focus is stabilising the economy and we will not do anything that would undermine that. Whether someone is a passionate believer that Brexit still brings opportunities—and I say good luck to them, and also, “We all know of a good therapist”—or whether they were worried at the time that this was a high risk to take, recognition that the pace of change is best tackled in a measured and orderly fashion is something I am sure we can all agree on. The amendment is about the pace of change, not the change itself. It is about recognising that in an economy that is struggling, we cannot rip up every single regulation, not provide any clarity about what comes next in under a year, then expect Parliament to find the time to write all those regulations—or, indeed, to find all the regulations; we will come on to the question of whether we know about everything that is going to be deleted. Yesterday, Ministers from DEFRA certainly did not; and the Whips even suggested that it was a problem for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rather than for DEFRA. I am sure it was news to the Minister in that Committee that she is now responsible for persistent organic pollutants on top of everything else.
I urge Government Members not to see this as about stopping Brexit, because Brexit has happened; but, rather, to see this as the best course of action to show that Brexit could work for this country. That means taking a simple proposal about how best to look at the legislation and its rubric. If we are going to find 4,000 hours of parliamentary scrutiny for delegated legislation, what are Ministers not going to be able to do? If we are going to find the civil servants to be able to deal with all this legislation, what else are they not going to be able to do? Are we confident that the next year will not bring further crises that will require our time, effort and energy? Are we confident that what is happening in Europe right now will not lead to further challenges that we would be better off putting our time, effort and energy towards?
I know that Government Members want to believe that the amendments are about opposing Brexit, but they are about opposing chaos. Government Members will have to explain to people how we will find parliamentary time, let alone find all the regulations. I note that the Minister said she would tell us what other regulations would be affected after we had passed the legislation, which does not inspire massive confidence. If not today, I hope that Government Members will reflect, and perhaps use the opportunity of those press reports to urge a calmer course of action. I think that all our constituents would thank us for it at a later date.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir George. The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned at the beginning of her speech that Government Members were laughing. That was not true. I wonder whether we could ask the Hansard Reporters to strike that from the record.
The Chair
Order. I am not responsible for any comments that the hon. Lady might make. I was not aware of anybody laughing, but that does not necessarily mean to say that they were not.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Sir George. I was hoping to make the exact same point. If it will not be stricken from the record, the Hansard Reporters should ensure that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil are noted.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I think I have already dealt with the point.
Stella Creasy
Further to that point of order, Sir George. I merely rise to clarify that if somebody had a twinkle in their eye, I would consider that to be laughing. It might not have been heard by everyone, but I did not mean to suggest that anybody does not think that this is a serious matter; it was merely a wry reflection on the challenge ahead of us. I hope that the rest of the Committee’s proceedings will follow in good spirit and humour accordingly.
The Chair
I think the hon. Lady is trying to restore the calm that she referred to in her speech. I am sure that she has done so.
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I hope that, over the next few—or many—days, proceedings will be conducted as calmly as possible. To start on a friendly note, I wish the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston a happy birthday—the big five-0. Now he will not talk to me any more.
I reject amendments 26 and 28, which would change the sunset date from 2023, as well as the date to which the sunset may be extended under the extension power. I am grateful that, although amendment 26 is not appropriate for the Bill, some hon. Members who spoke in support of it at least acknowledged that a sunset will be a valuable tool in dealing with retained EU law. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, for whom I always have a huge amount of time, say that he will oppose every step of the Bill. Fundamentally, he is just opposing Brexit, and we really cannot rehash the same conversation over and over. The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to Brexit as a process. This is part of the process, so we need to crack on. We need a sunset date, otherwise it will be 20-on-the-never-never.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I, and I think a lot of Opposition Members, have some sympathy for the Minister in having to defend the indefensible—a piece of legacy legislation. Has she seen the report in the Financial Times this morning? Her boss is apparently briefing that the sunset clause is inappropriate for next December. His aides are saying:
“Grant thinks things should be done at a more sane pace”,
reflecting all the evidence that we have received. When will she put us out of our misery and acknowledge that the December 2023 sunset date is madness?
Ms Ghani
If I have to respond to every item in a newspaper, regardless of where it comes from, we will be here much longer than we are already committed to be. If the hon. Member gives me a few moments, I will explain why the sunset date matters. As he says, many people are concerned about the timelines in the Bill, but I assure the Committee that there is definitely not a cliff edge. I want to respond to allegations of a bureaucratic burden—although that would assume that we would never have any change. This process is not simple, but we are not in government to do simple things; that is the honest truth.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister says that work is taking place in every Department. The Government clearly have a lot concerning them at the moment and many priorities. What assessment has been made of the amount of civil service time that will be involved? We have seen many estimates of hundreds of civil servants having to be devoted solely to this work, so I assume that the Government have done an evaluation of the impact. Can the Minister share that with us?
Ms Ghani
Every time the Government put forward a piece of legislation, Government resources are focused on that piece of legislation to ensure that it is delivered. We have a Brexit Opportunities Unit in place as well. The assumption that resources are not moved around to get a piece of legislation through is slightly absurd. We understand that it is a piece of work that needs to be done, that it is a process and we have a deadline, but the work will be done.
Ms Ghani
If the hon. Member gives me a moment to expand a little more I can explain; I will then take interventions from the birthday boy. Officials have catalogued retained EU law across Government, which has been collated, as part of the cross-varietal substance review of retained EU law, into the dashboard that was published on 22 June. Crucially, powers in the Bill have been drafted to ensure that the current date is workable. The preservation power enables UK Ministers and devolved authorities to keep specific pieces of legislation that would otherwise be subject to sunset where the legislation meets a desired policy effect, without having fully to restate or otherwise amend the legislation.
The power to revoke or replace the compatibility power and the power to restate assimilated law will be available until 23 June 2026, while the power to update will be a continuous power. These powers have the ability to amend assimilated law once the sunset date has passed and retained EU law is no longer a legal category; that means that Departments can preserve their retained EU law so that it becomes assimilated law after the sunset date, and amend it further beyond that date if required. In addition, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be working closely with other Government Departments, as well as devolved Governments, to ensure that appropriate actions are taken before the sunset date. Finally, the extension mechanism in clause 2 ensures that, should more time be required fully to review the changes needed to retained EU law, the sunset can be extended for specific provisions or descriptions of retained EU law until 23 June 2026.
Peter Grant
The Minister has tried heroically but unsuccessfully, I am afraid, to argue that this arbitrary deadline will not place enormous strain on a civil service that is already under enormous strain. Can she look at it from the opposite direction? Can she explain why it would be bad to set an absolute deadline of 2026? If Departments and Ministers are able to sort things out by the end of 2023, they can do so in a safe environment where they are not under pressure to get it done quickly, with the possible consequence that it would then be done wrong.
Ms Ghani
I simply do not recognise that the added burden means that the programme of work cannot be deliverable. I mentioned the fact that we have an ability to provide an extension, depending on what that piece of legislation is. What we do not want to do is undermine focus on delivering the bulk of the work by the sunset date that is in place at the moment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s references to my special day, which will now be recorded forever more. She mentioned the Brexit opportunities team. Who is the Minister responsible for that team?
Ms Ghani
The Brexit opportunities team sits in BEIS and it works across Whitehall. This programme of work is being delivered with the team and across all Whitehall Departments as well; the focus of the work that is taking place is across Whitehall. Any anxiety that people are not working closely or collectively is for the birds. The fact that we have a deadline means that it focused everyone’s mind and attention.
Justin Madders
This is a very important piece of work, as the Minister has outlined. There must be a Minister who is responsible for it. Who is that? Who can we ask and speak to about this issue, because this is clearly a matter of important scrutiny?
Ms Ghani
I am not sure exactly what the hon. Member wants to speak about with regard to the Bill. I am here to perform my role and deliver this piece of legislation. We have a Secretary of State and we know that the Prime Minister is delivering on this piece of legislation as well. I am not sure what further contact the hon. Member needs.
Alongside amendment 26, amendment 28 would have very little impact, as clause 2 would still specify that 2026 was the maximum date that an extension could be set for. If we combined these amendments with amendment 29 or amendment 32, which we will debate later, that would result in the extension mechanism being able to extend specific provisions or descriptions of retained EU law beyond 31 December 2026. The extension power’s very nature is to mitigate any risks posed by the current sunset date. I recognise that, without an extension, there is a risk that Departments would not have sufficient time to perform the legislative and administrative procedures required for retained EU legislation in certain complex areas.
Stella Creasy
If we cannot play a game of “Guess Who?” as to who will then be responsible for the implementation of this legislation if it is passed, let me ask this. The Minister wrote to us to say that the Government were still scoping out which laws would be covered by it, so how can she be confident that everything is in place to cover the full gamut of what would be covered by this legislation if she cannot at this point tell us how many laws will be covered? It is a reasonable question to ask, is it not? How much work is there to be done? If the Minister cannot tell us now or at least confirm how many laws are covered, it is not unreasonable to worry that equally she cannot confirm that the Government have put in place the people and the processes to do it all within a year.
Ms Ghani
The dashboard is there to identify the pieces of legislation that need to be uncovered, but of course we will constantly look, constantly dig and constantly ask Departments to see what else is in place. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask Departments to explore what pieces of legislation are in place, which ones are valid, which ones have already come to the end of their lifespan and what more we need to do. I think it is really healthy to ask Departments, to ask across Whitehall, what further work needs to be done. That work will then continue, and on the anxiety over the sunset clause, we have the extension in place as well.
Combined, the amendments would thwart the Bill and retain REUL as a distinct category of law on the UK statute book. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn or not pressed.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—and happy birthday! I am sure that he dreamed of spending his big day with us. Both Opposition colleagues made extremely convincing arguments that this work simply cannot be done in the timescale that has been laid out in the Bill. I think that nobody believes that it can be done in the timescale, because basic logic tells us that it cannot. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who I think has been sent in, as he said, to defend the indefensible. I suspect that eventually, when the harsh reality dawns over Downing Street, which it appears to be doing, this will change, and I hope that it will change sooner rather than later. On that basis, I will not push our amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 23, page 22, line 23, leave out “Scotland”.
Brendan O’Hara
I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes, which would remove the sunsetting of EU legislation where it falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The amendments would mean that if, defying all logic, the Government are still determined to push ahead with the dangerous sunsetting of all EU legislation by 31 December next year, the Scottish Parliament could, in respect of areas that are wholly devolved, decide to keep relevant domestic legislation aligned to that of the European Union. That would mean that, in areas such as environmental health, food standards and animal welfare, the people of Scotland could continue to enjoy the high standards and protections that we have had as members of the European Union for almost five decades.
In his oral evidence to the Committee, Angus Robertson MSP suggested that it would be perfectly possible to draft the Bill
“in such a way that it did not apply to Scotland or Wales”
by limiting
“the scope of the Bill to non-devolved areas.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 80, Q136.]
Why should it not be drafted in such a way? Let us never lose sight of the fact that this is not our Brexit. This is something that is being done to us by a Government we did not elect pursuing the hardest form of a policy that we overwhelmingly rejected. In the circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that legislation that is the preserve of the Scottish Parliament be excluded from this one-size-fits-all approach.
Angus Robertson also told the Committee that the UK Government were still, even at this late stage, unable to tell Scottish Government Ministers exactly which areas of competence they consider devolved and which they intend to view as being reserved to this place. In his evidence, Charles Whitmore from the school of law and politics at Cardiff University warned our Committee that the Bill could lead to
“legal uncertainty, and that is compounded at the devolved level because our capacity constraints are probably more acute, so the time sensitivity is even greater”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 85, Q141.]
As I said earlier, it might be the skewed priority of this Government to instruct Departments across Whitehall to prioritise this ill-conceived bonfire of retained EU law ahead of trying to mend the broken economy or lift people out of poverty, but that is certainly not the priority of the Scottish Government nor, I suspect, of the Welsh Government. Yet, as it stands, they will be forced to set aside valuable Government and parliamentary time to take part in this exercise, which will undermine the high standards and protections that people in Scotland have enjoyed and have quite rightly come to expect from European Union membership. Given that, I intend to press amendments 68 and 21 to a vote to ensure that the sunsetting of retained EU law does not apply in areas that are devolved.
Justin Madders
We have some sympathy with amendment 68. From what we can determine, it tries to equalise the approach to the current anomaly whereby under clause 1(2) the power to remove the sunset is granted both to Westminster and to devolved authorities, but the power to extend the sunset under clause 2(1) is just for Ministers in Westminster. I do not know the reasons for the difference in that approach.
I suggest that the evidence sessions did not reveal a particular state of readiness in the Scottish Parliament for the administrative burden that the Bill will leave it with. That is not, by the way, a criticism of the Scottish Parliament; it is a reflection of the timescales that we face. The current powers in the Bill leave the Scottish Parliament in a position in which it would have to remove the sunset entirely, whereas perhaps an option could be for it to extend the sunset for reasons of capacity. That would be a much more measured approach.
Peter Grant
My recollection, which may help the hon. Member on his first point, is that Angus Robertson said they had not had a chance to begin to quantify the amount of legislation. He was saying not that it was because there was not very much but because there was so much of it. Can the hon. Member be clear as to what Labour’s current position is? If a piece of retained EU law related exclusively to one of the devolved competences—either the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Irish Assembly—is it Labour’s position that that retained law should be removed from the devolved legislatures only with their explicit consent, or does Labour support the Government, who think this Parliament can legislate away in fields of devolved competence without the consent of the devolved Administrations?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we start from the point that this should be a matter of logic. If an issue is within devolved competence, it should be for the devolved Administration to determine, but I wait to hear the Minister’s explanation for leaving that proposition to one side for the purposes of the Bill. We suspect the Government have done this because of the political imperative that Ministers will be able to say they have got rid of everything they do not want by the arbitrary deadline of 31 December 2023. If this amendment is accepted and it is something the Government accept is a valid argument, we would expect similar measures to come forward for Wales.
Another consideration is that we do not actually know at this stage which laws are within the competence of Scotland. We do not know which laws are covered, because there is no list anywhere. We just have the dashboard, but that does not give us any clues as to which pieces of regulation are considered to be within the devolved nations’ competence. Can the Minister justify the power to extend the sunset having to reside only in Westminster when it deals with matters of devolved competence? Can she also explain what the process will be in Government with the Brexit Opportunities Minister, when appointed, for identifying the laws that are within devolved competence, and the procedure to be followed for resolving any disputes about ownership of those pieces of legislation and which authority has competence?
Stella Creasy
This is a good example of the challenge we faced yesterday in the Delegated Legislation Committee on persistent organic pollutants, where it was not clear what legislation was covered by this Bill and what would be deleted and, therefore, whether it was worth rewriting any legislation. The Minister got into a tangle. We would be talking about such a tangle on a more widespread scale across our devolved Administrations.
I echo the point made about my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, about the importance of recognising our colleagues in the Senedd as well. That is the challenge with this legislation. Because we do not know the full extent of what it will do, we do not know how it will affect devolution. We do not know where the lines between devolved powers and powers held at Westminster will be drawn and what will be retained. These amendments reflect that. It is not unreasonable to ask Government Ministers to clarify how they see this all working.
One of the concerns over the last couple of years has been the fractures in devolution and the pressure we have put on our devolved Administrations in making the decision to leave the European Union. I would ask the Minister to set out not just why she thinks Westminster should supersede any of the devolved Administrations, but also what her plans would be, should in that subsequent, updated, rolling list of laws a piece of retained law come up that had perhaps not been previously identified but that is quite clearly about devolved powers. How would she look to manage that?
The Minister’s colleagues yesterday were rather intemperate, shall we say, when it was pointed out that they were passing a statutory instrument that rested on legislation that would no longer exist at the end of the next year, 50% of which had not yet been identified as being on the dashboard but was clearly part of the regulations the Government had put forward. How does the Minister feel that will affect our relationships across the United Kingdom and our ability to speak up for the Union if the Westminster Government puts Government Ministers across the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament in the same position for 4,000 pieces of legislation?
I hope the Minister will recognise that these amendments and concerns about devolution come, yet again, not from a desire to stop Brexit, because Brexit has happened, but from a desire to protect the Union and ensure that people in any part of the United Kingdom have confidence that Government Ministers know exactly what they are doing.
Ms Ghani
The Committee should reject the amendments, which would exempt devolved legislation within Scotland’s legislative competence from the sunset, and amend the territorial extent of the Bill so that it does not extend to Scotland. A sunset is the quickest and most effective way to accelerate the review of the majority of rules on the UK statute book by a specific date in the near future. That will incentivise genuine rule reform in a way that will work best for all parts of the UK.
The territorial scope of the Bill is UK-wide. It is therefore constitutionally appropriate that the sunset applies across all four sovereign nations in the UK. That approach is consistent with other EU exit legislation, and will enable the devolved Governments to make provisions for addressing retained EU law in areas of devolved competence. Every nation of the UK should have the opportunity to review the retained EU law and have the powers to reform the legislation in a way that is appropriate and best suited to its citizens and businesses. Nothing in the sunset provision affects the devolution settlement. It is not intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments.
Peter Grant
I put it to the Minister that rejecting the amendment very much affects the devolution settlement. It means that the priorities on which the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland civil service work will no longer be those set by their democratically elected Parliaments and Governments, but the policies set by the UK Government. Angus Robertson made it clear that the Scottish Government believe that there will be a substantial burden of administration on the Scottish civil service. What gives Ministers in this Parliament the right to tell the Scottish civil service to do what they tell them to, not their elected Ministers?
Ms Ghani
I will continue.
A question was raised earlier, as the hon. Member raised just now, about a power grab. When using the powers under the Bill, the Government will use the appropriate mechanisms, such as the common frameworks, to engage with the devolved Governments. That will ensure that we are able to take account of the wider context and allow for joined-up decision making across the UK. If any disputes arise, we are committed to using the appropriate processes set out in the review of intergovernmental relations.
Nothing in the sunset provision affects the devolution settlement. It is not intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments; rather, it will enable the Scottish Government to make active decisions about the retained EU law within their devolved competence for the benefit of citizens and businesses throughout Scotland. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I will not withdraw the amendment. I repeat that Scotland is having this done to us by a Government that we did not elect, pursuing a policy that we overwhelmingly rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes is right that the priorities of the Scottish Government will be dictated by the Government in Westminster. That flies in the face of the devolution settlement. I agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that, if a matter is within the devolved competence, it should be for the devolved Parliaments to decide whether they retain EU law and whether they sunset it. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Schedule [the Definitive List] sets out a complete list of instruments to be revoked by subsection (1) (referred to as the ‘Definitive List’).
(1B) The Secretary of State must by regulation add all relevant instruments referred to in subsection (1), so far as they are known to the Secretary of State at that date, to the Definitive List within 14 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 91, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Before 30 June 2023 a relevant national authority must consult such organisations as appear to it to be representative of interests substantially affected by the inclusion of an instrument in the Definitive List, and any other persons potentially affected as the relevant national authority considers appropriate.
(2A) Following the consultation referred to in subsection (2), where a relevant national authority considers it appropriate, it may by regulations made no later than 31 May 2023—
(a) add any EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation to the Definitive List, or
(b) remove any EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation from the Definitive List.
(2B) No later than 30 June 2023 the Secretary of State must publish and lay a report before Parliament setting out—
(a) a summary of the objectives and effect in law of each instrument listed in the Definitive List and of the legal consequences of its revocation;
(b) whether that instrument affords any protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, or animal welfare, and, if so, whether and how that protection is to be continued when the instrument is revoked;
(c) any benefits which are expected to flow from the revocation of that instrument;
(d) the consultation undertaken as required by subsection (2), together with any representations received in the course of the consultation;
(e) the reason why the relevant national authority considers that it is appropriate to revoke the instrument having considered those representations;
(f) the likely effect of the revocation of that instrument on the operation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and on UK exports of goods or services to the European Economic Area; and
(g) the likely effect of the revocation of that instrument on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
(2C) The Secretary of State must by regulations remove an instrument from the Definitive List following an order of either House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, or the Northern Ireland Assembly) calling on the Secretary of State to remove that instrument from the Definitive List.
(2D) If the Secretary of State is required by subsection (2C) to make regulations removing any instrument from the Definitive List but the Secretary of State has either—
(a) not made such regulations, or
(b) has made such regulations but they will not come into force on or before 31 December 2023,
then such regulations will be deemed to have been made and to have come into force on 31 December 2023.”
New schedule 1—The Definitive List—
“This schedule sets out the Definitive List in accordance with section 1 of this Act.”
Justin Madders
I apologise in advance that this discussion will last longer than that on other amendments. We accept that these amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the Bill, but they would do so in such a way as to create greater transparency and accountability and ensure that Parliament was able to properly fulfil its role in relation to the regulations. I refer to the evidence of the Bar Council, which said:
“It is a matter of great public interest that, where it applies, REUL should be as certain as possible. It is also important as a matter of democratic principle—as well as ensuring that replacement legislation in areas of great importance to business and the wider public is effective in achieving its goals—that replacement legislation be carefully considered and properly scrutinised before it is enacted.”
We certainly agree with that as a starting proposition. It is clear that the Bill as currently drafted does none of those things. The first thing to do is to identify and agree on what is covered by the Bill, but I am afraid that has not been forthcoming so far. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to us on 11 November to set out her understanding of the position following reports in the Financial Times that another 1,000 or 1,400 laws that have been identified do not appear on the dashboard. The critical point, as she wrote in her letter in respect of further legislation that may be identified by the National Archives, is:
“This number has not yet been verified by the Government.”
We still do not know what the Bill covers.
The former Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), told us in response to a written question on 24 October:
“The dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue of REUL. Therefore, there may be some legislation that is covered by clause 1 of the Bill that is not yet captured in the dashboard. The Government will continue to identify additional REUL and update the dashboard on a quarterly basis to reflect this.”
I am sure that I am not the only person struggling to understand how something can be authoritative but not comprehensive. The former Minister also told us in response to a written question on 21 October that
“we anticipate over 100 additional pieces of legislation will be added to the REUL dashboard.”
We now know that it may well be considerably more than that. Even if just 100 pieces of legislation are missing, that will make that dashboard neither authoritative nor comprehensive. In that same answer, the former Minister also told us:
“Government officials are currently working to quality assure this data and any amendments to the data will be reflected in an update of the dashboard this Autumn.”
The position is that the dashboard may be updated at some point in the not-too-distant future, but it is certainly not comprehensive or authoritative at the moment. With this Bill, we do not even know what we are allowing the Government to change.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow told us in an evidence session, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a ministerial correction to a written answer about the application of the Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (England) (No.2) Order 2006. Originally, it said that the order
“was not made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and therefore it does not fall within the scope of Clause 1 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill”,
but the ministerial correction confirmed that it did. Those actions hardly inspire confidence that that Department—or, indeed, any Department—has adequately identified the regulations that will be classified as retained EU law.
For good measure, the Marine Conservation Society has said that the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015, the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008 and the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 are all absent from the dashboard but are retained EU law.
Those are just a few of the known unknowns, so we find ourselves in the unacceptable position of setting up a framework for the removal of laws, but we do not know which laws it will apply to. It is now six and a half years since the country voted to leave the EU. Surely the Government should know by now which laws are EU-derived and which ones they want to junk. I will come to that later point in due course, because before we get to the substance of what the Government intend to do with the Bill, let us first have an agreed baseline for what is covered by it.
Peter Grant
I have a great deal of sympathy with amendment 90, but amendment 91 seems to be telling the devolved Administrations how to do their job. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if we want to allow the devolved Administrations to decide whether to vote for a particular piece of retained EU law, we should also leave it to them to decide the process by which they do it?
Justin Madders
If the hon. Member does not think that doing proper consultations is the way the Scottish Parliament wants to go, that is a matter for him, but we would like consistency of approach across all Departments and nations of this United Kingdom. Subsections (2C) and (2D) in amendment 91 would effectively create a failsafe so that any attempts to frustrate the will of the devolved nations cannot be made by the inaction of a recalcitrant Secretary of State. I hope the hon. Member can at least take some reassurance from that—any exercises of the devolved nations would, under the amendment, be honoured by Westminster.
We have already heard arguments that some of these laws were not brought into force in a truly democratic manner. Therefore, they do not need the same level of scrutiny that would ordinarily be afforded to other laws passed by this Parliament. Frankly, I find that argument nonsense. It is like saying, “I object to my neighbour planting leylandii in their garden, so I am going to do exactly the same.” If the complaint is that the level of accountability and scrutiny was insufficient when the laws were brought in, surely those making that argument would want accountability and scrutiny when those laws are reviewed. Is taking back control not about us—this Parliament—having a fuller role in the legislative process?
As it happens, I do not accept that characterisation of how these laws were introduced in the first place. In its written evidence, the Bar Council said that
“the EU legislative process, whilst certainly capable of much improvement, contains a number of democratic checks and balances: for the vast bulk of EU subordinate legislation, the co-legislators, both of whom must adopt the final text by (normally weighted) majority, are the Council, comprised of elected Ministers from the Member States, and the European Parliament”,
which is democratically elected, of course, and whose membership included until 2020 Members who were democratically elected from the UK. It continues:
“Important Commission legislative proposals are preceded by impact assessments and so-called roadmaps, and often accompanied by Staff Working Documents, all publicly available and setting out the policy intent. In addition, public consultations and stakeholder meetings are frequent features of the process, whether concerning binding or non-binding measures.”
I do not know whether the criticisms of this process are about the quality of representation that we had over there. A number of former MEPs are now Members of these Houses of Parliament, and they all seem pretty capable people to me. Let us not forget that once the EU issued its directives, we in this place had the European Scrutiny Committee and other Select Committees to examine any proposals. It is simply wrong to say that our politicians, stakeholders and policymakers did not have ample opportunity to exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation.
There are many examples where EU legislation was supported, and even promoted, by the UK Government of the day. One example—I am sure you will remember this, Sir George—was the social chapter. That was clearly telegraphed by the Labour party as something it would introduce if it got into power back in the 1990s; it was in the manifesto. Of course, Labour won that election and those laws were introduced, including rights on parental leave and working hours. Nobody can say those rules were forced on us without our consent. It should therefore be a matter of agreement for everyone who wants to see democracy prosper that the replacement legislation under this Bill should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate and scrutiny, not simply a ministerial decision—or, as the case may be, ministerial non-decision.
The best idea we have at the moment regarding how the Government intend to approach this mammoth task is a statement from Lord Frost, who said the policy intention was
“to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1533.]
“Not right”—is that the best we can do? This centuries-old Parliament, taking a historic decision to wrestle back control from those unelected Brussels bureaucrats, finds itself in the ludicrous position of having another unelected person tell us that laws will be changed if they are “not right”. Surely the Minister can see that could mean absolutely anything. That is the equivalent of a dictator waking up one morning and saying, “I don’t think it’s right that people in my country are allowed to wear hats, so from today we will outlaw that.” Clearly that is an extreme example, but that is the consequence of having a Government who have the power to dispense with laws with no consultation or scrutiny because they do not think those laws are right. Surely as a Parliament we can do better than that. Surely we should hold ourselves to a high standard when we want to change legislation. We should not legislate on a whim, and Parliament should not hand powers to Ministers that enable them to do just that.
Stella Creasy
Government Members may find this incomprehensible, but at some point it is not inconceivable that they may be in opposition. When they are, and they are presented with a Government Bill and literally nobody knows the full extent of what it does, that will seem similarly incomprehensible. I know that many Government Members have never contemplated the wilderness of opposition. For other Members, such as myself, it is all that we have ever known—but we have never known a situation where to ask Ministers to set out what a piece of legislation covers is considered an inconvenience at best or offensive at worst. The amendment is about rectifying that—not to put Ministers on the spot, but because it is completely reasonable and rational in a democracy to expect to know what Parliament is being asked to do.
The fact that we have to state that—my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, gave an admirably gentle and mild version of what I am about to say—is a reflection of the difficulties of a Government who are struggling on after 12 years and cannot explain themselves. Our constituents could look at the consequences of not knowing what the legislation does as either—in what I believe is the common parlance—cock-up or conspiracy. That is precisely what will happen if we do not know what laws will be covered. Yet the Minister has admitted that she does not know. She wants to tell us some time next year, after the legislation will apparently have passed through Parliament.
I do not know about you, Sir George, but I am pretty sure that the Netflix special is already being written, because there must be some conspiracy behind this. Why do the Government not want to tell us what laws they want to get rid of? After all, we have just been told that actually the Bill is all about Brexit. Those of us who think that this is a bad process and that Brexit could be done in 101 other ways are clearly mistaken. There must be a conspiracy at stake here. The true width of what is happening must be something that could rival “Designated Survivor”. The alternative—that the Government have put forward a Bill with a timetable and pace that mean they literally do not know what will happen next—is frankly disrespectful to our constituents. This amendment is about the confidence that the Government have in their own work. I turn again to the wondrous words of Warren G, when he said about being a regulator,
“you can’t be any geek off the street”.
Surely there must be some competency involved in this role. That competency is knowing what the legislation does. That is why with every other piece of legislation we have an impact assessment. It is not unreasonable for us as parliamentarians to ask for that. After all, we will have to justify it to our constituents—well, we Opposition Members will not, but those currently sitting in the glorious offices of Government will. They will have to explain to their constituents why they passed a piece of legislation while not realising what it would do. At this point in time, nobody in this House can explain what it will do. Nobody, as the Minister yesterday discovered, could explain what would replace it. Nobody in this room can tell us exactly what is on that list. It is indescribable.
I do not think that in 12 years—that makes me a grandee in Labour terms at this rate—I have ever seen a piece of legislation where we as the Opposition have to ask for the extent of its impact. I want to warn Government Members: some day this may well happen to them. I know that must seem a gross insult, but they too will want Governments who are able to explain what they are intending to do, even if they do not agree with it, because they would then be able to go and tell their constituents why they do not agree with it. It is a reasonable proposition.
Amendment 90 asks the Government to set out a comprehensive list of retained EU law. After all, it is on the face of the Bill that that is what this legislation does. I apologise, Sir George, because I am now laughing. I am laughing at the absurdity of our being at a point where we have to ask the Government to set out what they are going to do. There is the concept of an “authoritative but not comprehensive” list—those words are worthy not just of “Yes Minister” but of “Blackadder” in their pomposity and stupidity. It is stupidity because it is incredibly dangerous to give the Government powers that they do not know what they are going to do with. Let me be clear that I am talking about the stupidity of the legislation, not the people.
I am talking about stupidity in terms of accidental intent—the cock-up element of this, rather than conspiracy. That is what I fear most of all. A conspiracy means somebody at least has a plan. As I am sure we will come on to later, the conspiracy is that the Government intend to rip up thousands of rights that people have relied on, such as by ending people’s right to bank holidays, leaving them as an option, and ripping up maternity rights. After all, some of us in the House remember the Beecroft report well, so we know this is something Government have talked about before. That would be the conspiracy.
The cock-up is in creating a piece of legislation that deletes things and the Government then not realising they have deleted them until somebody comes forward to point it out. The statutory instrument I spoke to yesterday, which I really hope Ministers go and look at, was also about correcting deficiencies in how legislation was written. That is to say, things had been missed off. It happens, but asking the Government to set out clearly what legislation the Bill will amend—whether that be deleting, replacing or amending it—is not an unreasonable request. Our constituents should expect us to know what it is we are going to be legislating on.
On Second Reading, the previous Minister—not the Minister in front of us, to be clear—tried to claim that I should not be worried that this legislation would have an impact on airline safety, as that was a matter contained in primary legislation, so not subject to the sunset. In reality, we have now replaced that provision of civil aviation legislation with a range of secondary legislation, meaning precisely that airline safety is up for grabs and we will need to find time to rewrite that legislation.
If the Ministers responsible for this legislation do not themselves know its extent, how can we expect all those civil servants—who the Minister cannot clarify are working on this legislation—to know the full extent, let alone the colleagues she cannot name who are working on it? What will happen when a Minister is suddenly presented with a piece of legislation that has been abolished, which was not on the dashboard, not identified and not set out in the legislation? A Minister presented with that scenario will have no recourse—it will have happened, unless we pass amendments that give everybody clarity and confidence. It is not unreasonable to want to set out a workload for Government so that they know what they are doing.
Amendment 91 allows us to work out how the amendments happen. Again, I am laughing at the absurdity of our being in a position where we have to set out an understanding of how things might be changed and who we might want to talk to—perhaps industry experts. I am sure Government Members who stood on platforms where they supported things such as Beecroft have no problem with watering down the working time directive. I am sure they will tell us later when we come to debate that.
What about standards regulations—those incredibly technical but incredibly dull pieces of legislation that, if we are all honest, we have not spent a lot of time looking at, but we look to industry experts to be able to tell us about? How is it unreasonable to set out a process by which those people will be consulted? What have we got against experts in this country? Frankly, at this point in time, some expertise on legislation, given that the Government have to admit they do not know the full extent of the Bill, would be welcome.
In my 12 years as an MP, we have always expected to have impact assessments and to know roughly what is in scope in legislation. Clerks cannot tell us that because Clerks do not know the full extent of the legislation, because we do not have a full list. We keep coming back to the themes of the amendment, but we also have to recognise that removing the entire body of EU-based legislation at a stroke, without clarity about what replaces it, will also have a wider impact. It could impact on the TCA itself, because it could be considered to breach regulations that we put into the TCA to show that we were not going to reduce or water down rights in order to make sure we did not start a trade war. Again, setting out what laws are up for grabs would help mitigate that impact.
Government Members can be as blind as they like or as deaf to the idea that there could be any problem with passing a piece of legislation where we literally have no idea of what it covers. But mark my words, Sir George: if and when they find themselves in opposition, they will rue the day they set the precedent that it is possible for Government Ministers not only to have such sweeping powers, but not to be told what it is they can use those powers for.
The amendments are not unreasonable; I will wager that when the Bill comes to the House of Lords, if the Ministers today are adamant about turning down the amendments, we might see something similar. I hope that Members across the House will support them if only for the sanity of being able to remove the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy, and we can go back to expecting a common or garden cock-up in how legislation in this place is written.
In the meantime, I urge Government Members to support the amendments. If they cannot explain to their constituents what they are doing in Committee today, they certainly would not be able to explain it when we come to the election to decide which side of the House any of us sits on, and that will be a very testing moment indeed.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject amendments 90 and 91 as well as the introduction of new schedule 1. The amendments undermine the central sunset policy of clause 1 and the Bill as a whole. The sunset provision was drafted to incentivise Departments to review their retained EU legislation and actively make a decision on whether to preserve something. Amendment 90 creates the preservation of a default position and therefore removes the key impetus for reform. Allowing outdated retained EU laws to languish on our statute book where they do not work in the best interests of the UK is irresponsible.
The sunset is the backbone of the Bill as it accelerates reform and planning for future regulatory changes. Without it, the benefits and the potential to bolster economic growth might not be realised at all, as sunset ensures that a single cohesive domestic statute book will exist following the sunset deadline. We have already committed to abolishing retained EU laws that stifle growth and are not in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. The sunset is our fulfilment of that commitment.
I want to quickly respond to some of the questions raised. I do not have a list of TV or Netflix programmes or movies to contrast my responses. To crush the conspiracy about the laws that have been recognised, I refer hon. Members to the dashboard, which has the retained EU laws available, collected as part of a cross-Government collaborative exercise. The process was led by the Brexit Opportunities Unit, and it is where retained EU law sits across over 300 policy areas and 21 sectors of the economy. Hopefully, that conspiracy theory can die very quickly.
Ms Ghani
If I make progress, maybe I will answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
A question was raised about whether this was the only account of retained EU law. Throughout the process of the retained EU law review, we have been working closely with the National Archives. There was a figure in the Financial Times, but we have yet to verify all those items. The number covers all existing legislation, but some of it may have already outdated itself as legislation has been updated.
On the question about management and cost, the retained EU law dashboard was built by officials from the Brexit Opportunities Unit and the Cabinet Office using the software Tableau. It was created with no additional cost to the Government. Hopefully, that covers some of the conspiracy theory about where the information is kept.
Ms Ghani
If I can continue, I will hopefully finish on some of the questions that were raised, such as the one about working with Parliament. We are committed to working collaboratively with Parliament to deliver the programme, as we did with our programme of statutory instruments for EU exit. I do not see why we cannot build on that approach as well.
The question was raised about international obligations. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the withdrawal agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The UK Government will make sure that the necessary legislation is in place to ensure the terms of the withdrawal agreement are upheld after the sunset date, including regarding citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland protocol. The aim of the Bill is not to alter the rights of EU nationals, which are protected or eligible to be protected by the relevant citizens’ rights provisions contained within the withdrawal agreement.
I do not buy the Opposition argument that somehow we will take decisions that mean we have a different set of values to Brussels—lower standards, making our constituents less safe and taking away their rights. That is not who we are as elected officials. We are all working together in the same room and many Opposition Members know that we share the same values as they do. Scaring people that we are going to do something that takes away those rights is slightly absurd.
Clause 2 also allows for extensions to the sunset date for specified instruments or a specified description of retained EU legislation where we have plans to amend and reform but need slightly longer to do so. Everybody will recognise and welcome that. Introducing a schedule that requires a listing of all retained EU law to be revoked is unnecessarily burdensome and not a good use of civil service and parliamentary time when preservation would still be necessary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Justin Madders
Thank you, Sir George. I am happy to take interventions if any hon. Members wish to intervene.
Stella Creasy
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Given that we are debating whether Ministers are capable of scrutiny, not to take any questions rather proves the point. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that he has already set out a number of instances of regulations that are not on the dashboard? I wish to add the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012. Is there a number for the regulations that are not currently on the dashboard that people can feel comfortable with? Is there a margin of error that the shadow Minister can set out, given that the Government will not answer that question? Or given that businesses want better rather than no regulation, is it not completely unreasonable not to know what is up for grabs?
Justin Madders
Businesses want certainty and, with this Bill, we are as far away from that as is possible. I do not know if there is going to be a margin of error. Indeed, I do not think there should be any margin for error when talking about legislation in this place. We should all know exactly what we are voting for and signing up for. At the moment, the Bill does none of those things. The Minister said that the amendments would undermine the Bill. Absolutely they would. They are intended to create some parliamentary scrutiny, which the Bill sorely lacks. The Minister also said that the Bill’s drafting aims to incentivise Departments to hurry along and decide which laws they want to retain, but I am afraid that if we are using legislation as a management tool for civil servants we are in a pretty poor place
Paul Blomfield
Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of a Public Bill Committee is to put legislation under scrutiny and that that process is enabled by Ministers answering questions? Does he further agree that the objective of the process we are involved in will not be served if the Minister refuses to take interventions?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. When a Bill is clear, and when the intention and the factual basis for proceeding are clear, it is not always necessary to have interventions, but when a Bill is as opaque and uncertain as this, it is important that the Government set out clearly their rationale for proceeding in such a way. No doubt those concerns will be picked up in the other place, where I hope they get more comprehensive answers.
Paul Blomfield
I understand the difficulties the Minister has in dealing with some of the questions, but on her specific point about it being too burdensome for civil servants to produce a list of laws, does my hon. Friend share my incredulity at her acceptance that undertaking a review and putting forward revised proposals, or indeed making a recommendation, to revoke all the laws is not too burdensome, although it is too difficult for the Government to list those laws?
Justin Madders
I agree. I, too, have sympathy for the Minister, who has been dealt a pretty poor hand, but the idea that we cannot get someone to cut and paste from the dashboard to the Bill is ludicrous.
Peter Grant
I note that the hon. Gentleman’s incredulity is almost as great as mine with respect to a Minister who a minute ago said that we can deal properly with 4,000 bits of legislation in just over a year, but then said that the Government cannot take stuff from their own dashboard and transpose it somewhere else.
Am I correct to think that, essentially, the purpose of the amendment is to give the Government some insurance cover to prevent them from revoking useful legislation by mistake? What does it say about the arrogance of a Government that they refuse to accept such an offer of help and prefer to see legislation that could have unintended damaging consequences, rather than simply having the humility to accept such a proposal, which they seem to reject purely because of where it comes from, rather than any benefit it might contain?
Justin Madders
I hope the Minister will learn that I always try to be helpful with my amendments. We are genuinely trying to get the Bill into some kind of shape whereby it might restore faith in parliamentary democracy. We will not be the ones to bear the consequences of accidental omissions; it will be our constituents. They will rightly ask, “What were you doing? Where were you when the Bill was passed?” It will be clear that we raised our concerns and pointed out the terrible potential consequences of not doing this correctly.
Stella Creasy
Can my hon. Friend have any confidence in the dashboard itself if Ministers are not prepared to put it on a statutory footing by at least listing the laws that are creating it? The Minister tells us to have confidence in the dashboard process, saying that it is a wonderful tool for people to be able to learn what is going on, but not so wonderful that it can be transplanted in legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that rather undermines any confidence that people might have in the dashboard, even as an authoritative if not comprehensive list of the legislation affected?
Justin Madders
I will use a hip-hop lyric in response, seeing as that is the road we are going down. LL Cool J once said
“you can’t gain or maintain…Unless you say my name”,
and that is the point of this amendment. We cannot actually say, scrutinise or understand the effect of the Bill if we do not have a comprehensive list. The Minister has said that the dashboard is the panacea for our criticism, concerns and, indeed, conspiracies about what is going on here, but when the Government themselves admit that the dashboard is not a full list of the laws, it cannot be acceptable or tenable that that is the basis on which they intend to proceed. We do not legislate in this place by website; we legislate by legislation, and the intention of the legislation should be clear.
I will pick up one other point that the Minister made. She said that we continue to support the values of the EU, even though we are leaving it. I am afraid that clause 5 does not do that; it specifically says that we will no longer be following the principles of EU law as we leave. I accept it is a legitimate position, but that is the fact of the matter. I appreciate that we have dealt with this matter to the nth degree, so I will finish by saying that I intend to push this amendment to a vote. We cannot have a situation where we do not know what legislation covers, where we do not what know what the Government intend to do with the legislation, or where the Government will not talk to anyone about what they intend to do with it.
We cannot have the Government changing the law on a whim; there must be proper accountability and scrutiny. We cannot have unaccountable Ministers changing the rules without reference to anyone else. That is not what taking back control was supposed to mean. I am afraid that says that the Government are not confident about their intentions and, frankly, that is a completely unacceptable situation, which this amendment would go some way to putting right.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply unless a motion approving the revocation of any piece of legislation to be revoked has been passed by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 23, in clause 15, page 17, line 4, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”.
Amendment 24, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations under subsection (1) unless a motion approving the revocation of the secondary retained EU law has been passed by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(1B) A motion under subsection (1A) must state the date on which the secondary retained EU law is to be repealed, and any regulations under subsection (1) which follow such a motion must provide for the revocation to take place on that date.”
Brendan O’Hara
The amendments are in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. I will be extremely brief. The purpose of these amendments is to recognise the fact that there are four Parliaments on these islands, and those Parliaments should be respected, so it should be the case that nothing can sunset, whether reserved or devolved, unless that is agreed to by the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We need to remind Committee members that Scotland and Northern Ireland completely rejected Brexit; only England and Wales supported it.
Had David Cameron been wise enough to accept a similar proposal to the one set out in the amendments—that is, had he said that the UK would not leave the European Union unless every constituent part of the UK agreed to that—we would not be in the boorach that we find ourselves in. I ask the Government to learn from their mistakes, and to accept that listening to and respecting the opinions of the Parliaments in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom might be a useful way to avoid yet another almighty mess. What is decided in this place will have a profound effect on the peoples across these islands. Heeding the views of their Parliaments, which represent the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would do nothing other than improve our democracy. For that reason, I urge the Government to accept amendments 22, 23 and 24.
Justin Madders
The amendments acknowledge that it should not be Ministers who get to decide which laws to keep and which to chop. The Bill gives the Government widespread executive powers to rewrite affected laws through statutory instruments that require little parliamentary scrutiny, and with no mandate from the voters. There has been no guidance on, or indication of, which laws Ministers consider to be outdated, and what improvements are intended to make them
“better suited to the UK.”
Any replacement for these rights would require little parliamentary scrutiny. Core workers’ rights, key environmental protections and important consumer rights are left in the gift of Ministers. I think we have made it clear that we do not think that is acceptable.
The refrain of those who advocated for Brexit was that we should take back control—“we” meaning the people we represent, not Ministers sitting in rooms on their own, answerable to nobody, and under no requirement to explain their actions or inaction. That is not the way to go. The Government cannot argue that the Bill brings sovereignty and democratic control back to the legislative process when it demolishes the role normally undertaken by Parliament.
Any meaningful attempt to increase democratic oversight would seek to address those fundamental flaws. Parliamentary safeguards exist precisely because Ministers might always be tempted to resist scrutiny from Parliament. Those safeguards are important, if only because scrutiny and debate prevent errors, omissions—we certainly feel that there may well be omissions—and mistakes. These are important matters that will impact our constituents’ lives, and the prosperity or otherwise of the nation for years to come. Should not any Government have the courage of their convictions and open up their decisions for parliamentary approval? Should not we have a say on whatever Government decide that they are letting themselves and their citizens in for?
The Civil Society Alliance has said that this Bill will further destabilise devolution arrangements at a time when tensions between devolved and central authorities are more challenging than ever, and that will undermine the UK’s democracy and constitution, as well as the role of devolved and central Parliaments. The alliance says that the Bill gives staggeringly broad delegated powers to repeal and replace parliamentary laws with policy that is subject to little or no democratic scrutiny and is introduced at an alarming pace. We have already made clear our position: we do not agree with this. No one, whether they voted remain or leave, would want that. For that reason, we think that the amendments have some merit.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject amendments 22 to 24. Amendment 22 would fundamentally undermine the principles of the Bill by requiring individual pieces of retained EU law to be approved by a motion in the House of Commons and all the devolved legislatures before the sunset could revoke them. Notwithstanding the issue with parliamentary time, this amendment would require the UK Government to seek consent from all the devolved legislatures before revoking any secondary retained EU law, irrespective of its devolution status or territorial extent. It seems that it would in effect give the devolved legislatures a veto over retained EU law in other parts of the UK, and is therefore highly inappropriate.
Amendments 23 and 24 would hinder the efficient removal of regulations that have been identified as beign outdated, unduly burdensome and not suitable for UK citizens and businesses. The intention in this Bill is not for the Government to take on the function of the devolved authorities; nor is the Bill a power grab. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn or not pressed.
Brendan O'Hara
I am not remotely surprised by the Minister’s reply, but I gently ask her: who knows better than the parliamentarians representing people across these islands in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast about what is best for them and the people who elected them? They can also provide expertise on the damage that unintended consequences can cause. How often in this Parliament have we made the case that on occasion—or often—the views of other parts of the United Kingdom have been overlooked or ignored by the Government, and that Government officials have been unaware of them?
This is about democracy. This is about giving the other Parliaments the right to say, “No, this will not work, and these are the reasons why.” Very recent history tells us that had we adopted such an approach only six or seven years ago, we would not be in the mess we are in. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018,
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, and
(n) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.”
This amendment would exclude certain regulations which provide for workers’ protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018,
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, and
(n) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for workers’ protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 67, Clause 22, page 21, line 42, at end insert—
“(da) section [Workers’ rights];”
Amendment 60, in clause 22, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
“(d) any regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which have the effect of conferring rights or protections on workers.”
New clause 4—Workers’ rights—
“The Secretary of State must by 1 January 2023 publish a list of any provision to which this Act applies which confers rights or protections on workers which has not been—
(a) subject to regulations under section 1(2),
(b) restated under section 12 or 13,
(c) replaced under section 15(2), or
(d) revoked under section 15(3) and replaced with alternative provision
as at 1 January 2023.”
Justin Madders
Amendment 73 provides that clauses 1 to 3 and the powers under clause 15 do not apply to the list of regulations set out in the amendment. Committee members with a keen eye will notice that they all relate to employment and workers’ rights. The amendment would remove them from the sunset clause and prevent further watering down by the Government. If the Committee is minded to support the amendments, we can all leave here today safe in the knowledge that we have done our bit to protect workers’ rights from deliberate action or careless inaction.
I will not go through the effect of every one of the regulations. Some will be more familiar to Members than others. They represent, as far as we can identify, all the major employment rights in the ambit of this Bill—rights that people enjoy every day.
Paid annual leave is one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government. Also included are the regulations that introduced daily and weekly working limits. For Members who are not aware, that arose from a concern about workers’ health and safety. The risk of working excessively long hours has been shown time and again. The regulations listed also include a worker’s right to a 20-minute break in a shift, a break from work each day, and a day off every week or two days off every 14 days. We should not jettison those minimum standards.
Other regulations in the list oblige employers to assess health and safety risks to their workers, and to keep that risk assessment up to date. Do we not think that everyone has a right to work in a safe environment, and that employers should take steps to ensure that?
There are other laws in the list that are well worth fighting for, such as the right of part-time and fixed-time workers to be treated, pro rata, similarly to permanent workers unless the employer can justify the different treatment. Agency workers have the right after 12 weeks to receive the same basic working and employment conditions as directly employed workers. There are rights to do with taking parental, paternity and maternity leave, and of course the right not to be subject to detriment or to be dismissed for having exercised such a right. Importantly, there is the right to return to the same job that the employee had before they went on maternity leave.
Employees have the important right to be consulted on health and safety, and to paid time off to carry out health and safety training and other duties. They also have the right to protection from discrimination or victimisation for carrying out health and safety duties.
Also included are rights under the TUPE regulations, which ensure that when one business buys another, there is reasonable certainty about which workers transfer to the new business, so that the purchaser knows which employers it is getting and, critically, workers know that they cannot be dismissed or have their terms and conditions chopped just because they are working for a new employer. How many times does the TUPE regulation get applied every year? I do not have a figure, but I expect that hundreds of thousands of people have their employment changed each year under TUPE. No one has ever come to me and said that they do not think that workers deserve the protections and consideration that those regulations provide.
Having a new boss creates uncertainty, as Government Members will no doubt appreciate after the past few months, so let us not add to it. Let us make it crystal clear that TUPE will stay. Imagine if someone was thinking of buying a business in 2023. How on earth would they know whether to proceed with the purchase if they did not know whether they were obliged to take on its employees? We have a stable, settled, well-understood framework of law that helps businesses to operate more efficiently, and this amendment seeks to retain that.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 View all Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 76, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018,
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, and
(n) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for workers’ protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 67, in clause 22, page 21, line 42, at end insert—
“(da) section [Workers’ rights];”
Amendment 60, in clause 22, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
“(d) any regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which have the effect of conferring rights or protections on workers.”
New clause 4—Workers’ rights—
“The Secretary of State must by 1 January 2023 publish a list of any provision to which this Act applies which confers rights or protections on workers which has not been—
(a) subject to regulations under section 1(2),
(b) restated under section 12 or 13,
(c) replaced under section 15(2), or
(d) revoked under section 15(3) and replaced with alternative provision
as at 1 January 2023.”
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. Before our lunch break, I was talking about some of the important employment rights that derived from EU legislation.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I rather wondered why the hon. Gentleman was regaling us with this list of workers’ rights. Is he seriously suggesting that this Government would sweep away all those rights? If he is, does he not accept that that is scaremongering? Does he not agree that in many respects, workers’ rights in this country are far superior to those employed in many European countries?
Justin Madders
If the right hon. Member wants to give the public reassurance that there is no intention to sweep away the rights, this is the perfect opportunity to do so by voting for the amendments. I remind him that over the past 12 years the Government have doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, introduced employment tribunal fees and cut down on consultation requirements for collective redundancies. The track record is a mixed one to say the least. A number of prominent Brexiteers have talked extensively about the need to reduce red tape and do away with employment rights, which I will discuss shortly.
If, as the right hon. Member says, there is no intention to remove employment rights, that is welcome news. It would be more welcome if the amendments were supported, because that would be consistent with the manifesto that Conservative Members stood on in 2019, which says on page 5 that
“we will legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer rights.”
This is the chance to legislate for that, starting with amendment 76 on workers’ rights.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am possibly anticipating what will be said later, but for clarification will the hon. Member confirm that retaining all this EU legislation in domestic law does not in any way prevent the Government from deciding that they want to legislate for a greater level of workers’ rights or environmental protection than is currently the norm throughout Europe? They would only need to repeal this law if they intended to weaken those protections.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member is exactly right. If there is no intention to do away with these laws, the Government simply have to accept the amendment with no further question or debate about it. We will be very pleased to be able to report to our constituents that their rights are protected.
We are sceptical about some of the intentions of the Conservative party. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), the architect of the Bill, has gone on the record with what can only be described as a Victorian attitude to workers’ rights, with such classic lines as “there is no moral right to annual leave.” There were reports in The Times only a couple of months ago that he was planning to scrap both the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. Amendment 76 would protect both measures, putting the issue beyond doubt. The Minister does not need to the follow the right hon. Member’s lead any more; she can act today to show that she is on the side of workers, that she understands the value and importance of workers’ rights and that she can do the right thing by supporting the amendment.
When discussing these amendments it is important to acknowledge that there will almost certainly be a disproportionate impact on women if these laws are scrapped, as many of them have been of great benefit to women in the workplace. Fifty years after this country legislated for equal pay between men and women we still have not quite got there. Women face far greater challenges of discrimination at work. Let us not make an unacceptable situation any worse by reducing some of the measures that protect them.
The Bill’s own impact assessment recognises that it contain threats to equality, particularly in paragraphs 11, 25 and 41. Unison has said that the Bill will
“deliberately wipe the slate clean and create confusion around the principle of precedent that UK common law is premised on. It places ideological principles above the lived, practical needs of the UK.”
Perhaps the Minister will tell us, as the right hon. Member for Clwyd West has already suggested, that we are being melodramatic, and that the Government do indeed intend to honour their manifesto commitments to improve workers’ rights. We know what we need to do if that is the case.
As I say, I am a little suspicious about what is going on with the Bill and why it has been drafted in such a way to squirrel away debate and discussion about workers’ rights. If the Government truly intended to maintain these rights, they could have put something in the Bill along the lines of the amendments from Labour or the SNP. Better still, as we have touched on, they could have done the Bill the other way round, so that we knew what was going to be removed. The fact that they have not done that raises concerns.
When the review of retained EU law commenced, Lord Frost said that the Government were in the position to ensure that retained EU law could be revoked, replaced, restated, updated and removed or amended to remove burdens. Of course, he could have added to those comments and said that, while we want to do that with retained European law, we respect and support workers’ rights and do not need to change them. Instead, we have the language of attack—of revocation, of removing burdens—not the language of a Government intent on upholding workers’ rights.
I urge Members to consider what the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, said on Second Reading on the subject of workers’ rights:
“In line with the UK’s track record, we will seek to modernise our regulations, including on workers’ rights, ensuring that unnecessary burdens are minimised”.—[Official Report, 25 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 252.]
I am not sure what he meant by “modernise”, given that the Government have yet to implement the vast majority of recommendations from the Taylor review that sought to bring in new regulations to protect workers in the gig economy, but it is the latter part of that sentence that I want to examine further.
We hear far too often from those on the right of politics that employment rights are an unnecessary burden on businesses. Of course, for many, the visceral hatred of workers’ rights was a huge motivating factor for wanting to leave the EU. However, I would say that workers’ rights are not a burden, but an essential ingredient of a civilised society. If we want our citizens to play an active role in the country moving forward and in future economic growth, our citizens have to be rewarded fairly and treated fairly. Security and respect at work are the cornerstone of any success we may have as a nation. A secure and happy workforce is a productive workforce. Giving people dignity, certainty and fairness in the workplace is not a burden on businesses, but is what good businesses want to do, what good businesses will see the fruits of, if they implement it properly, and what we as Members of this House should want to see in every workplace.
We view the Government’s approach to the amendment with scepticism. I urge all members of this Committee not to pass up the opportunity that this amendment gives them to say to those who may see the Bill as a chance to weaken workers’ rights that we are not going to let that happen: these rights are not up for grabs, they are non-negotiable and they will not be dumped at the end of 2023.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know there was bated breath and anticipation as we returned this afternoon. I hope we have as joyous and entertaining a debate as we had this morning about such an important piece of legislation.
We are getting to the meat of the matter this afternoon, which is what the legislation will do and what the Government’s intention actually is. It is only fair for the Government to come clean on their intentions. They keep saying that those of us who are raising concerns are scaremongering, but it is our job to probe the Government. As much as the Minister might not like these questions, our constituents deserve better than vague pledges that the Government would not possibly do something that we know in the past this Government and its Members have tried precisely to do.
Let us start with workers’ rights. These amendments are about a perfectly reasonable parliamentary process of fleshing out the Government’s intentions. This morning, we heard that there is, of course, time for the replacement of all the legislation that will be deleted by the Bill. We heard that none of us should have any concerns about the timetable or process or persons unknown who will be responsible for this legislation. The reasons for our concerns are to do not with Brexit but with the content of the Bills that are going to be deleted. They are Bills and rights on which our constituents have depended for generations, and workers’ rights are an absolute case in point because they safeguard the right to a decent workplace and decent employers. Businesses do not want employment rights to be watered down. They want certainty so that they can get on with rebuilding their businesses in this difficult economic climate.
As we have seen in the responses that we have received, many businesses agree with the rights that the Bill puts at risk of deletion. The Working Time Regulations 1998 include the right to paid time off, including bank holidays. This is a very simple proposition for Conservative Members: if they do not vote with us to remove these laws from this Bill, they will put the right to a bank holiday up for deletion. The Government have been very clear that they will not provide any guarantees as to what will replace or amend any of the laws that they are deleting. If they join us, they will make things a lot clearer for our constituents.
It is not just about the working time directive. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said this morning that he was not sure how many people benefit from TUPE. I can tell him that 30,000 people a year benefit from TUPE protections, yet the Beecroft report suggested that TUPE legislation should be watered down. It is not unreasonable for those of us who have had concerns for many years about this Government’s approach to workers’ rights to be concerned that this Bill deletes TUPE in its entirety, which is something that Beecroft only dreamed of.
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 protect, among other rights, the requirement for an employer to perform a risk assessment for all workers, and specify that that must include a risk assessment once an employee falls pregnant. If Conservative Members think that those rights should be protected, they should vote in favour of them today, send a clear message to their Government colleagues to remove the measure from the Bill and put beyond doubt the fact that it is reasonable to require an employer to carry out a risk assessment when an employee falls pregnant. We must protect health and safety regulations. Each year many of us commemorate those who have lost their lives in the workplace, but this Bill deletes important legislation at a stroke and Ministers have not given any assurances or details as to which regulations they will bring back in their entirety.
The children and young person working time regulations protect a child’s right to access education by preventing the employment of children. Ministers and Conservative Members will say that it is scaremongering to talk of sending children back down the mines or up a chimney, but that legislation was brought in precisely to protect children. Why on earth would we not want to put it beyond doubt that we want to keep those protections, unless the Government either want to water them down or abolish them altogether? Voting for the amendment would put that beyond doubt.
The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 ensure that millions of our constituents are not discriminated against in the workplace. It is predominantly women who are protected by those regulations. Nearly a fifth more women than men are on temporary contracts, and more than twice as many women are in part-time employment than men. When this Bill is enacted, the rights that they have relied on to protect them in the workplace will be dissolved at a stroke. It is not unreasonable for us to give them the comfort that those rights will remain by ensuring that they are not removed by the Bill.
The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 protect women in the workplace from unequal treatment on account of maternity leave, pregnancy or childbirth. We know that 50,000 women a year experience pregnancy discrimination, even with that legislation in place. Removing it and refusing to keep it will result in even more women experiencing pregnancy discrimination. That is a critical point. Nobody is suggesting that these laws are perfect or that they do not require amendment and should not change with the times we are in, but that does not mean that they should be abolished and that we should hope that a future Minister remembers that they were on the list and comes up with some proposals. The 50,000 women already experiencing pregnancy discrimination need to know that the law is going to move forwards, not backwards, and this Bill can only be a retrograde step.
Conservative Members should come clean to their constituents. If they do not think these rights are important, they should put them up for abolition and hope that Ministers will come forward with alternatives. They should be clear with their constituents, because we will hold every single Member in this House to account if they delete the right to have a bank holiday or not be discriminated against as a pregnant woman or new mother.
Stella Creasy
I can see the hon. Lady shaking her head—I am sure everyone can—but that is exactly what the legislation does. It is important to our constituents that we either do not deny that that is a possibility or we act to remove it. This amendment gives Conservative Members the ability to offer more than just words on this matter—to make a deed and ensure they protect the workers’ rights their constituents depend on.
We are very clear: if Government Members do not vote for this amendment, we will hold them to account and ensure that their constituents know that they voted to put those rights up for grabs with no guarantee that they will be protected. I can see Conservative Members smiling. Those smiles will not be smiles when our constituents ask why they put their rights into a process that will mangle them with 4,000 other pieces of legislation, with no guarantee that parliamentary time can be found and no guarantee of what it means for their employers. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West asked if it was scaremongering. It is not scaremongering. It is called accountability, and it is about time the Government listened to it.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady will know that this Government have consistently improved the rights of workers. It is a process that has continued over the last 12 years since this party has been in Government. Frankly, it does her no credit at all to raise these concerns with probably very vulnerable people, who will now be concerned about what she has said. She will have to be accountable for what she has said.
Stella Creasy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He was part of a Government who brought forward the Beecroft report, so I will take absolutely no lectures about frightening vulnerable people.
What I see before me is a piece of legislation that deletes those rights. That is beyond doubt. The question is whether they are going to be replaced. The right hon. Gentleman could argue that that is what Ministers have committed to. I am sure that is what the Minister will try to say—that we should not worry and that these rights will be replaced—but at this point in time when we are being asked to pass this legislation, there are no guarantees. There is nothing on the statute book. There have been no specific pledges on these rights.
We have a Government with a track record of seeking to try to delete and dilute rights. They were prevented from doing so by being members of the European Union at the time. Brexit has happened. Now the entire responsibility and onus on protecting those rights relies on Government Ministers and Members of Parliament holding the Government to account. That is exactly what we are doing today. Vulnerable people deserve to know the truth of what the outcome of this legislation will be.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very good point about ensuring we have protections in place. Is she not missing the point and being slightly mischievous, because this is setting out a framework of how to deal with the problem, not the specifics? Those can still come later. She is right to argue that anyone in the House could make those changes, but the whole principle here is laying out the framework to enact these rights.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman comes so close, yet does not quite score his goal. He has said that it is about setting out a framework so these things could happen. There is no guarantee about what comes next. That is the challenge for his constituents. That is why the amendment puts in place what could come next by removing these particular rights from that process. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it sets out a process. The point is what is the impact of that process. If he cannot read this legislation, he needs to read all the submissions we have had from people setting out their concerns.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right in her response to the question of process. Does she agree that it was a previous Conservative Government—there have been so many—that set out a process in the withdrawal Act? That process was to embrace the principle of retained law so that we did not risk losing the rights and protections we had collectively agreed over 43 years and would then have the opportunity, as and when the chance arose or it would seem fit, to change or improve that law. That process would be set against the safety net of not losing what we already had. That was the process the Conservative Government put in place and which this Bill is now ripping apart.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend speaks with the experience and frustration of having seen this all before. That is the challenge. The hon. Member for Bosworth is relatively new to this experience, but many of us who have had to deal with this Government in its various incarnations over employment rights—and, indeed, over legislative processes—have seen the deterioration in their respect for and approach towards the parliamentary process, whereby Members could be confident about the Government’s direction of travel.
In this morning’s sitting I mentioned the words “cock-up” or “conspiracy”. A cock-up would be accidentally losing some of these pieces of legislation. That is why this amendment is so important: it sets out specifically all those pieces of legislation and provides a safety net. We could then have a sunrise approach to this legislation. If the Government wish to amend things, at least the legislation would be retained until it is amended. The conspiracy element comes from the previous experience of dealing with this Government, and the bemusement as to why Ministers and Back Benchers claim that we are scare-mongering, but refuse to give that commitment.
If the Minister will give a specific commitment today that every single one of those rights will be rewritten into UK legislation to give our constituents the same protection that they have now, I will happily support her, but she is not likely to do so. In that absence, it falls to all of us to make sure that our constituents—the vulnerable people we are concerned about—do not worry that their rights, precious as they are, are about to be abandoned. They have to hope that it is better to have a cock-up than a conspiracy, and that they might still be saved at some point, rather than that there is a deliberate attempt to reintroduce Beecroft by the back door—because that is what the Bill looks like, and that is what the amendment protects us against.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I will speak to amendments 60, 67 and new clause 4, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. The amendments would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a full list of workers’ rights that could be put at risk under this legislation by 1 January 2023. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and for Walthamstow. I fully agree with everything they said. If they press their amendment to a Division, our support is guaranteed.
We have heard several times today that the Bill gives UK Government Ministers unprecedented powers to rewrite and replace huge swathes of domestic law, covering matters such as environmental protection, consumer rights, and of course those long-established, hard-won workers’ rights. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West, and indeed the Government generally, have been at pains throughout the passage of the Bill to say that there will be no diminution of workers’ rights, but given that they have failed to produce an accessible list of exactly what will stay and what will go as a result of the Bill, coupled with the fact that so many stakeholders see the Bill as the starter pistol for a deregulatory race to the bottom, they will fully understand the scepticism that exists not just here, but outside this place, over any promise that workers’ rights will be protected.
Although we have heard the Government’s vague promises that everything will be okay, and the reassuring words, “Trust us, we’ll see you okay”, that is not good enough. Workers across the country will fear that the Government are going down a one-way road towards deregulation that will certainly not benefit workers or protect their rights.
We heard in the oral evidence session that the trade unions are particularly sceptical about what the Government have planned for workers’ rights. They have serious concerns that, among those 3,800—so far—discovered pieces of legislation that are due to be sunsetted in 13 months’ time, there could be legislation covering annual leave entitlement, women returning to the workplace, the treatment of part-time workers, protection from dismissal, holiday pay, legislation on working hours, and rights to parental leave. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said earlier, the fact that this legislation was the brainchild of, and initially piloted by, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) sets alarm bells ringing—with some justification, given that back in 2013 he was quoted as saying,
“It is hard to believe that the right to paid holiday is an absolute moral right; it is something that comes about because of political pressure at the time”—[Official Report, 1 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 605.]
If that is not evidence enough of the direction of travel—or, at least, the suggested direction of travel—in which this Government are heading, I do not know what is. The Government have to accept that they have a long way to go in addressing the concerns of the trade unions, who explained much of their fear was based on being unable to find out exactly which pieces of legislation will stay and which will go. Shantha David of Unison said that the dashboard is
“the most incomprehensible piece of equipment. You have to put in random words to try and identify whether certain pieces of legislation will remain or go.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 58, Q91.]
It is a completely unsatisfactory position. All that new clause 4 would do is oblige the Government to provide trade unions, individuals and other organisations with a comprehensive list of every piece of employment legislation that could be impacted by the Bill. I do not think for a minute that that is too much to ask, or indeed too much to expect, the Government to provide. If the Government are serious and they want us to believe that the Bill will not put workers’ rights under threat, that is a very small and simple step to at least signal they are moving in the right direction.
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
You will not be surprised to hear, Sir George, that I wish to reject amendments 73, 76, 67 and 60, and new clause 4. While the speeches were taking place, I was reflecting on the level of scrutiny we had when we were governed and subjugated by rules coming out of Europe. I do not recall transcripts from those meetings, or opportunities for Members elected to represent constituents and their businesses to get involved and offer up what they thought was needed for those businesses domestically. However, here we have an opportunity to assimilate, review and potentially improve rules and regulations, and to ensure that we are governed by rules that we enact here in the United Kingdom.
Peter Grant
I may be mistaken, but I distinctly remember being a member of the European Scrutiny Committee in this place for several years. The explicit job of that Committee was to scrutinise proposed EU legislation and to express whether it, on behalf of Parliament, was content for Ministers to either support that legislation or oppose it. It was not the fault of the European Union that very often that Committee had no teeth. It was certainly not the fault of the European Union that as often as not, Ministers ignored the views of that Committee. Is it not the case that the difficulties with parliamentary oversight of European legislation for the 40 years that we were in the EU were nothing to do with the failings of the European Union, and everything to do with the failings of scrutiny in this place?
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Opposition Members keep telling us that they accept the result of the referendum and this is not about Brexit. Is it not the case that through this legislation we are taking back control and allowing Parliament to be the body that has the scrutiny mechanisms? Does the Minister have more faith in Parliament than Opposition Members do?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for giving way. On her point on the absence of scrutiny, did she not read the written evidence submitted by the Bar Council? In paragraph 12, it said:
“We also point to the very valuable work over the years of the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Select Committee and other Select Committees...UK ministers, politicians and officials, stakeholders and policy makers had ample opportunity to, and did, exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation...Indeed, in most cases, the EU legislation was supported, and even promoted, by the UK Government of the day.”
The idea that there was no scrutiny is nonsense, is it not?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
What I will make some progress now.
The Bill is enabling legislation. The measures in it, including the sunset, will allow UK Ministers, including those in the devolved Governments, to make decisions to review, amend or repeal retained EU law as they see fit. We have heard considerable contributions about which laws have moved down into UK law from the EU, making the assumption that we were never able to lay down rules and laws for our people in the UK, and that somehow we would get rid of all the high standards we have.
Let me point out some of the things that we have done, to let everyone know that we have pretty high standards when we are passing legislation. We have the highest minimum wage in Europe, which increased again on 1 April. UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave, compared with the EU requirement of just four weeks. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert to shared parental leave to enable parents to share care, while the EU minimum maternity leave is just 14 weeks. The right to request flexible working for all employees was introduced to the UK in the early 2000s, while the EU agreed rules only recently and will offer the right to parents and carers only. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave in 2003, while the EU has only recently legislated for that. Those facts show that we are very capable of ensuring good standards here in the UK.
Ms Ghani
I am moving forward. I will give way shortly.
The sunset is not intended to restrict decision making; rather, it will accelerate the review of REUL. The Bill will allow UK Ministers, including those in devolved Administrations, additional flexibility and discretion to make decisions in the best interests of their citizens. It is up to Departments and devolved Administrations what they will do on specific pieces of policy. The Bill creates the tools for Departments. Plans will be approved by a Minister of the Crown or the devolved authority where appropriate, and will be shared when ready, given that this is an iterative process that is still ongoing.
On the specifics policies listed in the amendment, the Government do not intend to remove any necessary equality law rights and protections. With the introduction of the Bill, the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing its retained EU law to consider how best to ensure that our regulatory frameworks continue to operate effectively, and to seek opportunities to modernise its regulations without reducing health and safety rights. The Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides stronger protections for workers than required by EU law. I listed a few a moment ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
On new clause 4, it is right that the public should know how much legislation is derived from the EU and the progress that the Government are making to reform it. This is why on 22 June 2022 we published an authoritative public record of where REUL sits on the UK statute book in the form of the REUL dashboard on gov.uk, which catalogues more than 2,400 pieces of legislation derived from the EU. The information is there; asking that we cut and paste it somewhere else is slightly ridiculous and over-bureaucratic.
Ms Ghani
The Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow raised the issue of maternity rights. She has done a huge amount of work for women’s rights, as have I. I just find it incredibly unfortunate that both she and I have been defending and promoting women’s rights but that we might create an anxiety based on fiction and not on fact. The repeal of maternity rights is not and has never been Government policy. The high standards of maternity rights that I mentioned earlier have never been dependent on, or even mirrored, those of the EU; we have always gone a lot further.
Taking all that into account, I ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw his amendment.
Justin Madders
I have quite a few things to say. First, the rehashing of the old arguments about a lack of scrutiny when the laws covered by the amendment were introduced is, as I said at length this morning, not correct. Even if people think that, the answer is certainly not to make it harder to scrutinise laws now.
Stella Creasy
Will my hon. Friend comment on the irony that the Minister has argued that we need to do this because we were never able to refuse a piece of legislation from the European Union, but at the same time is defending a piece of legislation that will not take back control to Parliament, but will give it to Ministers? Under the Bill, MPs will not be able to refuse or amend a piece of legislation that, like it or lump it, will come from No. 10 rather than Brussels. How is that taking back control?
Justin Madders
It is not taking back control, is it? Anyone who has read the Bill will understand that Parliament’s role will be severely restricted, and that is why the Opposition are worried about what will happen. The Minister cited a long list of measures that strengthened employment rights, many of them introduced under a Labour Government of course. Not all of them came from Europe—the minimum wage is not derived from European law. We want to see such rights protected.
I think the Minister is sincere in her desire to support equality, but her exact words were that there is no intention to remove any necessary equality law. I just question whose definition is used to decide what is necessary or unnecessary. What does that mean? That is why it is so important that we have a proper scrutiny process. If it is decided that no equality laws are unnecessary, they should be removed from the terms of the Bill all together.
Peter Grant
I will ask question that the Minister chose not to hear. The Bill runs to 37 pages, and we do not know how long the Government have taken to put it together, but we know that they had a month between First and Second Reading. In that time, at least 15 mistakes were identified in the Bill, because the Government themselves have tabled 15 amendments to correct mistakes in a Bill of 37 pages. The items of legislation subject to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment run to something like 360 pages. The legislation relating to this amendment alone is nearly 10 times as long as the Bill we are currently considering, yet the Government have so far identified 15 amendments that are required to the Bill. What confidence can we have that 360 pages of revoked legislation will have been properly gone through and assessed, and all properly put back into law in just over a year from now?
Justin Madders
We do not have a lot of confidence. The hon. Member is right to point out the amount of legislation to which just this amendment relates. We are trying to do the Government a favour by attempting to remove various legislation from the Bill. The Minister spoke about an over-bureaucratic process, and we can help with that by removing some regulations from the Bill so that they are retained in law. There is therefore no need to go through any bureaucratic exercise.
The Minister spoke about modernising health and safety law. To me, modernising can mean any number of things, and it does not always mean that law will be improved or rights increased. As we know, the Bill specifically prevents an increase in the legislative burden, and I think a lot of people may say that health and safety is a burden, although I certainly do not think it is; I think it is an absolute essential, but we know how it is characterised in some quarters.
I want to address head-on the claim that we are scaremongering, worrying people and causing anxiety by raising the issue. In order to remove such anxieties, the simple answer is to vote for the amendment, because then there would no question about those rights being protected.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right. Had I had the opportunity to intervene on the Minister, and had she accepted my intervention, I would have asked why she failed to respond to the challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to reassure the House simply by committing on the record that all the legislation listed in our amendments 73 and 76 would be replicated at least in full, and perhaps made better, and not lessened in any way whatsoever. As a starting point, the Minister could commit to put the legislation through before December 2023. Would my hon. Friend welcome that if the Minister were to intervene now to give that commitment?
Justin Madders
I guess that we are not going to get that assurance, and that shows why we were exactly right to table the amendment, and we will put it to a vote. I do not think that even Conservative Members when campaigning for election here put on their literature that they wanted to put workers’ rights at risk. I doubt the people of Grimsby, Orpington or Yeovil actually want to see a reduction in workers’ rights. It is time now to send out that clear message.
Justin Madders
It may be news to the hon. Lady, but we left some time ago. I find that intervention interesting, because it rather suggests that there is an intention to weaken some workers’ rights. We have concerns, and I am afraid that the debate has heightened them.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth having concerns when not only do Government Members prioritise removing anything that includes the word “Europe”, but the Minister seems not to know the complete history of maternity and pregnancy discrimination legislation in this country? The European Union held the UK Government to account with the pregnant workers directive in the 1990s because the UK Government sought to water down the protection of women. I am sure that Government Members would support the legislation on maternity discrimination introduced by their colleague, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), which sought to move things forward, but we have not seen progress on that from the Government.
Ministers seem not to be fully aware of the history of European legislation when it comes to maternity rights and pregnancy discrimination; there has been a lack of action in response to proposals from Government Members; and we now have a piece of legislation that deletes rules simply because they have the word “Europe” in, with no guarantee of what comes next. Given all that, we understand why organisations such as Pregnant Then Screwed are campaigning on maternity and pregnancy discrimination. It is happening now, under this Government, and the Government are doing very little about it.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I think there was a question in there somewhere. I agree with the general point that the fight for equality does not stop. It is always ongoing, and we have to look forward and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be now that we have left the European Union. Do we want stronger workplace rights? Do we want equality in the workplace? Do we want to end discrimination? If we agree with those things, and certainly the Opposition do, the way to guarantee that we at least maintain the status quo is to vote for the amendment. My constituents will be considerably poorer over the next few years as a result of the economic decisions made by the Government. I do not want them to be poorer in rights as well, and that is why I will press the amendment to a vote.
Brendan O’Hara
Very briefly on new clause 4, it is extremely disappointing that the Government have dismissed what I believe was an easy opportunity to show that they were listening to genuine concerns that have been brought before the Committee. The information may be out there, but the fact that it is so difficult to find and has been described as incomprehensible by a qualified solicitor acting on behalf of trade unions should raise some concerns within Government. It really is not good enough to say, “It’s there. You just have to find it.”
All Governments have a duty to make things as transparent as possible. Now that the Government have been alerted to the fact that the information is incomprehensible, their casual dismissal of such fears as ridiculous does not bode well for those in the Opposition and outside the Committee who think we are on a one-way track to deregulation and the diminution of workers’ rights.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019),
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 77, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019),
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Alex Sobel
We now come to the impact of the Bill on laws that fall within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government’s dashboard lists only 570 laws that DEFRA identified as falling in scope of the Bill; that figure alone would make DEFRA the most heavily impacted Department in Government. However, we understand that DEFRA officials have privately revealed that more than 1,000 individual laws are at risk of being revoked by the Bill’s sunset clause. How do the Government plan to resource DEFRA to enable officials to properly examine each of these laws in the time remaining before the sunset sweeps them away?
The Department is already beset by delay and overwhelmed by consultation responses. The supposed Government priorities of environmental action and animal welfare are long past their due dates; on 31 October, for example, the Government missed a legal deadline to publish environmental targets. Instead of clogging up the entire Department with months of pointless work reviewing lists of laws that no one wants to drop, the Government should prioritise their environmental commitments in the Environment Act 2021 and the 25-year environment plan, including the actions and policies necessary to deliver nature’s recovery by 2030.
The sample of 19 laws listed in these amendments cover a vast range of important policy areas about which the public feel passionately. They include animal welfare, water quality, the treatment and discharge of sewage, the protection of wildlife, the safe use of chemicals and pesticides, the protection of human health from the impacts of air pollution, the use of animals in scientific testing and the prevention of the spread of animal diseases, such as the bird flu that is devastating poultry businesses and our precious wild bird populations. The regulations listed in amendments 74 and 77 should therefore be seen as a non-exhaustive list of the key examples of law that it is vital to retain to maintain standards. The regulations listed in the amendments represent some of the most prominent environmental protections, but many potentially vital but not always easily identifiable protections will remain at risk.
A definitive list of environmentally important measures does not exist. One could say that the Government have been naughty by nature, but I would not do that. However, we know that it is even more extensive than the comparable list of the retained EU law that provides critical protections for workers’ rights and conditions, which we have debated in relation to amendments 73 and 76. The inventory of workers’ rights legislation is shorter and more easily identified, so there are important differences between the three domains of rights and protections highlighted by our amendments.
The environmental retained EU laws covered by the Bill include major protections that we rely on for clean air, clean water and safe food, as well as providing crucial safeguards for a struggling natural world. Under the Bill, critical environmental protections face the prospect of being revoked without replacement or replaced by weaker regulations, because of the extremely limited time available to consider and draft workable replacements before the application of the sunset clause, and because of the lack of parliamentary oversight and public consultation—those are the focus of other amendments.
The Government have said that they are committed to maintaining environmental protections. For instance, the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, said that
“the Government is committed to maintain all the environmental protections that currently exist and met a number of the environmental lobby groups to confirm this”.
I will go into a little more detail about how we believe the Bill will completely undermine those commitments and place at risk the safety of chemicals.
REACH stands for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the EU REACH regulation was brought into UK law on 1 January 2021 and is now known as UK REACH, but the UK and EU REACH regulations operate independently from each other. Most industries must therefore comply with both sets of regulations if they want to trade in both the UK and the EU. Furthermore, UK REACH regulates only chemicals placed on the market in GB, and, under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland.
The HSE website explains that REACH is
“a regulation that applies to the majority of chemical substances that are manufactured in or imported into Great Britain (GB)…This can be…A substance on its own…A substance in a mixture, for example ink or paint”
or a
“substance that makes up an ‘article’—an object that is produced with a special shape, surface or design, for example a car, furniture or clothes.”
The chemicals legislation in the amendments works closely with the 2008 classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals regulations, which are about the responsibility for identifying and communicating hazardous properties of chemicals. That legislation also works with other chemicals regulations listed on the Government dashboard, such as the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, which restrict the use of certain chemicals in those products.
REACH places restrictions on the use of more than 2,000 harmful chemicals on which it has taken more than 13 years to legislate at EU level. That has helped to drive innovation in the development of safer alternatives and delivered considerable benefits for our health and environment. Lifting or weakening those restrictions could result in the import of everyday products—from sofas and paint to cosmetics and toys—that contain chemicals that are linked to cancer or affect intellectual development, and that are restricted in the EU but sold in other parts of the world.
The UK was one of the driving forces behind the creation of EU REACH in 2006. That was acknowledged during proceedings on the Environment Act by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who said that
“we were instrumental in designing the whole process in the first place, which we kicked off during our presidency in 1990.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2020; c. 598.]
Perhaps the Minister who is with us today will argue that revoking REACH would nevertheless realise Brexit opportunities. However, businesses are not asking for the revocation of REACH; quite the reverse.
Last week, the chief executive officer of the Chemical Industries Association said:
“We are not in the market for any regulatory bonfire”.
Far from helping to drive economic growth—that is the intention behind the Bill—throwing UK rules into doubt will create uncertainty and instability for businesses, and it will very likely deter investment. Businesses will essentially be left with three costly options: to comply with two regimes at once; to end exports to the EU; or to remain aligned to EU standards, in which case why attempt to deregulate UK REACH?
If Ministers think that the Bill is needed to provide the flexibility to adapt the regulations to a UK context, they seem not to realise that legislative powers for updating and adapting REACH for a UK context already exist under schedule 21 of the Environment Act. Those Environment Act powers include important safeguards for public health and the environment that the Government have not necessarily thought to include in the Bill. Furthermore, work to review and adapt REACH to a UK context has been ongoing pre and post EU exit. The Bill will pointlessly divert that work. For example, we are still waiting for a UK chemicals strategy, which was first promised in the 25-year environment plan more than four years ago.
Without a strategy, the various parallel Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reviews lack strategic direction. A strategy is urgently needed to set out much-needed measures to improve the regulation to address our growing chemical pollution crisis. Why does REACH need the amending powers in the Bill, unless it is to deregulate and to lower standards? The hon. Member for Taunton Deane previously assured us that we would maintain
“high standards of protection for the environment, consumers and workers”
while having
“the autonomy to decide how best to achieve that for Great Britain.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2020; c. 598.]
The status quo in the Environment Act already does that, but the Bill could only be designed to usher in low environmental standards.
Labour tabled an amendment to provide a non-regression mechanism to schedule 21 powers in the Environment Bill. The response from the hon. Member for Taunton Deane was that there was no intention to regress. She pointed to proper safeguards in the powers to ensure that, including protected provisions
“that cannot be changed…relating to the fundamental principles of REACH”.––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2020; c. 598.]
Those principles include core principles of good chemicals regulation such as “no data, no market” and the precautionary principle. It is difficult not to see the “malign opportunities” that she rejected when she highlighted the safeguards in the powers two years ago. If the aim is a sensible review and updating of our laws, the Government should allow her Department to get on with it.
We already know that there is a serious lack of capacity and expertise in the HSE to do its job. That has resulted in declining safety standards on chemicals in the UK. A recent NAO review found that a lack of operational capacity and loss of data is having a negative impact on HSE’s ability to assess risks and carry out its work, and that it would not be able to achieve its long-term objectives unless that were addressed. How can the Government even contemplate piling even more work on to the HSE’s already overstretched workforce by requiring it to review and rewrite the retained EU law elements of our chemicals regulation?
On top of that, Ministers seem to completely ignore the additional burden on UK business. The pressure on HSE already results in UK REACH considering far fewer protections for health and the environment from harmful substances. For example, the UK has initiated only two restrictions on hazardous substances compared with the five that have been implemented in the EU since UK exit, and a further 20 are in the EU pipeline. Specifically, it has rejected 10 protections that have been targeted by its European counterpart. That includes a restriction on concentration limits for eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used as infill and in loose form in synthetic football pitches and playgrounds.
Alex Sobel
You will have to intervene if you want me to say it again. Those chemicals are linked to an increased cancer risk, putting our children’s health at risk.
The protective gap between the UK and the EU could become a chasm over the years ahead as the EU takes forward its chemicals strategy for sustainability. That is likely to result in the dumping of harmful chemical products on the UK market, with the divergence harming UK businesses.
There is a severe lack of chemical safety data. This is the central challenge of a separate, stand-alone system and it still has not been resolved. Deadlines for companies to submit vital safety data on the UK market are due to be put back for the second time, while the chemical safety database will not be complete for eight or nine years. The Government’s own latest figures estimate that the chemicals industry faces £2 billion of post-Brexit red tape—twice the cost of initial estimates. During proceedings on the Environment Act, Labour pushed for a minimum standard of protection under UK REACH. We have major concerns that the UK system is already considerably weaker than EU REACH, and the Secretary of State has taken sweeping powers to further reduce the level of protection for the public and environment from hazardous chemicals.
I will now turn much more briefly to other important environmental protections, a sample of which are listed in the amendments. The Government have been dragging their heels on protecting our animals for years, with lots of press releases but little action. Many of the animal welfare measures in the last Queen’s Speech were lifted directly from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto, but the Government have repeatedly stalled and delayed on taking through Parliament the limited selection that they have so far committed to, such as the missing-without-a-trace Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the unkept promises to ban the imports of fur and foie gras.
We can have little confidence in this Government’s commitment to animal welfare. Their manifesto promised not to compromise on Britain’s high standards in trade deals, but the Australian trade deal and the precedent it has set risk bulldozing through our standards for animal welfare and environmental protections as well as impoverishing our farmers. As the Committee heard from David Bowles of the RSPCA, there are 44 individual pieces of animal welfare legislation that could be dropped or weakened because of the Bill.
Amendments 74 and 77 list an illustrative sample of just four of these: directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens; regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof; and the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.
As we have explained, the whole purpose of the Bill is to weaken and reduce regulations that ideological purists in the Conservative party see as an irredeemable burden. However, directive 2010/63 sets standards for the accommodation and care of animals used for research, and lowering these standards would increase suffering among lab animals. Article 14 of the directive requires, where possible, animal experiments to be carried out under general or local anaesthesia. The removal of this requirement could greatly increase the pain and suffering of animals undergoing experiments.
Directive 1999/74 banned the use of barren cages for laying hens. Weakening it could change acceptable cage standards for laying hens, allowing the expansion of battery chicken farming through the back door. Regulation 139/2013 stops the importation of wild-caught birds for the pet trade. Its introduction across the EU in 2005 reduced the volume of wild bird trading to about 10% of its former level. In addition to increasing the risk of the importation of wild bird diseases such as avian flu, weakening the regulation could breathe new life into the trade in wild-caught birds, and renewed UK demand could provoke further devastation of wild bird populations in South America, Africa and Asia.
Finally, the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 set basic welfare conditions for the live transportation of animals. Weakening the order could see UK welfare standards for animal transportation fall below those of our neighbours in the EU. It would also mark the complete reversal of the UK Government’s plans to increase welfare standards in transportation following Brexit—already stalled through the halting of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
I turn to the conservation of rare and endangered wildlife and the precious habitats inhabited by vulnerable species. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 include a crucial provision preventing any development that could adversely affect the integrity of our most precious nature sites. We have already seen this Government threaten our areas of outstanding natural beauty through scrapping protections when they fall in a so-called investment zone. Now, with this Bill, we face the prospect of a much more widespread weakening to allow unsustainable development to go ahead on or around important nature sites, even when it would cause damage to them. This damage could include more pollution reaching water habitats and the shrinking of terrestrial habitats. Nationally and internationally important nature sites on land and at sea in England, including Ashdown Forest, Braunton Burrows and Dogger Bank, will become more vulnerable.
Amendments 74 and 77 list the following laws that are part of the legal framework protecting our waterways from pollution: the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994; the Bathing Waters Regulations 2013; the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017; the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010; and the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018. Those regulations provide the legislative underpinning for efforts to protect and clean up our rivers.
The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 are important for keeping up the pressure on water companies and developers to provide sufficient primary waste water infrastructure to meet the needs of urban areas, especially when they are growing. If those regulations end up weaker as a result of the Bill, there will be an increased risk of insufficiently treated waste water from urban areas spreading pollution across the fresh water network. Weakening the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 and the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 would undercut the measures that drive frontline organisations, especially water companies, to take holistic action to improve water quality.
Stella Creasy
I pay testament to my hon. Friend for working through that list, and for introducing us all to the concept of killer shrimp. I am sure that we will have nightmares about them, as we might about the legislation and the Committee sittings.
I hope that we can find common ground in Committee, because many of us have had to deal with the consequences of animal welfare legislation in our constituencies, particularly in relation to avian flu. As a local MP, I never thought that I would say regularly, “Don’t touch the ducks!” but that has become a refrain in my community because of problems we have had with avian botulism and avian flu. That is why I am convinced that it is important we parliamentarians should understand legislation—just as we should the Schleswig-Holstein question—and the intricacies and details of the negotiations behind the laws that protect us.
I see that Regulation (EU) No 139/2013, which lays down the animal health conditions governing the importation of birds and their quarantine conditions, is up for deletion under the Bill. I know, however, that in Bosworth last year, Wealden earlier this year, and recently in Clwyd West, members of the Committee had the same experience and I have of bird flu in their constituency. They know about the importance of the regulation. We recognise the concern that if that regulation is simply torn up and no commitment is made to it, the means of addressing that very live issue in our communities is at stake. Consider the work that is done to protect our bird life, our wildfowl and other wildlife. In particular, consider the avian influenza prevention zones, which have had an impact in many constituencies across the House. All that work is underpinned by that EU regulation, so the idea of deleting it when we have such a live issue with bird flu in the UK causes concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred to the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018. Many of us will have seen the horrific case this week of the child who died in a damp property, but we also remember Ella Kissi-Debrah’s death in February 2013, which was found to be caused by acute respiratory failure and severe asthma. As MPs we deal with such issues—damp, mould, air quality—and complaints about them daily. The retained European law has underpinned the regulations and standards to which we have held our local authorities and, indeed, our national Government. Nobody is saying that that is why we should not have left the EU—that has happened. We are simply saying that deleting laws on such live issues without making a commitment to replace them creates uncertainty at a time when our constituents are asking for action on air quality and avian flu.
Anyone who has been an MP for any length of time also knows that when animal welfare issues come up in the House, our inboxes explode. It is an old chestnut. The Bill deletes all the protections offered on animal welfare, and brings back something that I have not seen since I was a teenager—not terrible ’90s fringes or blue lipstick, but live animal exports. I never thought that we would have to debate that again in the House, because I thought that there was agreement that we would not see that practice return. The Bill, however, deletes the very laws that made that debate go away and made clear what we wanted to see as a country. The Minister may say to us that the Government have no plans to remove such laws, but at the moment, the only plan on the table is the plan to remove them. That is the challenge here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West did an incredible job in setting out the range of laws at risk. Supporting the amendment would be the first step towards taking 3,500 laws, possibly more, that would need to be rewritten, off the table. There is common agreement. Perhaps I am naive, but I have yet to meet anyone in this place who wants to reinstate live animal exports, or battery farming for hens. Those are settled matters, and yet we will now have to find parliamentary time for them, unless we can pass the amendment and take those issues off the table.
I am sure that there were firm words among Ministers after the Statutory Instrument Committee that sat yesterday. My hon. Friend talked about REACH and the chemicals regulations. Those chemicals regulations, which were part of another piece of legislation, were not known to DEFRA officials. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said she knew that at least 800 pieces of legislation were up for grabs, but what that means in terms of the ability to do business next year, let alone in the years to come, is questionable. Taking major pieces of legislation off the table, including some that are not on the dashboard but we know will be affected by the Bill, will make the Government’s life simpler.
I plead with the Government to see sense, if not for the ducks in my local park, Lloyd Park, which are struggling, then for the hens and sheep that were being exported when I was a mere 15-year-old. Involvement in politics was then just a glint in my eye, but I was getting up early to shout at the docks. Those issues are not contentious, because there is a commitment to animal welfare across the House. Why would we put them up for grabs? Why would we raise the prospect of reducing our standards, or having to spend parliamentary time to rewrite regulations on them? Why not take those regulations off the table and move on? The point of the amendments is to take off the table the things that we all thought were not contentious. I suspect that our environmental colleagues who are listening in will hear this loudly.
If the Government do not do this, they are sending a clear message that they want to put these issues up for grabs, revisit old arguments, and water down animal welfare and conservation regulations, with all the chaos that will come with that. So many laws such as planning laws rest on those regulations. That is quite apart from the fact that colleagues in DEFRA are having nightmares about the effect on those 800 laws.
I hope that the Minister will give us some more positive news. She did not really take up my offer to suss out which employment protections the Government will absolutely keep, so that my constituents could be confident in supporting her, but perhaps she will do so on the environmental protections, and will reassure us that the ducks are safe and the killer shrimps will be defeated.
Ms Ghani
Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I will reject amendments 74 and 77. It has been an absolute joy to hear a new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North West, who shadows DEFRA. I have a couple of powerful responses to make to his points, but I will need time to go through them; as he knows, I am not a DEFRA Minister.
I do not understand why the Opposition are trying to create a huge amount of fear. Fundamentally, that comes from their standpoint of being part of the anti-Brexit brigade. We are simply trying to finally finish the process finally. As Members know, because I have said it many times, the Bill is enabling legislation. The measures in it, including the sunset, will provide for UK and devolved Ministers to make decisions to review, amend or repeal their REUL as they see fit. Where Ministers see fit, they have the power to preserve REUL that would otherwise be in scope of the sunset. That includes Ministers in the devolved Governments. There is no need to have specific exemptions. I am responding directly to amendments 74 and 77.
Secondary REUL that is outdated and no longer fit for purpose can be revoked or replaced. Such REUL can also be restated to maintain policy intent. As such, there is simply no need for any carve-outs for individual Departments, specific policy areas or sectors. REUL across all sectors of the economy in the UK is unfit for purpose, and it is right that it be reviewed and updated equally in all sectors and in the same timeframe.
A point was made about scrutiny. Departments will be expected to develop and deliver plans that outline their intention for each piece of retained EU law. The Brexit Opportunities Unit team will work with Departments to draw up those delivery plans and to ensure that the legislative process proceeds smoothly. The delivery plans will be subject to scrutiny via the internal Government or ministerial stock-take process. More information will follow, including on how to factor such processes into statutory instrument timetables.
There is no doubt that this is a considerable amount of work, but we do not enter politics or Government to be work-shy. The work will definitely be done. The sunset empowers all to think boldly about these regulations, and provides an impetus for Departments to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Turning to amendment 77, the Bill will allow Departments to unleash innovation, and will propel growth across every area of our economy. The power in clause 15 to revoke or replace is an important, cross-cutting enabler of reform. Exempting regulations associated with environmental protections from the power will reduce the genuine reform that the Bill sets out to deliver. The UK is a world leader when it comes to environmental protection. In reviewing our retained EU law, we want to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes. We remain committed to delivering on our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030. The Bill will not alter that. That is why we do not consider the proposed carve-out for environmental regulations to be necessary.
Alex Sobel
The Minister’s response reflects the scale of the task at DEFRA. Just last week, a question was asked of DEFRA on the topic of pesticide regulations. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries responded:
“We are currently working through Defra’s REUL to identify the actions we intend to take before the sunset date.”
I think the scale of the task is reflective of what is before DEFRA. From what the Minister has said, I am looking forward to this huge army of new civil servants who are going to arrive in DEFRA and do all this work before December 2023. We are just trying to retain and carve out some of the most important pieces of legislation—the ones the public will be most concerned about in terms of the regulation that they see as protecting them in their everyday life.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend will be aware that the former Secretary of State for DEFRA, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), bitterly fought the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in Cabinet in opposition to the sunset clause, and was worried about the impact on the Department and its capacity to deliver on it. Does my hon. Friend think that is because the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth had real concerns, or is it, as the Minister suggested, because he was workshy?
Alex Sobel
It was interesting to see the proclamations by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth on various aspects. I mentioned the Australia trade deal in my speech, and last week the right hon. Member was very derogatory about the terms of that trade deal for the UK and UK farmers. We are now hearing from him what really happened behind the scenes, and we are going to see an unfurling of some of the work that took place and the disagreements around the Cabinet table. I do not want to prejudge the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but we might hear about some of the consequences of the Government carrying on with this Bill. We might see some of the same commentary as that from the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth from other Members who have left ministerial offices. We have had a lot of churn recently, have we not?
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend think this is also a live issue for current DEFRA Ministers? In the Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday on the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations, the Minister was not able to say what would happen with them, given that the regulations are based on legislation that is not on the dashboard in some areas and on it in others. She could not give a commitment as to what would happen to those regulations post 2023. As DEFRA has most of the regulation, does he think that DEFRA Ministers probably have the most to offer in terms of understanding why taking some of these regulations off the rule book altogether would make life a lot simpler for them?
Alex Sobel
I do not want to rehash the debate we have already had, but we were talking about maybe as many as 500 or more regulations not currently on the dashboard, with effects that we cannot predict. I would not want to be a Minister in the Government staring down the line at that, but that is exactly what Ministers in DEFRA are doing, so they have my sympathy in that regard.
The 20 sets of regulations that we want to carve out represent a small fraction of the canon of DEFRA legislation that the Bill could sweep away at the end of next year or leave at risk of being weakened. Amendments 74 and 77 list only a tiny sample of the protections that could be swept away because of the reckless and incompetent approach the Government have chosen to take with this Bill. There are hundreds of items of retained environmental law, in a complex web sitting within and alongside domestic legislation, some with significant case law attached to them. The Minister is making the argument that the amendments are unnecessary, but I am looking to the future progress of the Bill and seeing how that will unfurl and how many of these Bills will potentially be swept away, whether by the present set of Ministers or those who might follow.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain retained EU law which provides for consumer protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 78, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for consumer protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Justin Madders
Now that we are done with the forces of nature, I will take Government Members to the edge of panic again with more of what they will consider to be scaremongering—this time, about consumer rights. We are not trying to worry anyone; we are just trying to protect the rules that are already in place.
Amendment 75 prevents key consumer regulations and legislation from falling off a legislative cliff edge in a little over a year’s time, and amendment 78 removes them from the scope of the powers to revoke without replacement in section 15 of the Bill. To be clear, neither of the amendments is designed to tie the hands of the Government; in fact, they could be seen as doing the opposite. Leaving barely a year to process all the retained EU law could be seen in itself as tying the hands of the Government, although they seem very comfortable with that at the moment. The amendments remove the hard deadlines for these key pieces of legislation, preventing them from being removed without replacement or being watered down. That will free the Government to find ways to improve upon these rights in a considered manner, and—as was argued during the referendum campaign—make the most of our freedom to move beyond EU regulations to better and more appropriately protect consumers’ rights. I cannot see how Conservative Members could oppose these amendments, but I have a feeling that we may again be disappointed.
Paragraphs (a) to (k) of amendment 75 deal with only a fraction of the consumer rights that come under the scope of the Bill. However, these are some of the most important rights to our consumers and constituents, and their presence on the list of rights subject to the sunset date will no doubt cause unnecessary uncertainty. Taking a lead from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, I will go through some of the legislation we are seeking to protect—I will probably not take quite as long as he did, but I will do my best.
First, the Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005 enact EU regulations that uphold rights in the commercial aviation sector. Its provisions include the right to compensation when flights are cancelled or delayed or boarding is denied, and giving priority to passengers who have a disability. I ask the Minister: are those rights meaningless red tape? They are important protections for Britain’s air passengers and should be maintained, not under the threat of being sunsetted in a year’s time without any replacement.
Of course, it is not just the protection of air passengers’ rights that falls under that sunset date. Key protections for Britain’s rail passengers are also included in the retained law that implements regulation 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council. It contains provisions that impact all aspects of taking a train in the UK, including, rather topically—I am sure many Members will be aware of this—stipulations on passengers’ right to receive compensation, and the amount of compensation they are entitled to, when a train is delayed or cancelled in the form of the Delay Repay system. That system is probably getting more visits than the Government’s retained law dashboard at the moment. The regulation also contains important rights to accessibility assistance at platforms and on train services, maintaining a lifeline for many of the people who rely on that form of transport. Why can the Government not accept that those rights should be retained?
Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of amendment 75 are all examples of how retained EU law protects the rights of our high street shoppers on a daily basis. The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 prevent shops from imposing surcharges that go beyond the coverage of costs; the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 are technical and sweeping, yet are crucial in protecting consumers from unsafe electrical equipment by setting standards for the testing of products and the voltages of appliances; and the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 impose minimum safety standards on products sold for children’s consumption.
The amendment does not only name consumer protections that maintain high-quality standards on products and services; it also deals with how to deal with disputes under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. Under those regulations, consumers have a clearer route for out-of-court settlements when they have a dispute over a product. In essence, they facilitate, through an impartial body, the ability to claim compensation. Given the amount of litigation that this Bill will generate, it is a good idea to continue to divert people away from the court process if an alternative is possible.
Stella Creasy
We come to a list of things that surely leads Members of different parties to think, “Of course we’re going to retain these pieces of legislation. Why even give it a second glance?” I am absolutely confident that Government Members will say to us, “Don’t scaremonger. Of course people will still be able to get compensation if their flight is delayed.” The trouble is that we do not have from the Government anything like a list of what will exist post 2023. That is the challenge, as these are probably the pieces of legislation that our constituents rely on most of all, because they deal with people’s everyday transactions. They are matters about which people get extremely agitated, because it feels incredibly unfair if someone’s flight is delayed or they suddenly discover that they have bought something that is faulty. People expect to be able to get redress as a matter of course.
In a former lifetime, I had the sheer joy of being the shadow consumer Minister. I encourage all Members to come shopping with me—if nothing else, most employers try to get me out of the shop quickly by offering a very good deal by the end of the transaction, because I was involved in writing the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These sorts of requirements shaped that piece of legislation, and they did so with good reason, because where is the partisan argument about the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016? We may disagree about the impact of workers’ rights on our economy—clearly, we do. Government Members did not want to save bank holidays, and that is their call, but surely we all agree that somebody should be able to plug in a toaster and not have it blow up or cause them harm, and that having regulations is not onerous but sets a level playing field. Most businesses, which are good actors, want to be confident that they will not be undercut by somebody selling faulty goods.
I know that the hon. Member for Bosworth will be relieved to hear that the regulations do not cover charging cables for phones and iPads—so they can play as much music as they like. However, they do cover whether goods are of a certain standard. Having goods of a certain standard is surely not something that we want to put up for grabs, because if we do, over the course of the next year—assuming that we find time for all the DEFRA pieces of legislation and for working out whether workers’ rights will be replaced or changed—we will then have to find time to deal with all these pieces of legislation.
Members may feel more strongly about some pieces of legislation than others. As I say, not being able to get a refund when someone has been mis-sold something, or has experienced a delay, is a cause of high concern for many people. Often, it is something that they will come to their Member of Parliament about, so I would not want to be the MP explaining that I had deleted people’s right to compensation and did not know what was going to come next. I would be giving a green light—unusually for some of these companies, because many of them operate with red lights.
Justin Madders
It just strikes me that the idea of someone coming to their Member of Parliament and saying, “This isn’t what we asked for, and we would like a refund,” is what we are dealing with in the Bill. I do not think that many people who voted to leave the European Union voted to remove all the laws that we are talking about.
Stella Creasy
I would certainly be happy to refer them to any consumer champion, because I think they would have a very strong case that they were not getting compensation in reasonable time and in a reasonable format, which is obviously what the Consumer Rights Act—it is a piece of UK legislation, but it echoes the requirements—does.
There are other things on the list, which is not comprehensive but is authoritative—after all, we have been told that that is acceptable—about the sorts of things that surely we should all want to put beyond doubt, such as when people’s pensions are at risk. We have all had cases in our constituencies of pensioners whose pensions were put at risk. They may have worked for companies that went bust, and now they need protection. I absolutely want to take up the challenge about not frightening vulnerable people. The pension protection fund itself would not disappear, because that is part of UK legislation, but the challenge is that the Bauer and Hampshire judgments set out what that fund can do. The issue is not that there would not be someone to whom we could refer our constituents, but let us be clear: if we delete the relevant legislation and do not replace it, that organisation will start to query what it can do to help our constituents. That may mean that they end up with a lower level of compensation.
It could be the same when it comes to people having their flight or train delayed. The Delay Repay claims have given most people a level of certainty and confidence about their travelling, and I think we all want to see that reinforced—we all think people should have a fair deal. Why would we therefore spend parliamentary time rewriting something that works? Why would we put up for grabs the amount that people can be charged for using a debit card, when many of our constituents are trying to use them to manage their finances because there is too much month at the end of their money? Why would we do that?
Why would we again put the content of chocolate up for grabs? Come on. We have seen what happened to Cadbury; we have all tasted the difference. Anyone here knows the limitations of Hershey. Yet here we are again, rewriting laws that we brought in to protect things so that consumers could have confidence and go about their business every day. That is the point about all this. It is not about leaving the EU; that has happened. It is not about an objection to leaving the EU; that debate has happened. It is about an objection to deleting laws we all agree on, and the waste of time that the legislation creates, especially in terms of consumer protection.
Again, I offer the hand of friendship to the Minister, although I am sure she will bite it off with glee at this point in the afternoon. If she can tell us precisely what will replace the regulations listed in the amendment, and commit that our constituents will retain the protection of those standards, she will have my support. That is the purpose of the amendments. If she can tell us what will happen to the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, she will have our support, because people want that certainty. The parts of EU law to which the amendment relates refer to those bits of everyday life where people do not want the headache of uncertainty. I hope that the Minister will take up that offer, finally, as we consider the third list of regulations.
Now that we have been through some of the laws in question, I hope the Minister’s colleagues understand what is at stake. This might be a process, but we must remember the impact of it and the uncertainty that it creates. There is a risk that Ministers and MPs will sign off a piece of legislation only to find themselves having to explain to their constituents, “Ah yes, I was told that there wouldn’t be a dilution of your rights to compensation, but the Minister came forward with a change and, like with those pesky EU regulations I said I could not amend, the Minister has told me that I’ve got to like it or lump it.” Remember, the Bill does not offer any scope for amendment. I do not think Conservative Members would want to be in that constituency surgery explaining to somebody that, if they have been done over by Mastercard, they have been done over, or that their chocolate will have to taste bitter. That would be a bittersweet conversation.
Ms Ghani
I urge the Committee to reject amendments 75 and 78. The issue of scrutiny has come up again, and I find myself repeating that, as well as the dashboard, Departments will be expected to develop a delivery plan to outline their intention for each piece of retained EU law. I will try to go through each of the points raised to satisfy some of the questions.
A question was raised about electrical equipment and toy safety. Our current product safety framework is largely a mix of retained EU law, domestic law and industry standards. As a result, it can be complex and difficult to understand. The Government remain committed to protecting consumers from unsafe products being placed on the market now and in the future. Although the Bill is unlikely to give us the powers needed to implement a new framework, we hope that the powers in it will make it possible to amend or remove outdated EU-derived regulations and give us the ability to make some changes to reduce burdens for business.
Justin Madders
Can the Minister give us some examples of those outdated regulations?
Ms Ghani
That is the beauty of each Department putting together their delivery plan. Their own teams will be able to put forward the pieces of REUL that they will assimilate, update or remove. That is the beauty of the programme; it works across each Department.
A question was raised about consumer disputes. The Government are committed to a consumer rights framework that protects consumers and drives consumer confidence, while minimising unnecessary cost to business. Core consumer protections, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, remain unaffected by the REUL Bill. The Government will maintain their international commitments on consumer protection. We will bring forward proposals to address REUL that impacts consumer protection using the powers in the Bill or other available legislative instruments. The UK regime sets some of the highest standards of consumer protection in the world, and this will continue to be the case.
Ms Ghani
As I mentioned earlier, it is up to Departments and devolved Administrations as to what they would do on specific pieces of policy. The Bill creates the tools for Departments. Plans will be approved by a Minister of the Crown—I know that Opposition Members object to that—or a devolved authority where appropriate, and will be shared when ready, given that this is an iterative process that is still ongoing. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw the amendment.
Justin Madders
I think we got a real mix there of things that the Government intend to continue with, but also—I am particularly concerned about how this relates to the Bauer judgment—things that they do not wish to continue with. But the underlying theme, the stock answer or explanation, was that Departments will put forward their delivery plans in respect of these REULs in due course, and that simply is not good enough.
Stella Creasy
Given that the Minister would not let me intervene on her earlier, I want to clarify that she appeared to give us our first piece of evidence about what the Government intend to do with this Bill, when she said that they do not intend to continue with the Bauer and Hampshire judgments, which require pension protection funds to pay out half the value of people’s pension if their employer goes bust. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have finally seen, for the first time today, what the consequences of this legislation are? That is why we are all so worried: because protection for employees is being withdrawn by this Government. The Minister has just confirmed that—perhaps she wants to intervene to say that that is not the case, although that is what she said, and she does not look like she is about to get up. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that at least now we have seen why we should all be so worried by this legislation?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It has taken us perhaps five or six hours to get to that point. We now finally see why we are right to be concerned about this process, why it is important that we put in proper scrutiny safeguards, and why we want to see certain pieces of legislation exited from the Bill so that they are not lost. Pension protection is an important issue. My predecessor, the late Andrew Miller, did an awful lot in that regard when he represented Ellesmere Port and Neston. An awful lot of people in my constituency have benefited from the Pension Protection Fund. If we are to see a reduction, we will no doubt explore that with the relevant Department. For now, we will do our bit to protect these regulations and the others mentioned in the amendment by pressing it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ms Ghani
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “instrument” insert—
“, or a provision of an instrument,”.
This amendment and Amendment 3 provide that the revocation of a provision of an instrument does not affect any amendment made by the provision to any other enactment.
Ms Ghani
As hon. Members know from this morning, the clause is the backbone of the Bill, ensuring that EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation will all be removed or reformed by 31 December 2023. Specifically, the amendment will ensure that the Bill’s sunset does not impact on amendments to primary legislation inserted by retained EU law that is now in scope of the sunset. As drafted, the Bill provides for that to be the case only where an entire instrument is revoked by the sunset. This Government amendment provides that the revocation of a particular provision of an instrument does not affect any amendment made by the provision to any other enactment. Sunsetting amendments to primary legislation is not our aim with the Bill. We clearly rule that out of the Bill’s scope. I ask the Committee to join me in voting for the amendment.
Turning to Government amendment 3, further clarity is required to ensure that, where the preservation power under clause 1(2) has been exercised, it is REUL as it exists at the time of the sunset that is preserved. Without amendment 3, there is a risk that modifications to a piece of REUL made after it has been preserved, but before the sunset date, would unintentionally be subject to the sunset. The amendment will ensure that the modification is also preserved. As such, it is minor and technical but ensures the necessary clarity that REUL is preserved as intended, with necessary amendments or restatements.
Peter Grant
The Government have admitted that, even before we decide on clause 1, three important parts of what the Minister described as a fundamentally important clause need to be amended, because the Government got it wrong. How can we be confident that, in less than a year, 4,000-plus statutory instruments will be amended, revoked or replaced without similar mistakes being identified when it is too late and the defective legislation is already in place, with no other choice but to amend them in a Public Bill Committee?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman might have been in Parliament longer than I have and might have sat on Committees longer than I have, but it is not unusual to amend pieces of legislation in Committee. I have known that in legislation from many Departments. It is not unusual; it is just the process that we are in.
Ms Ghani
Government amendment 4 clarifies the power to make transitional provisions for the sunset. Transitional provisions are provisions that regulate transition from the existing law to the law as it will be amended by the Bill. For instance, transitional provisions could be made to ensure that laws that fall away after the sunset will continue to apply to certain types of ongoing contracts after the sunset date if the contracts were entered into on the basis of those laws applying. Consequently, the amendment ensures consistency for businesses and citizens following the sunset’s effects. That is highly important, given the role the Bill will play as a key driver for growth. I trust that Committee Members will support consistency and growth for British business and citizens, and I ask them to support these amendments.
Justin Madders
I will not speak for long. Will the Minister explain what the procedure will be, particularly for dealing with amendments to regulations under Government amendment 4? That is important. I think I understood the Minister’s train of thought, but if she could explain what that process will be and what opportunity there will be for parliamentary scrutiny, I would be grateful.
Stella Creasy
The Minister is not allowing questions, so will she provide clarification? It is absolutely normal to have amendments to legislation, but it is not normal to delete all the legislation and then try to amend in a lacuna. Will she clarify whether she recognises that these amendments need to be put forward because the legislation, as currently drafted, is not correct? She will know of other legislation that has had to be drafted—indeed, statutory instruments have come forward. What provision—what backstop or safety net—is in place, should something be deleted and should a change need to be made by this legislation in that absence? Will that law remain on the statute book, or will we simply see potentially thousands of amendments needing to be made but no legislation to be amended? If the Minister could take questions, she could probably reassure all of us on these questions. I do not think they are unreasonable ones to ask—she has raised the point.
Peter Grant
Before the comments from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Minister thought she was winning the argument. She said that there was nothing unusual in legislation having to be amended by the Government in Committee. That is exactly the problem. It is not unusual; in fact, it is almost inevitable. It is happening so many times in this 23-clause Bill, which runs to 30-something pages, but we are expected to believe that anything up to 4,000 pieces of legislation can be wiped out and that they will all be properly and adequately replaced, when this Public Bill Committee stage, which is allowing the defects in the original Bill to be corrected, will be removed from all of them. That is why this is such a reckless and cavalier way to go about changing the laws of these islands. We are not talking about one or two pieces of secondary legislation being introduced to replace or amend what was there before. We are talking about thousands of pieces of legislation needing to be enacted to replace a blank set of paper—in order to replace complete anarchy. Does the Minister now understand that that is why, with the best will in the world, the civil servants will not get them all right? If we go ahead with clause 1 and the rest of the Bill, as the Minister insists, there will be defects in the legislation that is put in place. Bits will be missed out that no one wanted to miss out. Businesses will suffer as a result.
Ms Ghani
Another question about scrutiny. Thank goodness that we are having this debate and legislating in the UK, where there is an opportunity to scrutinise and have everything on record in Hansard.
Let me go through the process again. Departments will be expected to develop a delivery plan, which will outline their intention for each piece of retained EU law. They will be supported by the Brexit Opportunities Unit. There will be a huge amount of outreach and stock-take process in place. To go through the process further, the Bill will obviously go from here to Report stage and then to the House of Lords. There will be a huge amount of scrutiny throughout. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, work on reform will continue in Departments. They will review their retained EU law, prioritise areas for reform and lay statutory instruments where appropriate. That process may include designing policy and services; conducting stakeholder consultations; drafting impact assessments; or supporting individuals who may be impacted by any such reform. That is the level of work that we always conduct when we are legislating.
On the question about the statutory instrument programme, and how the House will have sight, the Government recognise the significant role that Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments to date and are committed to ensuring the appropriate scrutiny of any legislation made under the delegated powers in the Bill. The Bill will follow the appropriate scrutiny procedures as it progresses through Parliament. It is right that we ensure that any reforms to retained EU legislation receive the proper scrutiny from the relevant legislatures and are subject to the proper processes for consultation and impact assessment.
Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, work on reform by Departments will continue. They will review their retained EU law, prioritise areas for reform and lay SIs before Parliament where appropriate. A sifting procedure has been included to ensure that Parliament can assess the suitability of the procedure used for SIs. Parliament can recommend stronger scrutiny procedures as needed. I hope that is thorough enough.
Peter Grant
I do not want to detain the Committee much longer, but I cannot support clause 1. It is not just about me not accepting that this Parliament has the right to take my people out of an international union that they voted to be part of. It is about the fact that even if we accept that there is no way back into the European Union—even if we accept that Brexit has to be a process of substantially distancing ourselves from it—this is not the right way to go about it.
It is perfectly possible, as others have said, to set up a process that allows retained EU law that gets in the way to be revoked, repealed or amended, but that allows good EU law to be maintained and adopted into domestic legislation, without running the risk of having to start from a blank sheet of paper and replace 40-years of legislation in the space of a few months.
The briefing paper to the late Queen’s Speech that the Government produced to set out the background to the Bill talked about using the Bill to assert the sovereignty of Parliament. Well, quite clearly, the Government do not understand that this Parliament never has exerted, and never will exert, sovereignty over the people of Scotland. If the Bill was to progress with clause 1 as it is, it would not be asserting the sovereignty of Parliament; it would be asserting the sovereignty of the Prime Minister and the Government Chief Whip. They will decide what goes in the legislation, they will decide who presents that legislation to Parliament and they will decide what Minister gets the boot if they do not support the necessary changes. That is not about the sovereignty of Parliament; it is about the sovereignty of the Executive—of the Prime Minister and Chief Whip in particular.
If we look at that briefing on the important aspects of the Bill, we see red flags all over the place because it is about short-circuiting the parliamentary process. The Government’s own assessment is that, if we were to take this retained EU law through a proper process of parliamentary scrutiny, it would take decades to get through. I am not necessarily saying that we should wait decades for the process to be completed. But taking a process of decades—by implication, that is 20 years at least—and squeezing it into a single year, and especially a single year when the Government are dealing with the impacts of the war in Ukraine, the after-effects of covid and the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, is not a responsible way for the Government to make legislation.
I will be opposing clause 1. If people believe that that will wreck the Bill, then this is a Bill that has to be wrecked. The Government have to be told to go back and bring forward a Bill that achieves what most Members in this House now seem to want, but that does so in a way that does not expose all of us—and those who elected us—to risks that we cannot yet even identify because they could come out of legislation that nobody here knows exists. It would be madness to repeal a piece of legislation that we do not even know is there.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “Minister of the Crown” and insert “relevant national authority”.
This amendment provides devolved assemblies the power to make the decision to delay the sunset of legislation, and not just a Minister of the Crown.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Scottish Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
New clause 5—Extension of sunset to 2026 under section 1 by Scottish Ministers—
“(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide that section 1, as it applies in relation to a specified instrument or a specified description of legislation within section 1(1)(a) or (b), has effect as if the reference in section 1(1) to the end of 2023 were a reference to a later specified time.
(2) In subsection (1) “specified” means specified in the regulations.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not specify a time later than the end of 23 June 2026.”
This amendment would give the Scottish Ministers a power to extend the sunset date for devolved retained EU law equivalent to that conferred on a Minister of the Crown by Clause 2 of the Bill.
New clause 6—Extension of sunset to 2029 under section 1 by Scottish Ministers—
“(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide that section 1, as it applies in relation to a specified instrument or a specified description of legislation within section 1(1)(a) or (b), has effect as if the reference in section 1(1) to the end of 2026 were a reference to a later specified time.
(2) In subsection (1) “specified” means specified in the regulations.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not specify a time later than the end of 23 June 2029.”
This new clause confers a power on the Scottish Ministers to modify the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation may take effect, to a date no later than 23 June 2029.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long. We have ventilated a lot of the arguments about amendment 72 already in relation to why the 2023 deadline —or cliff edge—is unacceptable. The amendment would give the power that UK Government Ministers feel able to retain for themselves to extend the cliff edge to 2026 to the devolved authorities. There is no reason why we should have a different approach in the devolved authorities from that of the UK Government. Again, when we get into questions of devolved competency, it is clearly appropriate that those provisions should apply to devolved nations as well. We have already discussed these issues at length so I will not detain the Committee any longer.
Brendan O’Hara
I shall speak to amendment 31, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. The amendment is crucial and goes to the heart of the whole debate. It seeks to clarify exactly which provisions the UK Government consider devolved and would therefore fall under the competence of Scottish Ministers, and which provisions would be reserved to the UK Secretary of State.
When this place passed the Scotland Act 1998, it listed areas of competence that were reserved. Everything that was not on that list was considered to be devolved. Yet in terms of the Bill, and with particular reference to the Government’s published dashboard, remarkably we still do not know exactly which areas the UK Government regard as reserved and which they consider to be wholly devolved.
Of course, it could be argued with some justification that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 knowingly created that confusion, and deliberately blurred the hitherto clear lines of demarcation between powers that had been devolved and powers that were reserved. Prior to the passing of the 2020 Act, it had long been accepted that environmental health, food standards and animal welfare were wholly devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but since its passing we have seen a significant encroachment by the UK Government and Ministers into policy areas that hitherto have been wholly devolved. That not only goes completely against the spirit of devolution, but directly contravenes the Sewel convention, which in 2016 was given statutory footing in the 1998 Act.
As a result, the Bill, in tandem with the 2020 Act, threatens to further undermine the devolution settlement by giving primacy to UK law in areas that have been wholly devolved, meaning that legislation passed in the Scottish Parliament to keep us in lockstep with European Union regulations could be overruled by the Government in Westminster, so I have a number of questions for the Minister. If the Scottish Parliament decides that we will remain aligned to the European Union and re-ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place decides that cheap imported chlorine-washed chicken is acceptable, will the Scottish Parliament have the power to stop lorryloads of chlorinated chicken crossing the border and appearing on our supermarket shelves—yes or no?
Similarly, should the UK agree a trade deal that allows the importation of hormone-injected meat, but the Scottish Parliament decides to protect Scottish consumers and farmers by adhering to the standards and protections that we have now, can the Minister guarantee that under the provisions of the Bill the Scottish Government will be able to prevent hormone-injected meat from reaching Scotland’s supermarkets—again, yes or no? If we decide to retain long-established best practice in the welfare and treatment of animals entering the food chain but Westminster chooses to deregulate, will she give a cast-iron guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will be able to stop animals whose provenance is unknown and whose welfare history is unaccounted for from entering the food chain—again, yes or no?
Under the terms of the devolution settlement, the answer to all those questions should be an unequivocal yes, but despite us and the Scottish Government asking several times, we have been unable to get those guarantees. That is why amendment 31 is vital. I would be enormously grateful if the Minister could give clear, precise and unambiguous answers to my questions.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject the amendments and new clauses. Amendments 72 and 31 seek to make the power to extend available to devolved authorities as well as Ministers of the Crown. That power, exercisable under clause 2, will allow Ministers of the Crown to extend the sunset for specified pieces and descriptions of in-scope REUL, both in reserved and devolved areas, up to 23 June 2026. We therefore do not consider it necessary for the power to be conferred on the devolved authorities.
Conferring the power on the devolved Governments would introduce additional legal complexity, as it may result in different pieces and descriptions of REUL expiring at different times in different jurisdictions in the UK, across both reserved and devolved policy areas. I am sure that hon. Members understand how that would create a lot of confusion. Ministers of the Crown will also have the ability to legislate to extend pieces or descriptions of retained EU legislation in areas of devolved competence on behalf of devolved Ministers. That is to minimise legal complexity across the jurisdictions, as previously described.
Turning to the new clauses, the Bill already includes an extension power in clause 2. There is no need for an additional extension power solely for Scottish Ministers. Moreover, new clause 6 would change the sunset extension date from 23 June 2026 to 23 June 2029, in effect allowing REUL and revoked direct EU legislation otherwise subject to the sunset date to remain on our statute book in some form until the end of the decade. We have every intention of completing this ambitious programme of REUL reform by 31 December 2023. However, we are aware that complex reforms sometimes take longer than expected, and we will need to consult on new regulatory frameworks that will work best for the UK.
Brendan O’Hara
Could the Minister clarify the answer she has given? I think she said that because of the confusion that could arise from different regulatory frameworks operating in different Parliaments and different jurisdictions, UK law will take primacy, and there would be nothing that the Scottish Government could do to prevent us from having chlorinated chicken, hormone-injected beef or animals of questionable provenance. I am not clear on that; I am looking for a simple yes or no.
Ms Ghani
Well, it was not a simple question, and it was full of contradictions. During debates on previous amendments, we have spoken to the high levels of animal welfare that we have here in the UK, and the level of scrutiny that will take place.
To the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, conferring the extension power on the devolved Governments would introduce additional legal complexity. Specifically, it might result in different pieces and descriptions of retained EU law expiring at multiple different times in different Administrations across the UK. Those pieces of retained EU law may cover a mix of reserved and devolved policy areas, and policy officials are still working through how the extension power will work in practice, but we are committed to working collaboratively with devolved officials. I am keen to discuss this policy as it progresses to ensure that the power works for all parts of the UK. The amendment would work against everything we are trying to achieve through the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw it.
Peter Grant
The Minister’s clarification in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute’s questions has been about as clear as mud. On the basis of that response, I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will stick to his guns, move his amendment and push it to a vote. Either the Minister genuinely does not get devolution, or she gets it and is trying to roll it back, because the whole point of devolution is the recognition that there are four distinct identities, at the very least—four distinct sets of needs and priorities—within the four nations of this Union. Arguably, England could be split into several autonomous regions as well if the people of those parts of England so desired.
I think the fault line is that the Minister continually expects the people of Scotland to be reassured when she says, “This is not what the Government intend to do with this new power. This is not what the Government intend to do with this new legislation.” I mean nothing personal against this particular Minister when I tell her that the people in Scotland do not trust this Government. The people in Scotland have never trusted a Tory Government and never will, so if the reassurance that the Minister wants to give my constituents and constituents of other colleagues in Scotland is “We promise you that although we’ve got this power, we will not do it to you”, that will not be enough. The one way to make that promise credible is to say, “We are so determined not to do this to you that we are not going to take the power that would allow us to do it. We are going to make a law that would prevent us from doing that.”
The Minister still has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute’s questions, so maybe I can ask them in a different way. Who does she believe should have the right to decide whether chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef should be allowed to be sold in shops in Scotland? Is that a decision that rightfully belongs with the Parliament of Scotland, or does it belong to this place?
Justin Madders
To follow on from what the hon. Member for Glenrothes has said, I think the Minister misunderstands the point of devolution if her main argument against these amendments is that we cannot have different deadlines and laws in different jurisdictions. The whole point of devolution is that each devolved nation is able to decide the laws that sit within its devolved competence. I will not push our amendment to a vote, but the answers we have received this evening are pretty inadequate.
Brendan O’Hara
We will press amendment 31 to a vote. I am far from satisfied with the answer that the Minister provided. We recognise that there is a power grab taking place and this Government are coming for the powers of our Parliament.
Shortly before Second Reading, I met the National Farmers Union Scotland in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. It recognises that this legislation is a potential death sentence for the Scottish agricultural sector. In rural areas, such as my constituency, the farmers require a hefty subsidy to manage the land, keep their lights on, provide employment and stem rural depopulation, while producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb and dairy products. This legislation is a death sentence for Scottish agriculture.
Tomorrow morning I will again meet a delegation from the National Farmers Union Scotland here in Westminster, and I will be sorry to have to report to them that we have received no assurances whatsoever about the protections that this vital industry needs. That is why it is essential that we push amendment 31 to a vote.
Justin Madders
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Scottish Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”—(Brendan O’Hara.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “2026” and insert “2029”.
This amendment changes the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation may be extended to, up to a final deadline of 23 June 2029.
Brendan O’Hara
The amendment is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. It seeks to extend the date at which revocation can take place to 23 June 2029.
As we have heard from many, many hon. Members, this Bill is a bad piece of legislation that has been badly drafted and ill conceived. As I have said, we will vote against it, as we have throughout this Bill Committee, and as we will again when it returns to the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes has laid out in pretty thorough detail what a confused mess of a Bill this is, both in terms of what it is trying to achieve and how it has been so hurriedly thrown together. That is why we will soon get on to Government amendments that seek to correct basic mistakes. As my hon. Friend correctly pointed out a few moments ago, if there are that many mistakes in this legislation, goodness knows what is yet to appear and what will be missed in the coming 13 months if we are to stick to the insane timeline that the Government are working to.
Having said that we will oppose the Bill every step of the way, we feel duty-bound to highlight its most glaring deficiencies and to suggest amendments. If the Bill has to pass, it should do so in a form that does the least damage to the people who will have to live with its consequences.
It is in that spirit that we tabled amendments 32 and 29. Amendment 32 would remove clause 2(3) entirely, and amendment 29 would change the final deadline from 2026 to 23 June 2029. As we have heard many times today, arbitrary, self-imposed deadlines are rarely, if ever, useful. I again suggest, as many others have, that Government Members canvass the opinion of the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth on arbitrary, self-imposed deadlines.
The cliff edge makes no sense whatsoever. It appears to have been inserted into the Bill by the zealots who were then in charge of the ship, and were merrily steering it on to the rocks, as a way of preventing cooler, more rational heads from looking at the Bill and coming to the same conclusion as the rest of us: it is unworkable, ideologically driven madness. If the Bill is to work, there must be adequate time for its provisions to be put in place.
Surely all but the true believers will see the sense in the amendment. Although it would not improve the substance or intent of the Bill, it would allow for a far more reasonable timescale, and would ensure that mistakes are not made, or that when they are people are not left exposed, which will almost inevitably happen given the way the Bill is currently written; things will almost certainly be missed, and will fall off the statute book. I encourage the Minister to see this as a helpful amendment to a thoroughly rotten Bill. It is an attempt to make the Bill ever so slightly less unpalatable.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject amendments 32 and 29. In short, they delay and deny Brexit. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has said himself, he opposes every step of the Bill. Amendment 32 would leave out clause 2(3), which would remove the extension mechanism’s deadline, and effectively allow retained EU law to be extended for ever more. Amendment 29 would push the date to 2029. Conservative Members are here to deliver Brexit, not to deny it. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the Minister for her answer. As I have often said, it satisfies me not one jot, but I understand and was expecting that answer. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
It is nice to see you this afternoon, Ms Elliott. I look forward to proceeding in order for some parts of this afternoon sitting.
Clause 160 details the Bill’s territorial extent. In preparing the Bill, both Ministers and officials have engaged extensively with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that we tackle economic crime and strengthen corporate transparency across all of the United Kingdom. The measures in the Bill extend to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Some of its provisions have a lesser extent, where they amend existing legislation that extends only to one or two different parts of the UK. In the opinion of the UK Government, the Bill makes some provision for areas within the devolved competence of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the Bill respects the devolution settlements and, where relevant, legislative consent motions are being sought from the devolved Administrations.
Clause 161 sets out procedural detail for the commencement of the Bill’s provisions. It stipulates the various dates when, and conditions under which, the various sections and subsections will come into force. The Secretary of State can make regulations that set the date for certain provisions to come into force. Different days may be appointed for different purposes. The Secretary of State can also make transitional or savings provisions for regulations made under certain clauses, as set out in the Bill. Any regulations made under the clause are to be made by statutory instrument.
Clause 162 establishes that the title of the Bill once it becomes an Act will be the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. The short title is a standard clause in any Bill.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott.
I have a few limited remarks to make as we approach the end of clause-by-clause consideration and before we move on to new clauses. As the Minister said, clause 160 extends the Bill to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I was grateful for his comments about liaison with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. There are obviously current challenges in respect of the Northern Ireland Executive. I would be grateful for some clarity about how the engagement with the devolved Administrations is going, because it has been a theme, certainly during the earlier debates. It is important that we can have confidence that all the issues that are being raised in our deliberations are coming into the Bill.
Clause 161 sets out when the Bill’s provisions will come into force. I am sure the Minister will want to give assurances that that will be no later than is absolutely necessary, bearing in mind the urgency of the measures. Clause 162 establishes the short title and we welcome it.
Tom Tugendhat
Different devolved Administrations have been contacted in different ways. Some of them have been written to, and I have sought conversations with some, although that has not always been achieved because of other people’s diaries as well as my own. The conversation is ongoing and, although I hope the Bill will be passed soon, it will have to continue because many things are going to change over the coming years.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 160 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 161 and 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Change of addresses of officers of overseas companies by registrar
“In section 1046 of the Companies Act 2006 (overseas companies: registration of particulars), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) Where regulations under this section require an overseas company to deliver to the registrar for registration—
(a) a service address for an officer of the company, or
(b) the address of the principal office of an officer of the company,
the regulations may make provision corresponding or similar to any provision made by section 1097B or 1097C (rectification of register relating to service addresses or principal office addresses) or to provision that may be made by regulations made under that section.’”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Where an overseas company is required to provide a service address or principal office address for a director or secretary, this new clause enables regulations to be made conferring power on the registrar to change the address if it does not meet the statutory requirements or is inaccurate.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 2—Overseas companies: availability of material for public inspection etc.
Government new clause 3—Registered addresses of an overseas company.
Government new clause 4—Overseas companies: identity verification of directors.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. Government new clauses 1 to 4 will introduce delegated powers allowing for the application of the Companies House reform measures elsewhere in the Bill to overseas companies registered in the UK. In this context, an overseas company is one that is incorporated overseas but that has a physical establishment or branch in the UK. Under long-standing provisions in the Companies Act 2006, that presence brings with it certain obligations to register information with Companies House.
New clauses 1 to 3 allow for the making of regulations requiring overseas companies that have established a physical presence in the UK to provide an appropriate address for the overseas company, their directors or other officers, to the same standard required of domestic companies incorporated here in the UK. The aim is the same—to ensure that addresses and email addresses on the companies register are accurate and that documents sent to them will reach the companies concerned or their officers.
New clause 4 allows the application, through regulations, of identity verification requirements to directors of overseas companies operating in the UK. Through that, the Government seek to ensure that companies governed by the laws of other jurisdictions that operate in the UK are subject to identity verification requirements that are introduced by the Bill and will apply to UK companies. Regulations under the power will include requiring the delivery of statements or other information to the registrar. They will also include exemptions from identity verification on national security grounds.
The application of identity verification obligations through secondary legislation will allow the Government to adapt ID verification requirements at speed. Overseas companies who operate within the UK are only within limited control of UK law. UK legislation affecting them therefore needs to adapt more quickly to their changing circumstances than primary legislation would allow for.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak to the new clauses. The Minister has outlined the rationale for them, which is to bring some of the rules around overseas companies more in line with some other changes being made in the Bill. We welcome that, but I have a few questions.
New clause 1 outlines that where an overseas company is required to provide a service address or principal office address for a director or secretary, regulations can be made conferring power on the registrar to change the address if it does not meet the statutory requirements or is inaccurate. Who might determine whether the address is inaccurate? Is the expectation that the registrar finds that out or is that just about if something happens to be found out by chance? Is there any more information on how the power might be used to determine that an address is inaccurate?
New clause 2 confers a regulation-making power to require overseas companies to register information. The new clause makes it clear that the regulations can provide for the information to be withheld from public inspection and can confer a discretion on the registrar. We have had similar debates in Committee already. We will keep coming back to the question of the use of powers and the reporting on the use of those powers, particularly where information may be withheld. Would this be an example of a new power on the withholding of information from public inspection where the number of times it is used ought to be reported on? That would not need to give away details about whom the power had applied to, but it would help give an overall view of how the powers in the Bill were being used.
Under new clause 3, new regulations would require overseas companies to provide and maintain an appropriate address and email address. Would those new regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure, assuming that they would be in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill? It was not fully clear to me whether some of these matters were included in the Bill or whether they were regulations to enable the measures to come in later. Will the Minister clarify that?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to, and I thank the hon. Lady for her points. As we have said during similar discussions, the registrar will have access to information; most of the queries that she will follow up will have come through information received during the course of her duties. It does not make sense for Companies House to physically validate all addresses, but nevertheless information may well come to light through the registrar’s work or the requirement for other bodies to share information with her if they feel that inaccurate information is on the register. That is how we anticipate that information will come forward.
I will not revisit the issue of national security other than to say that the power will be used sparingly and that we do not know what we do not know, so it is important that we have a provision that might be necessary in future.
Regulations under new clause 4 will correspond to regulations applying to UK companies made and debated by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. The extension to overseas companies would therefore not require additional scrutiny by Parliament and the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Overseas companies: availability of material for public inspection etc
“In section 1046 of the Companies Act 2006 (overseas companies: registration of particulars), after subsection (6A) (inserted by section (Change of addresses of officers of overseas companies by registrar) of this Act) insert—
‘(6B) Regulations under this section may include provision for information delivered to the registrar under the regulations to be withheld from public inspection.
(6C) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provision conferring a discretion on the registrar.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Section 1046 of the Companies Act 2006 confers a regulation-making power to require overseas companies to register information. The new clause makes it clear that the regulations can provide for the information to be withheld from public inspection and that they can confer a discretion on the registrar.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Registered addresses of an overseas company
“(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1048 insert—
‘1048A Registered addresses of an overseas company
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring an overseas company that is required to register particulars under section 1046 to deliver to the registrar for registration—
(a) a statement specifying an address in the United Kingdom that is an appropriate address for the company;
(b) a statement specifying an appropriate email address for the company.
(2) The regulations may include provision—
(a) allowing an overseas company to change the address or email address for the time being registered for it under the regulations;
(b) requiring an overseas company to ensure that the address or email address for the time being registered for it under the regulations is an appropriate address or appropriate email address.
(3) The regulations may include—
(a) provision for information contained in a statement specifying an appropriate email address to be withheld from public inspection;
(b) provision corresponding or similar to any provision made by section 1097A (rectification of register relating to a company’s registered office) or to provision that may be made by regulations made under that section.
(4) In this section—
“appropriate address” has the meaning given by section 86(2);
“appropriate email address” has the meaning given by section 88A(2).
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.’
(3) In section 1139 (service of documents on company), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
‘(2) A document may be served on an overseas company whose particulars are registered under section 1046—
(a) by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the company’s registered address, or
(b) by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the registered address of any person resident in the United Kingdom who is authorised to accept service of documents on the company’s behalf.
(3) In subsection (2) “registered address”—
(a) in relation to the overseas company, means the address for the time being registered for the company under regulations under section 1048A(1)(a);
(b) in relation to a person other than the overseas company, means any address for the time being shown as a current address in relation to that person in the part of the register available for public inspection.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Regulations under this new clause can require an overseas company to provide and maintain an appropriate address and appropriate email address. Broadly speaking, an address is appropriate if documents sent there will reach the company.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Overseas companies: identity verification of directors
“After section 1048A of the Companies Act 2006 (inserted by section (Registered addresses of overseas companies) of this Act) insert—
‘1048B Identity verification of directors
(1) This section applies in relation to an overseas company that is required to register particulars under section 1046.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of ensuring that each individual who is a director of such a company—
(a) is an individual whose identity is verified (see section 1110A), or
(b) falls within any exemption from identity verification that may be provided for by the regulations.
(3) The regulations may include provision—
(a) requiring the delivery of statements or other information to the registrar;
(b) for statements or other information delivered to the registrar under the regulations to be withheld from public inspection;
(c) applying section 167M (prohibition on director acting unless ID verified), with or without modifications;
(d) applying section 1110D (exemption from identity verification: national security grounds), with or without modifications.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Regulations under this new clause can impose identity verification requirements on the directors of overseas companies, corresponding to the requirements introduced by the Bill for directors of UK companies.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Rectification of register: service addresses
“(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1097A insert—
‘1097B Rectification of register: service addresses
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision authorising or requiring the registrar to change a registered service address of a relevant person if satisfied that the address does not meet the requirements of section 1141(1) and (2).
(2) In this section—
“registered service address”, in relation to a relevant person, means the address for the time being shown in the register as the person’s current service address;
“relevant person” means—
(a) a director of a company that is not an overseas company,
(b) a secretary or one of the joint secretaries of a company that is not an overseas company, or
(c) a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to a company (within the meanings given by section 790C).
(3) The regulations may authorise or require the address to be changed on the registrar’s own motion or on an application by another person.
(4) The regulations must provide for the change in the address to be effected by the registrar proceeding as if the company had given notice under section 167H, 279H or 790LC of the change.
(5) The regulations may make provision as to—
(a) who may make an application,
(b) the information to be included in and documents to accompany an application,
(c) the registrar requiring the company or an applicant to provide information for the purposes of determining anything under the regulations,
(d) the notice to be given of an application or that the registrar is considering the exercise of powers under the regulations,
(e) the notice to be given of any decision under the regulations,
(f) the period in which objections to an application may be made,
(g) how the registrar is to determine whether a registered service address meets the requirements of section 1141(1) and (2), including in particular the evidence, or descriptions of evidence, which the registrar may without further enquiry rely on to be satisfied that the address meets those requirements,
(h) the referral by the registrar of any question for determination by the court,
(i) the registrar requiring the company to provide an address to be registered as the relevant person’s service address,
(j) the nomination by the registrar of an address (a “default address”) to be registered as the relevant person’s service address (which need not meet the requirements of section 1141(1) and (2)),
(k) the period for which the default address is permitted to be the relevant person’s registered service address, and
(l) when the change of address takes effect and the consequences of registration of the change (including provision similar or corresponding to section 1140(5)).
(6) The provision made by virtue of subsection (5)(k) may in particular include provision creating summary offences punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) The regulations must confer a right on the company to appeal to the court against any decision to change the relevant person’s registered service address under the regulations.
(8) If the regulations enable a person to apply for a registered service address to be changed, they must also confer a right on the applicant to appeal to the court against a refusal of the application.
(9) On an appeal, the court must direct the registrar to register such address as the relevant person’s registered service address as the court considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
(10) The regulations may make further provision about an appeal and in particular—
(a) provision about the time within which an appeal must be brought and the grounds on which an appeal may be brought;
(b) further provision about directions by virtue of subsection (9).
(11) The regulations may include such provision applying (including applying with modifications), amending or repealing an enactment contained in this Act as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by the regulations.
(12) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’
(3) In section 1087 (material not available for public inspection), in subsection (1)(ga)—
‘(a) after “1097A” insert “, 1097B”;
(b) for “company registered office” substitute “registered office, service address”.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause confers a regulation-making power to enable the registrar to change a person’s registered service address. It is based on section 1097A of the Companies Act 2006, which makes similar provision in relation to a company’s registered office.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 11—Power to amend disqualification in relation to relevant entities: NI.
Kevin Hollinrake
Through other provisions in this Bill, a disqualified individual is prevented from acting as a general partner of a limited partnership. However, that would only cover individuals who have been disqualified for their actions as directors in a company. We also need to be able to disqualify general partners for their actions within a limited partnership. Currently, that cannot be done because the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 applies only to directors of companies and other limited corporate entities such as building societies and NHS foundation trusts. We would like to ensure that general partners are subject to the same requirements as directors. New clauses 10 and 11 therefore provide powers to update the 1986 Act and the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 to apply to limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships and Scottish partnerships.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to say a few words in support of new clauses 10 and 11. New clause 10 introduces new provisions allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the Company Directors Disqualification Act to relevant entities. The new clause outlines that these relevant entities include limited partnerships and Scottish limited partnerships. New clause 11 has the same effect and applies the same principles to the context of Northern Ireland. We welcome the new clauses, especially given our calls in Committee to extend directors disqualification criteria to limited partnerships.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Power to amend disqualification legislation in relation to relevant entities: NI
“(1) The Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 2(2) (interpretation), for the definition of ‘regulations’ substitute—
‘“regulations”, except in Articles 13D and 25D, means regulations made by the Department subject (except in Article 23(3)) to negative resolution;’.
(3) After Article 25C insert—
‘25D Power to amend application of Order in relation to relevant entities
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Order for the purpose of applying, or modifying the application of, any of its provisions in relation to relevant entities.
(2) For that purpose, the regulations may in particular—
(a) extend the company disqualification conditions to include corresponding conditions relating to a relevant entity;
(b) limit the company disqualification conditions to remove conditions relating to a relevant entity;
(c) modify which company disqualification conditions can, in combination with each other, result in a person being disqualified under this Order;
(d) provide for any of the company disqualification conditions to result in or contribute to a person being disqualified from acting in a role or doing something in relation to a relevant entity.
(3) In this Article “the company disqualification conditions” means the conditions that can result in or contribute to a person being disqualified under this Order from acting in a role or doing something in relation to any entity.
(4) In this Article a “relevant entity” means—
(a) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;
(b) a limited liability partnership registered under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000;
(c) a partnership, other than a limited partnership, that is—
(i) constituted under the law of Scotland, and
(ii) a qualifying partnership within the meaning given by regulation 3 of the Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008.
(5) Regulations under this Article may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.
(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of paragraph (5) includes provision amending provision made by or under either of the following, whenever passed or made—
(a) an Act;
(b) Northern Ireland legislation.
(7) Regulations under this Article are to be made by statutory instrument.
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Article may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the CDD(NI)O 2002 in relation to relevant entities, meaning that a person’s conduct in relation to relevant entities would lead to disqualification, and disqualifications in other circumstances would prohibit a person from acting in relation to relevant entities.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Required information about overseas entities: address information
“In the following provisions of Schedule 1 to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (which refer to an entity’s registered or principal office) omit ‘registered or’—
paragraph 2(1)(c);
paragraph 5(1)(b);
paragraph 6(1)(d);
paragraph 7(1)(b).”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause would mean that the required information that must be provided about an overseas entity, a corporate registrable beneficial owner or managing officer includes its principal office in all cases, rather than there being an option to provide its registered or principal office.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 13—Registration of information about land.
Government new clause 14—Registration of information about managing officers: age limits.
Government new clause 15—Registrable beneficial owners: cases involving trusts.
Government new clause 21—Enforcement of requirement to register: updated language about penalties etc.
Kevin Hollinrake
All the new clauses relate to the register of overseas entities. New clause 12 will mean that the required information that must be provided about an overseas entity, a corporate registrable beneficial owner or a managing officer will always include its principal office, rather than there merely being an option to provide its registered or principal office. The new clause will improve the quality of the information provided and align with the information required about other types of legal entities.
New clause 14 will ensure that overseas entities that provide the details of a managing officer who is under the age of 16, or who is a legal entity, must also provide details of a person who is more than 16 years old. This is to ensure that there is a person who can be contacted about the overseas entity, in addition to the relevant person who verified the information. It is possible that in jurisdictions outside the UK, individuals younger than 16 may be allowed to act as company directors, secretaries or equivalents. Directors of UK companies are required to be at least 16 years of age, so the new clause provides consistency by requiring the contact details of someone who is at least 16 years of age.
New clause 21 will update the language about penalties for non-compliance in section 34 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to reflect changes made by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. It will ensure consistency with the wording used in other clauses in the Bill.
New clause 13 will require overseas entities to include the title number for relevant interests in land that they hold in their application for registration, both when providing an update and when applying to be removed from the register. Overseas entities that are already registered will be required to provide this information when they next provide an update or, if sooner, when they apply to be removed from the register. The collection of this information will improve the effectiveness of the register and will help law enforcement agencies with their investigations. The information will not be made publicly available because the Government do not consider that to be appropriate, given privacy concerns.
Let me turn new clause 15. In advance of the launch of the register, the Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022 were made. Regulation 14 specified the circumstances in which a legal entity trustee is deemed to be
“subject to its own disclosure requirements”.
By virtue of a legal entity trustee being a registrable beneficial owner, the overseas entity must provide the required information about the trust and persons connected to it, such as beneficiaries, settlors and interested persons.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
This is an issue for clarification, because it impacts on whether we move our new clause 59. Will the information that we are now going to get about trustees and beneficiaries be made public? Will it be open to the public in the same way as other information about beneficial owners is open to the public? I ask because that is what our new clause would achieve.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will deal with that, if I can, as I go through. Essentially, trusts are often there to protect the identity of vulnerable persons, so I am not sure that the provision will do what the right hon. Member wants to do in her new clause, but we can probably discuss that when we discuss her new clause.
Kevin Hollinrake
Without regulation 14, if the corporate trustee were not subject to its own disclosure requirements, the overseas entity would have to “look through” the legal entity trustee to find a registrable beneficial owner higher up the chain of ownership. But in the situations we are talking about it is information about the trust that is wanted, rather than information about the ownership or control of the legal entity trustee. Currently, regulation 14 therefore ensures that Companies House, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and law enforcement agencies receive the information about the trust and persons connected to it, which I think may be the point that the right hon. Member raises and which is much more useful to meet the aims of the register.
New clause 15 goes further by ensuring that a legal entity acting as a trustee is always a registrable beneficial owner whether or not it is “subject to its own disclosure requirements” and even if there is another registrable beneficial owner further down a chain of ownership. This maximises the transparency in respect of the involvement of a legal entity trust in a chain of ownership.
The provisions also provide a power to expand the description of persons who are registrable beneficial owners where the overseas entity is part of a chain of entities that includes a trustee. It is appropriate to have a power to expand the description, given that there may be complex arrangements that attempt to circumvent the requirements. The provisions revoke regulation 14 because it is no longer needed.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to make a few remarks on the new clauses which, certainly from the way the Minister has outlined them, are welcome, in that they require more information and transparency around overseas entities. We welcome all the new clauses in that regard. I do not propose to go through them—the Minister went through them in considerable detail—but I have a few comments.
On new clause 13—in fact, in relation to all the new clauses—we welcome the additional transparency. I make the point again that a particular reason for that is the large-scale abuse that we know has occurred and occurs through these rather opaque offshore corporate structures.
On new clause 14, it is welcome to have the threshold at 16 years old, but I want to clarify what that means. Can there technically be a managing officer who is under 16 but an individual who is over 16 and is a contact on their behalf? It would be helpful to know whether there could still technically be an officer who was 12, 13 or 14. It would be useful to have clarity on that.
On closing the potential loophole of beneficial owners avoiding scrutiny by acting as a trustee, it is important to have the information. I want to clarify whether it should be the same amount of information about those who have been avoiding scrutiny as trustees. Will that information be published so that third parties can search it and investigate for themselves?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I understand it, somebody under the age of 16 could be the managing officer, but we still require somebody over the age of 16 to be contactable. That is how we square that particular circle. It is not in our gift to legislate for how other jurisdictions describe directors of companies.
Forgive me, but I missed the hon. Lady’s second point. If she could restate it, I will try to address it.
Seema Malhotra
My second comment was about trustee information. New clause 15 expands the definition of “registrable beneficial owners” in part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 in relation to an entity one of whose beneficial owners is a trustee, such that the beneficial owner may be included. There is also a power to expand that definition further. It looks like it is closing a potential loophole that enables beneficial owners to avoid scrutiny through acting as a trustee. The question was about whether the new information about trustees will also be published, whether there will be full transparency and whether it will be searchable by any interested parties.
Kevin Hollinrake
Okay. That was a similar point to the one made by the right hon. Member for Barking. No, we do not feel that is right. We do not believe that trust information should be made publicly available, given that trusts are often used to protect vulnerable people. I reassure the hon. Lady that that information will be shareable with HMRC, law enforcement and other persons with functions of a public nature once the relevant regulations have been made.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Registration of information about land
“In Schedule 1 to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (required information), in paragraph 2—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (g) insert—
‘(h) if the entity is the registered proprietor of one or more qualifying estates in land in England and Wales, the title number of each of them;
(b) if the entity is the registered owner of one or more qualifying estates in Northern Ireland, the folio number in respect of each of them;
(c) if the entity is—
(i) entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for one or more plots of land that are registered in the Land Register of Scotland, or
(ii) the tenant under one or more leases registered in the Land Register of Scotland,
the title number of the title sheet, in respect of each of them, in which the entity’s interest is registered.’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
‘(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(h)—
“registered proprietor”, in relation to a qualifying estate, means the person entered as proprietor of the estate in the register of title kept by the Chief Land Registrar;
“qualifying estate” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A to the Land Registration Act 2002.
(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(i)—
“registered owner”, in relation to a qualifying estate, means the person registered in the register kept under the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.)) as the owner of the estate;
“qualifying estate” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 8A to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.
(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(j)—
(a) “lease”, “plot of land” and “proprietor” have the meanings given by section 113(1) of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012;
(b) the reference to an entity’s being entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of a title sheet is a reference to the name of the entity being so entered.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause requires an overseas entity, when applying for registration in the register of overseas entities or providing an update, to include the title number etc for relevant interests in land held by it. For entities already registered, it will operate when they next provide an update.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Registration of information about managing officers: age limits
“(1) Schedule 1 to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (applications: required information) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 6(1), after paragraph (f) insert—
‘(g) if the officer is under the age of 16 years old, the name and contact details of an individual who is at least 16 years old and is willing to be contacted about the officer.’
(3) In paragraph 7(1), for paragraph (g) substitute—
‘(g) the name and contact details of an individual who is at least 16 years old and is willing to be contacted about the officer.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause means that, where an application for registration as an overseas entity is required to provide details of a managing officer, there will be a requirement to include the name of an individual who is at least 16 years old and is willing to be contacted about the officer (unless the officer is an individual of at least that age).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Registrable beneficial owners: cases involving trusts
“(1) Schedule 2 to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (registrable beneficial owners) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
(2) In paragraph 3 (legal entities), in paragraph (b), after ‘(see Part 3)’ insert ‘or is a beneficial owner of the overseas entity by virtue of being a trustee’.
(3) In paragraph 8 (beneficial owners exempt from registration), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) the person is not a beneficial owner of the overseas entity by virtue of being a trustee,’.
(4) For the heading of Part 6 substitute ‘Powers to amend this Schedule’.
(5) Before paragraph 25 insert—
‘Expansion of meaning of “registrable beneficial owner” where trusts in view
24A (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Schedule so as to expand the description of persons who are registrable beneficial owners of an overseas entity in circumstances where the overseas entity is part of a chain of entities that includes a trustee.
(2) For these purposes an overseas entity is part of a chain of entities that includes a trustee if there is a legal entity which is a beneficial owner of it by virtue of being a trustee.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Power to amend thresholds etc’.
(6) Regulation 14 of the Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/870) (description of legal entity subject to its own disclosure requirements) is revoked.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause expands the definition of “registrable beneficial owner” in Part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 in relation to an entity one of whose beneficial owners is a trustee. There is also a power to further expand the definition.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Material unavailable for public inspection: verification information
“In section 16 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (verification of registrable beneficial owners and managing officers), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(d) requiring the registrar not to make available for public inspection certain information delivered to the registrar by virtue of the regulations.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Section 16 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 confers power to make regulations about identity verification. This new clause allows the regulations to provide that information provided under the regulations is protected from public inspection.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Material unavailable for public inspection
“For sections 22 to 24 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 substitute—
‘22 Material unavailable for inspection
(1) The following material must not, so far as it forms part of the register, be made available by the registrar for public inspection—
(a) so much of any application or other document delivered to the registrar under section 4, 7 or 9 as is required to contain—
(i) protected date of birth information;
(ii) protected residential address information;
(iii) protected trusts information;
(iv) the name or contact details of an individual provided for the purposes of section 4(1)(d), 7(1)(e) or 9(1)(f) or paragraph 6(1)(g) or 7(1)(g) of Schedule 1;
(v) an overseas entity’s email address (see paragraph 2(1)(e) of Schedule 1);
(vi) any title numbers or folio numbers in respect of land (see paragraph 2(1)(h), (i) and (j) of Schedule 1);
(b) any information that regulations under section 16 provide is not to be made available for public inspection;
(c) the following—
(i) any application or other document delivered to the registrar under regulations under section 25 (regulations protecting material), other than information provided by virtue of section 25(4);
(ii) any information which regulations under section 25 require not to be made available for public inspection;
(d) any application or other document delivered to the registrar under section 28 (administrative removal of material from the register);
(e) any court order under section 30 (rectification of the register under court order) that the court has directed under section 31 is not to be made available for public inspection;
(f) any statement delivered to the registrar by virtue of section 1067A(3) or (4) of the Companies Act 2006 (delivery of documents: identity verification requirements etc);
(g) any statement made in accordance with regulations made by virtue of section 1082(2)(c) of the Companies Act 2006 (statement of unique identifier);
(h) any document provided to the registrar under section 1092A of the Companies Act 2006 (power to require further information);
(i) any email address, identification code or password deriving from a document delivered for the purpose of authorising or facilitating electronic filing procedures or providing information by telephone;
(j) any record of the information contained in a document (or part of a document) mentioned in any of the previous paragraphs of this subsection;
(k) any other material excluded from public inspection by or under any other enactment.
(2) In this section—
“protected date of birth information” means information as to the day of the month (but not the month or year) on which an individual who is a registrable beneficial owner or managing officer of an overseas entity was born;
“protected residential address information” means information as to the usual residential address of an individual who is a registrable beneficial owner or managing officer of an overseas entity;
“protected trusts information” means the required information about a trust (see sections 4(3), 7(3) and (4) and 9(3) and (4).
(3) Information about a registrable beneficial owner or managing officer does not cease to be protected date of birth information or protected residential address information when they cease to be a registrable beneficial owner or managing officer.
(4) Where subsection (1), or a provision referred to in subsection (1), imposes a restriction by reference to material deriving from a particular description of document (or part of a document), that does not affect the availability for public inspection of the same information contained in material derived from another description of document (or part of a document) in relation to which no such restriction applies.
(5) The registrar need not retain material to which subsection (1) applies for longer than appears to the registrar reasonably necessary for the purposes for which the material was delivered to the registrar.
23 Disclosure of protected information
(1) The registrar must not disclose protected date of birth information, protected residential address information or protected trusts information unless—
(a) the disclosure is permitted by section 1110F of the Companies Act 2006 (general powers of disclosure by the registrar), or
(b) the information is required to be made available for public inspection (as a result of being contained in a document, part of a document, or record to which section 22(1) does not apply).
(2) In this section the following have the meaning given by section 22(2)—
“protected date of birth information”;
“protected residential address information”;
“protected trusts information”.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause replicates for the register of overseas entities a number of changes made by the Bill in relation to companies. It also extends the list of information unavailable for public inspection.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 18
Protection of information
“For section 25 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 substitute—
‘25 Power to make regulations protecting material
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the registrar, on application—
(a) not to make available for public inspection any information on the register relating to an individual;
(b) to refrain from disclosing information on the register relating to an individual except in specified circumstances;
(c) not to make available for public inspection any address on the register that is not information to which paragraph (a) applies;
(d) to refrain from disclosing any such address except in specified circumstances.
(2) The regulations may make provision as to—
(a) who may make an application;
(b) the grounds on which an application may be made;
(c) the information to be included in and documents to accompany an application;
(d) the notice to be given of an application and of its outcome;
(e) how an application is to be determined;
(f) the duration of, and procedures for revoking, any restrictions on the making of information available for public inspection or its disclosure.
(3) Provision under subsection (2)(e) or (2)(f) may in particular—
(a) confer a discretion on the registrar;
(b) provide for a question to be referred to a person other than the registrar for the purposes of determining the application or revoking the restrictions.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) or (1)(c) may provide that information is not to be made unavailable for public inspection unless the person to whom it relates provides such alternative information as may be specified.
(5) The circumstances that may be specified under subsection (1)(b) or (d) by way of an exception to a restriction on disclosure include circumstances where the court has made an order, in accordance with the regulations, authorising disclosure.
(6) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) or (d) may not require the registrar to refrain from disclosing information under section 1110F of the Companies Act 2006 (general powers of disclosure by the registrar).
(7) Regulations under this section may impose a duty on the registrar to publish, in relation to such periods as may be specified—
(a) details of how many applications have been made under the regulations and how many of them have been allowed, and
(b) such other details in connection with applications under the regulations as may be specified in the regulations.
(8) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause replicates for the register of overseas entities the provision made by clause 87 of the Bill in relation to companies.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19
Resolving inconsistencies in the register
“(1) Section 27 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (resolving inconsistencies in the register) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
‘(1) Where it appears to the registrar that the information contained in a document delivered to the registrar by an overseas entity in connection with the register is inconsistent with other information contained in records kept by the registrar under section 1080 of the Companies Act 2006, the registrar may give notice to the overseas entity to which the document relates—
(a) stating in what respects the information contained in it appears to be inconsistent with other information in records kept by the registrar under section 1080 of the Companies Act 2006, and
(b) requiring the overseas entity, within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is issued, to take all such steps as are reasonably open to it to resolve the inconsistency by delivering replacement or additional documents or in any other way.
(2) The notice must state the date on which it is issued.’
(3) In the heading, omit ‘in the register’.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause makes changes for the purpose of resolving inconsistencies in information relating to overseas entities that corresponds to the changes made by clause 81 of the Bill in relation to companies.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Administrative removal of material from register
“(1) In the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022—
(a) for section 28 substitute—
‘28 Administrative removal of material from the register
(1) The registrar may remove from the register anything that appears to the registrar to be—
(a) a document, or material derived from a document, accepted under section 1073 of the Companies Act 2006 (power to accept documents not meeting requirements for proper delivery), or
(b) unnecessary material as defined by section 1074 of the Companies Act 2006.
(2) The power to remove material from the register under this section may be exercised—
(a) on the registrar’s own motion, or
(b) on an application made in accordance with regulations under section 28A(2).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the registrar’s power to remove material from the register under this section following an application is limited to material of a description specified in the regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
28A Further provision about removal of material from the register
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for notice to be given in accordance with the regulations where material is removed from the register under section 28 otherwise than on an application.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision in connection with the making and determination of applications for the removal of material from the register under section 28.
(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2) includes provision as to—
(a) who may make an application,
(b) the information to be included in and documents to accompany an application,
(c) the notice to be given of an application and of its outcome,
(d) a period in which objections to an application may be made, and
(e) how an application is to be determined, including provision as to evidence that may be relied upon by the registrar for the purposes of satisfying the test in section 28(1).
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(e) includes provision as to circumstances in which—
(a) evidence is to be treated by the registrar as conclusive proof that the test in section 28(1) is met, and
(b) the power of removal must be exercised.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.’;
(b) omit sections 29 and 29A (application to rectify register and resolution of discrepancies).
(2) In section 1073 of the Companies Act 2006 (power to accept documents not meeting requirements for proper delivery), in subsection (6)(a), after ‘section 1094A(1)’ (inserted by section 82 of this Act) insert—
‘or any corresponding provision of any other enactment’.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause replicates for the register of overseas entities the changes that clause 82 of the Bill makes in relation to the register of companies.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Enforcement of requirement to register: updated language about penalties etc
“(1) The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34 (power to require overseas entity to register if it owns certain land)—
(a) in subsection (4)(a), for ‘the maximum summary term for either-way offences’ substitute ‘a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court’;
(b) omit subsection (5).
(3) In section 36 (meaning of ‘daily default fine’) after ‘applies for’ insert ‘the’.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause updates the penalty provision for the offence in section 34 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to reflect changes made by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. This ensures consistency with the language that clauses 136 and 137 introduce into the 2022 Act.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 View all UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 9, page 4, line 14, at end insert—
“, and
(c) the effectiveness and scale of private and other third-party capital attracted to investments by the Bank.”
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Had you been with us this morning you would have witnessed a series of debates between the Minister, me and, on occasion, Opposition Members about the importance of the bank, with references to its ability to attract private capital from outside and to the importance of its achieving a financial return for its shareholders, who, I remind right hon. and hon. Members, are the taxpayers, through the choosing of the Government.
Amendment 14 relates to reviews of the bank’s effectiveness and impact. In previous discussions the Minister said—on balance, I think quite rightly—that there was sufficient power in the Government’s ability to provide a framework of strategic priorities and plans and, if necessary, to put directions in place for those objectives not to be included in the Bill. He said there was enough flexibility for the Government to provide a response by other means, which I accept.
In clause 9, however, we are trying to look at the bank’s effectiveness and impact. We are reviewing not just the bank’s homework but the directions provided by the Treasury and His Majesty’s Government over that period. That is underlined by subsection (1), which makes reference to “an independent person”. My amendment would amplify subsection (1)(b) by adding a specific provision on
“the effectiveness and scale of private and other third-party capital attracted to investments by the Bank.”
To reiterate some points that are relevant to the review —the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has agreed with at least one of them, and perhaps more—there are concerns that the bank might spread itself too thinly with regard to where and how it might seek investments, all the way from early-stage investing, through growth capital, to mature investing. It is therefore important that the review by the independent person takes into consideration the efficiency of capital allocated between those various tasks or parts of the investing spectrum.
It is important that we understand the investment structures that are in place. What I have in mind—and I am interested to hear the Minister’s observations—is the fact that the bank is trying to attract external capital to achieve some of our climate change and levelling-up goals. For climate change goals, the backstop provider of the gap in any funding if the private sector does not provide, if we wish to achieve our policy objective, is the UK taxpayer. Right now, in the main Chamber Members are discussing the autumn statement. Members on both sides of the Committee are aware that we are pledging increases in taxation, expenditure and borrowing, notwithstanding additional pressures that achieving net zero will place on taxpayers. It is therefore crucial, if the bank is to play an effective role, that we are vigilant in understanding the burden left at the end of its efforts on the taxpayer, and we should seek to minimise it. My amendment seeks to put pressure on the independent person to look at that objective. Those are the main priorities of my amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Bone, to serve under your chairship. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. As he has highlighted, we have come to a substantial and key clause.
As the hon. Gentleman briefly stated, the clause sets out requirements for reviews of the bank’s effectiveness and impact. In particular, it states:
“The Chancellor must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of…the effectiveness of the Bank in delivering its objectives, and…its impact in relation to climate change and regional and local economic growth (including the extent to which its investments in particular projects or types of projects have encouraged additional investment in those projects or types of project by the private sector).”
The independent person must share those reports with the Treasury, which must then publish the reports and lay a copy before Parliament. I welcome that there will be performance reviews of the bank. Given the importance of its objectives, it is right that its ability to meet its aims is evaluated. We will get to the frequency of the reports later. I am sure I do not need to reveal to Committee members that we think the current proposed frequencies are inadequate.
Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, would add a third element to the reports: the independent person would have to consider the effectiveness and scale of private and other third-party capital attracted to investments by the bank. We have already discussed the concept of additionality—the idea that the bank should be adding value and crowding in private sector investment. Clause 9(1)(b) already makes reference to additional investment, so I am confident that that is already covered by the Bill.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his diligence in endeavouring to ensure that the Bill properly protects taxpayers’ interests and properly mobilises the private sector investment that the country depends on. I also thank him for trying his hardest to keep Ministers and this institution to account. I would never seek to do anything to discourage him.
However, in this case, I would like to join hands with the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and, regrettably, confirm that it is my view that clause 9(1)(b), which already talks about the degree to which investments in particular projects or types of projects have encouraged additional investment in those projects or types of projects by the private sector, will go a long way to accomplishing what my hon. Friend wants. I am happy to write to him on what I consider to be the effectiveness of the clause and explore whether there is some value to be added in changing it, but it is my position, as it is that of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, that clause 9(1)(b) already does that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire should be reassured that the Government are setting up this institution with great foresight as to how we keep it accountable. The mere fact that we are legislating at its inception for an independent review to be carried out is a very progressive thing. We are trying to ensure that all our arm’s length bodies are as effective as possible. Speaking personally, I think it would be an innovation for every other arm’s length body to have to have independent reviews at frequent intervals.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the wording of the Bill is already sufficiently broad to cover what he is seeking and accept my assurances to explore whether it should be changed, and that he will not press his amendment to a vote.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate the comments by the Opposition spokesperson and, of course, my hon. Friend the Minister. My concern about subsection (1)(b) is that the focus on the extent to which investments have attracted additional private sector investment is subordinate to the effectiveness, in terms of the impact on climate change and regional and local growth. That essentially means that if there is a project that is very strong on achieving climate change goals, the bank will be perfectly happy to pursue that, even at an extended cost to the taxpayer. I hope I have not got the Minister wrong.
Andrew Griffith
To clarify, I do not read it as being subordinate; it is merely clarificatory that that is within scope. I thought it might be useful to put that on the record.
Richard Fuller
That is very helpful. With that assurance from the Minister, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 9, page 4, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) the geographic spread of the businesses and bodies the Bank invests in, and
(d) the ownership of the businesses and bodies the Bank invests in.”.
This amendment requires reviews of the Bank’s effectiveness and impact to consider the location and ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in.
It might be helpful if I give the background to the amendment. Labour wants to strengthen British industry, supply chains and our industrial strategy. That is why we have proposed amendment 23, which would require reviews of the bank to consider the geographic spread of the businesses and bodies that the bank invests in, and their ownership.
I was concerned to read research by Open Democracy that found that the bank has so far pledged nearly all its cash to firms with offshore owners, including some linked to tax havens and repressive regimes. That was an independent report, not carried out by my party, but by Open Democracy. We want the benefits of the UK Infrastructure Bank to be seen here in the UK, with home-grown renewables such as offshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and tidal power. We want to work with businesses to crowd in private funding and work with unions to ensure high-quality jobs. I am sure the whole Committee can agree on that.
We know that this could be a national enterprise. We have a world-leading offshore wind industry in Scotland and on the east coast, hydrogen in the north-west and Teesside, nuclear power in the south-east, and solar power in the south and midlands. That can only be realised if investment stays here in the UK. A lack of domestic champions has compromised our security and stalled progress.
Richard Fuller
Are the Opposition concerned that investments and co-investments in projects in the UK will come through funds that may be held in offshore trusts, or is the concern that the bank will be investing in projects offshore through offshore investment trusts?
Abena Oppong-Asare
The hon. Member asks an important question. I am sure that we agree that it is important to look at the geographical element of investments. This is not just a concern of Labour’s; the report I mentioned is by Open Democracy. Brilliant projects are taking place; I do not want to take anything away from them, but I want us to ensure that we are supporting businesses in the UK. That is really important. We all know from talking to our constituents that great investment could be used. That needs to be acknowledged, and that is why we tabled the amendment, which would ensure that reviews of the bank consider the geographic spread of the businesses that the bank invests in and their ownership.
Andrew Griffith
The Government do not support the amendment. The hon. Lady is quite right to raise the importance of the regional split, and we all aspire to higher standards of transparency in business investment. These investments will, of course, be highly transparent. We have talked before about the reporting to Parliament; we will talk later about the annual report and the frequency of reporting. I can assure the hon. Lady that it will not be possible to hide a physical investment in infrastructure. That is the very nature of the provisions. Where the bank has deployed its capital, and the nature of the investments, will be very transparent. Indeed, the report that she cites from Open Democracy rather proves that point. There is no deficiency of transparency if Open Democracy has been able fully to ascertain the ownership.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Open Democracy has done the research that the Government have not done to get that data. It spent significant time getting that data. It should not be left to organisations such as Open Democracy to get that information. That information should be easily accessible to us. This is taxpayers’ money, and I do not see how the amendment is unreasonable.
Andrew Griffith
I make the same point again. The fact is that the information is readily accessible in the public domain through Companies House. It will be accessible through the different mechanisms for holding the UK Infrastructure Bank to account. There is no desire to do anything other than ensure that Parliament and other public interest stakeholders can see precisely where the bank is deploying its capital. That is the very purpose of it. We can talk later about the annual report mechanism, which will include the disclosure of material information.
In respect of—
Andrew Griffith
I was going to say something helpful, but of course I will give way. Hopefully it will re-occur to me in a moment.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for giving way. I wonder whether he could talk a little more about why the report on the geographic spread of businesses would not be of value to our country. There was a very good National Audit Office report on the creation of the UK Infrastructure Bank published in June this year. One of its recommendations was that the bank should
“further develop its understanding of where infrastructure needs are greatest so that it routinely informs investment decisions and prioritises them.”
Surely such geographical reporting would help the bank with its work.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member sort of took the words out of my mouth. We will expect the UK Infrastructure Bank to make the regional nature of its investments clear. It has done so to date, and clearly it should do so going forward. Things that should happen do not necessarily need to be put into statute at every turn. There are lots of other ways of ensuring that the information is readily available.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I have no further comments, other than to urge Members to support our sensible amendment, which I think would benefit all our constituents across the country.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Richard Fuller
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 9, page 4, line 21, leave out from “Treasury” to end of line 22 and insert
“12 months and the second report within 24 months of the day on which this Act comes into force”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 9, page 4, line 21, leave out “7” and insert “4”.
This amendment requires an initial report of the Bank’s effectiveness to take place within 4 years after the Act comes into force, rather than the current 7.
Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 4, line 24, leave out “7” and insert “2”.
Amendment 22, in clause 9, page 4, line 24, leave out “7” and insert “5”.
This amendment requires reviews of the Bank’s effectiveness to take place every five years after the initial review, rather than the current 7.
Richard Fuller
One last time, Mr Bone.
This group, including my amendments 15 and 16, relates to the timing and frequency of reports that will be provided. My amendments focus on the start of the UK Infrastructure Bank’s existence. Essentially, my question is: does the Minister feel that there will be enough transparency and exposure around the bank as it sets up its guiding principles, begins its work, puts its board together and starts to put some flesh on the bones of its investment profile?
My concern is that we will be waiting a bit too long if we wait for seven years to have any influence at all on the way in which the bank is being structured and is moving. Will it be going in the right direction? Essentially, we will not know until the next decade, and that will be well on our way to the time at which Parliament has set the objective of achieving net zero.
Amendment 15 suggests that we should have a report within the first 12 months, and a second report after 24 months. Those two reports would provide independent understanding about what the board and the bank leadership itself are doing at such crucial stages. Amendment 16 tries to do something similar in clause 9(5). The Government propose that subsequent reports must be made every seven years, while my suggestion is that they should be every two years.
I am probably willing to concede to the Government that, after the first couple of years, my proposal would probably involve a bit too much oversight over the board. The board must be allowed to do its job, so someone looking over its shoulders every two years is probably a bit too much. I am therefore minded not to press that point, but I will be interested to hear the Government’s thinking, particularly on the first two reports.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire for his comments. I will speak briefly to amendments 21 and 22.
I share the hon. Member’s concerns, because the initial review of the bank will be published within seven years of the Bill coming into force, and subsequent reviews will be published at intervals of no more than seven years. Those timeframes are shocking, particularly given that the Government’s original intention was for the initial report to be published in 10 years’ time.
I point out to the Minister that the levelling up missions are due to be met by 2030 and the net zero target by 2050, so a review in seven years’ time would miss the first of those targets. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how, without that review, those targets will be met.
Amendment 21 would provide that the initial review would be published within four years of the Bill coming into force, while amendment 22 would see subsequent reviews published every five years. That would enable the bank to grow, improve and ensure that it is meeting its objectives. I noted that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire may not press his amendments, so hopefully he finds ours to be more appropriate.
Andrew Griffith
I thank both the well-meaning Members—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead—who seek to get the right interval of reviews, both in respect of the first and subsequent periods. The fact that both colleagues have ended up with different intervals suggests that this is not something that need be of doctrine or dogma.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for pointing out that we have come up with different intervals, but I remind him that, obviously, the Government did that as well. Initially, they were looking to do the review every 10 years, but they have changed it to seven years, so there is scope to adapt and change, as under our amendments.
Andrew Griffith
There is indeed scope, but there is also interplay with other expected reviews to which the UK Investment Bank will be subject. While I oppose, fairly, all the amendments put forward, I undertake to come back on these points at subsequent stages.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I understand that the Minister considers that hon. Members are being well meaning but, if I may say so—I do not know if this is parliamentary language, Mr Bone—that is a tad patronising. We are talking about transparency and ensuring that the bank, which is using public money, is going in the right direction. It should not be too difficult for the bank to come back and have a review in a much shorter time than seven years. Given that we have had three Prime Ministers in a year, we might see many Ministers in those seven years. This Minister may give us his undertaking, but he might not be in place throughout that period.
Andrew Griffith
I am not sure quite how to react to the right hon. Lady’s predictions about my expected tenure, but I dare say she is probably right in many respects. Let us try to get through the remainder of the afternoon before making any amendments. I certainly did not intend to patronise any colleagues.
We have to get this right. The most important thing is that the bank is equipped to deliver the outcomes that we seek by deploying its capital in pursuit of its statutory objectives. I do not want us to trip over a particular interval when, inevitably, a number of reviews will be ongoing. Whether the right hon. Lady likes it or not, the undertaking that I am going to give is to come back on this. The Government have already moved in respect of clause 9(5)—from 10 years to seven. I hear from Members on both sides of the Committee that there is concern that seven years is still too long, and I undertake to come back on that.
Abena Oppong-Asare
The Minister is being generous with his time. I appreciate that he will take this matter away, but I remind him of the bank’s core function: to help us to meet our climate change targets by 2050. Several Back Benchers have already mentioned that. I urge the Minister to review the situation, because if we are going to meet the targets, particularly the 2030 targets, seven years will be far too long. Our proposal seems reasonable, so it would be helpful if the Minister would consider it and write to me about it.
Andrew Griffith
That is effectively what I am doing. The key point is that this is a novel institution. It has a great deal of runway, and it also has an awful lot of operationalising and scaling to do over the immediate period. I hope that no one wants to subject the bank to an excess of reviews during that initial period, as that would inevitably detract from its resources. None of that takes us away from any of the accountability measures we have talked about. I will write to the hon. Lady with a determination, or an explanation, regarding whether we can substitute a different interval in clause 9(5).
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
As this is the first time I have spoken this afternoon, may I say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone?
I want to pin the Minister down a little on what he means when he talks about coming back. Would that be coming back in the form of writing to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, or coming back during the Bill’s remaining stages? I want to clarify exactly what he means, because some of us have fallen foul of such behaviour by Ministers before.
Andrew Griffith
I am not sure what is the nefarious behaviour of which the hon. Member speaks. I have spoken about our wanting to get the review intervals right. I am talking about potentially proposing a different number as an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. It might help if, when the Minister sends a reply to the shadow Minister, he sends it to the whole Committee.
Katherine Fletcher
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone—for the first time, I believe.
Recently, I was briefly the incumbent of the roads portfolio, which is obviously an important part of infrastructure. The average time from scheme idea to spades in the ground actually exceeds the seven years that is provided for in the Bill. While I am extremely sympathetic to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire about ensuring that we do not go too long without checking, I am also sympathetic to the idea that we need to be able to operationalise the schemes. Does the Minister agree that the key to getting the seven years down is the reform of planning legislation? We cannot guarantee an investment until the development consent orders are cleared.
Andrew Griffith
The Minister absolutely agrees that the key point is to make the institution effective in delivering its goals. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead talked about net zero and the imperative to get on, decarbonise our economy and ensure that we have the infrastructure in place. All hon. Members are supporters of scrutiny and accountability, which is why we all trip over this period of seven years as potentially being a long period—it is longer than the tenure that any of us enjoy. That is precisely because there is a trade-off with operationalising and delivering objectives.
Nick Smith
I welcome the Minister’s undertaking to come back with a different date for the laying of a report before Parliament. It is the reporting to and scrutiny of Parliament that is important in this instance, not least because, these days, recent Parliaments have rarely run to four years, although that used to be the average for a Parliament. I hope that the Government will look at a date that will allow each Parliament in the realm to consider the work of the bank. In the very good NAO report that was published in June, as one of its key findings, it said that
“At the end of May 2022, the Bank had made five deals”.
Can the Minister update us on how many deals had been made by the bank up until, say, October this year?
Andrew Griffith
We are moving slightly away from the amendments, but I will write to all hon. Members with an update. The annual report is due to be published imminently; the hon. Member was not here this morning when I confirmed that I have signed off what I needed to do. I expect the report to be laid in the House of Commons Library in the coming days. Some 10 deals have been made so far but, because this is a subject of interest, we will ensure that everybody is aware of the deals and that we lay the annual report before the House as quickly as possible.
Andrew Griffith
If it is a choice, I will do it one final time. We will then move to the vote.
Richard Fuller
The Minister referred to coming back another time about clause 9(5). As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble said, when we are reviewing investments, a seven-year period, and perhaps longer, might be a reasonable period for consideration. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East said, there is logic to having a review every five years during a Parliament. To my mind, subsection (4) refers to the more essential period. Essentially, it says that we will not have our first report for seven years. My thought is that we need one more frequently than that. Will the Minister clarify whether he intends to come back to the Committee on not just subsection (5), as he said he would, but subsection (4)?
Andrew Griffith
With respect, these are quite different points. I do not intend to come back on subsection (4). There are many reviews. We should not confuse the additional process of bringing in an outside party and conducting an independent review. That is quite different from the normal regular accountability of publishing an annual report, disclosure, complying with the combined code, having good governance practices, the oversight of the Treasury Committee and any of the other ongoing reviews that the Government spawn all the time. This is a separate statutory independent review. It is an unusual but positive feature, and I do not propose to reopen the point, because that is the Government’s position. We thought about it, and it will take time for this entity to be operating at scale, when it is actually capable of providing a useful determination for the review.
Richard Fuller
I am looking expectantly across the room, but as I do not see any encouragement from Opposition Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 21, in clause 9, page 4, line 21, leave out “7” and insert “4”.—(Abena Oppong-Asare.)
This amendment requires an initial report of the Bank’s effectiveness to take place within 4 years after the Act comes into force, rather than the current 7.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Andrew Griffith
Given the lively exchange of views about frequency, I think that members of the Committee are broadly familiar with the clause. The provision for regular independent and statutory reviews of the bank’s effectiveness in meeting its core objectives is important to ensure that it meets its objectives and delivers good value for the taxpayer. It is important that this is an independent review, independent of the bank itself and of HM Treasury. The review will look at the extent to which the bank has met its climate change and levelling-up objectives. In response to the points made by colleagues in the other place, it will also look at whether the bank has been suitably additional in the market. All of that is fundamental to the bank’s success.
We have talked about the review period. The statutory independent review will be in addition to the UKIB framework document, which will be reviewed after the Bill receives Royal Assent and at regular intervals thereafter, in addition to effectiveness reviews from the Cabinet Office, to which all public bodies are subject. The strategic review in 2024 will cover the general progress to date of the UKIB and its capital position, the implementation of the financial framework, the UKIB’s delegation limits and the return on equity. It will be additional to the financial framework, which will be reviewed from time to time after the strategic review. Given all of that and the debate about the period and my undertaking to come back on clause 9(5) and revisit what is the appropriate time, given colleagues’ concerns that seven years is too long, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I am disappointed that the measures to strengthen clause 9 were not adopted. However, I welcome the fact that there will be reviews of the bank. Here and in the other place, concerns have been raised about the projects that the bank is financing, from their location to the level of additionality they provide. Reviews of the bank will certainly clear up the issues that need to resolved.
I hope that there will be opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and discussion following report publications. I have noted—and I am sure the Minister is aware—that the Public Accounts Committee is currently conducting a review of the establishment of the UK Infrastructure Bank. It is a shame that the recommendations may not come early enough to influence the Bill, but its work demonstrates that the importance of evaluation. We have spoken about this topic at length today, so we will not oppose clause 9.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 6, in clause 10, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
““appropriate national authority” means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, or
(c) the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would define “appropriate national authority”.
Amendment 9, in clause 10, page 5, line 4, leave out the definition of “relevant public authorities” and insert—
““public authorities” means local authorities, Northern Ireland departments and any other person exercising functions of a public nature.”—(Andrew Griffith.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Clause 10
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 7.
Clause 11 stand part.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that this discussion is largely technical and not subject to controversy. Clause 10 sets out the definitions for various terms that are used in the Bill, such as financial assistance, local authority and relevant public authorities. Financial assistance is defined in a broadly similar way to the definition in other legislation, such as the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012, but also reflects the specific priorities of the bank. It is intended to be a broad and inclusive definition in line with the potential diversity of the bank’s investment activities.
The Bill contains provisions stating that the bank is able to provide loans to relevant public authorities, and the clause defines public authorities to include Northern Ireland Departments, as well as local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, and district councils in Northern Ireland. That is indicative of our commitment that the bank should work to deliver collaboratively and UK-wide, taking into account different infrastructure financing landscapes.
Government amendment 7 is a privilege amendment, as is standard for a Bill that begins its passage in the Lords and concerns matters of public finance. A privilege amendment was passed; given the Bill is now in the Commons, I have tabled an amendment to remove it that is purely technical. Clause 11 confirms that the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the point at which it will come into force, which will be two months after Royal Assent.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to speak to this important but uncontroversial aspect of the Bill. As we have heard, clause 10 concerns interpretation. We do not oppose the definition of “activities”, “financial assistance”, “infrastructure”, “local authority”, “objectives” or “relevant public authorities”.
Clause 11 is a short clause concerning the extent and commencement of the Bill, as well as providing its short title. It stipulates that the Act extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The legislation comes into force two months after the date on which it is passed, and it is to be cited as the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2022. Government amendment 7 simply removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords, and is a procedural necessity that we have no reason to oppose.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Extent, Commencement and short title
Amendment made: 7, in clause 11, page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (4).—(Andrew Griffith.)
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the House of Lords.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Businesses and bodies the Bank invests in
“(1) The Bank must publish an annual report setting out—
(a) the geographical spread of businesses and bodies it invests in, and
(b) the ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in.
(2) The Bank must prepare and publish a “Good Jobs” plan for all businesses and bodies it invests in, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.”—(Abena Oppong-Asare.)
This new clause ensures that the Bank considers the location and ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in and only invests in businesses and bodies who create “Good Jobs” plans to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 supports amendment 23. It would require the bank to publish an annual report setting out the geographical spread of the businesses and bodies it invests in, and their ownership. To be clear, amendment 23 required the independent review, conducted over longer time frames, to consider those points. Our new clause requires the bank to report annually on those matters.
Subsection (2) of new clause 1 would require the bank to publish and invest in a good jobs plan for all businesses and bodies, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards. Before the Minister objects, I will say that the wording might be familiar to members of the Committee, particularly Conservative members, because it is the same wording they voted to remove from the Bill earlier in Committee. The wording will be familiar to Conservative Committee members because it is the first mission of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Given their voting record in this Committee so far, I am not sure it is something they are committed to any more, but I am sure they can agree that they want the UK Infrastructure Bank to create highly-skilled, well-paid jobs in their constituencies and across the country. I know that constituents in Erith and Thamesmead want to see better job opportunities, whether for young people or older people who are looking to reskill and retrain.
As I said earlier, we do not believe in growth for growth’s sake. We believe in growth because it creates jobs and improves living standards. With fairer choices, we see our economy growing again, powered by the talent and effort of millions of working people and thousands of our businesses. Our new clause would ensure that the bank plays its part in its mission, creating new industries across the country and working hand in hand with businesses to create jobs for the future. Before the Committee concludes, I want to take the opportunity to make some closing remarks and thank some people.
The Chair
Order. That is normally done after we finish this bit. Points of order are normally done at the end.
Andrew Griffith
New clause 1 would oblige the bank to publish an annual report addressing the geographical spread and ownership of the bodies the bank invests in, as well as a good jobs plan for all businesses and bodies it invests in, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards. It is similar to amendment 23, which has fallen, although it would require reporting after the event rather than a review. Many of my earlier points about amendment 23 remain pertinent. The bank already reports on its investments and will publish a summary in its annual report and accounts. The bank is capturing data on location in its deal assessments and will consider how best to report publicly on location for future investments.
As discussed earlier, the nature of an infrastructure investment means that it is difficult to hide. They tend to be fairly visible and tangible and we would all be able to work out exactly where those millions of pounds of capital had been deployed. I reassure hon. Members that the bank is subject to freedom of information requests in the usual way, which I understand is a painless process by which one can readily find out information. [Interruption.] The legislation was not brought in by this Government, so if it is deficient, it is not on our watch.
Abena Oppong-Asare
The Minister says that it is open to individuals to put in freedom of information requests. I do not understand why the Minister would encourage that when our new clause would make things a lot easier and more transparent. It takes a lot of time to do the paperwork associated with FOI requests, so the new clause would save staff from having to do that extra admin work. In setting up the bank, why does the Minister want it to take on those extra responsibilities? It makes no sense.
Andrew Griffith
It remains my contention that it is simply not necessary for this barnacle to be adhered to this particular ship as it steams out on its levelling-up mission across the UK, taking us on the path to net zero.
David Linden
If I understand it correctly, the Minister’s objection to new clause 1 is that the bank would already be doing quite a lot of reporting anyway—by a nod of the head, he is acceding to that. If the Government oppose further reporting, I presume that they object to new clause 1 because they have undertaken an impact analysis of it. Could he place that impact assessment in the Library so that Members can see it, and perhaps the new clause could be brought back on Report?
Andrew Griffith
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Government new clause. If anyone wishes to conduct an impact assessment of it, they are very welcome to do so, but it was not tabled by the Government.
David Linden
Does that mean that the Minister is objecting to the new clause purely because it was tabled by the Opposition, rather than based on evidence?
Andrew Griffith
Our position has been very consistent. I understand that it may not be the position of the Opposition, and it is no worse for that. Our position is that statute is not the be-all and end-all. The most important thing is that we get this bank up and running, delivering on its outcomes, and that we do so in good fashion, with the minimum, not maximum, amount of extra statute.
The new clause contains two elements, so I will turn briefly to the other point nested in it, which is the good jobs plan. The bank is already committed to pursuing good environmental, social, resilience and governance policy. We do not feel that adding extra statutory requirements in this particular case is the right decision. The bank will be reporting on the number of jobs created as one of its key performance indicators and will be working up measures on productivity as well as setting out the impact of its assessments, on which we will all hold it to account. With that, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their new clause.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I am afraid that I will not be withdrawing the new clause. It is a sensible new clause and I urge all members of the Committee to support it, so I wish to push it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Abena Oppong-Asare
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I thank all members of the Committee for our robust debate. I am sure that we agree through our different channels that we want the best for this Bill and for our constituents. I hope people take on board the fact that we have been making recommendations that we feel are best for the country.
I thank the Minister for answering our questions. I am disappointed that some of our amendments have been voted against, but I accept that the Minister is going to look at some of our recommendations on some clauses, in terms of the annual review. That is very important. Seven years is a very long time.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire for his detailed analysis and his amendments. I thank the Chairs of both sittings, Mr Davies and Mr Bone, who have guided the Committee with skill. At times, you have been very firm, but rightly so. I thank the Clerks, Amna Bokhari and Bethan Harding, who have been invaluable. I thank colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, and look forward to seeing what comes out of this next.
David Linden
Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and you as Chair, Mr Bone, and the Clerks and the officials. I thank in particular the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. I think we knew it was unlikely that he would sacrifice his position in the governing party by voting against the Government, but his amendments were helpful in provoking discussion. I know that a number of my colleagues on Bill Committees this afternoon will not have the luxury of finishing at 3 o’clock. On that basis, I thank everybody present for the speedy way in which the Bill has passed through the House and look forward to the further stages and to any remaining t’s being crossed and i’s dotted.
Andrew Griffith
Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow East and commend the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead for her graciousness and diligence. It is fully understood on this side of the Committee that Opposition Members do not have the same support as that provided to Ministers by officials. A great deal of diligence goes into preparing amendments and advocating them. The hon. Member for Ealing North is always a strong advocate for his party’s position. I thank my officials for their work in preparing and presenting the Bill. I thank you, Mr Bone, and your officers. I hope my colleagues will not mind me singling out my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for bringing a certain je ne sais quoi to proceedings, and for advancing his own cause.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
UK Canals and Waterways
(2 years, 1 month 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
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the UK’s canals and waterways.
It is a pleasure to be here this morning, particularly under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, or should I say chairship nowadays? I am not sure.
Last Saturday, I had a pleasant day walking with a colleague along the Coventry canal and the Trent and Mersey canal, where they intersect at Fradley junction in my constituency of Lichfield. Nothing can be more glorious than sitting outside the Mucky Duck pub, whose real name is the Swan, which is at that intersection, to look at the swans, the geese, the ducks and the narrowboats manoeuvring through the locks.
Before covid, I had a very different experience on the Chesapeake and Ohio canal when I went on a narrowboat along the 4 miles in Washington DC—in Georgetown, actually—where it is navigable. The rest is derelict. A couple of national park rangers, whose National Park Service administers the canal, told me that they were saving all their cash to hire a narrowboat and have a canal holiday in the UK. As one said to me, and I shall perform in my American accent, if the House will forgive me, “You guys just don’t know how lucky you are having thousands of miles of canals. You just don’t realise how loved something is until it’s gone.”
The number of colleagues in Westminster Hall today is a testament to how important our canal system is to all of us and to our constituencies. Our canal system is not just for narrowboaters; it is for those who enjoy the tranquillity of walking along canal towpaths and watching the wildlife that thrives there. For that reason, I am most grateful to have been granted this important debate on the future of the UK’s canals and waterways. The need to secure their future is, I am afraid, a matter of increasing urgency.
The nation’s extensive network of canals and waterways runs through around half of all constituencies, so I have no doubt that the House appreciates what a wonderful national treasure our waterways network is. I have more than 20 miles of canal in my constituency, as well as an active canal restoration society, the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust, of which I am a proud patron. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is sitting here, is a member of the trust, and I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the waterways. I would encourage all colleagues here, who are so keen on canals, to join the APPG.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister: in her constituency of Taunton Deane, she has the beautiful Bridgwater and Taunton canal, and I know she is a regular visitor to it, so she has a vested interest.
I pay tribute to the Canal & River Trust, which this year celebrated 10 years of being a charity and whose recent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall I was honoured to sponsor. The trust is guardian to 2,000 miles of this nation’s canals and waterways across England and Wales, and thousands of significant historic structures, including 71 of our oldest reservoirs, major docks and more than 2,700 listed buildings. The oldest parts of this extraordinary network date back 250 years, when canals served as the arteries of the industrial revolution.
Other navigation authorities play an important role, but because it is by far the largest and the body responsible for the vast majority of the manmade canals in England and Wales, I shall focus my attention on the Canal & River Trust, and on safeguarding the future of the canals and waterways for which it is responsible. I will leave others to discuss the beautiful waterways of Scotland, Northern Ireland and other parts, such as the Norfolk broads.
Since it was formed in 2012 out of British Waterways, with cross-party support, the Canal & River Trust has proven to be an effective steward of our canals and waterways. It has successfully raised their profile and grown the use of the waterways and appreciation of their value to our society, serving as an effective partner to Government in delivering vital economic, social and environmental benefits for this nation.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
In my constituency, there is a great group called the Lapal Canal Trust, which is a dedicated project to restore the Dudley No.2 canal from Birmingham, Selly Oak into the Hawne Basin in Halesowen. It is an incredibly dedicated group of volunteers, which is reflected across the whole of the Canal & River Trust. Will my hon. Friend commend their work? I know that the West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, has been heavily involved in that restoration project.
Michael Fabricant
I am more than happy to do so. The work that is being done in my hon. Friend’s constituency—as in my own constituency, with the Lichfield and Hatherton canals—is testament to the hard work and enthusiasm that people have for the wonderful environment created by our canals.
Our canals have seen a remarkable renaissance over the past 70 years, recovered from the dark days of decline and dereliction in the middle of the 20th century. I applaud the role of the Inland Waterways Association in campaigning so tirelessly for their restoration over that time. The Lichfield canal, which I mentioned to my hon. Friend and is currently being restored, was filled in in the 1960s; how unimaginative and short-sighted planners were back then. Now, with more boats on the waterways and use of the towpaths more popular than ever, we are seeing their benefits realised on a grand scale, repurposed for leisure and recreation, health and wellbeing and homes, and still playing a vital economic role for freight and other commercial uses, attracting visitors from across the globe while enriching the lives of so many local communities.
I recall doing a TV programme on the Coventry canal, and as they were interviewing me a narrowboat approached. I decided to ad lib, being a former broadcaster, and as the narrowboat went by I said, “Where are you from?” I thought they might say Dudley; in fact, they said they were from Tel Aviv and were on a canal holiday. The canals affect not just the health and welfare of our people, but bring in commercial dollars to the United Kingdom.
Canals bring blue and green space to the heart of urban areas, connecting town and country and enabling people to connect with nature and enjoy traffic-free routes. Millions of our fellow citizens enjoy the canals, be it boating on the water, canoeing, paddle boarding, rowing—in greater numbers, walking and cycling along towpaths too—angling from the banks or simply enjoying these special, beautiful places on our doorstep, taking time away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. There are now over 800 million visits per year to the Canal & River Trust’s waterways alone, and that figure is rising.
Waterways are on the doorstep for 9 million people, including many of the one in eight UK residents who do not have a private garden, giving them access to nature—often in areas where green and blue space is limited. I suspect that that is very much the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris). Around 60% of the trust’s waterways run through the most deprived areas of the country, with higher rates of ill health and economic deprivation. They reach many of those in greater need. As we saw so vividly during the pandemic, canals and waterways make a real difference to people’s lives, with tens of thousands rediscovering them in their neighbourhood, finding them to be a lifeline, and experiencing the wellbeing benefits of regular use of free and accessible waterside space ever since.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes some really important points. On his point about urban towns and industrial areas, particularly those that we have in the west midlands, does he agree that, as part of the levelling-up agenda, canals can play a really important part in regenerating industrial heartlands, creating a better environment for families and individuals who want to live in those areas, and creating much better regeneration?
Michael Fabricant
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is interesting that the West Midlands Mayor, who has already been mentioned, is a keen supporter of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals. Why? Lichfield is not in the West Midlands Combined Authority, but it will link to the deprived urban areas of the Black Country to provide additional bucks in the form of tourism. As I mentioned, we need more Israelis and Americans there, and we need more national park rangers.
The trust now partners in programmes to promote green social prescribing pilots and other initiatives, from its “Let’s Fish!” scheme, which has seen hundreds of youngsters connect with nature, to its Active Waterways project in partnership with Sport England, which is designed to overcome inactivity, social isolation, and mental and physical health conditions.
The west midlands, a part of which I am proud to represent, has a special affinity for its canals. They are an integral part of our history and economy, as Metro Mayor Andy Street reflected recently in an article that he wrote for “ConservativeHome”. The recovery of our canals is tied closely to the renewal of the west midlands, contributing to business and culture while providing the spaces that inspire communities. Once neglected, the canal network is now vibrant. It is a driver for levelling up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, and provides well-connected sites for business and attractive locations for new housing, providing sustainable urban living.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the emphasis he is placing on rivers, waterways and canals in the west midlands, which I too represent through the Ludlow constituency. I commend to him the manifesto published yesterday by the Conservative Environment Network, which is titled “Changing Courses”. It has six measures, all of which are important, to help maintain the health of our waterways. He talked about the health of human beings using them for recreation, but does he agree that when our waterways get polluted, it would be appropriate to consider introducing the ability for the polluter to pay for the problem that they have caused, by diverting the fines currently levied on companies that are found guilty of polluting waterways? Instead of going to the Treasury, they should go to some organisation that would help restore the effects of pollution, regardless of whether it is into a river or canal.
Michael Fabricant
I can say to my right hon. Friend, who is also Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, that not only will I support him, I have actually signed the letter agreeing to that proposal, because it seems an eminent way to ensure that our canals and waterways remain as unpolluted as possible.
We saw how central the canals were to the amazing Commonwealth games in the west midlands, which showcased Britain’s industrial heritage on a world stage. Someone bet me earlier that I was going to say something that I had not planned not to say, but I will now say that there are more canals in Birmingham—in fact, I was photographed alongside a marvellous plaque during the Conservative party conference—than there are in Venice, and some might argue that they are more beautiful. We have to introduce gondoliers into Birmingham—don’t you think that would be an excellent idea, Sir Robert?
I know that colleagues will have equally strong feelings about the central role that our waterways play in their cities, towns and villages. Canals can play a wider role at a time when our water supply has never been more critical. In a changing climate with increasing drought risk, the trust’s canals play an important role in improving the resilience of the nation’s water security. They currently move water around the country to support water supplies for approximately 5 million people, including to Bristol and parts of Cheshire. The trust can support more such waterway transfer schemes.
Only last week, Affinity Water announced its intention to work with the trust to use the centuries-old Grand Union canal to move water from the midlands to households in the south-east. Like Plaid Cymru, it wants to charge more and more for its water, which is what we should do in the west midlands when we supply it to the wealthy south-east.
Canals can also supply heating and cooling for waterside buildings, with enough latent thermal energy to support the needs of around 350,000 homes, as well as providing a cooling effect in urban areas during hot weather, according to research verified by the University of Manchester, and they deliver renewable energy from hydropower. Our canals and waterways form an important part of the United Kingdom’s nature recovery network. They provide a vital corridor for wildlife, with habitats that contribute hugely to biodiversity, supporting the key goals of the UK’s 25-year environment plan and giving people the proximity to nature that inspires them to care about the natural world—what is around us or across the planet.
As a not-for-profit charity, the Canal & River Trust is arguably the largest urban blue space provider in the United Kingdom. The recently released “Valuing Our Waterways” report showed that it delivers £4.6 billion of social welfare value for the nation each year, plus over £1.5 billion per year in economic value, supporting 80,000 jobs. I will repeat that: 80,000 jobs.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Unsurprisingly, my hon. Friend is making a speech of his usual high standard. On the economic benefit that the Canal & River Trust brings, may I highlight my lovely constituent Kay Andrews from Rothwell who runs Kay’s Canal Crafty Arts from her 32-foot narrowboat Pea Green, which is moored at Welford Wharf on the Grand Union canal on the Leicestershire-Northamptonshire border? Kay makes her living by selling hand-painted canal art, and she is a Canal & River Trust licensed roving trader. She trades from the wharf in the summer and then goes round the canals around the country selling her painted crafts. Is that not a wonderful boost to small businesses?
Michael Fabricant
That is a fantastic example from my hon. Friend. Those of us familiar with canals know that type of art, with beautifully, vividly painted flowers on coal scuttles and buckets. An ugly bucket can be transformed into a thing of beauty. I have friends who live some distance from canals who have examples of that work in their own homes. That is a first-rate example of how the canals generate income for others and generate business in the economy as a whole.
I hope that I have left all my colleagues here in no doubt about the importance of and value created by our waterways and those who manage them. They are undoubtedly a national treasure and a critical part of our national infrastructure. At the heart of the trust’s success has been the connections it has forged with so many communities along the length of its waterways. We have just heard a first-rate example of that from my hon. Friend. The trust has inspired many to volunteer, and we have heard about that, too. In the past year, the trust’s volunteers gave 700,000 hours, as well as hundreds of partner groups and canal adoptions. Those amazing individuals contribute so much to making the waterways network safe, clean and attractive places for us all to enjoy.
Michael Fabricant
In a moment. I will just carry on a little bit, if he will forgive me.
On behalf of everyone here, I want to thank the volunteers. But they can only be a small part of the answer. The sustainable future of our canals depends on a substantial continuing investment in the core infrastructure that underpins our historical waterways network. Caring for waterways is costly.
James Gray
I am a huge supporter of canals, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have the Kennet and Avon to the south of my constituency and the Thames and Severn to the north, linked soon, I hope, by the Wilts and Berks canal, so we are right in the middle of the southern canal network. What my hon. Friend says about volunteers is absolutely right. Does he agree that the greatest thing about the canal network is that all the work that has been done across the country is largely funded not by the Government, but by volunteers and the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which makes a huge and important financial contribution. The network is not Government funded; it is volunteer funded.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that valuable point. Something like 75% of the Canal & River Trust’s funding is from sources other than the Government.
The problem is that our canal system is ageing and is made up of more than 10,000 individual assets, many of which date back 250 years. Many have a high consequence of failure; they are deteriorating and need regular maintenance and repair. That is exacerbated by the impact of more extreme weather events, which make them even more vulnerable. However, it is their age that gives them their beauty and attraction for so many people. Given the serious potential risks posed to neighbouring homes and businesses by the deterioration of reservoirs, high embankments, aqueducts and culverts—imagine what would happen if any of them burst—it is vital that there is stable and sufficient investment in the network to make these assets more resilient and to reduce the possible threat to lives, homes and businesses.
Here is the important bit. The Canal & River Trust receives about a quarter of its funding from the Government, under an agreement secured when it was formed in 2012, and that has been vital in underpinning its progress. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is undertaking a review of its grant for the period beyond March 2027, when the agreement comes to an end. A decision was due in July, but there have inevitably been delays, owing partly to covid and partly to a little turbulence in the Conservative party.
Although it is right that sufficient time be taken to judge the importance of the waterways properly, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the revised timetables for the review decision, as the uncertainty is causing great concern to users of the waterways and will soon start to hinder the trust’s ability to plan for the future. It has many important long-term projects to deliver, which could affect the safety of so many people. When will a funding announcement be made?
It should also be noted that the trust’s grant is declining in real terms and is now worth only a little over half of what British Waterways received prior to 2008. It is also fixed for the six years from 2021 to 2027, so the trust is suffering a significant shortfall at a time when many of its costs are rising by significantly more than the 10% headline inflation rate. Roughly £50 million a year is a very small amount for the Government to contribute for such a huge range of benefits.
At the same time, the trust’s wide range of risks, obligations and legal liabilities is growing, in part due to the impact of climate change. The network is subject to more extreme weather events, to which it is acutely vulnerable. That poses a potential threat to the many neighbouring homes and businesses. The risk has dramatically changed, even in the past 10 years. The level of spend now required was not anticipated when the trust was first established, but it must nevertheless be addressed.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As a neighbour to my hon. Friend and a fellow Staffordshire MP, I congratulate him on his excellent speech, which eloquently covers the points we would all like to make. In my constituency, waterways are the lifeblood of the economy, and I would like to thank people such as Michael Haig for the work they do.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I have forgotten its name, but I have walked along the canal in Stone. It is a beautiful canal, and all the things it generates, such as pubs and the local life, mean that it is very much at the heart of the community.
To go back to funding, about half of the trust’s planned asset spend is now on reservoir safety. It has added about £70 million to its priority expenditure over five years. Despite those pressures, it has been very effective in developing its own income sources to reduce dependency on future Government funding. Its endowment has grown ahead of market benchmarks, and it has found innovative ways to grow commercial and charitable income.
The trust has built strong partnerships with others, such as the People’s Postcode Lottery, which has been a long-term funder, acting as a delivery partner with the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Transport, important public agencies such as Sport England and Natural England, and health service providers, which recognise the tangible benefits the trust can deliver. In 2021-22, the Government grant fell, having made up nearly 40% of the trust’s total income in the British Waterways days before 2010, and it is projected to decline to 20% of the trust’s income by 2027. The trust has therefore not been sitting idly by, just relying on Government funding.
The trust remains fully committed to reducing the share of its funding coming directly from Government over the long term and is continuing to work in partnership. That transition has to happen at a pace that reflects the reality on the ground; securing the investment our waterways need must be the priority. Without that, their future is at risk, the trust’s ability to maintain them is jeopardised, and millions could stand to lose the enjoyment of such a wide-reaching and essential national asset—what I referred to as a national treasure and part of our national heritage.
For those who live on boats, for businesses that depend on waterways, which we have heard about today, and for the services and utilities that need to be carried out on well-maintained towpaths, the effect could be even more devastating. The decline and deterioration of the waterways is an unthinkable outcome for the nation and the communities we represent. I spoke about this the other day on ITV, which also reported from a narrow boat, whose owner painted a bleak picture of what life on the waterways could be like. She said:
“Without that top layer of money coming in, the canals will probably go to rack and ruin; they’ll probably become muddy ditches and then nobody will want to walk along them, anglers won’t be able to fish and boaters will have nowhere to go.”
She compared the prospect of the decline of our canals—so central to our industrial heritage—with letting the Tower of London fall down.
Our canals are no longer simply remnants of our industrial past; they are a significant social, environmental and economic contributor to our modern society and an integral part of our national infrastructure and heritage. The Minister needs to confirm the timeline for these vital decisions, so that the trust is able to plan the vital investment in our waterways for the longer term, and to give reassurance to the millions who care so passionately for them. That the Government remain committed to the future of our national canal network must be made clear. Underfunding our canals would be a false economy; once they begin to decline, their demise may become inevitable and their benefits may be lost, as they enter a vicious circle, falling into ever worse neglect and disrepair. Like the once great Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, only once they are gone forever will a nation mourn their passing.
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
I would like the winding-up speeches to start from around 10.30 am. If Members could stick to five minutes, that would be great. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for setting the scene so well. In the devolved Administrations, and especially Northern Ireland, we have different rules, laws and responsibilities.
Our canals and waterways have the potential to be areas of real beauty, whether for boats or for people just going for a walk. As the hon. Gentleman said, they deserve to be kept up to a high standard, and I commend the Canal & River Trust for that, although standards may have slipped during covid—indeed, I suspect that they have. The trust has held a number of events in the House, and I try to attend them all. I am aware of the potential of England’s waterways and indeed of all waterways across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Research has shown that spending time by water, whether as part of a lunch break, the daily commute or a weekend stroll, really can make us feel happier and healthier, and I want to focus on the health benefits. With ever-increasing rates of obesity and stress and declining mental health in the United Kingdom, we are uniquely placed when it comes to making a significant contribution to improving the wellbeing of others.
I am no stranger to talking about my constituency—the hon. Member for Lichfield spoke of his constituency; I will speak of mine—and that also relates to my canals and walkways. Northern Ireland has numerous canals. In Newtownards town, where my main office is, we have a fairly large canal. In the past, the office has been inundated with queries about canal maintenance. Responsibility for that falls between different stools—as it often does—including the Department for Infrastructure’s rivers department, local councils and landowners. There is often a to-and-fro correspondence about accountability.
Constituents often refer to the litter and debris and sometimes to the health hazard. The canal is a wonderful walk, and it is also a cycling and running venue. Ards and North Down Borough Council maintains Londonderry Park as one of its main centres for leisure and relaxation, and the canal’s potential is great. Over the years, I have heard about lots of other issues, including public health. We are in close proximity to the Ards shopping centre. For some reason—I don’t know why—some people think that, after they take their groceries home in the trolleys, they can just dump them in the canal instead of taking them back. That is something we are trying to find a resolution to.
There is certainly scope for DFI Rivers to do more in Northern Ireland to fund and maintain waterways. DEFRA has a role to play. What discussions has the Minister held with authorities and the regional Administration in Northern Ireland on how we can work together to produce something unique and wonderful with our waterways and canals?
Our canals are also a brilliant opportunity for young people to learn the basics of how to harness nature, rivers, bridges and the channels. We also encourage an interest in science, technology, engineering and maths, both in education and for later life, and there are lots of things that waterways and canals can offer in that regard.
For families, for mental health and for those wanting to take small boats out on our canals and waterways, we have a responsibility to ensure the safety and cleanliness of these bodies of water. I will be raising the matter with the permanent secretary in the Department back home to ensure that canals in my constituency are given the attention they need, not just in the town of Newtownards but across the whole of Strangford, and that includes the canals near the Braeside in Killyleagh and at the end of the river in Comber.
Canals offer fantastic potential for physical and emotional wellbeing. UK canals and waterways are central to rejuvenating constituencies, with their tourism potential and all the other issues the hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned. We can have all that, and better, for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I always say, better together.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Erewash is the only constituency that is named after a river and a canal, so it is quite appropriate that I speak in this debate. I mentioned that in my maiden speech, so it is great to be able to expand on what I started a number of years ago.
I want to highlight the amazing work of two organisations in my constituency: the Erewash Canal Preservation & Development Association—that is quite a mouthful, and is usually shortened to ECP&DA—and the Canal & River Trust, which we have already heard a lot about. Without the ECP&DA, a voluntary organisation, the Erewash canal would not exist today. Back in 1968, the British Waterways board was about to close the canal, but the ECP&DA was formed. It probably never anticipated that, over 50 years later, it would be awarded the Queen’s award for voluntary service, in recognition of the important role that it has played in our community.
The volunteers have restored and maintained the Sandiacre lock cottages and toll house, which now open as a museum on Sundays. Towards Christmas, they have mince pies and various festive activities, which is always good to see. The association has also ensured that navigation along the full length of the canal, from Trent lock to the great northern basin in Langley Mill, is possible. The association also continually patrols the canal and extracts a variety of waste items, which I am sure are found in many other canals, from the bottom.
The association celebrated its 50th anniversary with an amazing boat rally, and next year it will celebrate its 55th anniversary in the same way. The association has many benefits, both for the individuals involved and for Erewash. I take the opportunity to thank the ECP&DA; Erewash would not be the same without it—we would have only a river and not a canal.
Just a few weeks ago, the ECP&DA highlighted the many weeds in the canal, which the association was concerned would impact boats going to the rally next May. That is where collaboration with the Canal & River Trust came in, which shows the real benefits of organisations working together. Understanding the importance of easy navigation along the canal for boats visiting the rally, the Canal & River Trust will clear the weeds from what I call the bottom half of the canal, and the ECP&DA will clear the section nearer its base. I look forward to many visiting boats, and people enjoying the pleasures of the Erewash canal, including the newly restored Bennerley viaduct, next May. Whenever anybody from outside the area comes to the Erewash canal, they are amazed by its beauty and tranquillity.
I now turn to the Canal & River Trust in more detail. I met its director for the east midlands a couple of weeks ago to talk about the canal. That included the role that it will play in walking and cycling projects and the waterfront project in the Long Eaton town fund deal, which is part of the levelling-up project, and the trust’s work to repair the locks at Gallows Inn in January. I look forward to seeing those locks from inside, without the water. In the past, my office team and I have volunteered for a day with the trust—the stretch of fencing at Trent lock is badly painted, but we definitely had fun that day.
That is what waterways provide: fun and recreation. They provide an opportunity for exercise and benefit our health and wellbeing. The work of the Canal & River Trust is invaluable. It is the guardian of our waterways, whether the River Erewash, the Erewash canal or the other 2,000 miles of our water network. It provides employment, recreation and volunteering opportunities. It is a protector of our natural environment and history.
As we have heard, DEFRA is reviewing its long-term grant funding. That is why this debate is so timely: the Minister can hear at first hand about the great and invaluable work carried out by the Canal & River Trust. The Erewash canal is accessible because of the determination of the Erewash Canal Preservation & Development Association, and the Canal & River Trust now plays its part in maintaining it. If our waterways are not invested in through the Canal & River Trust, I fear that too many of them will be lost, in the same way that we nearly lost the Erewash canal.
With the benefits attributed to the Canal & River Trust estimated at over £4 billion each year, we cannot afford not to continue funding it. The Government’s investment in the trust is leveraged many times over, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). The current grant of £50 million per year is money well spent. My plea to the Minister is to give the Canal & River Trust certainty and to renew the agreement without delay.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As we have already heard, canals and inland waterways are an integral part of our life and our landscape. In recent years, it is fair to say that we have seen a remarkable revival. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred earlier to covid-19; that is just one of the many factors that has encouraged us all to appreciate what we have on our doorsteps more than ever before.
In Aldridge-Brownhills we have the Wyrley and Essington canal, which has some wonderful walkways along the towpath where people can watch the wildlife, observe nature and enjoy being outdoors. In recent years, we have seen a real revival of the Brownhills canal festival, which is organised by the Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust. It brings visitors to Brownhills and local residents together for what has become an excellent event. We see many community organisations and traders taking part, including the roving traders. If anyone is ever in Brownhills when the canal festival is on, I recommend going to the Jam Butty, because it makes some of the most fantastic jams and marmalades.
Michael Fabricant
I have bought from the Jam Butty. It was at the Huddlesford heritage gathering in my constituency. I believe my right hon. Friend moors her narrow boat there; I think she should declare that.
Wendy Morton
It is my husband’s boating passion, but I will come to that shortly. In 2016, Aldridge-Brownhills hosted the Inland Waterways Association festival of water in Pelsall. We took that boat from Huddlesford over to Pelsall for the festival, and we had a great time. Alas, we no longer have that boat, but I can assure you that we still have another one. My husband has a real passion for his canal boats.
Those are just some of the significant economic, social and environmental benefits of our canals. It is estimated that more than £4 billion in additional benefits is brought in every year. That is pretty impressive, especially considering how the Canal & River Trust—a charity—was founded only in 2012. Prior to that, the public-funded British Waterways was responsible for canals and rivers in England and Wales. It is a huge task, with over 1,500 locks, 55 tunnels, 281 aqueducts, almost 3,000 bridges and 71 reservoirs to maintain, improve and invest in for the future.
It is fair to describe the CRT as the guardian of around 2,000 miles of waterways and the protector of historic and critical infrastructure. Much of that is more than 200 years old, and is now vulnerable to climate change. As we sadly saw with the Toddbrook reservoir dam a couple of years ago, that has a real potential to threaten neighbouring homes.
What makes the journey and story of the CRT even more remarkable is the way in which it is funded from a diverse range of sources; I would go through those, but I am conscious of the clock. Alongside the various income streams, I want to recognise the role of volunteers in my consistency. Aldridge rotary club is one of the many organisations up and down the country that is involved in maintaining one particular strip. I must declare an interest as a Rotarian.
The CRT is a huge success story, but I cannot stress enough the importance of the £52.6 million grant that it receives from DEFRA. I came to speak today to urge the Minister and her Government to continue to support the CRT. The benefits are massive—there are health-related, economic and wellbeing benefits, as well as benefits for community groups. At a time when so many families are feeling financial pressure, it is an opportunity to explore the outdoors for free. Given that the CRT has not just stepped up to the plate but gone way beyond it, I hope that the Minister and her team will look positively when reviewing the grant and continue to pay, de minimis, the £52.6 million a year—or increase it, because the return on investment is absolutely huge.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for this important opportunity to speak on this matter. As everybody knows, I represent a beautiful and rural coastal constituency with 52 miles of glorious coastline. But we also have a little secret—one that not many people know of. I have Norfolk’s only locked sailing canal, the North Walsham and Dilham canal. I invite my hon. Friend to come and visit it any time he wants.
Duncan Baker
Certainly, but I had better check with the wife first.
The canal was originally about 9 miles long and was built by private investors under a local Act of Parliament passed in 1812. It was built for carrying goods in Norfolk’s famous wherries, originating from or travelling to as far afield as London and the north-east via Great Yarmouth. It served the local community for over 100 years. But like many canals, it fell into disuse with the new railways and the improvements on our roads that made the transportation of heavy goods easier and faster.
In 2000, enthusiastic volunteers started to restore our waterway into what is now quite simply the most beautiful and magical setting one could ever see. It was in 2008 that the North Walsham & Dilham Canal Trust was formed. The trust volunteers have helped the owner of one of the stretches of canal to completely restore the first mile. From North Walsham, one lock has been completely rebuilt, another pair of gates at a second lock have been replaced, and we are now well into the next section of the canal, which is a mile and a half in length—and that work is royally ongoing.
The question is, why is such work so important? Like this debate, it is about the future. Ultimately, volunteer groups do it to benefit nature and biodiversity, and to preserve the historical structures that in many cases, up and down the land, are not used as they used to be. They also do it to help the welfare of our local populations and for tourism, which we have heard many hon. Members talk about.
In my constituency, the volunteers regularly hold work parties, which have been described as a sort of outdoor gymnasium, for people to come and get involved. That brings great benefits to the community. My stretch of this beautiful canal is now used for wild swimmers, canoeists, paddleboarders and fishermen and women; there is also a small solar-powered vessel operated by the trust and its volunteers. Quite simply, it is also a quiet spot to have a picnic, or to take a few hours out and just relax. The benefits to mental and physical health are clear for all to see.
However, there is always a “but”—and my “but” is about the Environment Agency. My plea to the Minister is that the EA must listen and learn from the volunteers, because if it was not for my volunteers, this piece of disused canal that had fallen into disrepair would not be as established as it is today. The greatest challenge of the trustees is always to prove to the EA the great work that they are doing. That is entirely within the aims and the objectives of the Environment Act 2021.
I end by thanking the volunteers, especially those work party leaders. Without them, and without many of the hon. Members who have contributed today, our beautiful canals would not exist. I thank David Revill, our current chairman, who has done so much work, and Graham Pressman, who humbly describes himself as just the boating officer on my stretch of canal. However, all those back home know that Graham is a fountain of information and enthusiasm who embodies the passion that has restored this fabulous waterway.
I leave hon. Members with the aims of my trust, which I am sure are the aims of every single trust mentioned in this room today: to promote the benefit for the public and the restoration, conservation and protection of the natural environment around the canal. On seeing the work my volunteers have done, I am sure the canal is in safe hands going forward.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for bringing this important debate.
I am excited to talk about our canals because I am the vice president of the Cotswold Canals Trust and I take every opportunity to talk about the fabulous men and women who have done so much for our communities. The organisation boasts the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, which I nominated it for and we accepted last year. It has also won engineering awards and so many more accolades.
The trust is winning stuff with so much good reason, because we have hundreds of volunteers, as many hon. Members have said, and they are really skilled. Being in my patch means we have nuclear scientists, engineers and people who have taken time out to come and help us with our vision for our canal network. They also let me dredge part of our canal. If hon. Members look at my Instagram video of that, they will see a massive smile on my face as I saw the dredgers go backwards and forwards. The volunteers are absolutely fantastic. They also work closely with councils; Stroud District Council is a big partner. The stakeholder working group is huge and to their credit. We also have real excellence in the fundraising department, winning £9 million of lottery funding, and I opened the Stonehouse bookshop, which is the second of the fundraising bookshops in our area.
I live near the Saul junction and I can see the River Severn from my house, so waterways are important to me. As some hon. Members have already said, during the devastatingly dark times of lockdown, when we were walking round in circles for the short time we were allowed out of the house, the canal waterway was vital to my mental health and to many other people’s as well.
The main reason why the communities and canal network teams in my constituency are superb is their brilliant and bold ambition for what we are trying to do. In 1975, a team of waterway enthusiasts recognised the importance of our canals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield has so beautifully brought to life today, we have to bear in mind the history of the networks. The Gloucester and Sharpness canal was planned in the late 18th century and it opened in 1827. By 1905 the traffic exceeded 1 million tonnes. In my own little village, we had an important Cadbury’s factory, and we were bringing in goods and using the canal networks to connect to the midlands. We all know how important that business was for our country and for chocolate.
As for that bold ambition, we would like to connect the River Severn to the Thames, with water-transfer opportunities woven in. We have a wet bit of the country and we can bring it to a drier bit of the country. We have made a real commitment to restoring the Cotswold canals to full navigation in the interests of conservation, biodiversity and local quality of life. We have had a few phases of that, with the Gloucester and Sharpness canal phase and the Cotswold Water Park to the River Thames. Phase 3 will link the central section, which includes the now-derelict Sapperton tunnel. Phase 1A was opened by His Majesty the King and we have come up against some serious engineering challenges. I would welcome some visits to the A38 roundabout, because we have put a canal through it, which is pretty impressive.
Will the Minister visit Stroud? I know she knows and loves my patch already. Will she give the Government a bit of a kick on funding and also ensure they understand the importance of that? I say “they” because it is not just DEFRA—it is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department of Health and Social Care and so many other Government Departments. They need to understand that when we ask for support for our canal and waterway networks, it is about tourism, health, wellbeing and the local economy. I ask the Government to work with organisations such as the Cotswolds Canals Trust because they are stacked full of experts and they are constructive. They do not ask for something unless they genuinely need it, because their first port of call is usually to try to find things and do it themselves. I cannot thank my local teams enough. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Robert. I too thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for bringing forward this debate on the future of the UK’s canals and waterways and congratulate him on what was an excellent speech. I also thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for their valuable contributions to the debate. It is a pleasure to come here this morning to inform this Chamber of the healthy state of Scotland’s thriving canals and waterways. I am glad the hon. Member for Lichfield is looking forward to hearing so much about them.
Canals have connected Scottish waterways east to west and north to south for more than 200 years, and they continue to play an increasingly vital role in connecting our local communities back to nature and our heritage. Scotland’s inland waterways are treasured historic assets that firmly belong to the people of Scotland. The Forth and Clyde, Union and Monkland canals in the lowlands of Scotland, the Crinan canal in Argyll and the Caledonian canal in the highlands extend to around 137 miles from coast to coast, across our country and through the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness.
Built more than 200 years ago to power and fire the industrial revolution, with coal from the Lanarkshire mines transported along these intricate canal ways, today our inland waterways massively contribute to the Scottish Government’s agenda of developing a greener, healthier, wealthier, smarter, safer and ultimately fairer Scotland by acting as a catalyst for sustainable economic development, regeneration and tourism, contributing to education, biodiversity and our heritage and promoting active living and healthier lifestyles, which we all know to be so important.
Today, Scottish Canals, the body responsible for managing the country’s inland waterways, is utilising these 18th-century assets alongside new and innovative technology to tackle modern-day problems. Working with local and national partners to create pioneering systems, Scottish Canals is helping to combat flooding and driving positive transformation in some of Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas.
The Monkland canal in my constituency was the basis for creating surrounding settlements such as the town of Coatbridge. As I touched on earlier, it was responsible for the transportation of coal from the former mining heartlands of Lanarkshire to fire the industry we are so renowned for in Scotland. As the coal industry has receded and times have changed, the modern-day canal is tended to and taken care of—like so many others, as we have heard this morning—by volunteers. The Friends of Monkland Canal group is a volunteer organisation that is chock full of passionate people who undertake regular activities along our inland waterways, helping to inform local residents of the history of the canal, working collaboratively to keep the area clean and tidy and making it a welcoming environment for locals and those from wider afield to utilise.
The volunteers’ fantastic work has successfully encouraged a major investment from Sustrans, which has provided a grant of £429,000 for upgrades to the pathways surrounding the canal, as well as the installation of new drainage systems. Paving and other remedial works along the canal approaches will open up the canal to so many more residents—those who use wheelchairs, families with prams and buggies, cyclists and so on—making it more accessible to everyone in our community and allowing it to be used by every person every single day of the year. This work will bring Monkland canal right into the 21st century and make it fit for future use. I am sure the Minister will join me in commending the Friends of Monkland Canal organisation for its stellar work and its service to not only the local community but all of Scotland for its care and consideration of our canals and inland waterways.
As we British Waterways move towards a post-covid era, we must understand the positive impact that canals and their environs can have on our mental health and wellbeing and utilise them to overcome the still- felt effects of multiple lockdown periods on our communities. A global study conducted by the University of Glasgow in 2020 found that people who live within 750 yards of a canal have lower risks of heart disease, diabetes and hypertension compared with those who live further away, and that is independent of socioeconomic factors.
The SNP and indeed the Scottish Government fully recognise the benefits that canals offer and are committed to supporting Scottish Canals to deliver on its ambitious objectives. Since 2019, the capital grant for Scottish Canals has increased by 87%, alongside an uplift each year in resource funding, plus additional funding to mitigate the impacts of covid-19. The most recent project by Scottish Canals is the Stockingfield bridge project in north Glasgow, which has won the 2022 Institution of Civil Engineers people’s choice award—well done to all involved. The two-way spanning cable-stayed pedestrian and cycle bridge opened earlier this month. It took 21 months to complete at a cost of £14 million, which is a bargain. It connects the communities of Maryhill, Gilshochill and Ruchill on either side of the Forth and Clyde canal for the first time since 1790.
Finally, I encourage our counterparts from all across these islands to follow the example of Scottish Canals and ensure that our waterways are protected and upgraded, to allow the surrounding communities to embrace the ultimate benefits of the splendid nature around them.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Robert.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing this important debate on the future of Britain’s canals and waterways. He has campaigned tirelessly on this issue over the years, and with good reason. That was evident from his contribution and from the speeches and interventions by many others. It is not often that the Opposition are in full agreement with the hon. Member, but that is the case today. We should all congratulate ourselves on that.
I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), the shadow Minister, for whom I am subbing today. He is away from the parliamentary estate on shadow ministerial business, so I have been drafted in to guide us through the calm waters of this debate.
This country was the first in the world to develop a nationwide canal network that connected towns and cities, brought people together and developed and stimulated so much of the trade, industry and commerce that modern Britain was built on. I have the great pleasure of serving the people of Newport West, and in our neck of the woods we boast a unique flight of 14 locks, the Cefn flight, which rises 160 feet in just half a mile. That must have been an amazing sight in its heyday. Such locks and canals are a legacy of the engineering wonder of the industrial revolution, and they also make up part of the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal network, which is widely recognised as being one of the most beautifully located set of waterways in Britain. I give a shout out to the Monmouthshire, Brecon and Abergavenny Canals Trust for all the work that it does, and in particular to Councillor Yvonne Forsey and the other volunteers in Newport West.
Our canals are no longer the arteries of trade that they were 200 years ago. The car, bike, van and truck have all come through the middle of them—literally. Today, canals and riverways mainly provide other functions—possibly too many to list in the short time I have to speak, which only shows their importance. We have already heard that they offer free and accessible outdoor space and recreation for millions of people. Indeed, Adam Jogee, who works in my office, and his fiancée Alison Lawther, alongside two of their friends, Mark Streather and Allison Katz, took the chance to stay on a canal boat during a recent recess. It was Adam’s first time on a canal, and he said that although it was a little chilly at night they had a great time on the canals around Bosworth, Stoke Golding and Nuneaton. I hope the hon. Member for Lichfield is pleased to know that on this side of the House we do not just praise our canals but use and cherish them, too.
Our canals provide homes for boaters; importantly, they help to prevent floods; and they have given us a network of green corridors steeped in rich industrial history that is unlike anywhere else in the world. Our waterways are also home to tens of thousands of different species, including some of our most precious creatures, such as bats, water voles and dormice, all of which are at risk of extinction. This debate gives us an opportunity to air our concerns and bring attention to the fact that we all need to do more and go further. Given that the United Kingdom sits in the bottom 10% of countries globally when it comes to biodiversity, it seems obvious that we should do everything in our power to protect the unique habitats we have and the plants and wildlife that call them home. That is what His Majesty’s Opposition will do when we win the next election.
We are broadly at one on the issue, but I cannot let the Minister leave before I have raised a number of specific issues. I know she would expect nothing less. She knows that the job of protecting and developing our phenomenal canal and waterway network falls largely to the Canal & River Trust, so why have Ministers postponed the announcement of the trust’s grant, which provides around a quarter of its funding? It was due to be announced on 1 July. The fact that the Government—well, two Prime Ministers ago—were collapsing is no excuse not to ensure a sustainable and long-term programme of support for the trust, so why, as the final leaves fall from the trees, have we still not heard from the Government, despite their assurances that the overdue funding would be allocated in autumn? The delay is threatening the future of our canals and of all those who rely on them. Furthermore, it makes it more difficult for the trust to plan for the future and hampers the progress of a number of large projects that are designed to help to build and shape much-needed resilience to the harsh and increasingly frequent effects of climate change.
Indeed, the Office for Environmental Protection—a body set up by the Government only last year—has received a complaint describing the constant delays as being
“at risk of becoming the default culture within Defra”,
and just weeks ago the Government failed to meet their own legal deadline to introduce targets on clean air, land and water. There have been many more missed deadlines, quietly scrapped funds and delays to important legislation—I am thinking in particular of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
As we discuss the future of Britain’s canals and waterways, I am conscious of the fact that, behind the grand environmental claims, Ministers constantly make the wrong choices. The Opposition believe that is unacceptable, and we want Ministers to be active and to speak out much more quickly. It is not hard to wonder whether the delay in the announcement of the grant for the Canal & River Trust is about whether to slash it or scrap it. If that happens, the trust has been clear that it will not be able to maintain its work of protecting our precious waterways.
At a time of ecological and economic crisis, Britain’s canals and waterways are a haven for wildlife and people alike. I ask the Minister to heed our calls, and the calls made by Government Members, and commit herself to protecting our heritage, saving our wildlife and preserving much-needed opportunities for future generations by properly funding Britain’s canals and waterways, and to do that today.
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, let me remind the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who introduced the debate, that he might get a minute or two to make a winding-up speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert, for what has been a most delightful start to the morning, kicked off by our effervescent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I expected nothing less because my hon. Friend brings real passion to the subject, on which he has spoken many times. This morning, my hon. Friend also brought his acting skills to bear and used his American accent. All that has helped us to bring the subject to light, as has the wonderful array of colleagues present. At one point, there were no fewer than 10 Conservative Members here, although I wonder where our Labour colleagues are. Perhaps they are not as passionate about canals as we are.
Rebecca Pow
I of course do not include the hon. Gentleman in that comment. He is ever present in Westminster Hall, and he brought to light the canals in his area. I am going to speak about English and Welsh canals, not Scottish and Northern Irish ones, because Scotland and Northern Ireland sort themselves out and run things themselves. However, it was lovely to hear about the canals in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
What a cornucopia of canals we have heard about—canals from across the country—and I have been struck by the stories that Members told, particularly those about the engagement of volunteers. We have also heard many great names, such as the Erewash canal and the Wyrley and Essington canal, as well as a whole lot from the Cotswolds, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) puts under the Cotswolds hat—the Stroudwater canal, the Gloucester and Sharpness canal, and the Thames and Severn canal, which are all in the area. She is spoilt for choice.
We also heard about the Walsham and Dilham canal, which is small but becoming perfectly formed after all the work. I have had quite an association with the Kennet and Avon canal, which ran right past my school in the centre of Bath. It played quite a big role in my life: we would go out there for art classes and walk along it. I met my first boyfriend on a sponsored walk along the canal from Bath to Bradford-on-Avon, so I have never forgotten it. My husband and his mates always used to do some sort of activity every year, and the very last activity he went on with his group of lads before he died was on the Kennet and Avon canal. It was in November and it was pouring with rain. He was on crutches, but they still had the most magical time. I remember it with great fondness. That is what can be done on a canal.
I now live near the Bridgwater and Taunton canal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentioned. It was a go-to place to walk along during the lockdown, so it was very important. We have heard about all the benefits that our canals bring, including the huge public benefits—enjoyment, leisure, recreation and waterside holidays. My husband went canoeing, and paddleboarding has become incredibly popular; I suppose it is quite good to do on a canal because there are no waves, unless a boat passes.
Canals have all those great benefits, and there is also their history and industrial heritage. There are huge health and wellbeing benefits to walking along a canal. During lockdown, we regularly used to see kingfishers. Even with all those people walking along the path, the kingfishers were not afraid because it was their habitat and home. We have heard about the amazing green corridors that canals can forge through our countryside, and particularly in cities and towns. I take issue with what the shadow Minister said, because the Government are doing a great deal of work on reintroducing biodiversity in nature. We are setting targets for that, and canals form a very important part of it.
The United Kingdom’s largest navigation authority is the Canal & Rivers Trust. As has been said, something like 800 million visits are made to our canals every year, which is pretty phenomenal. That shows just how important they are. Our waterways and navigation authorities have a really important part to play in helping to ensure that this important piece of our infrastructure is resilient to climate change and helps us to meet our net zero targets through sustainable transport, energy generation and the transfer of water.
Water security is becoming an increasingly important issue. I am the Water Minister—I am pleased to say that is one of the hats I wear—and water security is as important as all the other issues that we are tackling, such as water demand. Climate change is triggering changes and extreme weather events. The Government are developing policies to adapt to climate change right throughout the country, and our navigation authorities are exploring ways to adapt the network to climate change.
The infrastructure can also contribute to net zero. That includes examining the feasibility of increasing electrification of the networks and encouraging boaters to switch to electric vessels. Earlier this year, the Broads Authority, with funding from the Department for Transport’s clean maritime demonstration competition, examined the potential for the electrification of the broads hire boat fleet. The Environment Agency has installed a number of electric charging points along the non-tidal River Thames, and the Canal & River Trust has installed electric charging points on a few of its London canals, including a trial eco-mooring zone on the Regent’s canal, part-funded by DEFRA and the London Borough of Islington.
Wendy Morton
The Minister is setting out some fantastic examples of how we can help our waterways to adapt for the future with electric points and so forth, but one thing that really concerns me is our ageing infrastructure. Looking ahead is fantastic and absolutely the right thing to do, but will she reassure me that the Government will play their part when it comes to the maintenance and restoration of the infrastructure that we have today?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent point. I will refer to it a bit later in my speech, but it is a really serious point. Of course, infrastructure is affected by climate change and extremes of weather, which are putting more pressure on some assets. As well as the opportunities around electrification, there are similar opportunities with active travel and the cycle networks along our canals, which allow people to get away from roadsides and travel in a much fresher and cleaner environment. If we can get more people to take to their bikes, it will help us reduce carbon emissions and tackle the net zero targets.
Let me go back to water security, which is really important. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play in this endeavour in times of both flooding and drought. They can help by managing water levels, and the long dry spells this summer have highlighted how the canal network could increasingly play a role in water transfer, particularly from west to east. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned taking water from the wet west to the east. All these things obviously have to be carefully worked out, and I have spoken to the Canal & River Trust about how such opportunities would work. I particularly welcome Affinity Water’s plan to work with the Canal & River Trust to transfer water through the Grand Union canal, and I know others are looking at other such opportunities.
As has been touched on, the network has a really important historic value, with much of it being more than 200 years old. It matters a great deal to people and a lot of restoration work is under way. We have heard so much about volunteers and I, too, thank them. So many volunteers have played a key role in restoring sections of our canals, and I particularly want to mention that I had a wonderful trip to the Monty canal in Montgomeryshire, where I met lots of volunteers and saw the work they were doing. They have benefited from a £16 million levelling-up fund grant. Members have mentioned the levelling-up benefits of canals, and that money is being spent well in the community to restore the fantastic canal in the centre of town.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is talking about funding; when can we expect the funding announcement for the Canal & River Trust that was supposed to be made back in July? Rather than the parliamentary “shortly”, can we have an actual date?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady mentioned that in her speech, as did others, so I will come to it now. Many Members mentioned the annual grant to the Canal & River Trust, so I want to explain a bit about the grant, how it happened and the history around it. The grant stands at £52.6 million until 2027 and currently represents about one quarter of the trust’s annual income, which means that the trust derives three quarters of its annual income from other sources. That distinction is very important, because one of the trust’s objectives when it was created in 2012 with charitable status was that it would be free of the public sector constraints that its predecessor, British Waterways, was subject to. Freedom from public sector constraints meant that the trust would be free to develop other income generation strategies, including by benefiting from charitable donations and legacies, charity tax reliefs, third-party project funding and borrowing on the financial markets.
It is also worth mentioning that in 2012 the trust was endowed by the Government with a significant property and investment portfolio, which is currently valued at around £1.1 billion, and the returns were to be used as income. The clear intent was that the trust would reduce its dependence on the Government grant and foster increasing self-sufficiency by providing access to income streams not available to public corporations and by stimulating new efficiencies.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield that British Waterways received more funding than the Canal & River Trust: indeed, that was the intent behind establishing an independent charity to undertake that function. However, it is important that we compare like with like when looking at the evolution of Government funding. British Waterways, a public corporation, was responsible for the waterways in England, Wales and Scotland, whereas the Canal & River Trust—which is a charity, with access to charitable benefits and tax breaks—is responsible for England and Wales only. Scottish Canals funding represented £10.5 million in 2011-12, and the existing grant increased by £10 million in 2015-16 and has been inflation-adjusted until April 2022. It is then required by the grant agreement to be flat for the final five years of the grant period.
Wendy Morton
I appreciate the Minister setting out the history behind the finances, but I want to reinforce the point that when we discuss the £52.6 million that the Canal & River Trust is in receipt of, we must not underestimate the huge level of income streams that they are generating, heading towards the target that the Government want them to get to. It is important that the Government do not lose sight of the £4.6 billion-worth of benefits that are coming in in various ways. Also, given that the climate change agenda has changed so much since 2012, does the Minister agree that we are not comparing apples with apples here?
Rebecca Pow
My right hon. Friend makes some sound points. That is why the team in DEFRA is working so closely with the trust to iron out what is required and what would be the right tapering or reduction of rates. That is being carefully calculated, because huge benefits are realised and the pressures of climate change are changing things. Of course, as we have heard, the Canal & River Trust is already attracting grants from other places—the levelling-up fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund, and so on. Some big grants have come in that way as well.
Rebecca Pow
It will have to be quick, because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield a chance to wind up.
Maggie Throup
The Minister has hit the nail on the head, but without realising that the grant that the Canal & River Trust receives is an enabling grant to ensure it can get grants from other sources. Without that enabling grant from the Government, some of the other grants and support would probably not come through, which shows how important the Government’s support will continue to be.
Rebecca Pow
I do not think anybody denies the importance of the Government’s support, hence why so much care is being taken in working out the future of that support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield noted, the grant was agreed for a period of 15 years, from 2012 to 2027. That was to give the trust a measure of financial stability while working on its other income streams, which it has done very effectively. That includes maintenance of the canal network, which is a significant part of annual expenditure, and it is the trust’s responsibility to decide on its priorities and consider where it needs to spend its money. We are all aware of the Toddbrook reservoir dam incident three years ago, which highlighted how essential it is to put safety at the forefront as a top priority of waterways. I know that will remain the case.
The grant agreement requires that a review of the trust’s grant be carried out at the 10-year point, which is what my Department is currently completing. We are looking with a laser focus at all the issues that have been raised, scrutinising the trust’s performance to date—has the grant been value for money?—and the case for continued funding into the future. As I have said, we are working closely with the trust on this matter; the review has been concluded, and indeed was due to report by 1 July. A range of extraneous influences, politely referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, slowed that somewhat, but it is progressing now with speed. I am unable to comment further in detail on the outcomes, but it will be announced forthwith—not shortly but forthwith. The Department and I will continue to work with the new chair, David Orr. I am looking forward to meeting him and going out on more visits.
In closing, I thank my hon. Friend for raising the subject, and all colleagues for giving insights on the joys of canals and getting to the nub of what is concerning people. Funding is obviously of paramount importance. We have to get that right, which is why time is being taken over it. The announcement will be made as soon as possible. In the meantime, I wish the trust all the best with the great work it does. I do not think anybody denies for a minute the enormous benefits we get from our canal network.
Michael Fabricant
I thank everyone who participated in the debate. I did not make a list but the Minister did, so I would like to thank her for making that list of about a dozen people who participated. I thank all the parties involved, especially the Minister.
I was feverishly looking up the meaning of “forthwith”, but I did not get that far, or of “immediately” or “in the near future”. Clearly, that is immensely important, as I think the Minister knows. I will embarrass her by saying she is nodding, I think in agreement with me. Everyone here realises the importance for the Canal & River Trust to have some idea of what its grant will be after March 2027, when it terminates. It needs to plan which canals remain open. We do not want to see any of our canals close like the example I gave of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal. As Joni Mitchell sang:
“You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone…They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”
We do not want to see that happen to our canals and waterways, but we need some certainty. I am a little disappointed, though I understand the reasons why the Minister could not give certainty today. I am sure that “forthwith” means not a year or two years from now. I am sure that “forthwith” does not even mean three months from now. I hope that “forthwith” means that within a few weeks we will learn precisely what grant the Canal & River Trust will be given. Only once it knows that, can it plan ahead. Only by planning ahead will we be able to maintain such an important element of our national heritage.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the UK’s canals and waterways.
Asylum Seekers Contingency Accommodation: Belfast
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
I will call Claire Hanna to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention with 30-minute debates.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of contingency accommodation for asylum seekers in Belfast.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Robert I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue and I welcome the presence of the Minister to respond. It is fair to say that the Minister’s party and my own are probably in very different places ideologically in how we approach asylum and humanitarian issues, but I intend to focus my remarks on the implementation and impact of UK Government policy as it manifests in the area that I represent—primarily the use of hotels for long periods due to the catastrophic Home Office failures in processing asylum applications.
The growing backlog in decisions and claims is the core problem in asylum, meaning that more people are left in limbo, unable to move on and live a life. Anyone in direct contact with people in asylum accommodation knows that it is unsuitable for most, especially families and those with specific needs, on anything more than a very short-term basis. By way of context, it is of course a complicated and hard enough and dangerous world out there. Although the necessity to leave one’s home country in order to survive is beyond the lived experience of most of us in this room, we know there are myriad reasons that people are forced to make the decision to flee their home—war, famine, persecution, and increasingly the climate crisis. We are lucky to live in places where we are not faced with those kinds of decisions. Indeed, the UK receives a relatively low number of applications from the global asylum seeker population—considerably below the European average.
The number of people seeking asylum has not changed dramatically over the years, although the routes have changed and the number of arrivals in Belfast has increased. There is a current upward curve, but, overall, arrivals remain below the levels of asylum sought in the early 2000s. What has changed, though, and what has collapsed, is the Home Office’s willingness or ability to process applications properly, and that is creating bottlenecks in the use of contingency hotel accommodation. The system is broken and unfortunately there seems to be no plan to fix it. If the Government spent as much money on resourcing, processing or designing safe routes as they have on cartoonishly cruel proposals such as the Rwanda scheme and wave machines, we would be in a very different position.
I am encouraged by word of positive discussions with France to reduce unsafe channel crossings because, to date, the only success of Government policy has been to increase fear and trauma among asylum seekers and refugees. It is not reducing the number of people coming because they do not, in most cases, have the luxury of choice.
I represent south Belfast, long known as the most diverse and integrated part of Northern Ireland, and proudly home to people from all around the world. As the MP, I am often contacted by people regarding their asylum claims, and the numbers have spiked in the last year for reasons that include a post-covid backlog and being forced to apply retrospectively post arrival.
Figures from the Refugee Council indicate that the UK’s asylum backlog has almost quadrupled in the last five years, from just under 30,000 in December 2017 to 122,000 in June 2022. The comparison over 10 years is even more stark. In December 2011, the number of people awaiting an initial decision was just 12,800. Freedom of information requests reveal that of those awaiting an initial decision, one third have been waiting one to three years, with a proportion waiting more than five years, which is the situation facing specific constituents of mine. That limbo period is a mental torment for people who are unable to participate properly in society, who have little recourse to public funds, and who are unable to work or start a business. Some three quarters of applicants are ultimately accepted as legitimately seeking asylum, but they are held back unnecessarily from beginning a new life.
Selectively leaked Home Office figures urge us all to look instead at those who do not have legitimate claims—a deflection and a demonisation strategy that many of us are used to in terms of the abuse of people who require social security support. The obvious way to address those who do not qualify for asylum is to process and reject their applications, but that is not as politically lucrative as rhetoric about invasion and overwhelm.
Home Office figures, to the extent that they are available by region, indicate that the number of people arriving in Northern Ireland seeking asylum has increased significantly since January 2021, and just over 1,000 people are currently in hotel accommodation. Around 15% of hotels in Belfast are now designated as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers. In Northern Ireland, the accommodation is run by Mears, a private company, for profit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward, and am glad to be here to support her. Home Office figures for the past year show that 2,010 asylum seekers received local authority support in Belfast—more than double the figure for last year. There have been numerous reports that, throughout Belfast and Northern Ireland, the conditions of some—but not all—of the homes asylum seekers have been given are damp, mouldy, dirty and not fit to live in. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must focus on ensuring that the homes we already have are safe and clean, before we focus our priorities on additional accommodation for asylum seekers, whose applications are, as she says, taking months to process?
Claire Hanna
There is no doubt that the public housing stock in Northern Ireland is inadequate and has been under-resourced for many decades. The hotels and dispersal accommodation are in many cases far from adequate. The hotel accommodation that we are discussing is far from the luxury that some people would want us to believe it is. I am pleased to say that the hotels of which I am aware in Northern Ireland are themselves in decent physical order, but I understand that that is not always the case elsewhere.
The setting is often compared to prison because of the restrictions placed on residents, the overcrowding of rooms, and the disruption from fellow residents, among whom some mental ill health is inevitable given the circumstances. Children and adults share the same small spaces. In at least one hotel, offices have been converted into bedrooms. The overall atmosphere is described as chaotic and oppressive.
Behind the statistics is one of my constituents, Mustafa, who, since arriving in Northern Ireland in January this year, has been living in one room with his wife, Linda, and their three boys, who are aged five, six and 13. They spend most of their days in their room. They eat at set mealtimes, and are unable to choose what to eat. They are unable to have the simple family pleasure of shared mealtimes. They all have to go to bed at the same time, or lie in silence. Their movements outside the hotel are restricted by time and distance limits. That is as close to imprisonment as is possible without actually being incarcerated.
The experiences of individuals and children in contingency accommodation falls significantly short in key respects, which include the right to education, the right to play, the right to privacy, the right to family life, the right to health, freedom of assembly, effective participation in society, and respect for and opportunity to develop one’s own culture. Families in the hotels do not have access to shared spaces for play, socialising or self-organisation. Many of the hotels lack proper outdoor space, and those in city centre hotels do not have access to play parks or other stimulating environments—Belfast city centre does not do well enough on green space. Children who do not have a place in school are particularly restricted in terms of age-appropriate activities. Many of those in contingency accommodation are from the continent of Africa, and they experience a much more restrictive and less supportive asylum process than new arrivals from Ukraine, for whom the situation is absolutely no picnic.
Mustafa and his family’s situation is reflected hundreds of times over. One of the issues raised regularly with me is the atmosphere of fear and restriction in hotels. Indeed, when I visited a hotel a few weeks ago for a meeting with a constituent to discuss only their asylum application—no comment had been made to me about the accommodation—I was treated to an extremely frosty reception by a member of staff. I was told in no uncertain terms to leave the hotel, despite having been signed in and granted access by very courteous security guards. As we say in Belfast, I am big and ugly enough to look after myself and to deal with people, but I am genuinely concerned about the atmosphere that that creates for people who are fearful of getting on the wrong side of the system that will decide their future. Complaints processes are long and unwieldy, and it feels impossible for asylum seekers to effect positive change from within the system.
Ultimately, processing backlogs mean a lack of control or agency for people, in any area of their lives, for interminable periods of time. They elongate and exacerbate the worst experience of their lives. My caseworkers and I tried to seek updates about the growing backlog of applicants, and were increasingly met with silence or oblique responses from the Home Office. Each new arrival essentially has to reinvent the wheel and chart their own course in terms of accessing information about public services and their basic financial entitlements. Financial restrictions mean that families cannot avail themselves of social or cultural activities and they cannot buy specific toiletries, clothes or other things for their children. The ban on the right to work for asylum seekers drives more people into destitution; it does nothing to help them integrate or to stand on their own feet, as people want. It makes little sense at a time when we know the UK’s economy is being limited by skills and labour shortages.
I fully support campaigning by organisations, such as Participation and the Practice of Rights, for the right to work for asylum seekers who have been waiting for more than six months. I deeply regret that a well-supported and crafted cross-party amendment to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 did not advance the issue.
A report from the Children’s Law Centre in Northern Ireland earlier this year found that around 135 school-age children placed in accommodation had not been provided with school places. School places, when they are sorted, are temporary because of the temporary nature of accommodation, meaning that the children are unable to settle properly. I must commend a number of local schools that have really stepped up and truly wrapped their arms around those children and their families. Notably, in Belfast, Fane Street Primary School and Holy Rosary Primary have done so in a way that is genuinely inspiring and reassuring about the society we live in.
While the original sin in the asylum system is processing failures, the issues I have outlined also demonstrate fundamental failure by the Northern Ireland Executive, as was until last month, who are inadequately co-ordinating services that asylum seekers are entitled to in Northern Ireland. We are still without a proper refugee integration strategy, and efforts to address the needs of asylum seekers are piecemeal and largely reliant on voluntary and community organisations to lead and step into the breach.
The asylum seekers I speak to have their already restricted opportunities to leave their accommodation hampered by the worry that they might miss a call about their accommodation or another public service. That means they are cut off from the small number of services that are put in place for them. I wrote to the various Departments at different points this year, asking that Ministers—who were very much in post at the time—commit to engaging across Departments. I am afraid that I got fairly vague platitudes about working with the wider public and voluntary sectors. I am yet to see much evidence.
It does not have to be that way. Northern Ireland and the UK have a track record of successful co-ordination in welcoming asylum seekers. In 2015, Northern Ireland welcomed 1,800 Syrians under the Syrian vulnerable person relocation scheme. Through that scheme, families received support from a consortium of voluntary and statutory organisations, along with overwhelming support from the population in Northern Ireland. The scheme treated people with dignity and compassion; it ensured that they had access to the right to work, to public services, to paperwork and to the right to family reunion. That shows that we do have the capacity and compassion to welcome and integrate asylum seekers.
In conclusion, I acknowledge that these are complex and, in many cases, expensive challenges. The Government have many competing priorities, and I reiterate that no one is suggesting that the UK takes all asylum seekers—we absolutely do not do that. While it is obvious that the contingency accommodation that we are contracting is inadequate, the underlying cause of those issues, and where the blame lies, is firmly at the feet of the Home Office. Hotel accommodation, even if it was well appointed and integrated with public services, is restrictive for normal family life. The Home Office has created and perpetuated the crisis through its hostile environment policy, which is penny wise and pound foolish. It has been through sheer, and fairly basic, incompetence.
It would suit the Home Office better to put in place rational, fair and humane ways to deal with backlog of claims, to provide safe and legal routes—including being able to apply from outside the UK—and to resource and expedite the integration of those granted asylum into society. That would allow them to work, fully participate and contribute positively to the economy, as other aspects of inward migration very clearly do.
Jim Shannon
The Syrian scheme, which the Government have been running for some time, has been an absolute success for us in Newtownards. I know we took only six families, but they integrated quickly and all the local community and church groups came together to make that happen. The families have excelled and are working. They are fully able to use the language and have integrated into society, so does the hon. Lady agree that there are examples of what can be done, and done well?
Claire Hanna
I thank the hon. Member for pointing that out. We have demonstrated that that is possible under the Northern Executive and a Conservative Government.
We want to see an end to the use of hotels for anything other than short-term stays, certainly for children and pregnant women. We need urgent improvement in living standards and atmosphere in Mears accommodation, and we need effective data sharing, co-ordination and co-operation between the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Departments and Northern Ireland public bodies in order to ensure access to services and support. To the limited extent that the UK is meeting its legal obligations and playing a constructive role in the world, we need to do it properly. We have shown we can do that, I believe the population wants us to do that, and we know the need is there, whether we want to do it or not.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing this debate, which is the first that we have had the pleasure to take part in together. It raises some important issues that I hope I can address over the course of my remarks.
As a country, we face a significant challenge in all parts of the United Kingdom. The confluence of record numbers of migrants crossing the channel in small boats, with the schemes that the hon. Lady set out, such as the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the Syrian resettlement scheme and the Afghan resettlement scheme, has meant that over the course of a two or three-year period a very large number of individuals have arrived in the UK and now need our support in contingency accommodation.
In some cases, those with the right to remain here for a longer period, or indefinitely, also need support in order to have a full and fulfilling life in the United Kingdom. That has put immense pressure on our asylum system and on local government and devolved Administrations throughout the United Kingdom. That is the challenge that the Home Secretary and I are now grappling with.
Northern Ireland is not a full dispersal area for asylum seekers, as the hon. Lady will know. That means that the asylum seekers who are accommodated in Northern Ireland are almost exclusively, if not exclusively, those who have presented themselves and claimed asylum in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of those will have crossed the border from the Republic of Ireland in order to make their asylum application, which makes this a different situation to those found in the rest of the UK. Comparatively, that also means fewer individuals are claiming asylum and being accommodated in Northern Ireland than in some other parts of the UK. That does not mean that the issue is not serious or that the pressures on accommodating them in accordance with our statutory obligations are not significant.
We are taking a broad approach, on many different fronts. First, on the diplomatic front, we are working with partners, such as France and the Republic of Ireland, to try to discourage individuals from crossing the channel or the border, to break up the people smuggling gangs, which are particularly active on the continent and in the channel, and to create a system in which deterrence is a golden thread running through it and diffused throughout it, so that we are significantly less attractive as a destination for asylum seekers, particularly economic migrants, than our EU neighbours.
Claire Hanna
I appreciate the Minister setting out the context for the pressure on public services, but I draw attention to the years of inadequate investment in those public services and I dispute some of his figures about those arriving in Northern Ireland. Does he understand my point that, notwithstanding the challenges of providing accommodation and food needs, the core failure is in processing? The number of staff to process asylum seekers was higher in the past, and that is primarily where the Home Office is failing.
Robert Jenrick
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. It is not that I disagree with the fact that the backlog of cases has grown too large and now needs to be tackled, which I will come to in a moment, but these are the symptoms of the problem. The cause of the problem is record numbers of people choosing to come into the United Kingdom illegally and the consequence of that is the exact opposite of what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve, which is that those illegal migrants, the economic migrants in particular, are putting immense pressure on our system in all parts of the UK and making it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for us to treat people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, war and human rights abuses in the manner that we would all wish to do as a big-hearted and welcoming country.
The hon. Lady is correct to say that the number of individuals waiting for their asylum cases to be processed is unacceptably high. That has risen over the course of the last three years for a range of reasons, some of which are related to a drop in productivity during the pandemic. We now need to change that. My role and that of the Home Secretary is to ensure we raise productivity in all the Home Office’s offices, including those personnel based in Northern Ireland, and ensure that we return to at least the levels of productivity we had prior to the pandemic.
We have already done a pilot of that approach at our Leeds office, which has seen a significant increase in the speed of processing. We are rolling that out now across the whole of the country. This is not a matter of resources or the number of decision makers. The part of the Home Office that handles this now has greater resources than prior to the pandemic and we have more than 1,000 individuals making the decisions, with that number rapidly rising to a target of 1,500. The issue, I am afraid, is one of leadership and productivity and that is what we are now setting out to address.
Coming to the specific issue of the accommodation that the hon. Lady raises, I want to make a few points that provide background and which I hope are helpful. First, having reviewed the accommodation throughout Northern Ireland in preparation for the debate, it is true to say that it is heavily centred on Belfast and in particular on the hon. Lady’s constituency. Across the UK, one of our objectives is to move to fairer and more equitable distribution so that individual cities or towns are not facing a disproportionate impact. There needs to be an effort to encourage more parts of Northern Ireland to accommodate asylum seekers.
Claire Hanna
Of course, I will make the point that almost the only way for people to arrive is illegally, due to the absence of safe and legal routes. Can the Home Office publish the data about arrival? Can the Minister also outline the efforts made to engage with other councils and areas in south Belfast and more widely than Belfast? He characterises it as a disproportionate pressure, but the Syrian scheme showed that there is willingness to take on and there is capacity. However, that has to be led by the Home Office, which controls dispersal and the resources that come with it.
Robert Jenrick
I can only speak to the time that I have been in position, which is only around a month. We have engaged with local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to explain the challenges that are being faced and encourage them to play their fair part in the solution. Yesterday, I held a call with the leaders and chief executives of all local authorities throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. In the absence of the Executive, my officials are actively engaging with civil servants and with local leaders and partners to encourage other parts of Northern Ireland to play a greater role.
We have instituted mandatory dispersal, by which we are encouraging children and adults to be accommodated by all local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. We have put in place a financial package to encourage local authorities to do that. That amounts to £3,500 per asylum-seeking adult and a more substantial package for unaccompanied children, with which there is a particular problem. Indeed, we are looking for state and private foster carers and children’s homes to find places for those vulnerable young people so we can get them out of hotels as swiftly as possible. If there is anything the hon. Lady and her colleagues can do to encourage local partners throughout Northern Ireland to step up and find other contingency accommodation—particularly dispersal accommodation, which is the ultimate solution to the hotels—that would be very much appreciated. The Department is understandably hamstrung by the lack of an Executive to deal with directly in the way we would wish.
The medium-term strategy to exit hotels, beyond reducing the backlog and bearing down on the number of individuals coming to the UK illegally, is to move to a model whereby we use hotels judiciously in exceptional circumstances; find a greater pool of dispersal accommodation in all parts of the United Kingdom, working with local authorities and relevant public bodies; and find more sustainable, somewhat larger, sites, such as disused student accommodation, where we can provide suitable accommodation for asylum seekers that is decent but not luxurious and provides good value for money for the taxpayer. We will provide good engagement prior to arrival so that the wraparound services that the hon. Lady mentioned in respect of health and education are constantly improved, as appropriate.
The hon. Lady and several colleagues from both sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom have raised engagement with me in my short tenure in the Department. At times, there has been limited engagement by the Home Office prior to choosing hotels and bringing in asylum seekers, and we need to change that. We have now instituted basic performance standards whereby the Home Office and its partners will engage with relevant local bodies at least 24 hours before individuals are sited in that hotel or other contingency accommodation. We will involve all the relevant agencies that are needed to ensure that those individuals’ arrival and stay are as successful as possible.
That is a first step, and we want to progressively improve that in the weeks and months to come to the point where local authorities and relevant public bodies are included in the decision-making process at the earliest opportunity. The Home Office—Whitehall—is clearly not best placed to choose the right contingency accommodation in particular cities and towns across the country, such as Belfast, and I believe we can improve that.
I have also met the suppliers this week, including Mears, to discuss how they can improve their engagement with Members of Parliament and local representatives. They have committed to step up their engagement and ensure that for every building that is occupied, such as a hotel, they provide a named point of contact so that the hon. Lady and her local partners can have proper engagement in an ongoing fashion with the people running the building. That would enable her to raise concerns as swiftly as possible with the relevant people so that, where appropriate, improvements can be made.
I hope that has provided some context to the Home Office’s approach. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s concerns and I take them seriously, even if we have a different attitude to the broader question of asylum. We want to ensure that we meet our statutory obligations to provide decent accommodation to all those who are in our care for as long as they are in the United Kingdom. I am very happy to work with her, her local partners and residents of Belfast to improve the situation.
Question put and agreed to.
NHS Staffing Levels
(2 years, 1 month 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
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS staffing levels.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to all the nurses, doctors and other medical professionals—indeed, everybody who works in the NHS—for the work they do to look after patients and keep us all safe.
I have been overwhelmed by the number of organisations that have shown interest in this debate and have shared details of how the NHS staffing crisis is impacting on the people they represent. They are too numerous to mention here, but they include the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Versus Arthritis, Cancer Research UK, Unite the union, Parkinson’s UK, the Royal College of Midwives and many others. It is clear that there is insufficient capacity in the NHS in England to meet the needs of patients.
The NHS staffing crisis is a direct result of the failure of Conservative Governments to plan and deliver the workforce that we need. The crisis is not just about the impact of the pandemic; it predates that. In June this year, there were more than 132,000 vacancies in the NHS in England, which is up from around 98,000 the previous year and from around 105,000 in March. When we look specifically at registered nursing staff, as of June there were over 46,000 vacancies. Alarmingly, that is almost 8,000 more than in March. For medical staff, there were over 10,500 vacancies in June, which is around 2,500 more than in March.
By way of comparison, in December 2019 there were around 38,000 nursing vacancies and more than 8,800 medical staff vacancies. What was already an extremely serious situation before the pandemic has become worse. Staffing shortages create stress for NHS workers, and delays and deteriorating quality and safety for patients. As well as vacancies, waiting times for treatment and emergency services have continued to soar. Last month, of the nearly 1.4 million people who visited major A&E departments, more than 550,000 waited more than four hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. That is 45.2% of attendees, which is way short of the target of 95% to be seen in four hours. In December 2019, 31.4% waited for more than four hours. Again, an already serious situation before covid has got worse.
As of last month, a total of 7.1 million people in England were waiting to start routine hospital treatment. More than 400,000 people had been waiting more than 52 weeks, and more than 2,000 longer than two years. Behind those statistics are huge numbers of people waiting in pain and anxiety. Cancer Research UK points out that, in September of this year, only 60.5% of patients started treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, against a target of 85%. That means that, in September alone, around 6,000 people waited for more than 62 days for their cancer treatment to start. Even before the pandemic, cancer patients were waiting too long for diagnosis and treatment. The 62-day target has not been met since 2015.
On the Conservatives’ watch, millions of patients are being deprived of the timely treatment that they desperately need. Because of the unacceptable delays, some are paying for expensive private healthcare, and many are distressed to do so, because they believe in a publicly owned, universal, comprehensive national health service. They have been failed by Conservative Governments.
The staffing crisis is having a devastating impact on retention. Last month, the Health Service Journal reported that a record number of NHS workers voluntarily resigned from their jobs during the first quarter of this financial year. Almost 35,000 resigned voluntarily, which is up from around 28,000 during the same period in 2021 and around 19,000 in 2020. The most common reason for leaving during quarter 1 of 2021-22 was work-life balance, which almost 7,000 NHS workers cited as their reason for leaving.
A few months ago, I met with members of the Royal College of Nursing. They told me about the incredible amount of pressure that they are under because of staff shortages. They also told me of nurses suffering financial hardship. Some are going to food banks, some are unable to afford to drive to work, and some are leaving the profession to work in chain stores for better pay. However, it is not just about pay. The nurses told me that they often simply do not have enough colleagues to work alongside them. That is extremely stressful for them, and dangerous and deeply unfair for patients.
I turn now to industrial action. NHS staff care deeply about their patients, but they can also see that the NHS is at breaking point. Earlier this month, the Royal College of Nursing voted to take strike action in its fight for fair pay and safe staffing. That is unprecedented and has not been done lightly. The RCN has been clear: its members have voted for fair pay for nursing, safe patient care and to protect patients.
Numerous other organisations, representing thousands of workers, are also balloting for industrial action, including Unite the Union, Unison, the Royal College of Midwives and the GMB union. The Conservative Government’s failure to address the NHS staffing crisis is putting those working in the service under immense pressure and, in some instances, putting patients at risk. It is notable that, in a poll of 6,000 adults, carried out on behalf of Unite, 73% of respondents supported NHS and careworkers receiving pay rises that keep up with the cost of living. The Government should take note.
We cannot discuss the NHS staffing crisis without highlighting the Conservatives’ privatisation agenda, because it does impact on people working in the service. The Health and Care Act 2022 split the NHS in England into 42 statutory integrated care systems, each comprising an integrated care board and integrated care partnership.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Lady for making such a poignant and important speech, and for securing this debate, because we are all grappling with the issue. Does she agree that the staff in the NHS do their very best, but the future planning of the workforce is also an issue? We do not have enough staff for the future workforce plan. That is particularly the case in mental health and learning disabilities. I read that 215 young people took their lives in 2021, the highest figure since records began. Is that a concern to her, because I think it is for most of us in the House? I am sure that, in the excellent speech is making, she will want to highlight that.
Margaret Greenwood
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. There can be no more poignant and devastating example of what this crisis is leading to.
The Health and Care Act is a privatising piece of legislation that opens the door to private companies having a greater say in the delivery of health care. Guidance by NHS England, while the Act was going through Parliament, stated that it would enable integrated care boards to delegate functions to providers, including devolving budgets to provider collaboratives. Provider collaboratives are partnership arrangements involving at least two trusts, and they can include representation from the private or independent sector.
As we now know, the delegation of commissioning from ICBs to provider collaboratives will definitely go ahead. That represents not only the opportunity for the privatisation of the NHS, but clearly has implications for NHS staff. I am concerned that a situation may well arise where a provider collaborative decides to commission services from the private sector, instead of from the NHS provider that is currently delivering the service. In that instance, NHS staff may well find that their jobs are lost from the NHS, and that equivalent work is available only in the private sector, on poorer pay and conditions of service.
The Health and Care Act, which was passed by the Conservative Government earlier this year, has the potential to undermine national collective bargaining, and the pay and terms and conditions of NHS staff. It also undermines the concept of the NHS as a publicly owned organisation that has served us so well since 1948. The Act prohibits the chair of an ICB from approving or appointing someone as a member of any committee or sub-committee that exercises commissioning functions, if the chair considers that the appointment could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service, because of the candidate’s involvement with the private healthcare sector or otherwise. However, that is clearly open to interpretation. It by no means rules out people with interests in private healthcare from sitting on those sub-committees.
If we are serious about providing governance that rules out the possibility of the private sector influencing the expenditure of public money, an organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf should be a statutory NHS body. It is a great pity that the Government did not legislate for that, despite an amendment in my name calling for it, which had cross-party support.
Private companies can also have influence through integrated care partnerships, which are required to prepare a strategy setting out how the assessed needs of its area are to be met. ICBs must have regard to a strategy drawn up by an ICP, which I am concerned might be influenced by private companies. Of course, the responsibility of a private company is to make money for shareholders; it is not to support a publicly owned, publicly run national health service.
Other provisions in the Act also have serious implications for staff. The Act allows for a profession that is currently regulated to be removed from statutory regulation. That is deeply concerning. Once a profession is deregulated, we can expect the level of expertise in that field to decline over time, alongside the status and pay of those carrying out those important roles. Deregulation also brings with it serious long-term implications for the health and safety of patients.
The Act also provides for the revoking of the national tariff and its replacement with a new NHS payment scheme. Engagement on the NHS payment scheme is still under way, with a statutory consultation due to begin shortly. I have long been concerned that, given the requirement in the Act for NHS England to consult with each relevant provider before publishing the NHS payment scheme, including private providers, this may well be a mechanism through which the Government will give private health companies the opportunity to undercut the NHS. If that happens, I believe that one of the inevitable outcomes would be an erosion of the scope of “Agenda for Change”, as healthcare that should be provided by the NHS is increasingly delivered by the private sector.
In that event, NHS staff may then find themselves forced out of jobs that are currently on “Agenda for Change” rates of pay, pensions and other terms and conditions, with only private-sector jobs with potentially lesser pay and conditions available for them to apply for if they wish to continue working in the health service. Just like the provision around provider collaboratives, that would appear to hold risk for NHS staff and their pay and conditions. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister will guarantee that the pay rates of “Agenda for Change”, pensions, and other terms and conditions of all eligible current NHS staff will not be undermined as a result of the adoption of the NHS payment scheme. Can he also confirm that trade unions, staff representative bodies and all the royal colleges will be consulted before the NHS payment scheme is published, as Ministers in the other place assured us during the passage of the Act?
I understand that the Government are to publish a comprehensive NHS workforce plan next year, including independently verified workforce forecasts of the number of doctors, nurses and other professionals we will need in five, 10 and 15 years’ time. Such a plan is long overdue, so can the Minister provide some further details about when we will see it? Will that plan also include details of the numbers of staff we will need in the social care sector, where there is also a workforce crisis that is intricately linked to that in the NHS? Will the Minister set out what measures he is taking to address the staffing crisis this winter?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that today, we are training NHS professionals in the same professional silos as we did 100 years ago. Medicine has moved on massively, so in light of the fact that a new workforce plan is being drawn up, is it not right that those professions are revisited to ensure we have a workforce fit for the future, as opposed to doing things just because we have done them for so many years?
Margaret Greenwood
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an interesting and detailed point born of her experience. The Minister should take note.
To conclude, since 2010, Conservative Governments have let the crisis in NHS staffing develop. Instead of doing the important business of Government and bringing forward a timely workforce plan and a properly funded training regime, they have focused their energy on not one, but two, major reorganisations of the national health service designed to open it up to privatisation. Instead of tending to the needs of the workforce and the needs of patients, they have been priming the pump for shareholders. The NHS must remain a comprehensive universal service, publicly owned, paid for through direct taxation and free at the point of use for all who need it. That very concept is under threat: it has been reported this week that NHS leaders in Scotland have discussed abandoning the founding principles of the NHS by having the wealthy pay for treatment, thus creating a two-tier system. Not only would that be a betrayal of its founding principles, but it would also bring in costly administrative processes that are not currently needed, as patients would need to be means-tested.
The NHS is also under threat from this Conservative Government’s failure to get a grip on the staffing crisis, and from their privatisation agenda. This attack on the fundamental principles of a comprehensive, universal, publicly owned national health service, free to all who need it and paid for through direct taxation, has left patients neglected and staff overworked and underpaid. Patients, the NHS, and all who work in the service deserve better. The Government must come forward as a matter of urgency with a credible plan to put things right for NHS staff and set out how they are going to deal with the crisis this winter, and Ministers must give NHS workers a fair pay rise, protect NHS services, and ensure staff safety.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate can last until 4 o’clock. I am obliged to call Front Benchers no later than 3.27 pm. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for His Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Margaret Greenwood will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. Nine speakers are seeking to take part so we have a time limit of four and a half minutes. I will be grateful if hon. Members stick to that.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for this important debate on a subject that is close to my heart. I have many friends and family who work in the NHS and I speak to them regularly about the severe pressures they are under. I doubt there is a single Member of Parliament whose inbox is not full of casework, both from patients whose treatment has been delayed because of staff shortages and from overstretched NHS workers who are frustrated that, with the best will in the world, they simply cannot meet the demands they face each and every day.
I want to mention a couple of the emails I have received in recent weeks. Eamon works in the NHS and told me:
“After over 10 years of underfunding, I see my colleagues and staff within the hospitals I visit every day look more and more dejected, run down, insulted and demoralised. Where once was pride, a smile, laughter and camaraderie, there is now worry, depression and a feeling of hopelessness.”
Tracy expressed the feelings of many long-serving health workers when she told me:
“Some of us cannot cope on the wages we earn and are considering leaving the NHS. We cannot afford to lose any more staff—we are struggling to staff wards as it is. I work six days a week to get a decent wage. I’m 60 years old and I have worked all my life. This can’t be right.”
Eamon and Tracy are hard-working professionals, dedicated to helping the patients in their care. That people like them should be so worn down and unhappy at work that they are considering leaving should be a wake-up call to the Government. Yet all we hear from the Prime Minister down is that decent wages for nurses and other healthcare workers are unaffordable. Is it any wonder that people look elsewhere in the economy and see employers doing what the Government should be doing in the NHS? That is, offering higher wages and better working conditions to help recruit and retain the staff they need.
In my constituency of Batley and Spen, Amazon is seeking to build a huge new warehouse development. I am opposing the plan for a number of reasons, not least the damage it would do to the health and wellbeing of local residents and the impact on the already-overloaded transport network. However, I also have serious reservations about the number and type of jobs such a development would create and I worry that our exhausted NHS workforce may be tempted by such developments, whatever the reality. We cannot afford for our nurses, porters, drivers and other workers who keep the NHS going to be lured away by the promise of higher wages in other sectors. We need them.
The impact of staff shortages has already led to vital services in my constituency being significantly reduced, leaving patients having to travel long distances to access care that, until recently, was available in their own communities. Such local care is really important. To take just one example, the Bronte Birth Centre was a lifeline for expectant mums, but it was forced to close—hopefully, temporarily. However, some fear it could become permanent, because the centre simply cannot get the maternity staff it needs. A recent advert for midwives did not lead to a single application.
NHS management is doing its best, looking to support recent graduates, attract back retired staff and recruit internationally. However, it is clear that the fundamental problem remains the same across the health service: low morale, wages that fail to keep up with prices and working conditions that are getting progressively worse, month after month and year after year. We remain incredibly proud of the NHS, especially on this side of the House, but I accept in other parties too. After 12 years of under-investment, it is now stretched to breaking point. Unless we take urgent action to strengthen the workforce, restore the pride that NHS staff have in their ability to do their jobs and properly reward them for their work, we are putting the future of our NHS at serious risk. I hope we can all agree that that is something we must avoid at all costs.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Hollobone. It is a great pleasure to be part of this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing it and for setting the dire scene in the NHS.
I will use my speech to talk about when I was a practice manager before I became an MP, and I want to speak about the way in which racism and discrimination affects the wellbeing of black and minority ethnic staff. Some 22.4% of NHS staff in England are from BME backgrounds, so they are disproportionately represented in the NHS but are under-represented in senior leadership. If we want an acceptable level of NHS staffing, it is crucial that racism and discrimination against staff from BME backgrounds is properly challenged.
Earlier this year, the BME Leadership Network published the “Shattered Hopes” report, which was based on surveys and roundtables of staff, revealing results that were shocking to read. It found that more than half of BME NHS leaders have considered leaving the NHS in the last three years because of their experiences of racism, and that colleagues, leaders and managers were a more common source of racist treatment than members of the public, which is truly shocking.
I want to provide the Minister with some recommendations, which I hope he will be able to address in his summing up. First, it goes without saying that the Government must give a pay rise to doctors, nurses and all staff in the NHS that is at least above the current rate of inflation, to protect their standards of living and to ensure the retention of staff. Secondly, we must ensure that bursaries for nursing students are restored so that more people—particularly those from more disadvantaged backgrounds—can access training. Lastly, the Government need to provide a renewed commitment to ensure that the NHS delivers on its commitment to combat institutional racism alongside tackling health inequalities.
We need an expanded training programme to truly tackle discrimination within the NHS. Without that commitment, countless staff will have no choice but to quit working for the NHS.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance again, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing a really important debate.
I want to say a massive thank you to NHS and care staff. Undoubtedly, every year is a tough one for those working in this area, but the last few years have been incredibly demanding. The pandemic has taken its toll on people’s mental and physical health, and has led to real attrition within the various clinical and non-clinical services. It is worth bearing in mind how much worse it would have been had we not collectively taken the right decision to try to tackle the pandemic early on. Nevertheless, it has been incredibly hard.
I will focus on a few areas that are significant for NHS staffing, starting with dentistry. It is worth bearing in mind that we all pay our taxes, so 100% of my tax-paying constituents have paid for NHS dentistry, but only about a third of them are getting it, including roughly half of the children. At the moment—I have checked—there is not a single NHS dental place anywhere in the entire county of Cumbria, which is a disgrace. That could be solved in no small part if the Government were to address the issue of the treadmill of units of dental activity. If it were done differently, it would not necessarily cost the Government any more money to make sure that they do not push dentists into a position where they feel that they have no alternative professionally than to leave the NHS, that we bring back the people who have left, and that we value the ones we have working within it.
Secondly, I want to talk about GPs. The simple reality is that we have far fewer GPs entering the service than we need. Many rural communities in Britain, such as mine, have a smaller surgery population-wise because of the vast area that they cover. We are currently dealing with the potential closure of the Ambleside and Hawkshead medical practices—the Central Lakes Medical Group. It is out to tender at the moment, because the Government removed what was called the minimum practice income guarantee, a sum of money that made small rural surgeries financially sustainable. Their removal has led to three closures that I can think of in Cumbria—one in Eden and two in South Lakeland. A relatively small amount of money would keep those surgeries sustainable and make sure that we kept people working at them. Otherwise, we have NHS staff who are determined to work and serve those communities who simply find that they cannot.
Nothing is more important to solving the NHS staffing crisis than tackling care—we have talked about that a lot—and it is outrageous that the Government have chosen to kick dealing with that issue into the long grass for another two years. We have 32% bed-blocking in the hospitals of south Cumbria at the moment. The reason why is obvious: there are not enough care packages to help people when they leave hospital, because there are not enough carers. The impact on hospital capacity, on the capacity of A&E, on ambulances that take so much longer to drop off their patients and therefore take longer to respond to calls, and the lives put at risk, is blindingly obvious. For the Government to delay dealing with care, and to think it is delayable for two years is not a tough decision for them. It is a tough decision for the millions of people who will be affected and for the tens of thousands of people working in our care sector.
The lack of availability of affordable homes for care workers and NHS workers in communities like mine is also worth bearing in mind; that is a major reason why there are not enough staff working in health and social care. We now understand that the Government will kick the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill into the grass on the other side of Christmas. That was an opportunity for the Government to decide that they would change the law to protect homes for local occupancy.
My final comment is on the cancer staffing situation. We currently have an outrageous situation where, in the south of Cumbria, 43% of people diagnosed with cancer are not getting their first treatment for two months, and 62% in north Cumbria are not getting their treatment for two months. That is an outrage. It is costing lives. Undoubtedly, staffing is a major part of that. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy, and we are to meet the Minister or his colleagues soon. Can I press him for a date?
In the meantime, I will share one important statistic with him. Radiotherapy UK surveyed 622 radiotherapy professionals—10% of the entire workforce nationwide—and 94% of them felt that the Government did not understand the impact of the current situation on their service; 72% felt that NHS senior managers did not either. As a consequence, we are losing people from the industry. We need a workforce plan specifically for cancer.
I hope the Minister will agree to meet with me and the APPG soon so that we can give him the all-party manifesto on radiotherapy, which will solve some of the problems and give those working in the NHS, particularly in cancer, some hope for the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for leading the debate. Like her, I acknowledge and appreciate the incredible work of all our NHS healthcare professionals in all areas of our health system over the last number of decades, especially throughout the pandemic, when we appreciated them even more than normal. I place on the record my genuine thanks to them for their commitment and their efforts through the covid crisis, which will continue to have impacts on the efficiency of our NHS for some time.
Our national health service is one of a kind and we must do everything in our power to protect it and ensure that it is given what it needs to ensure its success. Just yesterday in the main Chamber, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about retaining our nurses. How we do that is quite simple: we pay them the wages that they need. There is something drastically wrong if someone can become agency staff and get better wages for doing the same job. I am always respectful to the Minister, and I do not say that to chasten or to be aggressive, but we really do need to pay our nurses what they deserve. Perhaps the Minister can get back to us on that point.
It is very challenging to cover all the issues about NHS staffing. The NHS is one of the largest employers in the world, with more than 1.3 million staff, with 13,000 of them working back home. There is no secret that there are staffing issues for many different reasons. I have heard before from younger people that the educational process to becoming a nurse is purely based on exam results. I understand the need for training. Nursing, mental health nursing, medicine and dentistry require degrees from universities. Many universities refuse to take students who do not achieve high grades in their entry requirements. Perhaps it is time to look at whether, if the grades are not achievable for them but they have an interest in the subject matter, they should be given training to deliver that. We do not always have to aim for the gold star ones. There are people who might not achieve all of the grades that they should, but could still be darn good nurses and do well. I ask the Minister if he could give us his thoughts on that.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned GPs. Back home, GPs are really important. If one or two fall away from the local health clinics and surgeries, we automatically have a crisis among our GPs. So, let us encourage more GPs to come in. To do that, we will probably have to pay them better too, so that they do not wish to go anywhere else—overseas or wherever. We have all heard about the horror stories that illustrate their reasons for doing that.
I heard from a constituent just last week who was in a car accident. Her car was written off, but, luckily, there were no life-threatening injuries. However, the ambulance came and she waited in the ambulance queue for eight hours. She was not allowed to move from the stretcher, was not able to use the toilet, and had no water to drink. That is just an example of some of the crises we have. That is not the Minister’s fault—it is a devolved matter and I understand that—but it is just an illustration, and I suspect that other Members will have their own examples.
I would make a plea on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has stated that, over the past year, the number of full-time-equivalent consultant child and adolescent psychiatrists in the NHS has declined, while referrals to child and adolescent mental health services have increased by 24%. We have countless debates in this place relating to better provisions for children’s and teenagers’ mental health, and the RCP tells us that there are simply not enough psychiatrists. Again, I am throwing this at the Minister at very short notice, but I know that his responses are always very helpful. I ask for some help in raising that.
I am also aware of the challenges that the staff face. I thank each and every one of them—I thank them and I praise them. They go home after their shifts, tired and disheartened. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) mentioned that earlier on. It is the truth. With that in mind, we must do more.
I very much welcome the additional money allocated in the autumn Budget, and the Barnett consequentials mean that we will get £650 million. That is a massive help, and I understand that. I certainly hope that that will shield the NHS from inflammatory staffing pressures, but I hope that the Minister can undertake discussions with the devolved Administrations on this issue, and on how we can do it better together. I am always very conscious that the Minister is a gentleman and responds well; I very much look forward to his reply.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on bringing forward this important and timely debate. In all areas of healthcare, it is incredibly important that our NHS is able to cope with the growing demand for its services.
Across the board, staffing shortages in the health service, let down by 12 years of Tory chaos, are endemic. In nursing, 40,000 registered nurses in England have left the NHS in the past year. We have lost 4,700 GPs in the last decade, and hundreds of practices have closed since the last election. That has resulted in GP surgeries being massively overstretched, such as the one in my constituency that has 3,200 people on its books.
The cuts are not just numbers; they have a real impact on people’s lives. One of my constituents is a PE teacher with a chronic knee injury. She was unable to book a GP appointment and could not get an MRI scan. So that she could continue to work safely, she felt that she had no option but to book it privately, costing her £300.
In mental health services, local trusts are seriously struggling with a lack of capacity. Last year, around 2.8 million people had contact with NHS mental health, learning disability and autism services in England. That is around 5% of the population, and my city of Birmingham had the third highest percentage of adults in contact with those services. Despite the obvious problems in this area, the Royal College of Physicians has reported that, nationally, we can expect an increase of just 4,000 more mental health nurses by 2024, when more than 12,000 are required to meet demand. We know that the pressures that hospitals face lead them to rely on NHS staff banks and agency workers to cover for the lack of capacity. This year, 83% of nursing staff said that staffing levels on their last shift were not sufficient to meet patient needs safely and effectively.
The new Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 2015:
“For too long staffing agencies have been able to rip off the NHS by charging extortionate hourly rates which cost billions of pounds a year and undermine staff working hard to deliver high-quality care.”
However, this autumn’s Budget pledge to increase NHS spending by £3.3 billion next year is not enough to plug the £7 billion shortfall that the NHS could experience.
I was a nurse for 25 years. I understand how important it is for the NHS to have sufficient levels of staff, and the disastrous effect that staffing shortages have. Nurses work long hours day in, day out, to support people all across the UK. They often do this on very low pay, and we know that many hospitals across the country have opened food banks specifically to feed their staff. After 12 years of mismanagement by the Tory Government, it is no wonder that our nurses have been driven to take industrial action for the first time. As I said earlier, nurses are leaving the profession in droves; some 40,000 quit last year. I for one do not blame them. I cannot say, hand on heart and with 25 years of nursing experience, that I could do the job now. The blame for the mess lies squarely with the Conservatives.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing this important debate.
As the newly elected chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, I want to take this opportunity to outline some of the main concerns facing staff in that sector. Before being elected to this House, I worked in the NHS as a senior cancer pharmacist, and I still regularly volunteer at my local hospital, Coventry and Warwickshire hospital, in cancer care. The opportunity to serve on the frontline of our health service was and continues to be a privilege that I feel every time I set foot in the hospital. There are very few more rewarding things in life than being able to help those in need and provide care for patients at what are often very difficult moments of their lives.
Because of that, I know first hand how important pharmacists are to the provision of healthcare across the country, yet the Government continue to fail those key workers. A recent study published by the Pharmacists’ Defence Association revealed that almost a quarter of pharmacists want to leave their current sector and move to another part of pharmacy and, of those, almost a third are considering leaving pharmacy altogether. As with most healthcare professionals, low and stagnating pay and working conditions are the main reason for seeking a change. With just one in 10 pharmacists feeling that they get adequate breaks, it is no wonder that so many are looking to leave. The longer the Government ignore the exodus of pharmacists to other industries, the more money it will cost to recruit and train new staff.
As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I was part of a team who put together earlier this year a workforce report that recommended that the Government better utilise the pharmacy workforce and, in doing so, optimise workload across primary care, reduce pressures on general practice and hospitals, and support integrated care systems. Community pharmacists are willing and eager to take on more responsibilities in order to become the first port of call for patients and take the pressure off overburdened GP surgeries. The Government talk the talk about investing in our NHS, but if they are unwilling to take the necessary steps, waiting times and patient dissatisfaction will continue to grow.
As part of our report, the Select Committee recommended that pharmacists must have clear structures for professional career development into advanced practice. The Government have completely ignored that call; and I know, from my own experience, that far too many in the industry feel that those opportunities are sparse at the best of times. Like everyone else, pharmacists need to know that there are chances for growth and the acquisition of new skills in different areas. If the Government are serious about supporting pharmacists, as they have said repeatedly, that must be a priority.
Retaining pharmacists is also vital to the long-term health of the NHS as a whole. Until the Government tackle the issues of low pay, poor working conditions and a lack of opportunities for career progression, I fear that we will see a weaker and weaker pharmacy sector, which none of us can afford. Sadly, the issue that I have outlined is not specific to pharmacists but applies to all healthcare professionals.
I turn to cancer waiting times in my constituency of Coventry North West. In August, only 57% of patients at University Hospital Coventry, where I volunteer, began their treatment within two months of being referred by their GP, but the NHS target is that the trust should aim to see 85% of patients within 62 days. That simply is not good enough. Cancer patients in Coventry were put on the backburner during the pandemic, and as a result we see more and more cases of late-stage cancer. Those patients need to be seen urgently, and simply cannot wait. Many pancreatic cancer patients in Coventry have been in touch to let me know of their anger at being forced to wait so long. They are being let down.
I know how hard NHS staff work. Despite their efforts, cancer waiting time targets continue to be missed. Unless the Government invest in our beloved institution, we will continue to see more of the same. We need to strengthen our NHS workforce. We need to be able to invest in retaining the staff that we currently have. We also need to pay our nurses, and all healthcare professionals, adequately and appropriately for their hard work and dedication.
I thank all the NHS staff in Coventry, and across the country, for their dedication and hard work, and for all that they do to look after our loved ones. Lastly, I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss the future of pharmacies and the workforce.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for bringing forward this important and timely debate.
The reality is that the national health service that we clapped for, that we care so deeply for and that is the last line of defence for our families and loved ones is literally at breaking point. There may well be some dividing lines between voters, but when it comes to the NHS, whether someone votes red, green, blue or yellow, the NHS matters to them. Yet 12 years of Conservative Government has managed to bring the NHS to its knees.
Right now, in Bradford and across Britain, patients find it impossible to get a GP appointment. People suffering from heart attacks or strokes are waiting longer than one hour for an ambulance. Some 401,537 patients have been waiting for more than a year for an operation, and “24 Hours in A&E” is no longer just a TV programme: it is the patients’ everyday experience. That brings great shame on us all.
Just today, Labour’s shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), highlighted the case of a 16-year-old who has been given a hospital appointment in 2025—in three years’ time. Will that 16-year-old put their health and life on hold for three years? Similarly, an elderly lady in my constituency of Bradford West had an operation this year that was three years on from when it was originally planned. The pain and suffering that she endured while she waited was unbelievable.
One of the key reasons for all that is, of course, staff shortages in the NHS, which all Members have highlighted. Twelve years of Conservative Government have left the NHS understaffed and unable to deliver timely care. Under the Conservatives, medical school places fell by 30% this summer—thousands more straight-A students turned away from training and becoming doctors when we need them more than ever. The latest NHS Digital vacancy statistics show 132,139 vacancies across England on 30 June 2022. For registered nursing staff alone, there was a vacancy rate of 11.8%, or more than 46,000. That is an increase from March 2022, when the rate was 10.3%, or over 38,000. In my local hospital in Bradford, that rate increases to more than 15%. One senior clinician told me today that if she had a magic wand, she would scrap university fees so that she could open up the profession for people who cannot afford to go into nursing.
Last year’s NHS staff survey showed the level of concern about the impact of NHS staff shortages in Bradford. When asked to respond to the statement:
“There are enough staff at this organisation for me to do my job properly”,
only 15.3% of respondents at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said they agreed or strongly agreed—down from 32.2% in 2020. The responsibility for that lies firmly at the feet of this Government. The NHS is now approaching winter with the longest waiting times in its history and record shortages of staff. NHS staff are slogging their guts out, but there are simply not enough of them.
Labour has a plan to combat the crisis in the NHS. The next Labour Government will double the number of district nurses qualifying every year, train more than 5,000 new health visitors, create an additional 10,000 nursing and midwifery places every year and double the number of medical school places that so we have the doctors we need in our NHS. It is time we had a party in government that is serious about protecting the NHS, not just clapping for it.
Finally, I put on the record my thanks to local NHS staff in my constituency—from those working in GP practices to staff nurses and doctors, and from health visitors to those providing care at home, including all the key workers we clapped for who provided home care and gave people dignity in their own homes, even during the covid pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) rightly pointed out, doctors and nurses have burnt out. They have told me that they have not recuperated from the impact of covid, let alone prepared for the coming winter. The mental health stress put on our nurses and doctors is not okay. The Government need to step up and do something about that.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your stewardship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for initiating the debate.
Where do I begin on this subject? It is difficult to know because Members have brought forward a plethora of information, but I will start with the House of Commons Library briefing, which is always a good source of information, and its research is based on independent sources. It says that the Health and Social Care Committee has said:
“The National Health Service and the social care sector are facing the greatest workforce crisis in their history.”
The NHS, which is the best part of 80 years old, is facing the worst crisis in its history, with a vacancy rate of 9.7%, which is 132,139 members of staff.
There is significant shortfall in staff across the piece. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about vacancies in pharmacy, dentistry, radiology, podiatry, ambulance staff, back-office staff—as those people who are at the heart of the service and keep it going are disparagingly called—cleaners and porters. Everybody says the whole NHS is under huge stress.
Rachael Maskell
I want to highlight the neuroradiology profession and the reality that staff shortages have an impact on clinical outcomes. Hardly any of our NHS trusts have neuroradiologists, but they could save 9,000 lives lost to strokes by being able to advance new techniques. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to look at the clinical outcomes that health professionals could bring?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is right: it is crucial that we do that. A whole range of issues are beginning to affect staffing. For example, there is a £9 billion maintenance backlog in the NHS. Patients are being treated in hospitals that are not, in certain situations, fit for purpose and, importantly, staff have to work in those environments. In many cases, radiology equipment is not up to date, so staff and patients are either working or being treated in an environment in which the conditions and the equipment are not good. That goes to the heart of the staffing crisis as well.
There are lots of suggestions about how the Government could get to grips with the situation. Community Pharmacy England has plans to “resolve the funding squeeze”, which seems pretty straightforward, to
“tackle regulatory and other burdens”
that are affecting staffing, to
“help pharmacies to expand their role in primary care”
and to
“commission a Pharmacy First service”.
All those things go to the heart of enabling staff to feel wanted and that they are working in an environment where they are treated properly.
Of course, we then get people leaving in droves because of pay. I looked at some of the figures in relation to the pay restraint that we have had for the past few years: since the Government came to power in 2010, for all intents and purposes there has been either no pay increase or an increase of 1% here and 2% there.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an excellent speech. Will he comment on the fact that at the University of East Anglia medical school we saw a fifth of new nurses, or training nurses, drop out of the course after the Government cut the nursing bursary? With the low pay, crisis of staffing and pressure that is going on, we expect those nurses to work in the NHS as they are training and rack up debt at the same time. If we are going to get the numbers back up, we must surely reintroduce the bursary.
Peter Dowd
Yes, we must. When these professionals come into the NHS and work their socks off, for all the hours that God sends, they do not even get a decent pay rise. They have had to pay to do the job, then they pay to do the job again because we are not giving them enough money. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amount of funding the NHS gets falls well short of our international competitors in terms of revenue and current and capital expenditure. We spend about £3,055 per person on health; in our competitor countries, which are similar economies with similarly sized populations—such as France and Germany—the figure is £3,600. That difference, of the best part of £600 per person, is absolutely significant. We are falling further behind as the years go by.
The Government say, “Well, this year we have accepted the independent NHS pay review body’s recommendation.” I suspect that this is the first time in many years that they have accepted, championed and blown the bugle for it. Let us look at the detail and analyse it. The terms of reference include
“the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified staff”.
That is not happening, is it? That is nowhere to be seen. They also mention
“regional/local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff”.
That is not working either, is it?
The terms of reference mention:
“The funds available to the Health Departments, as set out in the Government’s Departmental Expenditure Limits”.
In effect, the Government tell the pay review body what it can do, because of the amount the Department has, and then, when the body agrees with what the Government say, they say it has been an independent assessment. It is not as simple as that.
Here is another one: “the Government’s inflation target” is a factor. We all know where that is—whose fault is that? It is not the Government’s fault; it is the Bank of England’s fault.
The terms of reference mention:
“The principle of equal pay for work of equal value in the NHS”—
which was referred to earlier and is not happening. They talk about:
“The overall strategy that the NHS should place patients at the heart of all it does”—
but it is far from putting them at the heart of the service. In conclusion, staff need a pay rise and better working conditions; the only way they will get that is with a Labour Government in two years’ time.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing this incredibly important debate.
As we have heard in previous contributions, we are proud of our NHS—and rightly so—but it is clear that our NHS is in crisis. Understaffing piles pressure on the existing workforce, tipping them to breaking point. The national NHS vacancy rate sits at 9.7%—that is one in 17 vacancies unfulfilled for doctors and one in 10 for nurses. The pandemic was an unprecedented strain that created an employment backlog, but staff shortages were critical well before covid. These are not just statistics: vacancies are all too often the difference between life and death. The autumn statement pledged £3.3 billion to the NHS, which is of course welcome, but funding and wages are still below 2010 levels in real terms, with sky-rocketing inflation further exacerbating an already dire financial situation. We know that it takes years to recruit and train healthcare professionals.
I have been contacted by many constituents who are facing unacceptable waiting times for GP and dentistry appointments. As we have heard in the debate, this problem extends across the whole NHS, whether it be in respect of pharmacies, cancer or ambulance wait times. When we see delays with GPs and dentistry, that sometimes leads to further pressure on other NHS services that could have been prevented had problems been identified earlier.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) outlined some of the issues with dentistry, which were reflected in the constituency-wide survey that I did in Barnsley East, in response to which many of my constituents said they really struggled to get a dentist appointment. That is concerning when we consider that Barnsley has the fourth highest rate of tooth decay in the country. In Yorkshire and the Humber as a whole, 98% of dental practices cannot take new patients.
One constituent contacted me just last night about their very concerning and upsetting experience in hospital. They have been waiting almost a year for a neurology appointment after an initial injury in March 2021. They are in constant, excruciating pain due to a herniated disk and now have sustained a secondary injury. They are unable to work so have lost their job. Because of the current cost of living crisis, they are having to choose between heating and eating, as many across the country are. This constituent is unable to enjoy the things they once used to and is experiencing great distress and financial difficulty. They are unable to walk for more than 15 minutes at a time and cannot sit for sustained periods. They feel they have nowhere to turn, with no sign of an appointment any time soon, to find a solution to this pain. This is obviously a heart-breaking situation and one that people should not have to endure due to pressure and staff shortages.
There is not much more that NHS staff can do to give every patient the time they deserve. GPs are frequently seeing three times the safe number of patients, often taking up to 90 appointments a day. Some are reported as having taken 200 appointments a day. This results in warning signs for conditions such as dementia being missed. In South Yorkshire specifically, sickness absence is at 7.1%. NHS staff are becoming exhausted and getting sick themselves. How can they be expected to carry on in such pressurised working environments and meet the high standards that we are used to?
Almost 10,000 doctors left the NHS last year, with many citing conditions as their reason for leaving. Some 20,000 more are expected to leave in the next year. The NHS urgently needs more Government investment and not empty words. After 12 years of a Conservative Government, our NHS needs a Labour one. As has been outlined today, Labour’s fully costed plan would double the number of university medicine places available per year, provide 10,000 more nursing and midwifery clinical places each year, provide 5,000 more health visitors a year and double the number of district nurses qualifying each year.
In closing, I put on record my thanks to NHS staff. My mum worked in the NHS for 40 years as a midwife and a nurse. I know how hard she worked and I know, from talking to NHS professionals across Barnsley, how hard they work. I know that we all thank them for their service. The reality is that the NHS and this country simply cannot afford this Conservative Government any longer.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is nice to see you in the chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing and leading this vital debate on NHS staffing levels. I also thank all Members who have made valuable contributions. I place on the record my thanks and admiration, and that of my party, for all those who work in our NHS in Scotland and in all social care settings.
We live in unprecedented times. We have endured the worst pandemic in living memory; we have witnessed the worst Prime Minister and Chancellor in living memory; we have an energy and cost of living crisis thanks to the invasion of Ukraine by the egomaniac Vladimir Putin and persistent public spending cuts that have crippled our economy; and we have the small matter, which very few dare to mention in this place, of the most horrific act of self-harm in living memory—Brexit. We in this place can dance around any fact we like, but the real reason for the staff shortages and real pressures in our NHS is Brexit. Because of all those combined factors, our greatest asset, the national health service, is under the greatest strain in its 74-year history across all the nations of the United Kingdom.
Consistently poor and, frankly, dumb economic choices undertaken by the Government have led to unprecedented inflation, limiting the Scottish Government’s ability to act in the areas in which they are required to do so due to the significant cuts to the Scottish budget. The previous Prime Minister’s catastrophic mini-Budget wiped £1.7 billion from the Scottish Government’s forthcoming budget in a matter of just a few days, dwarfing any increase announced recently by the newest Chancellor’s autumn statement. Scotland has been left with an additional £200 million shortfall and Scottish health spending power has been reduced by £650 million. Is that what we have to be thankful for? It is most certainly not our Union dividend or our Brexit bonus.
Together with the Welsh Health Minister, the Scottish Health Secretary Humza Yousaf recently wrote to the UK Government calling for the Chancellor to announce additional funding for this year in the NHS budget so that health boards and the devolved Governments can afford to pay the wages that our NHS staff so rightly deserve. Covid costs continue to eat into funding, despite the UK Government stopping covid funding altogether. The UK Government are pulling their usual stunt of giving with one hand while taking away with the other. Unless the Government take urgent action to immediately increase their budgetary spend, the NHS as we know will be in extreme peril.
A hard Tory Brexit—and one backed and endorsed by the Labour party, as the people of Scotland are fully aware—means that Scotland has endured the greatest depopulation of any of these island nations. As a result, we have a shortage in available workforce, as reported on page 3 of today’s Financial Times so illuminatingly. Scotland needs people to come in and bring their skills with them. We need a migration system that works for all of us and is fit for purpose. There is no other option if we are to fill the national labour shortages in our NHS and social care settings, as well as in other sectors that are in dire need of an eligible workforce—hospitality, transport, agriculture, fishing and many more. Again, Brexit is causing problems throughout every sector. The SNP’s position is that immigration powers must be devolved to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. If the UK Government do not want to solve the problems effectively, if indeed at all, it is time to get out of the way and allow us to do so.
The Royal College of General Practitioners has found that more than 40% of GP trainees are international graduates. Forty-nine per cent. of that number have reported issues with the visa process and 17% are considering leaving the United Kingdom altogether and, as a result, taking their much-required skills elsewhere. That is talent that we should be nurturing and harnessing, but we are instead pushing it away and rejecting it. The UK Government have consistently hamstrung the NHS with their privatisation and red tape agendas, and now an immigration mess is adding to the chaos. Now we have different NHSs across the nations of the UK competing internally with one another to attract and retain staff in our healthcare settings. It is one sorry mess, and the architects of Brexit must shoulder the responsibility.
GP numbers were touched upon earlier, and there have been concerns about GP numbers in Scotland, as well as elsewhere across the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that Scotland has a record number of general practitioners working across our nation, with more GPs per head of population in Scotland than across the rest of the UK’s nations. The Scottish Government are committed to further increasing the number of GPs practising in Scotland by 800 by the end of 2027, investing £170 million each year for that purpose. We are making good progress on that commitment, with Scotland’s GP headcount increasing by 277 to 5,195 between 2017 and 2021.
The Scottish Government continue to look for ways to encourage staff into working for our world-renowned NHS service and will continue to work co-operatively with the UK Government wherever possible to encourage sufficient inbound migration to plug the labour shortages and support the full staffing of our national health service. Last week, the Chancellor announced that more than 600,000 people on universal credit will be asked to have a meeting with a work coach so that they can get the support they need to increase their hours or their earnings. Instead of sanctioning the poorest people in our communities and attacking workers’ rights by restricting trade unions, the UK Government must get real and focus on creating a fair and tailored immigration system that works for the people of Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom. However, it cannot be any clearer—other than to those who choose not to see—that the ramifications of Brexit are now beginning to bite in the very areas we knew they would, and we see nothing at all from this Government to suggest anything other than that the best future for Scotland’s NHS and for Scotland as a whole is one in which the representatives of the Scottish people directly decide on how best to safeguard all that we hold dear. That only comes with our country’s independence.
As I have a few wee minutes left, I will say to any hon. Members who represent English constituencies that the groundbreaking Pharmacy First service is excellent. It is working so well in Scotland, and I am glad that it will be rolled out across the rest of the UK. In Scotland, anybody under the age of 26 is now eligible for free NHS dental treatment. We have free annual eye tests for everybody in Scotland, and biannual tests for those over 65, free prescriptions for all, and free hormone replacement therapy and sanitary products. We are not getting it all right, but there is an ambition to get better, and we need the support of the UK Government to do so.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing this important debate, and praise all the Members who have spoken this afternoon for their brilliant contributions.
The NHS is a cornerstone of communities up and down our country. It is the biggest employer in Europe and one of the biggest in the world, supporting the livelihoods of millions of British families. A publicly funded healthcare service that is free at the point of need is a lifeline for so many, and the people of this country are overwhelmingly proud of it. The pride and respect we have for the NHS means that it will always have people to stand up and defend it when things are going wrong.
However, the reality is that patients are finding it impossible to get a GP appointment due to chronic shortages of doctors, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton). Stroke and heart attack victims are waiting an hour for an ambulance, and over 400,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for an operation. We have gone from an NHS that treated people well and on time to not just a winter crisis, but a year-round crisis, and an NHS that is understaffed and unable to deliver timely care.
The NHS is facing the greatest workforce crisis in its history. Right now, there are 132,000 vacancies across the NHS, and 165,000 in social care. We are short of 40,000 nurses, and we are losing midwives faster than we can recruit them. We are short of 12,000 hospital doctors, yet this summer, medical school places were cut by 30%, turning away thousands of straight-A students from training to become doctors when we need them more than ever. As we have heard again and again this afternoon, the consistent failure to train and retain the nurses and doctors our NHS needs has left staff overworked, overstretched and struggling to cope.
Peter Dowd
The Royal College of Physicians produced a short, medium and long-term plan for the NHS, specifically in relation to staffing. I was shocked to read that the measures to increase satisfaction and retention of current staff—getting the basics right—included access to hot food and drink, and rest facilities, at all hours of the day. The Royal College of Physicians putting that into a document shows how poor the situation is. Would my hon. Friend agree that the Government have to listen to that?
Feryal Clark
I wholehearted agree with my hon. Friend. With nurses already doing an average of £2,000 a year in overtime to make up shortages, the Government cannot rely on good will to get us through this crisis. They cannot afford to play politics and refuse to get around the negotiating table to avoid strike action.
It would be far too simplistic to suggest that pay is the sole cause of this crisis, as we have heard in this debate. Members who have spoken with NHS staff in their communities will know that the problems run far deeper than that. In this debate we have heard how staff are demoralised, burnt out and undervalued, and are working in poor conditions. Staff members are working harder than ever, but are unable to deliver the level of service they want for patients.
When I speak to NHS staff in my constituency of Enfield North, their passion and dedication is in no doubt whatsoever. One of the clear themes that came through in a local healthcare survey run over the summer was an appreciation in our community for the efforts of NHS staff. On a recent visit to Chase Farm urgent care centre, I saw at first hand the pride that staff had for the work they did, and their desire to deliver the best for patients, despite chronic shortages of staff and the most trying of circumstances. They are going above and beyond the call of duty.
We cannot keep relying on the good will of staff. We need to see their attitude matched by action from the Government. Staff need to know that they will not be hung out to dry and that help is there for them. What reassurance can the Minister give to staff, at places such as Chase Farm, that their cries for help will be heard? If the Minister believes that what we heard from the Chancellor is sufficient, then he is very much mistaken. I am pleased that, after long calls from the Back Benchers, the Chancellor has dragged his party into agreeing to an independent assessment of our NHS workforce needs, but does the Minister really expect that assessment to say that the NHS has the people it needs to deliver a safe standard of care for patients?
Talking will not cut it for NHS staff. We need a plan of action. I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who set out Labour’s plan so well. Labour’s plan will deliver the biggest expansion of medical school places in history, doubling the number to give the NHS the doctors it needs to get patients seen on time. It will also include an extra 10,000 nursing and midwifery places, helping to close the gap caused by the loss of 800 midwives in the NHS since the last election. Labour would double the number of district nurses qualifying each year and train 5,000 more health visitors. That would be funded by abolishing non-dom status, a move that brings in double the £1.6 billion investment that our NHS workforce needs. The Chancellor has described our plan as something that
“I very much hope the government adopts on the basis that smart governments always nick the best ideas of their opponents.”
Given that statement, I look forward the Minister bringing the plan forward as the Government’s own, sooner rather than later.
We know that getting more staff into the system will not, on its own, solve the problem. Our NHS has brilliant staff working in it already, and we must do more to give them the confidence to stay. The Government are simply not doing enough, and unless we improve retention, extra recruitment will not deliver the numbers we need. As we have heard, staff are leaving faster than we are recruiting. The scale of the crisis means that we cannot simply wait things out and hope it blows over. We need a plan and some action from the Government now. I look forward to the Minister telling us how they will deliver that.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for raising this important issue. I join her in thanking all NHS staff for everything they do for us. The workforce are the beating heart of everything our NHS does and stands for. I hugely value the work of everyone who works in health and care, from consultants to care workers, nurses to neurosurgeons, and porters to physios. I thank all hon. Members from across the House who have taken part in this important debate. In the time available to me, I will try to respond to as many of the themes raised as possible—I have been franticly scribbling throughout the contributions.
I have only been in post for a handful of weeks, and in that time I have seen the very best and the future of our NHS with cutting-edge technologies and innovation. For example, it was only earlier this week when I saw genuinely world-leading world genome sequencing. Innovation and technological advancement is only as good as the highly trained and qualified clinicians who operate it or, importantly, who interpret the data. Health is a human business. I know this from my own family’s experience of the NHS, and I am sure hon. Members know that too. Only caring NHS staff can provide the patient-centred and compassionate care that we all hope and expect when we interact with our NHS. That is why I am personally passionate about supporting our health and care staff, particularly when we are in challenging times. Last week, the Chancellor announced an additional £3.3 billion a year in the autumn statement to assist in this endeavour.
I turn first to workforce pressures, which were raised by the hon. Members for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton)—I am particularly grateful to her for sharing her 25 years of nursing experience. I am acutely aware that the workforce remain under sustained pressure. Staff worked tirelessly through the pandemic and they have my huge thanks and gratitude for doing so.
I know that every day hundreds of thousands of NHS staff provide high-quality care under considerable challenges. As well as the pressures we see every winter, in the summer, which is usually—I am told in the NHS you cannot use the Q-word, which stands for quiet—less busy, we had covid waves where we would not ordinarily. There is also the recovery of elective care and the 7 million people on waiting lists, including the 400,000 who have been waiting over a year, as the hon. Member for Wirral West rightly pointed out. There is the rising number of covid and flu cases—I take this opportunity to make a public health announcement encouraging people to check their eligibility and get their covid and flu jabs if they have not already done so.
Of course, it is vital that we support the workforce, not just now but for the future. The NHS workforce have grown since last year, with an extra 3,700 doctors and 9,100 nurses, but I understand that—this point was made eloquently and articulately by hon. Members—demand is growing significantly, too.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
In the light of workforce planning, somebody seems to have taken their eye off the ball. We have doctors who decide they want to be locums and get three times the shift rate. We have nurses who leave the NHS and sign up with the agency, costing three times more. When will we grasp the nettle of workforce planning and deal with it?
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman is right that that is happening and I will come on to that matter in more detail. I would be happy to meet him, because it is an issue that I know needs gripping not just at the national level but by local integrated care boards too.
As hon. Members have pointed out, training the doctors, nurses and allied health professionals of the future takes time. We have to plan for the next decade now, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said. Despite the challenges, we have a growing NHS workforce. We have record numbers of staff working in our NHS. There are record numbers of doctors and nurses. The NHS now has over 1.2 million full-time equivalent staff. In the last year alone, there were over 15,800 more professionally qualified clinical staff in trusts, and 129,800 more hospital and community health service staff than in 2019. Nursing numbers are 29,000 higher than in 2019, which means that we are on track to meet the 50,000 extra nurses manifesto commitment.
However, as the hon. Member for Wirral West pointed out, we face challenges. There are over 132,000 vacancies, including, as she rightly said, 40,000 nursing and midwifery vacancies, and vacancies for around 10,000 doctors. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) rightly pointed out, that means an over-reliance on bank and agency staff. They have their place, but they come at a significant cost, of which we have to be mindful.
We have a long-term workforce plan, which is an NHS England-commissioned project that will set out what workforce we need across the next five, 10 and 15 years. As the Chancellor said in the autumn statement, it will be independently verified. It will look at recruitment, retention and productivity. It will look at where the challenges and the gaps are. As the hon. Member for York Central, who is no longer in her place, rightly asked, what do we need the NHS to look like? Do we need specialists? Do we need more generalists? Do we need a mixture of skills, where people are specialists but also retain generalist skills so that they can do other work? The plan is for the project to report back by the end of this year—very soon—and that independent verification process will then take place. Integrated care boards will need to do the same, or a similar, piece of work at local level.
I am also aware that there are specific challenges. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly raised mental health services. An extra £2.3 billion is going in, and our plan is to recruit an extra 27,000 staff, but it is a challenge, which is why we have the advanced bursary in that area. We have increased staff in the area by an extra 5.4%. I know that is not enough, and I know the challenges on local mental health services, so we have to do more.
There is a similar challenge in rural and coastal communities, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has raised with me many a time. We have to look to expand the apprenticeship route and blended learning programmes so that people do not have to travel to big towns and cities to undertake their training. That work is being done, and there is an extra £55 million for additional placement capacity.
Investment in training is also important. We funded an extra 1,500 medical school places—a 25% increase—last year and this year. That was an investment in five new medical schools. The £5,000 non-repayable grant for nursing, midwifery and allied health professionals has been in place since 2020. There is also additional funding for certain courses, and for things such as support for childcare, dual accommodation, and costs and travel.
Jim Shannon
Will the Minister comment on what the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said about staffing shortages?
Will Quince
Mental health does not fall specifically within my brief—it falls within that of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Let me turn to staff wellbeing, which is an important point that the hon. Member for Wirral West rightly laboured. It is not just about pay; it is about many other issues. Recruitment is important, as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) pointed out, but retention is equally important. We have to ensure that we keep the highly qualified, highly experienced people we have in our NHS. I am determined to ensure that staff are supported and that the NHS works to ensure that staff feel valued, not just by us at the national level, but locally.
The NHS people plan and the people promise set out a comprehensive range of actions that we are taking, such as expanding flexible working. That is important. For example, if somebody does not feel that they can do a full shift but they can work two or three hours, we should be saying, “Yes, of course we want you to work in our NHS and give us what you can.” Flexible working is important, as are improving leadership and ensuring that there is high-quality line management. People often say, “We leave the line manager; we do not leave the organisation.” We must support staff wellbeing and mental health. We also have the NHS retention programme, and we are growing occupational health and wellbeing.
I am conscious that time is short, but I want to turn to the issue of pay, which was mentioned by many hon. Members. I cannot touch on pharmacies today, but that is a hugely important issue and I would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Coventry North West to discuss it. I completely understand that pay is a hugely important factor in looking after staff, and we hugely value the hard work and dedication of NHS staff. I deeply regret that some union members have voted for industrial action, but I understand that these are challenging times for many, largely as a result of global economic pressures, and we are working hard to support NHS workers.
As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, we accepted the recommendations of the independent NHS pay review body in full. That means a pay rise of at least £1,400, or the equivalent of 4% to 5%, for most nurses, which is broadly in line with the private sector. It is important to point out that that is on top of a 3% award last year, when wider public sector pay was frozen, and the Government’s cost of living support with energy.
Through the programme of current work and long-term planning, we are building the robust and resilient workforce that our NHS needs for the future. We are working to ensure that we have the right people with the right skills in the right places, and to ensure that they are well supported and well looked after, so that they can look after those who need our great NHS services and keep delivering the world-class standard of care that people need now and in the future.
Margaret Greenwood
This has been such an important debate, and I thank every Member who contributed to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) spoke of the dejected and run-down state of mind of many NHS staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) spoke powerfully about how racism affects black and ethnic minority staff and how they are under-represented at senior management level—an issue that needs desperate attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) spoke about her experience as a nurse for 25 years and the disastrous impact that staffing shortages have on her colleagues. We also had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I thank them all for their contributions.
We have heard powerful testimonies about the impact of the NHS staffing crisis on both staff and patients. We need the Government to come forward with a credible plan to show how they will address the crisis with a fair pay rise for NHS staff, and an urgent plan to deliver the colleagues that those staff so desperately need working alongside them. We also need the Government to call a halt to their privatisation agenda and to reinstate the service as a publicly owned, universal and comprehensive national health service that is free to all when they need it and paid for through direct taxation.
The NHS is one of this country’s proudest achievements, but it is clearly in crisis. NHS workers should not be pushed into industrial action through Government negligence. They deserve our support, and they deserve a pay rise.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered NHS staffing levels.
Domestic Abuse and Public Life
(2 years, 1 month 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
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered domestic abuse and public life.
I am delighted to have secured this debate ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women this Friday. Domestic abuse can affect people from all social classes and in all forms of employment, including public life. That is why I am working with MPs from all parties to call for a duty of care to be placed on employers and political parties to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment. There must be recognition that post-separation control and harassment is a form of domestic abuse itself and can occur long after a relationship or marriage has ended, with different tactics of abuse being used.
I would like to draw attention to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, which I am honoured to chair, in examining several key issues and policy areas where change is needed to support survivors. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) here today. I pay tribute to her for her bravery and courage in speaking out about her experiences, and I thank her for the support and solidarity she has shown me.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate, which means so much to us both. Does she agree that those of us in public life who have a platform and feel able to should help to eradicate the stigma and shame that many victims of domestic abuse feel by speaking out and raising awareness of the fact that domestic abuse can happen to anybody? By raising awareness, we can encourage those who do not have a platform to speak out and to speak without shame, so that perpetrators of this awful crime, which is so often committed behind closed doors, can no longer be so sure that their crime will go unnoticed.
Apsana Begum
I completely agree with the hon. Member; she is absolutely correct. It is so important to be able to give others the hope and courage to come forward. Those of us in public life, I am sure, feel a duty to encourage others to come forward, and feel quite lucky to be in a position to do so.
I want to make it clear that I do not view myself as a victim as such, nor am I seeking to play the “victim card”. In fact, I would argue that such accusations reflect not my weakness, but the weakness of those who make them. The truth is that it is extremely difficult for survivors to come forward. The stigma and the structural and systemic bias is always against us. The use of the courts and the law to threaten and silence us, never mind the trauma of the abuse itself, all too often seems insurmountable.
When I put myself forward to represent my local area, it was with hope for the future. Perhaps stupidly, I thought I could move on. Little did I know then that, a few years later, I would be in court facing a possible jail sentence and, just this June, I would have to present myself to A&E and subsequently be signed off sick. Just as I manage to survive one onslaught, another is coming up ahead—it goes on and on. The wall of institutional gaslighting is chilling.
I have a choice: to submit, to be crushed and then to be swept under the carpet as an unsightly problem, or to speak out. But I know this is not just about me. My experiences have shown that, despite steps forward, including the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, there is still insufficient understanding and awareness. I am very conscious of how survivors struggle against a system that fails them. Today is for them, and I am moved to see campaigners and local women watching this debate.
When I was studying at university, I lived at home, helping care for my father through an extended period of dementia up to his death. I got to know an older man, who had already been married twice, and ended up marrying him and moving in with him. As the relationship progressed, it became more and more volatile and abusive. By the end, I was sleeping in the living room with the sofa pushed up against the door so that he could not get in. I had to wait until he had an appointment in another city before I could plan my escape.
It is commonly assumed that a woman should just leave and her problems will be over, but that is far from the reality for so many. At its core, post-separation abuse is about power: attempting to control and punish in almost any way possible, whether through physical means such as violence, intimidation, threats or stalking, or via remote monitoring, emotional abuse and manipulation. I raised my ex-husband’s behaviour, including the abuse, stalking, harassment and intimidation, with the police on several occasions. Police records regarding him include his being issued with a warning for harassment.
Gradually, I began to rebuild my life, which involved becoming engaged in politics locally, but he continued to make things difficult, including by behaving threateningly and aggressively towards me in public. As soon as I started to indicate that I was going to put myself forward to become Labour’s parliamentary candidate in the general election, it all intensified even further, because of course I was just meant to stay in my lane and be little Apsana Begum. He told people that he was angry that I had not asked his permission to stand for selection.
Smears and rumours were spread about me, and there were threats that he would expose me for who I “really was” in front of the community. I was aware that he had pictures of me without my hijab on; if someone threatens to use something like that against someone now in this country, it is considered an act of intimate image abuse. He was privy to private information: my medical records, my previous mental ill health, and the fact that I had a secret abortion during the early stages of our relationship, which at the time was unknown to anyone, including my family.
This honour-based harassment was about maliciously destroying me in front of elder members of my community. He called campaign team members, making threats that he had been contacted by the media, who had offered to buy stories about me, and telling people that they should make me stand down or else. It all got even worse after I was elected to Parliament. How dare I not listen? How dare I not do what I was told? There were calls to local people who supported me when he was drunk, saying that evidence was being collected for the council to take me to court. He was a sitting councillor at that time.
As such, just two years after being elected as the UK’s first hijab-wearing MP, I had to endure an eight-day trial, which brutally forced me to talk about painful private experiences. While I was found innocent of all charges, I fear that the ordeal of that trial, which cost the council significantly more than the amount I was accused of defrauding it of in the first place, will haunt me for the rest of my life.
The practice of abusers misusing the court system to maintain power and control over their former or current partners, a method sometimes called vexatious or abusive litigation—in other words, stalking by way of the court—is recognised by experts as a form of domestic abuse. I want to explain why I believe this case to have been vexatious and why I want something like it never to happen again.
I first heard of the complaint that led to the case through threats, rumours and the press a month before even being informed officially that an investigation was under way. An article published in The Sun newspaper during the general election even showed a picture of the building where I lived, which was extremely frightening given the risk that this placed me under. I have since found out that the complaint that led to the investigation was made by my ex-husband’s brother-in-law, Syed Nahid Uddin, to coincide with the deadline for final nomination papers to be submitted.
During the trial, my barrister, Helen Law, brought out, through cross-examination of the fraud investigator from the council’s fraud team, a series of conflicts of interest, including that my ex-husband was a member of the council’s audit committee in the same year of the fraud investigation. That committee had governance and oversight over the work of the fraud team. The matter of domestic abuse was actually used against me by the prosecution. It was argued that the abuse was a motive for the alleged crimes. Raj Chada, the criminal defence partner at Hodge Jones & Allen who represented me, argues:
“Prosecutors and investigators need to better understand and consider how victims of coercive control and domestic abuse behave and how they are treated by the criminal justice system.”
At around the same time that I was going through the ordeal of the court case, a group of people who were close to my ex-husband took over the local Labour party, and despite my being vindicated the smears have continued and accountability has been thwarted. Motions in support of me were passed by the local party, but only after they were blocked from even being discussed for months on end. Meanwhile, people who supported me or spoke up for me continued to be targeted, including some who were contacted by my ex-husband himself. I believe that to be an example of what is often called indirect abuse, whereby threats are made against third parties or they are intimidated or manipulated into engaging in behaviours desired by the perpetrator. Those behaviours involve the use of proxies to humiliate and discipline, and ultimately to maintain power and control.
Most recently, while I was unwell, a trigger process —a process that my party uses to decide whether a sitting MP will remain the candidate at future elections— was conducted. Again, I am aware of my ex-husband’s involvement: there are even witnesses who saw him among the reportedly 50 men who stood outside one meeting in a way that many felt was intimidating. In my mind, it is no coincidence that the process was overseen by his associates. To explain and provide further evidence of that conflict of interest, I will give some examples. The procedure secretary who oversees the whole trigger process is close to my ex-husband, and has publicly credited him as one of the reasons why they were elected to their role. One of the local executive observers for two out of the four in-person meetings, who was secretary for another meeting, is a close friend of my ex-husband and has been pictured with him only recently on social media. Another has been the subject of a complaint after he sent an email to all branch members containing a copy of a letter repeating allegations of which I had been cleared and revealing my home address, putting me at risk.
Another close associate of my ex-husband was the secretary overseeing one of the meetings. He had previously been warned by the police to stop harassing me after I reported him for continuing to contact me; I had to ask him to stop unwanted contact after he posted a letter to me through my family member’s letterbox. The chair of one of the meetings was a long-time associate of my ex-husband, who had even approached me in 2018 and asked me to meet him, advocating on my ex-husband’s behalf that I should go back into a relationship with him. I also understand that comments were made in meetings about the fact that I speak too much about domestic abuse, and that the process was about teaching me a lesson. Even the delegated national executive observer has connections to my ex-husband.
Of course, it is up to individuals who they wish to associate with. My point is that such people cannot also oversee a process about my future, because not only can domestic abuse be indirect, but it can involve the use of public status and societal power. That is before one even considers that the trigger process was conducted while I was unwell, and that a litany of complaints have been submitted containing allegations of harassment and misogyny, particularly from local women. I am still in a situation where I have to risk-assess local events, and am unable to participate if the risk is too high or cannot be mitigated. I believe that there must be a duty to ensure inclusive, democratic and safe environments and it deeply saddens me that I continue to be placed in a position where, for safeguarding reasons, I am being prevented from participating fully in public life.
As I have said, my experiences are far from unique. I have been contacted by women and survivors from all over the country and I feel a tremendous duty towards them. Domestic abuse has been hidden for far too long, despite it having serious health consequences for individuals and our society, but after everything I have been through and whatever the future holds, I am determined to raise awareness and campaign for a society where individuals experiencing domestic abuse feel confident that they will be believed, listened to, and given the support they need. Ultimately, I want the UK to be a country where survivors are not thwarted by ongoing harassment and abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I take stock of and am impressed by the courage of all victims of domestic abuse, from whichever walk of life, who have to deal with misogynistic physically and mentally abusive behaviour. It is a pleasure to address this Chamber. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for requesting the debate and for speaking so openly and candidly about her terrible experiences. I thank everyone else for attending, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) for her contribution.
We can all agree that domestic abuse has no place in our society. It is a terrible crime with devastating consequences. It is high volume, affecting 2.3 million adults a year. It is also high harm and high cost. The social and economic costs of domestic abuse are estimated to be in the region of £77 billion. Our Parliament and our institutions must play a role in addressing it and making sure victims are supported and feel supported. No one should have to experience the abuse we have heard about today and the Government are determined to tackle violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned domestic abuse and I want to come on to that. Domestic abuse is the all-too-common form of violence against women and girls, but it is emotional abuse too. In July last year, as a Government we published our tackling violence against women and girls strategy to help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, online, at work and on the streets. In March, we published our tackling domestic abuse plan, our blueprint for delivering the change that is so badly needed. Our violence against women and girls strategy and domestic abuse plan aim to transform the whole of society’s response to those crimes to prevent abuse, support victims, pursue perpetrators and strengthen the systems in place to respond. The tackling domestic abuse plan committed more than £230 million of investment to that purpose, including £140 million for supporting claims and more than £81 million for tackling issues regarding perpetrators.
We are making good progress with implementing our commitments in the tackling violence against women and girls strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan. To give a few examples, we have launched a highly successful communications campaign called “Enough”, which has reached millions and surpassed all expectations. It is a wonderful initiative that focuses on the range of safe ways in which bystanders can intervene and help women who are suffering such incidents. The fourth round of funding from the safer streets fund was announced in July, an initiative that has been taken out across the whole nation. Through the fund, the sum of £125 million has been awarded. We have also supported the appointment of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for violence against women and girls to drive better policing of such crimes. We have doubled our funding for the national domestic abuse helpline and increased our funding for other helplines too. We have also increased funding to support children—it is worth noting that this not only affects individuals who are adults, but children too. Millions of pounds a year will support seven bespoke projects related to children, who are also victims. I know the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse does not like the term “victim”, but we need to protect and empower those who are victims in equal measure.
We introduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which the hon. Lady has mentioned. It includes the first general purpose definition of domestic abuse, emphasising that it is not just physical, but can be emotional, controlling or coercive and can relate to economic abuse. Through the Act, we have also introduced new offences and it was salient that not everybody in the Chamber voted for that. The Act created the new offences of threatening to disclose intimate images and non-fatal strangulation and also prohibited perpetrators from cross-examining their victims in family courts and civil proceedings. That is huge progress and was probably unthinkable when I first qualified at the Bar in 1988. We have made progress, but there is more to do.
I was particularly moved by the hon. Lady’s explanations about abuse extending post-separation. That is something that the Government know much about and there is academic research on the subject. That is why the work on the landmark Domestic Abuse Act is so important, delivering new support and protection for victims as well as the new offences I have mentioned. The Act also recognised for the first time—something that the Government are very proud of—that controlling or coercive behaviour does not stop at the point of separation.
I am grateful for the private information that has been publicly shared in this Chamber. I was very moved by what has been said. There is a huge amount I wish to say, but I have been trying to focus particularly on what has been said. I want to mention the courage of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse in calling this debate and coming back into public life, as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. It takes a huge amount of effort to come back to work and carry on after this sort of incident.
Nobody should have to bear stigma or shame. We are a modern country and it is not good enough. I will do my best in my ministerial position to support victims. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton that she feels strong enough to speak out and encourage those who do not have a platform to speak for themselves. The debate is part of that journey, and I commend all involved for being here today.
I note the general concerns on so-called honour-based harassment, vexatious issues of litigation and the use of proxies or third parties to spread maliciousness and lies. All those issues need to and will be considered carefully. It is a tricky balance in looking at what can be considered as clear, provable abuse and what happens behind the scenes. That is part of the reason why the police have an onus through their new training to look at the whole picture. They must and should look at the whole picture, not just one incident that happened at a certain time on a certain date. They need to look at the overall picture and history.
The Government are funding extra work on risk assessments for cases with a history of domestic violence and abuse. I urge the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse to seek police advice where necessary. If there is a physical risk to her being that prevents her from being not only an ordinary citizen, but the extraordinary citizen that she is as an elected MP, she must seek advice. Wherever I can, I will seek to help her.
Let me move on to standards in public life and the working culture in Parliament and other organisations, which are issues close to all our hearts. The crime survey for England and Wales, which reaches thousands of people annually, shows that women and people from minoritised groups are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse. We have a responsibility to tackle these issues and ensure that we listen to and support victims.
The Government work very closely with organisations that seek to improve employers’ responses to domestic abuse, including the employers’ initiative on domestic abuse and the employers domestic abuse covenant. It is vital that employers, including police forces and other frontline services, as well as Parliament, can effectively respond to domestic abuse. Developing robust policies to ensure that all employees feel supported and empowered in their workplace is critical to that.
In Parliament, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme was set up in 2018 to improve the working culture of Parliament. The House of Commons also agreed to establish an independent expert panel to determine sanctions against MPs should a case of bullying or harassment be upheld. Although these steps are welcome, there is clearly more to do in all walks of life. The Government have made it clear that there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in Parliament—or elsewhere. We will continue to work on a cross-party basis to ensure that everyone working in Parliament is treated with dignity and respect.
On internal political issues, I do not think it would be right for me, as an observer, to make any major value judgments, save to say that I have heard about a very worrying picture. I hope and wish that transparency will come forward and we will hear the true facts. If things are as dreadful as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has said, I wish her the best of luck in clarifying her future. It does not matter what area a victim works in, where they live, or what sex, colour or religion they are—domestic abuse is not acceptable. The Government will work wherever we can to try to stamp out domestic abuse and uphold proper standards in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Supporting UK Artists and Culture
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of supporting UK artists and culture.
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The UK is an international cultural powerhouse. Our arts and creative industries have the capacity to regenerate communities and to drive global exports, and to put a boot up the backside of our stagnant economy, but it feels like we have not always supported or nurtured our world-leading creative talent as we should as a country, or understood our arts and culture as the golden economic goose that it is.
Just look at what the sector currently contributes to the UK. Our creative industries employ 2.1 million people and contribute £116 billion to our economy each year. UK exports were worth more than £37.9 billion in 2019—12% of total UK service exports. The creative industries also help shape the UK’s image around the world. British musicians, artists, writers and actors command a global audience, while many of our cultural beacons draw millions of visitors into the UK. As soft power goes, there is simply nothing like it. That is why we must never underestimate the potential of our arts and culture, and the vital role of its people, the creators and performers, who underpin this success story.
Globally, some modern emerging economies really get this. South Korea’s creative industries have taken the world by storm, with K-pop and drama, from “Parasite” to “Squid Game”, at the forefront. What makes that even more remarkable is the fact that the language is barely spoken outside of Korea. Just as South Korea implemented industrial policy for the export of electronics, cars and chemicals, it applied a policy approach to develop its creative industries. In less than a generation, South Korea transformed from being effectively a third-world country to an industrial powerhouse and the world’s seventh largest cultural player, with its creative cultural sector making nearly $11 billion in exports and supporting 700,000 jobs last year.
Meanwhile, dedicated music or creative industry export hubs have been springing up in countries across Europe, funded by Governments and industry keen to ride the wave of this growing market. At a time when worldwide recorded music trade revenues are set to double by 2030, British music exports could increase to more than £1 billion by the end of the decade. That will require a supportive policy environment that maximises UK export potential against a backdrop of intensifying global competition.
Funds such as the music export growth scheme will be crucial, but we also need a hardcore strategy to underpin this. What do the Government have in mind? Could they look again at the idea of dedicated British music or creative industry export hubs to drive this forward, because at the moment the support is simply not good enough? A creative industries trade and investment board website has had only three posts in the past 12 months, and the Creative Industries Council has just one upcoming event over the next 12 months advertised on its website.
By its very definition, this is an innovative and agile sector. That was demonstrated during the pandemic in how some organisations swiftly pivoted to using digital to ensure that the band played on. One example is the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, which responded to the first national lockdown in 2020 with an exclusive series of live concerts streamed online. During the first six months of this series, it increased its audience by almost 30%, with 65,000 views by audiences around the world. We have digital innovation to thank for that.
Digital has completely transformed how people consume culture and driven appetites for cultural works. A recent survey showed that 81% of people think that accessing cultural works through a digital device is important to their daily lives. Despite this shift, there has not been a corresponding benefit to artists, many of whom operate as creative freelancers. That is why more than three quarters of survey respondents support the Government considering new ideas and initiatives to sustain the UK’s creative industries.
The public understand and value our culture and our creative talent. They also see the huge difference that culture can make in their local neighbourhoods. Funding the arts delivers investment in left-behind communities and aids economic regeneration. There are no two ways about it. There is evidence right across the country. For example, in Margate, thanks to the legacy of local artists such as Tracey Emin, the Turner Contemporary opened in 2011 and has contributed more than £70 million to the local economy in the last decade. This week, I will be really pleased to attend the reopening of Gosport Gallery, part of Hampshire Cultural Trust. That was a massive regeneration project funded by high street heritage action zones. We thank the Government so much for that investment, because it is breathing new life into our beleaguered high streets.
There is no doubt that the Government recognise how arts and culture can be a significant driver of levelling up, and I welcome the recognition that redistributing some of the national Arts Council spend away from London to the regions is a way to achieve that. However, I am going to urge a little bit of caution on the Minister: it needs to be done in a way that supports investments in projects and organisations that can genuinely start a snowball of growth, not as a tick-box exercise and certainly not as tokenism.
Much as I would love to see English National Opera relocate to Gosport, under the current proposals the out-of-London version will receive significantly less funding than its current form, so it will have to stop funding projects like ENO Breathe, its game-changing response to long covid. That has been operating in 85 NHS trusts across the country, including my own. The current proposal risks the work that the ENO has been doing with schools across the country, and it could stop it being able to offer free or discounted tickets to a younger audience. That work means that one in seven of its attendees is now under the age of 35. In fact, it risks the organisation becoming the opposite of what we want and the opposite of what it is—it risks it becoming an elite organisation for those who can afford to pay £300 for a ticket, albeit one outside London.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am very pleased to rise under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on having secured this debate. I should declare an interest, in that I chair Theatre Royal Stratford East, in London. I wanted to come in on the issue of English National Opera and the cut that will mean the closure of an absolutely unique facility in London. Does the hon. Lady agree that one cannot level up by destroying excellence? We have to embrace excellence and ensure that it is enjoyed throughout the country.
Will the hon. Lady also join me in congratulating the ENO on partnering with Theatre Royal Stratford East to put on a production of “Noye’s Fludde” by Britten? We engaged a lot of young children from east London, who need as much levelling up as those elsewhere in the country, and we managed to secure out of that an Olivier award.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The right hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The ENO has been groundbreaking in the way it has appealed to younger audiences and reached out in partnerships. It has done TikTok videos seen by hundreds of thousands of people. It has even done beatboxing in a car park. It has done virtually more than anybody to bring opera, which is often regarded as a bit of an elitist art form, to the masses and to a newer, younger audience. It will be a disaster if such organisations —not just the ENO—lose that unique identifying factor in the move. I have nothing against driving investment outside London, but we have to do that in a careful way and not as some form of crazy tokenism. I therefore ask the Minister to look again at giving the ENO more time and more resources to deliver the appropriate change and to continue its excellent work.
We also have to face the fact that we cannot rely exclusively on public funds to support the creative industries; we need new ideas. Funding and income streams across the UK remain a massively pressing issue—the Minister will know this—with most creators and performers earning less than the minimum wage. A strong copyright framework is a key element. Freelance creators and performers rely on royalties from the use of their copyright-protected works in order to earn a living, but they are currently not receiving fair remuneration when their works are copied, stored and shared digitally. I therefore ask the Minister to look at the Smart fund proposal to address that. It is suggested that in the UK it could raise up to £300 million a year for creators, performers and communities. Similar schemes already operate in 45 other countries, generating almost £1 billion a year globally. They do so by diverting a small percentage of the sales of electronic devices, which copy, store and share creative content, into a fund that is paid out to creators and local community projects, with a focus on digital creativity and skills.
The benefit of such a scheme is huge for creators. In France alone, it raised over £250 million in 2021, supporting artists and funding almost 12,000 cultural activities a year. Most importantly, there is simply no evidence that when tariffs change, device prices change, too. The potential for something similar for communities in this country is huge, and I ask the Minister to look at it. It is also supported by the Design and Artists Copyright Society, the British Equity Collecting Society, Directors UK, and the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, which represent over 330,000 creative workers between them. Will the Minister meet representatives of the creative organisations that support the Smart fund to discuss this issue?
Our artists and creatives have a unique power. They can lift spirits and boost wellbeing, and they can regenerate communities and promote levelling up. They can drive economic prosperity and turbocharge global trade. No other sector can do all those things. No other sector has such a strong track record of delivering for the UK economy or so much future potential, so I urge the Minister to leave no stone unturned in efforts to harness that potential.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 5.30 pm. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespersons at no later than 5.7 pm, and the guideline limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for His Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Dame Caroline will then have three minutes to sum up at the end.
Six Members are seeking to contribute. To get everybody in, we will have to have a time limit of four minutes. I gently remind right hon. and hon. Members that if you wish to speak in Westminster Hall, you are meant to write to Mr Speaker in advance, but I will endeavour to get everybody in. The first speaker will be the House’s most distinguished musician, Kevin Brennan.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I was not expecting that and I am not sure that it is true, either, but I am a member of the Musicians’ Union, as you know. I declare that as an interest, as well as my membership of PRS for Music, Phonographic Performance Ltd and various other bodies. I occasionally receive some payment for that work.
I thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing the debate. The Minister should listen to what she said, because she knows what she is talking about. She was a distinguished Minister until she was cast aside brutally, as happens in this place as soon as somebody shows some gumption and knowledge of a subject. Her expertise should therefore be of great value to the Minister, who should listen to everything she said. I agree with pretty much everything she said—I hope she is not too worried by that.
Obviously, I am the Member of Parliament for Cardiff West, and the creative industries and arts are extremely important to the city of Cardiff’s culture, but also to its economy. I want to briefly mention five things in the four minutes that I have. First, the “Let the Music Move” report was issued earlier this year by the all-party parliamentary group on music. I sent a copy to the Secretary of State and asked for her response, and I also asked my office to contact her private office. I have still not received a response, but I hope that she has read the report and that the Minister will read it—I am happy to give him a copy. It sets out how we can try to solve the issue of musicians touring in Europe, accepting that we have gone through Brexit, which is not the issue here. This is not about immigration, but about ensuring that our great creative industries can flourish. I hope that the Minister will read the report, and that the Secretary of State has read it and will write back to me soon with her response to my letter. If it has not been received, her office can let my office know and I will send another copy.
Secondly, I wish to address the recent announcement made by Arts Council England, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport. It is perfectly legitimate to seek to spread our cultural wealth around the country; in fact, it is an essential part of any effective arts policy. However, to announce, as Arts Council England did, savage and sudden cuts to some of our great cultural organisations is no way to do business. I hope that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member, will talk to Arts Council England about that in the very near future. I also remind Members that Welsh National Opera will be affected by these cuts because it receives Arts Council England funding for touring around England, meaning that it is not necessary to have another opera company in places such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Oxford and Southampton, which is closer to the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Thirdly, I want to address the Government’s recent decision on artificial intelligence. It was taken against all advice and, as far as I know, nobody asked them to do it. It is partly the Minister’s responsibility, but it also sits with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Tech companies already pay artists a pittance, but the Government are proposing that they should now be given unrestricted access to the work of musicians, artists and others to use AI to produce facsimiles of their work and not pay them a single penny. It is a shocking decision, coming out of a report by the Intellectual Property Office, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will look at it again, because it has caused absolute outrage among those who are already trying to scrape a living out of intellectual property from their artistic and creative endeavours.
I have two quick last points. We also need to fix streaming and get artists paid better. Finally, UK Music is issuing its diversity report this evening. I hope that the Minister will also take note of that and read it.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this debate. I agree with and endorse absolutely everything that she has said. I will concentrate on English National Opera. I declare my interest as chair of the APPG on opera.
Make no mistake: what the Arts Council is proposing is not the relocation of English National Opera, but the killing of English National Opera. It is, effectively, closure. It has acted in a peremptory manner, with no consultation and a most questionable evidence base. The extraordinary suggestion by its director of music, of all people, that there was no growth in grand opera in the UK has been flatly contradicted by people such as David Buchler, a former member of the ENO board, who set out why that is a false analysis in Opera Now magazine. The chairman of the Arts Council praised the leadership of the ENO—under its chair, Dr Harry Brünjes, and its chief executive officer, Stuart Murphy, who is here today—as being outstanding. But their reward is to be kicked in the proverbial, because, at the end of the day, it was proposed on very short notice, with no consultation whatever, that the company should be required, having lost a third of its income, to move to an unspecified venue. Manchester was floated as a venue, but nobody in Manchester was consulted. The venue in Manchester was never looked at. In fact, it is not suitable for unamplified performance, so opera simply cannot be done there. The Mayor of Manchester knew nothing of it; Opera North, which already operates in Manchester, knew nothing of it. It is wholly unfeasible.
It is impossible to relocate an opera company over three years. When Birmingham Royal Ballet was moved from London to Birmingham, it took five years. It is impossible to anything in less. In any event, moving English National Opera out of London would mean the chorus, orchestra and technicians being made redundant. Three hundred skilled, world-admired people would lose their jobs in London, with no hope of replacing them in the provinces.
I hope that the Minister will take this away. It is all very well to say that the Arts Council operates at arm’s length—yes, but when it goes rogue and gets something seriously wrong, the Minister is entitled to use his influence, as best he can, to make it change its mind. Can we have this done outside the context of a one-off peremptory decision, based on no evidence? Let us have a proper strategic review of opera provision. Let us ensure that the ENO receives a realistic level of funding over the next four years or so, to keep the company in being, because if it folds it will be lost forever.
The ENO is more than willing to look at doing more work outside of London. That ought to be part of the discussion, but it cannot do it on this basis. We ought to be looking at this on the basis that it keeps a London base. It is able, and has already taken steps, to rent out the London Coliseum to other companies to produce musicals—“My Fair Lady” was a great success—and to bring in income to cross-subsidise. It is doing the right thing and has never had a more commercial or business-like approach. No doubt it could negotiate with the Arts Council ways to take more productions out into the provinces, which would be a good thing, but that can be done only if the company is strong to start with. This proposal would destroy the strong company and the provinces would not be gainers, so I hope very much that the Arts Council will think again. There is a sensible way forward, but it requires the ENO and the Arts Council to sit down and talk.
The English National Opera has been the ground seed for British operatic talent: virtually every notable leading British opera singer and musician has started or had part of their early career at the ENO. International stars still return to the ENO. It is the only company that operates in English, it is accessible in the vernacular and its audiences are more ethnically diverse than those of any other company. Some 50% of the audience are first-timers and one in seven is under 35.
If we want to grow opera, the English National Opera is the company doing that. To kill it off, which is what the Arts Council is doing, is an utter dereliction and complete contradiction of what the Arts Council asserts it is trying to do. Even within the arm’s length rules, it is time for the Government to put pressure on the Arts Council to reflect and think again.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I apologise for not giving you advance notice that I wanted to speak, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing the debate and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) in paying warm tribute to the work she did as arts Minister. She is on the Back Benches at the moment, but I am sure she will be on the Front Benches again. In the meantime, she is doing very good work, so I pay warm tribute to her.
With everybody incredibly anxious about what is going to happen to energy bills, with food prices soaring and with the NHS and public services struggling, it might seem an odd time to be raising the issue of funding for the arts, but it is absolutely right for us to do so. As well as helping drive our economy, as the hon. Member for Gosport said, our culture and arts are central to how we define ourselves individually and as a nation.
We must not allow public policy to drive the cultural impoverishment of this country, but unless the Government step in to stop that or the Arts Council can be persuaded to think again, that is exactly what is going to happen with the closure of the English National Opera at the Coliseum. We cannot stand by while the ENO, which is artistically excellent, economically vital and culturally important, is closed and, with that, see the end of the social engagement and widening access that is central to the ENO’s mission.
The Arts Council has removed all funding from the ENO at the Coliseum, meaning that, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) rightly said, 300 skilled artists, dedicated professionals and other employees will be thrown out of work. The Arts Council spin was that the ENO was to be relocated as part of levelling up. The Guardian said that the ENO
“is to relocate outside London”
and the BBC said:
“English National Opera to leave London as arts funding gets levelled up”.
The briefing was that the ENO was going to Manchester—not only was that a bolt out of the blue to the ENO, but it was the first time Manchester had heard of it, and it was not what they wanted. The Arts Council is closing the ENO with a tremendous cultural loss and nothing to show for it up north.
What the Arts Council proposes to do is completely wrong, but the way it has gone about it—with no consultation and, frankly, misleading spin—is shameful. It should think again. Yes, times have changed and times are hard, but difficult decisions should be made carefully, not with a wrecking ball. I am backing the ENO’s call for three things: a strategic review of opera as a whole; that the Arts Council should agree realistic funds for the ENO for a period of four years; and that the Arts Council should agree a period of five years to consult on a new model, based on the ENO retaining its Coliseum base but increasing still further its fundraising and work outside London.
As has been said, the ENO has effective leadership; I pay tribute to that and it is also fully acknowledged by the Arts Council. It has a dedicated company of employees who deserve better than to be thrown out of work in April next year. The ENO means a great deal to many, as emails from my constituents can attest. I thank all those who have contacted me and assure them that the ENO will have my full support.
Surely Sir Nicholas Serota does not want his legacy to be the closure of the ENO; if he goes ahead with the closure, that will be the only thing everybody will remember about him and his tenure at the Arts Council. The decision to close the ENO is wrong, and the best thing to do with a wrong decision is to change it. The Government have been quite active on that front in the past, with U-turns here and there—this would be one U-turn that would be universally welcomed. I welcome the Minister to his role and I hope to hear in public, or even in private—whatever is necessary—that he will step in, and that the ENO will not be closed.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing this important and timely debate.
I am incredibly proud of the vibrant arts and culture offer of my constituency, from the west end’s theatreland to iconic live music venues such as Ronnie Scott’s, the 100 Club or Heaven, as well as the Barbican centre, the Royal Albert Hall, the Royal Opera House and the London Coliseum. According to the Office for National Statistics, 8% of arts and culture businesses are based in the Cities of London and Westminster—over 2,500 businesses. In the time I have, I will pay particular attention to how we can support arts and culture through an incredibly difficult time.
When we look at how we can best support the future of the sector, forward planning is key, especially post covid. Its importance has been made clear to me throughout covid and more recently, during the ongoing decisions on the future of the English National Opera, which is based in my constituency. It is good to see the ENO’s chief executive, Stuart Murphy, in the Public Gallery.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a real misunderstanding about how much money is invested in the arts in London? That investment is brilliant, but there is a misunderstanding about it. First, it includes national institutions such as the British Museum, which should not be included. Secondly, the audience for London entertainment comes from the south-east, and the south-east gets hardly any money from Arts Council England. If one were to incorporate the two, one would see that the funding per capita in London is equivalent to the funding per capita in the rest of the country.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the right hon. Member for her very salient point. Given the funding, or lack of it, from Arts Council England, the future of the ENO is dependent on two factors. The key driver is to move out from its current location at the London Coliseum. The debate on cuts to funding could be a standalone issue, so I will not stray into its complexities right now. I will take that up when I discuss ENO funding with Arts Council England this week.
Right now, what I hear is that one of the major issues the ENO faces is not necessarily a prospective move, but the tightening of timescales and a lack of due consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned the lack of consultation with the ENO. In fact, Arts Council England expects 20 weeks, between now and April, to be enough for the ENO to start making decisions about its future.
Although I appreciate that a funding decision must be made, moving the ENO in its entirety is a big misstep. As we have heard, it will take five years at least. Is Manchester the right place? I personally want consideration to be given to the model used by the Royal Shakespeare Company, which has a base in the Barbican centre and in Stratford-upon-Avon. That works well: it keeps the London offer, but goes out into the provinces. I cannot see why Arts Council England should not work with the ENO to discuss that type of move, which would keep the London Coliseum alive while perhaps not moving the ENO up north. We have a brilliant Opera North organisation. What about the west country? What about Bristol, Exeter or Plymouth? Those areas need levelling up. Why cannot Arts Council England work with Stuart Murphy and his team to give proper consideration to that?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I have to protect the time for the two remaining speakers who are seeking to contribute. The hon. Gentleman can seek an intervention if he wishes, but doing so would reduce the time for the last two speakers.
Kevin Brennan
I was just pointing out that the Welsh National Opera does Bristol.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out—maybe Exeter and Plymouth, then.
Let me move on to another very important point: the economic drivers that culture brings to areas such as central London. Central London is the powerhouse of the economy and that is because of the hospitality, leisure and culture sectors working together. For every £1 spent in theatres, £5 is spent in the wider local economy. That is tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of jobs. That is not just in London, but across every major city that has theatres. We have the pantomime season coming up now—oh yes we have! I used to go to the pantomime in Cardiff with my grandparents every year; the local economy really does depend on families going to the theatre and having a meal before or afterwards.
In the very short time I have left, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport for securing this debate but also for her outstanding work as a Minister. During covid, the arts and culture sector was on its knees; there were worries. I had calls every day during lockdown from really major players in the culture sector who were worried about whether they would ever open their doors again. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for working with me to secure the £1.5 billion culture recovery fund. I know that she played a huge part in that; it made a difference not just to my arts and culture sector in central London, but across the country.
I end by saying that we face a very difficult economic time, but we cannot lose sight of the contribution that artists, the arts and culture play in our country—from not just an economic, but a health and wellbeing point of view. I hope we can keep securing all that and that we can save the ENO.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Apologies that I did not notify your office that I wanted to speak, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour and to praise the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for raising this important and timely debate.
I declare an interest: I was a member of Arts Council England for the London region for seven years. While on the Arts Council, one of the things I tried to push was ensuring that it funded some of the smaller organisations, which were not well known but had a massive reach in bringing great art and culture to a really diverse audience. There is still a notion that arts, culture, opera and music are for a select few, but we know that the power of arts and culture—in transforming lives, in bringing new people into a new role, in tapping into the creativity that a number of our young people have—is so important.
I am proud to represent Vauxhall, which is home to some of the most iconic arts organisations in the world, such as the Old Vic, the Young Vic, the Southbank Centre, the National Theatre, the BFI, Waterloo East theatre, Omnibus theatre and Rambert, to name just a few. They are fantastic institutions that reach not only across London, but right across the country. That is the power of publicly funded arts organisations.
The Arts Council England announcement last week shows a real-terms cut to London’s cultural sector. That is a shame because—on the back of the covid pandemic and so many other issues—we know the power of arts and culture in helping to address the issues we face, such as the challenges of mental health.
The joy of seeing a group of young people from Lambeth stand on stage at the Southbank Centre at the annual Lambeth Sounds music festival—a number of parents never having seen their children perform, a number never having even been to the Southbank Centre: that is the power of arts and culture, but it can happen only if we continue to fund these great organisations. They do fantastic work in reaching out.
I have just one question for the Minister on this: does he agree that we cannot level up the rest of the country by levelling down London’s renowned cultural sector? I hope that he will work with Arts Council England in terms of looking at this decision and supporting great organisations, including the ENO, to ensure we continue to have great arts for everybody instead of feeling that arts and culture is for people who can afford it.
We have the power to succeed in making sure this works and to create new, emerging talent. We have the BFI London film festival in my constituency, which taps into some of the new talent that we did not even know existed. We could lose all that if we do not nurture it. I want to see art being taught in our schools. Schools funding has been cut in this sector; we do not speak about that enough. Why is it that only parents who can afford extra music lessons get their children to play instruments? It is so important. Not every child will be academic, but a number of them can be creative if we support those subjects. I want the Minister to talk about that.
I finish with some of the other costs and measures that the arts sector is facing. Energy costs have increased. A number of buildings are crumbling. There is no discussion about capital; that is another area that is often left out. I hope that the Minister will come back to those issues. I reiterate the need to ensure that we support London’s heartbeat: its cultural sector.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for bringing forward this important debate. Believe it or not, creative arts run through the very veins of Cornwall, just as much as fishing, farming or mining. In fact, in a village called Playing Place between Truro and Falmouth, plays were performed in the round in medieval times. And if anyone was in Truro on 27 June 1970, they might have gone to see the first gig of a small, little-known band named Queen. We now have a global reputation in visual arts and theatre; a university dedicated to the creative industries; a growing appeal for international TV and film productions, musicians and music producers; and world-class digital connectivity.
Cornwall’s creative achievements are the result of planning and hard work in recent times by a lot of local people and organisations, who have worked together to help Cornwall’s creative rural economy grow. As such, Cornwall has more creative jobs than any other rural part of the United Kingdom. A brilliant local example is Falmouth University, which used to be Falmouth College of Arts. It is now leading the charge to change the way in which creative education is delivered. It is central to Falmouth’s role as a major creative innovation hub, and its teaching facilities are second to none.
We must also continue to support our local and home-grown assets in Cornwall, such as the Hall for Cornwall in Truro. This social enterprise and charity brings great shows to Cornwall, bolsters schools and communities with local projects, and supports artists and practitioners who create original work. The herculean efforts, led by Julien Boast, were completed throughout covid and under very difficult circumstances. I am pleased that Arts Council England has recently announced an over £1 million investment between 2023 and 2026 for the Hall for Cornwall Trust, which will bring growth and creative opportunities for local people. That investment will help to solidify Truro’s status as a cultural hub for the arts and the creative sector. I urge the Government to continue to support the venue in the years to come.
There is more. There is also the Old Bakery Studios in Truro, which offers more than 50 studios and workspaces to artists of all types. RouteNote, a company in Newham, offers a way for musicians around the world to stream their tracks on Spotify and the like. Cornwall County Council is also supporting the arts and creative industries with its creative manifesto, which is an ambitious plan for the next few years to maintain and enhance Cornwall’s position in the sector. The plan includes ambitions to boost culture in communities, promote collaborative working, get more people into creative jobs and ensure the sustainability of this important industry.
The Government are right to have supported the creative industries throughout the pandemic, providing nearly £2 billion for the sector. I am also grateful to them for announcing a £50 million investment package for creative businesses across the UK earlier this year. However, we must recognise the challenges that the industry continues to face, some of which we have heard about this afternoon.
Despite everything that we have going for us in Cornwall, our social and economic context remains a challenge, and we are behind the majority of the UK on a lot of key economic measurements. A low-wage seasonal economy, a lack of affordable housing and a skills shortage among young people are holding the creative industries back. If we can tackle those challenges, celebrate our creatives and artists, and target investment into our region, Cornwall can continue to play a central role in helping the UK become a world leader in these sectors.
Let me be clear: creative arts are key to levelling up Cornwall. I look forward to continuing work with the Government to support this cause, and I would be delighted to welcome the Minister to Cornwall to see at first hand the exciting work that is going on.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this debate. I was particularly interested in her references to Korea; I recently came back from Korea with other members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We have a great deal to learn from them. I reference the comments from the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) about Stratford and regeneration. Last night, we visited “Abba Voyage”, which was specifically chosen to help regenerate. I would like to associate myself with the comments about the English National Opera, which many Members made. I am a great fan of the ENO and wish to see it thrive.
We all appreciate the vital role of culture and art in our lives. Art offers consolation, empowerment to communities, and culture benefits for participants and performers and helps people to realise their own value. We in Scotland cannot mitigate entirely the impacts of covid or the rise in costs but, as so much of culture is devolved, the Scottish Government have acted. We delivered an addition £125 million in funding for culture and heritage before covid, and a further £2.2 million directed at grassroots venues to make sure that once the worst of the pandemic had passed, we would still have stages to fill.
Scotland needs the borrowing powers that would allow us to meet critical issues with emergency funding when required. Instead, we have to rely on the UK Government. At a time when we need all the help practicable to secure an industry that has done so much with so little money, we instead have disastrous cuts to the budgets. We know the impacts: a 7.1% drop in disposable income over the next two years. This is a time when the cultural sector needs more audience numbers and more tickets sold.
The UK Government are hellbent on pursuing Brexit to the rock bottom, regardless of casualties. The hard Brexit has cut off revenue streams, making it harder for cultural actors from Scotland to travel to the EU to earn money from audiences there. Lord Frost rather casually said of his failure to secure a deal on touring artists, that it was a “shame”. The man failed to deliver a specific deal on the issue. Twenty four out of 27 EU countries have agreed access for touring musicians, but they are not uniform. It is so much more difficult to tour—for some players, it has become impossible.
Brexit is an irredeemable failure. However, the specific damage to the cultural sector can be mitigated with effort at the negotiating table. We need the UK Government to accept their failings and the sharp need for Scotland’s cultural sector to frictionless access to the EU, along with our friends south of the border. The Scottish Government are engaged constantly in a dialogue with stakeholders in the cultural sector to seek pathways through these crises. We have suggestions: a cut in VAT would help struggling venues; renegotiating with a homogeneous simple touring visa within the UK would enormously; and the devolution of borrowing powers to Holyrood could support those most in need.
A future without our vibrant arts and cultural sector is surely unthinkable. On the Scottish National party Benches here at Westminster and at Scottish Government level we will do all we can to shield Scotland and its cultural sector from many of the calamities imposed upon us by Brexit and the UK Government.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I declare that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on classical music. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing this debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed.
Our leading arts and culture organisations have been enriching our lives, enhancing our reputation on the world stage and contributing to our GDP for many years. Yet, having weathered the challenges from the covid pandemic and a decade of funding cuts to the arts, they now face a perfect storm of increased energy and operating costs, and a cost of living squeeze on audiences. Financial security has rarely been more important. Given the scale of the current pressures on arts organisations, I hope the Government will consider measures widely called for across the sector, such as the extension of the current higher rates of theatre tax relief and orchestra tax relief beyond next spring.
I want to speak mostly about the funding allocations for Arts Council England’s investment programme 2023 to 2026. While some excellent organisations are being given national portfolio organisation status, overall the recent announcement showed poor planning, short-sightedness and too much political direction. First, the chaos in Government led to a last-minute delay in the funding announcement. Then, what actually emerged were proposals that imperilled the arts sector through cuts to institutions, which as we have heard, have their roots in the core of the sector.
Cuts have been imposed on theatres and opera companies, which contribute significantly to the arts talent pipeline and are vital to the health of our regional theatres through their touring. Glyndebourne production has had its funding halved, despite its production of “La bohème” filling out theatres in Norwich and Liverpool this month. Welsh National Opera is another touring company that has had its funding cut by a third, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). These organisations are being cut despite doing everything that was asked of them. English National Opera delivers education and outreach programmes that reach 165,000 people every year. It has worked hard to increase access to opera from free tickets for under-21s to relaxed performances, and it has the most diverse full-time chorus in the country. Yet the ENO has been entirely cut from the national portfolio organisations programme and will receive nothing from next October if it does not move from London to Manchester, affecting the job security of 300 full-time employees and over 600 freelancers.
We have heard about the total lack of consultation around this suggested move. It is one of the clearest indicators of a top-down approach from Arts Council England and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I have to say to the Minister that this seems to be more about political gimmickry around levelling up than a true rebalancing of power to regions outside of London. As we have heard, not one of the key organisations affected by the suggested ENO move to Manchester was consulted before the public announcement, including Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, Manchester City Council, Opera North and the Factory.
The funding allocated for the move is just £17 million—a fraction of what would be needed for ENO to operate from Manchester. After splashing £120 million on the Unboxed festival, which only reached a quarter of its audience target, Ministers should think again about these cuts. Donmar Warehouse is another example of a world-class producing theatre that has lost all its NPO funding. It told me that
“this self-defeating decision will undo much of the work that...has been done over the past few years and prevent us from implementing our plans to further expand our footprint outside of London.”
What we have seen is an attempt to address regional disparity by shifting some funding to the regions, but doing so out of a funding pot that has been shrinking since 2010, and 70% of the organisations being entirely cut from the programme are based outside London, including the Oldham Coliseum, the Britten Sinfonia and the Watermill theatre.
Levelling up should not be about pitting the arts against each other. Arbitrarily cutting and directing arts organisations without planning or consultation risks their very existence and makes it more difficult to improve regional parity in arts provision. Arts Council England has admitted that the unpopular choices made in this latest funding round are a direct result of instruction from Ministers. I urge the Minister to recognise in future the value of an independent Arts Council England setting its own agenda and being flexible to the needs of the organisations it serves.
It is clear from today’s debate that we need a proper plan to fund ENO, rather than expecting it to undertake a move to another city and exist on a third of the funding. I support the calls made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for a strategic review of opera provision, the reinstatement of a realistic level of funding, and time to consult and conduct any feasibility assessment for moving out of London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am glad to be here to discuss the Government’s support for the arts and culture sector. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing the debate and I thank everyone for their contributions. My hon. Friend is a passionate supporter of arts and the creative industries, and I share everyone’s view that her steadfast support for the cultural sector during the covid pandemic as the Arts Minister meant that she was instrumental in securing the unparalleled cultural recovery fund, the film and TV production restart scheme and covid reinsurance schemes, all delivered by DCMS over those two years.
Frankly, without my hon. Friend’s instrumental work in securing and delivering that fund, this debate would be telling a different story—one of how to rebuild a decimated industry. Instead, our support for the sector has been unprecedented. Around 5,000 organisations were supported through the cultural recovery fund, alongside additional support through pan-economic measures, such as the self-employment income support scheme and the furlough scheme.
The 2021 Budget also increased tax reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries until 2024. Those additional tax reliefs are worth almost a quarter of a billion pounds and are a fantastic boost for the cultural sector to keep producing the content for which we are world famous. Taken together, the interventions supported the cultural sector through the challenges of covid and steered it into recovery.
The Government’s investment in culture is at the heart of our levelling up approach, with a strong belief that the enrichment that culture brings to people’s lives needs to be more equitably spread.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Stuart Andrew
Very quickly, because I have eight minutes to get through a lot.
James Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. On the point about the ENO and levelling up, do we not need a better definition of what we mean by levelling up when it comes to opera? It is not just about where things are located, but about how young people learn about opera, how it is perceived in schools and so on. Do we not need a better definition of what we mean by levelling up—not just distributing money?
Stuart Andrew
I take on board my hon. Friend’s points and will come on to some of them later on. The economic growth that creativity can catalyse should be seen in all our towns and cities, and the pride of place that culture and heritage can bring to communities should be felt across the entire country. That is why we asked Arts Council England to invest more in its levelling up for culture places. That is why we are investing across England through the cultural investment fund. That is why DCMS and its arms-length bodies have been supporting the assessment process of the levelling-up fund which, importantly, has culture and heritage as one of its three priority investment themes.
As hon. Members will know, central to all that support is our delivery partner Arts Council England. It has recently announced the outcome of its 2023 to 2026 investment programme, which will be investing £446 million each year in arts and culture in England. That will support 990 organisations across the whole of England—more than ever before and in more places than ever before—with 276 organisations set to join the portfolio, 215 of which are outside London. That, for example, includes £500,000 for the Hampshire Cultural Trust on an annual basis. Its application was focused on expanding the organisation’s work in three of Arts Council England’s priority places, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, along with Rushmoor and the New Forest. The trust described the decision as “a landmark day”.
Stuart Andrew
I am afraid I am running out of time. I have been asked a lot of questions, and I need to get through them all.
In short, I am unapologetic that the Arts Council is providing support to more organisations in more places than ever before for the following reasons. First, it is providing more opportunities for children and young people. There will be a 20% increase in organisations that are funded to deliver work for children and young people in the new portfolio and 79% of the new portfolio will deliver activity specifically for children and young people.
Secondly, it is supporting more libraries and museums than ever before. Funding for libraries will increase nearly three-fold and 223 accredited museums will receive a total investment of more than £113 million over three years, representing an increase of 21%.
Thirdly, we will see an increased investment in 78 previously underserved places, totalling £43 million each year and representing an increase of 95%. Places such as Blackburn, which never got a penny before, will now have four projects supported. That is something I certainly support.
I understand that some hon. Members may disagree with the decisions taken by the Arts Council in recent funding announcements. The individual decisions were taken by the Arts Council, which assessed an unprecedented number of applications. The decisions are therefore for the Arts Council to comment on. However, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport will agree with me that, stepping back and looking at the whole picture, it is exciting to see a portfolio that gives people right across the country more opportunities to access culture on their doorstop. The new portfolio supports both new and more established organisations to develop and thrive.
I turn to the English National Opera. There were a record number of applications, and it was a competitive fund. I recognise that leaving the portfolio can be a difficult process for organisations, their employees and their audiences. While I cannot comment on the specifics of individual funding decisions that were taken independently by the Arts Council, ACE has proposed a package of support to the English National Opera. The Department is very keen that Arts Council England and the English National Opera work together on the possibilities for the future of the organisation. My noble friend Lord Parkinson, the Arts Minister, has been very keen to hear the views of Members in the debate today. I will ensure that he will be aware of the points raised.
A number of other specific points were raised. The Creative Industries Council has been a key partner in supporting the creative industries. It has provided a forum for us to engage directly with the industry on the challenges and opportunities they face, and we worked together to deliver the 2018 sector deal. It has been our partner in developing the creative industries sector vision, which will be published in the new year. I welcome the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport.
On creative exports, UK creative industries were identified in the Government’s export strategy as a priority sector to contribute to the Government’s target of £1 trillion of UK exports by 2035. The Government are not currently pursuing an export office, but continue to support creatives exporting to Europe and the world with a range of export support programmes, including the successful music export growth scheme and the international showcase funds. We will continue to work with the Department for International Trade on these important issues.
I am conscious of the time, so I will have to write to hon. Members about several issues. On the Smart fund, the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), has already met with industry bodies to learn about the proposals. I will make her aware of the comments made in the debate today.
Finally, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asked me to read the APPG report, which I am more than happy to do; again, I will raise the issue with the appropriate Minister.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport again for bringing this debate forward. I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to Member, and I will make my colleagues in the Department aware of the points raised strongly today. I am aware of the impact of the pandemic on the arts and culture workforce and how many left the sector as a result. The best way we can bring those people back and attract new people in is to help drive growth. Ultimately, we want to drive that growth across the entire country.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part today. This has been a really great debate. I thank the Minister—apologies for the fact that he has had a bit of an ear-bashing. I welcome him to his role; I know that he will carry it out as he has all the others, with an enormous amount of dedication and ability.
The Minister kicked off by talking about the immense work that happened in DCMS over the pandemic. He is absolutely right—an enormous amount of blood, sweat, tears and money came out of the incredible team at DCMS over that period, and there are a number of cultural institutions that simply would not be around today had there not been that amount of work. I guess what I am saying today is that we must not lose that momentum. We must build on that.
Our arts and culture make us feel good and are good for our health and wellbeing, but they also define us—they are who we are as a nation. Even if we talk about the issue in cold hard pounds, shillings and pence, they are the cornerstone of our UK economy. As I said before, the sector makes up 12% of our service exports. The sector means business.
At the heart of the sector are the artists and creative talent who make it possible. It does not happen by magic; it happens when we support them, nurture them and encourage them. We cannot take our eye off the ball on that. Knowing that money is tight, I urge the Minister to look at some of the investment I spoke about today, such as the Smart fund—innovative ways of generating money to support our creatives—and to look again, if he can, at some of the decisions made by the Arts Council. Although I completely agree with the idea of devolving money to other parts of the UK, we do not do it by destroying cultural institutions that have already done so much to support our culture and arts.
Written Statements
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Official Development Assistance
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
As set out in the autumn statement 2022, reflecting the significant shock to the economy and the public finances, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts show that the principles for a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance, confirmed by Parliament in 2021, have not been met. Consequently, His Majesty’s Government will continue to spend around 0.5% of GNI on ODA until the principles for a return are met.
Recognising the significant and unanticipated costs incurred to support the people of Ukraine and Afghanistan escape oppression and conflict and find refuge in the UK, the Government are providing additional resources of £1 billion in 2022-23 and £1.5 billion in 2023-24.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s latest estimate of its planned ODA spending for this financial year, 2022-23, is £7,584 million. The FCDO will also plan on the assumption of a similar FCDO ODA budget for next year, 2023-24, to aid financial and operational planning, although this remains indicative. This is in the context of the support we are providing to those fleeing the war in Ukraine and insecurity in Afghanistan.
We will need to decide on the distribution of planned ODA allocations over the remainder of the spending review. I want to update the House on how we will do this.
First, I have instructed officials to focus spend according to the priorities set out in the international development strategy, while maximising value for money and our flexibility to respond to new or emerging priority issues.
Secondly, we will meet the financial commitments we have made to multilateral organisations. They will remain essential partners in achieving our goals. We will work with them on the profile of these commitments to get the balance right with our bilateral programme spending.
Thirdly, we are now able to lift the pause on ODA spending and activity and will act swiftly to manage our bilateral programmes this financial year. We will approach this in a proportionate way, with experts on the ground in-country empowered to determine which programmes to continue, in line with our approach to prioritisation.
We are committed to being more transparent about our ODA spend. The FCDO can meet our development aims only when we work closely with our delivery partners, when we listen to and engage with people in developing countries, and when we explain to the British public how every penny spent helps improve lives around the world and is in our national interest.
In order to maximise the value for money of ODA across Government and deliver greater reliability to our partners, we will strengthen ODA governance arrangements, ensuring that the international development Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can more effectively scrutinise ODA spend.
The UK will remain a world leader in development, not just through the impact of our ODA spend, but through our business, trade, civil society, research and technology expertise. For example, new vaccines and nutrition-enhanced, drought-resistant crops have been developed by the best brains in UK science and universities collaborating globally. This is one of the many ways in which the UK is partnering with countries to take control of their own future.
[HCWS379]
Ship Safety: Draft Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
The Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023 were today published as a draft, along with an accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The draft regulations revoke and replace the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection: Large Ships) Regulations 1998 (S.l. 1998/1012) (“the 1998 regulations”), the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2003 (S.l. 2003/2950) (“the 2003 regulations”) and make other consequential amendments to implement the most up-to-date requirements of chapter II-2 in the annexe to the international convention for the safety of life at sea, 1974 (“the convention”), relating to safety measures for fire protection on ships.
The draft regulations are being published for 28 days. Following the conclusion of this period, and once any observations on the draft regulations have been taken into account, they will be laid for approval by each House of Parliament. This procedure is required under paragraph 14 of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because these regulations revoke an instrument, the 1998 regulations, that was made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Statutory statements explaining the steps taken to publish the draft regulations and the reasons for the revocation of the provision made by section 2(2) are contained in the annexe to the draft explanatory memorandum.
The draft regulations implement requirements for fire protection on ships in chapter II-2 of the annexe to the convention, including previously unimplemented requirements to improve fire detection and suppression on cabin balconies for tanker ships to carry an oxygen measuring meter and portable gas detector and other measures.
The updated measures in chapter II-2 are in force internationally, but the measures must also be incorporated into our national legislation to enable them to be enforced effectively, most notably to discourage non-compliance by non-UK flagged ships in UK waters, which would be detrimental to the safety of shipping in UK coastal areas. The draft regulations will ensure that UK law includes increased safety standards for fire protection on both UK flagged ships and non-UK flagged ships within the scope of the convention operating in UK waters.
The draft regulations also include an ambulatory reference provision to ensure that future amendments to chapter II-2 referred to in the draft regulations will automatically become UK law when they enter into force internationally. As described in the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum, a ministerial statement will be provided to both Houses of Parliament ahead of any amendment to chapter II-2 referenced in the draft regulations, prior to it coming into force in UK law by way of the ambulatory reference provision.
The draft regulations and the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulations-for-fire-protection
[HCWS378]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Energy Bills Support Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bills Support Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022, I shall speak also to the Energy Bills Support Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022, and the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022, all of which were laid before the House on 31 October; and the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2022; and the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022, laid before the House on 4 November.
Last Wednesday, I set out the details of the Government’s energy support schemes: the energy price guarantee, the energy bill relief scheme, or the EBRS, and the energy bills support scheme—the EBSS. I am in front of your Lordships today to explain the pass-through requirements in respect of these schemes.
The Government have responded rapidly to the unprecedented rise in energy prices by introducing emergency legislation on energy support. This support will protect homes and non-domestic consumers across the United Kingdom, so that families and consumers will be supported in their cost of living this winter. These pass-through requirements place a legal requirement on intermediaries to pass any benefits received through the various energy schemes to the end-user, thus ensuring that the support is received by the intended beneficiary.
These regulations have been created under the Energy Prices Act, which noble Lords will know received Royal Assent on 25 October 2022. They are essential secondary legislation to implement the energy schemes.
I am, of course, aware that the JCSI is still considering two of the instruments, and we will not move to approve them until that work has concluded. If that committee has any concerns, the Government will respond to them when we ask for approval, including time for debate if that is useful to the House.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its views on the pass-through requirements regulations. The committee raises three concerns: the definition of “just and reasonable”, inequality of arms, and vulnerable groups.
The committee’s first concern is that the meaning of “just and reasonable” is vague and open to interpretation. The pass-through regulations do not prescribe the exact method of the amount passed on by an intermediary. These requirements take into account the diverse range of contracting structures relating to the supply, resale, provision and charging of energy. We do not want any intermediaries to fall outside of the pass-through requirements by limiting the possible contracting scenarios through these regulations.
The definition of “just and reasonable” is long established in law. It essentially means what is fair and lawful under the circumstances. We believe that this would allow for the many different arrangements between an intermediary and end-user that these regulations are designed to police.
The committee’s second concern is inequality of arms: where a landlord who has multiple properties and receives all the energy schemes, and how they allocate the financial benefits received to their individual tenants. The regulations take this scenario into account. Where an intermediary receives energy support but has multiple end-users, they should determine a just and proportionate method of dividing the benefit among these end-users, and clearly communicate how they have arrived with the amount allocated to those end-users.
The committee’s final concern is the vulnerable groups affected by the pass-through regulations. We are keen to ensure that all end users, including those who are vulnerable, such as older people or people with disabilities, receive the benefits of the schemes where they are entitled to them. We have been delivering and building a communications campaign, which includes engaging with landlords, housing associations and charities, all of which protect those who are most vulnerable. Another statutory instrument will be laid later this month to correct some mistakes in the original heat supplier regulations.
The pass-through regulations ensure that the Government’s energy support reaches families and consumers. Rather than expecting intermediaries to act on their own accord, we are requiring that they pass on the financial benefit to their end users. An intermediary is any individual or organisation that is party to an electricity or gas contract and receives energy price support in relation to that contract, or a pass-through of reductions attributable to that energy price support. The intermediary then passes on the costs of the energy supplied and any reductions attributable to the energy price support to an end user—for example, landlords or property managers of a residential building. This also covers intermediaries supplying a product or service where, contractually, a component of the price relates directly to the use of energy or the supply of heating or hot water: for example, park home managers, heat networks and electric vehicle charging operators. Taken together, the regulations apply to all three energy schemes: the energy price guarantee, the energy bills support scheme and the energy bill relief scheme, including customers who are part of heat networks.
If the intermediary does not pass on the benefit, the end user can pursue recovery of the benefit as a debt through civil proceedings. Should a court rule in the end user’s favour, they will be entitled to the payment due, plus interest. The interest is set at 2% above the Bank of England’s base rate; this will begin to accrue from 60 days after the intermediary first receives the relevant scheme benefit. The enforcement approach is the same across the schemes, with a slight nuance for heat networks under the EBRS. If heat network customers do not receive the pass-through or information from their heat supplier, they will be able to raise a complaint with the energy ombudsman.
We have published guidance on the pass-through regulations to help those affected understand how to comply with these regulations. This government guidance includes advice for landlords on how to meet their pass-through obligations. There are also template letters for tenants, should they wish to raise concerns with their landlords about their energy bills.
These regulations protect those most exposed to high energy costs. The pass-through requirements allow cost savings to reach the people the Government intend to support, such as tenants and other individuals. Importantly, the regulations also provide routes for end users to benefit from the discounts they are entitled to in the scenarios where intermediaries are not meeting their legal obligations. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation and for the way he has addressed some of the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chair. The SLSC, a cross-party committee, is of course not concerned with politics. That is for the House, the Government and, in due course, the electorate to decide.
My remarks now are therefore not about the energy policy but about the administration and process by which it is being delivered. We have quite narrow objectives in our terms of reference. The two that I think apply today are, first, that the instruments are
“politically or legally important and give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”;
and secondly, that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objectives. I particularly want to compare the unfavourable treatment of Statutory Instruments Nos. 1102, 1103 and 1125 with the other two in this group, Statutory Instruments Nos. 1101 and 1124. The first lot are about energy and the second lot are about heat.
As my noble friend the Minister has explained, this is about making sure that a fair share of the proceeds are passed on to tenants by landlords. He has gone through the rationale for “fair”, “reasonable” and so on and so forth, but it is worth while us putting ourselves in the position of an elderly widow. Let us say that she is in a block of 50 flats. Let us say that the landlord has two or three blocks of flats; they may have a couple of hundred tenants. The landlord may say, “Here is your rebate”. She may, for one reason or another, decide that it is not right. She must therefore begin proceedings to recover what she believes her fair and reasonable share is. That is what the committee was concerned about: inequality of arms.
We have to think about a single individual, maybe a vulnerable individual. I accept that I am exaggerating slightly to make a point, by taking one particular angle on the people who might be affected, but I am trying to explain to the Committee that this person is somehow going to have to have the courage, conviction, energy and money to take the landlord on and take them to the county court over what may not be a huge sum of money. Although I am sure my noble friend wishes to find ways of ensuring that tenants are informed and helped and that landlords are required to provide proper shares, records and so on, I am not sure that this is going to work in the real world as happily as the Government, I and the SLSC would wish it to. The inequality of arms—above all, in the power to delay and ask for more particulars; as I said, this should be looked at in a lot of detail—is likely to work in favour of landlords, particularly multiple landlords, against tenants, particularly tenants who are vulnerable, elderly or disadvantaged in one way or another.
When we come to the first three SIs, Nos. 1102, 1103 and 1125, there is no further appeal—that is the end—whereas when we get to Nos. 1101 and 1124, there is an appeal to the Energy Ombudsman and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, in respect of activities in the Province. So, although I quite understand what the Government are doing and wish to do well, they will need to keep a very close eye on what is going on under these regulations to ensure that fairness is not only being sought but being achieved and that, in cases where people are less well equipped to fight their corner, they are properly protected and looked after.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I would very much like to follow up on a number of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made so clearly. First, I welcome these regulations. Clearly, they are important pieces of secondary legislation. They are really important in terms of making sure that energy contributions, subsidies and public payments reach the people they need to reach. The questions I am going to ask are not a prosecution, if you like; I want to understand how some of this is going to work. I recognise fully the difficulty that the Government might have in finding a way to make this work.
First, what is the size of this problem? Does the Minister have any indication of the number of households that, in effect, have their landlords pay their electricity and energy bills? I do not know whether he has any idea what that is.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise for being slightly late in attending. I hope you will allow me to make the comments that I want to, in following up those from the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Teverson.
I thank the Minister for his introduction to the SIs. They are regulations that seek to put right a substantial loophole in the arrangements set out under the energy price assistance scheme. As we have heard, this concerns customers who do not pay their energy directly but where, for instance, it is paid by an intermediary. These categories of consumer are at risk of not receiving the relief that should be guaranteed under the energy price support or for businesses under energy relief schemes. It is right that we should correct this, and quickly, so our support for these instruments is not in doubt.
The design of the SI to deal with all the problems is, however, somewhat at risk. Generally, the SIs require the intermediary to provide a fair and reasonable pass-through of what has been received for bills in the first instance—not necessarily the full amount but a fair and reasonable amount. This has the potential to give rise to complications. What is a fair and reasonable difference between what an intermediary receives and what it passes through? Perhaps the Minister, in his response, could explain what can be taken into account in establishing what is seen to be a fair and reasonable payment.
I understand that there is no sanction on any intermediary if it fails to pass on what it is supposed to pass on. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, a customer’s redress is through the civil courts, and some draft letters have been provided for that to happen. But in the light of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the inequality of arms and so on, does the Minister believe there is any likelihood of a customer taking a landlord to court over a failure to pass through part or all of the payments they should have received? The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee talks about the “inequality of arms”, and there is a massive gap in power between landlords and vulnerable tenants.
In the limited cases of district heating schemes, as we have heard, if the pass-through is not sufficient there is a recourse to the Energy Ombudsman, but this is not available in the majority of cases. Why is the ombudsman not available to all customers who do not receive the pass-through from their landlords?
Finally, given that these SIs seem unlikely to resolve all pass-through problems, will the Government commit to monitoring this and establishing exactly what the facts are on the ground—as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, we are not entirely sure how many people will be in this situation? Will they, if necessary, review these SIs quickly thereafter to make them fit for all circumstances and pass-through payments?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all three noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for their questions. These regulations are essential to the successful implementation of all the energy support schemes. They will help to ensure that the support reaches the intended beneficiaries. We are all agreed on that.
To continue to empower all energy consumers, we have provided more information via our online guidance, especially to some of the most vulnerable energy end-users, such as older people and those with disabilities. The Government will continue to engage with all relevant stakeholders in this sector, including the energy regulators, energy companies and civil society, on the delivery of the schemes—for example, SSE, Electric Ireland, Ofgem, the Utility Regulator of Northern Ireland, MoneySavingExpert and the Consumer Council. We will also continue to monitor the schemes to ensure that this support is provided to the people and businesses it is designed to help.
In addition—this responds to some of the questions raised—we are committed to reviewing the energy price guarantee and energy bill relief schemes by the end of the year, and of course we will work with stakeholders to ensure that their feedback is taken into account. We will use these reviews to consider how best to offer further support to the customers most at risk from energy price increases beyond April 2023. Looking ahead, the Government are working to deliver the energy bills support scheme alternative fund payments and the increased alternative fuel payment of £200.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked a question relating to the so-called inequality of arms—I completely understand the point he is making—and in particular the support for vulnerable people. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked a related question on ensuring that end-users are aware of what they are entitled to. The regulations take this scenario into account. Where an intermediary receives energy support but has multiple end-users, the regulations say that it should determine a just and proportional method of dividing the benefit among those end-users, and clearly communicate how it has arrived at the amount allocated to the end-users.
Of course, we are keen to ensure that all end-users, including those who are vulnerable, receive the benefits of the schemes to which they are entitled. As such, we have been delivering and building a communications campaign. In addition, we have of course engaged with landlords, housing associations and charities that protect those who are most vulnerable.
For example, in developing the energy bills support scheme, we regularly engage with consumer groups and charities precisely to ensure that the scheme reaches the groups most in need and that we reach vulnerable consumers across the UK via a broad suite of communication channels. As well as working with charity and consumer groups, we work with stakeholders including local authorities, faith groups, the rural network and food banks to help disseminate information about the scheme and how it works.
We also recognise that many vulnerable consumers are on traditional prepayment meters. We have a communications campaign outlining the actions that these people need to take to receive their discount. For example, we have made details available via social media posts, radio broadcasts and posters translated into several languages.
In response to the question from my noble friend Lord Hodgson about compliance, the EBSS has a robust compliance and monitoring framework. Data has now been published showing that, in the first month, 97% of payments were successfully delivered to eligible households in England, Scotland and Wales. Where a supplier appears to be falling behind expectations, we will engage directly with them and ensure compliance. We will publish monthly updates until the end of this scheme. The EPG and the EBRS also have robust monitoring and evaluation in place to ensure that the schemes are operating effectively. As I said, they will be subject to review by the end of the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about how we divide the scheme benefit between end-users. For the EBRS, the obligation is on the intermediary to pass on the benefits of the scheme, not the energy retailers themselves. The noble Lord will recall that the EBRS is a discount that is applied to the unit price of gas and electricity; it is not a direct payment to the suppliers. The energy suppliers will provide the appropriate EBRS price reduction to their customers, some of whom will be intermediaries, based on their contract type. Intermediaries will then be expected to pass on to their end-users a just and reasonable amount. That would be the case in the majority of park homes, where the site owner is on a commercial tariff.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also asked me how park home residents will receive the payment. As I said, the majority of those households receive their energy bill support scheme payment automatically via their domestic energy supply contract. However, a small number of households do not have a domestic energy supply contract and, as such, will receive the £400 in funding through alternative funding mechanisms; it will not be delivered through electricity suppliers. We are currently working with delivery partners to make sure that the £400 support is provided to households at their primary residence. This includes those who do not have their own direct domestic electricity meter or a direct relationship with an energy supplier, including park home residents.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who asked what a “just and reasonable” amount might be, the regulations go further than simply setting out the just and reasonable test: they have been drafted to give examples of what is just and reasonable. Intermediaries are obliged to provide details to end-users setting out why they consider what they have done to be just and reasonable. The guidance published alongside the regulations gives further colour to the concept.
Intermediaries must pass on the discount irrespective of how the end-user pays for their energy use. They can adjust the amount that they pass on based on their charges to end-users; crucially, they have to demonstrate to end-users that this amount is just and reasonable. Intermediaries can take into account the extent to which they have increased their charges to end-users as a result of the energy crisis. For example, if the intermediary has shielded their end-users from the impact of increased energy prices, in those circumstances, it may be just and reasonable for them to retain some or all of the scheme benefit. The circumstances will be very individual.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his very thorough answers. I might have misheard, but I do not think he said why there is an appeal procedure in respect of heat in Statutory Instruments Nos. 1101 and 1124 and not in respect of energy. Clearly, one of the things that answers the inequality of arms is an ombudsman who is there to step in if things go badly wrong. I was not quite clear why it was in one group and not the other.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The answer to my noble friend’s question is that there is already a regulator in place for heat networks, so it is appropriate to use the regulator. Unfortunately, for most of the other circumstances there is no regulator in place, which is why we have had to default to the court process. I totally accept his point about the inequality of arms. I am not unrealistic about the difficulties that many tenants and others will face in trying to enforce their rights under this, but all we can do is put the regulations in place, publicise them and make sure that people know their rights. We will keep the scheme under constant review. We will ensure that the payments are passed through and that people receive the benefit to which they are entitled. We will not hesitate to act further if there is widescale avoidance of this responsibility.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Following up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is there then a possibility in the review that an ombudsman for the energy sector —not Ofgem—could be established or that the heat regulator could cover energy? I am not saying that that is going to happen, but it is a possibility. Secondly, the Minister kept saying that landlords “must pass on”, but if they fail to do so there is no sanction in the legislation; they just do not pass it on and they get away with it. Should there not be some sort of sanction for landlords if they fail to pass on just and reasonable costs to consumers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The sanction is that the person who does not receive the benefit can take the matter to court. That is the point I am making. I am not pretending that this situation is ideal, but many landlords, charities and others involved in the sector are, by their very nature, not subject to energy regulators. Of course, if they are energy supply companies, such as heat networks, they are regulated by Ofgem, which is the energy regulator. All these intermediaries encompass a range of operators, from park home operators to landlords of houses in multiple occupation. It is difficult to see how we could establish an overall regulator for all these different circumstances, particularly as the whole thing is only temporary, for as long as the support scheme lasts.
We have attempted to address the situation as well as we can, by providing the appropriate guidance and by making sure people have access to enforcing their rights. I do not pretend to disagree with noble Lords that the situation is not ideal, but we have addressed it as best we can. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
House of Lords
Child Hunger in Schools
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to research on increased child hunger in schools, including that published by Chefs in Schools on 18 October, which found that 83 per cent of primary school teachers said that children were coming to school hungry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank Chefs in Schools for commissioning this survey. Under the benefits-related criteria, the Government provide a free healthy meal in term time to around 1.9 million children. Eligibility has been extended several times, and to more groups of children than under any other Government over the past half century. This has included the introduction of universal infant free school meals and further education free meals. We continue to keep eligibility under review.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, when so many teachers are reporting children coming to school hungry, with heartbreaking accounts of hungry children in tears or even stealing food because their parents cannot afford enough food, something is going very wrong, despite what the Minister said. Does she accept the evidence that hunger adversely affects children’s ability to learn and their health and well-being? Given all the evidence, why do the Government reject the growing calls for free school meals to be extended to the 800,000 children in families on universal credit who do not qualify? At the very least, why do they not inflation-proof the net earnings eligibility limit of £7,400, set in 2018?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Well, of course the Government accept that, if children are hungry, it makes it harder for them to learn. But I point out that the survey looked at a relatively small number of teachers—around 520—while there are 250,000 primary school teachers in our schools. To reiterate my first Answer, the number of children receiving free school meals is the highest that it has ever been, and the Government’s strategy has been to support the disadvantaged in this cost of living crisis. There are ways of doing that; the noble Baroness is familiar with the energy support package and other measures that we have taken so that no child should have to go hungry.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed the appalling rise in the number of children who are now below the poverty line in the north-east of England? Up until 2010, there was a decrease in the number of children who were in that category in the north-east, but the number has risen more than in any other region and is now the highest in the country. This is shocking and of course affects their school performance and future prospects. Along with going hungry, that is something no Government should accept. What will the Government do about it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Since day 1, the Government have been clear that our absolute priority is levelling up opportunity across the country, including, of course and importantly, in the north-east. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, which are shared by my ministerial colleagues. But I point her to the £12 billion in direct support that we are targeting to the most vulnerable families in 2023-24.
Lord Bird (CB)
The point that more people now have school dinners is actually wrong because, when I was a young boy in the 1950s and 1960s, we had free school dinners, olive oil capsules and milk—all the things that children need now. So could the Minister consider going back to those old days?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord reminds a number of us of our schooldays, although I cannot remember the olive oil capsules—anyway, they sound very healthy. More seriously, the Government are thinking about this, not only in term time but in the holidays with our holiday activities and food programme, making sure that the children who need it most get the support that they need.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister—not wanting to go back to the 1960s, when people were given free school meals, but looking to the future—say how schools have expanded the breakfast clubs that are available? Can she also say a little more about this survey? Did I hear correctly that she said it was based on 500 teachers out of about 200,000?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We genuinely welcome every bit of research that helps us understand the issues that families are facing. As my noble friend picked up on, I was making the point that, in this case, the survey sample was just over 500 teachers in primary schools—and, overall, we have about a quarter of a million of them. In relation to breakfast clubs, we have invested £24 million over the last two years in supporting school breakfast provision. That again is targeted absolutely at the most disadvantaged children, making sure that it reaches those who need it.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in answer to an earlier question that no child should have to go hungry. I am sure that the whole House agrees with that, but the truth is that, every day, tens of thousands of children go hungry because they come from poor households but are not eligible for free school meals. Unless eligibility is extended to children from families in receipt of universal credit, there is no way that, in many cases, children will be going to school without being hungry. Would the Minister accept that that is the truth and use it for the basis of future policy development?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will say two things in response. First, of course we will keep the policy under review. But I am sure that the noble Lord would accept that you cannot take funding for free school meals separately from other elements of support for vulnerable families. Secondly, the point that I have been making is that the support for those families, under this Government, has been targeted and extensive.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the food strategy of just this year said that it hoped it would spark a school food revolution. This has not happened. The Chefs in Schools report makes for stark reading and includes shocking revelations about the sheer scale of child hunger. When will the UK Government follow the Welsh Labour Government’s lead in providing breakfast clubs and investing in all our children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I have already referred to the point about breakfast clubs. The Government are already investing in breakfast clubs and we remain open to new evidence, but our focus is on the most vulnerable.
Lord Laming (CB)
The Minister well understands that the children who are hungry at school may well have other vulnerabilities, and therefore the one point of contact between the child and the state is their school. Could the Minister continue to do all that she is doing—I know she is doing a lot—to make sure that schools are aware of looking at the whole child and not just thinking about academic subjects, important though they are?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord, as ever, makes an important point. We really are looking at that closely, not just in a school setting but, as importantly, in relation to early years and nursery settings. He will be aware that, post Covid, many children are arriving at school who are not school-ready in the way that we expected, and we are looking at that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, locally sourced food could be served in schools and other local authority institutions such as prisons and hospitals. If 50% of all the food served in school meals was locally sourced, would this not reduce the cost of production?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to take that back to the department to look at. We are very focused on the standard of school food and supporting schools to give children a truly nutritious lunch each day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
If I may, I will point out that we have heard only once from the Liberal Democrat Benches; others have been heard twice.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, of course no child should go starving. Would the Minister not consider extending the coalition’s policy of giving free school meals to all key stage 1 children to key stage 2, and at secondary school—key stage 3—ensure that every pupil whose parents are on universal credit gets a free school meal?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think I have tried to answer that question in a couple of ways. It comes down to: should the Government be funding a number of separate things to support parents or should the Government be putting money in the hands of parents so that they can make the choices that are right for their families? This Government believe in the latter.
NHS Waiting Times
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve NHS waiting time performance.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
For the second time in a week or so, I do not notice the noble Lord in his place but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will kindly step in again.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
With the permission of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and on his behalf, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
In February 2022, we published the elective recovery plan, setting ambitious targets to recover services, backed by more than £8 billion in funding from 2022-23 to 2024-25 and supported by a £5.9 billion investment in new beds, equipment and technology. We are providing an additional £3.3 billion in 2023-24 and 2024-25 to ensure that the NHS can take rapid action to improve performance, including urgent and emergency care and getting elective performance back towards pre-pandemic levels.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, last week’s report from the National Audit Office laid waste to the idea that all of the NHS’s current woes are down to the pandemic. By 2019, NHS England had not met the elective waiting time performance standard for four years, nor its full set of eight operational standards for cancer services for six years. Following the Government’s announcement last week of a review into NHS efficiency, can the Minister confirm whether the Government are still committed to their 18-week target between GP referral and consultant-led treatment, as well as their other targets around A&E waiting times, ambulance responses and cancer treatment?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. With reference to past performance, that is what the spending increases were all about. They were an acceptance that we need to do more in this space, and we are doing more. The pandemic clearly brought unprecedented circumstances and that is why we have announced more funding to get on top of that in the next few years, tackling all the areas that the noble Baroness mentioned in terms of A&E wait times, GPs and all the rest.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, we know that part of the problem is that ambulances are going to A&E departments but are not able to deposit their patients in A&E. We know that there is a blockage at the other end in social care, with people not being able to be discharged fast enough back into the community or into care homes. Until that is sorted out, I cannot see how we are ever going to sort out the waiting lists. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me what might happen that will perhaps make those problems better?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. Adult social care, as many have heard me say before in this House, is a crucial part of this, because it is all about the flow. That is why I was delighted that, in addition to the £500 million discharge fund for this year, we have secured up to £2.8 billion of funding for next year. That is in addition to the 7,000 extra beds and the tailored help for the 15 worst-performing hospitals with the ambulances, so we have a complete answer to all these areas.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, patients with complex and long-term conditions are finding it increasingly difficult to access the care that they need, resulting, as the British Heart Foundation report indicated, in 10,000 excess deaths in people suffering from chronic cardiac conditions. The Minister referred recently to the system being a failure. Does he agree that we need a system that develops care for these patients, one that is accessible and timely, in community and primary care settings?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that cardiovascular is one important area in which, over the last few years, patients have not received the number of check-ups that we want, so it is an area on which we want to focus—not just through checks in GP centres but in the community. We all know that it is very easy to take blood pressure and have blood pressure machines. As a team, we are looking at precisely those kinds of measures to make sure that we can get the preventive screening in up front, so we can identify these people before problems occur.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The Minister referred to the worst-performing hospitals and ambulance trusts, but news from the Health Service Journal today has shown that the longest waiting times are mainly in rural, deprived areas, with an elderly population that is much higher than in the rest of the country. Can the Minister say what special resources will be provided for those areas—rather than just using words like “worst”, which punish them unnecessarily?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. If I have used a poor choice of words, I apologise. What we are looking at is identifying the areas where we most need to focus resources to solve wait times. That might be because it is a rural area or it might be, candidly, because it is not performing so well. The point that I was trying to make is that there is targeted support. We spent £150 million on ambulance performance and new facilities last year, and it is something that we will continue to do if those rural areas and other areas need the spend.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister deal with the issue of 18 weeks? Are the Government still committed to that policy? If they are, when does he think it will be achieved?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are committed to timely appointments. The whole point about the community diagnostic centres that were set up—and we have set up more than 90—is so that patients can be referred straight to those centres and get their screening and tests straightaway, getting them more quickly and, I hope, getting peace of mind more quickly as well.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the recent change, which enabled GPs to refer patients direct for assessments instead of having to refer to a consultant, and for the consultant then to refer, which I think saved about 30 days. What other procedural changes are the Government considering that would further reduce waiting times, without actually costing more money, and save doctors time—for example, patient self-assessments in the home, which we pioneered in east London 30 years ago?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. There are a number of areas where we can do this. I point to the possibility for home testing a lot more. Covid was a perfect example, whereby it became commonplace. Rather than samples being sent away to a laboratory, we came up with lateral flow devices and were able to do it cheaply and pretty accurately, although not quite as accurately. That is a perfect example of using technology to do more home-type diagnosis.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in learning from best practice in other countries, are my noble friend, the department or the NHS aware of the pioneering work of Dr Shetty in Bangalore, who has pioneered production-line surgery for certain procedures? Are the Government considering that at the moment? If not, why not?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. While I am not familiar with that exact case, I saw a very good, probably quite similar, example in Chase Farm Hospital, which has four operating theatres in a sort of barn. It has a complete production line for elective hip replacements and so on to get that capacity and efficiency.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. The Minister will be aware that innovation, be it therapeutic or in models of care, is essential to improve efficiency and efficacy in the delivery of NHS services. Is he content that there is sufficient protection in the NHS budget to drive that adoption of innovation and ensure that staff are properly trained for its application?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. As I have said previously, innovation, and being able to back that up with investment, is key. The House will see that we have protected a lot of the research funds so that we can do exactly that. That is the direction of travel. The new hospital programme, which I look after, is very much about looking at best practice and innovation around the world and making sure that we employ the best in our new hospitals and across all our trusts.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is relatively new to his department, but even in the number of weeks he has been there, he must recognise that, whatever statistics on inputs he announces at the Dispatch Box, it is not working. There was a time, two decades ago, when we managed as a Government to reduce the maximum waiting time from three years to 18 weeks and the numbers on the waiting list from 1 million to 500,000. There are now 7.2 million on the waiting list—incidentally, there were 4.2 million before Covid. Whatever the Government have been doing for 10 years is not working and people are remaining in pain for prolonged periods, quite apart from the effect on the economy. Will the Minister institute an immediate review centred particularly around patient choice, which is the only thing that will drive down waiting times and waiting lists? It should never have been abandoned in the way it has been by the Government.
Lord Markham (Con)
I believe that customers—call them patients—should drive performance and improvements. Inputs are important, but I totally agree that in a performance culture outputs are very important. I give credit to the work done in the early 2000s, from which I have tried to learn in the short time I have been here, to really bear down and create a performance culture to get waiting lists down by holding trusts, and now the new ICB CEOs, to account. That is definitely the direction of travel, and I am very happy to learn from things that have worked well in the past.
Renters Reform Bill
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will be bringing forward the promised Renters Reform Bill based on the White Paper A fairer private rented sector published on 16 June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
The Government’s consultation on introducing a decent homes standard to the private rented sector closed on 14 October. We are considering the responses carefully and will publish our response to the consultation as soon as we can. In the meantime, the Government have committed to ban Section 21 no-fault evictions to protect tenants and will introduce a renters reform Bill in this Parliament.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for that definitive Answer. As we were promised it in 2022-23, this definitely feels like a disappointing push-back of the much-needed reform of the private rented sector, which I and many others look forward to, as there is much work to do. For example, last week in the Budget the Chancellor said that rent hikes of 11% were unaffordable and acted to cap rent rises faced by social tenants. However, private landlords are still free to charge the going market rent and, according to Zoopla, this has increased nationally by 12% in the past year. In the same Budget, the Government chose to freeze—
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will get to my question; I note that noble Lords have been more liberal with other speakers. In the same Budget, the Government chose yet again to freeze housing benefit and local housing allowance levels. Does the Minister believe that this is fair, as it disproportionately affects private renters? Are there plans to review these levels? Given that private tenants are likely to pay higher rents than their social sector counterparts, does she agree that they too deserve protection from unaffordable rent rises?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not support the introduction of rent controls in the private rented sector. Historically, evidence suggests that this would discourage investment in the sector and lead to declining property standards as a result, which would not help either landlords or tenants. Recent international examples also suggest that rent controls can have an invertedly negative impact on the supply of housing and may encourage more illegal subletting.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am aware of many landlords who own one property which they use for letting purposes, and it amounts to their sole income. Does the Minister therefore agree that a one-size-fits-all rent freeze could damage those who rely on rental income to service their ever-increasing mortgages, thereby damaging the rental sector altogether?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think that is exactly what I have said. We need a balance here, in order for landlords to still provide this sector, which is an extremely important sector, and in the renters reform Bill that is coming forward I am sure that we will discuss that in further detail.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, whilst welcoming an enormous amount that is in the proposed legislation, I am very concerned about the capacity of the courts to undertake the justified evictions under Section 8. Currently, the waiting times are simply enormous, and this is putting off a lot of private landlords.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. When court action is needed for landlords to gain possession of their properties, the courts should provide fair and efficient access to justice. We are working with the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to introduce reforms to make the possession process much more efficient for landlords, while maintaining essential protections for tenants built into the court processes.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an owner of rented properties. Following on from that last question, will my noble friend undertake that, in seeking to protect tenants from a minority of unscrupulous landlords, they will not make it impossible for proper landlords to regain their properties from tenants who may be behaving inappropriately?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is right that we need a balance in this, and the way we are going to get a balance is through good debate on the Bill that is coming forward in this Parliament. We will have all those discussions and, hopefully, we will get something at the end which is balanced—for landlords but also, most importantly, for tenants.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, rents in London are up to double the level of rents elsewhere in the UK. Crisis has warned that the number of people sleeping rough in London has risen by a quarter in just one year, and more than half of those spotted on the streets are sleeping rough for the first time. What are the Government doing to prevent those who are struggling to pay their increasing rents from falling into homelessness?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
My Lords, we have a number of interventions that can be used that the Chancellor brought in, both for people that are struggling with their rents and people who are struggling with household bills as a whole; that was all laid out in the Chancellor’s Statement last week. As far as homelessness is concerned, we are providing local authorities with £316 million in the homelessness prevention grant funding, and we are encouraging local authorities to use that flexibly, because it will not be the same in London as it is in other areas of the country.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s own White Paper admits that the private rented sector
“offers the most expensive, least secure, and lowest quality housing”
to nearly 4.5 million households. Will the Government introduce a new renters’ charter to give tenants more choice and more control over their homes?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, if it is in the White Paper, we will see whether it comes through into the Bill and will discuss that. I am sure that if the noble Baroness tables any amendments, we will discuss those in full.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I recognise that the Government are not going to introduce a freeze for the private rented sector or the social housing sector, but there is a cap on rents for social housing landlords, housing associations and councils. That cap means that they will not be getting the revenue they expected if they have the full increase in their rents. The main beneficiaries of this are the Government and Treasury, because housing benefit will be reduced—so the autumn Statement tells us—by £650 million. Will this windfall gain of £650 million for the Treasury over the next five years be recycled or reinvested back into social housing, where it is very badly needed, to upgrade the stock and build new homes?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government are already investing in social housing; we are putting £11.5 billion into building social housing. Some of the money from the windfall, as the noble Lord called it—I would not call it that—will go into that. There is also support going to local authorities to support those in the private rented sector who might have problems this winter and whom we might need to help out.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, following the tragic death of Awaab Ishak due to fungus growing in a family apartment, will my noble friend the Minister agree to a review of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 to stop this ever happening in the private rented sector?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As we discussed in a lot of detail last week, this was an extremely sad and very disturbing case. On whether we will look at the healthy homes standard again, I think we will now wait to see if it is going to be in the renters reform Bill. In the meantime, the Secretary of State wrote to all local authorities this week to insist that they look at their stock, so that we as a department and a Government know exactly what is happening in our social housing stock as far as mould and damp are concerned.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, one reason why low-income tenants are struggling with their rents is that the local housing allowance has been frozen. Can the Minister explain why?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have to understand that this country is in an economically difficult time, and very difficult decisions have to be made. If we look at what was given to very vulnerable groups of people in the Statement last week, I think noble Lords will agree that the Government are doing all they possibly can—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No—the Government are doing all they can to support these people and help them, both now and if they have problems as the winter goes on.
NHS: Waiting Lists and Increased Spending
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the statement by the Institute for Fiscal Studies on 15 November that NHS waiting lists have risen in 2022 alongside increased spending on NHS England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government continually assess data and reports on waiting lists from a wide range of sources, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The IFS statement confirms that the Government are right to support and challenge NHS England to continue to identify and address factors that constrain further activity, and to reduce waiting lists. The Autumn Statement announced a further £3.3 billion for 2023-24 and 2024-25 to enable rapid action to improve emergency, elective and primary care performance.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that
“NHS spending in England is, in real terms, 12% above its 2019 level. Yet it is getting fewer people off waiting lists and into hospital treatment than it was … in 2019.”
We used to have a slogan: “Labour isn’t working”. The NHS is no longer working. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has asked me whether we could ring-fence its money. I do not think we can. Can some of the hundreds of civil servants on six-figure salaries in his department get down to sorting out what is clearly a dysfunctional department?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is correct. Efficiency is very important, as pointed out in a previous Question. I have done some work in this space, and there are some trusts that are absolutely on the path to the 130% increase in elective treatments compared with 2019, for which the funding is in place. There are other trusts that are not. Clearly, my job and the job of all the department’s civil servants is to understand why that is and to challenge those trusts that are not; to support them where they need that support; and to ensure they are introducing best practice and innovation in order to make sure they all get back towards that level. There are some very good performers and others that are not so good.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, we hear a lot in this House about the recruitment of doctors and nurses. However, any organisation facing the kind of challenges confronting the NHS would ordinarily be doing its utmost to retain its talent. The NHS, in many ways, seems to be doing the opposite. When will it develop a comprehensive strategy for the retention of its experienced clinical personnel, without whom it would simply be unable to function?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. I was delighted to see in the Chancellor’s Statement a commitment to a workforce strategy for five, 10 and 15 years, something that all of us in this House have been asking for. It will look at all the needs in respect of recruitment and, crucially, retention. That is very much part of the agenda.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the current shortage of 60,000 nurses is devastating, and its impact on waiting lists even more so. It is obvious—to me, anyway—that the main cause of this staffing crisis is low pay, with many nurses opting to leave for jobs in supermarkets and other sectors for better wages. Does the Minister accept that the best way to tackle these problems is to allow more qualified nurses into the UK from the EU and beyond, grow the economy and fill the gaps in the skills that the NHS needs? Most importantly, we need to pay our heroes, who we all clapped for, a decent living wage to live on.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. For the record, there are 29,000 extra nurses since 2019-20, so we are well on course for the 50,000 increase. At the same time, we do need to recruit from overseas, and that is very much part of the plan. Again, this will go into the workforce strategy, but I completely agree that we should be looking to recruit from around the world, which we are. I am delighted that we are adding more and more people to the essential workers list, so to speak, to enable us to do that, because we all know that the workforce plan will show that we need to recruit people and retain them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the last time the figure of 92% of patients being seen within 18 weeks was achieved was in 2016. Since then, the numbers who are waiting have doubled: it is now 7.1 million. What does the Minister say to the 16 year-old in Shrewsbury who has just been told that he has to wait nearly three years for a first appointment at his local hospital? The hospital says that it has recruitment problems. When will we see the details of this workforce plan, particularly for rural areas?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. As I say, we have committed to that workforce plan, and it will be detailed. We will look at every place in every part of the country because we understand that that is needed, and it is part of the critical plan to get on top of the 7.1 million waiting list. As I think we have accepted, it is not a quick win; it will get higher before it gets lower again. Clearly, however, we need to get on top of it, and we are focused on it. It is very much about the plan and the new spending plans that we put in place to address it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, last year NHS trusts paid an interest bill of almost £500 million on PFI hospital contracts. This year, that bill will rise again. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the increase in NHS budgets will go just to pay interest charges on these dreadful contracts, and what plans he has to try to renegotiate them?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness; I will need to get back to her in writing on the detail of that. However, looking into the PFI contracts is very much part of my agenda; I had a meeting on that just last week, and we are reviewing it.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, with the increasing conflict between inputs and outputs that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, mentioned earlier, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the need and time for a royal commission on the NHS is fast approaching?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. To be honest with him, I am hoping we can act quicker than that—that is absolutely the plan. I can tell him that we know the areas where they are performing and they are on the elective recovery plan, and we know those that are not. I do not need a royal commission to tell me that. To my mind, it is about understanding what those hospitals are doing well and putting in place focused action and support to help those that are behind the plan.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, on an earlier Question, I and other noble Lords asked the Minister if the Government were still committed to their target of 18-weeks between GP referral and consultant-led treatment, and their other targets for A&E waiting times, ambulance responses and cancer treatment. I offer the Minister another opportunity to say to your Lordships’ House whether this is the case.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. As I am sure the House is aware from the statements of the Chancellor and the Health Secretary, in a lot of areas we are trying to make sure that we place fewer targets on the health professions and GPs and allow them to manage. At the same time, we make sure that if they are not performing, action is taken, but generally we trust them to manage. The beauty of Google is that I have been able to check the 18-week target, and it is a statutory commitment, so I can give that assurance. However, on the others, we are making sure that we look at the performance measures that really matter.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, whatever efficiencies are achieved, given that the growth in demand for NHS services will continue to exceed the growth of our ailing economy, should not the Government be making a major commitment to preventive strategies to stop people becoming ill or injured in the first place? With the Government’s reversion to austerity, however, has not the prospect deteriorated for the investment needed in public health and non-clinical approaches such as the successful warm home prescription pilot? How can we hope that the Government will systematically address the social determinants of health, such as poor housing?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, and I agree that prevention is better than cure. I refer to the earlier Question and analysis by Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer, who pointed out his concerns about cardiovascular health arising from people not having had the check-ups they should have had during the pandemic. I completely agree that there are some very cost-effective measures which can really help with the prevention agenda, such as heart blood pressure machines and lateral flow screening devices that can be sent to homes. We are looking at that issue, because I agree that prevention is better than cure.
Newport Wafer Fab
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee found no evidence to suggest that a review into the acquisition of Newport Wafer Fab had taken place, yet Politico reports that the Government’s National Security Adviser concluded that there were not enough security concerns to block it. Will the Government confirm on the record whether the review that was promised by the then Prime Minister Johnson took place or not? The same Foreign Affairs Committee warned that the sale of Newport Wafer Fab potentially compromises national security and is the loss of a prized asset to a competitor amid a global shortage of semiconductors. Given the sale has not been blocked, what steps are the Government taking to mitigate these risks?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, obviously, there is a limit to what I can say about this, but I will endeavour to be as helpful to the House as possible. I certainly can confirm to the noble Lord that the review did take place and was one of the factors that the Secretary of State took into consideration when he made his decision. It was made in a quasi-judicial manner and the Secretary of State considered that a risk to national security had arisen from the trigger event, which is why he made the order that he has.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think we welcome this decision. When it comes to the National Security and Investment Act, the Minister is the best authority because, while Secretaries of State have come and gone, the Minister took it through this House and he is still here. Perhaps he can add some perspective, because at the outset of this case the Minister stood up and said that the technology in Newport Wafer Fab was not worthy of being called in through the National Security and Investment Act. Over time, that has evolved, so what has changed? Is it the Government’s view of Newport Wafer Fab or the Government’s view of China?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure that I said that, but I will certainly look back through the record. This has been going on for a long period. The Secretary of State has taken into account all the relevant factors, as he is obliged to do under the legislation. The noble Lord is right; we debated it extensively, but this decision has been taken purely on the grounds of national security. That is what the Secretary of State is required to do. That is what he has done, taking all the relevant factors into consideration, and he has made a final order in this case.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, which is the greater security threat: that the technology at Newport goes into Chinese hands or that we lose the overall capacity to be able to manufacture in this sector?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will know that I cannot go into specific details of this case, but I am delighted to say that we have an extensive range of companies in the UK manufacturing and producing in this area. South Wales is one of the notable success stories with the catapult acceleration plans that we have there.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, with the sale of a major semiconductor company of the United Kingdom and with no gigafactory for the manufacture of batteries, what effect will this have on our ability to manufacture electric vehicles?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am looking forward to the proper debate we will have on the report on electric battery vehicle manufacturing from the noble Lord’s committee later this week. We have over 100 companies active in this area in the UK and some excellent research and development and manufacturing facilities. This decision was not taken on any industrial policy matter. As is required under the legislation that we debated extensively and that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to, the decision was taken on national security grounds alone.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, this is an unusual case in so far as it is retrospective. My understanding is that the National Security and Investment Act came into being only in January. In another place the prospect was raised of other companies being in the control of hostile countries. What process is in place to review that, in terms of not only future hostile takeovers but ones that might currently exist?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is right that the Act came into operation in January. There were some retrospective elements in that. A trigger event occurred and therefore the Secretary of State could exercise his power. When future trigger events occur, we will look at every transaction based on national security implications, as is required under the Act.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the final order stated that the security risk was the reintroduction of semiconductor production at that site. Now that have a £39 billion trade deficit with China, what are the Government’s assessments of the key sectors of the UK economy which are vulnerable to Chinese technology on the same basis as this final order?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As was printed in it, the final order was based on the technology and know-how that could result from a potential reintroduction of compound semiconductor activities at the Newport site. The noble Lord has read the final order. As I said in a previous answer, this has no implication for any other policies. Every one of these transactions is looked at on national security grounds in the context of the legislation that was passed giving quasi-judicial power to the Secretary of State. It has no implication for any other sectors of the economy. Every transaction is looked at on an individual basis.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I bought a new Land Rover in July, and I am still waiting for a second key because of the shortage of chips. Given the Chinese aggression towards Taiwan, and given its dependency, surely this decision is to be welcomed. We should aim for a degree of self-sufficiency, as far as is possible, in the production of chips, given our determination to be a country which is secure against totalitarian states and their aggression.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry to hear about my noble friend’s Land Rover key; I hope it is restored to him as quickly as possible. We have a very active semi- conductor manufacturing and research and development facility in this country. We have over 100 companies actively working with compound semiconductor devices. Around 5,000 UK companies, 90% of which are SMEs, are designing and making electronics components devices, systems and products. The Chancellor announced an increase in funding in this area. The south Wales cluster is particularly important. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds promoting it. We are very proud of it. This has no implications beyond that specific transaction, which was considered on national security grounds under the legislation, as the Secretary of State is required to do.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Does the Minister agree that it is not just a matter of intellectual property or the number of research and development staff, but that we must manufacture stuff and not be totally reliant on foreign supplies? Reinforcing what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, just said, it is a bit like being unable to grow crops and feed your people. If we cannot manufacture, we will collapse because we cannot import the stuff. It could be bog standard chips or bog standard anything. We need to get our manufacturing capability up in this modern world, where there will be a shortage of all this stuff.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. That is why in 2016 we set up the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult, with £50 million of funding. Since then, it has initiated over £100 million of projects and collaborative projects which have generated or saved over 4,700 jobs in the UK. Therefore, we are very active in this space. This decision has no implications for that investment, which will continue. It was a quasi-judicial decision on national security grounds, which is what the Secretary of State is required to do.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Are there any other national security investigations of this kind under way?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord knows that I cannot comment on other live cases until final orders are made. I can give him some figures from the National Security and Investment Act report, published in March. The NSI unit received 222 notifications and 17 applications were called in. Since then, we have made 10 final orders, and acquisitions have been unwound or blocked on three occasions.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, there has been some change of view over time about this case, so might we expect further changes of view in other areas where the Chinese are deeply involved—for instance, in civil nuclear power, where they are embedded? There have been doubts about that all the way along. Can the Minister assure us that when and if a change of view is beginning to develop, or new facts come to light, he will keep us informed on this change in policy in the way that our entire nuclear programme is going?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not accept that there has been a change in policy. The policy is the National Security and Investment Act, which this House passed. If and when other trigger events occur, there will be a full investigation by the NSI team in my department and the Secretary of State will take a quasi-judicial decision, as he has done in this case.
Fleet Solid Support Ships
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Defence Select Committee said that Ministers should ensure that warships are built in UK yards and that this designation continues to include fleet solid support ships. Welcome as these new ships are, why did the Government not accept the Team UK bid? Team UK’s bid showed 6,000 more UK jobs. How many jobs have been lost as a result of not accepting that bid, and how many of the ships will be made and associated work done in Spain? Time and again, Parliament has called for the UK Government to fully support our sovereign defence capability. Is not this just another missed opportunity to fully support the British defence industry?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord’s assessment of a very exciting opportunity for British shipbuilding. The bulk of these ships are going to be built within the UK, particularly in the shipyard of Harland & Wolff. It is a tremendous coup for Team Resolute that they have succeeded in this. There will be extensive investment in infrastructure in Harland & Wolff’s yard. They are warships, but that is precisely why the majority of these ships will be built in the UK. He suggests that all these complex programmes and platforms are built entirely in a single country, but that is not the case, such is the technical complexity nowadays. For example, the F35, a US aircraft, is partly built in the UK. Our Dreadnought submarines and the US Columbia-class submarines will share a common missile compartment, built in both the United States and the UK. We should be celebrating what is very good news for the British shipbuilding industry.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Minister in the other place put great emphasis on the extent to which the partnership with the Spanish shipbuilder would provide technological transfer and additional skills for Harland & Wolff and other British shipyards. Can the Minister here say a little more about that? If that is indeed part of the package, that is useful for the British in rebuilding our shipbuilding capacity. If it is not, we are perhaps being sold a pup. She said that in future we have to build things jointly with our partners. The Commons Minister went further than that and said that an obsessive and excessive concern with sovereign capacity and sovereignty as such—Britain doing everything alone—is
“some sort of prehistoric antediluvian approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/22; col. 965.]
Does the noble Baroness agree? If so, would she perhaps like to say that to a few members of the European Research Group?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
What I would say is that Navantia is a globally acknowledged shipbuilding expert. We are very pleased to be able to draw on its skills. For example, the agreement we have reached with Team Resolute means a vital skills and technology transfer. A small team of Spanish shipbuilding experts will transfer to Belfast, and Harland & Wolff will benefit from that. On the wider issue of how we build warships there is a desire to ensure that, where there are sensitive security issues, the majority of warships will be built in the UK. That is what is happening here. The majority of the blocks and modules from which the ships will be assembled will be built in the UK at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore. Interestingly, some components will be manufactured at its sites at Methil in Fife and Arnish in the Isle of Lewis. I hope they have got their thermal vests out to prepare for the Isle of Lewis.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could help the House with the position about the intellectual property in the design of these vessels.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The ships have been designed in the UK by BMT, a leading firm of naval architects. Intellectual property in the design rests with it. The Ministry of Defence does not generally seek to acquire ownership of intellectual property created by contractors undertaking work for the department. Rather, we seek to acquire free user rights that permit the department to use, modify and manage equipment as it sees fit through life, without infringing IP rights or incurring fees.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, while I am always pathetically grateful when we get an order for some ships, there are some real risks here. How big is the workforce at Harland & Wolff at the moment? When did it last build a ship there for the Royal Navy? Is it true that 60% by value of this contract will go to the Spanish firm, which effectively established its UK office just a matter of months ago?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As far as I understand it, Harland & Wolff currently expects the contract to support 1,200 shipbuilding jobs across its yards in Belfast and Appledore. As everyone is aware, Harland & Wolff has a strong reputation. It has been having a challenging time. As I said earlier, the extensive £77 million infrastructure investment will make a big difference to it and put it in a position where it will be poised to bid for future contracts.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, before leaving the European Union and since, we have been told repeatedly that one of the advantages of coming out is that British ships will be built in British yards. The use of the active verb in these sentences is important. I looked closely at the Minister’s answer to this Question in the House of Commons. He said that the ships would be assembled at Harland & Wolff. Where are these ships to be built? They are built in modules. Is the work to be in Britain or elsewhere? Is the bulk of this contract going to be abroad? The £77 million is welcome, as are the jobs, but what proportion of the contract is coming to the United Kingdom and what proportion is going to Spain? What other G7 country does this? None.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can only repeat what I said in response to earlier questions: that the majority of these ships will be built in the UK. As I understand the technical situation, the majority of the blocks and modules from which the ships will be assembled will be built at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore. Again, I repeat that this is very good news for British shipbuilding, particular on the back of the recently announced Batch 2 of the five frigates at Govan. This is all indicative of the very good state of the British shipbuilding industry. I refer the noble Lord to what the chief executive of Harland & Wolff had to say:
“I am pleased to see the Government seize the last opportunity to capture the skills that remain in Belfast and Appledore before they are lost for good.”
That is testament to the strength of this decision.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is it a fact that the Government’s dispute with the DUP had something to do with the choice of Harland & Wolff?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, when it comes to the procurement of complex contracts such as those in which the MoD is frequently engaged, what matters is who has the skills, what the design looks like, and what offers to deliver well for the MoD and as a warship for the British shipbuilding industry.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right: ships assembled in this country are made up of components from all over the world. This has been the case for some time now.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I observe to my noble friend that the vast majority of the build work will take place in the UK. There will be an element of the aft blocks built in Spain, but by far the majority of the shipbuilding work will be here. We should celebrate this. It is a matter of commendation not depression.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome the awarding of the contract to Harland & Wolff in Belfast. This was welcomed right across communities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give us an assurance that this will be the first of many contracts?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her encouraging remarks and for accepting the real world in which we live. Her aspiration is laudable. It is always our intention in the MoD to support the indigenous industry as best we can. We have a good reputation and record for doing that. Let us see what the future holds.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, it behoves us all to share the Minister’s view at the outset that this is very good news for British shipbuilding. We can nibble around the edges about what might be but we have to start from where we are. We have a national shipbuilding plan now; we are taking steps; we have had important new orders announced in recent weeks. This is all part of the strategy, and I hope the Minister will agree with me that the Royal Navy’s part in developing the ship- building industry is very welcome, as indeed are the growing links between commercial maritime and the Royal Navy that we have seen across the land.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. He identifies the underpinning wisdom and strength of the shipbuilding strategy, which Sir John Parker originally conceived with the specific intent of creating a sustainable indigenous British shipbuilding industry. We are now well on the way to doing that, and I thank the noble Lord for his recognition of that progress.
Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 View all Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 65-I Motion for Consideration of Commons Reason - (21 Nov 2022)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box to take this Bill, I hope, through its final stages in Parliament. I am very pleased to see how much progress has been made, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute and extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Kamall, who carefully steered the Bill through Report and Third Reading in your Lordships’ House.
The Government have listened carefully to the points raised in scrutiny on this Bill, both in this House and in another place. We have taken on board recommendations made in both Houses of Parliament and have tabled amendments where those recommendations have strengthened the legislation. I am confident that the Bill is now in a form that will meet its objectives. Importantly for the debate before us today, that includes preserving a balance between landowners’ rights and the wider public interest in delivering telecommunications networks.
As I shall set out now, I hope that your Lordships will agree with Members in another place that Amendment 17 should not remain part of the Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, would add a new clause to the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effect of the Electronic Communications Code, and of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021, on the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. Her amendment understandably aims to provide transparency, accountability and ongoing evaluation of the legislative framework that underpins digital deployment in the UK. As the noble Baroness knows, I fully appreciate the sentiment behind it, and I commend noble Lords in all parts of the House for their efforts to improve connectivity. I am grateful for the time given by the noble Baroness and others yesterday to discuss this ahead of our debate today. It is clear that we share the same goal, although our opinions in some instances differ about how to achieve it.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 17, which had not even made it to the internet section of the Bill when I looked an hour ago. I also welcome the Minister’s mention of the national connectivity alliance as a good co-operation between site providers and operators.
The reforms in the Digital Economy Act 2017 have resulted in lengthy legal disputes, causing significant delays to rollout. Small businesses and local sports clubs, many of which host telecoms infrastructure on their land, have lost thousands of pounds in income, with no commensurate boost to digital connectivity. This was foreseen by the current Prime Minister during the debate on the Digital Economy Bill in 2016, when he warned:
“Interfering with property rights, as the code does, is a major step for this House to endorse. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that the Bill benefits not just the network operators’ balance sheets, but the public interest.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/16; col. 828.]
Overall, I am disappointed at the lack of compromise elsewhere by the Government and the absence of rigorous evidence for the Bill. It appears that its policy development has been entirely reliant on the telecoms operators. It is vital that the Government use all the tools still at their disposal to limit the most egregious effects of this legislation, including through the use of transitional arrangements.
On preventing backdated payments, the Bill as drafted will allow the courts to impose lower rents on site providers—I meant to declare an interest as a site provider—and this can be dated to years before the court issues its order. This will have the effect of courts imposing backdated payments of thousands of pounds on site providers, despite those rent levels having been agreed between partners in good faith. The Government have promised to consider addressing this issue through transitional provisions, and it is vital that they do so and consult properly with affected parties to ensure that their measures are effective.
The Government have not heeded the significant disquiet on transitional relief on valuation throughout the Bill’s passage through Parliament. I would like to put on the record the significant damage that will be caused to the market by extending the “no scheme” valuation into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. If the Government are set on not revisiting them, the changes to the regulatory framework and expansion of the 2017 reforms proposed by the PSTI Bill should be brought in gradually to avoid significant financial shocks for site providers.
I turn to the government evidence base. The impact assessment for the legislation at the time showed that the Government anticipated a reduction in rents of 40%. I have heard stories from site providers who have seen rent reductions of more than 90%, but even the operators accept that the rent reductions have been 63%. Although this is an unsourced and untested figure, it is still a huge reduction.
It is also concerning that the Government have refused to accept other sources of evidence. Last week, following a very useful meeting with the Minister, I received a document from DCMS expressing its concerns over a report produced by the CEBR, an independent and well-respected economic analysis organisation. It made a number of assertions which I believe are incorrect. First, it states that the CEBR report over-emphasises the interests of landowners. This is not borne out by the evidence cited in the Government’s report, which includes research funded or written directly by operators themselves. Secondly, it states that the CEBR report assumes that HMG’s policy will not reduce the number of delayed negotiations. This misses the point of the CEBR critique: the Government’s purpose should not be to expedite disputes but to prevent them arising. The view of the CEBR and the Law Society is that the PSTI Bill does not address this.
Thirdly, the document states that the CEBR assumes that reverting to the pre-2017 regime will not impact operator behaviour. This is based on the false assumption that the CEBR recommended a reversion to the pre-2017 status quo. It does not. Instead, it suggests an alternative code based on the Law Commission’s 2013 report. Finally, it states that delays to code reform will slow the shared rural network rollout. The post-2017 code reforms were already available to operators on all existing sites, and money saved from reduced rents has not been reinvested into the rural rollout. There is no reason to think that the savings from the PSTI Bill will be reinvested, and therefore rent reductions—or their absence—are not linked to the pace of rollout.
I am concerned that the Government are willing to dismiss independent evidence on spurious grounds simply because it does not align with what appears to be a pre-cooked policy direction. It is even more concerning that the Government describe their evidence as uncontested when there has been such widespread and cross-party opposition to this policy. During its consultation on the reforms that would become the PSTI Bill, the Government received over 1,000 responses, and later admitted that the vast majority related to the valuation regime. It is therefore highly inaccurate to suggest that their evidence has not been challenged, or that their position is widely accepted.
Ministers have also disputed factual evidence of the sheer scale of cases being taken to court, asserting instead that, as the Minister has just said, the market is settling and consensual renewal numbers are increasing. It is concerning that the Government see hundreds of court cases each year as the market settling; certainly, in my dealings with the operators, it was not a very calm operation. The lack of proper evidence has created unnecessary risks for the future of this market. I hope that, through Amendment 17, the Government will be open-minded and display more responsiveness to all available evidence in future.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
First, I thank the Minister and his officials for corresponding and meeting with me to discuss the Bill. That said, it is a shame that the Government in Motion A have set their face against Amendment 17, which is seeking a review of the Bill within three months, particularly as the festering problem at the heart of the Bill is the valuation method, which was not even a subject of consultation in preparing the Bill.
This legislation legalises extortion. It allows operators to strip site owners of their property rights and to confiscate their incomes, in some cases even retrospectively clawing back site rents paid under legally binding agreements. The Digital Economy Act 2017 has not led to the market being “settled down”, as the Government claim; it has, in fact, produced a steep rise in long and expensive tribunal cases. That rise would be far steeper but for the inequality of rights and resources between telecoms companies and the site owners, meaning that very few can afford to fight their cases. The Government’s claims that agreements are consensual, or can be solved by voluntary alternative dispute resolution, ring hollow when the law is so one-sided and the site owner is threatened by operators throughout any so-called negotiation with expensive court action. The fact is that the pendulum of power has swung way too far in favour of the operators.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I greatly support this amendment, as I did at an earlier stage of the Bill. Therefore, I have to say that I do not agree with the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.
I detect in the brevity of the reasons given for why the Government were not able to accept any of the matters put forward—and mentioned just now by my noble friend Lord Cromwell—the same endeavour to deny due process. Blocking the evidential basis in what has been brought before this Bill will then affect the process of getting a fair deal at the end. Exactly the same process will be relied on in any tribunal case or in any alternative dispute resolution forum. This is why proper access to an independent adjudicator is, in my estimation, already prejudiced by the processes in this Bill.
Seen in the context of the transfer of private rights from individuals and small property owners to an influential and well publicly funded band of corporate middlemen, the site companies, this, I am afraid, bodes ill. Certainly, I as a property professional and valuer can see this very much in the economic context—of course, valuers do not make the rules; they simply interpret what others are doing outside. This is why I have consistently said that this is something that will adversely move the goalposts, if not the whole playing field.
The measure in this Bill rolls back 60 years of compulsory acquisition and compensation practice. I am not clear that the subsequent need, as will occur as a result of the Bill, to claim damage occurring at a later date does anything other than reverse the burden of proof in favour of the state—or, in this case, the operatives of the state, and against the individual. I think that alters the parameters of fair compensation.
I wish the proposed alliance that the Minister referred to every good fortune, but I do not believe that it will do anything to improve on what has been nothing short of a land rights grab. I predict that a great number of the claims made in support of this will not be borne out by the facts when we look back in due course. On the delivery of the demonstrable public interest benefits, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, where is the objective evidence? I predict that it will not even be visible in the corporate operation of the telecoms industry. So it is no good looking for that particular needle in that particular haystack.
What about the public utility performance by those not subject to public utility oversight and objectives? That was a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, at an earlier stage in our deliberations. If there is an impression of site providers being turned over, to use the cant of the trade, I am equally certain there will be a similar attempt to turn over the public interest in due course, which will be equally devoid of any evidence base or provable cause and effect. From a valuation standpoint, the absence of evidence, cloaked as it is often in confidentiality, forms a useful basis neither for the processes of this Bill nor for ADR or before a tribunal.
The basic premise of altering the valuation principle from market value to, effectively, land value—or, to put it in my terms, existing use value—is undefined as a concept. It is haphazard in practice, because it will relate simply to the actual use at any given time, so there will be very little consistency involved there. It is a basic denial of core transactional philosophies that sit behind all valuation and all transactions in the marketplace, and all confidence in the handshake that I have mentioned before in this House that is between the parties. The consideration is always—has to be, by definition—worth more to the recipient than the asset itself. It cannot be otherwise. I see this as a denial of that principle.
This has significance. Although outside people may think this is a wonderful idea, when it comes to the individual deals that needs to be done, it will have a chilling effect—I think it can be no other than that. I believe that sentiment is already actively moving against it. I do not know, because the Minister has not come up with it, where the evidence of the deals being successfully done has come from. For all I know, it may be generated by housebuilders keen to get good 4G coverage for their latest new housing development. That is fine, but it does not make the daisy chain of 5G connectivity across the country successful, and I think we really have to consider that.
I would still be very supportive of a review. If anything, I would like it to start a bit later and be more searching. That is essential, because we are sleepwalking into the unknown in terms of valuation technology, market sentiment and, above all, the evidential base. I would not be doing my duty in this House if I did not say that that fills me with considerable concern. This is no way to produce results that command universal buy-in, bearing in mind that everybody agrees that 5G and the better rollout of 4G are desirable in their own right. If what is happening before us is not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, dissent and disillusionment from what should be a common purpose, I do not know what is.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly add my disappointment to that voiced by a number of other noble Lords. I note, as previously, my various interests relevant to this legislation. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, back to his seat and thank him for the time he took to meet me and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, last week.
I asked in Committee, as long ago as June, for the data on which the Government were basing their approach to valuations in this legislation. I was promised it nearly six months ago. We finally received it last week—two pages of rather thin A4 paper which say that the Speed Up Britain campaign presented evidence to the House of Commons committee that average rent reductions are in the region of 63%. That is it—the evidence on which the entirety of this valuations issue is based. It is incredibly disappointing that it took so many months to get it and that there is really no evidence whatever.
I note also, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, just stated, that we are given numbers of 39 agreements in 2018 and 1,015 in 2021. To what extent do those agreements fulfil the Government’s connectivity and Project Gigabit ambitions? Where are they taking place? Are they rural or urban agreements? It is of no use simply to give us bare numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, undertook from the Dispatch Box that the Government would provide regular updates to relevant committees. I would like a bit more specificity, if he can, on exactly which committees the Government will provide updates to, how regularly they will be provided, what their content will be and whether they will be published to the whole House, as I imagine they should be. Just undertaking to provide updates is simply not sufficient.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier engagement on the issues represented by this amendment and for outlining why the Government will not accept it. It was rather fuller, I am glad to say, than the embarrassingly short set of reasons set out, as he almost admitted himself.
The noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, have very cogently explained why they believe—as we do on these Benches—that an independent review of the Electronic Communications Code is needed to get our telecoms legislation to the right place. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, said on Report that
“the case for Parliament imposing this independent review is compelling.”—[Official Report, 12/10/22; col. 834.]
I absolutely agree. We have heard powerfully today why there is such a strong view that this Bill is unfairly skewed against site owners, many of which are small societies and clubs. We must get the balance right for the Electronic Communications Code between operator and landowner and ensure that it is fit for purpose in delivering broadband and 5G rollout targets.
These targets have changed markedly over time. There has been a continual shifting of the Government’s gigabit target, which it seems has now shifted from over 99% to 85% of premises by 2025. There is a continuing rural/urban divide, and real problems with latency in rural areas.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister has picked up on the mood of your Lordships’ House today, as I know he will have done in previous debates. I am grateful to him for outlining the Government’s approach on infrastructure rollout and the concerns regarding a review. However, like other noble Lords who have spoken today, I feel that the department is still missing the point. It is appreciated that the Minister acknowledged the sentiments behind the original amendment. In common with other noble Lords, I am also grateful for the time that he and his officials have given to the discussion and consideration of the points that have been raised.
However, the original amendment before this House, which we are looking at again today, was intended to help the Government—something I emphasised in the meeting with the Minister—not least because it is an attempt to bring together balance, fairness and efficiency and to take a rather different approach from the one we have seen thus far, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just referred to, of a trajectory of continually watering down ambitions because the regime is simply not delivering at the required pace. It would be better to tackle the root problems to find a way forward than moving the goalposts, which is what has been happening so far.
The creation of new stakeholder bodies could prove to be a positive step, but we need to acknowledge that this is not the first time we have seen such an initiative. DCMS already runs a number of working groups, and the discussions within them have rarely led to any significant breakthroughs. It would be of interest to hear why the working groups in this setting will be any different. While wishing the national connectivity alliance well in its efforts, establishing new groups or structures will be of little use if they become—as other noble Lords have said—talking shops, or, very significantly, if underlying regulation becomes ineffective.
We welcome both sides of the rent debate getting around the table, but it is important to say that our concerns about rollout go beyond issues around the valuation of land. In any event, as the Minister has said, Parliament will not have a full role in the upcoming discussions. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has indicated, we could do with some more detail about the reference the Minister made to the way in which Parliament will be referred to in the deliberation. I would also appreciate the level of detail that has been requested.
These problems are not going away—if anything, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better, particularly given the increased volume of tribunal cases and the Government’s refusal to make their new arbitration process mandatory. It seems that the Government hide behind existing processes, claiming that an independent review would unnecessarily duplicate Ofcom’s role, but the fact remains that the current system is not working, and that is what we have to address. The disputes and regulatory ambiguity mean that we are not delivering the upgrades that millions across our country so badly need.
I am sure we all agree that better connectivity is crucial to future economic growth—which is supposed to be the Government’s priority—but with every delay to our rollout and every problem that is being faced, we are losing ground to international partners. Yes, the Bill will deliver progress in some areas, which is why we will not delay its passage any further, but without concerted efforts, we are likely to simply rerun these very same debates again and again in the years to come. There was a window of constructive opportunity here, and I put on record my great disappointment that the Government have not recognised this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the points they raised in the debate today. I will try to respond to the questions that they have asked. I understand your Lordships’ desire to ensure that the Government are held accountable, as we should be, for the legislation that we enact, and that we are taking appropriate steps to monitor its impact. I would certainly not disagree with that sentiment.
I will start with the comments on the valuation regime, raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. This, of course, has been debated at length throughout the passage of the Bill, both in your Lordships’ House and in another place. I am grateful to the noble Lord and others for their time to discuss this in more detail, but we are now reaching the point where we are at risk of repeating ourselves. There are no new points to be added at length. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that the valuation regime was introduced through the Digital Economy Act 2017. In the intervening period, the public interest in access to digital services has only increased—a fact underlined, of course, by our reliance on those services during the Covid-19 pandemic. The case for a framework which encourages investment has, therefore, never been stronger, and we think the statutory valuation regime is an important part of that framework.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook and others mentioned our scepticism about the CEBR report. This is not to denigrate the CEBR itself, and I will not expand on the points contained in the note that he and other noble Lords have seen, to which he referred. I underline, however, that it was commissioned by the campaign group Protect and Connect, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, acknowledged, and there are certain campaigning groups that have been, throughout the passage of this Bill, seeking to influence the debate, which have vested interests in the matter. They are perfectly at liberty to make their points in the way that they wish, but it should be borne in mind that the organisation funding this campaign stands to make significant financial gains if the changes to the 2017 valuation framework are reversed.
I hope I can give greater reassurance to my noble friend Lord Northbrook on the point he raised about transitional measures. The Government are considering the implementation strategy for this Bill very carefully, including possible transitional provisions. I reassure noble Lords that the implementation of the Bill will be discussed with all interested parties, including those representing the interests of landowners. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill is brought into force not only in a timely manner but in a sympathetic and responsible way, taking into account the range of impacts that different approaches may have on different groups.
The noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and others flagged the evidence base on which the Government’s conclusions are based. The Government’s position is based on a wide range of information. That includes data on coverage and connectivity, which is collated by Ofcom and which demonstrates that substantial progress has been made since 2017. I repeat my apology to the noble Earl for the delay in sending him the data during our debates on this Bill, partly because of the interruption in service on my part. It is true that we have taken into account data provided by the industry on the number of agreements completed since 2017, but these are data that can be supplied only by the industry. If the valuation framework had stalled the market or slowed down deployment, it would not be in the sector’s interests to try to maintain that framework.
A number of noble Lords talked about the reduction in rent, which we have seen since the 2017 reforms. It sounds as though we might not come to an agreement on the precise figure, but rent is only one element of the financial package that operators may offer to landowners. Within the legislative framework, separate sums can be offered as compensation to cover potential loss and damage; other variations might occur in practice within the market. For example, as part of the financial package, operators might choose to offer an early completion incentive payment. I am concerned that some of the case studies that have been drawn to noble Lords’ attention may ignore the overall package offered to landowners or fail to acknowledge that figures presented might have been an opening offer, when ultimately very different terms might have been agreed once proper negotiations have taken place. The amount of rent received will, in practice, often depend on the much wider circumstances in which financial offers are made and final terms are agreed.
Public Order Bill
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-II(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (21 Nov 2022)
Baroness Fox of Buckley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a defence where the person has a reasonable excuse for being within a buffer zone and has access to that defence prior to charge.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to a range of amendments associated with Clause 9: Amendments 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 89, 92 and 94. I have also put my name to Amendments 88 and 90 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and have some sympathy with Amendments 98 and 99 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
Clause 9 creates a new criminal offence of interfering with
“any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services”
in a designated buffer zone. The most contentious aspects of the clause centre on the definition of “interfering with”, which criminalises a wide range of activities usually associated with free speech and the right to assemble.
However, Clause 9 also makes any gathering outside an abortion clinic or a hospital providing abortions the subject of criminal law. Currently, where there have been problems outside a building facilitating abortion services, the mechanism for dealing with them has been locally decided and designed through public space protection orders—PSPOs. Police and local authorities have the ability to set up zones in response to complaints over gatherings around specific abortion providing facilities. Clause 9, in contrast, introduces a catch-all blanket ban across all service providers, regardless of whether there are problem protest activities taking place. This seems to me to be totally disproportionate.
Although I am no fan of PSPOs per se—councils carving ever more public space away from public use is not a positive trend—none the less, the aim of my Amendments 88, 89 and 90 is to repose the solution in relation to abortion protests as localised PSPOs based on consultation and reviewed annually, so as not to normalise prohibitions.
Because Clause 9 focuses on the issue of abortion, which we know is an emotional and morally challenging issue, it is worth taking a step back. The Government’s reason for bringing forward the Bill overall is to deal with the new protest tactics of Extinction Rebellion and its offshoots. Many of us have noted in previous debates that we do not support these anti-social tactics and some of us have even been clear that we have no sympathy with the nihilistic, catastrophising philosophy behind the eco-guerrilla warfare that activists have been waging against the British public.
Despite that, there have been widespread concerns across the House querying whether these new laws are necessary or proportionate, and noting that we already have laws on the statute book to deal with aggravated disruption, even if these laws are not being used effectively by the police, which is a different problem. There has also been widespread unease, which your Lordships have illustrated in myriad ways, about how various clauses in the Bill might have unintended draconian consequences for the general right to protest, far beyond Just Stop Oil activists or our attitudes to them.
For me, the same concerns are absolutely true of Clause 9. However, the difference is that many opposing the Government on the rest of the Bill are supportive of this clause. Seemingly, this is because noble Lords want to be unconditionally supportive of every woman’s right to access abortion facilities without hassle or hostility. As a passionate advocate of women’s reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, I am very sympathetic to this view. However, this is not the key prism that should inform our approach to Clause 9. I urge your Lordships to scrutinise Clause 9 with similar dispassionate and impartial eyes as have assessed the rest of the Bill in relation to Just Stop Oil—that is, beyond our attitudes to abortion.
Stella Creasy, the MP who effectively authored this clause, was quite right when she said in the other place that this new clause is not about the abortion debate. However, she argues that it is about ensuring safe access to abortion healthcare, and this is where the dispute starts. All the evidence indicates that the activity happening outside clinics, while undoubtedly unsavoury, does not threaten safe access. What is more, if there are any instances of women’s safe access being obstructed, which is totally unacceptable, many pieces of legislation already exist to protect women if they face intimidation or harassment, as Home Office Minister Kit Malthouse pointed out in the Public Bill Committee debate in June. For example, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits causing harassment, alarm or distress, and includes a specific power to impose conditions on assemblies that seek to intimidate others not to do an act they have a right to do.
As with other parts of the Bill, the police have the powers to target specific instances of behaviour or activity if they constitute blocking safe access to abortion facilities. In 2018, the then Home Secretary, after concluding an in-depth review of the abortion clinic buffer zones, stated that he was
“adamant that where a crime is committed, the police have the powers to act so that people feel protected.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/18; cols. 37-38WS.]
Given the importance of the rights at stake here, it seems particularly important that the police use their resources and their existing powers appropriately, to protect staff at abortion facilities and service users alike —but for that to happen, none of this requires Clause 9.
Do not get me wrong; I have very little sympathy for those who think that it is appropriate to gather outside abortion clinics. It is wholly unpleasant to target any individual woman going into hospital to access a legal termination. Waving gruesome images of dismembered foetuses, following women and medical staff doing their jobs, calling out, “your baby loves you” or “murderers”, hanging clothes around clinic entrances—this is crass insensitivity rather than compassion.
However, to be balanced, pro-life activists who attend these vigils will dispute these anecdotes and claim to be simply offering crisis pregnancy support, giving women choices by offering help financially, in raising a child, et cetera. There are, I concede, two competing narratives. I am conscious of the 2018 Home Office review, which found that those gatherings largely comprise passive activities such as prayers, leafleting, placards, singing hymns and so on. Regardless of which narrative you buy, it is wholly insensitive and intrusive to try to engage individual women at such a time, effectively demanding that they account for their personal moral decisions to strangers at a rally. I have no doubt that this would upset most women. It would upset me.
But whether it is upsetting is not what we should be talking about. The key question is whether it should be illegal and whether it constitutes a threat to safe access. My problem with Clause 9 is that it does not distinguish between activities causing actual objective harm and harassment, which threaten safe access, and activities with which we may disagree or which we might find disagreeable. Therefore, we must resist the temptation to create a law that criminalises otherwise legal activities based on a distaste for those activities. How the Bill defines “interferes with” will make an extraordinary range of activities in a particular area punishable by lengthy stints in prison or unlimited fines.
Some of the most egregious and censorious parts that my Amendments 88 to 90 seek to strike out are,
“seeks to influence … advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade or otherwise expresses opinion … informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means”.
In other words, Clause 9 outlaws leafleting, holding placards, expressing opinions, persuading and informing. Some will say, “Don’t worry; this is only to be used in very specific instances of access to abortion, and it is only confined to designated areas”. But as Big Brother Watch points out, creating prohibitions on protest on an issue-by-issue basis is not an appropriate way to make law. It sets a precedent that will inevitably lead to attempts to prevent speech, expression, information sharing, assembly or the holding of protected beliefs around other sites or in relation to other controversial or unpopular causes.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 80A is in my name. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. I welcome the Government’s commitment at Second Reading to introduce zones around all clinics in England and Wales to ensure that women are able to access their legal right to abortion without harassment or intimidation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, this clause was added in the other place by a majority of Members across seven political parties.
This clause will protect the women who have made the decision to have an abortion and now wish to access the service in peace and privacy without somebody trying to tell them to rethink what is often a very painful, personal and difficult decision. My amendments are supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Watkins, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. They have been tabled in response to the debate at Second Reading to provide clarity around the description of these zones and to tighten the definition of what constitutes interference.
Amendments 80A, 82A and 82B would change the term used in this clause from “buffer” zones to “safe access” zones. This terminology better reflects the purpose of the zones—to ensure that women can safely access care. It would also bring the description of the zones into line with that used in the law in Northern Ireland and in the proposals in Scotland, as well as around the world, including in Australia and Canada. Amendment 84 would clarify the intent behind the drafting so that sites such as multiple-use buildings and hospital grounds which contain an abortion clinic are also included in these zones.
Amendments 87 and 93 would tighten the description of banned activities, so that they very clearly apply only to people interfering with abortion services and not to any other protests, such as some of those referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Following concerns raised at Second Reading about the breadth of these banned activities, Amendment 91 would remove “or otherwise expresses opinion” from the list.
Amendments 95, 96 and 97 would add exclusions to the safe access zones. Amendment 95 covers everybody attending a clinic with a service user with their consent. This is often a friend or a loved one—someone who anti-abortion literature sadly and inexplicably refers to as “an accomplice”. Amendment 96 would exempt any activities taking place,
“inside a dwelling where the person affected is also inside that or another dwelling.”
Amendment 97 would exempt activities taking place inside a church or other,
“place of worship where the person affected is also inside that”
place of worship. I hope that noble Lords and the Government will agree that, taken together, these amendments address many of the concerns raised at Second Reading and provide clarity and a tightening of the definitions in the clause.
I turn to other amendments in this group. I am afraid that I do not agree that there needs to be a “reasonable excuse” defence in the clause. This is about harassment and intimidation, not protest. I do not believe there is a reasonable excuse for the harassment or intimidation of women seeking to access their legal right to medical care. They are often in a vulnerable situation, having made a difficult decision—a decision which is theirs to take.
Amendments 81, 83 and 86 concern the universal application of the zones. Universality was debated in detail and agreed in the other place. It is a core requirement of this clause. Removing it would undermine its very point, which is about protecting women before harm occurs.
A method already exists to apply for locally based public space protection orders, or PSPOs, but their nature means that evidence about impact has to be gathered locally and for a prolonged period. They require women to be subjected to abuse and intimidation for months—even years—before they can be introduced. They place a burden of proof on these women, who are in a vulnerable situation. They are expensive and complicated. The process also requires significant time and resources from providers and local councils, which often do not have resources to spare. This is why, despite regular protests at clinics across the country, we have so few PSPOs—only five, despite regular protests at more than 50 clinics. This creates a patchwork of protection, so that women across the country face a postcode lottery as to whether they will face harassment when they go to a clinic. Once a clinic is successful in getting a PSPO, groups simply move to another site and the whole process begins again.
The introduction of “intentionally or recklessly” by Amendment 82 would likely make it harder to implement and enforce the clause. It would increase the likelihood that this measure would not be adequate to deliver on its aim.
Amendments 88, 89 and 90 relate to the list of banned activities that the previous amendments in my name seek to clarify and narrow. They would leave intact the other essential aspects of advising and persuading. “Seeking to influence” is at the core of the amendment inserted by the House of Commons. It is needed to cover the activities we are seeing outside abortion clinics around the country. The list in Clause 9 is based on these reported activities and their impact, which many women accessing care at these clinics report as being the most distressing.
Finally, Amendments 98 and 99 would remove Clause 9 entirely and instead require the Home Office to undertake another review into activities around abortion clinics. A review would undermine the vote in the other place to support the immediate addition of Clause 9, disagreeing with the clearly settled will of elected Members. Another review would delay stopping the harassment of women around abortion clinics.
Since the last review four years ago, protests have evidentially increased. BPAS’s database of abortion clinic activity currently includes nearly 3,000 accounts of service users, those accompanying them and clinical staff. Half of those have been received since the Home Office’s last consultation closed, and this is in no way an exhaustive list. Understandably, only a small proportion of women affected are willing and able to share their experiences when asked.
Since the review, the number of hospitals and clinics in England and Wales that have been targeted has increased by 20%. Just today, an abortion clinic in Doncaster has reported having people outside for the first time in years. We have seen an increase in co-ordinated activities. Tactics have evolved, groups are actively recruiting and are very well funded, often by American groups emboldened by Roe v Wade, which are now looking to sow division on our shores. Largely American-funded campaign groups with deep pockets are opposing our local councils when they seek to bring legal orders to protect women from harassment.
It is not right that this influence impacts the right to access healthcare in this country. As the former Home Office Minister, Victoria Atkins, said in the other place, new, immediate law is needed because of the failure of existing legislation to address the problem. Some 100,000 women a year in England and Wales have to attend an abortion clinic that is targeted by anti-abortion groups, which cause harassment, alarm, and distress to these women. Some 50 sites have been targeted in the last three years. It is clear that the existing law is not enough and this piece of legislation is needed. We must safeguard a woman’s right to access healthcare.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 98 and 99, to which my noble friend Lady Sugg just referred. We need to stand back. Our constitutional responsibility in this House is to scrutinise, amend and, where necessary, push back on legislation that is unwise or uncompliant. We have particular leeway to do this about an issue not included in the Government’s election manifesto.
Clause 9, which makes it an offence to interfere with
“any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services”
is fundamentally flawed and should never have been added to the Bill. It is quite simply not about public order. It chillingly polices access to the idea contrary to pro-abortion orthodoxy that there are other ways to approach this most difficult of decisions.
Those pushing the clause took advantage of parliamentary maelstrom at a time referred to, to me, by one very seasoned, senior MP in the other place as “discombobulating daily turmoil”. The imposition of nationwide buffer zones would have been whipped against when it came up previously in the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. However, this time the whipping confusion was exploited and it was made the subject of a conscience vote—the first in relation to public order in 203 conscience votes since 1979.
We need to be clear-eyed about the significant majority for this new clause, which was accepted in the other place. Many MPs spoke and then acted on their unwillingness to let women seeking health services be harassed and intimidated, but the very many abstentions indicate that this was not straightforward. The law already protects women’s rights to access abortion facilities without hindrance, harassment and intimidation.
More fundamentally, the inaccurate assumption that harassment and intimidation are the hallmarks of vigils undermines the arithmetic of the other end. Hence my Amendment 98 calls for a review of current law and practice outside abortion clinics before making a major incursion into civil liberties. The 2018 Home Office review, which we have heard much about, found that people on vigils, not protests, are typically there to offer information and support, including but not exclusively if women want to continue with their pregnancy.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Would the noble Lord address the point that regulations are unamendable?
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for the intervention. I would have thought that regulations are amendable by a debate in this House.
Lord Farmer (Con)
These regulations would allow for sunset and review provisions to be included, so the legislation can cease to have effect if appropriate, as I said.
I was talking about how regulations that require consultation with key stakeholders and need approval by both Houses improve on the current public spaces protection order system, which allows a local authority to impose buffer zones with scant transparency. The decision to introduce PSPOs is often initiated, drafted and implemented by one person or a group of council officials, with very little scrutiny and awareness of what factors they have taken into account.
I will speak briefly to other amendments. Those tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey, engage with the civil liberties and rights issues. However, they accept that interference with a decision can be disallowed, which would be a first in criminal law and very hard for the individual to defend themself against. A woman could simply claim that a choice made in the privacy of her mind had in some way been influenced by a message or person.
However, the tidying-up changes that my noble friend Lady Sugg proposes do not speak to the disproportionality of Clause 9, and in some ways worsen it. For example, Amendment 84 would ensure that a buffer zone also applies where an abortion clinic is embedded within a hospital or GP surgery, as we heard. This would vastly increase the footprint affected by buffer zones. Even if only all 373 abortion clinics were included, this would leap from the current 225 square metres to 26 square kilometres, and it would single out the issue of abortion for wildly disproportionate restrictions in comparison with other health areas. A person providing false information on a leaflet about any other medical issue would be free to do so, but someone providing accurate information on abortion would be criminalised.
I could say a lot more, but this is a big group with many speakers, and I know at least one noble Lord who was dissuaded from speaking because time is not limitless. As my noble friend the Minister will know from his many conversations, there is strength of conviction on both sides of this argument. I urge him to adopt the evidence-based policy route. There is again clamour for reform of this House, but the importance of our scrutiny and revising role is not clearly understood. We would be lax in our duty if we merely rubber-stamped or gently tweaked this inadequate and ideologically inspired clause.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 98 in the name of Lord Farmer, and Amendments 88 and 90 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
Amendment 98 would correct one of the most egregious aspects of the addition of Clause 9, which was originally added to the Bill in the other place. Amendment 98 would review why this law change is needed. This policy was reviewed just four years ago, and the then Home Secretary’s conclusion was that
“national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response”.
Those who support this clause have not demonstrated what has changed since that review.
I looked through the Home Office review from 2018, and it is interesting to note how little evidence is provided there that these buffer zones are needed. The review also sets out why the policy is unworkable, stating:
“There have been several cases where particular buffer zones have been successfully challenged on the basis they disproportionately infringe on civil liberties and freedom of speech ... buffer zone legislation has not always delivered exactly what service providers and pro-choice activists had hoped for.”
At the very least, before any law change is taken forward, we should understand what is alleged to have changed and why current laws are not sufficient. At present, the proponents of Clause 9 have not met that threshold so I support Amendment 98, which seeks to address this.
I turn to Amendments 88 and 90, which would arguably take out the most pernicious aspects of Clause 9. Amendment 88 would stop the proposed buffer zone, including criminalising a person who “seeks to influence”. This wording is sinister, impossible to enforce and an assault on our most basic freedom of speech. The same is true of Amendment 90, which would remove from the clause the provision to criminalise a person who
“advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion”.
Noble Lords and colleagues from the other place who support this clause tell us that they do so to protect women from harassment and intimidating behaviour. I again place on record my declaration that any harassment or intimidation should be subject to the law; something should be done about it. The sentiment is both worthy and correct in terms of its intent but that is a wholly different intention from seeking to stop people expressing opinions or attempting to persuade. Free societies are built on expressing opinions and attempting to persuade. Some might say that this should not take place at an abortion clinic but the Home Office review I mentioned earlier
“pointed out that the Chief Executive of BPAS”—
the abortion provider—
“had stated that 15% of patients change their minds about having an abortion at the BPAS clinics.”
I think noble Lords from across the Chamber would argue that it is plainly a decision for those women about how to proceed in those circumstances, so to deny them advice and explicitly block the expressing of opinions would rob those women of making an informed choice.
I add my support to the other amendments tabled to this clause, namely Amendments 80 to 83, 86, 89, 92 and 94. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is concern from across this House for the consequences of Clause 9 and that he will allow a pause to think about it in more detail, avoiding a rushed change to the law that will have profound consequences for both women and freedom of speech in this country.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the Minister has already concluded that freedoms will be curtailed by an over-emphasis on the problems surrounding abortion clinics. Before we embark on legislation, it is essential to have accurate information about what people are complaining about. Clearly, people attending abortion clinics should not be harassed or intimidated in any way. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, there already exists sufficient legislation to ensure this, such as the Public Order Act 1986, which, as has already been mentioned, stipulates that it is an offence to display images or words that may cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. New legislation is required only if we are absolutely convinced that the current legislation is failing. We do not have sufficient evidence that this is the case.
As has been mentioned, a detailed review was conducted in 2018 on this issue. The Home Secretary at the time concluded that
“introducing national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response, considering the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics, and considering that the majority of activities are more passive in nature.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/18; col. 37WS.]
The review also found:
“The vast majority of the pro-life activities reported through the call for evidence do not meet the threshold of being classed as criminal.”
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendments 85, 88 and 90 to this clause. I make it clear that, although I have regularly voted to secure more protection for the unborn child under abortion law, I am opposed to the kind of protest outside clinics and hospitals to which Clause 9 is directed. I am deeply troubled by the extent to which this clause restricts free speech, indeed abolishes it within 150 metres of a clinic or hospital. I cannot vote to write into English law a clause which, as presently worded, makes it a criminal offence to seek to influence, persuade or even to express an opinion. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has an amendment which deals with the complaint I made at Second Reading in respect of the last of those words but not the others.
This clause as it stands is clearly inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and imports into our law the dangerous concept that to express an opinion can constitute interfering. Once that concept has found its way into our law, such language would be welcomed by the anti-free speech brigade and we would find it sought after in other areas of legislative restriction. Those who advance the so-called right not to be offended in student union politics would latch on to such wording with enthusiasm.
I turn first to Amendment 85, which has the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. It seeks to protect the normal activities of a church, chapel, mosque or temple that finds that it is within the 150-metre zone of a clinic providing abortion services. I will come on later to how wide a range of areas that could be. In such a church, mosque or temple, what if a debate is organised on the arguments for and against abortion in the light of the religious convictions of those who worship there? What if a poster is put up outside the church to state that such a debate is to take place on a particular date with a brief indication of the points of view of the different speakers? What if a campaign meeting designed to enable the church to play a greater part in the public debate on this issue takes place there? These are normal activities of churches.
Let us remember that these churches and mosques have been sitting in these places for many years and, all of a sudden, the area they are in is determined to be one in which they cannot do what they did previously. They cannot have the kind of discussions and conversations which are normal to them. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, also sought to cover in her Amendment 95 and I appreciate that.
I turn to my Amendments 88 and 90, which take out some of the words in this clause, to which I have referred, but they do not affect the provisions covering intimidation and harassment, which none of us favours at all. Amendment 88 takes out the ban on a person who “seeks to influence” within the 150-metre zone, while Amendment 90 removes the words
“advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion”.
I am astonished that that wording could ever have got into the draft of the clause. That there could be any part of the United Kingdom in which it is a criminal offence to express an opinion is, to me, quite extraordinary. This cannot be made consistent with the ECHR or historic rights of free speech. I hope that by Report the Government will be able to bring forward a significant redraft of this clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, made some helpful suggestions but they are not enough. Amendment 95 relates to “persons accompanying”. I am glad that she has included that amendment, because it deals with a situation in which somebody is accompanying someone to an abortion clinic, and they are having a discussion about whether she should or should not go through with it—the pros and cons. That would be a criminal offence under the legislation, unless her amendment is accepted. It illustrates what dangerous territory we are in and how close we are to the cliff edge of losing our free speech.
I shall look at some other instances. What if a member of staff, perhaps a whistleblower, questioned some aspect of the policy or practice of the clinic and sought to get it changed, potentially affecting and limiting the provision of abortion services? What if that discussion was taking place, and the person thought that they could rely on a conscience clause, because in a certain case they thought that the wrong decision had been taken or a practice was dangerous? Is that person going to be guilty of a criminal offence for doing so? I find that extremely worrying. What about a picket in an industrial dispute, such as a nurses’ strike, which interrupted abortion services or access to some extent? That would appear to be covered by these provisions.
Amendment 84 from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and Amendment 93A from my noble friend Lady Hamwee, also worry me, because they would extend the term “clinic” to any
“place where advice or counselling relating to abortions is provided”.
That is every doctor’s surgery in the land—a huge extension of the potential scope of this legislation. The free speech restrictions that it imports would seem inexplicable to somebody simply walking along the street in the vicinity of a doctor’s surgery, having a conversation about the rights and wrongs of abortion, who is overheard by somebody who reports them. Before long, a police officer is pursuing the case.
As to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, I am very sympathetic to Amendment 98, which seeks to make the review the basis for action, which seems quite logical, but I am afraid I am not sympathetic to his Amendment 99. As he conceded, the amendment passes over to statutory instruments and delegated legislation the whole substance of this legislation. As the noble Viscount indicated in an intervention, that would deny the possibility of amendment of whatever was put forward. Those are very serious issues. I think on all sides we can agree that what the scope of the criminal law should be in this area is fundamental. It should be decided by primary legislation and, although I appreciate the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has felt obliged to use this mechanism, it is not the right one for such fundamental issues.
I hope that colleagues on all sides of the Committee, whatever their views on abortion, will address this issue so as to ensure that the criminal law is not so extended that historic rights of free speech are damaged and legitimate action by innocent people is neither prevented nor made the subject of criminal offences and prosecutions. I hope Ministers will look very carefully at my amendments and others and produce some workable and practicable redraft on Report, which we will also want to look at with the greatest of care.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I rise to address Amendments 85 to 88, 90 and 92, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans has added his name. He regrets that he is unable to be in his place today. I also have sympathy with a number of other amendments in this group.
It is a heated and emotive debate on this clause, and it was heated and emotive when it was added in the other place. The danger is that we get dragged into debates about whether abortion is morally right or wrong. Indeed, I have had plenty of emails over the past few days, as I am sure other noble Lords have, tending in that direction. As it happens, I take the view that the present law on abortion strikes a reasonable balance; in particular, it respects the consciences of women faced, sometimes with very little support, with making deeply difficult decisions.
Moreover, history teaches us that the alternative to legal abortion is not no abortion but illegal abortion, with all the evils that brings in its train. Others, including people of my own and other faiths, may disagree with me on either side but that is not the focus of your Lordships’ deliberations this afternoon. Rather, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reminded us, we are seeking to weigh the rights of women to access legal health services alongside the rights of others to seek peacefully to engage, persuade or simply pray.
However much we may disagree with the causes and tactics of those protesting, we need to remember that in a democracy not everything that is unpleasant should in consequence be made illegal. Harassment and abuse of the kinds to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Sugg, and others have alluded must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The use of legislation, including on harassment, to confront inappropriate behaviour is absolutely legitimate, but it already exists. If such behaviour is becoming more widespread, let us see the police and local authorities use those current powers more extensively so that they can create a safe and respectful atmosphere for vulnerable women.
I understand that no one has ever demonstrated that widespread abuse is prevalent or that new powers are necessary. At the least, we need clear research, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, proposes, to underpin such extensive new measures. In line with other provisions of this Bill, many of which we have already discussed, there is a need for the Government and police to take proportionate action while maintaining the strongest possible safeguards for freedom of speech, expression and assembly. Those are at the core of our nationhood. I do not think that Clause 9, as drafted, takes that proportionate approach.
I respect the views of those noble Lords who take a harder line against abortion and the many who reject the position from a more liberal standpoint. However, I cannot accept that it is desirable to legislate against expression of opinion on the matter or providing advice and guidance, even if one is in one’s own home or a place of worship. I cannot believe or accept that seeking to provide information could be met with a six-month prison sentence. I believe Amendments 88, 89 and 90 would help set a better balance on these provisions around freedom of speech. They would leave those things that are genuinely egregious in the clause and extract those things that are not.
Amendment 85 clarifies that Clause 9 cannot apply within an area
“wholly occupied by a building which is in regular use as a place of worship”.
Again, I do not expect or demand that religious positions on abortion are respected any more than others, but I worry that a minister of a religion holding views that are mainstream within his or her faith tradition—and are demonstrably legal to hold—could be barred under this legislation from expressing that view within their own place of worship.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I have some difficulty in understanding the thinking behind this amendment. If a sermon was being preached in a church or mosque, which is what we are being asked to contemplate, that sermon would not in any way impact on the person visiting the abortion clinic some distance away.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank the noble Viscount for his intervention. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said a few minutes ago, you might have a poster outside the church, mosque or temple saying that you are having a particular event on a particular day. It appears that would be caught by this legislation, but let us have the matter clarified by Ministers.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others for their principled note that good powers must protect those who hold views with which you disagree or even find deplorable. Abortion is contested and emotive. I do not dispute that, as a result, there may on occasion be actions and levels of disruption that fail the test of Christian or any other charity. I deplore it when that happens.
However, there is a point of principle here going far beyond matters of abortion. Clause 9 is so broad and non-discriminate in its approach that it sets unfortunate precedents. I have real concerns that if we pass this clause into law in anything like its present wide form, we will see demands arise for exclusion zones, buffer zones or whatever they may be called in all manner of other locations and for all manner of purposes. I will listen with care to the rest of this debate, but I urge further concern in the approach to this part of the Bill. I hope Ministers will reflect on this and bring back some revised wording at a later stage.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support many of the people who have spoken today but in particular the amendments, which I have co-signed, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Barker. However, having listened to the debate very thoroughly, and being a believer in free speech, I have become increasingly of the opinion that we need to find a good resolution as a result of this debate, rather than a fast and rapid one.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I am in agreement with the Clause 9 amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Beith. As these amendments highlight, there are several severe problems with Clause 9, and it will take more than mere window dressing to resolve them. I would like to concentrate my remarks on Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Hoey, because it introduces crucial changes that seek to make Clause 9 more proportionate.
It should be noted that the regime created under new subsections (2A) through to (2D) is not new, this is entirely consistent with Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the consultation process set out for the public spaces protection orders it creates under Section 72B of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Amendment 86 ensures that buffer zones can be established where and when necessary, according to the unique local circumstances and the evidence. This amendment addresses the fact that Clause 9, in its current form, is not proportionate because it creates a mandatory regime that discounts these factors.
The clause as it stands is a catch-all approach which will inevitably sweep up behaviour which is not criminal. Indeed, this is what the Home Office found when it reviewed the situation in 2018, finding that
“The vast majority of the pro-life activities reported through the call for evidence do not meet the threshold of being classed as criminal.”
The needs of an abortion clinic in Ealing may diverge dramatically from those of a clinic in Birmingham, for example. Given that the Home Office review found that
“Pro-life activity is reported as taking place outside a relatively small number of abortion facilities (36/406)”—
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, a lot of reference has been made to the 2018 Home Office review. Does my noble friend not recognise this 20% increase in clinics that have been targeted, or that over 50% of women have to attend clinics that have been targeted? I am not sure how many more women need to be affected before we take action. I am happy to share that evidence with my noble friend.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness think that these women are lying about how they feel about the approaches they get outside those clinics?
Baroness Eaton (Con)
No I am not, but it is a different thing than finding people guilty of allegedly interfering and charging them with criminal activity.
Amendment 86 is particularly important in light of the available evidence, which shows that buffer zones are not needed outside every abortion clinic. The 2018 review commissioned by the Government found that protest activities were the exception, not the norm. Rather, anti-abortion activities were
“predominantly more passive in nature”
and included
“praying, displaying banners and handing out leaflets”,
with a low number of reports of the use of more aggressive tactics involving approaching staff and patients”. How do noble Lords who support this clause feel about the antics of the Just Stop Oil protestors who continue to bring traffic on the M25 to a halt? I am thinking particularly of some of the Members opposite who oppose the whole of the Public Order Bill yet support this clause.
Proposed new subsections (2A) through (2D) create a flexible approach uniquely tailored to the specific needs of each abortion clinic, while carefully balancing the rights and freedoms of those who wish to pray or hand out leaflets—which, I must stress, are lawful activities in this country. We cannot cherry pick which causes enjoy fundamental rights according to our personal preferences. It is an abuse of the criminal law to use criminal force to ban activities we find distasteful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, noted at Second Reading, the right to protest peacefully includes both the protestors we admire and also those that we despise. To say otherwise, and to let this clause stand, betrays the English democratic traditions of liberty and the rule of law.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Fox of Buckley and particularly the amendments that I have added my name to. These amendments go to the root of the problem with Clause 9—it is a very blunt instrument, which I think everyone in this House would accept. The amendments tighten up, very importantly, the definition of the phrase “interferes with” in Clause 9, so that it will conform to the principle of legal certainty, and the dictates of freedom of expression. It is very important that, at the moment, it does not distinguish between activities causing harm and activities with which people may disagree —and even disagree very strongly.
These amendments will remedy the obvious problems with how Clause 9 defines “interferes with”. As it currently stands, the definition, I believe, is so broadly worded that it can mean anything to anyone. Not only does that language make the law vague and ambiguous, but it also makes it practically impossible for the police to enforce the law. Phrases such as “seek to influence”, as has been mentioned, “advises”, “persuades” or “informs” can have as many meanings as there are people in the world; these phrases do not draw clear lines of criminality. The wording is so broad that individuals cannot know if their actions cross the threshold of criminal behaviour. With so many interpretations available, how can the police know when the threshold of criminality has been crossed? More to the point, is not the very purpose of freedom of expression and protest to “influence”, “advise”, “persuade” or “inform”?
We must not permit lofty aspirations to interfere with the basic freedoms safeguarded by the right to freedom of expression, nor must we allow a law to be so broad that it encompasses basic activities of everyday life. These amendments will help to properly restrain Clause 9, if it is going ahead in its entirety, so that it achieves its intended aims without running roughshod over the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens.
I emphasise that the Bill, as I understand it, is about public order, yet I believe that this clause is about political opportunism at the expense of fundamental freedoms. It is telling that the clause’s sponsor in the other place, Stella Creasy, voted against the whole Bill on the grounds that it went too far in policing legitimate protest but voted for a clause that introduced sweeping limitations on the right of freedom of expression for a select group of individuals, who often—I accept that there are some who will not—engage in peaceful, passive conduct and, predominantly in certain parts of Northern Ireland, in very deep prayer. There is already a law here to deal with those people who behave in a manner that we would all find abhorrent. I urge noble Lords to support the amendments in my name and those in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to ensure that Clause 9 goes no further than absolutely necessary.
Briefly, on Amendments 98 and 99 in the name of noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, identified well that Clause 9’s fundamental deficiency is that it introduces wide-ranging law changes, which would set significant precedents in other areas of the public realm, without demonstrating evidence that such a change is needed based on empirical evidence. The noble Lord has spoken of stepping back and reviewing, and I think he is right. Surely the only responsible course of action for the Minister and the Government is to properly consult on these proposals before introducing such sweeping and, I believe, reckless changes to the law.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, would give the Secretary of State powers to introduce buffer zones around clinics only after a thorough consultation process has taken place and determined that there has been a significant change in the nature of protest since the last review, which took place only in 2018. I remind noble Lords that we have had two years of a pandemic and lockdowns since that review. As we have heard from many other noble Lords, at the time of that review the Home Office found that buffer zones would be disproportionate. At the very least, it is incumbent on Ministers to consult on what has changed since 2018 before introducing sweeping changes to the law in the way that Clause 9 will legislate for; that is very similar to what the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said.
We do not need this whole Clause 9. However, if we are going to have it, no matter how supportive some Members of this House are of a woman’s right to choose, I believe that this is just not the way to go. In the long term, it will really affect freedom of speech and civil liberties in this country.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I fully support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Beith—with the exception of Amendment 99, because this is a matter for primary, not secondary, legislation. Others have addressed various of those amendments, but I will focus on Amendments 98, 92 and 85.
Amendment 98 seems to me a way forward in addressing concerns that do exist about the way in which people exercise their right to freedom of expression in the vicinity of abortion clinics in England and Wales. There has been no review, no consultation and no assessment of the impact of Clause 9, yet it will have a disproportionate effect—as noble Lords have said—by criminalising those who seek to provide in a compassionate manner counsel, support and assistance, including financial assistance, to mothers who fear that they cannot afford to give birth to the baby they are carrying or look after them after birth. Existing laws provide for offences in relation to the harassment of individuals; I spoke of those at Second Reading. We have been provided with no evidence to support the necessity or proportionality of what is proposed in this clause.
Amendment 98 provides for the carrying out of a review. This seems to me a proper manner of contemplating a change in the law, rather than the Bill, which will result in the inability of individuals to bring support to women at a time when they may most need it, in a manner which does not constitute harassment, and which may give a woman the choice and opportunity to give birth to her baby rather than to abort it.
Amendment 92 would maintain the ability to provide information so that women can make informed choices. The use of text and other information about the irreversible step she is about to take is an exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Of course, in the context of abortion, there may be disagreement about the use of some images, but there has been no consideration about how we define what is and is not acceptable. For example, would a leaflet showing a pregnant woman the support she could receive if she continued her pregnancy count as graphic imagery merely because it had a photograph of a baby on it? These are fundamental matters of freedom of expression.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness on her point about private dwellings. We have tabled Amendment 96, which will, I hope, deal with that. Will the noble Baroness support that amendment?
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
If I may continue, I have a simple example on private dwellings. A woman leaving her home on her driveway, which is adjacent to a public right of way within the 150-metre buffer zone, with her pregnant friend who is contemplating an abortion but is not quite sure about it, would commit a criminal offence by talking to her about her options.
We believe in freedom of speech. This clause is so completely disproportionate that your Lordships cannot accept it. After all, there has been no prior consultation about this complete restriction on the right to freedom of expression. The 2018 Home Office review—I am sorry; I know noble Lords have said we should not talk about this, but I think that it is important—said:
“There have also been reports of verbal and physical abuse by pro-choice activists against pro-life activists.”
Do noble Lords who support Clause 9 have a view on that and how the clause would address it? The failure to address this is one of the many failings in this debate.
Baroness Barker (LD)
If the noble Baroness were to listen carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said and to read the amendments that have been tabled, the clause is about any interference—no matter the motivation of it—within that 150-metre zone. It would apply exactly to the point she has just made.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I am debating the amendments to which I am speaking.
Clause 9 is unworkable in its current form. That is why I support these amendments and will vote for them should a Division be called.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we need a little calm in this situation. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, made a very wise, temperate speech, and we would all benefit from reflecting upon what he said.
There is an extraordinary irony behind this. As this Bill goes through your Lordships’ House, we are also debating the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Only yesterday I noticed a very interesting account in the Times of what the retiring vice-chancellor of Oxford University had said about free speech. She said that her students—all students—must be able to listen and reflect upon things of which they deeply, instinctively disapproved. She made the point that if they did that, they could strengthen their own views or maybe, on occasions, change them.
This clause is disproportionate. We debated freedom of speech in your Lordships’ House when I raised it many months ago, when there was an attempt to muzzle Members of this House. People were complaining to the commissioner, and the commissioner, very rightly, discounted the claims. The committee led by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, decided that we needed to tighten up the rules in our House to further protect freedom of speech. We must not claim for ourselves that which we would deny to others. It is important that freedom of speech is protected.
There are many laws that deal with those who abuse freedom of speech. One of my reasons for having doubts about the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill stemmed from the advice I was given by a wise parliamentarian who talked to me when I first came into the other place some 52 years ago. He said: “Before you form an opinion on any Bill, ask yourself if it is necessary.” I am not sure that this clause is, in any form, necessary. What certainly is necessary, however, is that, if the clause is included in the Bill—I hope it will not be, but if it is—it must be in a form amended along the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in his very wise speech.
There is a danger—some of us are guilty of this occasionally—of indulging in slogans. A slogan is not the same as a principle. A slogan is not something that should drive Members of your Lordships’ House when we are jealous of our reputation of being able to scrutinise with objective care the Bills that are placed before us. In a way, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, was making a similar point in her brief speech when she said that we really had to reflect on what was being said. My own suggestion to the Minister, which I hope he might act on, is that he should invite in those who have tabled amendments—I am not seeking an invitation, but I would readily accept one—such as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who made a very interesting and thoughtful speech in introducing this debate, and see whether there is not some common ground. My own recommendation would be that we remove this clause, have a proper conference on this issue, and see what is necessary to protect the proper freedom of women while not inhibiting freedom of speech, especially of those who have deep religious convictions on this matter.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I hesitate to intervene on the noble Lord, who is very wise on these matters, but given that he is a huge champion of the other place, I wondered what his opinion was of the enormous majority that there was in favour of the clause there.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness what my opinion is. My opinion is based on real sadness that, since 1997, the other place has progressively ceased to be a House of scrutiny. MPs devoted just two hours to the Report stage of this Bill. What happened in 1997 was that there was an exuberant Conservative who tested the patience of the Labour Government with their great majority. The noble Baroness deserves a proper answer to her question. His name was Eric Forth; he is, sadly, no longer with us. I begged him, and so did my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold, because we were shadow Leader and Deputy Leader of the other place, to be a little bit selective, but he was not. Night after night, he kept up the Labour Party, so what did the Labour Party do? In exasperation, it brought in programme Motions, which means that every Bill has a limited amount of time. What did the Conservatives do? They protested, saying, “We won’t allow that to happen when we come back into government.” Of course, it is such a convenience for the Executive that they did allow it to happen when they came back into government. That is why every Bill is subjected to inadequate scrutiny in the other place, so it is incumbent on us to give it the proper scrutiny that our lack of timetable Motions enables us to give it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I agree with what my noble friend is saying about timetables, but in response to the noble Baroness, perhaps he would address this point. The truth is that Members of Parliament voted for Clause 9 in very large numbers. They did so because they were aware of the very considerable concern in their own constituencies about what was going on outside abortion clinics.
Lord Cormack (Con)
They might have voted for all sorts of reasons. We have already heard that Stella Creasy refused vote for the Bill because it had gone wrong as far as she was concerned. Of course I will give way.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that we should not stop problems outside abortion clinics. I am trying to find the best solution so that women are protected, but understanding that not everybody who wants to express an opinion should be guilty of a public order offence. I think that is the difficulty. I would like the noble Lord to comment on that issue of how we find the rational ground, because I believe that the people who voted in the other House are much closer than some of us in this House to constituents who are having these challenges.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I was a constituency MP for 40 years, so I have a bit of knowledge of it. We must make sure we do not inadvertently criminalise large numbers of people. As for the large majority in the other place, I have talked about the scrutiny and that is all entirely accurate. If this House has any point or purpose—and some are suggesting at the moment that it does not, but I believe passionately that it does—then we have to go into things in a little more detail and to have the opportunity to ask the other place to reconsider, to think again. At the end of the day, we must not forget that the other place has the final say, and that is entirely right.
As somebody who believes passionately in both Houses, I recognise that that is the elected House; I do not want us to be replaced by an elected House because then we will build in the sort of conflict that we are seeing across the Atlantic at the moment. I want us to be able to live up to our reputation of being a House of experience and expertise. That may mean that we send certain things back, and I have practised what I preach because I have voted many times against clauses in government Bills, and I am prepared to do so again because I believe that is my duty if I think they are not right. At the end of the day, however, they will have the final say. I have gone on long enough, but I have been slightly provoked; I hope I have answered the interventions that have been made. I hope that we will think again before we pass this clause in its present form. That is our duty.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and to be educated by him.
I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer and those listed on the Marshalled List. I should reiterate at the outset, lest anyone be in any doubt, that I do not take a position on abortion per se. However, as a disabled person I take a position on equality and, I am afraid to say, absolutely object to human beings diagnosed with my condition—brittle bones—being denied their equal right to grow up to be strong women and men on account of their diagnosis. That those who supposedly champion equality can reconcile such a claim with such lethal disability discrimination is something I will never understand.
My reason for speaking in support of Amendment 98 is not dissimilar. For me, as a disabled person in particular, Clause 9 simply does not make any sense. It is perhaps worth remembering that Christians were prepared to be torn limb from limb by lions in defence of their faith, so the idea that some will not see this as an opportunity to take a stand and go to prison for their beliefs, and to bear witness to freedom of conscience, as other noble Lords have mentioned, strikes me as completely unreal. For me to pretend that this is not an inevitable outcome of Clause 9 would be the height of naivety; of course they will do so.
For me, the question is twofold. First, as other noble Lords have touched on, is this really what we want? Do we really want to put the state in the wholly invidious position of locking people up for exercising their freedom of conscience when their only crime would be to bear witness to the serious belief that two hearts beating equates to two lives, interdependent and interconnected but no less individual for that? Since when has that been a crime? I thought it was a medical fact that a beating heart was a giveaway sign of a live human being, and the absence of a human heartbeat, conversely, a clear indication of death. I suggest that the state does not want to go anywhere near Clause 9 and would be much better off conducting a review, as set out in Amendment 98.
Secondly, there is another party in this debate which I suggest has no interest in this clause becoming law: those who support abortion. After all, why risk making martyrs of one’s opponents? We should be in no doubt that, if passed into law, this clause will deserve to be known as the “own goal clause”, because that is precisely what would result: a spectacular own goal. I spent all my career before I came to your Lordships’ House campaigning, much of it in the charity sector, and I would never in a million years have advised any of the organisations for which I worked to pursue such a counterintuitive, counterproductive strategy as Clause 9 encapsulates. No matter how passionately one believes in the clause, giving your opponents both the moral high ground and the oxygen of publicity—because the media will inevitably cover the story of people going to prison for their beliefs—simply does not make sense. It is surely what is known as a lose-lose situation. I wholeheartedly support this pragmatic, common-sense amendment as a way out of the minefield created by Clause 9.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 93A in this group. In the spirit of scrutiny, I wondered what “an abortion clinic” and “abortion services” actually meant. To me they include professional counselling which puts both sides of an issue and all the options. I say that because it seems as if we have got into a rather binary state where this is just about the abortion procedure.
I am convinced that there is a serious problem for women attending some clinics who are seeking an abortion. I am also aware of how activities can move around geographically. I understand that there is not a problem now with the activities that we have been talking about outside places where abortions do not take place but counselling does. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, activities have moved to new sites; she mentioned one that has been affected for the first time in many years. My amendment is to raise that issue, bothered that what is a problem now could be displaced and become a problem elsewhere. Obviously it is probing the position, but as we are seeking to tackle this, we should do so comprehensively.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am in general opposed to those of the amendments which are designed to reduce the impact of Clause 9. As I said at Second Reading, I support the concept of buffer zones around abortion clinics. Of course I accept the two propositions eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: first, that the right to demonstrate and freely express views is of great importance in a democratic society; and secondly, that the provisions of Clause 9, as many of your Lordships have articulated, impose serious restrictions on such abilities. But again, as I said at Second Reading, these rights are not absolute. They have to be balanced with the rights of others, and the correct balance is often not easy to identify and can be the subject of legitimate disagreement—it usually is. However, in the context of abortion clinics, Clause 9 gets the balance about right.
I will identify occasions where the balance falls the other way: in favour of the demonstrator. Some of your Lordships will think that the examples are trivial. I have often hosted meets for our local hunts, both before the ban and after it; after the ban, our local hunt acts fully within the law. The saboteurs come and demonstrate, and they are often very tiresome. However, provided they operate within the law, I would not for one moment seek to ban them. There is another example. Pacifists sometimes demonstrate outside military recruitment offices. I disagree with that and think it is wrong in principle, but again it would never occur to me to seek to prohibit that activity.
The motives of those demonstrators and those who demonstrate outside abortion clinics have something in common. It is not that they are just expressing their own opinions, which of course they are absolutely entitled to do, but they are trying to induce a change of attitude on the part of others. It is when I come to those who protest outside abortion clinics that I am conscious of why the balance tips. Those who attend abortion clinics have come to a very painful and serious decision, and often an anguished one. I think it is very wrong to subject them to what is often intemperate bullying of an extremely nasty kind.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I mentioned at Second Reading that the BBC did a poll which found that 15% of women who went to abortion clinics had been coerced into doing so. We do not have the information as to how many partners have said, “I don’t want this child, go and have an abortion”. We need to establish that by finding the evidence. We hear all the time that the people outside the abortion clinic are against abortions. We do not see the intimate pressure that women are often under in the home—not only from male partners but perhaps from their families—to do with shame and other things. This needs to be looked into before we make a decision on this.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Parliament is in a position to make a judgment about these matters. I was in the House of Commons for nearly 30 years—not as long as my noble friend Lord Cormack—and I was well aware of, in many circumstances, from evidence which came from many quarters, the kind of abuse to which women seeking an abortion were subjected by those who demonstrated outside abortion clinics. I strongly suspect that is why the House of Commons voted for Clause 9 in such substantial numbers, because it knew it was happening and that it was wrong. We do not need a further review to establish those basic judgments.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my difficulty is this. In interpreting things in the way he is, the noble Viscount is suggesting that he knows why people did something. I have no idea why people in the Commons voted in the numbers they did. The noble Viscount has a view on what might have driven that; others might have another view. Generally speaking, since I have been in this place, the House of Commons has voted in huge numbers for things I have disagreed with, and unless the Opposition is going to go home, what am I supposed to do? I cannot keep saying, “I think they really did it because they were really motivated —we do not know, do we? Will the noble Viscount clarify why he keeps stressing that? Is it relevant to us?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
It is, because we are being asking what the evidence is. I was telling the noble Baroness that, when I was a Member of the Parliament, for a very long time, I was conscious of some of the abuse that was going on from speaking to people coming to my surgery. In the House of Commons, we get a reflection of the views of Members of Parliament who are encountering the same response from their own constituents.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Is the noble Viscount aware of any statistics on the number of people now who are being prosecuted or who have been convicted of harassment of people at abortion clinics? I am completely unaware of that, and none of those who are promoting this clause has produced any such evidence.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I am not, but what I am telling the Committee is that those who have a great many dealings with the public, particularly Members of the House of Commons, have passed by a very substantial majority the view that Clause 9 is necessary. That accords with my own personal experience, after 30 years or so in the House of Commons.
Lord Cormack (Con)
May I remind my noble friend that he and I cast many votes during the debates on Brexit, regardless of what the House of Commons was doing, because we thought we were right?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I agree with that, but I think my noble friend is overlooking the fact that, in the House of Commons, it was not a whipped vote when they were talking about Clause 9; it was what is sometimes laughingly referred to as a free vote. I personally always took the view that, when I was not a Minister, a vote was a free one, but I am conscious that that was not always the view—perhaps not even of my noble friend. If my noble friend wants to intervene again, of course he can.
I would like to say a word about one or two of the amendments. I start with Amendment 80. The substantive offence is that provided in Clause 9(1). I ask rhetorically what can be the reasonable excuse for an interference? I agree with the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Sugg. I suspect that I know the intended purpose of the amendment: to allow the defendant to introduce the defence of free speech before the courts. However, if Parliament decides that Clause 9 should not have the defence of free speech—and that is what the clause provides—then such a defence should not be available in a court.
On Amendments 81 and 86, in my view the matters are of far too much importance for the designation of zones to be left to local authorities, as advocated, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The abrogation of the right of free speech and the abrogation of the right of association should be left to Parliament and not to local councillors.
The phrase “intentionally or recklessly” in Amendment 82 is wholly unnecessary, with one exception. It seems to me that the concept of intent is incorporated in the definition of interference as contained in Clause 9(3). The exception is the word “impedes” in paragraph (c), because I acknowledge that an act of impeding could perhaps be committed without intent. Ministers should clearly reflect on the criticism that has been expressed as to the scope of what is included in the definition of interference. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lady Sugg said about the expression of opinion. I am sure she is right about that, and it has been supported by others in the Committee.
Amendment 85 is in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my friend the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I almost always agree with him but on this occasion I am bound to say that I think he is wrong. With the exception of the point he made about the poster outside the church, I have very great difficulty in seeing anything that could be said within the church that could interfere with somebody seeking access to an abortion clinic, save for that which has been addressed by Amendment 97, in the name of my noble friend Lady Sugg.
As to the penalties provided in Clause 9(4), I am much more relaxed and would not seek to argue against some amelioration of the sentences set out in the Bill. In general, I think that Clause 9 is a proportionate response to a very serious mischief, and I hope that we will not water it down substantially.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I did not expect to say how much I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. It means that I do not need to say an awful lot. I regret that the people moving the amendments which seek to water this down very significantly, starting with Amendment 80, have not addressed the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, which seek to turn this into a reasonable working clause.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I quite openly accepted that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, sought in a number of respects—though not in all—to reflect the issues raised at Second Reading. I gave credit for that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I accept that. However, others who support this suite of amendments have been asked about the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and have clearly not read or addressed them. That is a great shame. I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg, Lady Barker and Lady Watkins, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, in seeking to make this clause acceptable. I hope the Minister sees this as a positive step forward for the next stage of the Bill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94, lest it be overlooked in considering the broader issues in this debate. I accept that the issue before us in this section of the Bill is a sensitive one that deserves our most earnest consideration.
I agree in principle with the amendments to Clause 9 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Amendment 94 relates to the criminal punishment attached to the proposed criminal offence. Given that the clause potentially criminalises people for praying quietly or offering support and advice to people in a public area, this is no small aspect of the clause. Making it illegal to quietly stand outside an abortion clinic or compassionately express one’s genuinely held belief about the sanctity of human life and the value of an unborn child, as proposed in this Bill, is surely a major step backwards for our country.
The right to enjoy freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest have been hard fought for and should not easily be given away. Yet, as a result of this clause, anyone who influences, advises or persuades, who attempts to advise or persuade, or who otherwise expresses an opinion outside an abortion clinic, could be liable even in the first instance to a prison sentence. Surely this runs contrary to our basic freedoms. A former Home Office Minister said in March 2021:
“The right to protest is the cornerstone of our democracy and the Government is absolutely committed to maintaining freedom of expression.”
Can the Minister confirm that this new law as drafted would criminalise someone who accompanies a woman having an abortion who says to her, “Are you sure?”, even if the woman seeking the abortion is happy for that to be asked—that they would fall foul of this legislation? If so, what kind of a country are we living in?
I heard a lot of talk about the other place, and like two noble Lords who spoke—
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
Does the noble Lord understand that prosecutors, in authorising and not authorising charges, have discretion in whether to prosecute a case? No prosecutor I have met would ever prosecute a case on the facts the noble Lord has just set out.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Is the noble Lord also aware that one of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, addresses exactly this issue, making somebody voluntarily accompanying a person to a clinic exempt from this clause?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, did say that it went some way in this regard, but that it did not deal with all the issues that he and I expressed concern about.
It has been bandied about in this debate for quite some time that the other place voted by a large majority for this legislation. According to certain interpretations, that could be correct. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who spoke recently, I was in the other place, for 25 years. There are 650 Members of the Commons. Of those, 297 voted for this legislation—46%—while 110 voted against and 243 abstained, meaning that 54% of the other place did not vote for this clause. So often in this debate it has been said that there was a vast majority in the other place and that we must submit to its will, yet 54% did not vote for this clause. It is good to be factual on percentages and numbers in the other place.
It is a fundamental and widely accepted principle of sentencing that the punishment must fit the crime—that is, if you feel that freedom of expression and peaceful protest are a crime, which I do not. However, the fines envisaged in Clause 9(4) are grossly disproportionate to the types of protest activities that often occur outside abortion clinics. A six-month prison sentence for a first offence, which could be the result of a volunteer offering support to a pregnant woman, surely strikes most people as neither reasonable nor proportionate, and nor does a two-year sentence for someone who offends multiple times.
The Government reviewed this in 2018. People have dismissed the review as if it does not matter today, but mind you, if it had said something different, they would be happy to mention it. It found that the vast majority of these activities are passive in nature; that they involve everyday lawful activities such as silent prayer and handing out leaflets offering help and support to women who may not want an abortion, but who may feel they have no other choice; and that they occur outside a small number of abortion clinics. Inside this buffer zone, to stand in silent prayer could get you six months’ imprisonment. What country are we living in? This is not China, and it is not Iran. It is the United Kingdom. I have heard the Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers, and Ministers in this House, say at the Dispatch Box that the most persecuted people in the world today are Christians. But to express your Christian opinion, even in silent prayer to God, can be regarded as an offence inside a buffer zone and you could find yourself in prison.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, has it not? We have spent almost as much time debating this clause, which was not, of course, part of the Bill in the first place, as the House of Commons spent debating the entire Bill. I broadly support my noble friend Lord Farmer’s amendment, but I support it because I want the Minister to go back and have a serious look at this clause, which was not a government clause in the first place.
I came into politics in the 1960s, and one of the first things I was involved in was supporting David Steel’s Act, so let there be no doubt as to where I stand on this issue, but I think we are getting two things mixed up. We are mixing up the need to protect people who decide to take advantage of a law that is on the statute book with harassment and other offences. The first question we need to ask is: do we need an extra law? Do we need it at all? Do we need Clause 9? It came in as a private Member’s initiative in the other place. I am not sure we need it. I think that in this past 70 years we have managed reasonably well on policing this.
I also draw attention to the fact that this whole wretched Bill, which we have now lost sight of because of this clause, is actually a fairly fundamental attack on many civil liberties which we cherish and believe in. I reflect that in the past couple of years, during the Covid epidemic, we have accepted restrictions on freedom which, in my view, were unwise, unwelcome, unwanted and unnecessary. We are now in a position where expressing statements—and you have only to look at some of the things online about Covid—is no longer acceptable. We are in a position where we have a very authoritarian undertone in the way in which public discourse in Britain is being conducted, and this is part of it. Unfortunately, these two things have got mixed up together.
I think that we probably do not need this clause at all. If we do need it—this is one of the jobs the Minister has—it needs to be sorted out substantially. I would like to think—and I do not wish to be part of it—that he calls together the various protagonists and tries to get some common sense out of this. I do not hold the other place in quite the same reverence as my good and noble friend Lord Cormack does. I think MPs probably saw something that was a very good press release come along and they voted for it. I think that was probably half the aim.
I hope that after tonight, before we get to the next stage, we will be able to look at this in cool sort of way, and we will then get back to the rest of the Bill, which has some points in it that I find deeply regrettable and is not the sort of Bill that I would like to see passed by this House, but this is not part of it. This was a bit of private initiative written on top of it, and it is fundamentally mixing up two things: the right of the citizen to protest and the right of another citizen to make use of a law that has been there a long time and is working. Of course, we do not want people to be harassed and the like, but we also want to keep a sense of proportionality in all of this, and we need to remember that a calm head is probably a very useful thing to have when you are faced with an emotive issue such as this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am acutely aware of the time and, having spoken extensively in favour of Clause 9 at Second Reading, I rise briefly to express the Green group’s support for the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who made an important point. I will also speak in opposition to the other amendments in this group and address some points in the debate that I think may have been perhaps rather pointedly aimed in our direction.
There has been some discussion about how other elements of the Bill are aiming to restrict protest and this is seen to be restricting protest, but there is something profoundly different here. There is nothing in Clause 9 that stops people who are opposed to abortion or the provision of abortion services protesting on the high street, outside Parliament or on the M25. They could choose to do that; there is nothing in Clause 9 that would stop that happening. That is calling for system change, that is directed at our politics, at the way our society and our law work, but there is a profoundly different situation where protest is directed at an individual person, a patient who is seeking healthcare or advice about healthcare, to discourage them from receiving that healthcare. One point that has not been raised tonight, that I think really should be, is the fact that there is a risk if someone is driven away by this protest, they then seek to access irregular services, which are now broadly available on the internet, at potentially great cost to their health and well-being.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said that this is a catch-all amendment in that it is seeking to have broad coverage across the country. That is the alternative, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, to having a postcode lottery, where some people whose councils can afford to take action have protection and other people, often in poorer areas of the country where councils do not have the money, do not have protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, was concerned about intimate pressure. Let us look at where pressure for an abortion comes from. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan referred to mothers who fear not being able to pay for a baby. It is not just fear; the practical reality is that the greatest pressure for abortion in this country comes from an inadequate benefits system. I note that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, has been prominent in campaigning for the end to the two-child limit. I will join him and anyone else who wishes to campaign against this inadequate system.
I have one final point which I think has not been addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, questioned necessity. A number of noble Lords asked what has changed since 2018. What has changed is this. A huge amount of what we see in the UK has been imported from the United States of America. We have seen an extremely well-funded and emboldened movement coming from the US to the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to his experience as a constituency MP. That was some time ago. Since then, and certainly since 2018, the levels of funding and pressure have changed. A movement started in the US is aiming to act around the world. I do not say that your Lordships’ House should stand up against this movement if it seeks to campaign to change the law in the UK—personally, I want to see full decriminalisation of abortion. I accept their right to campaign against the law and the system, but I will not accept their right to target individual patients seeking healthcare.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to prolong this debate, which has been extremely interesting and very rewarding in many ways. I want to make one or two short points, both relating to amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I agree with one and disagree with the other.
In Amendment 89, the noble Baroness asks the Committee to take out paragraph (b),
“persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies”.
I have some problems with this paragraph because I am not sure to what the word “occupies” refers. The grammar of this paragraph needs to be looked at very carefully. Unless the territory being referred to as being occupied is clear, this phrase is extremely broad. That is why I support all the amendment proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg, Lady Barker and Lady Watkins of Tavistock. These are in line with the Constitution Committee’s report, which said that the phraseology of this clause should be looked at carefully to ensure that it is not any wider than it needs to be. Paragraph (b) should be looked at again because the word “occupies” raises questions which need to be carefully looked at and properly defined.
Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asks us to insert the words “without reasonable excuse”. In a previous debate, I expressed quite a few views on the use of the words “reasonable excuse”. We need to take a decision about this ourselves. The trouble with putting this in as a defence is that it would be passed to the police on the spot to decide whether or not trying to express one’s opinion or what motivates the individual to say or do what they are doing is a reasonable excuse. That is the problem. We need to take a decision and not leave it to the police or the courts.
The Court of Appeal—I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness—has been doing its best to soften the Ziegler case, which we discussed last time, to make it clear that there are certain offences, of which the Colston case is one, where damage is done or the activity is sufficiently serious that make it impossible to sustain a reasonable excuse defence. This is probably one of these cases. With great respect to the noble Baroness, these particular words should not go in. Otherwise, we are just creating more problems than we are trying to solve.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The query about “reasonable excuse” has come up before. It has been suggested that free speech would be used as a “reasonable excuse”. I will try to clarify what I was trying to explain, and perhaps the noble Lord will come back at me. There are many ways in which you could be found to be breaching the criminal law—it is so broad. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, illustrated the variety of things you might be doing that might mean you inadvertently broke the law. I wanted there to be some excuse, such as “I am accompanying someone and having an argument with them”. There are problems with the wording of the clause, and I would be more than happy to be advised how to tighten up my amendment so as to not use this phrase or look as if I am giving the police too much power.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
The noble Baroness is wrestling with the same problem I had in dealing with “reasonable excuse” in relation to locking on. There seemed to be cases where people might have had a genuine reason for locking on because it is so widely defined.
One might say that the “reasonable excuse” defence would be suitable if it were sufficiently qualified so that it did not provide the police and the courts with the problem of having to decide whether or not the pro-life argument was a reasonable excuse. If one looked at the offences, one would say that this kind of argument would not stand up to what this legislation is all about. There are other instances where one might find that there was an excuse for what was done which was quite detached from what this clause is really driving at. If the noble Baroness could find a way of expressing this, I should be delighted. That is what I was trying to do in the earlier debate.
I hope I have made my position clear. As it stands, this would not be acceptable. I think that paragraph (b) raises a very interesting point of definition.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Clause 9. During this debate, I found myself challenged by our preference for not regarding this as a surrogate for talking about whether people are for or against abortion. At times I have noticed that there seems to be a link between those who oppose this clause and those who oppose abortion. This will not always been the case, but noble Lords who have spoken have often mentioned it. My heart finds it hard to contemplate abortion, but my head says that it is probably reasonably pragmatic in our society, and we have to accept it.
The reason for this clause seems to be the inconsistent application of police discretion around the country. The resources of each institution affected by the protests mean that they cannot always approach a civil injunction or remedy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, it ends up being a lottery as to whether or not women in different parts of the country are protected. This is not good for anyone.
I support Clause 9 and I will reject the review, not because reflection is inherently a bad thing, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, but because I take this to be a wrecking amendment rather than something which is intended to develop the proposal. If I am wrong, that is my error, but that is how I felt the argument was being developed.
The basic proposal is about stopping interfering with women as they go to an abortion clinic. I do not understand the argument about needing to offer them advice at the point at which they approach a clinic. If the point is to offer advice on whether there are alternatives or whether they should even be contemplating abortion, this must be the least efficient process that anybody has ever devised. There has to be a better method than standing in the street, potentially shouting—we have seen examples of this—to engage with a woman at the point at which she is very vulnerable, just before she is potentially going to receive treatment, to try to persuade her not to do it. There has to be a better way. If this is the only way in which any protester can think to engage, they are in error. It is not a reasonable approach. It causes the majority of people to think that carrying out this type of protest in this way should be stopped.
People have described it as a conversation. I do not accept that. It is not a conversation—it sounds like a one-way monologue; it usually sounds like intimidation and, certainly, like bullying. For me, it is something that should certainly not be tolerated in a just society. I cannot support that.
There have been examples offered of where the police have intervened when people were merely praying; I think the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, mentioned this. I would be surprised if a police officer did that but, if there are examples, we ought to examine them. Let us get to the bottom of it. That would have required a member of the public to complain and then for the officer to attend. I do not think they would just have turned up of their own volition to intervene in an event around an abortion clinic that someone had not complained about in the first place. I would like to understand more about that, but I do not think this clause is designed to stop people praying. It might be designed to stop people congregating together in such a way that it intimidates people at what may be their most vulnerable time.
The argument about this being an absolute prohibition of protest in just one very small part of the country is a fair argument. I think all of us would say that, if that is going to happen, it should be in a very small part —and perhaps no part—of the country. It is an absolute argument. I could have accepted that, but my reasons for not doing so in this case, and why I believe Clause 9 is a reasonable approach, is that the harassment that is being suffered is gender-specific. Only one half of society will generally be affected by this type of influence or advice: the women of our society. It is also time-specific; it is a point at which women need this advice and at a time when they are in most peril, either personally, by conscience, or physically, and that seems to me to be a time when we should give them most support. Finally, it is at a place about which they have no discretion; they have no discretion about where they will seek support. They have to go to a hospital or a clinic. These places are identified and the women become vulnerable because they are identified as they approach them.
I would generally support an absolute prohibition of stopping protest—but in these places, at these times, for the women of our society, I support this clause. It deserves our support in protecting the women who need it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I made an extensive speech at Second Reading so I shall confine myself to just a few points of reflection on the debate today. First, the rest of the Bill is about protest; this is about the harassment of people seeking a legal health service to which they are entitled, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester reminded us. There are those of us who believe that women have the right to access those services freely and safely. Our amendments try to ensure that this whole clause addresses just that and, indeed, narrows it down. There are those who do not believe that such a service should exist or that people should be able to access it. They have very much exaggerated what this clause is about and its potential implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said in her introduction that all the evidence is that this activity does not stop access. I have no knowledge of any such evidence, and she did not give us any, but I have to ask: if it is not effective, why do people continue to do it, day after day?
A number of noble Lords rested their cases on the 2018 review. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and myself have been informed by the providers of services and the thousands of women who attend those services and report to us that the current system of local PSPOs is not working, and they are continuing to suffer harassment as a result. So we need to be quite clear about the motivation behind the amendments but also their effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, was one of the many people who gave a passionate defence of free speech. She said you cannot pick and choose. I say to her that, uniquely among all healthcare services, abortion services are targeted specifically. That is why we have to seek remedies, which we would not otherwise wish to do. The reason we are doing this is that, over the last two years, influenced by America, and influenced and funded by the same organisations that overturned Roe v Wade, there has been a change and an escalation.
I listened carefully to a number of noble Lords who made emotive comments suggesting that we wish to “criminalise prayer”. In the case of a single person in silent prayer, no, we do not; in the case of a church where every member turns up, week in week out, to stand directly in the path of women trying to access a service with the avowed intent of frustrating their access, yes we do.
One amendment that nobody has talked about at all is our Amendment 87, which talks about the definition of interference. I urge noble Lords to go back and look at that. I include the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, because, when he objects to the phrase about “persistently and repeatedly” occupying something, that again comes from the experience of clinic staff and users. People come day by day to undertake their activities in the doorway of a clinic.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am not objecting to the idea behind that clause; all I am saying is that the wording seems to me a bit defective because the word “occupies” does not have a target. I am sure that it could be better expressed; if it were better expressed, I would be content.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I very much welcome the noble and learned Lord’s help in trying to find a suitable wording for what we are seeking to do. I want to inform your Lordships’ House of what is happening: there are individual acts that, one by one, may not be intimidating but, put together in a pattern with a deliberate aim, they are.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that I am glad he was there with my colleague David Steel in 1967, but we are in a very different place now. Back in 1967, clinics were not having to deal with harassment as they are now.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree with me that there is clear evidence of a concerted effort by well-funded, extremist United States—sometimes religious—groups to replicate in this country the situation that exists outside abortion clinics in the United States, in which women are routinely abused and threatened for trying to access medical care?
Baroness Barker (LD)
I do not think there is any doubt about that; the evidence is—
Lord Farmer (Con)
On the point about evidence, we are hearing people’s opinions about what the evidence is. Surely this requires a review so that we can involve the police, churches, abortion users—everybody—to get real evidence that is satisfactory to this House. At the moment, it is the kind of evidence where we are saying, “We know about and maybe you don’t.” I have not seen any 100% documentary evidence that these things are going on. I am going on the word of the noble Baroness and others.
Baroness Barker (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, raised a question about the intimidation of women in clinics. He knows that clinics are regulated by the Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC and that it is expressly against the terms of their licence to do that; if they were found to be doing that, they would not be able to carry on.
I want to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, about penalties. The penalties provided in Clause 9 are equivalent to those for other cases of harassment in other statutes. Amendment 94 would introduce a penalty at the same level as for skateboarding in the wrong place. I happen to think that the abuse of women is a lot more serious than a skateboarding offence.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
Accepting that there should be a penalty for harassment, can I ask the noble Baroness whether she really believe that compassionately asking a person “Are you sure?” deserves a six-month, or 12-month or two-year sentence?
Baroness Barker (LD)
I suggest that the noble Lord goes back and reads the clause and the terms of interference. I do not think that what he describes comes under that, which is why the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and I are trying to make sure that this law is as explicit and clear as possible. We do not want to do what the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, does and create loopholes whereby those who are currently harassing people can move around the country and continue to do so in different ways.
The fact is that we need this law because the current patchwork system does not work. It does not protect staff or women at all. It is a proportionate measure which, I accept, can be refined further through the amendments put forward by myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and those that may be put forward in a similar spirit.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I have an inquiry about PSPOs which has been raised. When PSPOs were originally advocated by pro-choice people, I was unsure about their use. My colleagues in BPAS, for example, were keen on PSPOs as a good, targeted way of stopping problems outside specific clinics, and they assured me that it was at specific clinics where problems were occurring. Is the argument of Clause 9 that things have got so out of hand that the original arguments in defence of PSPOs are redundant? The noble Baroness would not be against one who was not against PSPOs as a remedy in the past.
Baroness Barker (LD)
The answer is that the situation has moved on, so what was an answer before the existence of PSPOs is no longer relevant.
I have said enough. I think we all know where we are on this and the positions we came from. I would like to work with those Members who want to, and with the Minister, to make sure that we get to where the vast majority of us, and of the public, want to be: women being able access a service legally and safely, and 150 metres down the road you can be as extreme in your opposition as you like.
Lord Paddick (LD)
We on these Benches accept that many people have strong views both on abortion and on this clause, on both sides of the argument, as reflected in our debate. I want to say two things at the outset. First, my understanding is that organisations that provide abortion services, such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, talk through the options available in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, including continuing with the pregnancy and arranging adoption or fostering, becoming a parent and ending the pregnancy with an abortion. The second is that it must be one of the most difficult, life-changing decisions anyone has to make.
To be subjected to one-sided opinions by well-meaning, passionate but in some cases fixated individuals at such a vulnerable moment cannot be right, whether outside or inside an abortion clinic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, this is about targeting an individual seeking medical services. Many noble Lords have talked about free speech. There is a difference between offering advice and support, and forcing advice and support on those who do not want it. By all means, campaign, demonstrate and provide advice, help and support on the internet, for example, but not when someone is on their way to an abortion clinic.
What is said inside an abortion clinic is regulated and controlled; what is said outside by campaigners against abortion is not. There is a series of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Fox of Buckley, supported the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. Amendment 80 brings us back to the debate we had last week about “reasonable excuse”. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for that debate and for his contribution today.
This brings us back to the potential argument that the more important the issue, the greater the excuse to break the law. Last week, we debated whether anything could be more important than saving the planet from catastrophic climate change and therefore, there could be a “reasonable excuse” to do anything, however unlawful, if saving the planet was the intention. I am sure there are some who feel that nothing is more important, as they see it, than “saving the life of an unborn child”, so any means justify the ends. Such an amendment would render buffer zones ineffective.
Amendments 81 and 86 lead potentially to the whack-a-mole scenario—or, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee more eloquently put it, the displacement of protests from one clinic to another—whereby those wanting to get those wanting an abortion to change their minds at the last minute would travel around the country until every local authority had a buffer zone around every clinic. Either there is a right to abortion without last-minute interference, or there is not. I am not clear from the wording of Amendment 86 whether it would amount to a maximum of a two-year buffer zone, or simply the expensive and bureaucratic process of having to renew the buffer zone every year.
Amendment 82 introduces the concept of “intentionally or recklessly” interfering, which no doubt would result in endless arguments about whether the offering of advice, or whatever form the interaction takes, amounted to interference or not. Amendment 89, also supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, would allow “silent witness” by those who persistently, continuously or repeatedly picket abortion clinics. That sounds to me like quite intimidating behaviour, even if it is silent prayer. We cannot support these amendments. Either the Committee supports this clause or it does not; creating uncertainty about whether the interaction is reasonable, which clinics have a buffer zone or what amounts to interference is unhelpful.
On Amendment 94, I can understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has drawn a parallel with Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and public space protection orders, but the latter refers to things like banning the drinking of alcohol in a local park—otherwise innocuous activities that are causing a particular problem in a specific area. This measure is about interfering with a person’s right to choose to access abortion services. They are very similar in terms of protecting public space, but very different in terms of the kind of activity they are trying to prevent.
We support Amendments 80A, 82A, and 82B in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and my noble friend Lady Barker, which would bring the phrase “buffer zones” into line with similar legislation in other jurisdictions. We support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and my noble friend Lady Barker.
On Amendment 84, if we are going to have buffer zones, they need to be around every place where abortion services are provided. Amendments 87 and 91 helpfully clarify that the proposed offences apply only in relation to abortion services. Amendments 95, 96 and 97 also usefully exempt anyone invited to go along to the clinic with the person seeking abortion services, and anything said or done when all parties are in someone’s home or a place of worship.
We also support the clarification provided by Amendment 93A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, supported by my noble friend Lady Barker and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg: that an “abortion clinic” should include places where advice and counselling related to abortions is provided.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Is the noble Lord saying that we should have buffer zones outside every location at which somebody can get, for example, the medical intervention for abortion, such as Boots the chemist, or every facility offering counselling?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My noble friend’s amendment is a probing amendment for the House to consider what sort of premises might be included in buffer zones to ensure that places where women go to get advice are included. The noble Baroness makes an important point, but this is a probing amendment so that the House can consider between Committee and Report whether an amendment in line with the wording that my noble friend has provided is right.
I understand the intention behind Amendment 85 in the name of my noble friend Lord Beith and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, but I think it is now covered by Amendment 96. If someone decides to go into a place of worship on their way to an abortion clinic, that is their decision.
Similarly, I understand the intention behind my noble friend’s Amendments 88 and 90, supported by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Hoey: they want to protect free speech. But freedom of speech is a qualified right, and this restriction of it applies only in this very specific and limited scenario in relation to abortion services and clinics. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the European Convention on Human Rights contains qualified rights, as the noble Viscount said. If a country believes that restrictions need to be placed on a qualified right because there is a justification for it, it is open for it to do so—that is exactly what we are considering here. Whether something is clearly contrary to European Convention on Human Rights, as my noble friend suggested, will be for the courts to decide. I understand—not least following discussions with the Minister and officials—that there is an expectation that, if Clause 9 were passed in its original form, it may be subject to legal challenge. But that is the proper place for a decision to be made on whether the qualified right should be restricted by this clause.
There are other places and other times when those opposed to abortion can make their views known and can seek to influence others. If freedom of speech is to be protected at all times and in all places, why are only noble Lords allowed to speak in this debate? Advise and persuade someone not to have an abortion all you like—for example, by talking to the providers of abortion services to ensure that they include “pro-life” choices in clinics—but do not do so when someone has decided to go to an abortion clinic and is about to enter.
Similar arguments apply to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. Amendments 98 and 99, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, helpfully point out the Home Office review conducted in 2018, which many noble Lords have quoted. It concluded that buffer zones would be disproportionate, which is at least helpful in understanding the Government’s reluctance to support this clause, as it might be portrayed as yet another U-turn. The then Home Secretary explained his decision in a Statement about the 2018 review, which a number of noble Lords have selectively quoted from. He actually said:
“The review gathered upsetting examples of harassment and the damaging impact this behaviour has had on individuals. This behaviour can leave patients distressed and has caused some to rebook their appointments and not follow medical advice in order to avoid the protestors. In some of these cases, protest activities can involve handing out model foetuses, displaying graphic images, following people, blocking their paths and even assaulting them. However, what is clear from the evidence we gathered is that these activities are not the norm, and predominantly, anti-abortion activities are more passive in nature. The main activities reported to us that take place during protests include praying, displaying banners and handing out leaflets. There were relatively few reports of the more aggressive activities described above. Nevertheless, I recognise that all anti-abortion activities can have an adverse effect, and I would like to extend my sympathies to those going through this extremely difficult and personal process … Through the review, we also found that anti-abortion demonstrations take place outside a small number of abortion facilities. In 2017, there were 363 hospitals and clinics in England and Wales that carried out abortions. Through the review, we found that 36 hospitals and clinics have experienced anti-abortion demonstrations … Having considered the evidence of the review, I have therefore reached the conclusion that introducing national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response, considering the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics, and considering that the majority of activities are more passive in nature.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/18; col. 37WS.]
Even if “passive activities” is not a contradiction in terms, passive activity can leave patients distressed and cause some to rebook their appointments and not to follow medical advice in order to avoid protesters.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate that has re-run a lot of the points from Second Reading. I added my name to all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who ably introduced that group, which I of course agree with. She opened her speech by talking about the large majority in the other place, which we have heard about, but she made the additional point that each political party had a majority in favour of passing the amendment. She then went on to talk about the argument regarding a “reasonable excuse”, and she did not think that there could be an argument for harassing women seeking a legal service.
We also heard some figures, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has repeated, about there being only five PSPOs currently operating in the country but about 50 targeted clinics where there are regular protests. This creates a patchwork of provision, which a number of noble Lords have spoken about. So tactics have evolved, and there has been an increase in protests.
I want to mention one particular Conservative Minister, Victoria Atkins, who I always think is very perceptive and who has been an active defendant on domestic abuse issues in her previous roles in the Ministry of Justice. She supports this legislation. That has particular significance for me.
I also refer to my noble friend Lady Thornton, who made a central point: the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, try to address in a reasonable way the points raised at Second Reading—that was the spirit in which she put forward that suite of amendments. The vast majority of noble Lords who have spoken against them have not addressed any of the points that she made when she introduced them. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is an exception to that, but the vast majority of other speakers did not acknowledge her points.
I turn briefly to the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, in which she made the particularly telling point that many of the women going to seek an abortion may have been subject to coercive sex. For that reason, they may be particularly vulnerable to intimidation as they are going to get advice on whether and how to progress with an abortion. This was a perceptive comment, especially as it came from a nurse; it is something I recognise from the courts in London in which I sit as a magistrate. I also acknowledge her point that she wants a good resolution of these issues rather than a fast resolution.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, gave an absolutely excellent speech; I agreed with every word he said, which is quite unusual from these Benches. Nevertheless, he made a very good point about demonstrators, whom he comes across in other contexts where he would not dream of trying to limit their ability to protest. However, here we are of course talking about an individual, often in a vulnerable state, trying to access a legal service, and that changes the argument about whether demonstrators should be allowed to influence them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, Clause 9 does not prevent anybody protesting against abortion; it only prevents them protesting against abortion within
“150 metres … of an abortion clinic”.
I will now pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the argument regarding reasonable excuse. As he said, we have had a debate about reasonable excuse in other contexts—for example, in relation to the protests by Extinction Rebellion and the other protest groups which would use that argument for the types of protest they undertake. My understanding of his argument is that basically it is for Parliament itself to take a decision on this sort of thing, rather than pushing these decisions down to courts, judges and magistrates. That was a powerful argument against Amendment 80.
The other speech which resonated with me was that of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which I am sure came from absolute front-line experience. He said that we are not talking about a discussion on abortion occurring as people—women, of course—try to receive these services; rather, it is a monologue and bullying which is meant to be intimidatory. He was absolutely right in pointing that out.
In conclusion, I will say something that is so obvious that nobody seems to have said it in this debate: the Government agree with, and accepted, Clause 9. I accept that there are debates about the wording, the compliance with the ECHR and all the rest, but clearly the Government believe that the situation has moved on since the 2018 review. They clearly believe that there is an advance in the tactics and the money deployed to intimidate women as they are trying to access these legal services. If the Government believe that, we should pay attention. It is not often from this Dispatch Box that I say that we need to listen to the Government because they have clearly taken a decision, but the response by the Minister will perhaps be the most important speech that we will hear in today’s debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his closing words; as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, “No pressure”. I thank all noble Lords for their impassioned contributions to what has obviously been a very substantive debate.
Clause 9 seeks to establish buffer zones outside abortion clinics in England and Wales to ensure that persons accessing or providing abortion services are free from harassment or intimidation. As the Committee will be aware, this clause was inserted into the Bill on the basis of a free vote in the other place. I will not get involved in second-guessing the motivations of those who voted, but the result was 297 votes in favour to 110 votes against. As I have said before, and I am very happy to say again, the Government respect the will of the House of Commons.
It is obviously clear—today’s debate makes it even clearer—that there are very strong views on both sides of the argument. Many noble Lords want the clause to become law, and many want to alter or to delay it. Amendments 80 to 97—tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey, Lady Fox, Lady Watkins, Lady Barker and Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lady Sugg, the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Beith, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—all seek to make an array of changes to Clause 9, be that by raising the threshold for the new offence or by seeking to clarify the clause in some way.
Amendments 98 and 99 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seek to introduce buffer zones pending the outcome of
“a consultation … to determine if there has been significant change in”
protests “outside abortion clinics since” the Government’s last review. Amendments 87 to 93 look to ensure that only activities relating to abortion services within a buffer zone constitute an offence, while Amendments 88, 96 and 97 seek to ensure that activities within private dwellings and places of worship are exempt. Amendments 80 to 82 seek to provide a person within a buffer zone with the opportunity to defend their actions and
“to strengthen the burden of proof required to establish an offence.”
As I said before, I thank all noble Lords for their interest and ideas to amend the existing clause in its current form, particularly their well-intentioned attempts to tighten what was described in the other place by the Minister as a “blunt instrument”. It remains the Government’s view, based on legal advice, that this amendment does not meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and would require a Section 19(1)(b) statement to be provided. That said, after having been brief, I am now even more keen to meet noble Lords in the coming days, and I encourage them to meet me so that we may discuss the next steps for the clause. For now, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the clause as inserted by the other place calls for universal zones around all clinics in England and Wales?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I say again to my noble friend—I have said it before, and I am happy to say it again—that the Government respect the will of the House of Commons.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all Members of the Committee for a wide range of speeches, ensuring that we have covered a lot of ground on this important issue. Contributions have been thoughtful, sometimes tetchy but largely civil; it is important to have these arguments out. I listened to what everybody said, and one thing I noted was that all speakers on all sides have condemned the harassment and intimidation of any woman going into a clinic or a hospital for an abortion. It is important that we note that we have that in common, because sometimes it can be presented as though people who are against Clause 9 are indifferent to the intimidation or harassment of women. Everybody has said that it is wrong; this is a question of how you deal with it.
The dispute is also about exactly what happens outside clinics. We have heard the clash of narratives in the contributions that I referred to, which makes the call for a new review from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, all the more appealing. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, herself suggested—backed up by the reply to me from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—that the situation has got a lot worse since 2018, and particularly very recently. That is disputed by people so, for the clause to have legitimacy, maybe we need a public discussion to get the evidence—that would be important.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I intend to oppose the question that Clauses 10 and 11 stand part of the Bill, and I shall speak to the other amendments in this group. It is not particularly helpful to have a clause stand part notice beginning a group rather than an amendment, but there we are.
This group of amendments relates to the new police powers of stop and search in relation to protest. Noble Lords will know the intrusive nature of being stopped and searched by the police, but I respectfully suggest that the full impact on a totally innocent member of the public being detained and searched by a police officer on the street, in full view of passers-by, can only be imagined by those of us who have never been subject to such an experience.
Imagine, then, being black. During a round-table discussion held by the Home Affairs Committee, a black child said that
“we know the police treat Black people differently… it means that we do not feel safe ever.”
Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, if the stop and search is allegedly based on suspicion. However, according to the latest Home Office data, black people are 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched under powers that require no suspicion.
In relation to tackling knife crime, prohibited objects are limited and obvious, and the consequences of carrying such weapons can be fatal. In relation to these new powers and related offences, the prohibited objects can be almost anything, and the consequences of carrying them can be completely innocuous. What exactly is an item
“made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with”
highway obstruction, or
“intended by the person having it with them for such use by them or by some other person,”
or an item
“for use in the course of or in connection with”
causing a public nuisance, or
“being present in a tunnel”?
I do not need nor intend to come up with ever more ludicrous suggestions as to what completely innocent objects might be caught up in such an offence. Even if there were noble Lords without much of an imagination, they would still be able to do that for themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has a few suggestions in her Amendment 101. I do not know about Amendment 101—this is Room 101.
The Government say that these powers are needed in order to prevent these types of offences, but in recent weeks the police have made arrests prior to offences being committed under existing legislation, based on intelligence and targeted at specific individuals. These powers are disproportionate to the outcomes they seek to achieve. Even if stop and search to combat knife crime were effective in reducing crime, which Home Office research shows, at least above a certain level, it is not, the argument that saving young people’s lives justifies the damage to trust and confidence in the police in some communities caused by badly targeted stop and search does not hold water in relation to peaceful protest. The number of instances where an arrest follows a without-suspicion stop and search is four in every 100, by the way.
Secondly, the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association—the right to protest—is likely to be impacted by such powers, disproportionately affecting those who feel disfranchised and for whom peaceful protest is an important safety valve: not just black and minority ethnic people but, per the letter noble Lords will have received from the Body Shop, young people, who disproportionately take part in protests because they feel that the democratic process does not represent their views.
If you fear the police, not least because of your lived experience, supported by the data which demonstrates that you are likely to be targeted by the police for stop and search—seven or 14 times more likely depending on whether suspicion is required—if you are black, you are likely to be dissuaded from exercising your human right to protest. It is not just me or the usual suspect NGOs saying this; His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services set out in its report on public order policing
“the potential ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of assembly and expression in terms of discouraging people from attending protests where they may be stopped and searched … Such powers could have a disproportionate impact on people from black, Asian or other minority groups.”
I am not claiming that some offences of highway obstruction, locking on, public nuisance, tunnelling, being present in a tunnel or any of the other offences in this Bill might not be prevented by these stop and search powers. I am arguing that, whether with suspicion, which is bad enough, or without suspicion, which is outrageous, to give the police these powers is disproportionate in terms of the harm that is likely to be caused compared with the benefit that is likely to result.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not know if I am breaking the rules of the House in saying this, but I feel that some of the speakers in the last debate were slightly self-indulgent. I am appalled that we are still only on group 2. Would the Minister and the Whip take that back to the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House and suggest that people show a little more restraint in their agonising over certain bits of the Bill while somehow not agonising over the rest of it, which is plainly very similar to what they were arguing against?
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has summed up extremely well. He often says things that I wish I had said. He was absolutely right to raise both the inherent potential racism in these measures and the prison population. We are already one of the most imprisoned nations in the world, even with Iran having corralled 15,000 or 16,000 protesters against its repressive regime. Adding to the prison population will be a complete folly.
I also oppose Clauses 10 and 11. I am very worried about Clauses 10 to 14, because they give the police extensive new powers to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest and confiscate items from them. Under Clause 11, a police inspector can designate a whole area in which the police can stop and search anyone without suspicion. That means people taking part in a protest, people walking past, journalists—anyone in the area. That is ludicrous and repressive. It beggars belief that the Government think this is okay to include. It also includes stopping vehicles and searching them, again without suspicion.
My Amendment 101 exposes some of the risks. With this offence of locking on, any cyclist who has a bike lock in the vicinity of a protest could have it confiscated. This could even include a random person cycling past. Anyone cycling past is likely to have a bike lock on them, because if they are not cycling then the bike lock is likely to be on their bike. This exposes endless innocent cyclists to being stopped, searched and having their bike locks confiscated. There are similar risks for anyone who has glue, Sellotape or presumably anything that police do not like the look of—jam sandwiches or anything.
Like the other protest clauses in this Bill, this one is far too broadly drafted. The Government are so obsessed with fighting climate activists that they will expose anyone to being stopped and searched and having things confiscated. The Government are seeking in this Bill to make protest a crime instead of a right. That simply is not just.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as co-chair of the National Police Ethics Committee for England and Wales, though I am speaking on my own behalf. I want to focus my remarks on the amendment opposing the question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill, to which I am a signatory, but also on those opposing the questions that Clauses 10, 11, 13 and 14 stand part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the way they have introduced this debate.
It is deeply concerning that the Bill seeks to extend suspicion-less stop and search powers to the context of protest. If brought forward, such measures would open a Pandora’s box for the further misuse of such powers that have in many contexts caused trauma, both physically and mentally, particularly to those in marginalised communities. The proposers of these clauses may have in mind the current environmental protesters, who appear, somewhat unusually, to include a large proportion of those from white, middle-class backgrounds, notably one of my own clergy. But history tells us that such powers, after a short time, are almost invariably and disproportionately used against minorities, especially ethnic minorities.
I would not be involved with the police in the way that I am if I was not passionate that our forces should gain and hold the confidence and respect of all sections of our society. But I know all too well how fragile that respect and confidence are. Police powers that are not grounded in suspicion create suspicion, and they create suspicion in those parts of society, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has so eloquently indicated, where we can least afford it.
We must note when considering the Bill’s creation of a new stop and search power in relation to specified lists of protest offences that there is—as has been referred to—no agreed position among police forces that such a power is either necessary or wanted. When you add to this the fact that the definition of “prohibited objects” is so broad—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has referred to bike locks, but it could be posters, placards, fliers or banners—I am not sure about jam sandwiches, but I suspect it fits in somewhere; all could become suspect. How would the police ascertain that such objects were in fact for use at a protest? There are lots of legitimate reasons why you have household objects with you. The Joint Committee on Human Rights states:
“A suspicion of such an offence, even a reasonable one, in the course of a protest represents an unjustifiably low threshold for a power to require a person to submit to a search.”
There are serious risks here for people’s ability and willingness to exercise rights that are fundamental in a democratic society.
The Bill attempts to address what it refers to as “public nuisance”. But its scope is too broad—arguably, any form of protest risks “public nuisance”. Indeed, in these very halls of Parliament, four suffragettes chained themselves to statues to bring attention to their demands for votes for women; we must ask ourselves whether our contemporary context allows space for similarly important issues to be protested on. As things stand, these clauses risk a disproportionate interference with people’s Article 8, 10 and 11 rights as set out in the Human Rights Act.
This country has long prided itself on being a democracy, this Parliament is at the heart of that, and one of our duties is to ensure that the rights and freedoms necessary to such a system of governance are not undermined. Those rights and freedoms include the right to peaceful protest. Therefore, should these provisions remain at a future stage, I will vote to oppose the questions that Clauses 10 to 14 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the clause stand part amendments in my name. In doing so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their supportive remarks and the views that they have expressed, which I very much support.
Stop and search can be a frightening experience; it can be intrusive and intimidating. There are real concerns, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined, about disproportionality, and a point that nobody has yet made is that it can be used against children, worries which matter so much in any democracy.
I am going to spend a few minutes going through this. The Chamber is not packed, but a lot of noble Lords will read our deliberations in Hansard, and this is one of the most important parts of the debate in Committee that we are going to have, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester outlined.
Despite these concerns, Parliament has given police the power to stop and search with suspicion for items such as offensive weapons, illegal drugs and stolen property. In its recent report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepted that stop and search with reasonable suspicion was appropriate in certain circumstances. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, are arguing through their Clause 10 stand part notice, is it right that these stop and search powers should be extended to peaceful protest? For example, new paragraph (g) inserted by Clause 10—I urge noble Lords to reread that clause—extends stop and search powers to an offence of
“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,
when we know how wide the scope of “causing public nuisance” can be. Can the Minister explain what, in the Government’s view,
“intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance”
actually means? We would be passing this in new paragraph (g).
By creating a risk of causing serious inconvenience or serious annoyance through your actions in the course of a protest, or preparation for or travel to a protest, you would have to submit to a search under the Bill. How would an officer know my intention? Extending the stop and search powers to cover searches for articles connected with protest-related offences risks encounters between the public and the police where there is little or no justification. Does the Minister agree with that? People on their way to protests, marches, rallies or demonstrations are at risk of being searched in case they are equipped to commit one of those offences—or so the police believe.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just articulated with reference to her Amendments 100 and 101—this is the purpose of a Committee—what on earth do the Government mean by “prohibited” items? It is incumbent upon us to give some indication of what we consider prohibited items to be. It is easy to scoff when the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asks if that includes a bicycle lock—but does it? I think it is quite right to ask that question.
This takes us to Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14. Even if one thinks that stop and search with reasonable suspicion may be appropriate, to stop and search for prohibited items without suspicion, looking for articles with respect to peaceful protest, is not where this country should be going or what this Parliament should be legislating to allow the police to do. The application of suspicionless stop and search powers was previously reserved for use in the most serious circumstances, such as the prevention of serious violence, gun and knife crime, or indeed terrorism. Is this where we want our democracy to go—to use stop and search powers that we have previously said should be used only in relation to the prevention of terrorism or serious violence? We are now saying that they are appropriate to be used to search people going to a peaceful demonstration for prohibited items.
The Minister needs to explain—this is the purpose of my clause stand part notices, even though we are in Committee—why the Government think that is appropriate, whether the Minister agrees that it is appropriate, and why the Government believe it is necessary to give terrorist-related powers to the police to deal with peaceful protest. That is the purpose of my clause stand part notices for Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 on the creation of the suspicionless stop and search power in relation to a list of specified protest offences. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Anderson—who is not in his place—the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I know there are others; the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said that she supports it. My reason for opposing these clauses is to ask the Government to justify such an extension of power to the police in the context of peaceful protest.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the duration of the previous debate, we are of course a self-regulating House.
We believe that stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on crime and protect communities. The Bill extends both suspicion-led and suspicionless stop and search powers, enabling the police to proactively tackle highly disruptive protest offences by searching for and seizing items which are made, adapted or intended to be used in connection with protest-related offences, such as glue, chains and locks. The powers can also act as a deterrent by preventing offenders carrying items for protest-related offences in the first place because of the increased chance of being caught.
The suspicion-led powers in Clause 10 will help the police manage disruptive protests more effectively, as police officers will have the power to stop and search anyone they reasonably suspect is carrying items that could be used for locking-on, obstruction of major transport works, interference with key infrastructure, public nuisance, obstruction of the highway and the tunnelling offences.
The suspicionless powers in Clause 11 build on the Government’s plan to give the police the powers they need to prevent serious disruption at protests from happening in the first place. In high-pressure, fast-paced protest environments, it is not always possible for officers to form reasonable suspicion that individuals may be about to commit an offence. That is where suspicionless powers are important, and reflect the operational reality of policing.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the wording in Clause 10(g). Of course,
“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”
are legally well-understood terms which are found in much other legislation.
The suspicionless stop and search power will be usable only if certain conditions are met, and in cases where a police officer of or above the rank of inspector authorises its use in a specified locality for a specified period. This power uses a similar framework to that found in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to ensure consistency in police powers and safeguards. The rank of inspector aligns with existing stop and search powers to ensure consistency.
In answer to the earlier question of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a Section 60 order cannot be extended beyond 48 hours. PACE Code A is also clear that a suspicionless stop and search should be reasonable and no bigger than needed.
In terms of the size of the area that designations would cover, as I said earlier, our intention is to mirror the approach used in Section 60. The geographical extent of a Section 60 order depends on the situation that led to the order being authorised, so it is for the authorising officer to determine. PACE Code A states that the authorising officer should specify a fixed location for the boundary of the search area, whether that is a street name or a divisional boundary, and not make the area wider than is necessary for the purpose of preventing these suspected offences.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Will the Minister reflect on his remarks about a specified locality and his analogy with Section 60? That deals with terrorism. Suspicionless stop and search may well encompass a huge area, as this Parliament has accepted on the basis that a terrorist may travel hundreds of miles to target people. This is about protest and protesters. Is the Minister saying that the Government see that as analogous? I find that difficult to comprehend.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The fact is that the search area should not be wider than necessary for the purposes of preventing the potential offences. I do not believe it is analogous to terrorism, but that is quite clear.
The noble Lord also asked how the geographical extent of a no reasonable suspicion stop and search order is communicated. It is for police forces to determine how and whether to communicate the geographical extent of such an order under Section 60, and this will be the case for the new suspicionless powers in the Bill. But although forces are no longer required to communicate whether a Section 60 order is in place, many continue to do so where they judge it to be operationally feasible, to help deter criminals and enhance community trust and confidence. It is very common for forces to use their social media channels or websites to communicate the extent of a Section 60 order.
The noble Lord also asked about officers in plain clothes. This power only extends to those in uniform.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I invite the Minister to comment on the remarks that I and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, made at Second Reading, which my noble friend Lord Coaker referenced.
If a police officer attempts to stop and search a woman who clearly knows that she is not carrying anything unreasonable, given what the police themselves said about how single women walking alone at night might respond to this, there is every chance that a suspicionless stop and search could result in the woman—young or old—obstructing a police officer in the course of his or her duty. I did not hear the Minister respond to that. It is a very significant concern. It would be a concern anyway but it is an aggravated one, given what the Metropolitan Police and other authorities have said in the light of what we know only too well happened previously.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Obviously, I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but asking an officer for proof of identity is not in and of itself an obstructive thing to do. That is very clear.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
If I might just press the point: of course, if the young woman has the presence of mind to simply ask for proof of identity, that may very well not be obstruction, but she may be frightened by this and seek to move away or to respond in some other way, but not to assault the police officer. I just see that there is a danger in this situation, and I am not hearing anything that I could tell women who are asking me about what we are doing in the Public Order Bill so that they do not need to have any concern about suspicionless stop and search. We heard before about it being perfectly reasonable to respond in such a way that you can categorically assure yourself that a person is a police officer. Frankly, I have never seen a police identity badge, so I do not know what they look like. The previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner talked about flagging down buses if you are not happy about what is going on. I want to press the Minister on this point, because although I absolutely accept that asking to see a badge is not necessarily chargeable with obstruction, other things could befall.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
To add to that, women were also told to consider refusing to get into a police car, and even if you did see the badge, Wayne Couzens was carrying a perfectly legitimate police badge, whether or not you recognise it is beside the point. While I am on my feet, will the Minister answer my point about the prison population already being incredibly high?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This is so important. I do not think the Minister or the Government appreciate how vulnerable women can feel walking, particularly in the dark or on their own, and it gets dark very early in the winter. This is really serious. I also do not think they realise how much young women, particularly if they are attractive, can get hassled. If you have been hassled a lot, you can snap because you are sick and tired of it. I really do not think this has been thought through.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Before the Minister responds, he may also wish to think very carefully about what he said about these powers not being exercisable by officers in plain clothes. I am prepared to apologise to the Committee for misleading it when I say that these powers alter Section 1 of PACE, which has nothing in it about an officer having to be in uniform to exercise powers of stop and search. So what the Minister said about these powers not being exercisable unless the officer is uniformed is not true.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
If I am incorrect I will most certainly correct my statement. That was the information that I was given. If it is incorrect in any way, I will of course come back and apologise. It was inadvertent if that is the case.
I think we are getting slightly off topic, but I say to the noble Baroness that the Minister certainly appreciates that women and girls can feel very vulnerable, particularly at night, and I understand the level of hassle. However, a road where one is likely to be alone is not likely to be subject to the Section 60 power, so we are in the realms of the hypothetical to some extent. I accept and understand the concerns that have been raised, but I reiterate that it is everyone’s right to ask a police officer for identification, and I believe that under the suspicionless basis the officer has to be wearing uniform, but I will confirm that later with the Committee, certainly if I am incorrect. I do not have an answer for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, so I will have to write to her.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, questioned the area in which suspicionless stop and search could be operated. Marches that occur in central London traditionally start at Marble Arch, go down Park Lane and sometimes through Oxford Street and Regent Street. The number of people who could be subject to suspicionless stop and search as the result of that sort of demonstration is mind boggling.
In his real-world experience as adviser to the police on these issues, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester talked about these powers being invariably used disproportionately. The Minister has said nothing to reassure the Committee that the powers will not be used disproportionately, with the damage that will be caused to the reputation, trust and confidence in the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made the valid point that the powers can be used against children. Public nuisance is such a wide offence. I also raised the offence of being present in a tunnel. How can someone go equipped to be present in a tunnel? There was no answer about that.
Before this, there were two elements to suspicionless stop and search. The Minister talked about Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which is to do with serious violence. The other was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which the Conservative Government repealed because it was being used disproportionately. The Government withdrew suspicionless stop and search in relation to terrorism because they considered that its impact on trust and confidence in the police was disproportionately negative. It does not exist any more in relation to terrorism, but this Government want to introduce it in relation to people exercising their lawful right to protest.
The Minister made no reference to what HMIC said was likely to be a chilling effect on people exercising their human rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11. There was not a word about this, even though HMICFRS raised it. There was nothing about the disproportionate impact on minority communities. Minority communities and young people are more likely to be engaged in protest because they do not feel that the parliamentary process represents their views. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, we will return to these issues on Report. I am sure we will vote on them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I should like to clarify my remarks about uniforms. Section 60—which is what I was talking about—applies only to officers in uniform. Section 1 powers can apply to all officers.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Can the Minister clarify whether these powers—not Section 60 powers—to stop and search people in relation to protests can be exercised by officers in plain clothes?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I think I explained, we are basing these powers on Section 60.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Is the Minister telling this Chamber that a plain clothes officer in the middle of Lambeth, Manchester, Newcastle or Cardiff can stop a car without suspicion, without anybody knowing that there is a suspicionless stop and search operation going on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Our intention is to mirror the approach used in Section 60. I said that very clearly earlier. I have already explained its geographical extent.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Can the Minister point to the part of the Bill that says that suspicionless stop and search powers are restricted to officers in uniform?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is extremely serious. It is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making and what we are trying to clarify. When can a non-uniformed officer use these powers and when can they not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lords, but I have nothing more to say on the subject. I have tried to explain how this relates to the Section 60 powers. Our intention, I say again, was to mirror that approach.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
This is of very great significance; not just to me, not just to women, but to everyone who is trying to understand the Government’s intention with this legislation and in what position people will find themselves. Does the Minister not agree that, if it is the Government’s intention that only uniformed police officers may exercise these powers—frankly, I do not think that they should do so either—then that should be made explicit in the Bill, as there is clearly the possibility of ambiguity?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that Clause 11(6) says:
“This section confers on any constable in uniform power … to stop any person and search them or anything carried by them for a prohibited object.”
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 16, line 12, page 17, line 20, page 17, line 35 and page 18, line 4 have the effect that in Clause 16 the amendments to sections 14 and 14A of the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to the British Transport Police apply in relation to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Clause 16 closes a gap in existing powers at Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 for policing public processions and assemblies which may result in serious disorder. It does this by harmonising the position between on the one hand the territorial police forces—that is to say those covering a geographical force area—and on the other hand the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police.
The present position is that the territorial forces are able to exercise these powers, but the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police are not. Clause 16 extends to the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police some of the powers at Part 2 of the 1986 Act in relation to their respective jurisdictions, where there is an operational case for doing so.
For example, the power may be used in a situation where a trespassory assembly is planned or is occurring on the railway or on railway property. This could be within a station, outside a station or in a retail area owned by the railway. In this case, the British Transport Police may be the most appropriate force to exercise the power. The railway is a unique and complex environment with specific risks which British Transport Police specialise in managing while minimising disruptive impact on the operation of the rail network.
To be clear, Clause 16 does not create any new powers, nor does it broaden the existing ones. It simply serves to close a potential gap in jurisdiction by extending certain existing powers to those two additional, non-territorial police forces. The powers contain various limitations and safeguards; for example, there is provision that only the most senior of the officers present may exercise the powers and a requirement that the officer must reasonably believe that the assembly may result in certain forms of serious disorder. Clause 16 reads these across, with necessary transpositions for the jurisdiction and functions of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police.
While the provisions concerning the Ministry of Defence Police are reserved, as policing and railway are devolved matters, the provisions concerning the British Transport Police have practical application only in England and Wales. Following discussions, the Scottish Government have requested these powers be extended to the British Transport Police in Scotland. We have therefore tabled minor, technical amendments to the clause to facilitate the extension of the powers to Scotland.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the Government are stretching credulity if they say this creates no new powers; it creates new powers for the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police. It is mostly on the British Transport Police that I want to concentrate.
This police force is not locally accountable. It is the police force of the operators of the railway system. It has its own structures and is essentially a nationally organised force with certain centres of activity. There are many cases where police support is needed, and we certainly see this in Berwick. The local police have to come on the scene some time before British Transport Police can come from 70 miles away to take part in whatever problem there may be. We have to be a bit careful about so readily extending powers to a very different kind of police force, which does not have the chain of local accountability that our civil police forces have.
If anyone thinks that the arrangements are all very smooth and there is not a problem in relations between local police and British Transport Police, they should read the proceedings of the Manchester Arena inquiry. They will discover some pretty uncomfortable things about how co-ordination between British Transport Police and other agencies is meant to work but does not always work in practice. I was slightly surprised that Scottish Ministers decided they wanted to extend the powers included here, but it is with the approval—if the case is in Scotland, it is not to the Secretary of State—of Scottish Ministers.
I will take the Minister back to an incident in the 1960s which he is too young to remember. It shows that these are not new problems requiring drastic new powers. A railway line called the Waverley route between Edinburgh and Carlisle was closed. Before it managed to get itself closed—it has since been partially reopened—people in the village of Newcastleton between Hawick and Carlisle protested vigorously. One night, when the night sleeper was heading towards Carlisle, the minister of the local kirk and some of his congregation and others gathered on the crossing and stopped the train. On the train at the time was Lord Steel of Aikwood, then the young MP for the Borders area. This incident was handled by the police quite smoothly and locally, without any involvement of the British Transport Police—I doubt very much that they ever got there.
Local police are used to dealing with these situations. I fear from the provisions we have now that, given the nature and scope of this Bill, someone proposing to have either a group of people in a station protesting against imminent cuts to the service, or a single protestor in the station building by the ticket office saying “Your service is going to be halved from next week—join me in a protest”, will find themselves subject to the powers of the Public Order Act. There will be an unnecessary level of police involvement by the British Transport Police. Without the powers here, they would be able to deal with it in the normal way, as the local police would. We are in some danger if we get the British Transport Police into the state of mind that they are policing protest. It is really not what they are good at and not what they are supposed to be good at.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support the comments of my noble friend. The only observation I was going to make about the powers being given to the British Transport Police is that it is primarily funded by the rail industry and whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Can the Minister confirm that the BTP is accountable to the British Transport Police Authority, the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport? What does the Minister believe to be the consequences, for example, for protests at railway stations, of such funding and accountability mechanisms?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 16 covers the British Transport Police in England and Wales. It is reasonable that, as the Minister explained, the government amendments also cover the BTP in Scotland, since that has been requested by the Scottish Government. We disagree with the premise of the Bill, as was visible in many of the groups, not least the last one, but we understand recognising the specific roles that the MoD and British Transport Police play as part of the wider policing family. Can the Minister confirm—this is part of what the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Beith, said—that the use of their powers is strictly limited to the areas under their jurisdiction?
Prior to today’s debate, I asked the Minister why the Civil Nuclear Constabulary was not referenced in the clause. Helpfully, he responded. I received a letter that said:
“we have not seen assemblies outside civil nuclear establishments and … the public do not have access to this land, so any assembly outside them … falls under the jurisdiction”
of the usual territorial force. I take that to mean that it is not included because no need has been identified for it to have these powers, which is welcome. It would be handy if the Government had applied that logic elsewhere in the Bill.
Does the Bill allow the Government to extend these powers to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, should they wish to do so? In other words, we have just seen the Government announce and give the go-ahead to the building of Sizewell C, and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary would presumably be involved in and around that sort of site. Would the Government have to come back to Parliament to get primary legislation through in order to give the Civil Nuclear Constabulary similar powers to those in the Bill? Is some secondary legislation tucked away that would allow them to do that, without us being able to properly scrutinise that to determine whether we believe the Civil Nuclear Constabulary should have these protest-related powers?
Lord Beith (LD)
I remind the noble Lord that the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is armed. It was armed by the late Anthony Wedgwood Benn, when he was Secretary of State for Energy.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a very good point—I was going to make that point and ask whether that made any difference. What makes this even more important is whether, tucked away in the Bill, there is some mechanism by which the Government could extend these protest-related powers to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. The Government are saying that, at the moment, there is no need for it to have these powers because there have been no protests and it has not been appropriate—that is the information I received. All that I am asking—this is particularly relevant given the point of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about it being armed—whether the Bill gives the Government the opportunity to do that, should they so wish, or whether they would have to come back and pass primary legislation to do that. It would be useful to find that out.
On Amendment 106 of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, which probes the breadth of the powers, can the Minister give us more clarity on the power to make an order prohibiting specified activities for a specified amount of time? What is the amount of time in scope, and who grants the order?
The clause references assemblies
“on land to which the public has no right of access or only a limited right of access”.
Would that activity therefore be covered under existing trespass offences? I am just asking for clarity on one or two of the specifics with respect to these amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their speeches in this group. I turn to Amendment 106, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who explained that it is intended to avoid excessively wide use, at railway stations, of the power for a chief constable to make an order prohibiting a trespassory assembly if certain conditions are met. This is an outcome that we can all support: the Government are clear that public order powers should always be used proportionately and should have appropriate safeguards and limitations. However, I hope I will be able to provide him with assurances that his amendment is not necessary to achieve that outcome and indeed that it would not have the effect of limiting the use of this existing power at or around railway stations.
Lord Beith (LD)
The Minister asked me whether I would be kind enough not to move the amendment. I am not entirely satisfied; he has promised to write on a couple of issues. The evidence that has not been brought forward is any inability of the local police forces to manage these situations if they arise. It does not appear to me that there have been situations where the lack of British Transport Police powers has made it impossible to deal with the situation. My worry is that giving it new powers will lead it to use them in circumstances that are not really envisaged by the Bill. At this stage, I am happy not to press the amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Minister said, quite rightly, that he will write to the noble Lord, Lord Beith. For the benefit of the Committee, it would be useful for it to be put in the Library. The letter writing is fine but I sometimes worry about it because it means it is not in Hansard. For those people who read our deliberations, I think that could be a bit of flaw in them being able to understand what is going on. The answers often are in a letter or in the Library and not as widely available as they would be if they were in Hansard. It is a point that has increasingly bothered me, to be frank.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I recognise what the noble Lord says and will make sure that the letter is placed in the Library.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 16, line 3.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 16, line 3.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 16, line 3.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 18, line 10 have the effect that the consent of the Scottish Ministers is required in order for the chief constable of the British Transport Police to make an order under section 14A(4D) of the Public Order Act 1986 prohibiting trespassory assemblies in an area in Scotland.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 16, line 3.
“(4EA) In subsection (4D) “the relevant national authority” means—(a) in relation to an area in England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to an area in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 17, line 42.
Lord Paddick
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to raise the threshold for the Secretary of State to bring civil proceedings.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 110 in my name, I will speak also to my Amendments 111 to 113 and 116 and the other amendments in this group. These amendments are about a power to be given to the Secretary of State to bring civil proceedings to curtail or prevent protest, including potentially with a power of arrest attached, if the Home Secretary “reasonably believes” that activities are causing or likely to cause disruption to the use or operation of any key national infrastructure or have a seriously adverse effect on public safety in England and Wales.
Amendments 110 to 112 in my name would increase the evidential test to
“has reasonable grounds for suspecting”
to ensure that the Secretary of State has to set out before the court the exact evidential grounds for her application. In meetings with the Minister and officials on the Bill, it was explained that protests could affect a number of different operators or local authorities and that it would be in the public interest to have an overarching injunction in such cases.
The HS2 nationwide injunction seems to prove that such an overarching injunction is available to those concerned without the intervention of the Secretary of State but, in any event, Amendment 113 is designed to ensure that the power is used if, and only if, it is not reasonable or practical for a party directly impacted by the activity to bring civil proceedings, and to ensure that the Secretary of State does not use the power where any party directly impacted does not consider such proceedings to be necessary. My Amendment 116 is designed to ensure that a power of arrest cannot be attached to an injunction simply on the basis that the conduct is merely
“capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”.
This is in Clause 18(2)(a), which the amendment removes from the Bill.
We wholeheartedly support the additional checks and balances proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in her Amendments 114 and 115. I beg to move Amendment 110.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, during Second Reading a number of noble Lords, including those who do not share my views of the Bill more generally, expressed significant scepticism about the new Clause 17 provision for the Home Secretary to bring civil proceedings against protesters, instead of being brought by directly affected oil, gas or transport companies, and so on. I share these concerns at the politicisation of both policing and civil disputes, and therefore oppose Clause 17 standing part of this Public Order Bill.
Not only is it constitutionally dubious for a politician to be standing in the shoes of the police in relation to the criminal law, or of affected companies in relation to the civil law; it also raises questions about this use of considerable sums of taxpayers’ money in expensive litigation that could and should be brought by those who profit from fossil fuel or other carbon-intensive development, and no doubt factor legal fees into their budgeting. The lack of transparency required by the new Clause 17 also brings a risk of corruption, in the event that the relevant firms should choose to donate to or otherwise “promote” a Home Secretary amenable to seeking civil legal proceedings on their behalf.
It should be noted that under Clause 17(5), the Secretary of State must only
“consult such persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, having regard to any persons who may also bring civil proceedings in relation to those activities.”
No transparency in the Secretary of State’s discussions, or non-discussions, with these “persons”—namely, large companies—or consideration of why they should not finance their own legal proceedings, is required. Never has the word “must”, in a provision supposedly creating a duty upon a Secretary of State to consult, constituted such a toothless tiger or illusory protection from the potential abuse of public money and political power.
In addition to supporting the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I propose Amendments 114 and 115, which would create safeguards against corruption and abuse. They require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for any decision not to consult; the results of any consultation; any representations made to the Secretary of State as to a proposed exercise of the new power; an assessment of why other parties should not finance their own proceedings; and assessments of why any proceedings have been brought by the Secretary of State at public expense, rather than by private companies themselves. Such publication will occur both each time an exercise of the power is considered, and annually on an aggregate basis.
Clause 17 is both unnecessary and undesirable. If it really must stand part, so must the vital safeguards previously referred to, but also those in Amendments 114 and 115, which I commend.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Clause 17 is very dubious. It is bad enough when private companies use civil injunctions, which have become quasi-criminal private tools against protesters. I was up at Preston New Road and I saw this in action by fracking companies. The fact is, of course, that the protesters who had injunctions brought against them were proved to have been entirely on the right side of history, yet they were targeted by the fracking companies, very unfairly, because their trying to halt the companies’ damage to the environment was perfectly appropriate. We have seen injunctions used against tree protectors as well. Of course, breach of an injunction is contempt of court, with the risk of fines and imprisonment. It is actually quite onerous, and it is bad enough when a private company chooses to do it, but it is pretty concerning when a Secretary of State decides to do it.
I think we have all agreed that, if not completely overcome by corruption, this Government do at least have filaments of corruption winding their way through the whole body politic. Therefore, we have to be very careful that we do not introduce other ways for corruption to happen within government. Clearly, the Government should review the situation and propose reforms, because this really is not how injunctions are supposed to be.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, not being a lawyer, I would never have dreamed of writing amendments of the technical nature of Amendments 114 and 115. None the less, having heard the speech of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and having discussed it with her before she made it, it is evident to me that these are vital amendments should Clause 17 stand part—which, of course, it absolutely should not. If there is any sense, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has powerfully persuaded me there is, that Clause 17 is constitutionally dubious, that really should give the Government pause for thought. I genuinely believe that anyone—the person on the Clapham omnibus—who read this and found that the Government can substitute a prosecution for a private company at the public expense would, frankly, be rather appalled and find it very odd legislation.
Clause 17 (5) states:
“the Secretary of State must consult such persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, having regard to any persons who may also bring civil proceedings in relation to those activities.”
That just does not seem appropriate. Surely, the purpose of the law is to make sure that the onus for things lies in the proper place, and the onus for proceedings such as those conceivably envisaged here cannot possibly lie with the Government and the public. Amendments 114 and 115, in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, at least tighten up the possibilities here. The Secretary of State would be required to publish a range of things, as she has already said, including
“the reasons for any decision not to consult, the results of any consultation, any representations made to the Secretary of State as to a proposed exercise of the power, an assessment of why other parties should not finance their own proceedings”.
It seems to me that we are allowing the Secretary of State to do something which, if I had just read this myself and come to a view on it, I would have considered to be ultra vires, if that is the correct term, because this is not something we should be spending public money on. Amendments 114 and 115 would go some way towards tightening up Clause 17, but as other noble Lords have said, those of us who have read this in detail and given it some consideration genuinely believe that it should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker is a probing amendment which would require the Secretary of State to review the use of injunctions for protest-related activity. This is to probe how injunctions are used, what their effects are, how they interact with police powers and responsibilities, and the problems facing their use, such as securing them within a reasonable timescale. The purpose of the amendment is for the Secretary of State to set out a review of injunctions in the widest sense.
We also heard from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about her Amendments 114 and 115, which would create safeguards against corruption and abuse. They would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for any decision not to consult, the results of any consultation, any representations made to the Secretary of State as to a proposed exercise of the power, an assessment of why other parties should not finance their own proceedings and assessments of why any proceedings have been brought by the Secretary of State at public expense rather than by private companies. Such publication would occur each time an exercise of the power is considered and annually on an aggregate basis so that we can look at the overall effect.
My noble friend Lady Blower, who like me is not a lawyer, expressed incredulity about the situation, which I share. As a layman, it seems to me that the Clause 17 provisions give the Home Secretary powers to bring civil proceedings against protesters at public expense. This is a surprising set of circumstances, and my noble friend’s amendments are trying to get the Government to justify that on a continual basis, which seems entirely reasonable.
Amendments 110, 111 and 112 are also in this group. This clause provides that the Secretary of State can use new injunction powers where they reasonably believe the conditions under the clause are met. These amendments would delete “reasonably believes” and strengthen it to
“has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.
Amendment 113 would provide that the Secretary of State may bring civil proceedings under this clause only if it is not reasonable or practicable for a party directly impacted by the activity to do so.
I move on to Amendment 114. The clause provides that, before bringing proceedings under it, the Secretary of State must consult “such persons (if any)” that they consider appropriate. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons if they do not consult, the outcome of any consultation, representations made to the Secretary of State and a reason why the Secretary of State should bring the proceedings at public expense, rather than another party.
As the Minister has heard, there is substantial scepticism about many aspects of Clause 17. There are a number of amendments here seeking to probe the Government’s intentions, and we may well return to this at a later stage. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, recently we have seen protestors blocking key national infrastructure, potentially causing delays to the supply of goods and services. Clause 17 provides a Secretary of State with a specific mechanism to apply for an injunction in civil proceedings where it is in the public interest to do so, and where the effect of the activity is to cause serious disruption to key national infrastructure, or to access to essential goods or services, or to have a serious, adverse impact on the public.
Contrary to the speeches that we have heard from noble Lords opposite, there is no constitutional dubiety about such a measure. This provision will support better co-ordination between government, law enforcement, local authorities and private landowners in responding to serious disruptive behaviour. You may say, contrary to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said earlier, that these provisions mean that the hypothetical man on the Clapham omnibus might actually make it to Clapham, rather than being delayed by roadblocks caused impermissibly by protestors.
The proposal does not affect the right of local authorities or private landowners to apply for an injunction themselves, but gives a Secretary of State an additional route to act—urgently in some cases—where the potential impact is serious and widespread, and where there is a clear public interest to intervene. I seek to reassure noble Lords who have raised concerns regarding this measure that it will ultimately be a matter for the courts and our judges to consider whether or not to grant an injunction application. All that this provision does is simply to allow a Secretary of State to bring a claim and to apply for an injunction; ultimately, the decision on whether or not the injunction is made is one for the judge. As we always would, there would be careful consideration of any such application made by a Secretary of State, and that would involve careful consideration of the evidence provided by the Secretary of State in support of an application for an injunction. This is the ultimate legal safeguard on the use of the powers in Clauses 17 and 18.
As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I again reiterate that this measure provides an additional mechanism for a Secretary of State to intervene. This device would be most beneficial where protest activity targets multiple sites, and transcends local boundaries and the property of multiple entities. In such circumstances the potential impact would clearly be widespread, and the clear public interest would therefore be that injunctive proceedings are taken by the Secretary of State, rather than a series of separate private entities. It is not in every scenario that the Secretary of State’s power to seek an injunction would be utilised, and there is no doubt that the prevailing situation would remain, and businesses would have a major role to play in obtaining their own injunctions.
Turning to Clause 18, where an injunction has been granted by a court, with a power of arrest attached, the powers will support the police in taking action earlier to respond to those who engage in disruptive and dangerous forms of protest. Enabling the court to attach a power of arrest to such injunctions is key to allowing the police to act more quickly to prevent the disruption escalating. Where there is no ability for a power of arrest to be attached to the injunction, the applicant may be able to apply to the court for an arrest warrant where they believe that the perpetrator has breached the provisions of an injunction, as is the case for injunctions secured by private entities and natural persons. However, this creates an additional step in the process of enforcement which can affect the pace at which disruptive behaviour can be curtailed. As such, the power of arrest provision in Clause 18 can prove to be a highly important tool in the available responses to prevent serious disruption happening in the first place.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He made a kind offer to consider this argument; when he is considering it, could he think about transparency versus corruption and the public expense? He has made his arguments about the new co-ordinating role of the Secretary of State, standing in the shoes of a consortium, if you like, of local government, business and central government, but there is still this issue about transparency versus corruption. When he takes this away, will he think about a scenario in which a press baron or an oil baron—whichever noble Baron, or ignoble Baron, it is—says to a Home Secretary, or a putative Home Secretary, “I’m sick of these legal fees, and I think it would be a jolly good idea if the Home Department brought these proceedings against these pesky demonstrators in my shoes”? Will he think about the risks to public trust in the good use of public money that might result if there is not transparency about this new power?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, before the Minister resumes his speech, may I ask him about a word he used? I do not know if I misheard—and I have quite a good vocabulary—but I think he used the word “dubiety”. Does that mean dubiousness?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Right, I will add that to my vocabulary.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank both noble Baronesses for their interventions. Turning to the question about transparency, we will certainly engage on that, and I appreciate it. It is always important that government actions are transparent. It is clearly an important public principle, and on that we agree.
As to corruption, in this context, it is really not a terribly likely hypothetical scenario. I say that because, if one were an ignoble baron seeking to pursue an injunction to preclude some sort of serious disruption, it is unlikely that the cost of pursuing an injunction would be sufficiently high to warrant seeking the assistance of the Secretary of State in bringing that injunction. It would be more likely that such costs would be borne by the company or person themselves, given the urgency and the much larger costs incurred by the disruption occurring. While I accept that there is a hypothetical concern, therefore, I find it unlikely in reality that such an envisioned scenario would eventuate.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling Amendment 116. Let me start by saying that I, again, recognise the sentiment in this amendment. It is important that the Government intervene only in matters that are serious and proportionate to the public interest. However, I wish to remind noble Lords that causing nuisance or annoyance to the public can have a far-reaching impact when it occurs on a widespread scale. The recent protests targeting the M25 have shown just that. Furthermore, while a Secretary of State may apply for the power of arrest to be attached to an injunction, it is for the courts to decide whether or not this is an appropriate measure.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Again, I understand and have considered the need for scrutiny and transparency, as I touched on earlier, and therefore I entirely understand the logic of the tabling of that amendment. None the less, it is the Government’s view that while a review is not needed to ensure that activity relating to these provisions is necessary, it is important that transparency is carefully considered, and I will ensure that that is done.
There are already several clear provisions in the Bill that serve to ensure that the use of these powers by a Secretary of State will be subject to scrutiny and safeguards. As has already been noted, of course, in Clause 17(5) there is a requirement for consultation as may be appropriate ahead of initiating civil proceedings. Moreover, as we have already touched on, civil proceedings can be issued in the interest of the public only when it is considered expedient to do so in the judgment of the judiciary hearing the claim. As I have already committed to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I will nevertheless consider what further clarity could be provided on the circumstances in which a Secretary of State might seek to initiate such proceedings. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. If I can try and get the sense of the House, we on this side feel that this is constitutionally dubious, potentially providing opportunities for corruption, and that it is a very serious step to allow the Secretary of State to apply for an injunction to prevent a protest. On the government side, the Minister thinks it is reasonable if lots of people are affected—different organisations, private and public—and that it would be expedient for the Secretary of State to represent all parties and apply for an injunction on their behalf. Therefore, there is a clear difference of opinion as to whether we are satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards, as opposed to the Minister being satisfied that is the case. As the Minister reflects on what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, we too will reflect on what the Minister has said, and we will no doubt return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 110.