House of Commons
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 11 months 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
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
The most recent estimate shows that Ministry of Defence investment supports 219,000 jobs in industries across the United Kingdom. Continued high and focused investment in defence, along with the changes that we continue to make as part of our defence and security industrial strategy, will contribute to further economic growth and prosperity across the Union.
Mr Mohindra
I thank the Minister for that answer. Ahead of Armistice Day last month, I was contacted by Northwood military headquarters in my constituency to help organise a tour of this place for the submarine service. I thank Captain James Clark and Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces for their help in making that happen. Does the Minister agree that during this time of global turbulence we should do all we can to support and champion the members of our armed forces?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to him for taking the time to visit the Northwood military headquarters. There are 1,600 active service personnel at Northwood HQ, and their work is crucial to protecting our people, territories, values and interests at home and overseas. He is right to pay tribute to them, and I join him in that.
Antony Higginbotham
Thanks to this Secretary of State for Defence, Lancashire is home to the newest part of the armed forces, the National Cyber Force. That brings huge opportunities to our county, not only through the thousands of armed forces personnel who will eventually be stationed there, but with the cyber-security companies that we hope will cluster around the site in the years ahead. To really seize the opportunity, however, we need to ensure that we give local people the skills they need to join the NCF or other cyber-security businesses. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what steps we can take to ensure that the MOD supports the growth of its cyber-cluster, centred on the NCF, and the links between the NCF and local education providers?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the close interest he has taken in the establishment of the National Cyber Force in Samlesbury, which has cemented the north-west’s position as a key UK cyber-cluster. He will be aware that last week we announced the trilateral international partnership between the UK, Japan and Italy to develop next-generation Tempest fighters, which will also benefit the north-west. He is absolutely right that, with regard to skills, we need to encourage the creation of local partnerships between Government, industry and universities. I am pleased to note that Lancaster University has announced a £19 million investment in data and cyber-security research, teaching and innovation. I would, of course, be delighted to meet him.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Defence Committee recently had before us representatives from Boeing, which has been awarded some £6 billion-worth of contracts in recent years. A representative confirmed that Boeing directly employs only 1,600 people in the UK. Does the Minister not agree that that is a pretty poor return on the investment and that it certainly would not be the case in the United States?
Alex Chalk
I met Boeing recently, and we are always keen to see investment in the UK. We are absolutely delighted that, because of the pipeline of investment that the Government have commissioned—from ships to cyber to space—we are investing in jobs and capability, and we are ensuring that we take expertise from wherever it is in the world, securing jobs in this country.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We welcome the Government’s commitment to job creation; the problem is that they are creating jobs abroad, including in Spain. The Defence Secretary has just picked a Spanish firm to build the Royal Navy’s three new fleet support ships. At least 40% of that work will go abroad and the best that the Defence Secretary could tell the Scottish Affairs Committee the other day was that the contractor will
“fully assemble the final ship in a UK yard.”
As a result of the Defence Secretary’s decision, how many jobs will be created in Spain and not in the UK?
Alex Chalk
Respectfully, I completely reject the tenor of that question. We should be celebrating the fact that, as a result of the commitment that we are making to UK shipbuilding, there will be 2,000 jobs in the UK and there will be shipbuilding industries in Appledore and in Northern Ireland. That comes on top of the 1,700 jobs secured as a result of the Type 26, the 3,000 jobs as a result of cyber investment and further jobs in respect of the future combat air system. This Government are investing in defence, in shipbuilding, in land, in sea and in air. We will continue to do exactly that.
John Healey
Well, the Minister told me in answer to a parliamentary question that the
“number of jobs sustained in Spain…is a matter for the contractor”.
We could have had 100% of the jobs in Britain. This is a dodgy decision, whichever way we view it. On 21 November, I received confirmation in a written answer that the prime contractor for this £1.6 billion contract will be a company that was registered only in May, with no trading history, with capital of just £10,000 and with two directors, both living in Spain. What guarantees can the Minister give the British taxpayer and the Royal Navy that this contract will not betray British jobs and UK industry?
Alex Chalk
What I genuinely do not understand is why the Opposition are not welcoming a deal that is bringing more than £70 million into Belfast, securing jobs in the shipbuilding industry in this country and ensuring, by the way, that the base of industrial support goes beyond the traditional Scottish yards to include yards in Belfast and, indeed, in Appledore. That is good news. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about other countries playing a role, let us not forget that one of the great successful procurements is the F-35. That is an American plane—of course it is—but who produces 15% of the components? The United Kingdom does. That is exactly what happens in these sorts of contracts, and it gets value for money for taxpayers.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
All credit to Babcock—maybe the Minister will join me in congratulating it—for securing the Natural Environmental Research Council’s £45 million fleet renewal programme. Of course, Babcock and BAE should be gearing up to do 100% of the fleet solid support ships in a distributed model across the UK, but they are not, because this Tory Government have awarded a £1.6 billion contract for three ships to Navantia in Spain. When Sir John Parker, in his national shipbuilding strategy—[Interruption]—maybe the Secretary of State could pipe down a second. When Sir John Parker stressed that the Ministry of Defence should embrace smart procurement, invest in yards and apprenticeships, and commission ships with an eye to export, did the Government realise that he was talking about yards in the UK, not in Spain?
Alex Chalk
I listened very carefully to that question but, with respect, we will not take lectures from an SNP Government who put a ship in the water in 2017—a ferry that has now failed to be developed. We are proud that we have got behind the Type 26, which is benefiting the Scottish economy, and indeed the British economy, with an additional 2,000 jobs as a result of the five vessels that we have continued to commission. This Government are investing in broad-based maritime capacity in this country, now and in the future, and developing our capability here in Britain.
Dave Doogan
We hear all the time about the strength of the Union for orders into Scottish yards, but Scotland, still stuck in this necrotic Union, loses out no matter what happens, when this Secretary of State awards work to Cádiz that should have gone to the UK—it’s heads, the UK wins; tails, Scotland loses. I wish Appledore in Devon and Harland and Wolff in Belfast all the best, but without the requisite workforce or skills, they are simply the Union flag gift-wrapping that this Defence Secretary has given to the Spanish shipbuilding industry. I ask the Government and the increasingly ridiculously titled shipbuilding tsar: contrary to his own claims, when the bulk of this work is delivered in Spain, will this Secretary of State and his ministerial team resign?
Alex Chalk
It is very important that the House is not misled in any way. It is not the case that the bulk will be built in Spain. Quite the opposite: the majority will be built in the United Kingdom. All the assembly and all the integration will happen here in the United Kingdom. I hope the hon. Gentleman will celebrate the fact that the Type 26, built in Scotland, secures 1,700 jobs and includes the potential for exports. Govan, Rosyth, Scotstoun—all those yards are being nurtured and supported by the power and might of the UK Union. That means that Scotland’s place is better in the Union, and the British Union is advantaged as well.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
We are concerned by the growth of Daesh and the continued presence of al-Shabaab and Boko Haram across Africa. We are working closely with our partners across the continent, as well as with our international allies, to ensure that we counter the shared threats of violent extremism and terrorism. Obviously we are supportive of the missions led by the United Nations and the African Union, but we are also increasingly looking at how the UK can support regional solutions for regional problems, and how the UK works with friends such as Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria to support their leadership in the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin, the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia.
Sir James Duddridge
The Minister talks about recognised current terrorist organisations, but what assessment has he made of the Wagner Group in Africa, and would he recommend its proscription as a terrorist organisation?
James Heappey
Wagner’s presence in Africa is obviously deeply unhelpful, and it is cynical and opportunistic. It has no interest in the countries in which it operates; it is simply there to extract the maximum value for Russia, and potentially to cause as much chaos as it can for those of us who are trying to help on the continent. However, the Government do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is being considered for proscription.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
The defence and security industrial strategy is helping to retain onshore critical industries for our national security and our future. The Ministry of Defence supports the development of a more productive and competitive UK defence sector. With a significant footprint across the UK and the procurement pipeline, the MOD is well placed to contribute to economic growth and levelling up.
John Spellar
May I take the Minister back to the subject of the fleet solid support ships? I realise that he is new to the job, but he has been ducking and diving during earlier exchanges. The prime contractor, as Ministers have admitted, is Navantia. What guarantees have they obtained that the boats will be built in the United Kingdom—especially the first in class—and in respect of the numbers of apprenticeships that would ensure capacity for the future?
Alex Chalk
As is always the case, the precise details of the contract will be set out in due course, but these facts are absolutely clear: the award is of £1.6 billion to deliver three vessels, and this will be a British ship built to a British design in a British dockyard, mostly with British steel. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would support this development, because it strengthens British shipbuilding—and, by the way, it also means £70 million for a British dockyard, which he should certainly support.
Mr Sharma
I welcome recent developments in the Tempest programme. Having our own combat air industrial capabilities is incredibly important, and ensures that we are not dependent on the Americans, but what is the MOD doing to ensure that all the enablers for modern combat are built here and bring real industrial value to the UK?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important point. He is absolutely right; this provides a capability that will ensure that we stay one step ahead of our adversaries, and it will be a collaboration. If ever there was a symbol of global Britain, this is it: us working with the Japanese and the Italians to produce something that is cutting-edge. If I may say so, that is a message that I hope his colleagues will understand as well. It is by working with other countries to share and develop expertise that we can make all the free world that bit freer and safer.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I welcome Friday’s announcement about the UK, Italy and Japan working closely together on the next generation of combat aircraft. This, of course, sits alongside the partnership of the UK, the United States and Australia—AUKUS—and shows that such partnerships are important not only for our national security and the security of the Indo-Pacific, but for UK companies and UK jobs. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend makes the point brilliantly. This is about investing in capability to ensure that expertise remains in the UK, and that we learn and collaborate in developing the next generation of expertise, but there is also the potential to export. Previous examples of our successful collaboration include Typhoon, with more than 600 units sold overseas. If we get this right—and there is every reason to think we will—there will be such opportunities in the future as well.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, contrary to the Opposition’s claim, supporting UK companies in the defence sector not only makes good economic sense, but is critical to ensuring that the sector is aligned with the Department’s national security objectives?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So many of these collaborations lead to direct investment into British shipyards—for example, the over £70 million that we were just talking about. But what does this mean in pounds, shillings and pence? It means that those defence jobs are paid, on average, 15% higher than the average wage, and that is just one reason why we need to keep them in the UK.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Contrary to the drivel we have just been listening to, there are absolutely no guarantees about British jobs and British apprenticeships in British yards. At what point are Ministers going to stop talking about it and actually use procurement to deliver and secure the future of British yards?
Alex Chalk
With great respect, that is completely wrong and risks being misleading. What has been made crystal clear is that these ships will be built, integrated and assembled in the United Kingdom. Appledore will get work; Harland and Wolff will get work—there will be investment and jobs in those shipyards. That is good news and surely something we should be welcoming.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Ascent Flight Training at RAF Valley on Ynys Môn has been awarded a £175 million contract to expand pilot training, with four new Texan T6 aircraft, a new simulator, 11 additional flying instructors and nine new engineering roles. From 2024, RAF Valley will be responsible for training 53 student pilots, up from 36. Will the Minister pay tribute to Ascent Flight Training, to the whole force and to all those who support RAF Valley for playing their part in keeping us safe?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is such a champion of defence on Ynys Môn, and yes, I absolutely pay tribute to them. It is only through their fantastic work that we can come together as a nation, develop the capabilities that we need and keep us and the next generation safe.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The National Audit Office has found the defence equipment plan to be already outdated on its publication and based on optimistic assumptions. With inflation out of control and with foreign currency fluctuations, does the Minister expect defence companies to bear the brunt of this turmoil, and if so, will this ultimately lead to the loss of British jobs?
Alex Chalk
No, I do not. I am new to this Department, as the hon. Member indicates, but one of the things I am really pleased about is to see the ambition that exists within this Government to develop the capabilities we need. I was also pleased to see that, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances that we and the whole world are in because of inflation, this Government are committed to ensuring that those capabilities remain, that those critical developments—Type 26, Type 31, the future combat air system, Poseidon and so much other equipment —remain in the pipeline, and that we do what we properly should to lead the world in supporting our friends in Ukraine.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
This year has been extraordinarily busy, as the alliance has moved to respond to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. The Royal Navy has been deployed in the Black sea, the Baltic sea, the eastern Mediterranean and the north Atlantic; the Army has been deployed in Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania and Estonia; and the Royal Air Force has been deployed in Lithuania and Romania, as well as in patrols over the Black sea, the Baltic sea and the High North. We have also been engaging with the armed forces of both Finland and Sweden in anticipation of their accession to NATO.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I have had the privilege of travelling to Poland and Finland in recent months to see how we are working with those allies. The UK must support Ukraine for the long term, and it must move beyond ad hoc donations of weapons and lay out a long-term strategy for military, economic, humanitarian and diplomatic support throughout 2023 and beyond. In the summer, the Defence Secretary promised that the UK and its allies would begin to establish a plan of action to support Ukraine into 2023. Can the Minister tell us where that is? The Defence Secretary also endorsed updating the integrated review in response to Ukraine during the summer. Where is that plan?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman is right, to a point. There is a need to gift in kind or to find international donations that meet an immediate need because an opportunity has arisen in the conflict, but he is right to suggest that there is also a sort of “business as usual” drumbeat that we must, as an international group of supporters, seek to deliver on. The problem is—I apologise to the House that this is the case—that Putin would like to see that plan as much as he would, and for that reason I can assure him that there is a good supply of ammunition and matériel going into Ukraine over the course of the next 12 months, but from where, when and what, I will not be able to share.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The UK has led by example with its military assistance to Ukraine, but may I invite the UK to step forward again? Until now, the west has publicly stated that it is for Ukraine to determine on what terms Russia is defeated. It is their country and, of course, Ukraine’s objectives are fundamental, but this approach effectively outsources our Russia foreign policy and ignores the wider long-term threat Moscow now poses to all of Europe. Do we accept that this is no isolated invasion? Russia is returning to type by expanding its influence across Europe, by weaponising oil, gas and grain, and by increasingly drawing Iran and Belarus into the fight. This is a European war and it is in our economic and security interests to put out this fire. Our Russia foreign policy should reflect that.
James Heappey
I agree, but I do not think the response to Ukraine is the totality of the UK’s foreign policy on Russia. Russia is a challenge not only across the European continent but beyond. My right hon. Friend is right that Russia is using grain as a weapon and as leverage across the global south, so the UK must seek to address Russia’s malign activity globally while continuing to do everything we are doing to ensure that the war in Ukraine ends on terms acceptable to President Zelensky.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The Ministry of Defence has introduced a series of measures to support our people to cope with the cost of living, including: implementing the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s 2022 pay award recommendations in full; capping subsidised accommodation charges at 1%; freezing food charges; and increasing travel allowances by 7%. More than 32,000 service personnel have received a £150 contribution in lieu of the council tax rebate, families can save around £3,400 per child per year through our wraparound childcare, and our people in service family accommodation are receiving a £400 non-repayable discount to help with energy costs.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the Minister for his response, but nearly 3,000 personnel are already claiming universal credit, and food and heating costs are soaring for everyone. In addition to what he has already said, what discussions is he having with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that all personnel who are entitled to claim universal credit are doing so? What discussions is he having with the Treasury to ensure that personnel are further supported where required?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady will know that universal credit is an in-work benefit and is dependent on income, family size, type of accommodation and a raft of other issues. She will probably be interested to know about the further investment we are putting into family accommodation, which will help with many of the problems that have been reported to me in relation to heating and the cost of energy, especially through insulation. I suspect her constituents will probably be most appreciative of that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The cost of living crisis is no doubt affecting all those in the armed forces, and so, too, will the call on them to help out during all these strikes. Will the Government reward those who so generously give of their time? I know they are assigned to work over Christmas and new year, but are there any signs of some sort of reward or thank you to those who, yet again, have been called on to fill a hole?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the armed forces, and I think I can assure him that conversations on this subject are happening across Whitehall.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Army’s most senior soldier says personnel are turning to food banks and second jobs this Christmas, just to make ends meet. Six months ago, I raised the alarm that some troops are having to take second jobs at McDonald’s because of the cost of living crisis. I know the Minister says he is supporting our armed forces during the cost of living crisis, but why is the Ministry of Defence still not collecting data on the number of service personnel using food vouchers and food banks or taking second jobs?
Dr Murrison
I visited the food bank in my own constituency and discussed the reasons that people use them, which are often complicated. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have accepted the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s recommendation in full, in recognition of the work that men and women of our armed forces do. He will be aware of the very real big incentives to remain within the armed forces, including a generous non-contributory pension, subsidised accommodation and all the rest of it. He will also be aware of the Haythornthwaite review, which I hope will report soon on what more we can do to incentivise people not only to join but to stay.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
As of 30 November 2022, Veterans UK has paid a total of 5,323 disability cost of living payments of £150 to veterans who are in receipt of a qualifying Ministry of Defence disability benefit. Over the past six months, the Veterans Welfare Service has assisted a total of 6,363 veterans with claims. The Veterans UK helpline has answered a total of 29,922 calls. To be clear, veterans—as civilians—are entitled to the same cost of living support offered by national, local and devolved Governments wherever they reside, in common with the general public.
Dr Huq
The Royal British Legion has issued 20% more basic support grants in the last year. Help for Heroes reports that requests for help are up by 28%, confirmed by what Ealing Ex-Servicemen’s Club tells me, which also covers mental health issues. Why is the MOD not allocating specific funding for veterans’ cost of living and associated issues this year? When will it match Labour’s promise to increase veterans’ mental health support by £55 million, to protect those who protected us?
Dr Murrison
I am pleased that the hon. Lady raises mental health, which is a passion of mine, particularly in relation to the armed forces. I hope she will welcome the ongoing work of Op Courage to help our veterans who run into difficulties. It is only reasonable to point out that most of our service community are very well both in mind and in body. However, Op Courage was designed to look after those who are not. I hope she will welcome the extra £2.7 million to expand Op Courage services to better help those to whom we owe so much.
Christian Wakeford
Some 90% of veterans who try to claim the personal independence payment for post-traumatic stress disorder are rejected, according to armed forces charities. It can make up to 50% of their income, and the rejections have left veterans attempting suicide, facing homelessness or becoming reliant on food banks. Why is it always veterans who are left until last and have to rely on charity for assistance?
Dr Murrison
I hope the hon. Gentleman was listening to and approved of my earlier answers on the support that Government are giving to our armed forces community. I hope he will take note, because it is important to understand the facts around suicide and mental health in the armed forces community. If he is not familiar with the recent Manchester University study on suicide, he may be interested to read it. I will be more than happy to send him a copy or arrange a briefing.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Veterans charities are reporting huge increases in demand for basic support grants. Indeed, a recent survey by Help for Heroes found that 82% of respondents were worried about the cost of living, with one in eight having to use a food bank in the past 12 months. The Royal British Legion reports that 14% of veterans aged 65 or over have turned off their heating to save money even when it is too cold. Can the Minister assure me that he is providing support to those services delivered by veterans charities to ensure that veterans and their families across the country can access cost of living support?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady takes a very close interest in these matters, for which I am grateful. Of course the MOD works closely with service charities, with whom we have an almost constant dialogue in terms of their caseload to ensure that we do the best we can for our veterans. It is worth bearing in mind that veterans are civilians and are entitled to the same Government initiatives to ease their position in the current crisis as any other member of general public, as I said in my earlier remarks.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Veterans and their families have made immense sacrifices for our country’s safety, but, in the run-up to Christmas, we have veterans hit by increased mortgage costs and rising bills, tens of thousands of veterans claiming universal credit and many reliant on charitable grants just to get by. It is not good enough. How can the Minister expect us to believe that his Government will make the UK the best place in the world in which to be a veteran when they are leaving many veterans and their families to struggle this Christmas?
Dr Murrison
I detect a theme in the line of questioning. I have to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the remarks that I made earlier and to the package of assistance that the Government have provided for all citizens. The focus of defence, of course, in accordance with the military covenant, must be to ease the condition of people who have suffered specifically as a result of their service in the armed forces, which, although most members of our armed forces community are robust mentally and physically, means that particular attention must be paid to those who may have been damaged in some way physically or mentally by virtue of their service. That is what we are resolved to do, and hence, in particular, our support for Op Courage.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The UK is the second largest donor in military aid to Ukraine. We have gifted almost 200 armoured vehicles and more than 10,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. We have also delivered a number of multiple launch rocket systems to counter Putin’s brutal use of long-range artillery, but, for reasons of operational security, I am unable to give a precise quantity.
Mr Hollobone
His Majesty’s Government have led Europe in arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the equipment and personnel losses incurred by the Russian armed forces as a result of the deployment of British weaponry in theatre?
Mr Wallace
Although we do not specifically collect data on UK use of weapons, we can say that we estimate that more than 100,000 Russians are either dead, injured or have deserted. Russia has also lost 4,500 armoured vehicles, 63 fixed-wing aircraft, 70 helicopters, 150 unmanned aerial vehicles, 12 naval vessels and more than 600 artillery systems, and failed to capture a single one of its major objectives from day one. President Putin’s three-day war, or special operation, turns out to have been a disaster for him and his army.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Ukrainians have been buying Mitsubishi L200 pick-up trucks from west country farmers to adapt them for use as impromptu fighting vehicles. As the first Boxer armoured vehicles arrive with the British Army in the coming months, what consideration are the Government giving to passing some of the retiring Warrior infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
First and foremost, the type of weaponry and vehicles that the Ukrainians are buying off the shelf like that is not necessarily because of a lack of need elsewhere, but because of the speed and innovation that they require. When we transfer something like a Warrior armoured personnel carrier, it is tracked, it is—if my memory serves me right—28 tonnes, and it comes with a huge long logistical supply chain. We are very interested in making sure that we keep them supplied with equipment that they can use almost immediately rather than having to deal with the huge logistical tail that will come with it. We focus on giving them what we can. We have obviously supported the renovation of armoured vehicles and we will continue to do so.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
The House will know that supplies of British, American and other western equipment have been vital in helping our Ukrainian friends to protect themselves against the continuing and merciless Russian attacks, and I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for all that they have done and continue to do. Does he agree that we and our allies must help our Ukrainian friends not just to take out the drones and missiles, which means supplying them with anti-aircraft systems and fixed-wing aircraft to help shoot them down, but to take out the launch sites of those missiles and drones by supplying the Ukrainians with the use of longer-range missile systems, such as army tactical missile systems? That is the way, truly, to protect our Ukrainian friends and to bring the war to an end as soon as possible.
Mr Wallace
Without my right hon. Friend’s support of me and Ukraine, none of this would have been possible. I place on record my great appreciation of his support through that process. He is right that the Russians are taking advantage of the short-range capability of the Ukrainian armed forces by using Iranian kamikaze drones and, against all the rules of law, including the Geneva conventions, by the mass targeting of critical civilian infrastructure. That is not only a war crime, but a war crime that we must see does not go unpunished. I constantly review the weapons systems we could provide; I hear his call for ATACMS from the United States, but we too have in our armoury potential weapon systems that are longer range and, should the Russians continue to target civilian areas and break those Geneva conventions, I will be open-minded about what we do next.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
At a recent event in Monkstown Boxing Club in my constituency, which was arranged to show support for Ukrainians located in the greater Belfast area, there was huge support and thanks for the work our Government have done to help Ukrainians to defend themselves against Russians. The question is this: we are supplying equipment, but there is talk now that we are only supplying very limited ammunition for that equipment. Is the Secretary of State convinced, first, that we are supplying what is needed and, secondly, that we have the capacity to supply what is needed in the future?
Mr Wallace
We are providing ammunition, although some of it is in the form not necessarily of mass shells, but of more sophisticated weapons systems such as Brimstone missiles or Saab Thales next generation light anti-tank weapons, made in Belfast. We continue to supply those and indeed resupply ourselves. For the areas where we do not have something, we have set up an international fund with the Danish, which has so far raised €600 million, and we will be announcing the first block of purchases from the international community or from production lines to make sure we help Ukraine to get through 2023.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
This is an important question and I thank my hon. Friend for it. Defence continues to improve the experiences of Defence women by introducing flexible service, working to improve health, instigating zero-tolerance policies on unacceptable sexual behaviours, launching the Defence Serious Crime Unit on 5 December and creating an independent bullying and harassment helpline. Defence Ministers and officials meet the servicewomen’s networks regularly. We have made progress, but we know that we must do more and continue to press ahead to make the armed forces the best place to work for women.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Next year, Falmouth in my constituency will host national Armed Forces Day. Following the success of last year’s G7, we hope that it will be yet another momentous occasion for Cornwall and that one of its lasting legacies will be that women and girls across Cornwall will be inspired to join the armed forces. I thank the Minister for his answer, but can he tell me to what extent the focus on inclusivity is resulting in better retention of women in the armed forces?
Dr Murrison
I agree with my hon. Friend and look forward to Armed Forces Day in Falmouth. Women are, of course, an integral part of our armed forces and Defence remains committed to improving their lived experience. In a competitive age, our advantage derives from the talent and skills of our people. We really must attract, recruit and retain people from the broadest base possible. Not only is that the right thing to do, but it is mission-critical to our operational effectiveness. We are committed to making the changes required to create a more inclusive environment for all women to pursue long and successful careers—including my two serving daughters.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The UK works bilaterally and multilaterally through NATO and other groupings, including the Joint Expeditionary Force, the Northern Group and the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force with France to advance interoperability and develop a common understanding of the threats we face. I recently met the new Italian Defence Minister to discuss Tempest and the security of the Mediterranean, and later today I will host the Hungarian Defence Minister as we seek to progress Sweden and Finland’s accession to NATO.
Marco Longhi
Does the Secretary of State agree that the joint venture between the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan in the Tempest programme for the new fighter jet is a great example of Brexit Britain? Will he also support ensuring that the supply chain that it will ultimately use is country-wide, including my Dudley constituency?
Mr Wallace
Funnily enough, international consortiums and working together with other countries unlock not only expert markets such as for the Type-26, but investment in defence jobs here in the UK, which somehow the Labour party never seems to work out in its simpleton level of economic understanding. Perhaps the penny will one day drop for the Labour party that if we invest in defence here and work with international partners, we will get tens of thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of pounds out of customers around the world—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sit down, Secretary of State! Can I just say to everybody that there are preliminaries then questions, and we are going on very long? I want to get as many Members in as possible, and we have only got to question 11.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Vladimir Putin clearly plans to starve and freeze Ukraine this winter as he replenishes his own armaments ahead of a spring offensive. What is the Secretary of State doing to increase the number of armaments—not just from the UK but from across Europe—so that Ukraine can gain ground now, not later, and why does he not get on with it?
Mr Wallace
We are incredibly alert to that real challenge, which is why in August we set up that fund, which has now accrued €600 million, including donations from Norway and the Netherlands, to purchase from ongoing production lines even Soviet-era-type calibres. It is also why we constantly help with the training of our Ukrainian friends up and down the UK, to make sure that they are using our weapons systems in the best way possible, and to make sure that we have the impact they need on the ground. We will continue to work alongside our international partners to deliver that throughout next year.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Alex Chalk
A regional economic impact assessment was undertaken during downselection but did not form part of the decision-making criteria. The consolidation into the Blackpool site meets key user requirements, is an opportunity to bring 700 posts to Blackpool from our other north-west sites, and contributes to the redevelopment at Talbot Gateway through the building of the new Government hub.
Ian Byrne
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I have had many constituents contact me about the planned closure of the Ministry of Defence Business Services office in Liverpool. The movement of jobs will affect them and their families. The new commute of more than two hours—especially with the train service at the moment—will be completely unworkable for many staff, particularly those with caring responsibilities or disabilities. Will the Minister meet me as soon as possible to discuss this situation so that I can share the deep concerns of my constituents with him?
Alex Chalk
Yes, of course, I will meet the hon. Gentleman. But there have actually been some good and constructive conversations with the unions, I am pleased to say, about trying to assist individuals who may want to go—we will try to assist and provide expenses. For those who do not, there is lots of work going on to ensure alternatives should they want to take them. But let us discuss it further—I would be very happy to do so.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
May I place on the record my thanks to the outgoing SNP Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), for his service and constructive work in this House, and I welcome the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) to his new post on the Front Bench.
As we approach the festive season, can I also put on the record my personal thanks to the personnel deployed on various operations and peacekeeping missions around the world, many of whom will be separated from loved ones over the Christmas period? On Christmas Day this year, approximately 6,300 sailors, marines, soldiers and aviators will be deployed around the world, serving on 33 operations in 28 countries. On behalf of the House, I would like to thank them for their sacrifices and wish them and their families, wherever they may be, a very happy and safe Christmas and new year.
James Sunderland
In recent weeks, I have had several conversations with senior military officers who, like me, are becoming increasingly concerned by what they regard as unnecessary distraction within the armed forces. Could the Minister please tell me what is more important: unlawful recruitment policy, identity politics and pronouns, or operation capability?
Mr Wallace
I hear my hon. Friend. Our advantage derives from our people. We must attract, recruit and retain the best people, drawn from the broadest diversity of thought, skills and backgrounds to ensure that we meet the threats we face. That is how we make them the most operationally capable armed forces of today, in the 21st century. We must therefore recognise that diversity and inclusion is not just morally right, but vital to that capability. We can debate how we do that, but it is still vital.
Mr Speaker
Order. Work with me, Secretary of State; I want to work with you. You have given very long answers during questions, and we are now into topicals. We have to be short and sweet. Lots of Members on both sides wanted to get in earlier but failed to because of the long answer. Please, let us work together. I call John Healey—briefly, please.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
At today’s Cobra meeting, will the Defence Secretary tell Ministers in other Departments that too often they use our armed forces to bail out their Departments’ failings, especially when he is making further deep cuts to the Army? In addition to those deployed on overseas operations, whom he has mentioned, how many of our forces will be deployed or on standby over Christmas in response to requests for military assistance to which he has already agreed?
Mr Wallace
I will do the right hon. Gentleman a deal: I will raise that at Cobra if he tells his union paymasters not to go on strike over Christmas and not to ruin the lives of our soldiers and sailors.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion of steel. I agree with her. The support ship competition winner has indicated that it intends to use UK-sourced steel whenever practical and, in any event, for the majority of the build.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
First, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s figures. Secondly, between now and next year’s Budget, I have been given enough to insulate us from the effects of inflation, and we can continue within our current comprehensive spending review envelope. We can discuss the next one when it comes up.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Absolutely. Our cadet forces do a wonderful job and I congratulate PO Mack.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Mr Wallace
We are grateful to Sweden. Swedish personnel are here in the UK training Ukrainian ground forces with us in the north of England. Sweden is one of the contributing countries. Whether Sweden wishes to donate aeroplanes is genuinely a matter for the Swedish armed forces, but I understand the need that my right hon. Friend is trying to tap into. We are doing everything we can to solve that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Wallace
Ukraine has shown itself to be a master of innovation and has already developed several long-range drones that are having an effect. The real question here is scale and numbers, compared with the numbers that Russia is buying from Iran. We need to ensure that that is overmatched.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Defence accommodation maintenance contracts that work on a fix-it-when-it-breaks basis ignore preventive maintenance, create perverse incentives—the longer a repair is left, the greater the damage and the bigger the cost—and too often remove the ability of accommodation users to look after their homes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time we looked at those contracts again?
Dr Murrison
I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says and he can be sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and I are looking closely at the FDIS—future defence infrastructure services—contract right now.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
I hope that the hon. Lady will be aware of the career transition pathway, an innovation that eases people’s passage from the armed forces into the veteran community. Let us be clear: most members of our armed forces transition perfectly well. Some need help, and the career transition pathway is designed to provide that.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I compliment you on your military grade haircut, and also refer Members to my entry in the register of interests? Just cheering you up, Mr Speaker; it is Christmas.
Lincoln is a city—including Lincoln College and its RAF linked academy—with a concentration of innovative defence technology firms. That is due in no small part to RAF Waddington being located in my constituency and the historical links with the military, particularly the RAF, across the county. What steps has the MOD taken, or will it take soon, to allow those industries, in some cases small businesses, to survive, grow and thrive in this competitive arena?
Mr Speaker
We do not want a military-grade long answer—and I am not sure about the hair.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Innovation is essential and we are supporting it through initiatives such as the defence and security accelerator and the defence technology exploitation programme. We have all the plans we need to give us a competitive edge and ensure we stay one step ahead of our opponents.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
According to the Department’s own figures 45% of military personnel in single accommodation in Cheshire are living in substandard accommodation, and that is 4,000 families nationally. That is appalling; are these really homes fit for heroes and what is the Minister going to do about it?
Dr Murrison
I do not recognise those figures but I do recognise the fact that 90% of people living in service family accommodation live in homes that are at or above the Government’s decent homes standards. The MOD aspires to decent homes plus and, this year alone, is investing £176 million in upgrading service family accommodation.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
My constituency has welcomed Ukrainian families with open arms. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the effectiveness of Ukrainian defence against the evil Russian forces invading the country?
Mr Wallace
I read out earlier the losses inflicted on the Russian army by a much smaller army that is defending against an aggression that does not have any basis in international law or respect for human rights, and that is an extraordinary feat by those brave men and women. We will continue to support all the way through the next year, as will the international community, It is vital that Putin fails in Ukraine.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Christmas leave is precious, so can the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers confirm that any serving personnel losing their leave over the Christmas period in order to support MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—commitments will be properly compensated?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman will know about this because, I am afraid that, under Governments of both parties, we have been involved as former soldiers in meeting the consequences of strikes, whether the tanker strikes, fire strikes or ambulance strikes, which are potentially approaching. Yes, soldiers and sailors would prefer to be doing their day job of defending their country, but sometimes they are called upon when the unions put at risk the safety of parts of this country and do so over a festive period. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can have a word with his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and ask them to get his unions to desist.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it not impossible for us to supply ever increasing amounts of munitions to Ukraine and also to replenish our own munitions stocks without a significant increase in our current peacetime defence budget?
Alex Chalk
I was pleased to note an additional £560 million provided from the recent settlement to replenish precisely those stocks. Also, the production lines to re-procure some of the very weapons that are going to go back on to British shelves are already running, and we will continue on that path.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
I welcome the recent changes to the service complaints system, including separating alleged victims from perpetrators during criminal investigations, but can the Minister explain how he plans to implement the latter in restrictive services such as the submarine service?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has done so much to advance the cause of women in the armed forces. She will be aware of the two current inquiries into behaviour on submarines and I am not going to prejudice their outcomes. I expect them to make their recommendations and will report on them to the House as soon as I can.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of a resolution recently passed by the Russian Duma that no vessel whether merchant or Royal Navy should pass through the waters to the north of Russia without both permission from the Russians and Russian personnel on board. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reassure me that if a Royal Navy vessel of any kind wants to transit through the northern sea route, either above the water or beneath it, we will do so without let or hindrance from the Russian Federation?
Mr Wallace
One of the international treaties with the most signatures on it is on freedom of navigation across all seas. The United Kingdom stands strongly behind that and will uphold it wherever we can, hence our transit of HMS Defender in the Black sea. We will do that wherever we are able to do so in accordance with international law, and we will not be intimidated by Russia or any other nation.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is clear to me that the armed forces will achieve their full potential only if they are as attractive as possible to neurodiverse thinkers, particularly in cyber. The need for unconventional thinkers has perhaps never been greater than it is now, but there can be challenges for them in meeting the core competencies of “soldier first” as well as in physical tasks, as I recently found out when it took me 25 minutes to put on a belt at Sandhurst as a neurodiverse individual. Will the Secretary of State outline what is being done to better attract the talents of neurodiverse individuals into the armed forces?
Mr Wallace
The services are leading in trying to look at exactly that unconventional route in. If we are to attract people to the National Cyber Force and to cyber, we are going to have to think in different terms from 20 or 30 years ago. That is incredibly important. We need to be flexible, we need to be innovative and we need to be modern.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned a Ukrainian innovation in the use of drones. Are Ministers confident that in this country we have the right resources and regulatory framework in place to ensure that our forces can also benefit?
Mr Wallace
No, I am not. We need to look at some of those regulations, because one of the things that holds us back too much in innovation, development and deployment is our own regulation. Too much of that holds us back. The Ukrainians obviously do not have that consideration, and they are making amazing steps forward.
NHS Industrial Action: Government Preparations
(1 year, 11 months 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
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on Government preparations for industrial action in the NHS.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Will Quince)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question, which I am taking on behalf of the Department as the Secretary of State is attending a Cobra meeting on contingency planning for industrial action in the NHS. He also came before the House on the subject twice last week: at departmental questions and for the Opposition day debate.
We are all hugely grateful for the hard work and dedication of NHS staff, so we deeply regret that some union members have voted for industrial action. Our priority must be to keep patients safe. That begins with keeping the door open. The Secretary of State wrote to the Royal College of Nursing on Saturday asking for further discussions as a matter of urgency. At the same time, we are working with the NHS to minimise the disruption to patients if the strikes do go ahead. We are engaged with providers, professional bodies and trade unions to agree safe levels of cover should any action take place.
In addition, this afternoon, Ministers—including the Secretary of State—are attending a Cobra meeting focused on our contingency plans. Our plans draw on extra support from a range of places, including service personnel and the private sector. While we aim to minimise disruption, with the NHS already under significant pressure from the covid pandemic and winter pressures, we remain deeply concerned about the risk that strikes pose to patients.
I want to be clear that, even at this moment of uncertainty, people must keep coming forward to get the care that they need. People should continue to use NHS 111 if they need medical help and dial 999 in the event of an emergency. For more routine treatment, hospitals will do everything they can to ensure that planned procedures go ahead, but it is inevitable that any strike would mean some patients would have their treatment delayed. People will be contacted if their appointments need to be changed.
It is our hope that patients can be spared from unnecessary and unjustified strikes. Industrial action is in no one’s best interests, especially in this difficult winter. We have had constructive meetings with the leadership of several unions, including the RCN, Unison, Unite and the GMB, and we look forward to further discussions to find a way forward together that is in the best interests of the patients we all serve.
Wes Streeting
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The power to stop these strikes likes squarely with the Government and the Secretary of State. The Royal College of Nursing and Unison have said that they will call off strikes this week if the Government are willing to negotiate with them seriously on pay. That reasonable offer of compromise is surely too good to refuse, so what on earth are the Government playing at? After 12 years of Conservative government, patients can no longer get seen on time and staff have been pushed to breaking point—and the Government cannot even be bothered to try to negotiate to prevent strikes from going ahead, at the worst possible time for patients and the NHS. The Government should ask themselves why, under a Conservative Government, nurses feel they have to take industrial action for the first time in more than 100 years and why ambulance workers are set to follow them for the first time since 1989.
It should be obvious by now what the Conservative agenda is. The Government know that patients are going to suffer this winter and they have no plan to fix the problems of their own making, so instead of taking responsibility for their failure they want to use nurses and paramedics as scapegoats to avoid the blame. It is a disgusting plan, it is a dangerous plan, and it is a plan that will not work. The public know that the power to stop these strikes is in the Government’s hands. If they fail to act now, patients will never forgive them.
How many operations have already been cancelled? How does the Minister expect those on the waiting list to feel if their operations are cancelled because of the Government’s gross negligence? Can he tell patients which services will be impacted if these strikes go ahead? Is the Secretary of State not embarrassed at Cobra today, asking the Army to come in to clean up the Government’s mess?
Even at this last minute, it is not too late to prevent strikes from going ahead. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the meeting with the RCN later today will involve discussions on pay. And if not, why not? Because that is all it takes: just a few minutes or a few hours of talk can avoid strike action. Why will they not do it?
Will Quince
The fact is that Labour is all over the place when it comes to strikes. They criticise Ministers while admitting that the unions’ pay demands are unaffordable. The hon. Gentleman and his party leader are too tied to their union paymasters to be on the side of patients. He knows that we have an independent pay review body, and is important that both sides respect that independent body. We accepted the independent body’s recommendations for this year’s increase in full, meaning that over 1 million NHS staff have been given at least a £1,400 increase in their pay. That is on top of a 3% pay rise last year at a time when pay was frozen across the wider public sector. The RCN, one of the unions taking action, is asking for an increase that is 5% above the retail prices index. Based on latest figures, that is an increase of 19.2%, or the equivalent of 6.5% of the NHS budget. To meet such demands, we would have to take money away from clearing the elective backlog that the hon. Gentleman referred to, something no responsible Government would wish to do.
Throughout this period, we have always sought to have a balanced process. Those in the private sector will not be getting a 19% uplift, and there is a clear need to be fair to the wider economy. We have to avoid inflationary pressures that would make us all poorer in the end.
We will continue to listen to colleagues’ concerns, not just about pay but many other issues affecting the working lives of those in the NHS. We will work with them to make improvements in a range of areas, from working conditions to patient safety, because we believe there is so much that we can agree on. Strike action is in no one’s best interest. We will keep working so that the NHS continues to be there for those who need it most.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I send our heartfelt sympathies to the parents of the little boys who have lost their lives in the west midlands overnight and say thank you to the emergency service workers, many of whom will have been from the NHS? I am sure they have done their best for those they pulled out and those they were unable to save.
The Minister is right that we have an independent pay review process, but it seems that we are coming to an interesting junction point: either we believe in an independent pay review process, or we do not. We cannot be in a situation where everything is agreed until it is simply not, and then Ministers are negotiating pay. That is not what Ministers do.
I am glad the Minister mentioned patients them at the end of his remarks. We must keep them as our focus. I have more information about my train services over the next few weeks than I do about health services. Is the Minister satisfied that patients have enough information about what is being affected and when, and how much it will impact on the backlog? I suspect none of this will help the workload pressures that are impacting our NHS.
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I echo his comments on the tragic events in Solihull, the boys who lost their lives and the heroic actions of those in the emergency services.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that we have an independent pay review body, and we either agree and accept that that is the process, or we do not.
On advice to the public, my hon. Friend is right that we have more to do in this space. Derogations are still being worked through with both individual unions and trusts. Patients should continue to call 999 as normal if it is an emergency and someone is seriously ill or injured. If they do not have life-threatening conditions, they should use NHS 111. Ambulances will still be responding to 999 calls. If patients have appointments, they should please turn up unless advised not to do so. He is right to make the point about communications, and I will be ramping this up when we know more about derogations.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Scotland’s First Minister has managed in one day to do what the Tory Government could not—agree with the nursing unions to call off strikes planned for this month. NHS workers are the backbone of these countries. If they do not work, the country does not work, and if the country is not working, it is broken. Britain is broken, is it not? And Brexit has broken Britain, has it not? The Tories will not negotiate and the Labour Opposition spokesperson has branded the British Medical Association as “hostile”, while in Scotland the strikes are off, and they are off permanently. An offer of 7.5% has been negotiated and agreed, with an 11.24% pay rise for the lowest paid across the board in NHS Scotland. Why are the UK Government refusing to give public servants a decent pay increase when they have all the financial power to do so?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. My understanding is that the industrial action in Scotland has been suspended, not cancelled, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The Scottish Government have made a considerably higher offer, partly because a politician has got involved in pay negotiations, directly in contrast to the independent pay review body, and it will be interesting to see whether the First Minister of Scotland is going to do this every single year and go against the recommendations of their pay review body.
Would the hon. Gentleman like to confirm—I appreciate he cannot do it now—whether the Scottish Government have also looked at things such as leave and working times? I think it is important to stress that every 1% increase for the “Agenda for Change” workforce equates to about £750 million. That is £750 million that will come out of the NHS budget and that we will not be able to spend on things such as tackling the elective backlog, which is so important to people up and down the country.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Our military actually enjoy stepping in when a Government Department occasionally cannot manage, such as with flooding and so forth, or on rare occasions when a strike takes place. However, what we are seeing this month is unprecedented, with so many sectors choosing to strike exactly at the same time, and this places a huge burden on our armed forces. Could I ask the Minister, first, whether all the units that may be required to mobilise have been informed already, and whether, if we are going to see strikes at this level, it is now time for Departments to introduce minimum service levels to make sure that our armed forces are not overwhelmed?
Will Quince
Representing the garrison city of Colchester, I have nothing but the utmost respect for our armed forces. It has not escaped my notice that many of them are on lower pay than NHS staff and will be giving up their time over Christmas to cover strike action. My right hon. Friend is right that to mitigate the impact of planned industrial action in the ambulance sector, NHS England has explored a range of measures, which include engaging with the Ministry of Defence on military support. As a contingency, a MACA request—a request for military aid to civil authorities—for a limited number of personnel has been submitted to the MOD. It was submitted at the end of last week, and the plan is that MOD personnel will be trained to drive ambulances, but only deployed where they are needed across the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government need to stop hiding behind the pay review body. The pay review body sorts out the distribution of the funding, while it is the Government who determine the size of the envelope, and it is the envelope that is in dispute. Why will the Minister not get a Treasury Minister alongside him and make sure they negotiate on the size of the envelope? If they can afford the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), they can afford a nurse.
Will Quince
The average pay settlements in the private sector range between 4% and 6%, and we want to have a fair deal for both NHS staff and the taxpayer. The hon. Lady makes reference to the pay review bodies, but it is important to stress that they are made up of independent experts. They recommended the uplifts for NHS staff, and in formulating their recommendations, the review bodies carefully considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including NHS system partners and trade unions. The independent pay review body is a respected mechanism, and we should accept its recommendations, which we have.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
May I commend my hon. Friend on his response to the urgent question, and say how much I agree with him? Can he set out his thoughts on how things would be likely to proceed in the NHS if we ended up in the scenario which the shadow Secretary of State appears to want, in which Ministers negotiate directly with unions on pay every winter? Does he think that that would lead to upward pressure on pay at the expense, crucially, of the public, whom we serve and who need those operations and the elective care for which we have budgeted, and that that should not be eroded by unrealistic pay demands of 19%?
Will Quince
My right hon. Friend is right. We have an independent pay review body mechanism for a reason, and it has worked for a number of years. That is why I made reference to the First Minister in Scotland. Is this a procedure we are going to go through every single year when a pay review body recommendation is made and unions do not like it, and politicians have to get involved? The point of the independent pay review body is that it depoliticises the issue, and Ministers do not negotiate directly with unions. The independent pay review body looks at the issue in the round, along with the wider economy and a number of other factors, then forms a recommendation which the Government can choose to accept or refuse. It is important to stress that in this case the Government accepted the recommendations in full.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I was a nurse for 25 years. Nurses work long hours, day in, day out, to support people all over the country, often on very low pay. I know from experience how tough it can be, and it is shameful that many hospitals have opened food banks specially to feed their staff. Let us be absolutely clear: the power to stop these strikes, which nurses themselves do not really want, lies squarely with the Government. How can Ministers justify refusing to talk to the unions?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her service as a nurse. We value hugely and appreciate all our NHS staff. We have given them a pay rise this year, on top of 3% last year, when pay was frozen in the wider public sector. As I have said a handful of times, we accepted in full the recommendations from the independent pay review body. Of course, I do not want to see anybody needing to use a food bank, let alone a member of our NHS. That is exactly why the Government have a broader package of support in place.
I have to take issue with one of the hon. Lady’s comments. She asked who held the power to call off these strikes. There is only one answer: the unions.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I have been out on shift with my local ambulance service, and have seen how hard it works and how important that work is. We are really grateful for what it does, and my constituents are worried. If the ambulance strikes go ahead, will the Minister explain which categories of call we will ensure are responded to?
Will Quince
We are currently having those derogation discussions with the unions, and they will also happen at an individual trust level. As my hon. Friend will know, having been out with her trust, 999 calls are triaged and categorised from category 1 to category 4, and on days of ambulance strike action it is likely that category 1 and category 2 calls, where there is an immediate threat to life, will be responded to. We are looking at ways in which we can provide additional support for category 3 and category 4, including things such as block-booking taxis and support through community healthcare, local authority fall services and community support.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
What we have got is a Government who refuse to govern. Retention and sickness rates were reported to the Health and Social Care Committee in June 2019 as higher than average by Health Education England, and if retention rates were kept at 2012 levels we would have 16,000 more nurses in the system. The Minister has talked about safe levels of cover during the strike, but the unions have told us that when they look at staffing levels, in some places, they are currently below what is safe. The issue for us as Members of Parliament and for our constituents is that none of us knows whether our local systems are safe or not. Can he tell us which hospitals across the country are currently operating at safe staffing levels, and which are below those levels, before the strike even starts?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady talks about NHS staffing levels; we have 1.2 million staff within our NHS, and compared with last year, we have 3,700 more doctors and 9,100 more nurses, and compared with 2019, we have 29,000 more nurses and 2,200 more GPs, but we do have high vacancies. That is why it will not have escaped her notice that we have commissioned NHS England to publish a long-term workforce plan, and that will be independently verified as set out by the Chancellor in the autumn statement.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Inflation is the real enemy here, because it makes us all poorer. We have a political and economic choice: we either tackle it, or we give in to an inflation pay spiral. The Minister was right to mention that the Royal College of Nursing pay demands are in excess of three times greater than the average private sector payment at the moment. Does my hon. Friend agree that public sector pay demands of almost 20% would embed inflation for years to come and make us all poorer?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: granting double-digit pay rises would sustain higher levels of inflation and have a bigger impact on people’s income in the long term, as well as eroding the value of savings, which is important to many of our constituents.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
These strikes are not just about pay levels; they are also about patient safety. NHS workers care deeply about their patients, and I stand in solidarity with them. Members of the Royal College of Nursing have told me how stressed and burned out they are because they do not have enough colleagues to work alongside them. That is dangerous and extremely unfair on both patients and staff, and it is the result of the failure of consecutive Conservative Governments to provide enough resources and training places and to carry out the necessary workforce planning. The Minister mentions the independent pay review body, but he knows full well that there is a role for Government in ending this dispute. Will his Government get around the table with the unions and avert the strike action?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is right that this issue is about more than just pay. That is what the unions are telling us. It is about things such as staffing levels and working conditions. If that is indeed the case, let me repeat: my door is always open, and I would be happy, as would the Secretary of State, to discuss those issues with the unions at any point they would like.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Would there not be more money available for relatively poorly paid frontline NHS staff if there were fewer layers of management bureaucracy paid at substantially higher rates within the NHS?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. I am sometimes staggered by the number of people on six-figure salaries within our NHS, but in an organisation of its size, management is also important. It is about getting the balance right, but we always continue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) chunters from a sedentary position. The balance may not be right, and we always continue to look at the ratio of management to frontline staff to make sure we are getting that right.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Government will blame anybody and everybody for these avoidable strikes, but he knows full well that the RCN is not even affiliated to the TUC, let alone the Labour party. If these strikes go ahead, the Secretary of State is to blame, because he has the power to sort out this mess. Why does he not just get on with it?
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman puts it in his usual blunt way. The pay review body process is the established mechanism for determining pay uplifts in the public sector, outside of negotiating multi-year pay and contract reform deals. Despite what he says, industrial action is a matter for the unions, and we urge them to carefully consider the potential impacts of industrial action. The Secretary of State and I have been clear that our door is open. We have already met with the unions, and we would be happy to do so again.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then. In 2014, the shadow Health Secretary said that he would support strikes within the NHS, even if there was a Labour Government in power, but he is remarkably quiet today about whether he actually supports the strikes—unlike the RMT strikes, which I am sure that he supports. Does the Minister think that the shadow Health Secretary and Opposition Front Benchers are playing politics with this issue?
Will Quince
I am not one to cast aspersions on the shadow Secretary of State, other than to say that I and the Secretary of State refuse to play politics with this issue. This is all about patient safety and ensuring that if industrial action goes ahead—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State again shouts “Negotiate” from a sedentary position, but he knows that we have an independent pay review body, process and mechanism. It is important that we respect that.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
We simply cannot afford to lose any more nurses and valued NHS staff. We already have huge workforce shortages—40,000 nurses resigned last year and there are more than 130,000 vacancies across the NHS—so cancelling Christmas for members of the armed forces will not fix these problems. Will the Minister explain how paying nurses insufficiently and drafting in military personnel over Christmas serves to attract new recruits to the NHS and the armed forces?
Will Quince
That is a bizarre question, because the only reason we have to put in a MACA—military aid to civil authorities—request is that the unions have called strike action over Christmas. As the hon. Member asks about recruitment and retention, let me cover off that issue. As I have set out, we are committed to publishing a comprehensive workforce strategy, which will be independently verified; we have set out new pension flexibilities; we have already recruited about 29,000 more nurses and are on track to meet our 50,000 target; and we plan to boost international recruitment. However, I hope that the hon. Member agrees—in the interests not only of our armed forces, many of whom will have to cancel their Christmas leave, but of patient safety—that we do not want industrial action to take place. I urge the unions to meet us to discuss a way forward.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I find it regrettable, as I think most people do, that Opposition Members continue to use the NHS as a political football. This is about the care of patients, and if Opposition Members do not think that Government Members care about patients, they are living in another world. My hon. Friend is doing a great job. We all accept—even the shadow Secretary of State does—that the NHS needs a radical reform. Surely it is time for an independent body to look at that argument and make the NHS run far more efficiently.
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are constantly looking at how we can improve productivity and increase efficiency in the NHS. We have an acute issue not just with winter, but with proposed strike action. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that the NHS needs reform, and we are undertaking that. Will further reform need to be undertaken? Yes, and if my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has particular ideas, I am very happy to meet him to discuss those further.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
During the dark days of covid, it was the NHS that gave us hope, not Ministers partying in Downing Street. The Tories now seek to demonise the very NHS staff that we clapped from our doorsteps, because they have voted to strike. They are overworked, underpaid, without a proper workforce plan, concerned about the security and safety of patients, and forced to use food banks. Do our NHS staff not deserve at least a face-to-face meeting on pay negotiations with the Government?
Will Quince
I do not know where the hon. Lady got the impression that I or anybody else was demonising NHS staff—far from it. The unions have chosen to bring forward this action. As I said, I hugely value and appreciate all NHS staff. That is why we have given them a pay rise this year, on top of the 3% pay award last year, when pay across the wider public sector was frozen.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think the Minister knows that there is no clinician in the land who really wants to go on strike. Many clinicians feel that the crisis has been coming for a long time because of the issues around morale and lack of workforce, which I have asked the Minister about on many occasions. He keeps saying that the workforce plan is imminent, but that will not solve the immediate problems.
One nurse said to me the other day that what worries her most is that at any one time, several hundred thousand people in the country are waiting for their test results, particularly in relation to cancer. How will the Minister ensure that people get their cancer results in time to meet all the other cancer plan deadlines?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I know that he has a particular interest in the matter. We are looking to ensure that as many NHS services as possible continue during strike days. On his broader point about pay settlements, the average pay settlements in the private sector are within the range of 4% to 6%.
Will Quince
Within the private sector it is 4% to 6%. The uplifts strike a careful balance in recognising the huge importance of public sector workers while minimising inflationary pressures and, of course, having an eye on managing the country’s debt.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister challenged back on who had the power to avert these strikes. Let me reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said: trade unions have been clear that strikes can be averted if Ministers initiate face-to-face pay negotiations. So far, they have completely failed to do so. The power to stop these strikes lies squarely with the Secretary of State. How can the Government justify refusing to even talk?
Will Quince
We have already been clear that we would be very happy to meet the unions, and I understand that a meeting is being organised, but let me reiterate the point about what exactly the Royal College of Nursing is asking for: an uplift that is 5% above RPI inflation. Uplifting pay for all staff—this is based on 19.2%, within the agenda for change—would cost approximately an additional £10 billion. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about things like test results; the £10 billion that we would spend on such an uplift is £10 billion that would come out of the NHS budget. That is £10 billion that we would not be able to spend on hugely important issues such as tackling the elective backlog.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was on the picket line with NHS staff in Newtownards in my constituency this morning. I do not expect to be reprimanded for that, by the way—I am quite sure I will be okay.
I want to ask the Minister a positive, constructive question. All the men and women want who were on the picket line at Ards Community Hospital in Newtownards this morning is a wage that helps them to survive. The women and men I talked to this morning are not surviving; they are visiting food banks. It is not just the nurses: it is the porters, it is the ward staff, it is everyone. Will the Minister and the Government go just that wee bit further to get a settlement?
Will Quince
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking that question, and I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but we accepted the independent pay review body’s recommendations in full. As a result, more than 1 million NHS workers were given a pay rise of at least £1,400. For newly qualified nurses, it was a 5.5% increase. Those on the lowest salaries, whom the hon. Gentleman referred to, are seeing a pay rise of up to 9.3%. Again, that is on top of 3% last year, when public sector pay was frozen.
Nobody wants to see industrial action go ahead. My message to the unions is “It’s good to talk—let’s talk. I know the meeting is being set up. Let’s do all we possibly can to avoid industrial action this winter.”
British Council Contractors: Afghanistan
(1 year, 11 months 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
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on British Council contractors in Afghanistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Minister who is responsible for Afghanistan—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty)—is travelling. I am a poor substitute, but I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for raising this very important matter.
During Operation Pitting, nearly all British Council staff and some contractors were evacuated and offered resettlement through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Some British Council contractors, plus dependants, remain in Afghanistan and are eligible for consideration for resettlement under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The scheme will see up to 20,000 people from Afghanistan and the region resettled in to the United Kingdom. It provides a safe and legal route for some of those affected by events in Afghanistan to come to the United Kingdom and rebuild their lives.
The first year of ACRS pathway 3 is focused on eligible at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors, as well as Chevening alumni, honouring the commitments made by the Government to those three groups. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office opened an online process on 20 June this year to seek expressions of interest in resettlement from those groups. They have played a key role in supporting the UK mission in Afghanistan, and it is right that we are honouring the commitments made during the evacuation to support those at risk. Up to 1,500 people from Afghanistan and the region will be referred for resettlement in the UK in the first year of pathway 3, including eligible family members.
The FCDO received more than 11,400 expressions of interest, which are being assessed in terms of eligibility. People are being notified of the outcome, and we are sending names to the Home Office for security checks. Once the checks have been completed, we will provide advice on the next steps for those who are being referred for a place on the ACRS. It remains a priority to honour the commitment made to eligible at-risk British Council contractors, and to offer a route for resettlement in the UK under the scheme. I want to thank the council for its excellent co-operation with the FCDO to date, as we work together to resettle eligible contractors under pathway 3.
We are doing everything we can to bring the first British Council and other arrivals under pathway 3 to the United Kingdom as soon as possible, where we will help them to rebuild their lives. Anyone who is eligible and resettled through the ACRS will receive indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and, under existing rules, will be able to apply for British citizenship after five years in the UK. This is one of the most ambitious resettlement schemes in our country’s history, and we are proud to offer a safe and legal route to those affected by events in Afghanistan.
Mr Baron
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. Let me start by both welcoming the Foreign Secretary’s speech on foreign policy this morning, which called for a long-term, resilient approach that will build the long-term, trusting relationships that this country needs for the future, and underlining the fact that that is precisely the purpose of the British Council, which has been building connections for this country throughout the world, quietly, consistently and effectively, since the 1930s. I hope that the Minister sees, as I do, the key role that the British Council can play in helping to achieve those objectives.
I make no apologies for asking this urgent question, because people’s lives are at risk. I went through the regular channels a year ago, and was told that progress was being made, which is more or less what the Minister has just said. I raised it again in October/November, but there has been no response. The progress has not been made.
For more than 16 months since Operation Pitting and the fall of Kabul, about 200 British Council contractors and their families have been stuck in Afghanistan. As has recently been highlighted in the media, many of them are in hiding and in fear of their lives, unable to seek medical advice when it is necessary for themselves and their families, and family members have died as a consequence. As the Minister said, British Council contractors are eligible under ACRS pathway 3, but those 200 or so contractors remain stuck in Afghanistan because of a blockage of red tape here in the UK. Until that blockage is cleared they will remain in danger, possibly for a second Afghan winter. Since its launch in January, the scheme has not repatriated a single person from Afghanistan: I have received confirmation of that from the British Council. In July and August, an application window closed for the contractors to submit expressions of interest. British Council employees worked at pace with the FCDO to identify those who had actually worked with them, yet there has still been no progress whatsoever. Having used all the regular channels, I would now like to ask the Minister to do all he can before Christmas to clear these blockages and get these contractors back to the UK.
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. He eloquently extols the brilliance of the British Council. I had some responsibility for it 10 years ago, and I know very well that what he says about it is entirely correct. He is quite right about the eligibility, and we very much understand the urgency to which he refers. This particular pathway process started on 20 June and remained open for eight weeks. The Foreign Office has looked at every single one of the applicants, and the process is moving through. I would just say that, although it is taking a lot of time, it is right that officials should look carefully at each and every one of those cases. There is a balance to be struck, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s words and concerns are reflected across Government as a result of this urgent question.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I again thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing this urgent question. He has been a great champion of the British Council in this place. We know that hundreds of British Council contractors are still stranded in Afghanistan following this Government’s botched evacuation from Kabul. Earlier this year, the Minister told the House that the Government were “supporting those in need” and that 50 British Council contractors had been evacuated. However, a recent report in The Guardian indicated that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Government had not granted a single ACRS application since the programme was opened—not one. Furthermore, fewer than 10 staff are currently working on the scheme at the FCDO.
I am contacted frequently by British Council contractors who are suffering terribly, and I would be grateful if the Minister would allow me to raise these cases with him privately. Many of those that are still in Afghanistan are former security guards who protected British staff at the embassy, and they undertook an extremely difficult task during the evacuation in August last year. We owe so much to those courageous British Council contractors, and the fact that they are still in Afghanistan and facing daily violence and threats as a result of their co-operation with the UK is nothing short of a disgrace.
The last time I put these questions to the Government, answers were not forthcoming, so I am hopeful that this time I might be able to get some clarity. Can the Minister tell us how many former British Council contractors are still stuck in Afghanistan, what measures are being put in place to evacuate the rest of the British Council contractors still stranded in Afghanistan and what engagement he has had with regional partners to facilitate safe passage for British Council staff who attempt to leave? And message does it send to other British Council contractors who work in challenging environments around the world if the UK Government will leave these contractors stranded in this way?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and he is quite right to express deep concern about those who are caught in this way. He asks me whether he may raise cases privately with me, and of course the answer is yes. I will make arrangements for those meetings to take place straight after this urgent question is over. He asks a number of questions, and if I do not answer them fully, I will ensure that we write to him. He is right to say that we keep in very good contact with regional partners in countries to try to advance this issue. This particular stream only opened in June this year. The Foreign Office has processed and is informing something in the region of 200 of those who are eligible in principle, and if the dependants are added to that, it is something like 750. So those are proceeding, and it is of course up to the Home Office to procure the necessary security clearance prior to them securing entry clearance. So, the process is going on, but I fully accept his frustration—it is a frustration we all share in this matter—and as I say, perhaps we can proceed with a private meeting, as he has requested.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is there not a fundamental problem with talking about safe and legal routes for people who, if they expose themselves to the Taliban, are at risk because of that very fact? Last Thursday evening, I was at the Last Supper gallery to attend a photographic exhibition organised by the Sulha Alliance on behalf of Afghan interpreters, several of whom were there, including one who had been shot and another whose brother had not got out and had been murdered. The photographer, Andy Barnham, felt it necessary to anonymise the photographs because of the risks of identification. Do the Government not have to come up with a better idea for how to extract people who are at risk as a result of helping us, without them having to declare themselves openly and thus put themselves in more peril?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend, with great eloquence, makes a most important point. There are various ways in which we can deal with this, and which it would not be sensible to talk about on the Floor of the House. He makes one of the big difficulties very clear. If it would be helpful, I am happy to discuss this with him.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important urgent question. It is morally indefensible that, more than a year after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, there are still innocent Afghans who worked for the British Government and military who have received zero support from this Government and the Home Office. It is not acceptable to use terms such as “something like.” Exactly how many former British Council staff, including support staff, are still living in Afghanistan in fear of their lives and livelihoods? When the Government say they have brought 6,300 Afghans to “safety,” what exactly does that mean? How many of them are former British Council employees?
The Taliban’s so-called kill list is an active threat. Do the Government know how many of their former employees are on that list? Finally, it is appropriate that 540 staff are working on the Ukraine schemes but, if the Government are taking Afghanistan as seriously as they are supposed to be, why do the figures show a maximum of eight people working on the Afghan schemes?
Mr Mitchell
The frustration expressed by the hon. Gentleman is shared by many of us. It is not possible to quantify the figures in precisely the way he requests, but I will ensure that we write to him with the closest possible approximation.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
On 20 January 2022 there was an urgent question on British Council staff, at which I told the then Minister of State for Asia, the right hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), that
“many of us have thousands of constituents—in my case, up to 150—who have relatives and friends who have worked for the British in Afghanistan and who are in terrible need of resettlement to this country. The ARAP scheme and the ACRS have done very little to bring many, if any, of my constituents’ relatives and friends away from the horror going on in Afghanistan.”
The Minister pointed out that the ACRS was open and
“will prioritise those who have assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan and those who have stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law, as well as vulnerable people, including women and girls who are at risk and members of minority groups who are at risk.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 505-6.]
We have seen that pathway 3 was open not from January but from June. Six months later, not one person has been settled in this country.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman conflates the ARAP scheme with the ACRS. The prioritisation is precisely as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) set out. The pipeline is proceeding, and pathway 3 started in June and was open for eight weeks. The process is moving from the Foreign Office to the Home Office, and officials are handling these matters as fast as they can. It is very frustrating for all of us, but that is what is happening and we will get there.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister knows that this Government have legislated to make it illegal for anyone seeking asylum to enter this country by any means apart from safe and legal routes. Indeed, the entire moral basis—such as it is—for the claim that this Government are meeting our international asylum obligations rests on safe and legal routes. Given that, how can the Minister speak of pride in a safe route that is so manifestly and entirely failing? It is failing those who are at risk of persecution for promoting British values through the British Council. What does he suggest they do?
Mr Mitchell
There may or may not be validity in the political debate on safe and legal routes that the hon. Lady raises, but in this particular respect there is a safe and legal route. That is one we are expediting.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I disagree with the Minister that he is a poor replacement for his colleague at the Dispatch Box—I think he would bring a compassionate, informed and patriotic approach to this portfolio, if it were his. Perhaps he can explain why, instead of sending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to Rwanda with nothing to show for it, the Government do not spend just a fraction of that money on expediting the safe evacuation of those who risked their lives to host and protect UK service personnel and civilians in Afghanistan.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He is a distinguished soldier and brings that knowledge to the House. He has rightly championed Britain’s responsibilities in this matter. The Government are trying both to advance through our strong partnership with Rwanda and to meet the other objectives he has set out. I commend to him the Government’s approach in both respects.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is well known for his compassion and understanding of these issues in this House. I say that in all honesty; he knows it and everyone else knows it. How many people have begun the ACRS scheme, have been given their reference number and are on stand-by, and yet have heard nothing over the last year that the scheme has been operating? How can he change the message sent to those we asked to help us, because we made promises and then appeared to abandon them when our aims were met? It is very sad.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out Britain’s responsibility in this matter. We are, I think, meeting that responsibility. As I mentioned to him, if we look at those processed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and their dependents, who are equally eligible to come under this pathway, we get up to something like 750 who have been initially processed. That now moves to the Home Office. He will understand that that is nearly half of those who would be expected to arrive under this pathway. We must do better and we are doing everything we can to make sure that we do.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Monday 12th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2022 - (12 Dec 2022)
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
Monday 12th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2022 - (12 Dec 2022)
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 34 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 46 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Assessment of impact on farmers—
“At least three months, but not later than six months, after the coming into force of the government procurement Chapter of—
(1) the UK-Australia FTA, and
(2) the UK-New Zealand FTA,
a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Chapter on farmers in—
(a) each region of England
(b) Scotland
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland.”
New clause 3—Impact assessment: equality and human rights—
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on equality and human rights within three years of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act and every three years thereafter.”
New clause 4—Impact assessment (No. 2)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters within five years of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act and every five years thereafter.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must present an analysis of—
(a) the impact on each of the four nations of the United Kingdom; and
(b) social, economic and environmental impacts.”
New clause 5—Assessment of impact on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland within six months of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 and every six months thereafter.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and before the Scottish Parliament.”
New clause 6—Assessment of impact on Geographical Indications in the United Kingdom—
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on the operation of Geographical Indications in the United Kingdom within two years of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act.”
New clause 7—Impact assessment: British farmers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on—
(a) livestock farmers,
(b) arable farmers,
(c) upland farmers,
(d) tenant farmers, and
(e) family farmers.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the procurement Chapters on British farmers.
New clause 8—Impact assessment: environmental standards etc—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on—
(a) environmental standards,
(b) food standards,
(c) animal welfare standards, and
(d) biodiversity.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the procurement Chapters on environmental, food and animal welfare standards, and biodiversity.
New clause 9—Review of effect on small businesses—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on small businesses.
(2) The assessment must consider in particular the impact of those Chapters on the ability of small businesses—
(a) to import goods,
(b) to export goods,
(c) to employ staff, and
(d) to remain solvent.
(3) In this section, “small businesses” means any business which has average headcount of staff of less than 50 in the tax year 2022-23.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the procurement Chapters on small businesses.
New clause 10—Impact assessment: National Health Service—
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on the National Health Service within three years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”
New clause 11—Review of negotiation of procurement Chapters—
“Within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must publish—
(a) a review of the lessons learned from the negotiation of the procurement Chapters, and
(b) an assessment of how this experience might inform negotiations of future free trade agreements.”
New clause 12—Super-affirmative procedure—
“(1) This section applies where an instrument is, or, as the case may be, regulations are, subject to the super-affirmative procedure.
(2) A draft of the instrument or regulations must be laid before the relevant institution.
(3) The appropriate authority must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of the relevant institution, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of the relevant institution charged with reporting on the draft,
made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft.
(4) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the instrument is or, as the case may be, regulations are approved by a resolution of the relevant institution, the appropriate authority may make an instrument or statutory rule in the terms of the draft.
(5) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the appropriate authority wishes to proceed with the draft but with material changes, the authority may lay before the relevant institution—
(a) a revised draft, and
(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.
(6) If the revised draft is approved by a resolution of the relevant institution, the appropriate authority may make an instrument or, as the case may be, statutory rule in the terms of the revised draft.
(7) For the purposes of this section an instrument or statutory rule is made in the terms of a draft if it contains no material changes to its provisions.
(8) In this section, references to the “60-day” period in relation to any draft are to the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid before the relevant institution.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) no account is to be taken of any time during which—
(a) if the relevant institution is the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly, that institution is dissolved or is in recess for more than four days;
(b) if the relevant institution is both Houses of Parliament, Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.
(10) In this section, “relevant institution” means—
(a) in the case of an instrument to be made by a Minister of the Crown—
(i) for the purposes of subsections (2), (5) and (8), both Houses of Parliament,
(ii) for the purposes of subsection (3), either House of Parliament,
(iii) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (6), each House of Parliament
(b) in the case of an instrument to be made by Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in the case of an instrument to be made by Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru;
(d) in the case of regulations to be made by a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly;
(e) in the case of an instrument to be made by appropriate authorities acting jointly—
(i) for the purposes of subsections (2), (5) and (8), both Houses of Parliament,
(ii) for the purposes of subsection (3), either House of Parliament,
(iii) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (6), each House of Parliament
and, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
New clause 13—Impact assessment: climate change—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on tackling climate change, not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the passage of this Act.”
New clause 14—Impact assessment: labour rights—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on labour rights, not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the passage of this Act.”
New clause 15—Welsh sectoral impact assessment—
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the procurement Chapters on each economic sector in Wales within twelve months of the coming into force of regulations made under section 1 and every 12 months thereafter.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to publish Wales-specific impact assessments which include an assessment of the impacts on specific sectors.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of such public consultation as the appropriate authority considers appropriate with the relevant—
(a) Scottish ministers
(b) Welsh ministers,
(c) department of the Northern Ireland Executive, and
(d) representatives of the English Regions.”
Amendment 2, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish ministers in relation to any matters affecting farming in Scotland.”
Amendment 3, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish ministers in relation to any matters affecting Scotland.”
Amendment 4, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not come into force before the date on which the procurement Chapters come into force.”
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(4) This Act expires on 31 December 2027.”
Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 9, line 5, leave out from “to” to end of line 6 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.
Amendment 7, page 9, line 8, leave out from “to” to the end of line 9 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.
Amendment 17, page 9, line 8, leave out from first “the” to the end of line 9 and insert “affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).”
Amendment 8, page 9, line 11, leave out from “to” to end of line 12 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.
Amendment 9, page 9, line 14, leave out from “to ” to end of line 16 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.
Amendment 10, page 9, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment 11, page 9, line 25, leave out from “to” to end of line 26 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.
Amendment 12, page 9, line 28, leave out “negative” and insert “super-affirmative”.
Amendment 13, page 9, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
Amendment 14, page 10, line 2, leave out from “to” to end of line 3 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.
Amendment 15, page 10, line 5, leave out from “to ” to end of line 7 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.
Amendment 16, page 10, line 8, leave out sub-paragraphs (9) to (13).
Gareth Thomas
We made it clear on Second Reading that we want real and meaningful increases in trade, particularly with two of this country’s greatest friends and allies, Australia and New Zealand—both led so ably by progressive Labour Administrations. We therefore made it clear that we would not oppose the Bill. After all, trade is fundamental to this country; it is part of what being British means and it will be a vital weapon in our armoury to tackle the economic crisis that this country faces, which the incompetence of the governing party has so greatly deepened.
We also made it clear, as others have done on both sides of the House, that there are significant concerns about the consequences of the slapdash way in which these deals, especially the Australia deal, were negotiated by Ministers. I am told that Canada is already using the precedent of the Australia deal to press for similar access for its farmers. These amendments are needed to mitigate some of the impact of those mistakes that Ministers made to try to make the best of a bad job.
I am afraid that in Committee there was little attempt to acknowledge, or indeed apologise for, those failings. Nothing since suggests that Ministers at the Department for International Trade have learned the right lessons. Indeed, the recent detailed comments by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—now freed from the burdens of office and therefore the requirement to cover up for his colleagues—confirmed the widely held view that the Australia deal was bad for Britain. He reinforced the need for significant reforms to how deals are delivered. The current Prime Minister also thought that this was a one-sided deal. Therefore, our amendments and new clauses would help ensure that the procurement chapters, at least, of both deals could be implemented only following serious consultation with all parts of the UK, proper impact assessments, and further detailed and specific scrutiny by this House.
On new clause 1, the Public Bill Committee and the International Trade Committee heard detailed concerns from one of Britain’s leading procurement experts that the Australia deal would worsen the protection for British firms seeking to win Government contracts in Australia, and that major infrastructure or other high-profile British national projects could be disrupted if an Australian firm, unsuccessfully bidding for a contract, went to court to try to overturn the decision using the legal uncertainties that, he argued, are being written into our contract law by this procurement chapter. He also stated that the potential benefits for British businesses of these procurement chapters were likely to be somewhat less than Ministers had claimed.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point—a point that the Secretary of State for International Trade unfortunately did not seem to be fully up on when we questioned her last week. She has now promised to investigate this area. Is it not a good example of how, not necessarily the legal risk, but the uncertainty will lead multinational companies to divert their trade through regimes that are certain? Britain will therefore lose out as long as there is uncertainty, even if that is not a reality.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Equally significantly, Professor Sanchez-Graells, in his evidence to the Bill Committee and to the Select Committee, suggested that the protections for British businesses trying to win Government procurement contracts across CPTPP—comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—countries would be damaged if Ministers continued to negotiate similar provisions to those that are in the Australia procurement chapter. We examined his detailed concerns in Committee. The absence of a cogent and compelling rebuttal from the then Minister was striking. To be fair, shortly after the end of the Committee stage, a further letter from the outgoing Minister of State was sent to me, and a copy was placed in the Library. I shared a copy of that letter with Professor Sanchez-Graells, who reiterated his concerns, noting the lack of clear counter arguments for the assertions in that letter. Indeed, there were not any worked-though, real-life examples of the sort that I raised directly with the Minister in Committee to explain why the concerns articulated by Professor Sanchez-Graells are misplaced.
Given that this Bill is specifically about procurement, and given that Professor Sanchez-Graells was one of only two witnesses asked to comment on procurement by either the Bill Committee, the other place’s International Agreements Committee or this House’s own International Trade Committee, it was a little surprising that there was not better preparation by the Department for consideration of his arguments. I do recognise that the Department was in a degree of chaos at the time, with Ministers coming and going, but one can only hope that the Minister replying to this debate has a little more to offer.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this underlines the fact that there is not enough scrutiny and democracy in the process, and that this House should have the opportunity to look at the mandate for future deals and to scrutinise the negotiations as well as the ratifications, so that we do not get a deal that offers a hopeless 0.1% GDP growth over 15 years?
Gareth Thomas
Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend leaps ahead of me; I will come on to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny in just a moment.
My last point on the case for new clause 1 is that such an impact assessment would also allow us to explore the extent to which small and medium-sized enterprises were able to take advantage of this trade deal. We know that SMEs need the most support to take advantage of free trade agreements and, given the cuts to the tradeshow access programme, for example, we know that SMEs are likely to face real challenges in exporting. New clause 1 cannot change the way Ministers negotiate future procurement chapters, but it would at least require an honest and detailed assessment of the impact of those chapters on British businesses.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
As a member of the International Trade Committee, may I reiterate that point? It was clear to me and many other members of the Committee, as the negotiations went on under two previous International Trade Secretaries, that it was going to be the first deal negotiated from scratch and that therefore there was an attempt to use it as a tick-box exercise, to add to those roll-over deals that were already agreed, and there was haste to get the deal done so they could say for the first time that a separate deal had been done that was not a roll-over.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I hope he is able to catch Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye later on so that he can draw it out further.
New clause 2 cannot, I am afraid, put right the disregard of those on the Government Front Bench thus far for the vital role that British farmers play in the economic and social fabric of our country, but we can at least learn from that desperate rush to get any deal with Australia, regardless of the price. I hope Ministers will take this opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes made during the negotiations and will back this new clause. If not, I will seek the permission of the House and put it to a vote. I have said I hope Ministers will acknowledge mistakes, but we do not expect any apologies. After all, there have been so many apologies from the Government over the last few months that their worth has devalued more quickly than sterling under the last Chancellor.
New clause 12 and the consequential amendments 6 to 16 are designed to address some of the cross-party concern about the obvious failures on parliamentary scrutiny that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) alluded to. In the usual Conservative tradition, having made such enormous errors in her leadership of the negotiations with Australia, there was only one option for the then Secretary of State: she was promoted. Indeed, in the lucky dip that was this summer’s Tory leadership contest, she won the chance to be Prime Minister for the month and, consistent with her achievements on trade, delivered economic chaos, higher mortgage bills and a return to deep austerity.
The following Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), swiftly fell out with her colleagues—a scenario almost too difficult to imagine. Tories falling out with each other? Who on earth would have seen that happening? Instead of the world-leading scrutiny process we were once promised for new free-trade agreements, she adopted a new one: invisibility. On at least eight separate occasions, the previous Secretary of State failed to front up at the International Trade Committee to answer important questions about the new deal. She seemed somewhat keener to tour the TV studios questioning the work ethic of her then ministerial team.
There is, I have to say, a striking consensus outside the House—across business groups of every economic sector, and among trade experts, charities and non-governmental organisations working on trade—that the CRaG process is not fit for purpose post Brexit, and that one of the key lessons from the Australian FTA negotiations is the need for better parliamentary scrutiny. We cannot deliver that better scrutiny for all FTAs today—not least given the narrow context of this legislation—but we can certainly make sure that Parliament considers further the regulations that implement the procurement chapters of the deals. A super-affirmative provision would give Parliament an additional layer of scrutiny for trade deal regulations under the Bill before those regulations can come into force. I hope, again, that Ministers will have the grace to accept the amendment and will not force me to divide the House.
New clause 10 underlines our concern that trade agreements must work for the NHS and not undermine or make even more difficult the task of repairing a great public service after 12 years of callous mismanagement by this Government. On procurement specifically, the last thing that anyone would want in a trade agreement is carelessly drafted provisions that enable a dispute about whether an overseas-owned building firm lost a redevelopment contract fairly, for example, to delay much-needed investment in new NHS hospitals, or vital funds that could have been spent on new doctors and nurses having to be used to compensate overseas firms for not winning a procurement contract. If the independent expert from whom the Select Committee and the Bill Committee heard evidence is correct, the drafting of the procurement chapter in the Australia trade deal—and, I understand, this is also likely to be so in the CPTPP—creates legal uncertainty in the remedies available to overseas businesses bidding for UK Government contracts. It is possible, then, that major public services such as the NHS could see delays to the rebuilding of hospitals and/or money that could have been spent on recruiting doctors and nurses being wasted on compensation for overseas firms that have lost out in a procurement competition.
Take the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, for example, which urgently needs replacing. Its roof must be monitored daily, four out of seven operating theatres have had to be shut, and the roof is held up by 3,600 props. That is, I suggest, one powerful example of the neglect and mismanagement of the NHS under the Conservative party. Imagine if funding were committed to and tenders issued for such a rebuilding project, only for building work to be held up because of the legal uncertainties in the Australia deal on remedies for firms that lost out unfairly in procurement processes. Surely, a proper understanding of the impact of trade deals on our public services is essential. If there is nothing to worry about, Ministers should not find it difficult to commit to providing such assessments, should they?
On new clause 11, it is clear that these trade deals are not going to deliver the sustained boost to economic growth that this country desperately needs. Yet in the land of make-believe that the Conservative party now inhabits, the Australia deal was sold to us as the start of a brave and amazing post-Brexit era for British trade. The deal does not look like global Britain; it looks to the world like gullible Britain. On the upside, unlike the Conservative party’s trade deal with Europe, the Australia and New Zealand trade deals did not lead to the value of the pound dropping, but the tendency of Ministers in the Department for International Trade to exaggerate the benefits of the deals they sign underlines the need for a full review of the lessons learned from each negotiation.
We all remember talk of an “oven-ready” trade deal with the EU—it turned out to be anything but. Then there was the promise of 77 of Britain’s most iconic food and drink products, from Shetland wool and Whitstable oysters to Carmarthen ham, getting immediate protection in Japan as a result of the UK-Japan deal. That has yet to happen. We have had the promise of billions more in procurement contracts for British business, but there is little evidence that that will happen.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend knows that a large of amount of New Zealand and Australian trade is historically in left-hand-drive cars that were made by Japanese companies based in Britain. Those companies are leaving the UK, and the EU has now got a trade deal with Japan and will have one with Australia and New Zealand. It is therefore likely that those Japanese companies will produce left-hand-drive cars and sell them to New Zealand and Australia, but not via Britain. In other words, the deal will prove negative rather than marginally positive.
Gareth Thomas
I hope my hon. Friend accepts that the case I am making for providing serious and detailed impact assessments for future trade deals will help to ensure that his point gets proper consideration in future.
I hope that new clauses 13 and 14 remind Ministers of the significance of trade for working people and of the need for trade to play its part in helping to tackle climate change and accelerate progress towards net zero. When the Australia deal was negotiated, two Conservative Governments, both with distinctly underwhelming records on climate and workers’ rights, were in the negotiating room. In this country, the Conservative party has consistently sought to exclude representatives of working people in the trade unions from all significant consultation on trade deals. The trade deals that we as a country sign should raise standards, support better employment and help to tackle climate change instead of, as the Conservative party seems to want, heralding a race to the bottom.
We have tabled amendment 1 to stimulate serious and sustained detailed consultation with all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom on the details of the chapters of the trade deals. It is a reminder to Ministers of the need to step up and improve further their discussions with the devolved Administrations and with the regions of England about the impact of deals on specific communities and economic sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) gave the example in Committee of farmers in Wales, where 85% of the beef and 60% to 65% of the sheepmeat produced are consumed in the UK. There is genuine concern about the impact of a huge hike in tariff-free quotas of meat from Australia and New Zealand on our farmers’ ability to sell into our markets, with all the obvious implications for rural communities, family farms and economic, social and cultural life.
There are similar concerns across the regions of England, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The Select Committee on International Trade heard evidence that the Department cannot yet model fully the impact of trade deals on the nations and regions of the UK. That is all the more reason for better consultation before new trade regulations come into force.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On livestock and meat, is not it the case that a sizeable amount of our imports comes not from Australia or New Zealand—and they would not under the agreement—but from the EU and South America?
Gareth Thomas
Absolutely, but we have conceded that the deals are important and that they must be supported, and we want more trade with Australia and New Zealand. I gently say to my right hon. Friend that it is right to ensure that the deals work much better than they appear set to do at the moment. I hope that our amendments will help to achieve that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I support the hon. Gentleman’s point in relation to Northern Ireland. We export some 65% of our agriculture produce to the EU and across the world. Ever mindful of that, we seek the same assurance from the Minister—perhaps it will come at the end of the debate—that those in Northern Ireland will not be penalised in any way. I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and support, and I look forward to the Minister attempting to answer his concerns as well as ours.
Free trade agreements were supposed to be one of those freedoms that would bring us prosperity after Brexit, but, in truth, this is not about Brexit; it is about the competence and ability of this Government, and about the honesty and transparency of Ministers. If they believe in any of those qualities, Government Members will adopt these amendments without Division. If they do not, we will have even more proof that this Government do not even believe in themselves.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 4, 5 and 6 and amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 17 in the name of my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry).
The top line for us at this stage of proceedings is that we cannot support this Bill with the agricultural terms of the trade agreements left unamended, particularly as the Scottish Government have responsibility for agriculture in Scotland but have had no direct role in negotiations and remain deeply concerned by the impact that both of these agreements could have on the Scottish farming sector as well as food and drink.
These deals are being rushed through at an horrendous time for UK farmers. Farmers are already battling with skyrocketing fertiliser prices, animal feed prices jumping by on average 30%, the avian flu outbreak, the Brexit labour shortages, and the rising diesel costs, to name but a few of the issues at present. Therefore, we would think that at this point, rather than rushing on at breakneck speed, there would be opportunity to take the time to get this right—to make sure it is carefully calibrated and is in the interests of farmers and the food and drink industry, and indeed all industries across the totality of the UK economy.
Richard Thomson
If the hon. Member can explain why there is such indecent haste I will be delighted to yield.
Anthony Mangnall
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he might tell us what the perfect amount of time is for a trade deal to be signed?
Richard Thomson
I am not sure there is a perfect amount of time, but we can certainly spot a duff deal when it is being rushed through.
Richard Thomson
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient and remain seated I can perhaps go through some of the shortcomings that have arisen, because we were helped enormously in coming to an assessment—
Hywel Williams
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to inform the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) that the Canada trade deal took seven years and that the much-heralded trade deal with the United States is still awaiting further progress.
Richard Thomson
The hon. Gentleman has communicated that most deftly. The House can see why there was such a rush because we were done a very valuable service the other week by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who blew the gaff comprehensively when he revealed that at some point in early summer 2021 the then Trade Secretary took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude the trade deal by the G7. I am sure the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) can see straightaway the problems in trying to conclude any trade deal on such an arbitrary timeline and that the outcomes from doing so would be suboptimal even if it were not for the revelation that was about to follow.
Anthony Mangnall
Since the hon. Gentleman has challenged me, I see no problem in setting timelines if we can achieve them, and in fact what the Government have managed to do is start negotiations with the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership, do a trade deal with Japan on digital partnerships, do a digital partnership with Singapore, undertake the Australia and New Zealand deals, look at where we can do a trade deal with India, and start negotiating with Canada. If we set ourselves some objectives, that sets a standard for what we can achieve.
Richard Thomson
If only that were actually the case—[Interruption.] When it comes to achieving good outcomes, the problem here is that this was not done from a position of strength; it was done from a position of considerable weakness, as we will go on to hear. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House to hear what the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, but allow me to elucidate and then he might elect to put the shovel down for a moment. He said that
“at one point the then Trade Secretary asked her Australian opposite number what he would need in order…to conclude an agreement by…G7. Of course, the Australian negotiator…set out the Australian terms, which eventually shaped the deal. We must never repeat that mistake.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 425.]
I accept that there has been a duality in much of what the right hon. Member has said at different times. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Totnes is also to reveal such a duality.
Richard Thomson
No, he is not. Somehow, I did not think that he would.
Clearly, there is nothing quite so liberating as a loss of ministerial responsibility. The right hon. Member went on to tell the House that
“the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK”,
that
“the UK gave away far too much for…too little in return”
and that, further, in his view,
“the best clause in our treaty with Australia is that final clause, because it gives any UK Government present or future an unbridled right to terminate and renegotiate the FTA at any time with just six months’ notice.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424-5.]
The SNP happens to agree that that is probably the best clause in the Bill as it stands—
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is the only good clause in the Bill.
Richard Thomson
I hear my hon. Friend say that it is the only good clause; we are not looking to amend it.
Clearly, the right hon. Member’s views in 2022 are significantly more closely aligned with reality than those that he was obliged to defend publicly in 2021 and those which the current crop of Trade Ministers are clearly obliged to defend now.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is doing a much better job than the previous guy did in his role [Laughter.] Is it not a fact that while Government Members try to defend this awful deal, not only have they lost the support of a former Minister who once supported the deal and now, freed from office, thinks it is awful, but, actually, their own Prime Minister thinks that this is a bad deal as well?
Richard Thomson
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is quite clear that the objective was to get chalk on the board rather than to get any trade deal in place that might actually improve on or even equal or replicate that which was there. The thing is, the Government did not need to travel far to get the feedback that this was not a good deal. Scottish sheep and beef farmers could have told them that it was not a good deal; indeed, they tried to do so from the outset. They knew fine well that these deals would undercut UK farmers while delivering next to no benefits for the agrifood sector at large. It was clearly far more important for the then Prime Minister to be seen to be getting Brexit done and forging on with deals—whether they were any good or not—than to secure positive outcomes for consumers and producers in this country.
As there is clearly nothing quite so liberating as the loss of ministerial office, there is evidently nothing quite so constraining as the gaining of ministerial office. While I am glad to congratulate my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on his elevation to his new post—this is the first chance we have had for exchanges across the Floor since he took that role—I will take him back to comments he made on the BBC’s “Debate Night” programme in March 2021. I am sure that he is already pulling that out of the memory banks. In response to a question from the audience, he said that young people are not reaping the benefits of Brexit. Surely that is a candidate for understatement of the year. I think we can now add the Scottish food, drink and agrifood sector to that, for whom there are absolutely no benefits.
Richard Thomson
I am spoilt for choice. I think I heard the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) first. I will then come to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar).
Richard Foord
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Mary Quicke from my part of Devon has become an export mentor, but she has indicated that exporting cheese to the Indo-Pacific is becoming more difficult. She said that
“we’ve had cheese that’s taken four weeks to leave here, with a vet’s certificate to Japan and then it sits at customs at Tokyo for three weeks.”
Given that it is now more difficult for cheese sellers to sell to the UK’s biggest market in the EU, does he agree that that is a disgrace?
Richard Thomson
Absolutely. As I was listening to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was working out what my punchline was going to be, and I see that he already had it there. It certainly is a disgrace that those barriers have been put in place to hinder the exports of what I am sure is fine produce indeed.
John Spellar
Surely it is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman is making out. Did we not have a substantial trade deficit in agricultural products with the countries of the EU as well?
Richard Thomson
There may have been a deficit in totality, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to contend that the situation has been made any easier by the trade environment we now find ourselves untimely ripped into.
We have to ask, “To what end?” Even the UK Government’s own analysis shows that the trade deal with New Zealand will deliver a mere 0.03% benefit in GDP to the UK over 15 years and the Australian deal 0.08%, all the while the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement will lead to a contraction of UK GDP by 4.9% over 15 years.
A number of safeguards could have been put in place in the agricultural chapters to protect farmers: no full liberalisation irrespective of time period; lower quota terms; percentage controls on the ratio of frozen to fresh carcases to protect the high quality Scottish fresh meat trade; clauses that work out beef and lamb tonnage quotas in a carcase-specific way, so premium cuts are protected; seasonality clauses; clauses to ensure the exports and imports of high value meat are properly valued; and trigger safeguards that could have been applied to protect the domestic market against any surge in imports in a particular year.
On new clause 5, it is important that an assessment is carried out on the impact of implementation of the procurement chapters on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland. Many in the hill farming and crofting communities are highly economically marginal. They have a huge economic importance in terms of supporting their areas, but the economics can be precarious at the best of times and they will certainly not be made any easier by the terms of this trade deal. The risk of undercutting standards through the deal means that meat is likely to end up costing less in the UK if it is shipped in from Australia or New Zealand, rather than if it is produced at home.
Analysis by Quality Meat Scotland has concluded that New Zealand beef farmgate prices are anywhere between 25% and 30% lower than Scottish farmgate prices, and 10% lower than their Scottish counterparts for lamb, undercutting on price. Matters relating to food standards fall within the competency of the devolved Administrations, but they have absolutely no power to exclude imported products on the basis of how they have been produced or on the undercutting of standards that feed into the undercutting of prices.
Donald MacKinnon, the chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, speaking of the 15-year-long transition period, said:
“This is about changes that can happen over a much longer period of time. Agriculture does not operate on year-to-year, short lifecycles. We operate in generational terms in our businesses, and 15 years is a relatively short period of time in that sense. So it is not that we are concerned that the negative impacts are going to happen straightaway. This is about the long-term future of our industry. That is what my members are concerned about.”
Jonnie Hall, director of policy, National Farmers Union of Scotland, said:
“Ultimately, an awful lot of procurement contracts will be negotiated on price, given that there will be a written understanding, at least, that the standards in them will be of an equitable value, if that is the right expression. It is the competing on price piece that will probably be of more concern to Scottish producers than anything else, because we operate under different agricultural production systems and our cost structures are therefore different…it may be that New Zealand and Australian produce is more attractive simply in terms of value for money—I will call it that, but the word ‘value’ is not right.”
It is notable that the EU managed to secure the same market access into New Zealand for its exporters as the UK, but at a much lower cost to its domestic producers.
The Secretary of State has said that she is a huge believer in British farming and the role it plays in our national life, and has written about her fears of the impact that opening up our markets will have on domestic producers. We firmly believe that she should allay those fears by renegotiating the agricultural chapters of these deals with the new Australian Administration and the New Zealand Government. We should ensure that we monitor very closely the impact it has on our agricultural communities. While renegotiating, she might also want to consider the fact that Australia is one of the few countries in the world that maintains an effective absolute ban on the importation of UK beef. The Secretary of State has said that she does not believe the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raised concerns with the World Trade Organisation via the Department for International Trade on this issue. That should certainly happen, and it should certainly have been addressed in the trade deal to make sure that this barrier was lifted.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Is it not the case that in most countries that have federal, confederal or other such arrangements with devolved nations, those nations are involved and embedded in the negotiating teams? Does that not show the arrogance, in relation to co-operative relations across the Union, of this Conservative party, which seems determined to fulfil the hon. Member’s party’s wish, which is to annoy people in Scotland so much that they want independence?
Richard Thomson
That is certainly an interesting take, and entirely understandable, but I would far rather be making the arguments for Scottish independence on their merit, rather than on how much we and all the devolved Administrations are being vexed by a high-handed UK Government who are over-mighty and overreaching in this respect.
We have already been forced against our will in Scotland to trade outside of the EU and to be tied to a UK Government who seem hellbent on agreeing trade agreements at almost fire-sale prices just so they can pretend that Brexit is working. That is a thoroughly invidious position to be in, but it is the position we find ourselves in, for the moment at least, and we are determined to do all we can to try to mitigate the damage on this before we go back to the issue of principle that the hon. Member has raised. Make no mistake: the impact of these agreements will be felt throughout Scotland, and to that end it is vital that not just the Scottish Government but all devolved Administrations can have a full role, with their input being listened to, respected and acted on in future negotiations.
The Bill did not have to be like this. It was entirely possible to take a longer period of time to reach a more considered view. For those absolutely hellbent on leaving the European Union, there were better ways of doing it than the unmitigated car crash that has followed from the way successive iterations of Conservative Governments have gone about it. They seem to have spent more time negotiating among themselves than negotiating with those who matter. There are better ways of doing this, and there are better outcomes that can yet be agreed. I strongly urge the UK Government to repent, go back and try to achieve something better. It is within their grasp if they have the will to do so.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I support the new clauses on impact assessments after various periods on issues affecting farmers, procurement, the UK regions, equality and human rights, and I shall make reference to the way in which the negotiations have been handled, the attitude of various Secretaries of State to scrutiny and, in particular, the role of the International Trade Committee.
As a member of that Committee, I have seen at first hand the Government’s mishandling of the trade measures that the Bill will implement, as well as their lack of transparency and of a coherent strategy on negotiating free trade agreements. Under the two previous Secretaries of State—the right hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)—the Government have deliberately prevented MPs from having a say in the details of the deals. It is painfully obvious how haphazardly negotiations have been handled.
Meanwhile, the Government have continued to tout the number of trade deals that they have secured, but the truth is that a majority of those deals are simply rolled-over deals forged when the UK was a member of the European Union. They are not even close to achieving the 80% of UK trade that they claimed would be covered by trade agreements by the end of 2022, including an agreement with the USA, which was pledged in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.
Australia and New Zealand have the distinction of being non-EU countries with which the UK negotiated trade deals from scratch post Brexit, but the proof is in the pudding. The trade deals are terrible for Britain. They benefit Australian and New Zealand exporters more than UK exporters, while UK agriculture, forestry, fishing, and its semi-processed food industry are left to suffer the consequences. Australia and New Zealand received full liberalisation on beef and sheep and unfettered access to the UK food market, but the UK did not receive the same concessions in return. The Government’s own Back Benchers have exposed what we have known for some time—that securing those trade measures was a box-ticking exercise, rushed through to get a deal done, and not necessarily in the best interests of the UK.
The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), recently criticised the Australia trade deal in the Chamber as not actually being a very good deal for the UK, admitting that
“the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”
Indeed, he said that
“since I now enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches, I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed…unless we recognise the failures the Department for International Trade made during the Australia negotiations, we will not be able to learn the lessons for future negotiations.”
He went on to say:
“We did not need to give Australia or New Zealand full liberalisation in beef and sheep—it was not in our economic interest to do so, and neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom he has just quoted, also said that he felt that the Government were in such a rush to get a deal signed off before the G7 summit in Cornwall last year that they bypassed a great deal of scrutiny of the agreement, even by themselves, so for political reasons they cast aside the interests of British farmers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is truly reprehensible?
Sir Mark Hendrick
I totally agree that that is reprehensible, but it was not the first time that it happened. The Japan deal was a roll-over deal, but parts of it were new and were added at the last minute. The Government delayed the details until 24 hours before the report was published, so the International Trade Committee could not scrutinise it properly and comment on it. It happened with Japan before it happened with Australia.
John Spellar
Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the irony that the Liberal party, which was founded on free trade and campaigning against the corn laws, is now becoming an agriculturally protectionist party?
Sir Mark Hendrick
I will not comment too much on that. There are rules to free trade—it is not a free-for-all—but at the same time, I do not think that the Liberal Democrats believe in totally free markets any more than we do.
Records show that the former Prime Minister, then the Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk, pressed ahead with the deal despite receiving detailed warnings from her own officials in 2020 that she was acting against the UK’s best interests. The British agricultural industry and farmers already facing pressures from inflation and labour shortages stand to lose the most from this Bill, as the NFU has long maintained. These deals are not in our economic interest and are a threat to domestic business and food security. They could also force many farmers out of business, according to the NFU president, Minette Batters. Ultimately, the Government may see implementation of these deals as a stepping stone to accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, but I am dismayed that that is at the expense of our own farmers and our wider economy.
May I ask the Government to review the negotiations on the chapters of this agreement, and the lessons learned from those negotiations, and to make an assessment of how this experience might inform the negotiation of future trade agreements? If other countries, in CPTPP or elsewhere around the world—whether in South America or wherever—can see that this country can be rolled over so easily in its negotiating power, it sets a bad precedent for future trade deals.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The trade deals between our country and Australia and New Zealand are historic. They are the first deals that this Government have negotiated outside of the European Union. They will have significant consequences for our farmers, exporters and a number of key industries and, importantly, they chart the course for the UK’s journey as an independent trading partner and negotiator. It is disappointing, then, that today’s debate is the most extensive opportunity many of us will have to feed into such agreements.
The provisions of the Bill apply to just one of the 32 chapters of the UK-Australia agreement, and one of the 33 in the New Zealand agreement. That means that the impact of the Bill and the amendments tabled by Members is restricted and does not go nearly as far as we might like. It is no secret that these deals are a disaster for British farming. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed new clauses 7 and 8, which would require the Government to report on the impact of these chapters on British farmers and on environmental standards, food standards, animal welfare and biodiversity.
Our farmers have been sold out by a Government willing to sacrifice far more than they should have to get new deals across the line. It is farmers who will be forced to pay the cost of the Government’s shiny new deals, with a combined hit to the agricultural, forestry and fishing sector of £142 million and to the semi-processed food sector of £322 million. The costs of producing sheepmeat are 65% lower in Australia and 63% lower in New Zealand than in the UK. While the Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), has reassured us that his Department is confident that the UK market will not experience an influx of the import of such meat as a result of these agreements, the risk remains that the complete removal of tariffs will allow UK markets to be filled with this cheaply produced meat.
Tim Farron
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is obvious that one reason why Australia and New Zealand can compete with us unfairly and more cheaply is that, with no offence to those two great countries—they are friends of ours—their animal welfare and environmental standards are significantly lower than the United Kingdom’s? It is not right to give their farmers an advantage over our farmers by virtue of their having lower quality standards.
Sarah Green
I agree. This country’s high environmental and animal welfare standards, which we are rightly proud of, mean that if such an outcome were to happen, British farmers would simply be unable to keep up. It is hardly surprising that the chief executive of the Meat Industry Association of New Zealand hailed the FTA as delivering
“a major boost for sheep and beef farmers and exporters”.
The Australian farming industry has similarly celebrated its deal. By contrast, the UK’s NFU is clear that the deals will benefit those in the southern hemisphere far more than farmers here at home. Even a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has commented that these deals are “not very good” for Britain.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We are here to talk about a very small part of a much wider trade Bill. To some extent, we are only talking about it because the Procurement Bill has not been brought to this House from the other place. If it had, we might not even be talking about some of this Bill’s clauses at all. Is that not a disgrace? Almost no other country has such poor scrutiny of its trade arrangements.
Of course, Britain did not have such poor scrutiny of its trade arrangements before we left the European Union. In this place, we were able to use the negative resolution procedure at several stages, including the pre-stage. The European Parliament had the right to vote down the deal at the pre-negotiating stage, as well as the final deal, and our Government could do so through the Council.
Now the Government, in all their ineptitude, are the ones who decide. They forced the CRaG process through, which in itself was unnecessary because ratification cannot be fully implemented until all the legislation has been laid down. There was no need for the CRaG process to happen last year without any substantive debate or vote in this place, because the trade deal cannot be fully brought into force until this Bill has passed.
The Government’s whole about-arse process on trade —we have heard all the criticisms made by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—shows that they have no real plan and no real idea about how to negotiate. When I ask my Australian colleagues what they may have compromised on and what we may have gained, they say, “It’s a pretty good deal for us—we wrote it.”
Through the amendments on procurement, there are several things we can do to ameliorate the mess that the Government have made of this deal. First, we can ensure that Parliament has scrutiny over how the details will be implemented. If the deal goes through, as we heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and in my intervention on him, it might weaken the protections on procurement.
Ensuring that the statutory instruments laid before the House are not written as poorly as the Bill and the trade deal, so there is no wiggle room on procurement, should be our first step. The way to ensure that is by holding Ministers’ feet to the fire. In the Bill Committee, the Minister seemed a bit unsure about how the affirmative procedure and the negative procedure work. It is clear that if statutory instruments are made via the negative procedure, there will almost never be a debate in this House. They will go through without debate, because Members of this House will not be able to pray against them in time; sometimes we have seen Governments deliberately laying statutory instruments when the House is not sitting and cannot pray against them. That is the reality.
The only way to ensure debate and discussion, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, is to ensure that the affirmative procedure is applied. That must be the bottom line. It is not hard, and it will not delay the process, because the Australians themselves need to go through an affirmative procedure when they implement measures. This is asking for nothing more than our counterparts are getting; to offer anything less would be to devalue and degrade Britain. We know that the Conservative Party is doing quite a lot of that at the moment, but come on; let us, at least on this one, show that Britain counts. Britain should be able to get something as good as what is available to Australia and other countries around the world. Underselling Britain is disgraceful, and we need to reverse that.
Secondly, we need clarity on the legal clauses. It needs to be made clear that they will not undermine the current protections around the world. As I said in my intervention, it is not a question of whether, in a court of law, we might reach a point at which British companies would be successful; that is irrelevant. The question is, would it be necessary to go to a court of law to determine whether British companies would be able to obtain compensation, or would everyone be so clear about the fact that a French company would be able to obtain compensation that a French competitor would be given a marginal competitive advantage? That is the question that arises from the poor wording in the Bill.
If a marginal advantage is given—even a theoretical advantage that in practice does not come about—multinational companies that can channel their trade either through their British company or through their French company for large procurement deals will do it through the French company, and then where will the tax be paid? Where will the revenue return? It will return to France, and Britain will lose out again. It is therefore vital for this clause to be included.
I am also deeply disappointed—and I wish the Government would accept some of the amendments that deal with this—about the fact that for Australia, the procurement requirements do not count at state level because Australia is a federal system. All its procurement, in respect of education, roads and building, universities and community facilities—I could go on—is at state level, so this trade deal does not bind the Australians. Because of the way this Government have negotiated the deal, they want to tie the hands of our devolved authorities and local government in a way in which Australian hands are not tied; again, selling Britain short. What we could see is the proper integration of our devolved authorities and local government, particularly big strategic local government—for instance, London-wide government and Metro Mayors. We could include them in the negotiations, or, even better, ensure that future negotiations do not allow an asymmetrical position in which we are included and others are not.
This is a poor deal, as we know from the other side. This is a poor Bill, which accepts everything from one side and protects Britain not one jot. The Opposition new clauses and amendments go some way towards ameliorating that. Ministers should accept them, thus ensuring that we can truly champion British businesses that are trying to trade around the world. That is what I genuinely believe we all want.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was not expecting to be called at this point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just removing a mint from my mouth.
Jim Shannon
Yes, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to do that—but what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Gentleman, who brings knowledge to these debates and, probably, to every debate. Let me also to say how pleased I am to be able to throw some of my thoughts and those of my party into this debate.
As a proud Brexiteer—that is no secret—I am pleased to see the opportunities that can and will come from Brexit, and we in Northern Ireland hope that we too will benefit from them. We await the Government’s endorsement of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which will give us the same opportunities as everyone else, but that is for a future debate rather than this one.
The potential of the Australian and New Zealand trade agreements is exciting for me and many others. The agricultural and fishing sectors are vital for my constituency, so my request to the Minister will be to provide the support to enable our agricultural sector to be protected. We in Northern Ireland are fortunate, in that we export food and drink products worth some £5.4 billion, and we export some 65% of that produce to the EU and across the world. We are already the epitome of what the Government are trying to achieve through this deal, and we are doing that right across the whole world. Lakeland Dairies is a good example. It is already moving to sell its produce in the far east, the middle east, Africa, south America and the USA, so it is very much to the fore. We also have Mash Direct, a buoyant company that is seeking markets overseas, and Willowbrook Foods and Rich Sauces, which likewise have farmers who feed into them. So we have a strong agri-sector in my constituency. The Minister knows that already; I am not telling him anything he does not know. He is always very astute and does his research so he will know what I am referring to, but I seek that wee bit of reassurance that my agri-sector in Strangford will be in a position to have those protections, and that we can be part of that export push that the Government clearly want to bring about.
Hywel Williams
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for once. It is a unique experience.
New clause 15, standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), would require an assessment of the impact of the procurement chapters on different sectors of the Welsh economy. It is worth noting that the Senedd’s Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee has called for future trade deals to include impact assessments for the sectors and sub-sectors in Wales, which is important.
The assessments published so far for both the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements are light on Welsh-specific detail, particularly regarding the potential sub-sectoral and regional impacts within Wales. Understanding the full impact of FTAs on the Welsh economy is necessary to assess what support businesses and organisations will need from the Welsh and UK Governments to prepare for implementation. The better the economic information available to Westminster and Senedd Ministers, the more effectively this can be done. As has been said, farming is not a five-minute occupation; it takes 10, 15 and 20 years.
I urge the UK Government to commit to publishing cumulative assessments, updated every time a new FTA is signed, showing the impact of post-Brexit trade policy on Wales’s economy and on the UK economy. That is particularly important for our agriculture and semi-processed food sectors. As a result of the agreement with Australia, the agriculture and semi-processed food sectors across the UK are expected to see a reduction in gross value added of £94 million and £225 million, respectively. The New Zealand agreement is expected to lead to a reduction of £48 million and £97 million, respectively.
Welsh farming unions have warned that both FTAs have set a damaging precedent for unfettered access to agricultural produce. We need to understand how individual procurement agreements and individual FTAs impact different sectors, and how those sectors are affected in the long term by post-Brexit trade policy. Many in those industries believe that Ministers were dashing heedlessly for glossy headlines and failing to fight for the interests of the Welsh and the UK economies, as we have heard. Rather than plugging the Brexit-sized hole in trade, these tiny trade deals will be a body blow to Welsh agriculture and food production. In general, they are not of great interest across the UK, but they are of huge interest to Welsh agriculture and food reproduction.
Today’s debate narrowly relates to the procurement chapters of both FTAs. It looks like the control that we supposedly took back from the EU goes no further than the Minister. Had Parliament and the devolved legislatures been able to properly scrutinise these deals, the former Environment Minister, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), might not have been on his feet just a month ago criticising the Australia FTA for giving away too much for too little in return. Plaid MPs have met both the Australian and New Zealand ambassadors. Without divulging anything improperly, I would say that both were very pleased with the deal that they secured, and more than a little surprised by the UK’s generosity.
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is not in his place and is very much in favour of Brexit, talked about the value of free trade. He would profit, as would many people, from reading the proceedings of the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I served for a while. We had before us Mr Pascal Lamy, who was twice Trade Commissioner for the EU, and also head of the World Trade Organisation. He said that all trade, in theory, is free, and that tariff and non-tariff barriers are there partly as bargaining chips. If we abandon those bargaining chips, as appears to have happened to a great extent in these two FTAs, we have nothing to offer in return. What do we get? Happy ambassadors from countries that have profited enormously and our own sectors, such as agriculture and food production, dismayed because so little has been secured.
We believe that MPs and the devolved Administrations should have full votes on the objectives of each future trade deal, and access to negotiating texts for that very reason—to ensure that the people of Wales, Scotland and parts of England and Northern Ireland are getting a good deal. Giving the Welsh Government a say is vital if we want trade deals that enhance rather than undermine our local economies. For example, had the Welsh Government been able to amend the FTAs, we would have likely seen a push for geographical indications in the UK-New Zealand FTA. That would have proved extremely valuable for Welsh lamb and Welsh beef, as I am sure the trade body Hybu Cig Cymru would confirm.
I add my support to new clause 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). NFU Cymru has argued forcefully that the use of geographical indicators would have allowed Wales to differentiate our products in the world market, thus accessing a premium and increased profitability. I add our support to amendments 3 to 5, tabled by the Scottish National party. Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have expressed their grave concerns about the use of concurrent powers in this legislation.
On Second Reading, the former Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) told this House that discussions were taking place with the Welsh Government on their request for the Bill to be amended to include concurrent-plus powers. Therefore, I would appreciate it if the Minister updated the House on what progress has been made in those discussions with the Welsh Government.
Geraint Davies
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who has underlined what this debate is about. The Government are in the dock for selling out British interests, in particular farming interests, at a time when Parliament has basically been blindfolded in the process, unable to see the mandate or the negotiations, or to properly ratify the outcome.
What we have before us is an array of amendments to address the impact of these deals, which have already been signed, on all our sectors—in particular on agriculture, procurement and the NHS. Those are fundamentally important sectors. The amendments, which I support, have been tabled because it is still unclear how much damage has been done by these deals. They were done in haste and rushed through the door, which put us in a weak bargaining position. Any concession was simply just given. We do not know the detail of how much harm has been done. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that we gave far too much for far too little, which I would call the understatement of the year. The Government’s projection is that GDP will grow by 0.1% in 15 years, but we do not really know the details.
What we do know though, to take the perspective of a Welsh sheep farmer—we heard from the hon. Member for Arfon—is that Australian sheep farms are on average 100 times the size of Welsh ones. We know too that in New Zealand and Australia they only focus on three or four main breeds of sheep. There are also economies of scale—New Zealand focuses on ensuring that nearly all sheep give birth to twins, as opposed to three lambs, which might kill the mother, or one, which would be less productive. We also know that their shelf life and mechanisation of food processing are far in advance of ours.
We know, therefore, that our farmers face a major threat, at a time when exports to the EU have been stifled by unnecessary barriers as a result of a botched Brexit deal, thanks to which we have seen a 15% reduction in overall trade. So it does not look too good; and what is more, the Government have signed up to giving Australia and New Zealand unlimited access in 15 years, in terms of beef and lamb. What precedent does that set for food exports when we do a deal with Brazil, for example?
With the war in Ukraine, we are now in a world where people are quite rightly concerned about food security, yet we are basically undermining our domestic production, at a time when Russia has increased its overall agricultural production by 15% since invading Crimea and facing sanctions. Basically, we are saying that we will turn our back on the EU and do a deal with Australia, undermining our own farmers. Is that a good idea? Surely, we need to be producing more healthy food locally, at a time when one in four people in Britain is in food poverty.
As it happens, I take a particular interest both in food, as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and in trade, as the rapporteur for the Council of Europe, charged with ensuring that democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sustainability are embedded in agreements, but none of those are embedded in the Australia and New Zealand agreements. On democracy, there is no facility for the mandate, the negotiations, or ratification to be properly looked at, hence all these amendments. On due diligence, there is none when it comes to climate change, human rights and so on, where we can find best practice. For example, the EU deal with New Zealand refers to the rights of indigenous people, the Maori people, and various issues about due diligence in supply chains. Our deal does not have those things because it was rushed forward.
Trading further afield is more environmentally damaging, at a time when we should be concerned about climate change. We also know that Australia is the worst carbon emitter in the world, at 17.5 tonnes per person, compared with the 4.8 tonnes claimed for Britain in terms of production—for consumption, it is 8 tonnes per person. I hope we will have an opportunity to superimpose a carbon border tax in due course and that this deal will not rule that out.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I have recently returned from visiting Singapore on behalf of the International Trade Committee, where it was mentioned to us that Singapore has done a green economy agreement with Australia, which looks at emissions as part and parcel of that trade package. Given what my hon. Friend has said about Australian emissions, could he perhaps comment on that?
Geraint Davies
My comment would be that Britain should be taking a lead, as it claims to, on mitigating climate change. The way to do that is to take best practice, from Singapore or anywhere else, and hardwire that into current and future agreements. That has not been done, because our economic, climate and other interests have been thrown to one side in order to just tick a box and say that we have got a trade agreement.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend mentioned carbon border adjustments. Is it not the truth that both Europe and America are now leading on these discussions, because they understand that trade deals without proper carbon and border adjustments are just ways of exporting jobs out of countries—degrading those countries, their workers and the environment in one fell swoop?
Geraint Davies
I am certainly a big supporter of what the EU is doing on carbon border adjustments, for instance ensuring that we have a level playing field for steel made in south Wales, which emits half the carbon of Chinese steel, and that there is an incentive to invest in green production domestically. The EU has taken a lead and we need to catch up. The United States is subsidising green industry and, as my hon. Friend will know, there is a tension between the two different strategies when it comes to ensuring a sustainable and greener future for all.
Turning to procurement, clearly it is not exactly a new idea that big multinational corporations will use unelected, private, often secretly held tribunals to try to fine democratically elected Governments who want to pass laws to protect the environment and public health. We saw that in investor-state dispute settlements. Most obviously, at the moment, we have got the Energy Charter treaty, which binds countries for 20 years to being sued if they try to pass laws to help the environment.
People will know that Germany, France, Poland, Spain and others are trying to withdraw from that treaty, although we have not heard much for the United Kingdom—because of its fossil fuel interests, I assume. My question is: why, when we know those companies will be quick on the draw in taking us to court and suing us, do we allow them a way in on procurement, so that when they do not get the business with the NHS, they can suddenly sue us? That concern is covered in new clause 1, which I very much support.
Finally, it is obvious that, out of the carnage of the botched Brexit deal, while obviously we want deals with Australia and New Zealand, the haste with which we have approached these deals has left us in a situation where they get all the benefits and we face a prospective loss. That is absolutely disgraceful maladministration from the Government, and I support the amendments to try to mitigate some of the harm done by their hopeless negotiation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
May I say what a pleasure it is to speak on behalf of the Government today as we scrutinise this landmark piece of legislation? I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debates on this Bill, including the general debate, where many of the points raised today were also covered and responses were given by my hon. Friends on the Government Benches. I will try not to repeat that debate now.
The Government are of the view that the amendments tabled are ultimately unnecessary, and I hope that I will be able to persuade right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw them. The new clauses that deal with issues on impact assessment are unnecessary, as the Government have already committed to undertake assessments of impact of these deals at regular intervals.
First, the Government have committed to publishing a monitoring report every two years and a compressive evaluation report for each of the agreements within five years of their entry into force. Those evaluation reports will aim to show how, why and for whom the agreements and their implementation have delivered, addressing many of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate.
Hywel Williams
Can the Minister therefore confirm that there will be detailed assessments for Wales, including within regions and sectors in Wales?
Nigel Huddleston
We will be happy to discuss with many stakeholders the precise nature, content and scope of those reviews, and we will do that in due course.
This Bill is based on procurement, but while procurement is the only area that requires primary legislation for implementation, it should not be the only area that is subject to review. Therefore, publishing and considering impact assessments that only cover procurement implementation would not be an effective use of parliamentary time, nor would it give parliamentarians a full picture of the economic impact of the agreements. On multiple levels, the proposed amendments relating to impact assessments would not be fit for purpose.
Regarding the negotiation of the procurement chapters, both chapters build on the baseline in the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement, or GPA, setting new international precedents, notably on data transparency and facilitating SME involvement in procurement. While all negotiations are different, my Department is committed to learning from each negotiation and applying those lessons directly to its work. I am confident that that approach towards negotiating procurement chapters allows for high-quality chapters that work well for British business and consumers.
As mentioned by several hon. Members today, the Bill Committee heard evidence from Professor Sanchez-Graells. We respectfully disagree with the professor’s reading that the chapters do not align with the GPA or that suppliers will not have access to legal remedies against contracting authorities and so cause confusion for and disadvantage British businesses. We do not believe that is the case. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge), wrote in detail to the Committee on that and I have nothing more to add.
The Government are resolute in our determination to protect the NHS, recognising that it is an institution that is very important to the UK and its citizens. That is reflected in the specific protections negotiated in respect of the NHS in the agreements: health services are expressly excluded from coverage under the procurement chapters and both agreements specifically refer to the NHS and the general exclusions that apply to it.
On small businesses, the procurement chapters in both agreements include articles on facilitating the participation of SMEs in procurement. We will have people on the ground in the UK, Australia and New Zealand to help to fully exploit the opportunities, and I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we will be providing that support across the UK. The Government have an active agenda of facilitating SME participation and continue to advance that agenda across the free trade agreement programme. We have consulted with businesses throughout the negotiations, including with small and medium-sized enterprises, and will continue to do so throughout the implementation.
On protecting farmers—again, a hot topic in previous debates—in both the Australia and New Zealand FTAs, the UK secured a range of measures to safeguard our farmers, including tariff rate quotas for a number of sensitive agricultural products and product-specific safeguards for beef and, for Australia, sheepmeat, alongside a general bilateral safeguard mechanism providing a temporary safety net for all products. Equally, this Government are committed to ensuring that UK farmers have the tools they need to secure the export benefits of these trade deals.
Additionally, it is unlikely that products from Australia or New Zealand will flood the UK market. In 2021, more than 80% of Australian beef exports and nearly 70% of Australian sheepmeat exports went to markets in Asia and the Pacific. New Zealand already has a significant volume of tariff-free access into the UK for sheepmeat but used only a third of that quota in 2021, meaning that New Zealand could already export more sheepmeat to us tariff-free, but chooses not to.
Geraint Davies
If New Zealand is not utilising its current quota, why have we chosen to give a completely unlimited quota in 15 years’ time? Given the Minister’s reasoning, New Zealand presumably does not need it, and it just exposes us to unnecessary risk.
Nigel Huddleston
All negotiations involve give and take. The hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge, I am sure, that we are also seeking market access right across the globe for farmers and our fantastic food and beverages—for example, by opening up the market in the US for sheepmeat for the first time in 20 years. At the same time, we are seeking opportunities right around the world. Of course, as several hon. Members have mentioned, we are proud of our high animal welfare and food safety standards, which is why we are ensuring that this deal does not compromise on them and that no new permissions for imports such as hormone-treated beef were granted.
On the Government’s engagement with the devolved Administrations, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), chairs the inter-ministerial group for trade, previously known as the ministerial forum for trade. That forum provides an opportunity for discussion on all matters of trade policy, including the implementation of UK free trade agreements. The forum is not the only opportunity for ministerial discussions; there are frequent bilateral meetings between Ministers. Indeed, later this week, my right hon. Friend is set to meet the Scottish Minister for Business, Trade and Enterprise, to whom I spoke last Tuesday. I also spoke to the Welsh Minister for the Economy on 1 December on a similar basis. In addition to ministerial engagement, discussions with devolved Administrations at official levels have totalled hundreds of hours across the Australia and New Zealand FTAs, including frequent updates by chief negotiators and detailed discussions to draft text.
It may be helpful to also remind the House that on Second Reading, the previous Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who is sitting near me now, committed at the Dispatch Box never to use the power in clause 1 without consulting the devolved Administrations first. That is a sincere commitment, and one that we will honour.
Hywel Williams
Is not the Minister confirming that taking back control extends to Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments but not to the elected representatives?
Nigel Huddleston
I am afraid that the hon. Member is misrepresenting the situation. In terms of concurrent powers, this is an established part of our devolution settlement. We are not, in these proposals, proposing anything unusual.
The breadth of our trade agreements means some policy issues will be within the competence of the devolved Administrations. The Government have always recognised that modern trade deals cover an increasingly broad array of policy matters. To enable more technical discussions, of course, we share draft treaty text with devolved Administrations for comment. That facilitates more detailed and comprehensive discussions between Department for International Trade officials and officials in devolved Administrations. There have already been discussions with the Scottish Government on the drafting of secondary legislation. In respect of the amendments, I understand that the Scottish Government wish to make the necessary statutory instrument to amend Scottish procurement regulations.
On new clause 12 and its consequential amendments, the super-affirmative procedure is used for statutory instruments when an exceptionally high degree of scrutiny is thought appropriate. An example would be remedial orders, which the Government can use to amend Acts of Parliament should the courts find them in breach of the European convention on human rights. It is therefore wholly disproportionate to use that process to approve a minor technical change needed to implement procurement commitments in the Australia and New Zealand deals. The potential unnecessary use of the affirmative or super-affirmative procedure could lead to delays in those agreements entering into force.
The Government are working to enter the agreements into force to ensure that UK businesses and consumers can benefit from the significant economic advantages as soon as possible. That is, of course, also the desire of the Labour Governments in Australia and New Zealand.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members and that they will not push their amendments.
Gareth Thomas
It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister, but it was rather striking that not one Conservative Back Bencher was willing to come along tonight to defend their party’s deal. We have nevertheless had an important debate with important speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson)—whom I congratulate on his appointment—for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams), as well as important interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord).
Ministers know that there are real concerns about the Australia deal and the precedent that it sets for future deals, and that here have been real concerns across the House about the parliamentary scrutiny of all trade deals, particularly the Australia deal. The behaviour of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), has only underlined those concerns. Many have noted the huge giveaway of access for Australian farmers and how little we have secured in return in the same space. That is the fault not of the Australian negotiators but of the Government’s own wilful determination to get a deal by an arbitrary deadline, whatever the price.
The House will inevitably return to the issue of procurement. We will certainly encourage those in the other place to explore the concerns that I in particular have articulated in the debate—particularly as negotiations on CPTPP accession are moving forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Assessment of impact on farmers
“At least three months, but not later than six months, after the coming into force of the government procurement Chapter of—
(1) the UK-Australia FTA, and
(2) the UK-New Zealand FTA,
a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Chapter on farmers in—
(a) each region of England
(b) Scotland
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland.”—(Gareth Thomas.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, I should tell the House that we have had reports that Division bells in Norman Shaw South are not working, along with a number of other things. As we anticipate further Divisions this evening, I advise Members in and around Norman Shaw South to look for other means by which they can work out whether a Division is on, including the Annunciators, mobile phones and various other things. If they cannot do that, they should really stay around the main building.
Third Reading
Nigel Huddleston
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Our deals with Australia and New Zealand are the first trade agreements in almost 50 years that the UK has negotiated from scratch. Members from across the House have rightly been eager to engage with the Bill, and I thank them all for continuing to do so. I also thank Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee for their work in scrutinising the Bill, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) for their expertise in chairing the Committee.
Members have rightly shown a great interest in the Bill, and I would like to use this opportunity to give the House further assurances. First, Members expressed concerns about the opportunities that the devolved Administrations have had to shape the Bill. I can assure the House that our procurement teams have consistently held roundtables with their counterparts from the devolved Administrations. During negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, they discussed the text of procurement chapters. Discussions on the Bill, and the changes in procurement regulations that it creates, have regularly taken place. Indeed, during negotiations, ministerial and official level engagement on these free trade agreements totals hundreds of hours. That includes 25 meetings with the Australia FTA chief negotiator, specific discussions at the ministerial forum for trade, and senior official conversations on policy content. My officials continue to work closely with their counterparts at the devolved Administrations to address the concerns raised regarding the powers in the Bill. I myself have also had constructive conversations with Ministers from the devolved Administrations. The Government remain committed not to using the concurrent power in the Bill without first consulting the devolved Administrations. I want to stress to the House that the powers are the most logical and efficient way of making minor, technical changes to our procurement regulations.
On Report, we discussed how the Government are committed to providing, for each agreement, a monitoring report every two years, and an evaluation within five years of entry into force. The reports will assess the entirety of the agreements and not limit themselves to the procurement chapters alone.
I would like to say a couple more thank yous: first, to the Bill team at the Department for International Trade—James Copeland, Donald Selmani, Jack Collins, Alex Garcia-Pineiro and Catherine Ajani—as well as the other officials who make up my fantastic team. I would like to thank the parliamentarians who have taken part in this and other debates on the legislation, and of course the International Trade Select Committee, as well as the wonderful staff here in the House.
I also want to thank the Opposition spokespeople for the constructive way in which they have approached scrutiny of the Bill. It was remiss of me earlier not to welcome the new SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) to his role, and I do so now. I also thank his predecessor, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). Who knows, but perhaps under the new leadership we may actually get the SNP to vote in favour of a trade deal. [Interruption.] Indeed, I suspected that may be the case.
Drew Hendry
Will the Minister also extend the hope that the Government may accept one of the SNP amendments one of these days?
Nigel Huddleston
The key thing is that we estimate that these deals will considerably boost the UK economy and all nations. Businesses in every single constituency will be able to grasp new opportunities from this Bill. It will therefore benefit the whole of the country, and I hope that just perhaps it will get the support of the whole House. I am delighted to commend this Bill to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I want to put on record my thanks to all parliamentarians who have contributed to the passage of the Bill. I thank officials at the DIT for their work and all those House staff who have supported the debates both in the Chamber and in Committee.
I also want to put on record my desire to see a deepening of our trade links with our friends in Australia and New Zealand through trade agreements and, indeed, ever closer relationships at all levels. Both countries are close global allies through a common history, and face similar challenges and have similar opportunities in the years to come. I particularly welcome the two very fine Labour Governments they have in office. The next UK Labour Government will work with these free trade deals for the benefit of our people here, and indeed of our friends in Australia and New Zealand.
Specifically on the negotiations, the high commissions of Australia and New Zealand have been remarkably helpful in briefing colleagues as talks progressed, and I am very grateful to them. I was very grateful this morning to meet Mr Don Farrell, the Minister for Trade and Tourism in Australia, to emphasise the Opposition’s desire to deepen that relationship. The Minister mentioned on Report that he was working on the commencement of the deals, but gave no particular date for that. I urge him to set out the commencement dates for both deals.
Our debate on this Bill has not been about the commitment of the Opposition to our deepening relationship with Australia and New Zealand. Rather, it has been about two things. The first is the failure of this Government to achieve the best possible deals for the United Kingdom. The Australia deal is “one-sided”—not my word, but that of the current Prime Minister. In addition:
“The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK… overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
Those are not my words, but those of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and we can see why he said it. The impact assessment for the Australia deal shows a £94 million hit to our farming, forestry and fishing sectors, and a £225 million hit to our semi-processed food industry. On the New Zealand deal, the Government’s own impact assessment states that:
“part of the gains results from a reallocation of resources away from agriculture, forestry, and fishing”,
which will take a £48 million hit,
“and semi-processed foods”,
which will take a £97 million hit. Perhaps it is no surprise that Australia’s former negotiator at the WTO said:
“I don’t think we have ever done as well as this”.
British produce can be a huge success in new markets, but we recognise the need for a level playing field for our farmers, and it is to a proper plan for our agricultural sector that Ministers must now turn.
On climate change in the Australia deal, the Government failed to include a specific commitment to limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees. On workers’ rights, there was a failure to include commitments to the International Labour Organisation conventions, and there was a lack of substantial concessions on geographical indicators. Unless there is a change of negotiating approach, this weakness in negotiations will have even further consequences for this country in deal after deal.
Secondly, there is the lack of scrutiny. The deals were already signed and agreed before they came before Parliament, so the scope for any amendments, and therefore for meaningful debate, was fatally curtailed. It is impossible to argue that these processes represent scrutiny worthy of the name. The International Trade Committee has rightly criticised the process on the Australia deal and the Government’s premature triggering of the 21-day CRaG process without the full Select Committee consideration being available to Members. When pressed on that, the Government refused to extend the process, and all the while the previous Secretary of State swerved eight invitations—eight—to attend the International Trade Committee.
Perhaps it is no wonder that the Government keep dodging scrutiny, given their record, because as we approach the end of the year, it is a tale of broken promises on trade: no trade deal with the United States; a trade deal with India done by Diwali—promise broken; and 80% of UK trade under free trade agreements by the end of the year—not going to happen. The truth is that Conservative trade policy is a tale of bad deals or no deals at all.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
On Third Reading, could I take the opportunity to thank the Clerks for all their help in assisting with amendments throughout the process? I thank those on both Front Benches for their kind words on my recent appointment to my party’s Front Bench as a trade spokesperson. I also thank my group’s researchers, Clorinda Luck and Katie Dominy, for the excellent research they have carried out for us throughout. Of course, I thank my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who led for the Scottish National party group of MPs throughout the previous stages, including in Committee.
The Minister said that he hoped, when we scrutinise future trade deals, that he might be successful in persuading the SNP to back them. I would give him a little bit of hope on that. The SNP is in favour of good trade deals, and we are not in favour of poor trade deals. Trying to help Ministers understand the difference does at times appear a little like Father Ted trying to explain to Father Dougal McGuire the difference between cows that are near and cows that are in fact far away. I would observe that certainly the benefits of this trade deal are very far away indeed.
I was going to comment on the existence of some dispute about whether or not the deal is a good one, but I am afraid that description simply would not do it justice. The Australian and New Zealand Governments certainly think that this is a good trade deal, and it is very telling, is it not, that there are so few individuals outside the ranks of the parliamentary Conservative party who are prepared to say the same from the UK side. I think there is a fundamental reason for that. It is quite clear that the Australian and New Zealand Governments were very focused on securing beneficial outcomes for their economies, whereas the UK Government seemed to be focused primarily on getting a deal as quickly as possible, no matter what that cost.
It is often said that the art of negotiation or diplomacy is the subtle art of letting somebody else get your way, and the Australian and New Zealand Governments certainly allowed the UK very successfully to get their way in the negotiations that took place. It is sad to say, but it will be our consumers, our producers and our economy that will end up picking up the price tag for that in the years to come.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Council Tax
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 199 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the draft Voter Identification Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.
This statutory instrument is a key part of how we implement the voter identification policy in the Elections Act 2022. This area was debated extensively during the passage of the Act earlier this year. Through this SI, we will be fulfilling a Government manifesto commitment to protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations. Gaps in our current legislation leave open the potential for someone to cast another vote at the polling station. Our priority is adopting legislation that ensures the public can have confidence in the integrity of our elections and certainty that their vote belongs to them, and them alone.
The introduction of a voter identification policy is the best solution to the problem. It has been long called for by the independent Electoral Commission, as well as by international organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which regularly monitors and reports on our national polls.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister mentions the Electoral Commission. It issued a press statement at the weekend that expressed continued concerns about the delays in the Government getting their act together on this policy. It said it was not now sure that all the considerations it wanted taken into account to ensure the policy works properly could fully be met. That was in the press release. That comes alongside the Local Government Association and other council leaders expressing real concerns about whether this matter could be implemented properly and fairly and give people full access to voting in the May local elections. Does the Minister not just want to stop and think for a minute about the timing of the implementation, if not the policy itself?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We absolutely are thinking about how best to implement this policy. In the period while I have been in post, I have already met the Electoral Commission to talk about it. I have spoken to the Association of Electoral Administrators about it, and today I have spoken to the LGA about it. There are a range of views, but we are confident and focused on ensuring that this policy is implemented properly. We will continue to be so. On the key point, the Electoral Commission has been clear since as early as 2014 that
“we should move to a system where voters are required to produce identification at polling stations.”
This SI sets out further detail on the new processes that will be put in place to help us to implement this policy in practice. First, it sets out the updated polling station conduct rules for a range of elections and referendums, and details exactly how photographic identification documents will be checked and how data will be recorded by polling station staff. Secondly, it sets out a series of updates to election forms. As Members would expect, a number of existing forms, such as poll cards, have been updated to inform electors of the new requirement to show identification and of the types of documents that will be accepted.
On top of those changes, there are also new forms, such as those for polling station staff, which we will use to record data that will help our planned reviews of the policy in the future. Lastly, the policy sets out the details of the new electoral identity documents that can be obtained if someone does not already have an accepted document: the voter authority certificate and the anonymous elector document. These forms of photographic identification will be available to voters free of charge and will ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I might be one of the minority on the Opposition Benches who think that what the Government are bringing forward is the right thing. The proof of pudding is in how the voter ID system works in Northern Ireland. The system sets the example for all the UK, and I know the Minister has had many discussions with his officials in Northern Ireland to ensure that the system in Northern Ireland can work here. It reduces electoral fraud and increases fairness in the democratic system. The Minister has had discussions with Northern Ireland, and electoral ID is of some use to people in their daily life. Those are four things going for it; it seems to me to be the thing to vote for. I just cannot understand why anybody would not.
Lee Rowley
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining the importance of these policy changes. I fear it may be the only thing we agree with coming from the Opposition Benches tonight, but he has made an important point and he speaks from experience and more than 15 years of knowledge about how these kinds of changes make a difference to the integrity of our voter process.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
As someone who served on the Elections Public Bill Committee, I know that the regulations that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to were actually brought in under a Labour Government. Might the Minister like to comment on that?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I look forward to hearing Opposition Front Benchers’ comments in support of this statutory instrument, based on their previous support for strengthening the integrity of our democratic processes.
This SI also sets out the processes for how electors can apply for these documents, both online and via paper forms, and for how electoral registration officers can process, determine and issue the documents. Showing photo ID is a part of day-to-day life for people in all walks of life. It is a perfectly reasonable and proportionate way to confirm that a person is who they say they are when it comes to voting.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I reassure the Minister that surely the Opposition will support this statutory instrument, because only three weeks ago, my Labour opponent was selected and as part of the rules for the hustings, people had to bring voter ID.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend makes a significant intervention that highlights the importance of consistency, which I am sure will shortly be coming from those on the Opposition Front Bench. Showing photo ID is a part of day-to-day life already, and as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already outlined, it has been a requirement to show photographic identification since 2003 in Northern Ireland.
We are all rightly proud of the long history of our democracy, but we should never take it for granted. An essential part of how we keep our system functioning is by keeping the right structures in place, through measures such as this SI, that stop our elections being undermined. This SI will strengthen the integrity of our elections, and I hope that Members will join me in supporting these measures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind hon. Members that this is not a general debate on voter ID; it is about the regulations that pertain to it, so I ask people to stick to the regulations.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, but frankly, I am sad that we have reached this point. It is a stain on Britain’s democratic history that, if the Government have their way with these regulations, we will take a historic step away from making our democracy more open and accessible and towards closing it down, shutting people out and making it harder to vote.
Opposition Members have been clear from the start that this legislation is a wasted opportunity. It is a step backwards at a time when so many improvements are needed to widen participation in our democracy and to make it fit for the 21st century. The regulations arise from a slapdash, short-sighted and politically motivated act that turns the clock back on democratic progress. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his work throughout the stages of the Elections Act 2022, highlighting the dangers of mandatory photo ID, which we are debating today. I thank him for helping to secure this debate on the Floor of the House when Ministers would no doubt have preferred to sneak it through upstairs.
The basic fact is that voter ID is not only a backwards step for democracy, but completely pointless. It is a solution in search of a problem. Ministers claim it will combat voter fraud, but voter personation—the voter fraud which voter ID apparently targets—is vanishingly rare. Over the last 10 years, there have been about 243 million votes cast in elections, and how many people have been convicted of voter fraud? Four. That is 0.00000005%. I am under no illusion that the Government are in the slightest bit interested in genuinely tackling fraud. The Tories’ Minister responsible for fraud summarised it when he resigned at the Dispatch Box, saying that the Government had
“no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]
While the Government focus on measures like these regulations, serious fraud, where criminals target vulnerable people with scams to steal bank details, is running rife under this Government. Our economy loses around £190 billion every year to fraud—more than the UK spends on health and defence combined. People are being left terrorised by scammers pretending to be their banks, mobile networks or family members, but instead of actually tackling that, the Government are using parliamentary time to tackle the virtually non-existent crime of voter personation, costing millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money to boot.
Justin Tomlinson
Will the right hon. Member explain why, if the system is so bad, it is used in Labour selections?
Angela Rayner
I have just explained why this is such a tiny, not even significant, minuscule issue that the Government are trying to make hay over, when, in fact, we have fraud that results in people being terrorised by scammers pretending to be their banks. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being wasted on this Bill instead of dealing with the fraud that the hon. Member’s constituents have to face every single day, which is not being tackled. He needs to tackle that.
Perhaps the Minister lives in a bizarre alternative reality where, across the country, people are attempting to impersonate their neighbours to steal their votes, but meanwhile, in this universe, you are more likely to be hit by lightning 54 times than fall victim to voter personation fraud. So let us get back to the reality that we face. The British public face a cost of living crisis, freezing temperatures, with people too scared to put their heating on, and cancelled Christmases, with working parents unable to afford festive treats. And this Conservative Government are planning to spend £180 million of taxpayers’ money to introduce a completely pointless and eye-wateringly expensive change.
Aaron Bell
We heard evidence from the police in the Bill Committee. They thought that the measures on voter ID and the extra measures that we are taking to avoid intimidation would make the Act really useful for them on polling day, so that they can get on with the job that we want them to do—that is, to keep our communities safe—and not have to spend as much time dealing with cases of personation at polling stations.
Angela Rayner
I say to the hon. Member: show us the evidence. Where is the evidence of that? We have not seen the evidence, but we do know that people are choosing between heating and eating this winter. We do know that crime is on the rise and that people just do not see the police on the beat any more. We do know that people are targeted by online fraud every single day of the week, with no protection and no action by their Government.
I ask the Minister: why will he not spend his time and energy tackling the huge array of issues that face the British people instead of flushing away yet more hard-earned taxpayers’ cash on this pointless measure? I might be able to hazard a guess. I notice that the regulations allow 60-plus, but not 18-plus, Oyster cards—why is that? I notice that OAP bus passes will be valid, yet students IDs will not—why is that? I notice that some 4.2 million voters do not have a photo ID allowed by these regulations, yet the Government demand that we plough on—why is that?
The Minister said that voter ID does not discriminate, but I am afraid that the evidence does not quite stack up. When the Minister’s colleague, a former Cabinet Office Minister—the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)—said that
“the evidence of our pilots shows that there is no impact on any particular demographic group from this policy.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 394.]—
the answer was based on the Electoral Commission’s evaluations of the 2018 and 2019 voter ID pilots. However, in its most recent report, the commission said that it had no way of measuring the effect of voter ID on minority communities. It said:
“Polling station staff were not asked to collect demographic data about the people who did not come back, owing to the practical challenges involved in carrying out that data collection exercise”.
Let us take a look into the pilots more closely. Pilots for voter ID took place in just 10 local authority areas in England. In all elections that took place in 2019, there was one conviction and one police caution for using someone else’s vote at a polling station, but during the pilots, 2,000 people were turned away because they did not come to the polling station with ID. More than 750 of those did not return with ID to cast their vote. How can the Minister stand there and tell us that these measures will not make it harder for people to vote? Perhaps they are less keen on having the Government chosen by the voters than having the voters chosen by the Government.
I come on to the Government’s so-called “free elector IDs”. Not only are they unworkable, they are hugely expensive for already overstretched local authorities. Council leaders have warned the Government that voter ID risks damaging access to democracy and must be delayed. They say that there is simply not enough time to deal with all the risks that will be created by the new system. I wonder what the Minister has to say to the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, James Jamieson, who said that voter ID must be delayed because:
“It is a fundamental part of the democratic process that elections can run smoothly and effectively where every citizen is able to exercise their right to vote.”
What does the Minister have to say to the leader of his party’s councillors?
The language and politics around voter ID used by this Government is frankly dangerous. Does the Minister not trust the voters of this country to continue to cast their ballots securely, as they have done for generations? Does he really believe that voting is not safe and secure in Britain? Ministers should be promoting confidence in our elections, not spreading baseless scare stories that threaten our democracy.
Finally, the Minister will be aware of an amendment tabled in the other place by my noble Friends on the Labour Front Bench to establish a Select Committee to conduct an assessment of the impact of the voter ID regulations on turnout in the local elections next May. If the Minister is so confident that the regulations will not create barriers to people voting, surely he cannot object to that pragmatic, common-sense proposal. Surely he has absolutely nothing to be afraid of.
I urge Members across the House, when they enter the voting Lobbies this evening, to think about our constituents who have the right to vote and may have done so for decades, but will be turned away for the first time in May. It is for that fundamental reason that these backward, unworkable and anti-democratic regulations must be stopped in their tracks.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I will make just a few quick comments. My seat of North Swindon, as part of the Swindon Borough Council area, was part of one of the initial pilots in 2017 or 2018, so I want to make a few observations. First, turnout was up, not down. Secondly, when the pilot came to an end and we were not made part of the bigger pilot, we were inundated with complaints, because people thought that the new system was far better. That is why I am very pleased to advocate this welcome change.
I have a bit of a soft spot for the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), perhaps because we have similar music tastes. She talked about trusting people. I have now had not one, not two, not three, not four, but five Labour opponents. I can assure her that every single time one of them has been selected, the adverts for the selection meetings—in which, of course, we take a mild interest—very clearly say, “You must bring voter ID.”
The whole thrust of the argument against the draft regulations is that the number of people looking to cheat the system is so small. That seems to indicate that the right hon. Lady believes that North Swindon Labour party members must all be truly terrible people—that the terrible people must all be consolidated there. I want to reassure her that that is not the case. They are actually very nice people.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the Labour rules, is he not? They do not require photo ID; they require any ID. They allow student ID, student bus cards and student railcards, all of which the Government have excluded in their gerrymandering efforts. Does he acknowledge that this Government have gerrymandered voter ID?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman, bless him, has got absolutely muddled. As he would have seen from the pilots if he had taken the time to look, anybody can access IDs. They are commissioned by the local authorities. It is straightforward.
The proof of the pudding was that turnout in Swindon was up during the pilot. Sadly, that pilot came to an end and we were not part of the second pilot, so we were inundated with complaints. People want to have trust in our democracy. The regulations are a brilliant thing to have brought forward.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Member talks about increased turnout. One of the highest turnouts in British history was for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, which had a very clear result: Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. A conspiracy theory was circulated at the time that votes would be altered if people put their cross in the box with a pencil instead of a biro or a pen. That was rubbished by the general public and put in the dustbin where it belonged. Should we not trust the great British public to get these things right, as they have in the past?
Justin Tomlinson
Yes, it is about trust: trust in our world-leading democracy and trust in making sure that we can safeguard what matters. I will not stray into conspiracy theories about Scottish elections, but trust is the proof of the pudding. When there was a pilot in my constituency, voter turnout went up and people complained when the pilot came to an end. It is quite straightforward.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The hon. Member talks about trust. Trust is incredibly important, so can he tell me why anybody should trust the Conservative party when it comes to voter fraud, given that its last leadership election—not the coronation that we have just had, but the leadership election—was delayed because of security fears and possible breaches of ballot paper processes?
Justin Tomlinson
If there is ever any question of any threat in any form, it should always be investigated. The sun comes up in the morning—it is that obvious.
I say to the Minister: hold firm. This is what the public want. It has worked in the pilots, and proceeding with it is an absolute must.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
When we stand for election, every one of us appeals to the electorate to get out and vote. We impress on them how important it is that they use their democratic right to express their will through the ballot box. We want bigger turnouts and we seek more and better engagement, yet voter ID will have a detrimental effect on turnouts. We know that because we can measure it.
The UK Government have tried on several occasions to justify voter identification cards by stating that they already exist within the UK: they are used in Northern Ireland. What they cannot say with any conviction is that they have been a success in Northern Ireland. In fact, the turnout in the first election in Northern Ireland after photographic ID was introduced was 2.3% down. If we extrapolate from the data to a UK general election, approximately 1.1 million people would not vote. That would not fall evenly across the population, so who is it that we are disenfranchising?
Angela Kitching, head of external affairs at Age UK, points out that the Government’s own research has found that 6% of people over 70 would have problems with presenting the right kind of ID. It is reasonable to believe that that estimate is low, because the UK Government did not include the 500,000 people in care homes and sheltered accommodation in their research. It is no surprise that Angela Kitching has described the idea as being “for the fairies”.
The Royal National Institute of Blind People says that
“this will disproportionately disenfranchise blind and partially sighted people, particularly older blind and partially sighted people.”
The Royal Mencap Society has raised concerns that
“voter ID could simply result in yet another barrier to people with a learning disability participating in elections.”
Sense, the national charity that supports people with complex disabilities, has also raised concerns, saying:
“Given the barriers that already face disabled people while voting, Sense is concerned that this could make it harder for some disabled people to vote.”
Concerns have been raised by groups representing LGBTQ+ communities, including the LGBT Foundation, Mermaids and Stonewall. The Runnymede Trust has raised concerns that introducing a voter ID requirement would add further barriers to voting for black and ethnic minority groups.
Those groups should not be disadvantaged. Their votes and their views are not worth less. Pilots have shown that 30% of people who had their ballot paper refused for lack of ID did not return later with an ID to vote. Were all those people trying to impersonate someone? I do not think so.
As has been mentioned, this measure will disproportion-ately impact younger voters. ID such as an Oyster 60+ card is valid, but an Oyster 18+ card is not. Despite the calls for railcards or student IDs to be accepted, the Government have refused.
Of course, change attracts a financial cost. Disappoint-ingly, the UK Government do not know how much this change will cost. Their assessment is £150 million, based on an assumed take-up of 2%, but a UK Government survey found that 31% of people said they would apply for a voter ID card. The impact assessment estimates that an additional £10.2 million should be added for each additional percentage point, which brings the cost of that 31% to £450 million.
In truth, we do not know, because the people surveyed were not informed of the existing photographic ID that would be acceptable, nor were they informed that out-of-date photographic ID would be acceptable. There is more confusion on which we are supposed to legislate: we need a clearer explanation of how having a period of validity for a voter card could work if its expiry date was not a bar to using it for its sole purpose at a polling station.
What is driving this change? Photographic voter ID is supposed to be required to address the issue of personation —occasions when somebody pretends to be another elector and votes on their behalf. We are asking people who work a very long day in polling places to verify visually that each voter looks like the photo ID that they present and, if they are not happy, to refuse that person the right to vote. That is a burden that will weigh heavily on many of those who, until now, have diligently staffed polling places.
For us to go to such lengths as introducing photographic voter ID, placing such a burden on electoral staff and risking disenfranchising 1.1 million voters, personation would have to be a massive problem. Yet, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, with more than 58 million votes cast in elections in 2019, there were 33 counts of personation at a polling station. As we have heard, that comprises 0.000057%. When we consider the number of people cautioned for or convicted of personation, the proportion is reduced to 0.0000035% of votes cast. This is a sledgehammer looking for a nut to crack. It is a solution looking for a problem. The long and short of it is that this legislation has been pushed through with little substantial evidence of its value.
For as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom and Westminster has the power to affect the voting franchise and the electoral process in Scotland—even if that involves elections to this place—we in the Scottish National party will hold Westminster to account, and will demand that any changes must be transparent, considered, constructive and inclusive. The motion does not satisfy those criteria.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened with great interest to the Minister’s assurances to the House and the country, but it will not surprise Conservative Members to learn that I am not assured, nor will my constituents be assured.
Tony Benn talked of the importance of the vote. He talked very movingly of the way in which universal suffrage had helped to transfer power from the marketplace to the ballot box, giving our citizens the right to obtain through voting what they could not obtain through their wallets, whether it be free healthcare, free education, or a say in our country’s laws. That right is under threat from these regulations, which are littered with discriminatory inconsistencies. They are not, in fact, a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but, in my view, a deliberate voter suppression strategy—a strategy not to suppress just any voters, but to suppress certain groups of voters in particular.
These regulations are straight out of the right-wing United States Republican playbook. Over there, they try to find ways of stopping people being able to vote. How else can we explain the way in which young people are discriminated against in the regulations? I believe they are a deliberate voter suppression strategy against working-class communities in particular, and, in particular, black and ethnic minority working-class communities and young working-class people, because the Conservatives have taken the view that those are the people who are less likely to vote for them.
The regulations also have a broader context that should disturb all of us who are concerned about hard-won British democratic freedoms. In our society, there are three main ways for people to fight back against unpopular policies or express discontent with a Government they do not like, or an employer they do not like. There is the right to protest peacefully, the right to take industrial action and withdraw labour, and, of course, the right to vote. These regulations on voter ID need to be seen within the context of an authoritarian drift on the part of a Government who have in their sights the right to protest peacefully, the right to take strike action, and the right to vote with ease. That is profoundly disturbing. The Members on the other side of the debate are probably split between those who believe that this is necessary and desirable and those who do not really believe that it is necessary and desirable, but are going along with it because they are going along with that authoritarian drift.
Even if we were to accept the introduction of voter ID, which I and others certainly do not, when we look at the inconsistencies in the regulations with regard to which voter ID is acceptable and which is not, we see that it is a real dog’s dinner—a real anti-democratic dog’s dinner. These regulations should send a shiver down the spines of all those who believe in civil and democratic liberties in our society. They should send a shiver down the spines of people, regardless of their political views, who believe that the right of every citizen to vote, the right of every worker to withdraw labour and the right of every citizen to engage in peaceful protest are rights that were hard won and should be cherished and defended. It is because we defend those hard-won civil liberties and principles that we oppose these regulations, and oppose this Government’s disgraceful authoritarian drift.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The proposal will result in voter suppression, and I want to raise a number of concerns about its implementation, based on feedback from colleagues on Plymouth City Council, which represents one of the poorest communities in the country. Being in the south-west of England, surrounded by lovely beaches and gorgeous countryside, we are often not considered to be one of the poorest communities, but many of the problems experienced by some of the poorest communities in the north and the midlands are also present in the south-west.
I greatly fear that this proposal will not increase turnout, and I think that any Government who seek to introduce electoral reforms with the objective of not increasing turnout should look again at why they are doing it. What is their motivation? The proposal will cut turnout; in certain target demographics, the Conservative party will have a partisan advantage over other parties, which should also make us look again at the reasons for the proposal.
Many of the concerns were expressed during a group discussion between Councillor Tudor Evans, the leader of the Labour opposition on Plymouth City Council, and his councillors. I think they are genuinely meaningful, and I should be grateful if the Minister responded to them when he sums up the debate. One of them relates to the number of people who might be unable to obtain voter ID. On the basis of Government figures, the council estimates that about 4% of voters—8,000 people in Plymouth—will not have access to the photo ID that will be required for them to vote, which means that a great many people will not be able to cast their ballot without embarking on a bureaucratic process to secure it.
The concern in this regard is that councils will not be able, in the time that is allowed, to process the necessary number of applications. Councils are not full of staff twiddling their thumbs and looking idle, but they do not have the capacity to enable electoral officers to work flat out to process these IDs. Even if it were possible for that to be done on time—which it is not—resources would be diverted from jobs on which councils should be focusing.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right to say that this is about the disenfranchisement of, in particular, young people and black and ethnic minorities. As he also said, it is impractical too. The Local Government Association has talked of delaying the timetable beyond the local elections. I am fundamentally against the proposal and will vote accordingly, but I hope my hon. Friend agrees that we need to look again at this unrealistic timetable.
Luke Pollard
I agree that the timetable is important. Regardless of party, we should all be seeking to make good legislation, with a good outcome. Rushed legislation will not lead to a good outcome, and I fear that rushed legislation is exactly what we have before us.
One of the concerns that many councils have is that the software required for them to produce valid certificates enabling people to vote if they do not have what legislation defines as legitimate forms of photo ID will not arrive until the start of next year, and has not been tested and integrated into other local IT systems that councils possess. Even councils that want to process the IDs for as many people as possible cannot yet do so. Plymouth City Council estimates that it will take eight minutes to process a single piece of voter ID for someone who does not have one, and 8,000 people in Plymouth do not have one. That means an awful lot of work: someone will be working their socks off to be able to deliver it.
This will also involve additional bureaucracy and cost. I asked a parliamentary question about the number of mirrors that would be required for the legislation to work, which produced some very puzzled faces. Why was I asking about mirrors? The answer is that the legislation will require 40,000 mirrors to be purchased by local councils to enable people in polling stations to readjust their masks or religious garments after taking them off to demonstrate that they are who they are, should they be asked to do so. It will also require the purchase of 40,000 privacy screens so that people can do that outside the public gaze, particularly for religious reasons.
Furthermore, the legislation will require a woman to be present as one of the polling clerk staff throughout the day. I think we should be seeking more women to be polling clerks, but we know that many polling stations do not have female coverage across the entirety of the day. That would now be required, under these regulations, so we are asking councils that are deeply in debt and struggling to afford social care for some of our poorest people to go on to eBay and buy mirrors. We would need one mirror for every polling station and we would probably need some spares in case one got smashed along the way.
It is a warped priority for councils to be buying mirrors, so can the Minister say whether the Government will be providing privacy screens and mirrors for every single polling station, or whether that cost will be put on to hard-pressed council taxpayers? I suspect that if the parties were in opposite positions and we were introducing this, Conservative Members would be saying, “Look at this Labour Government waste, buying mirrors and privacy screens.” Why is that not being said here? The £180 million cost is a significant amount of money that should be being spent on social care. The Tory-run Plymouth City Council is £37 million in deficit at the moment, and I want it to spend every single penny on essential public services, not on this type of bureaucracy.
Another concern I would like the Minister to address is the safety of polling clerks at the polling stations. We have to assume that refusing people or asking them for ID will generate a certain level of friction among some of the people seeking to cast their vote. Plymouth has 105 polling stations and there is real concern about what advice has been and will be given to those polling clerks about what happens if that friction turns into violence. Will there be adequate policing resources available on polling day to ensure that those polling clerks are safe when they ask people for ID or when they have to refuse them? What about the people who do not return when they have been refused? Our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), estimated that this would involve nearly a third of the people. That is an enormous number of people who might be in possession of the correct form of identification but do not have it with them when they go to vote. That is an awful lot of people who simply will not return, and not just for that election, because it will damage their voting experience for the rest of their lives.
I want to put on record a concern about the rural impact of the proposal. People who live in an urban area who are refused because they have left their ID at home might be able to walk back to their polling station easily, but those who live in a rural area and must travel large distances to get to their polling station are less likely to return. There is an urban-rural divide.
How will the Minister judge the success or failure of this measure? We know that there has been only one conviction, so in the Minister’s eyes, how many people being refused their right to vote will class the proposal a success, and what is the level at which it tips over to be a failure? I think that a single person being denied the right to vote is a failure, but I understand that the Government have taken a different view, and I would like to understand how many people must be turned away for this not to be successful.
This is not a piece of legislation of which the House can be proud. More importantly, it is not a piece of legislation of which the Minister should be proud. After this piece of voter suppression delivers partisan advantage in May and turns out to be a failure because people are refused their right to vote on a widespread basis—heaven help us if there is violence or if a poll clerk gets injured because of this—what do the Government think success looks like? Denying people their vote is never a success; it is always a failure, and I think that is what this piece of legislation will be.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In mid-October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood here and warned us that eye-wateringly difficult decisions would need to be made by the Government to stabilise public finances following the disastrous October mini-Budget, yet today we are being asked to pass regulations and put the final touches to a scheme that will cost £180 million over the next 10 years to solve the issue of just 33 allegations of voter fraud in 2019, with only one conviction and one caution. That might look like good value for money to the Conservatives, but the truth is that it is a staggering waste of money. In the midst of a cost of living crisis and a self-inflicted financial disaster, it beggars belief that this scheme is going ahead. Our councils are cutting critical services because of extreme financial pressure and we should not be burdening them with the additional cost of a scheme that is totally unnecessary. Whether it is for mirrors, privacy screens or ID cards, it is all a complete waste of their time.
But is worse than that: not only is photo ID for voting not really needed, but the plan is not even expected to work particularly well. The chair of the Electoral Commission has told Ministers that the plans cannot be delivered in a way that is
“fully secure, accessible, and workable”
in time for next May’s local elections. The Conservative chair of the Local Government Association is calling for the implementation of voter ID to be delayed because the LGA simply does not have time to get the plans in place for May without access to votes being put at risk.
The most worrying element, as colleagues have pointed out, is that the likely effect of all this will be selective voter suppression. Research has shown that there might be around 3.5 million people without the right ID and that those people are more likely to be the most vulnerable in society, such as those with limiting disabilities, as well as younger voters, black and ethnic minorities and the least well off in society. The Cabinet Office has already admitted that around 42% of those without photo ID are estimated to be unlikely to apply for a voter ID card. The proposed acceptable forms of ID include a 60+ Oyster card or bus pass, but not the young person’s equivalent. This will disproportionately disadvantage students and young people. The Government have shown no concern at all about the possibility of postal voter fraud, which will not require any form of ID; I fear that is down to the fact that postal voters are most likely to be older and to vote Conservative, while the young and the other groups I have mentioned are more likely to support an Opposition party.
There is no need to go into any further detail. In summary, I urge the House to consider the facts: we do not need photo ID, we cannot afford to implement the scheme and the proposals will simply lead to voter suppression. This Government should be trying to give the next generation a reason to vote for them, not to supress their view because they have offered them nothing. Scrapping this legislation is not an eye-wateringly difficult decision. It would be a common-sense course of action. The Liberal Democrats are determined to end this legislation and I therefore urge all Members to vote against it today.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Where are they, then? Where are all the Lib Dems?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. No shouting out. I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The debate so far has been superb and I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the expert way in which she completely took apart the Government’s arguments. I was 20 years in local government before I came here, and the last exercise in voter suppression was the poll tax. I was in local government at the time—I was chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, which represented both Conservative and Labour councils—and we explained to the then Government what the effect of introducing the poll tax legislation would be. It might well have been advertised as a fairer way of funding local government and collecting resources, but we argued that the Government needed to be careful because it could also possibly result in voter suppression. Naively, we did not think that that was an exercise being deliberately undertaken by the Government.
Although the poll tax brought down Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister, it ensured that a Tory Government were elected in 1992 because of what happened in many constituencies. Take my own constituency as an example, where 5,000 mainly working-class people dropped off the register. As a result, there were four recounts and I lost by 54 votes. I know every one of them and I visit them every so often, but there we are. That was an exercise that was done for one reason but actually had a sub-reason, which was voter suppression, and unfortunately I think that is what is happening today.
My second point is that, because of my local government background, I know that there is a long tradition that we listen to our electoral administrators. They are the one group of people in an authority whose professionalism we do not contest, because they serve all political parties, and they do so independently and to the best of their abilities. Most of them have limited staff and limited resources, and they are not particularly well paid either. Survey after survey shows the majority have no confidence that they can deliver this change in time for the local elections. First, they do not have the staff in place because of cutbacks. Secondly, they do not have time to have their computer systems properly tested and operating effectively. Thirdly, they do not have time to launch campaigns informing people of what they need to do to register. Even if they launch a campaign and it is sufficiently successful, the prediction is that anything up to 16% of the electorate might apply but there will not be the staff to administer it.
We should listen to the constitution unit’s report: this is an accident waiting to happen. Just in administrative terms, whatever the political motivations, this policy is not supportable and is not needed, as has been demonstrated by speech after speech. Unfortunately, not only is it a policy that will ensure some people do not get the right to vote and will cause conflict and contests at individual polling stations, but it is a policy that people will come to regret. It smacks of the dangerous dogs legislation, on which we cannot find anyone who supported it or promoted it.
My only reason for speaking in this debate, apart from my local government experience, is so that when people examine this legislation in six, 12 or 18 months’ time, or in the years ahead, I will be on the record as speaking out against it. I think this is a disaster waiting to happen.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The policy of requiring people to have ID to vote is simply a corruption of our democracy. It knowingly suppresses poorer communities, so the Tories can cling on to power during their economic disaster.
We know that some 30% of people do not vote in general elections already; we know that, of the 243 million votes cast in the past 10 years, there are only a handful of examples of fraud; and we know that some 2% of the population do not have a driving licence, a passport or another form of ID, and that they will now be required to go and get that ID. Many of them will not get that ID and will therefore be automatically disenfranchised.
We know that the poor will be disproportionately hit; we know the disabled will be hit; we know black and ethnic minorities will be hit; and we know the young will be hit. We also know these regulations allow older people, but not younger people, to use travel cards, such as Oyster cards, as voter ID. This policy is overtly discriminatory and is clearly designed to suppress votes and to load the dice at a future election.
Aneurin Bevan, who famously started the health service, would be 125 years old if he were still alive today. In “In Place of Fear”, his political analysis was that British politics is a struggle between property and the interests of property, by which he meant the Conservatives, and poverty, by which he meant the mass of people represented by the Labour party. He took the view that, in difficult economic times, property would attack democracy itself.
At a time when one in four people is now in food poverty, thanks to the incompetence and cynicism of the Conservative party, we have a situation in which the Conservatives are attacking democracy itself. They are attacking the right to peaceful protest, and they are now attacking the right to vote by requiring voter ID. This is a transparent attempt to corrupt democracy. It is totally wrong, and I hope a future Labour Government will repeal it immediately.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The whole debate around voter ID and the safety of our voting system is slightly Trumpian. This is exactly what happened in the US: the far right tried to claim the system is not safe and that people cannot trust it, and then, when a clearly democratic result came around that it did not like, the far right whipped up its henchmen by saying, “This was an unfair vote.” We know that that is not the case in Britain, and we know it has never been the case in Britain.
The Conservative party and this Government talking down the safety of our electoral system is exactly what these voter ID regulations are about. It my view, it is extremely dangerous. I asked numerous times in Committee on the Elections Act 2022 for a public assessment of why certain forms of voter ID are acceptable and others are not. I was particularly concerned about why student cards and young people’s cards will not be accepted. Not once have the Government published their rubric of why certain ID cards will be accepted and others will not.
It is interesting that, in applying for temporary or permanent voter ID, one piece of evidence that a local authority can accept is that the applicant is on the roll of a local educational institution, but a polling station will not accept the card from that educational institution. That barrier makes no sense. The Government cannot say, on the one hand, that evidence from the educational institution is not acceptable to vote but, on the other hand, that it is perfectly acceptable as the sole piece of evidence to get a voter ID card from a local authority—no further evidence is required—other than the barrier of having to apply days in advance.
Under the regulations, however, a voter can apply for a temporary ID card up to the day before an election, if the electoral returning officer believes they would not have been able to apply in advance. Why on earth could they not apply for it at the polling station by showing another form of ID, by allowing the polling clerk to make a determination? Surely it is only because the Government want to make sure that people who would not have ID cannot vote.
Government data shows that about a third of people have only one piece of ID. My mother has only a passport. She has an old-fashioned paper driving licence, and she does not have any other form of ID. What would she do if her passport needed to be renewed and an election were called? Given the mess in the Home Office, she might be waiting months, if not longer, to get her passport. It is the same with a driving licence. A person who moves house might wait months to get their new driving licence, but they have rightly chopped up their old licence and sent it back. They might then have no voter ID. Despite the Government saying that only a single-figure percentage of the population do not have ID, anyone renewing an equivalent ID might have no form of voter ID during the renewal period.
According to the Government’s data, 6% of people say they will be less likely to vote. What is 6% in each constituency? It is about 3,000 voters on average. About 40 Conservative constituencies have a majority of less than 4,000. That is 40 Conservative constituencies that might hold on a bit longer, meaning the Conservatives claw on to power despite the popular will.
Let us consider travelcards, for example. Even the Government’s own research shows that 4% of young and middle-aged people believe their travelcard can be used as voter ID. If they turned up to the polling station with that ID, every single one of them would be refused a vote—that is not to mention the embarrassment of being turned away—and many of them, about a third, would not bother to return. Those numbers would change about 15 results at an election. That might make a difference in a tight election.
The Minister said the professional world has mixed views about the implementation of voter ID, which I am afraid is just not true. The Minister is either mistaken or something far worse, and I would not believe that of this very good Minister. The reality is that every single professional body—the Local Government Association, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators—says that the implementation of these regulations at this time is dangerous. They know it is dangerous because they have not been able to roll out even a card-based voter ID. It will be a piece of paper produced by the local authority. A piece of paper! Really? They will accept a piece of paper that an electoral services officer may have authorised, but they will not accept a travelcard that has to be applied for with a proper form of ID. It is ridiculous.
The regulations will allow people in the community to attest that someone is who they say they are, but they will allow a person in the community to attest for only two people every election publication cycle. A doctor, a teacher or the one lawyer in a poor community might want to attest for many people, to say that they have known a person for a long time, but they will only be able to do so for two people. If those people cannot prove through other means who they are they are—there are other means, I grant that—they will not be able to go to their doctor, because the doctor will have used up their two for that year. Those are unnecessary burdens. We do not put that burden on applying for a passport or any other form of ID. Those arbitrary numbers are deliberately designed to attack the poorest who would not have access to others.
The Government’s own data says that those who are trans or non-binary, who might be sick or have cancer, or who have experienced large amounts of weight loss and look significantly different, might face difficulties getting past the electoral services officer, but they have no plans to do anything about that apart from highlight to the polling stations that they should be cautious about that. How can they highlight to someone that they should be cautious that someone might not look like their ID, and at the same time say that they must refuse anyone who does not look like their ID? The Government’s own impact assessment does not make sense. The impact assessment on age says that they do not think that will be a significant difference, but the data itself says there will be a 4% to 6% drop in young people going to the polls. We know that those people are already less likely to vote.
We can have an argument about whether we should have electoral ID or not. We can have an argument about whether it should be photo ID or the wider version. The Electoral Commission said that it preferred any form of ID, such as a credit card or other form of named evidence. We can have those arguments and we will continue to do so, but this instrument is being introduced with less than five months to go before nationwide polls, and no council administrator believes that they will be able to operate it safely. That is undermining our local councils. We know why the Government are trying to do that: they know that they will lose a load of their councils because people are fed up with the nasty Conservatives undermining their democracy and their councils. This should not pass.
Lee Rowley
It has been an interesting debate, with quite a large proportion of it rerunning the previous legislative discussion, which I will not spend time at the Dispatch Box responding to. There is a question about temperateness of language, particularly some of the language used in places. This is our attempt to ensure there is integrity within the voting system. Quite frankly, some of the statements tonight should be considered in the round.
The Government’s focus is on ensuring that the system is set up fairly, working with those who want to ensure that the implementation works, dealing with the detail and making sure that happens. We can rerun the previous debate, as many Members seem to wish to, or we get on with the job. We are choosing to get on with the job.
I will turn briefly to a number of comments from Opposition Members. The hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) both talked about resource and funding. There is additional funding coming for this activity. Some of it has already been provided to local councils and is already being used today to prepare for what is coming in a number of months’ time.
The Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), made a series of statements, or claims—or however one would like to state it. One of them was that voter personation is rare, but the OSCE report says about the United Kingdom:
“concerns are regularly expressed with regards to the lack of safeguards against possible fraud resultant from a weak system of voter registration and postal voting, compounded by the absence of a requirement to produce identification at any stage of the process.”
[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady heckles because she does not want to talk about what independent assessors have highlighted. The Government are trying to respond to that over time.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady talked about the use of dangerous language. She calls voter ID backwards and unworkable. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who was the only Opposition Member who rose to support the changes we are making, has been dealing with this system for the last 15 years. Thirdly, the right hon. Lady highlights the concern about the breadth of ID that can be used. [Interruption.] For the record, I will read the list of acceptable documentation, because the right hon. Lady does not seem to want to either read it or understand it: a United Kingdom passport, a passport issued by a European economic area state or Commonwealth country, a driving licence—[Interruption.]
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to listen to the Minister. Four Opposition Members are speaking at the same time. It would be easier if they did not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There is quite a lot of noise on both sides. I would suggest that we listen to the list being read out by the Minister.
Lee Rowley
For the record: a United Kingdom passport, a passport issued by an EEA state or Commonwealth country, a full driving licence, a provisional driving licence, a UK biometric immigration document, an identity card bearing proof of age, a standard scheme hologram PASS card, a defence identity card, a blue badge, a voter authority certificate or a temporary voter authority certificate, an anonymous electors document, a Northern Ireland electoral identity card, or a national identity card issued by an EEA state. [Interruption.] The list goes on, because we are trying to ensure that this approach works over the long term.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If the Minister does not want to give way, he is not going to. It is up to him.
Lee Rowley
I am not giving way only because the Opposition asked a series of questions and I am seeking to answer them. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the Opposition to listen to the answers that I am giving.
Finally, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), with his liberal sprinkling of rather outrageous hyperbole, talked of Tony Benn and the working class. This working-class kid from Tony Benn’s constituency knows exactly what constituents in places such as Chesterfield or the one that I have the privilege to represent would say if they were asked about this. Their views would be closer to mine than the hon. Gentleman’s quite outrageous indications. It is for that reason, and for the security and integrity of the ballot box, that I commend this SI to the House.
Question put.
Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 241 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 239 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that I have selected amendments (a) and (b) as listed on the Order Paper. I shall call Chris Bryant to move his amendments at the end of the debate.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) this House takes note of:
(a) the First Report from the Committee on Standards, on New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours in Parliament (HC 227), and approves the revised Code of Conduct for Members annexed to that Report, subject to the following amendment:
In section C (Seven Principles of Public Life): leave out “; as set out below, they are supplemented by descriptors, which apply specifically to Members of Parliament” and the Principles and descriptors as set out in the Report and insert:
“Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”
(b) the Third Report from the Committee on Standards on New Guide to the Rules: final proposals (HC 544), and approves the revised Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members annexed to that Report, subject to the following amendments:
(i) In Introduction, paragraph 14, leave out, “Whilst Members are not required to register Ministerial office” and insert, “Members are not required to register either Ministerial office or benefits received in their capacity as a Minister”.
(ii) In Chapter 1 (Registration of Members’ Financial Interests), paragraph 17, at end insert: “() Donations or other support received in a Member’s capacity as a Minister, which should be recorded, if necessary, within the relevant Government Department in accordance with the Ministerial Code.”
with effect from 1 March 2023, except that paragraph 8 of Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules shall only have effect in respect of past financial interests or material benefits from six months after the date on which the revised code and guide come into effect.
(2) previous Resolutions of this House in relation to the conduct of Members shall be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.
The House is being asked to consider a motion today which would take note of the first report from the Committee on Standards, “New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours in Parliament”, and approve the revised Code of Conduct for Members annexed to that report. The motion would also take note of the third report from the Committee on Standards, “New Guide to the Rules: final proposals”, and approve the revised Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members annexed to that report.
This is House business, and Members will be asked to make up their own minds on these matters—I sense the panic already, but I hope Members, even if they do not contribute to the debate, will feel free to ask questions and fully apprise themselves of the issues at hand. As Members of Parliament we must uphold the highest standards in public life, acting with integrity and professionalism. I believe these reforms are an important step in that process, building on the progress this House made in October when we approved the introduction of a new formal appeals process.
I am grateful to the Committee on Standards for its work reviewing the code of conduct for Members and the overall operation of the standards system in the House of Commons. I welcome the engagement that is happening in this area and the conversations I have had with the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); I look forward to hearing from him and I expect he will wish to take Members through the details of his Committee’s work, so I will not steal his thunder.
The Government have carefully considered his Committee’s recommendations and reports. The Committee has proposed around 20 substantive changes; at the time of the Government response, we had disagreement with five of those, but that has subsequently been reduced to disagreement with just two.
We have already acted in one vital area. In October, the House of Commons unanimously agreed the introduction of an appeals process for standards cases. We have reflected upon and now accept the Committee’s recommendation on the “serious wrong” exemption, and the recommended introduction of a requirement for Members who undertake outside work to obtain a written contract or separate letter of undertaking that their duties will not include lobbying or the provision of paid parliamentary advice. The Committee has also moved on its position on initiation versus participation, and now agrees with the Government. I hope those changes will show that the Committee and the House are listening, and that we are seeking ways of finding cross-party consensus on addressing these issues.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think the Leader of the House means that the Government now agree with the Committee, because the Committee certainly has not changed its position on initiating and participating. I think that that was the tenor of the letter that she sent me last week.
Penny Mordaunt
I understood that it was the other way around, but the important point is, I think, that we agree. My remarks will, for the benefit of Members, focus largely on the areas in which we disagree, because I think those are what people would like to hear about.
The first area is in relation to the seven principles in public life. Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda seeks to reinsert into the code customised descriptors of the seven principles in public life. The Government have chosen to leave out those recommendations from the Committee and maintain the status quo in relation to the seven principles. The Government believe that those principles and their descriptors should remain the basis of the MPs’ code of conduct, and that the principles, as set out in the code, should be updated to the version published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2013. The strength of the principles lies, in part, in the fact that they are a long-standing and widely understood set of standards expected of all public office holders. Adjustments of the kind suggested to the descriptors would undermine that universality. It is therefore preferable to retain the descriptors put forward by the Committee on Standards in Public Life when the principles were last updated as a whole.
The second area of disagreement is in relation to ministerial declarations. The hon. Gentleman has claimed that there is an exception for Ministers. That is not the case. We have two systems of reporting interests. First, there are MPs’ interests, which are in accordance with the rules of this House and subject to oversight by the commissioner, the Committee on Standards and, ultimately, the House. Secondly, there are ministerial declarations, the basis of which is the ministerial code. The rules regulating Members’ interests and ministerial interests are distinct for a good reason, reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers and the operational differences between the role of an MP and that of a Minister. In addition, Members should not have to use the resources of their parliamentary offices, which should be focused on constituency business, to declare ministerial interests.
The hon. Gentleman is asking in amendment (b) for dual reporting. He wants, by March, to make Ministers and envoys—trade envoys and others—report on a monthly basis information that will, at that time, be available only quarterly. If an MP is in breach, they may face two possibly concurrent investigations—one on the ministerial route and one by this House. Nor is it clear how that would be applied. Perhaps in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman could clarify for the House what the threshold for a Minister would be. If the hon. Gentleman wants parity between Ministers and MPs, is he asking for the threshold to be £300 or the current, more stringent threshold for Ministers of £140? Could he confirm whether that applies to shadow Ministers?
Despite the problems that I have outlined, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rhondda, I agree that there needs to be more parity between MPs’ and ministerial reporting. I will set out the changes that the Government intend to make.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am grateful for the way in which the Government have moved on many aspects of the report by the Committee on Standards, but I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that there is a problem with ministerial reporting. On many occasions, Departments fail to deliver their quarterly reports. I understand that the Government have some proposals and I am looking forward to hearing them, but will my right hon. Friend assure us, given that we will vote tonight, that the proposals will be delivered in a timely manner so that there is transparency about the way in which Ministers publicly report their receivables?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right: the current situation is unacceptable and the Committee has a valid point. I hope that I will suggest a way in which we can address that. However, it is important to say that if we do it in the way that the Committee suggests, we will end up in some difficulty, which I shall explain.
First, we have extensively reviewed the existing guidance on transparency data. I have also audited each Department’s returns and sat down with the propriety and ethics team to look at ways in which we can improve the timeliness, quality and transparency of Ministers’ data and ease of access to it. The guidance, which we have reviewed, will be published online on GOV.UK for the first time. It commits Departments to publishing data within 90 days of the end of each quarterly reporting period. That is a modest, but necessary first step.
Our goal will be first to ensure that all Departments are complying with their current obligations consistently, as reflected in the new guidance as soon as it comes into effect. We will then look to move to a system of reporting that provides the parity that the Committee on Standards is seeking on transparency and timeliness. That means monthly reporting.
The Cabinet Office will also consider the alignment of ministerial returns with the House’s system and the frequency of publication, as part of the Government’s wider consideration of the Boardman and Committee on Standards in Public Life recommendations. It is reasonable to conclude that work by the start of the summer. My plan is therefore about three months’ adrift of that of the Committee on Standards.
The Government are fully committed to transparency and to ensuring that all Ministers are held to account for maintaining high standards of behaviour and upholding the highest standards of propriety, as the public rightly expect, but we need to avoid creating a system that delivers further confusion and unintended consequences. That is why I have outlined the alternative proposal from the Government today. I have worked closely with colleagues across Government to set out how we will improve our system, and if the Committee on Standards remains concerned, I commit to revisiting the issue and engaging with ministerial colleagues to drive further improvements.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am grateful for the way in which the Leader of the House has engaged with the matter. The whole House understands that there are what a “Yes Minister” script would describe as “administrative difficulties” with recording ministerial interests in a timely manner. However, surely the objective should be—we had a lot of evidence about this—that a member of the public can find in one place where Members have registrable interests, whether they are Ministers or not. Could we end up with a system, even if it were just a reporting mechanism that put stuff on the register without obligation, whereby the Register of Members’ Financial Interests showed all ministerial declared interests as well as all other Members’ interests in one place? That is the sort of accountability and transparency that the public are entitled to expect.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had those discussions with the propriety and ethics team. This needs to be taken in steps, and we have to get Departments producing the right data in a consistent fashion for that to happen, but I have already had discussions with them about how we would design a system that puts all this in one place. I am very clear that the objectives the Standards Committee have are that this information is as accessible as the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and on a par with the timing of the register. In amendment (b) the hon. Member for Rhondda proposes a system of reporting immediately in March, when this comes into effect, that the Whitehall machine will currently not be able to deliver on.
Penny Mordaunt
It will not, but we can move to that system. At the moment Departments can produce this information only on a quarterly basis, and by March that will still be the case.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Imagine I am a layman: may I ask why? This does not seem beyond the wit of man; we all have to do it as Members of Parliament. There are considerably more staff in Whitehall than I have in my office. So I simply ask: really?
Penny Mordaunt
I am afraid so, and if the hon. Lady would like to know more I can bore her for hours on this. I have been through literally every single Department’s processes and returns, and some of the information takes a while to extract, such as that from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That is not an acceptable situation and it needs to change. I have set out how we will do that and by when I think we will have been able to do so, but I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box today and say that by March we will have a system where Labour Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament on the Government side of the House, if they are envoys or Ministers, will be able to report on a monthly basis. We can move to that system, and I think for the sake of a few months we should do this properly and get Whitehall in the place it needs to be in.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am concerned to hear that the Leader of the House is hiding behind officials, really. Members on the Opposition side of the House have a responsibility to make sure our records are correct; surely that applies to Members on the Government side of the House, whether they are a Minister or not?
Penny Mordaunt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point, because this does apply to those on his side of the House: among his colleagues on his Benches there will be trade envoys and other people undertaking work for the Government, and this will apply to them. I do not disagree that there should be parity between the two systems in access, transparency and timeliness; what I am saying is that the way in which the Committee has suggested this happen in amendment (b) will fail, and in a few months’ time—beyond March, when this system will come in—we will be in a position where we can succeed. That is what I am setting out for the House; it is for Members to decide, and they can vote whichever way they like. I am just apprising them of the facts. Anyone who wants to come and look at the audits I have done will regret it, but they are more than welcome.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Given that we have not had ministerial reporting since the end of May 2022 and the Leader of the House is now asking us to give her more time to bring a process into place, when can we expect to see up-to-date ministerial reporting?
Penny Mordaunt
As I have outlined in my speech, the new guidance has been put in place and will come into effect this spring. By the time the Committee wants the reforms we are voting on today to come into effect, Whitehall will be back up to what it is supposed to be doing now, and I think a few months after then, as we head into summer, we should have a system in place that will enable us to report at the same timeframes as MPs’ interests. Then we can potentially look at moving to having just one system rather than separate reporting by each ministerial Department. Those are the conversations I have had with the propriety and ethics team.
The effectiveness of our standards system and the code of conduct rests on its commanding the confidence of both the public and Members on a cross-party basis. Approval of the proposed reforms and strengthening of the rules will represent an important step towards restoring and strengthening trust in our democratic institutions. We support the work being done to undertake and introduce measures to empower the standards system in Parliament, and I am committed to continuing conversations both within Government and with parliamentary colleagues to continue to bring forward any further improvements proposed by the Committee on a cross-party basis.
I assure the House that my door is always open to discuss these matters with all Members. I hope that hon. Members will approve the reforms in the main motion, which I commend to the House. I thank the Committee for its work.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his cross-party Committee for all the hard work that they put into their comprehensive and far-reaching inquiry into the operation of the code of conduct for MPs. They worked diligently, thoughtfully and cross-party with their external members. They came up with sound proposals, consulted carefully and revised their proposals further. It then fell to the Government to table the motion—I will come back to that. I also thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and her team for all their dedication to making sure that rules are understood and, when not adhered to, thoroughly and fairly investigated. I also thank them for their recent review.
Since 1695, as my hon. Friend once told me, Parliament has had rules against lobbying and taking payments for conferring or attempting to confer benefits on an individual, business or organisation. Until 2015, those rules only ever got stronger, which is the right and only reasonable direction that the public would expect. When a respected Select Committee does its job—consults, revises and employs independent judicial expertise—and makes its recommendations, my view is that that should be respected fully by the Government. So it is bittersweet to be debating the Government’s eventual motion today. After months of many of us calling for the full set of recommendations to be implemented as recommended, the Government have tabled a motion, but in the process they have ditched crucial elements that would have strengthened parliamentary standards still further. I am dismayed but hardly surprised, because this is, unfortunately, a Government with form.
Let us remember how, just over a year ago, the Tories took an approach to standards taken by no Government before them. The then MP Owen Paterson had been found absolutely bang to rights, having taken a large amount of money for a large amount of access to benefit the company who paid for him. Most importantly, the Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee had investigated the claims carefully, reviewed the evidence, considered every angle and concluded a sanction. That is the backdrop to the motion: a Government who, within the past 12 months and roughly three weeks, did that to their system of standards—and there was more to come.
The Government, led by the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—I have notified him of my intention to mention him—along with many others in the Cabinet and on the Government Benches, tabled and supported a motion as recommended, but in name only. The then Leader of the House spoke for 40 minutes in support not of the motion in his name but of the amendment in the name of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). In so doing, he simultaneously tabled a motion and undermined the standards system and the case in hand by trying to introduce a new process.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Member accept that the amendment tabled was designed to set up a Select Committee to look exactly at the problems that we are debating? That was its intention.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. It may have been the amendment’s intention in the abstract, but, by introducing it during that process, the Government undermined that existing, living process. Their case when approaching matters of standards is affected even now by that decision to propose a motion and then basically speak in support of one undermining it in the middle of a live process.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I take the point that the hon. Lady makes, but will she not accept that the Opposition deliberately sought to conflate the two issues of Owen Paterson’s guilt and that of procedure? I voted against the procedure; I was not voting on whether Owen Paterson was guilty or not.
Thangam Debbonaire
I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman’s decision-making process, but I note considerable dissent in various parts of the House.
Concluding that an existing structure and process had delivered an undesirable outcome, the Government seem to have believed that the structure and the outcome must be at fault, not the person involved, and decided to change the process when it was nearly complete to try to get a different outcome. I am afraid that that is the backdrop. The resulting vote caused chaos.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My recollection of that vote is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), as the hon. Lady may realise. What the Government are doing today is incredibly well intentioned and I would ask her to tone down the political tone, because we are all going to make our own decisions on the motion. The Leader of the House is trying to find a way forward, with the complications she has spoken about with regard to Whitehall and the principles of public life. I had some real concerns with what the Committee was putting forward and I will be voting with the Government tonight, despite the fact that I voted against them in that vote back in 2021.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do support the motion—I will vote for the motion, should there be a Division. I will also vote for the amendments tabled by the Committee, and I will come on to the reasons why shortly. I just want to make sure we are clear about the backdrop. A Government did ask their MPs to support the indefensible and to vote for what appeared to be nonsense.
The farce, unfortunately, continued the very next day. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset undermined himself still further by reversing the impact of the amendment, which had passed thanks to his Government’s own urging. I will not go over that in detail, but it is worth noting that it created a mess in the middle of the ongoing process. It meant that an MP then resigned rather than working with the system of standards, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, with the good intention of attempting to strengthen and improve the system.
By this point, the Committee on Standards had already begun its work and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had announced her review of the code of conduct to complement the Committee’s activities. I am glad the Government have brought forward some of the Committee’s recommendations. It is already Labour policy that MPs should not be paid parliamentary lobbyists or consultants on how to get better access to Parliament and Government. Where MPs do have an outside job, it is right that strict protocols are followed, so I welcome the measure that will require them to have a written contract making it explicit that their duties cannot include lobbying Ministers. I am glad that has Government support. A Labour Government would go further and ban second jobs altogether, with limited exceptions.
I note the commendable work of the right hon. Sir Ernest Ryder, who conducted the independent review into the system. The Committee made good use of his extensive experience and reflections on the very important issues of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. Unfortunately, some Members, in their attempts to defend their friend—an urge I completely understand; to defend one’s friends is a good quality—attacked the system on the grounds of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. They were exposed further on when Sir Ernest Ryder concluded that the present inquisitorial procedure for standards inquiries is fair and complies with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, or the right to a fair trial. He made further recommendations, including introducing a more formal appeal stage to the process, while noting that the existing standards process contained such a right, but that it was not clearly identified. I welcome both his and the Committee’s recommendations.
However, the Government have ditched some key reforms. I note what the Leader of the House says, and I do not doubt that her intentions are honourable. I am glad to hear her say that more things are coming. I think she will recognise, however, that I am growing rather weary of hearing the word “soon”. That does not just come from her—she is not the only one. In fact, I do not think she did say “soon” this evening. But if it is not soon, then when? The Government have had the recommendations for some months. Given the backdrop I have outlined, on what basis does the Leader of the House think there is a moral basis for picking and choosing which of the standards they will accept and which ones to ditch? They appear to be ignoring that backdrop.
The first specific issue I want to mention is the register of ministerial interests and the measures, which have been raised briefly already, requiring Ministers to register gifts and hospitality in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The history is fascinating. A 1993 report from the Select Committee on Members’ Interests stated that Ministers were required to register benefits they received in just the same way as other Members, even if it was in a ministerial capacity. Subsequently, the 1997 ministerial code provided that Ministers should register hospitality in their capacity as a Minister in the House if it was
“on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action”.
The 2007 ministerial code went even further, providing that Ministers should register hospitality with both the permanent secretary in their Department and the House.
Only in 2010 did the ministerial code completely separate the registering of ministerial and Member interests. It is worth noting that there was a change of Government that year, and it feels to me as though the subsequent amendment in 2015, with the then Government introducing the provision that
“Members are not required to register either Ministerial office or benefits received in their capacity as a Minister”
was a step backwards. I would like us to have transparency, with Ministers registering all hospitality above a certain agreed level with the House so that there is parity with Members, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will explain in more detail. However, I feel this is an opportunity for the Leader of the House just to reconsider. Will she do so? The Government have had months to respond to these proposals, and I am really disappointed to see them thus weakened.
My second criticism is about the examples of the principles of public life. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the House referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, so she must know that the chair of the committee said in oral evidence to the Committee:
“We strongly support the idea that although the seven principles remain central and important for standards issues right across the public realm, they need to be interpreted for particular institutions and organisations.”
Are we not a particular institution or organisation? We are. He also pointed out that
“the civil service code…takes the same sort of direction…but identifies specific priorities and principles that are relevant to the civil service”,
so why not Parliament?
Does the Leader of the House agree that MPs should not misuse our position to gain financial or other material benefit? If so, the Government should not be nervous of making the principles of public life specific to our profession, as the Committee has recommended. In particular, I wonder about the weakening of the example given by the Committee on leadership. What, I ask, have the Government got against the recommendation that Members
“should actively promote and robustly support the principles, abide by the Parliamentary Behaviour Code”,
and what have they got against the recommendation that we
“should refrain from any action which would bring Parliament or its Members into disrepute”?
Surely that is something the Government should support.
The other part of the backdrop is the loss of two independent ethics advisers in a matter of months. I will not take up too much of the House’s time on this point, but I do want the right hon. Lady the Leader of the House to convey to the rest of the Government our dismay that, week after week, when I or my colleagues ask when we are going to get an ethics adviser, the answer is always “soon”. I am sure the right hon. Lady wants to give us something clearer than “soon” soon.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I asked the Minister in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee what “soon” meant. There was an offer—given that the previous ethics adviser resigned shortly after giving evidence to our Committee—of a private session about the process, but the Minister said that there would not be time, as it would come very soon. If the offer still stands, we could work with the Government to try to expedite the process.
Thangam Debbonaire
I can only echo my hon. Friend’s call to the right hon. Lady to give us some more clarity on what “soon” actually means.
The new Prime Minister’s reference to previous Governments was to show that he would bring in a new professionalism, and so on and so forth, but this is exactly the same cast: there has just been another round of ring-a-ring o’ roses, and one of them tumbled into the middle to become Prime Minister. In this brave new world, their dictionary proclaims that “soon” means “as far down the road as we can kick this without actually having to deal with it”. The word “soon” is an important one to define when it relates to such important constitutional matters, and to transparency, ethics and integrity. We know that ethics matter and standards matter, and they matter whether or not the demonstrator on Parliament Square is calling for them—in fact, all the more so—because I am afraid that this lot skipping ring-a-ring o’ roses around successively failing Prime Ministers has cast such a long shadow on ethics that the Parliament Square demonstrator thinks everyone here is just as bad and that none of us can be trusted. That should shame the Governments responsible for it, because Members are subject to rules and standards. There are systems: there is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who investigates fairly and there is a Standards Committee that goes on to do likewise. Those checks and processes are designed to hold us all to account and ensure appropriate consequences if we fail. The vast majority of Members register their interests properly.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I was not planning to intervene, but the hon. Lady struck a chord when she spoke about the watering down of standards and what people on the street—the public and voters—think. We are all tarred with the same brush when Members break the rules egregiously. The reality is that that makes our jobs more dangerous right now, and it makes it more dangerous to go into politics, which we want to be accessible to all. Does she agree?
Thangam Debbonaire
I completely agree, and that brings me back to the deletion of descriptors in “Seven Principles of Public Life”, and the Committee’s recommendation that Members
“should refrain from any action which would bring Parliament or its Members into disrepute.”
Watering down standards does exactly that, so I completely agree with the hon. Lady.
The vast majority of Members from all parts of the House, as I have said, correct the record when mistakes are made, register their interests properly, do their job diligently, and work in the national interest and that of their constituents. Every time this shadow falls—every time a Government try to protect one of their own by meddling with the system—it falls, as the hon. Lady said, on us all. Worse still, it falls on the system that we have built up over centuries to protect the public from political corruption.
I do not want to detain the House, but we have a Government whose use of the word “soon” is as casual as to be the equivalent of a parent answering a demanding child at the start of a car journey about the time of arrival, and who refer to whether or not they need an ethics adviser when clearly they do. When they do those things, it affects us all.
In closing, I am saddened but not surprised that this has happened, and that there has been a mangling of what I regard as a very good set of recommendations. I support the motion—of course I do—and I encourage colleagues from all parts of the House to back the work of their colleagues from all parts of the House on the Standards Committee and do likewise. It should not be this way, so I also urge colleagues to back the amendments tabled by members of the Committee.
The Leader of the House and her colleagues had an opportunity today to draw a line. Instead, by messing around with the recommendations, making us wait for months and omitting key parts, they have undermined the strength of the argument. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will work to strengthen standards and make a commitment that we will not tolerate their weakening. We will only ever support their strengthening and the creating of new transparency. I urge all Members to vote for the motion and the amendments on the Order Paper.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), might want to speak before me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is at your discretion. Thank you very much for calling me to speak.
It is important that the House understands that the Committee on Standards recognises what a huge amount of anxiety and tension the regulation of standards in the House of Commons can cause. The vast majority of Members strive—I was going to say “manfully”, but womanfully as well—to uphold the seven principles of public life and our standards, and to observe the rules. When I first joined the Committee, I was struck by how different the conversation is within the Committee from the conversation outside. I have argued forcefully that we need a much more intensive engagement and understanding between the Committee and Members so that the conversations in the Tea Room about what our code of conduct means are supportive and constructive, rather than fearful and about “How do I just stay out of trouble?” I am afraid that quite a lot of the conversation is about that.
The shadow Leader of the House would acknowledge that something that came out of last year’s debacle was the appeals process. The main contention at the time was that there was not a sufficient appeals process. There was a form of appeal, but when we had it reviewed by a retired judge, Sir Ernest Ryder, who looked at our processes and their compliance with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, it was found that our system could be made substantially better by introducing a completely separate appeal process. Had that appeal process existed last year, I do not think the debacle would have happened.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I totally agree with what he says. It was the appeals process that many of us objected to and, additionally, the fact that the commissioner gave her view on that case before the inquiry had begun. As it happened, I agreed with her view, but it is not for a judge to state it beforehand. That was, I think, the objection of most of us.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My hon. Friend touches on a key change, which is that in the serious cases that come to the Committee on Standards, the commissioner will now present her findings, but will not present a conclusion. It will be for the Committee to adjudicate on the conclusion, and then for the subject of the inquiry to appeal that conclusion on various grounds to an Independent Expert Panel. That is a significant improvement, and it should significantly reduce the anxiety that Members felt about the system before.
There are only two other points I wish to make about the areas of contention. First, I argued very strongly for the changes to the descriptors of the seven principles of public life, because the bald descriptors of the seven principles on the Committee on Standards in Public Life website are difficult to translate into what we actually do as MPs. For example, selflessness—how do you become an MP if you are completely selfless? You have to advance your own interests. How do you have influence as an MP, unless you advance your own interests and you advance your publicity? Navigating selflessness as a Member of Parliament is a complicated business, and to anybody who says that it is easy to apply the seven principles of public life to all our activities, I say no. We are navigating a difficult landscape where we are constantly beset by conflicting values that we have to reconcile, and the idea is that these revised descriptors will help inform the conversation.
The idea that these descriptors will have a chilling effect on the free speech of Members is a nonsense, because the descriptors themselves have no force in the rules whatever. They simply are there for information and conversation and to help Members to think about how we apply the seven principles of public life. Indeed, any Member who has fallen foul of the rules who could argue in front of the commissioner, “Here are the seven principles of public life, and here are the descriptors, and I felt I was following these principles”, would certainly have a mitigation, in that they had thought about the principles they were seeking to uphold, but nevertheless had fallen foul of the rules. These descriptors are completely innocuous. They are designed to help Members, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government have decided to object to them. I do not understand the argument that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has presented.
We did not argue long and hard over the question of the declaration of ministerial interests. We would not be having this conversation if we had the situation described by my right hon. Friend, with timely, publicly accessible and regular declarations of ministerial interests on a par with the declarations that Members—non-Ministers —have to make as a matter of course in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish that we were not in this situation.
I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said, and I will listen further to the debate. I hope she is saying that this will be sorted out and that, in response to my earlier intervention, we will finish up with a member of the public being able to see on one register all the interests relating to that Member of Parliament, whether a Minister or not. I quite understand the anxiety about dual adjudication of the code and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We do not want to get into a situation where—I do not think this is accurate, by the way—there is anxiety that the Parliamentary Commissioner will somehow be adjudicating on matters that are strictly for the ministerial code.
I will listen to this debate. I have added my name to the relevant amendment, but I may well conclude that if the Government need the time to sort this out, we should give them that time, and this would not be some dereliction or watering down of standards. I appreciate that the shadow Leader of the House has to make her points on behalf of the official Opposition, for perhaps not entirely selfless reasons. However, as long as we finish up with both sets of interests being declared within 30 days and the ability to have them all in one place on one website, so that any member of the public or journalist can see exactly what interests are being declared in the name of that Member, we would be in a much better place. I wish we could do that by agreement rather than by dividing the House, but I do not know that we can.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I will make a brief contribution. It has been very interesting to listen to everything that has been said so far and I look forward to hearing the take of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on all of this.
The Scottish National party welcomes any proposals that ensure that standards in this Parliament are strengthened and that MPs fully represent their constituents, uninhibited by external vested interests. Lobbying is an important part of the democratic process, but only when it is carried out ethically and transparently. As we live in a representative democracy, the responsibility of an MP, first and foremost, is to represent their constituents who voted to elect them to Parliament. Being a Member of Parliament is a full-time role—many of us realise that it is more than a full-time role—and must fundamentally be treated as such. Elected officials should not abuse their power as an MP to earn significant incomes in a second job. The increased transparency of MPs and their interests, financial records, and activities carried out behind closed doors merits and deserves public attention.
We therefore very much welcome the ban on providing paid parliamentary advice, consultancy or strategy services. Second jobs must be limited and regulated, although of course a formal contract enabling MPs to work in public service as doctors or nurses, or in the legal profession is a reasonable proposal.
We are also completely committed to the reform of practices that enable MPs to abuse in any way their positions of power for private gain at the expense of their constituents. It is wrong that influence can be bought in our politics, and we have to make every effort as responsible MPs to stamp that out.
There has been a rise in the reporting of abuses of the system in recent years. That has highlighted its various loopholes and shaken our constituents’ faith in their MPs. It is good to see at least some of those being closed down through the Government’s acceptance of most of the Standards Committee’s recommendations. I pay tribute to the work of the Committee and its hard-working Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I commend its excellent inquiries and reports.
We welcome the addition to the code of conduct of a new rule prohibiting a Member from subjecting anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. However, I, too, am disappointed that although the Committee recommended a set of descriptors based on the Nolan principles of conduct in public life—which other public bodies have adopted and which form the basis of the Scottish ministerial code—the Government replaced them with a much more generic version, and I think “generic” is being a little kind.
I therefore support the cross-party amendment (a) from the hon. Member, which backs the Committee’s position on that. I again express real disappointment that the Government will not accept those descriptors for Members of Parliament. They are principles that none should object to if they want to stand for public service. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, they are designed to help Members, so why would we not welcome them?
Improving the transparency and searchability of the House of Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests is essential. The public deserve to know what is in it. We therefore also support amendment (b), which would end the ministerial exemption that has been in place since 2015.
Many people listening to this debate may not realise that MPs are required to declare any financial interests, including travel, gifts and hospitality worth more than £300 within 28 days. I just cannot see why Ministers should not have to register benefits received in their ministerial capacity in the same way. I listened carefully to the Leader of the House, but I just do not understand the justification. Such benefits are supposed to be published in the Government’s transparency returns, but those returns do not include details and appear only sporadically.
The alternative proposals that the Leader of the House has outlined are certainly a welcome shift from the Government; I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Rhondda give his views on them. He said that he thinks that some Government Members agree with his Committee’s recommendations as they stand and may support the amendment. I hope they do. It is obviously for Members to decide on these matters, as the Leader of the House says, but personally I think the time for delay is over. I certainly hope that Members across the House will support these amendments.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am really pleased that this debate has returned to the House. I refer to my submission to the Committee on Standards’ review of the code of conduct in February 2022; I had asked if I could give oral evidence to the Committee, but sadly that did not happen. I will refer to some of the points that I made, because I think they are important and I do not think that anyone else has mentioned them yet.
In short, we need a review far broader than the one before us tonight of how the standards processes work in Parliament. All our constituents want to be able to hold us all to account. Most importantly, we want to hold ourselves to account. Members across all parties have said that almost all of us are doing our best at all times, working with honour and integrity and doing the best job we can, yet somehow the drip, drip, drip of bad behaviour is destroying the reputation of this place on a constant and ongoing basis. The measures before the House this evening, which with one notable exception are frankly trivial, are just not going to change that.
As colleagues will know, I was closely involved in a cross-party attempt to create an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. There are no other colleagues present who were closely involved, but all seven political parties in this place were represented. It was intended to create a change in the culture. What we always see when we come to this place is people pointing fingers—“The Government have done this, the Standards Committee has done that, the Opposition have done this”—and all we do is make it worse.
The ICGS was designed to change the culture by doing things like proper induction for new members of staff, so that people know what to expect; proper exit interviews, so that when a Member has a group of staffers leave every three months, something can be done about it; and proper training programmes for staff and Members. Sometimes people laugh and say, “I don’t need to do unconscious bias training.” Well, my challenge to them is: “Okay, define it, then. If you don’t need to do that training, you define it. Show me how good you are at that.”
The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme was set up to tackle those issues, but what we have now is a scheme that has sucked in every single complaint—“So-and-so won’t let me go for lunch on time,” or, “My holiday was cancelled.” Those frankly more trivial workplace grievances, which have nothing to do with the serious challenges, overload the system, so that when there is a serious complaint of serious bullying, sexual harassment or even worse, there is not time for it. The system is too slow. It delivers neither the confidentiality that it was supposed to deliver nor the speed of justice.
I am afraid that, in coming up with this review, the Committee on Standards is looking thoroughly only at non-ICGS complaints, although it has certainly indicated its interest in the ICGS. Since 2018, the ICGS, which is independent—the clue’s in the title—and non-ICGS complaints, which are presided over by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, have got sucked into one amorphous blob. It has become a punishment routine that embarrasses us all, drags us all down and is destroying our reputation.
Andy Carter
May I clarify a point that my right hon. Friend has just made? I think she said that the Standards Committee had not looked at the independent complaints system. That is because, as she probably knows, the Standards Committee has no remit to look at it.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As a matter of fact, the Standards Committee can look at whatever it wants. It was not established to look at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. In a sense, however, my hon. Friend has made my point for me: the fact that the Standards Committee is looking at how we can improve the conduct and the reputation of Parliament without looking at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme is a nonsense, and that is my thesis this evening. We need a much broader review.
I am sorry to say this, because I am extremely fond of the Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, but the Committee concluded that the behaviour of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker was untouchable. The fact that behaviour in the Chamber is a matter for the Chair and should be above investigation by the Standards Committee is extraordinary. In very recent history, someone in the Chair was the person who wound up the Chamber the most, making people miserable and bringing the whole House into disrepute, yet for some reason the Committee will not consider the behaviour of those in the Chair. Nor will it consider what is going badly or well in respect of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so.
Now, under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has some sort of authority over that. It was intended that the investigation would be carried out independently and confidentially, but we are finding that investigations are now being presided over by the commissioner, who is requiring Members to stand up in the Chamber and apologise. That is outside the remit of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. Some may say, “Fine: if you have been rude to someone, you should stand here and apologise.” My response would be: “You try saying that to someone who works at John Lewis or McDonald’s. Are you seriously going to make them apologise to the entire firm, so that that will be on the record forever?”
There are serious issues involving the mental health of MPs and the way in which we behave in this place—the way in which we protect colleagues from the problems that occur and bring us all down. So many people say to me that they are sick and tired of the fact that we are all tarred with the same brush. It is very easy for people to be tribal and say, “It’s you”, “No it’s not, it’s you”, but actually it is all of us. We are all held in incredibly low esteem, and it is because we have not sorted this out.
While I am on the subject of big subjects, let me say that in my opinion—this is open to discussion and challenge; does anyone want to intervene?—it is all about the House of Commons Commission. Talk about a totally opaque organisation! It is chaired by the Speaker, it has appointments, and it is simply extraordinary. It is not accountable, and it makes financial decisions with very little transparency. Ultimately, all the authority in this place to establish Committees, to appoint Committees and so on, comes from the House of Commons Commission. In my opinion, we should have a fundamental review of that and then take it from there. The Standards Committee should look again at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and make sure it is doing what it was set up to do.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making some very good and important points, and I hope that those who are listening to the debate may come up with a mechanism whereby we can review some of these issues. We are always told that they are issues for the House to decide, but what is never obvious to me is the process we can undertake to effect the discussions to which my right hon. Friend is referring.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
That—I say this slightly tongue in cheek—was the point of the amendment that was tabled last year, but nevertheless that did not happen during the debate on standards that took place then. It seems to me that we need something like the Straw Committee, which, back in the day, reviewed the way in which the processes of the House worked much more fundamentally than this review.
The one development that I genuinely think has been brilliant is the new appeals process. It was essential and has been a long time coming, and I hope it will get the balance right between just punishing MPs and trying to change the culture in this place and give people fairness.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Standards Committee.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) knows that I agree with nearly everything that she has said, and in particular what she said about the Commission. Indeed, further to the point that was made earlier by my fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I think we on the Standards Committee would like to look more at the independent complaints and grievance scheme. We were conscious that when she set it up, part of the rationale was that MPs should not get their sticky fingers on this area of the work, so I feel as if I have been charged by her to carry on looking at this area of work. She and I have had quite a few conversations about this and, as she knows, I have some concerns of my own. It is important that we get this absolutely right.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
We need to remember that the ICGS came into being because Members of Parliament were not trusted to adjudicate on these matters. If the Committee is going to look at this, will the hon. Gentleman join me in making an undertaking that in no respect are we going to interfere with the process or the adjudication of cases, but that we are possibly going to look at the governance of the process and the governance of the scheme as a whole?
Chris Bryant
Absolutely; I completely concur with every single word that the hon. Gentleman has said, not only just now but in his speech earlier. He and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire have made the point that we are in the business not only of setting up rules but of trying to change the culture. That is normally a more difficult process, and I will come on to that.
If I might irritate the House briefly, a constituent has asked me to remind everyone that we pronounce “Rhondda” as “Rhontha”, with the “dd” sounding like a “th”. I apologise to everybody.
Advent is, as we know, a penitential season, and it was the 35th anniversary of my ordination as a priest last week, so let me start with my traditional confession that I am no better than any other Member in the House, with not just feet of clay but ankles, calves and thighs. I have to say that, as I look round the Chamber every day, I see colleagues of different stripes and from different parties who have made considerable contributions, often way beyond the call of duty, to our national life. Politics really is an honourable profession, but it is also true that the public want us to do better.
I am painfully aware that 18 Members of this House have been suspended or have withdrawn for a day or more during this Parliament. That is quite a significant number. That may in part be because we are getting our act together, and that things that were formerly swept under the Pugin carpet are now dealt with not secretly and behind closed doors but through a proper process. I am also conscious that on top of that we have 15 Members in the independent group who have been suspended from their political parties, and justice sometimes comes through these processes very slowly. That is not fair to complainants, and it is not fair to the Members either. I want to make sure that Members are entitled to fairness. That is why I want us to have a set of rules that is clear, simple and unambiguous, and it genuinely worries me, as I know it does the whole Committee, that we now have 12 separate bodies that regulate Members of Parliament, and that we are now even considering creating a 13th. Whether that is right, I hate to think. I am sightly conscious, however, that other countries have it even worse. The House ethics manual in the United States of America consists of 456 pages, so I think we have been remarkably concise.
I am grateful to the Committee, and especially to its lay members: Mehmuda Mian, Tammy Banks, Rita Dexter, Michael Maguire, Paul Thorogood and Victoria Smith, plus the former members who played a part in getting us to this point, Arun Midha and Jane Burgess. This has been a long, iterative process, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin)—who I sort of think of as the deputy Chair of the Committee—is absolutely right to suggest that the lay members often bring an insight, as we bring an insight to them, that results in a creative mix that is in the interests of the whole House.
Let me deal briefly with a few important changes that we are making as a result of today’s motion, because it is important that Members understand them. First, we are completely banning MPs from providing paid parliamentary advice, including providing or agreeing to provide services as a parliamentary adviser, consultant or strategist. I believe that that always was, effectively, selling the title of MP on the open market.
Secondly, we are requiring a Member who takes on an outside role to obtain a written contract or a written statement of particulars detailing their duties. The contract, or a separate letter of undertaking, must specify that the Member’s duties will not include lobbying Ministers, MPs or public officials on behalf of the employer, or providing paid parliamentary advice, and that the employer may not ask them to do so. I think that is a very good defence for a Member who takes on outside earnings.
Thirdly, we are significantly tightening the rules on conflicts of interest resulting from outside interests by extending, from six months to 12 months, the period during which an MP cannot engage in lobbying on a matter in which they have a financial interest.
Fourthly, we are closing the “serious wrong” loophole that Owen Paterson sought to exploit. From now on, if a Member wants to claim this exemption when approaching a Minister or official, they must show that any benefit to their client is merely incidental to the resolution of the wrong or injustice. They must state at the outset that they are providing evidence of a serious wrong, and they may not make repeated approaches, otherwise it just becomes a loophole through which they can drive a coach and horses. I am glad the Government now agree with us on that.
We are also ending the false distinction between a Member initiating and participating in a proceeding and an approach to a Minister or official where they have an outside financial interest. It is not enough simply to register and declare an outside interest. It is surely axiomatic that a Member who is in receipt of outside reward or consideration should not seek to confer a benefit through parliamentary or political means on the person or organisation providing that outside reward or consideration. That is paid advocacy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, it has been banned in some shape or form since 1695.
I now turn to the matters on which the Government disagree with the Committee. First, like the other members of the Committee, I simply do not understand the Government’s argument on the Nolan principles. They have got it wrong, and it is not in the interests of the House or of individual Members to stick with the Government’s position. Acting on the advice of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which originated the Nolan principles, the Standards Committee drafted and consulted on more detailed descriptions of the individual words—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—as they apply specifically to Members of Parliament. Lord Evans, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told us:
“We strongly support the idea that although the seven principles remain central and important for standards issues right across the public realm, they need to be interpreted for particular institutions and organisations.”
That is why, for instance, the police have gone down precisely this route and produced their own set of descriptions.
More importantly, the Nolan principles need fleshing out in a parliamentary situation. What does “selflessness” mean in the context of Parliament? I would argue that a Member cannot be entirely selfless, unless they renounce any form of payment, unless they travel to London every single day from their constituency, wherever it is in the land, and unless they eschew any ambition whatsoever. But if they have no ambition, would they want to come to Parliament in the first place?
We have written descriptions to help explain not only to us but to our constituents and to members of the public, who might be the people complaining about our behaviour, precisely how those principles apply to how we do our business. Put simply, I think the Standards Committee’s version is more helpful to MPs and the public than the Government’s version.
Secondly, I think ministerial declarations are a no-brainer. I understand the arguments, but I do not think they particularly wash with the public. I start from three basic principles. First, Ministers in the House of Commons owe their position to their membership of the House, and they are answerable to the House. Secondly, all MPs should be treated equally under the rules. And thirdly, the public have a right to know, as close to real time as possible, of any financial interests that might reasonably be thought to influence an MP’s speeches, actions, decisions or votes. As Ministers actually make decisions, whereas most of us in the Chamber just talk about other people’s decisions, transparency is even more important for them, not less important.
Following those principles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West said, the 1993 Select Committee on Members’ Interests—at around the time of cash for questions—concluded that
“Ministers are and should be subject to the House’s rules for the registration of financial interests in exactly the same way and to the same extent as all other Members of the House.”
That was the House rule under the Major Government. On the back of that, the new ministerial code in 1997, under Major and then under Blair, said that Ministers should register hospitality received in their capacity as a Minister in the House if it was
“on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action.”
The 2007 ministerial code provided that ministers should register hospitality both with their permanent secretary and the House.
It was only in 2015—really quite late in the day—without any announcement, discussion or debate in the House, or any comment in a Select Committee report, that the rule was changed to grant Ministers in the code of conduct of this House an exemption from registering anything that they considered they had received in a ministerial capacity. The theory is, as the Leader of the House helpfully explained, that in exchange for that exemption, Ministers register through their Department any gifts, hospitality and travel that they have received in their ministerial capacity. That is published somewhere between three and nine months later, but without the value, which is a key point. That means that a member of the public cannot judge whether the hospitality was on a scale that might reasonably be thought likely to influence ministerial decisions.
The Committee, Transparency International, the Institute for Government, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the 1922 committee, the Labour Front Bench, the Scottish National party Front Bench, a substantial number of Ministers and I think that the system is manifestly unfair for the ordinary Back-Bench MP. They declare it all within 28 days and can be investigated and sanctioned if they fail to declare it correctly. However, the Minister’s declaration, without details, appears months later and cannot be investigated. It is not uncommon for a group of MPs—some of whom are Ministers and some are not—to go to the same event, which might cost more than £300. The Back-Bench MPs all declare it and the Daily Mail writes a story about it, but the Minister’s attendance is recorded nine months later and nobody notices. That seems somewhat unfair to me.
Incidentally, in answer to a point that the Leader of the House made, the Committee has said that the Government could set a lower threshold for further ministerial registrations if they wanted to—lower than £300 threshold in the House of Commons. However, it is worth pointing out that, though the ministerial threshold at the moment is said to be £140, since the Government do not publish the value of what is received, we have no idea whether that threshold is being met. I have been to events with Ministers that I have registered, but which the Minister has never subsequently registered anywhere.
I am not convinced that the system is working. I have a great deal of time for the Leader of the House. I love ministerial promises, especially when they come before Christmas and they talk about spring, but previous Leaders of the House have said to me that this would be sorted out by spring—a different spring. That spring has now sprung, and now we are into the winter. It seems extraordinary that Government Ministers will not be able to work out for themselves—not the Department —whether they have been to an event or received hospitality worth more than £300, and to register it in two minutes by sending a quick email to the registrar of interests in the House. I simply do not understand the logistical argument from the Leader of the House.
I urge colleagues to support my amendment, first, because the public expect full transparency and openness, and wonder what Ministers are trying to hide. Secondly, Ministers, in effect, now choose whether to register with the House or the Department. That does not make any sense at all. Thirdly, even if the Leader gets her way, the information will not all be in one place.
Fourthly, nobody presently or in future, so far as I can see, is expected to regulate or monitor the ministerial declarations. Fifthly, there are bizarre anomalies such as the previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), going to a Bond premiere, supposedly in their ministerial capacity because, as another Minister explained, James Bond exercises Executive functions. That argument simply undermines the whole system. I am not making that up, incidentally.
My next point is that this is the bare minimum that the public expect of us. I have had many emails, texts and helpful pieces of advice on Twitter saying that we should not be taking any hospitality or gifts whatsoever. If a person was working in local government or in most of the private sector today, they would have to declare everything. I do worry that sometimes our belief in our own exceptionalism, and Ministers’ belief in their own exceptionalism, grows with every extra day that we are an MP or a Minister.
Ministers have a habit of becoming ex-Ministers, but under the present rules, their registered interests do not come with them to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. So if we stick with the Government’s proposals, they could easily and inadvertently fall foul of the new paid lobbying rules, which now apply for 12 months after the interest is accrued. They might have accrued the interest when a Minister, but then end up not being a Minister any more and wanting to lobby Ministers. They would be precluded from doing that, but then they would not have registered the interest with the House. That is yet another reason why it is simpler—far, far simpler—to return to the system that we had from 1997 to 2015, instituted by both Conservative and Labour Governments on the back of the cash for questions crisis, of treating all MPs equally.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Bryant
I am very near the end, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know, but of course I will give way.
Tim Loughton
I have been listening very carefully, but I am undecided on this subject. When I was a Minister, the difference was that I had a permanent secretary who was on my case to make any declarations that I needed to make on outside interests, shareholdings and so on. An ordinary Back Bencher does not have that. A Back Bencher may take hospitality because it is quite a fun thing to do, but a Minister may have to attend something that could be seen as hospitality but is actually part of their brief. He or she might not enjoy having to do that, but that comes along with the job. The hon. Gentleman is trying to group everything together as if it were the same, but, actually, receiving hospitality is different case for a Minister and a Back Bencher.
Chris Bryant
I have heard the argument, “Oh, we go to lots of events that we don’t really enjoy”, but let me put this case to the hon. Member—it is not a real case, but it is a perfectly possible case. Let us say that Formula 1 invited three MPs: the shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister; the Minister; and the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The event was at the weekend and the value of the hospitality was about £2,000. The shadow Minister would have to declare it. They might not particularly like Formula 1— They might be going because it is part of their work in that role. I personally cannot imagine anything worse than going to a Formula 1 event—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
The Chair of the Select Committee would also have to register the Formula 1 weekend. They would have to register who had paid for it and how much it was worth, which is an important part of judging whether it might be of such a scale that it could influence a person’s decision making. Furthermore, those two people would not then subsequently be able to lobby on behalf of Formula 1. That is a really important part of the rules of the House. However, the Minister merely tells the permanent secretary that they have been on this weekend and does not register the value, and it appears many months later, even though the Minister might be the person who is making executive decisions that affect Formula 1. That is our fundamental problem.
What we have at the moment is a lesser degree of transparency and openness for Ministers who make decisions than for Back Benchers who do not make decisions. The Leader of the House has been very helpful on many of these issues and I do not have a big beef with her, although she is still yet to visit the Rhondda tunnel, but if I am honest, her arguments sounded a bit like Augustine of Hippo saying, “Make me chaste and continent, but not yet.”
There is no reason why we cannot do this. I have heard Ministers promise many things over the years—indeed, I might have promised a couple of things that never came to pass myself when I was a Minister. The easiest way for the House and for Parliament to deal with this is to go back now to the system that we used to have, then if the Government come back to us in six months’ time having sorted out ministerial transparency, they can have the exemption back. All MPs should be treated equally under the rules, just as every member of our society should be treated equally under the law, and that is why I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support the two amendments I have tabled.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do not wish to curb debate at all, but this debate has to finish in about 40 minutes and I want to give the Leader of the House a good amount of time to respond. I ask colleagues to bear that in mind.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thought I would start by reflecting on something the Prime Minister said back in his days as a junior Minister in the then Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government:
“The conduct of local councils and their councillors has a direct impact on the reputation of an area and of their fellow members. Their ability to lead a community and impact the lives of all those they serve is significant, and it is only right that they are held to a high standard.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 521.]
He was speaking in his role relating to local government, but as we again debate how we carry our duties, those words are incredibly relevant to why this issue is important. We could equally say that the conduct of parliamentary parties and their MPs has a direct impact on the reputation of a country and their fellow members—or even the conduct of the Government and its Ministers.
The Prime Minister said it himself: how elected officials behave matters immensely for their institution and for the people they serve. That is why I am pleased that we have consensus on some much-needed improvements to our code of conduct, which will come in as a result of this motion, but it is also why I am disappointed that the Government are failing to implement the code of conduct as recommended by the Committee in its entirety. I hope the Prime Minister has not changed his mind on the importance of integrity in public life since taking senior Government office.
I place on record my good wishes to the Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, as she departs her role at the end of the year, and thank her and her team for their efforts to date. Several hon. Members have brought up the Owen Paterson vote in November last year. Part of my own compunction to table the application under Standing Order No. 24 after that debate was driven by the importance of understanding—given that we all make decisions here as individual Members about what we hear during debates—that what we do and say in this House can have a direct impact on those outwith it. I know the abuse the Commissioner for Standards experienced following that debate.
I will start with the first of the two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), amendment (a)—I, too, thank the Standards Committee. I have put my name to both amendments, because it seems frankly ridiculous that in this place of a million minute rules the Government would push back on something so sensible as tailored descriptors for the Nolan principles.
That makes me think of my own time in HR. I worked for multinationals and in the public sector, and in many of those organisations there were behaviours or soft skills that all people within an organisation would be assessed against in their appraisals. We provided guidance so that the chief executive of an organisation and somebody on the shop floor were assessed in relation to those behaviours at the level that was appropriate to them, and that is exactly what these descriptors are setting out to do.
The argument that the Government are making is that we do not need any guidance, but basic logic tells us that broad principles such as openness and leadership will mean different things to people carrying out different functions. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, the Committee on Standards in Public Life acknowledged that in its 2015 report looking into how regulators embody those principles. For example, in the case of a regulator, selflessness—it is funny that we all seem to have touched on selflessness in this debate—means putting aside their own views and opinions, something that we as MPs we definitely do not do. For us, I believe it means ensuring that we cannot be compromised through any outside interests. I would argue that those two ways of interpreting the first Nolan principle for those in different sorts of public office are entirely compatible, and I can see no problem in giving specific guidance to Members, to regulators or, indeed, to any other office holder. In fact, I would argue that additional guidance benefits Members.
It is 12 December 2022. I think we were all up to something else exactly three years ago today. When I came to this place the following Monday, it was pretty overwhelming. There are lots of rules, customs and corridors to get lost in, and constituents instantly need help. But I can also imagine that for someone who has been here a few years, it might feel easy to feel too comfortable and simply to let things slide when we should, arguably, know better. We should never allow a lack of knowledge, or complacency, to be a barrier to how we conduct ourselves in this place. Guidance is arguably a way to help us in that. It sets expectations both for those following the rules and for those making the judgments on whether those rules have been adhered to.
Turning to amendment (b), I would like to hear from the Leader of the House why she does not support bringing the process for Ministers to declare gifts, hospitality and so on in line with that for other Members. Perhaps she will try again to argue that it is justified on the basis of the separation of powers, as she did when we debated this in October, but I simply do not buy that. Separation of powers takes place when the Government and the legislature are, well, separate. But in case the Government have forgotten, they too are Members of this legislature. This is a combined system—that has its pros and cons—but it is not separate. Even if it were, I just do not find it acceptable to argue that being in Government rather than on the Back Benches means being subject to less scrutiny, and I am pretty sure that my North East Fife constituents do not think so either. I would think that is the case for many Members in this House.
Perhaps I will be told that Ministers should be trusted to do the right thing, but we know that they get things wrong, as recent reports of Ministers using their personal emails for Government work, in breach of security, tell us. Clearly, it is easier for everyone when there is one straightforward system to be used so that mistakes cannot be made.
Furthermore, as colleagues have pointed out, Back-Bench MPs, and even Opposition spokespeople, have 28 days to register financial interests, which are then published every two weeks. We have had two Prime Ministers and countless Secretaries of State and junior Ministers—many of whom now sit on the Government Back Benches—since the last ministerial report was published in June 2022. That is simply not an equal system.
I am here representing my constituents, as is every single Member in this place. I remember the first Monday I was here. I saw the right hon. Member for—oh, I cannot remember where he represents, but I remember seeing him as he was getting coffee and thinking, “Oh my goodness! That’s such and such.” And a little voice in my head said, “No, at this moment in time, he is in exactly the same job as you: he is here to represent his constituents.”
What the Government are proposing is not an equal system. This country rightly has high standards for politicians to meet, and I believe that the vast majority of Members want to put procedures in place so that we meet those standards. We will fail without this change. Ministers are Ministers because they are elected as MPs in the first place. Their constituents should be able to find information about them in one place.
I could go into further changes we need to improve standards in this place and the trust that the country places in us, about which we have heard from other Members, but, in focusing on the two amendments, I will keep it simple: vote for amendment (a) to make it easier for Members to keep to the high standards that we all want in this place. Vote for amendment (b) to make it easier for Ministers to demonstrate the integrity that we rightly demand. If the Government fail to do that, it will not just be them explaining why not; it will be all of us in this place. This Government decision impacts on us all in how we conduct ourselves here.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to all the contributions in the debate. I congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the assiduous way in which he has approach this matter as Chair of the Committee.
I will address the Committee’s third recommendation, on the matter of an outright ban on MPs providing paid parliamentary advice, consultancy or strategy services. I welcome that report as a genuine advance. I was given the opportunity to provide oral evidence to the Committee about a Bill that I drafted and introduced last year, which would have banned MPs’ second jobs, with a few exceptions, for example, for those working on the frontline in public services. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] It is interesting that Conservative Members shout out, “Why?” when I talk about the proposal to ban second jobs for MPs, with an exception for, for example, nurses, firefighters, people in the armed forces and doctors. I do not understand why that proposal was met with such incredulity and such a loud chant of, “Why?” from Conservative Members.
When we debated the issue previously, I almost lost count of the Conservative Members who said, “What about nurses? What about doctors?” Yet when those exceptions are mentioned now, they ask why. When Conservative Members said, “What about nurses? What about doctors? You can’t ban second jobs for MPs”, I felt that they were using exceptions as a way of keeping the rotten status quo.
The public do not object to MPs spending their spare time working on an A&E ward as a nurse or a doctor, working as firefighter, or being in the Territorial Army. They rightly object if a Member is paid £1,500 an hour to advise a US investment bank. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Again, there is a call of, “Why?” That is good evidence for why people outside all too often think that this place and MPs are out of touch with them.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I do not want to be too partisan about this, but were I a writer like Michael Foot, could I go on writing and get my royalties? Were I a farmer like Jim Callaghan, could I keep my farm? Should we say to people like my former colleague, Peter Thurnham, who built up an engineering business, “Don’t come into Parliament. You’ll have to give away your business while you’re here”?
Richard Burgon
I did not expect the Chamber to come to life, but when it comes to attempting to ban MPs’ second jobs, everybody gets energetic. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I did not want to speak about my Bill at such length, but it deals with his point. Members who write books, for example, could continue to do that, but could not keep the proceeds. That may seem unfair to many, and some people would perhaps be treated harshly under my proposal, but that is because people have found ways of exploiting loopholes. One could imagine a situation whereby, if one could keep the profits from writing, an MP would write a book about the oil industry, get paid a lot of money for it and work for an oil company for free on the side. However, I digress. I understand that MPs are annoyed at any suggestion that second jobs should be banned, but they are out of touch with the public when they get so angry about it.
I welcome the advances that have been made on an outright ban on MPs providing paid parliamentary advice, consultancy or strategy services. I also welcome the advance in requiring MPs to have a written contract. That is a step in the right direction. However, the House must recognise that the public are rightly angry because when MPs chase corporate cash, they short-change the public. The public are also outraged because, a year after the Owen Paterson scandal, MPs are making more money from second jobs than they were a year ago—£5.3 million, the highest figure ever. That is the problem: this place and MPs end up being out of step with what the public want. The public rightly believe that we get paid enough and that being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job.
I am not surprised that my contribution has annoyed Conservative Members so much, but I will support the motion and the amendments. They are certainly a step in the right direction. On second jobs, we need to go further in future. They should be banned with a small number of exceptions. I introduced a Bill on that and the Government repeatedly blocked it. It is still there if the Government want to do the right thing and take it forward. I am glad that Labour Front Benchers support a ban on second jobs for MPs with a small number of exceptions. I hope that we get in at the next election, introduce that proposal, and help to clean up our politics and restore public trust.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I shall be extremely brief. I will support both amendments but do not believe either of them goes far enough. In an ideal world we would all conduct ourselves in public and private by principles conducive not just to our own benefit and wellbeing, but to the benefit of the wider community, but we do not, so we have laws that enable the prosecution of lawbreakers.
In Parliament we like to think we adhere to standards and principles, and we primarily refer to the code of conduct for those in public life; as we all know, the seven principles of public life are the Nolan principles, but like all guidelines, memorandums of understanding and conventions, the Nolan principles only work if individuals have the self-discipline and moral compass to adhere to them. When they do not, the abuse of their position is often clear for everyone to see, but rather than hold them to account, this place too often turns a blind eye or gently reprimands them with a rap on the knuckles.
Unfortunately, past behaviour leads me to believe that we could extend the Nolan principles to 107 principles and those who currently adhere to them would, but those who think they are above and beyond such practices as self-control would ignore them all because they feel entitled to do so. In ministerial and Members’ registers of financial interest, transparency is crucial and that information must be provided in a timely fashion. Why would it not be? Why is it not already? As many MPs have shown time and again during covid, it is one set of standards for them and one set for everybody else.
In summary, while we rely on principles and guidelines and conventions, some MPs will walk right through them, and the time for navel gazing is over.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Despite the late hour, it is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I rise to speak briefly on the motion today and to speak in favour of amendments (a) and (b).
Members from across the House will understand my personal interest in ensuring our politics and our political discourse are conducted with transparency, respect and civility and are free from the dangerous toxicity we have seen in recent years. I believe we all have a responsibility in this regard, but, sadly, we have seen behaviour in this Chamber and outside that is clearly unacceptable, and we must raise the bar. That is why I am pleased to see us acting to strengthen the code of conduct, which I wholeheartedly support.
We in this House have a sincere duty and obligation to adhere to the highest standards of public life and to set an example of what robust, passionate, healthy debate and discussion in our country looks like. If we cannot demonstrate appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours and find a way to behave with civility and to show respect despite our many differences of opinion and perspective, how can we expect others to do so, and how can we expect them to respect us?
We have seen multiple examples of how the language, tone and behaviour of Members in this House trickles down to wider society both online and offline. It trickles down and creates an unhealthy and dangerous climate and a culture of abuse and intimidation. It trickles down and it puts good people off entering public life, whatever their political persuasion, when we should be working to open politics up to people from every background, creating a welcoming, tolerant and safe environment—one that strengthens our democracy, not damages it.
But this has to start with all of us. Stamping out the type of unacceptable behaviour we have seen in recent times and increasing transparency will undoubtedly help to reduce the toxicity that has spread across our public discourse and help to stop the unfortunate narrative that we in this place are “all the same” or “all in it for ourselves” with little regard for the public interest.
We in here know that the vast majority of Members are in this place to make a difference to their community and their country, with the public interest at heart. But if the public do not see that unacceptable behaviour in public life is effectively and rapidly stamped out, they will be disengaged, breeding suspicion and, at worst, driving people to the extremes.
I believe we have a clear responsibility to stop this happening. I am therefore pleased that we are strengthening our code of conduct today. I believe we can and should go further and therefore also support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), which I believe will bring much-needed further transparency and higher standards in public life.
Penny Mordaunt
I will try to respond to all the points made by hon. Members. I appreciate everyone being in the Chamber at this late hour and listening as well as contributing to the debate. I turn to the points made by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). She was disappointed that it has taken this long to get to the motion. If we had debated it earlier this year, we would have had not two points of disagreement but five. I hope she recognises that we have not been idle and that we have spent our time well. It has been my mission to try to find consensus on all these issues; that is the best thing for the House.
The hon. Lady made comparisons to the situation involving Owen Paterson. I would dispute that and point to the fact that the votes that we will have are free votes. It is controversial, but people can make up their own minds and decide what they think is the right thing to do. The Government clearly need to have a view, and that is what I set out. I also point out that we accepted the serious wrong issue put forward by the Standards Committee.
If the hon. Lady is to support amendments, I hope that she will be consistent in her party’s policy. The Labour Welsh Government’s hospitality threshold is higher than that for this House, and certainly that of ministerial thresholds. The Welsh Government also publish an annual list of gifts. So if she, as I do, wants us to move to monthly reporting, I hope that that Government will follow. I will also give her this quote from page 130 of Gordon Brown’s report, “A New Britain”, in which he says:
“The Ethics and Integrity Commission dealing with Ministers should be…separate from the system which investigates ethical breaches by MPs and members of the second chamber, comprised of the Committee on Standards, the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, and the Independent Grievance and Complaints System.”
That is a sensible approach.
It is difficult for us to conflate the two systems. I have tried to eradicate the word “soon” from my vocabulary—although I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that, when I have said “soon”, I have delivered—so I did not say “soon”. I have said, “summer”. Looking at these issues, I think that is a reasonable timeframe—[Interruption.] That is to move to monthly reporting.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about bringing forward guidance and publishing it, the motion originally would have come into effect on 1 January. He suggested that we push it out until March so that everyone can be brought up to speed and know where they are. That is a sensible approach. I will do my utmost to ensure that the civil service meets that deadline of when the motion comes into effect, which I think is reasonable. If hon. Members want this to work well and orderly, that is the timetable that we must work to.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) pointed out that it is incredibly important that we take care of hon. Members’ wellbeing. It is in our interests to remind anyone who might be listening to the debate that whatever motion is voted on tonight—amended or unamended—it will improve and strengthen the standards of this place. That is an important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is also a Member of the Standards Committee, was pleased that we had acted swiftly on the appeals process. We have a different view from him on the Nolan principles, but, as I explained to him earlier, people can vote on it. This is House business. Hon. Members can listen to different viewpoints and vote on that. That is how we should be doing things, and that is how we will do things tonight.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) also supports amendment (b), which would move us immediately to monthly 28-day reporting. That came as a surprise to me, because my understanding is that the Scottish Parliament reports on a quarterly basis. I look forward to the Scottish Parliament moving in line with amendment (b). Maybe we could have a race and see who gets there first.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) spoke about many issues, some directly related to the motion, and she was supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). She is right that we have to build trust in Parliament. We want to be the best legislature in the world. We have to continually address those issues, and I have heard what she has said.
Turning to the hon. Member for Rhondda, the Chairman of the Committee on Standards, I will not repeat the arguments I have made before, but I will just touch on a few points. First, I agree with him when he says it is important that justice is served swiftly. I have shared some concerns with him on how quickly we carry out investigations, and we want to do better on that. I was grateful to him for outlining the many positives that I hope the House will support tonight. We still disagree on the Nolan principles issue. I looked into the police issue he raised; I do not think the police have done as he outlined. What they have done is produce a code of ethics, which was signed off by the Home Secretary, but that is different to what is being proposed for Ministers.
On ministerial declarations, I completely agree with the three principles that the hon. Gentleman set out. What I am interested in doing is getting there in an orderly way, to ensure parity with the House’s reporting system. I am telling hon. Members, having looked at this in detail and probably more than any other Leader of the House, that if they wish this measure to come into effect in March, they will have a problem. It will be a problem not just for Ministers, but for anyone undertaking an envoy role, including Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman also helpfully proposed a manuscript amendment earlier this evening, which chimed with the sentiments of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West, with regard to having “scale and source”. Again, I think Members want clarity. They want an amount, a threshold. They want clarity on the rules. I do not know whether it would be means-tested. Is something that is materially important to me materially important to someone else?
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but it seems to me that the clearest outcome for all right hon. and hon. Members is a single rule of £300 registration for everybody within 28 days, with the full value shown. Everything else is muddying the waters.
Penny Mordaunt
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am just addressing the point that he and the shadow Leader of the House raised earlier. The bottom line is that the Government agree that the system has to improve. We agree entirely with the principles that the hon. Gentleman set out. If amendment (b) goes through, he will be requiring Members who are also Ministers, or envoys of some description and trade envoys, to report in March at a pace that he knows the Whitehall machine will not currently be able to deliver on. In a few months after that point, it will. I suggest that we wait until Whitehall can deliver, which will not be far away—I did not say soon; I said summer—and we can move towards that in an orderly way.
Sir Peter Bottomley
When the Chairman of the Committee on Standards, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), talks about his fallibility, he reminds me of article XXVI of the articles of religion. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has convinced me that amendment (b) is too soon and too rushed. Will she consider having a button or a link on both registers, so that people can find other information about a Member who is also a Minister?
Penny Mordaunt
On that point, which has also been made by the Committee Chairman, who accuses me of using the argument of saying “not yet”, we have already started this work. I have already been working with the propriety and ethics team, and we have audited every Government Department, which is why I can bore Members senseless about why there are some problems. We have already started to look at how we might have a system that everyone in Whitehall could report into, instead of doing it in a million different ways, but also at our goal being that transparency. For example, if someone is looking at their MP, they want to have a comprehensive picture, so we have already started looking at that, and I hear what hon. Members have said.
Ronnie Cowan
Can the Minister assure me that we are not trying to delay beyond March because it falls during the current financial year?
Penny Mordaunt
No, I can assure the hon. Member on that point. We have moved the date in the motion from January to March, at the request of the Committee Chair, because we want everyone to know what the new standards rules are that we are voting on today, and we felt that was right.
From the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), we had a different view, but I thank her for her contribution. I would ask the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I am just trying to read my own handwriting—to read the report we have been discussing, because it does not come to the same conclusions that he does. I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for his remarks. I do not think that colleagues are a bunch of rotters; I am sure he was not suggesting that.
Finally, I will end, rightly, on the very salient point that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) raised, and she is absolutely right. Although we focused on the areas of disagreement, one of the areas where there is huge consensus is about the duty of care we have to each other. She is very genuine, for reasons we all understand, in her remarks.
I would conclude by saying that this is a huge step forward. I thank the Committee for its work. It made 20 recommendations, and the Government want 18 of them brought in. We want, particularly on ministerial interests, for us to move to the position the Committee wants, but in a way that is doable and orderly. This is a free vote. All Members will have heard the arguments and listened, and they will be voting and deciding what the best thing they think is to do. I do not expect, particularly given the subject matter we are debating, any party or Member to criticise the decision that hon. Members will have taken this evening in good faith, me included.
With that, I urge all Members to support the Government motion unamended. This is a big step forward. We do want to move to clarity and parity for both systems, but both systems of reporting should remain distinct.
Amendment proposed: (a), leave out from “annexed to that Report” to
“(b) the Third Report from the Committee on Standards”.—(Chris Bryant.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Moles and Skin Tags: Testing for Cancer
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am delighted to initiate this debate on melanoma in memory of my constituent Zoe Panayi, after whom “Zoe’s law” is named.
Zoe died of skin cancer in May 2020 at the age of just 26, after having an unusual mole removed at a private beauty clinic. She had trained to become a carer before finding a rewarding role as an assistant to the radiography and CT department at St Mary’s Hospital in Newport, in my constituency. She was the mother of two boys, Theo-Jay and Tobias.
On the night of 3 April 2020, Zoe went home from work feeling poorly. By 11.30 pm she had been admitted back to St Mary’s hospital, where she worked, and it was then discovered that she was in the late stages of cancer. Biopsy results four days later found that the melanoma, which had started in a mole on her back, had spread to her lymph nodes, liver, bone marrow, pelvis, and spleen. Very sadly, after the biopsy Zoe survived for just 55 days.
Over the course of the two years prior to her death, Zoe had raised numerous concerns with GPs about the unusual mole on her back. She had been told on multiple occasions that there was nothing to be concerned about, and after being advised to see a beauty clinic to have the mole removed, staff again raised no concerns about the removal of the mole. Tragically, it was later found that the act of removing the mole probably caused the cancer to grow and spread more rapidly. Zoe’s family, and especially her mum, Eileen Punter, to whom I pay tribute in this debate, have campaigned tirelessly since then to raise awareness of melanoma cancer and to ensure that others do not have to go through the same pain. I will make two suggestions to the Minister in the course of this speech.
By way of background, malignant melanoma is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK, and there are thought to be some 111,000 people living with malignant melanomas in this country. Approximately 16,700 cases are diagnosed every year, and about 2,300 people die every year from this cancer. This should not be the case, because the good news is that since the 1970s, the five-year survival rate for cancers of this type has increased from 52% to about 90%—nine out of 10— especially if they are caught early.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this subject. As he knows, I had a stage 3 melanoma and I was told that I would have a 40% chance of living a year, but the science has moved on dramatically in the nearly four years since then. My biggest anxiety is that we do not have enough histopathologists and pathologists, and that people are getting their results slowly. There are also not enough dermatologists in the country, and lots of GPs are simply not trained in recognising potentially malignant melanomas fast enough. Do we not need to do far more to ensure that this cancer is fully understood, because it can kill, and to ensure that we have enough staff in the NHS to be able to treat it?
Bob Seely
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am going to follow up on several of those points, but I am delighted to see that he is one of the many people who have survived a malignant melanoma.
If Zoe’s mole had been diagnosed early—especially at stage 1 or 2, and possibly even at stage 3—she may have well survived. Just before I come to some of those suggestions, I must point out that these melanomas are a specific concern on the Isle of Wight, because we have one of the highest rates of skin cancer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his assiduous attention to his constituents and to the family who have been bereaved. By his words today, we all recognise that he is deeply concerned and compassionate, and we thank him for that.
May I gently tell the hon. Gentleman—perhaps the Minister might take note of this as well—that in Northern Ireland a new mole mapping and melanoma service has been introduced in my local South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust? It is a nurse-led, two-year pilot project that offers an advanced mole mapping technique for specific patients identified by the clinical team as being at higher risk of developing melanoma skin cancer. I suggest that that should be a standard for everyone not just in my trust area but everywhere else, so that we do not have a postcode lottery. Would the hon. Gentleman be interested in that pilot scheme? If so, maybe the Minister will take note.
Bob Seely
I thank the hon. Gentleman for yet another excellent intervention, and I completely agree. In fact, I will come to those points now.
The Isle of Wight is a specific hotspot for skin cancer. I think it has the worst skin cancer rates in the United Kingdom, primarily as a result of certain factors. First, we still have a very white population, and the paler your skin, the more likely you are to develop melanomas. Secondly, we have an ageing population, and melanomas are cumulative. Thirdly, we have a very outdoors lifestyle on the Island, with golf, sailing, a lot of community activity and a lot of gardening. For the Isle of Wight’s retirement community especially, to be out in the sun aged 60 or 70 doing activities such as sailing, which is very harsh on the skin because of the interaction of sun and water, encourages melanomas. Fortunately, we have one of the best dermatology centres in Britain at Newport’s Lighthouse clinic, and I thank its doctors and staff for doing an excellent job. I have been there myself in the past couple of years, and I know what a great job they do.
In the NHS long-term plan, the Government committed that the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 or 2 will rise from about half to three quarters of all cancer patients, meaning that some 55,000 more people a year should survive cancer for at least five years after diagnosis.
Pilot schemes in various parts of the country are trying to improve the diagnosis of skin cancers and melanomas. One option to improve this still further is what, on the Island, we call Zoe’s law, but it would effectively be a change of practice within the NHS. Eileen, Zoe’s mum, and her family are doing it in memory of Zoe, and it would require all moles and skin tags removed from the body to be tested for melanoma. I am not expecting an off-the-cuff answer from the Minister on this point, but I would very much like her to write to me so that I can pass on her comments to Eileen and the rest of Zoe’s family. If that cannot be done now, I would like to know why not.
I would also like to know what more could be done in future, because thousands of people are needlessly dying every year. Skin cancers kill more slowly than many other cancers and are certainly more treatable than cancers such as lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. Eileen said Zoe thought of everyone before herself. When Zoe was dying, she said, “The most important thing is that other people do not have to go through this”—she left two young kids.
The idea of testing all removed moles and skin tags is potentially very popular, and a petition started by the family has now reached some 35,000 signatures. Tanya Bleiker, the previous president of the British Association of Dermatologists, recommended that all skin lesions, even if removed for cosmetic reasons, as Zoe’s was, should be sent for histopathological testing to confirm that they are benign—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) also made that recommendation—because they might be deep rooted in the skin. Mr Ashton, one of our consultant dermatologists on the Isle of Wight, explained to me on Friday that innocent-looking moles can sometimes be the most deadly. They might look benign on the surface, but underneath they are malignant and hide melanoma.
I urge the Government to set out further plans on raising awareness of moles, as this is relatively easy to do. If I understand correctly, including this in nurse training and general practitioner training, especially in sunnier parts of the country along the south coast—places like Cornwall, Devon, the Isle of Wight and Hampshire—could be exceptionally valuable.
Chris Bryant
No one can see the back of their own head, but their hairdresser can, and quite often they are the person who can spot a melanoma.
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman reminds me of what Mr Ashton was telling me on Friday, because it is not only hairdressers but dentists. Dentists spend a lot of time looking at people’s faces, so they could potentially help to spot these things, too. Eileen, Zoe’s mum, spends a lot of her time trying to get this education process going, as she does not want other families to suffer as her family have.
At stage 1, a small and localised melanoma has a 97% five-year survival rate, which is extraordinarily high. By contrast, the five-year survival rate for a stage 2 melanoma is 76%, and it is 58% for a stage 3 melanoma, as the hon. Member for Rhondda had. By the time a cancer has spread from the skin to the lymph nodes, the bone marrow and other parts of the body, the five-year survival rate is only 15%. Sadly, Zoe was one of those who did not survive, because despite her worry, her visits to the GP and the fact that she had it removed, that cancer had been spreading all the time in her body.
I respectfully ask the Minister to write to me on the potential for 100% testing of moles for melanoma, cancer and whether they require further treatment. If there were such testing, some of the 2,341 people who died of the disease last year might have survived, including my constituent Zoe.
I pay tribute again to Zoe’s family, especially her mum for all the great work that she is doing. I ask the Minister to respond not only on the issue of testing for melanomas but on broader education for GPs, hairdressers, dentists and nurses, so that they are better able to spot cancerous moles before they spread.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Helen Whately)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate, and on telling us Zoe’s story so powerfully. It is a truly heartbreaking story of a young mum of just 26 with so much life ahead of her. It was harder still to hear because Zoe did the right thing and asked her GP about her mole, yet her skin cancer was not diagnosed until so late that she died just 55 days later. I pay tribute to Zoe’s family, including her mum, Eileen, who have campaigned to stop other people going through what they have gone through, and to Zoe herself. When I looked earlier this evening, more than 34,000 people had signed the petition.
Like Zoe’s family, as cancer Minister I want to stop people going through what they have been through. I want us to get better at preventing, diagnosing and treating cancer. Although we cannot remove the risk of skin cancer in its entirety, we can raise awareness of the things that increase the risk and help people take steps to protect themselves. Most skin cancers are caused by exposure to the sun. Getting sunburnt increases the risk—especially getting sunburnt as a child—as does using sunbeds. Those who have fair skin are at greater risk. As my hon. Friend told us, the lovely sunshine of the island he represents has its downsides, as does the healthy outdoor life that he describes.
As well as raising awareness of risks, we need to raise awareness of early signs and symptoms, and then what to do. We in Government are doing that. For instance, the NHS “Help Us, Help You” campaign has used TV advertising, social media and regional press to get the message out to people to get worrying signs checked out. We know that some people delay getting a check. That campaign has particularly sought to overcome those fears. If you are worried, it is always better to get checked out. Most people will get the all-clear, but the sooner you get a check, the better, because an early diagnosis improves the chances of successful treatment.
I know that Zoe did the right thing and asked her GP, which brings me to the importance of accurate diagnosis. For Zoe’s specific case there has been a full investigation locally, and I know the findings have been acted on. Specifically, teledermatology is now offered by all GPs on the Isle of Wight, and is increasingly available across the NHS. It involves a specialist medical photographer taking a detailed photograph of a skin lesion to check it for signs of cancer. That is a step on the path to more tests to confirm whether someone has cancer or is given the all-clear that no further tests are needed.
On the role of teledermatology, almost £1.5 million of our elective recovery funding has been allocated to seven cancer alliances to pilot self-referral for cancer symptoms, including skin cancer symptoms. I heard my hon. Friend’s argument for Zoe’s law to require all moles or skin tags removed to be tested for melanoma. I also heard him saying that he was not expecting an answer here and now, which I appreciate. I can assure him that I will take his argument away, look into it and then write to him with a full response on his proposal. I will also take away the suggestion from him and from other hon. Members about looking at the broader education of other people who might be able to spot something that might be an early sign of skin cancer. I recognise that people may not be able to see their back or the back of their head, for instance. Indeed, there may be opportunities to look at wider education. For sure, raising awareness overall of skin cancers and of what a person should do if they have a sign or a symptom will indeed mean that more people will know what to look out for.
Jim Shannon
I commend the Minister for her very positive answer and for what she said in relation to the nine centres across the United Kingdom, which is where the hotspots are. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), I referred to a pilot scheme in my trust area, the South Eastern Health And Social Care Trust, which seems to be having some good results. I always believe that the exchange of ideas is good for us all. It helps us to see what is being done here and it might help the Minister to know what we are doing back home.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will look into the scheme in his area that he mentioned. One of the good things about the NHS is that all sorts of fantastic things are going on in pockets across the United Kingdom. One of the best things that we can do is find out what is working somewhere, and then spread that best practice more widely, so, indeed, I will look into what he suggests.
We are now seeing the most incredible advances in how we diagnose cancer as well as how we treat it. An example of this is the NHS-Galleri trial, which looks for blood markers to identify cancer risk. It can identify signs of more than 50 cancers and the trial has 140,000 participants. We should in no way limit our sights as to what can be achieved in the here and now. The crucial thing here and now is early diagnosis, which much improves the prospects for successful treatment. Zoe’s family wants those who do have cancer to get an early diagnosis so that they have the chance to survive and live their lives as, sadly, Zoe did not. That is something that I want, too. I want fewer people to get cancer, those who do have cancer to be diagnosed earlier, and, in turn, to be treated successfully so that they can live their lives to the full.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The statutory instrument amends existing regulations relating to the immigration consequences for someone who is designated or sanctioned for immigration purposes under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—the sanctions Act, as I shall now refer to it. I will start by setting out some background to the immigration sanctions, also known as travel bans, with which these regulations are concerned.
The UK is bound by travel bans imposed by a resolution of the UN Security Council and can impose its own travel bans under the sanctions Act. In the vast majority of cases, travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and have no connection with the UK. A travel ban has an effect on a person’s immigration status: subject to the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention, they cannot enter or remain here. The Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 provide a mechanism for a person who is lawfully in the UK to make a human rights or protection claim before a travel ban made under the sanctions Act impacts their immigration status. They are exempt from the effect of the travel ban while the claim is considered, and refusal of such a claim gives rise to an in-country right of appeal before the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier tribunal.
Where a person is not subject to a travel ban but is making a human rights or protection claim under the immigration rules, they benefit from similar protection. However, in contrast to the exemption provided to sanctioned persons, they cannot leave the UK or the common travel area and return simply on the basis of a claim lodged before their departure. We are therefore in the perverse situation in which someone subject to a travel ban benefits from more generous protection than someone who is not.
The purpose of these regulations is to align the approach and correct the anomaly. The Government have considered how to address it and have concluded that it is right that people lawfully in the UK when a travel ban is imposed under the sanctions Act are exempt from its effect while their human rights or protection claim is considered. However, when a sanctioned person leaves the UK, that exemption should end. Any action taken in respect of the person’s immigration status will be in accordance with our international obligations. The regulations therefore ensure consistency across the immigration system, and that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I do not think we will be detaining the Committee quite that long.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the regulations’ purpose, which is to correct what might best be described as a glitch in the operation of immigration sanctions or travel bans in respect of individuals based within the UK. The Home Office has identified that discrepancy, which has led to the entirely perverse situation in which people subject to a travel ban have more rights than those who are awaiting a decision on a human rights or protection claim and are not subject to sanctions.
The roots of the issue date back to the passage of the 2018 Act and regulations under that Act that were made in 2020, so it took the Government quite some time to become aware of the problem, which begs the question how and why the discrepancy first came to Ministers’ attention. The Government point out that in most cases, people subject to travel bans are not in the UK and do not have any significant connection to the UK. The number of people likely to be affected by these regulations is therefore small. The intention of the regulations is to rectify the error, and the hope is that in doing so, they will also help to strengthen the operation of UK sanctions regimes in the future. I am sure we can all support that. On that basis, the Opposition support this statutory instrument.
Miss Dines
I am grateful to have had this considered—albeit rather short—debate. I am also grateful for the Opposition’s support.
There might have been some delay, but the immigration rules are complex and it is right to make sure that everything is looked into appropriately. Travel bans are used to restrict the movements of those whose behaviour is considered unacceptable by the international community; those who are associated with regimes that threaten the sovereignty or independence of neighbouring countries; those who would seek to do us harm; those who seek to shelter themselves or their ill-gotten gains in other countries; and those whose aim is to profit from human suffering.
The UK does not ignore its international obligations. Those subject to a travel ban who claim a real fear of persecution or a breach of their fundamental human rights have the opportunity to make a claim before we take action to remove them from the UK. They have a statutory right to appeal against a decision to refuse their claim, and if the appeal succeeds the travel ban does not apply, meaning that they will not be removed or required to leave. But it cannot be right that when sanctions are be imposed on someone, they can then come and go as they please, abusing our hospitality. Should they choose to leave the UK without resolution of their original claim, they should not find themselves in a more generous position than others.
As I set out, the regulations simply provide consistency while maintaining the effectiveness of the sanctions regime and complying with our international obligations. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank all hon. Members for struggling against the weather to be in today.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 22 November and will give legal effect to a decision of both Houses to take a new approach to the parliamentary building works. I am grateful for the way in which the Office of Speaker’s Counsel has worked with my officials to draft the regulations and for the ongoing advice that I have received from the restoration and renewal directors and the delivery authority.
In June, both Houses passed motions to endorse the House Commissions’ report recommending a revised mandate for the restoration and renewal programme. Changes to the governance arrangements will continue to ensure that, as provided for in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, Members of Parliament, peers and others who work in this place will be consulted fully on the works. I, alongside other members of the client board, which is responsible for making critical strategic choices related to R and R, will take into account the principles agreed by both Houses to deliver a value-for-money approach to the programme, prioritising the work of this place and public safety. It is vital that all members of the parliamentary community feel that they are engaged with on the parliamentary building works, and I am confident that the new arrangements will deliver.
The draft regulations, which are made under section 10 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act, will abolish the sponsor body, which will be replaced by an in-house governance structure. The statutory responsibilities and other functions of the sponsor body will transfer to the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I have consulted the corporate officers and Commissions of both Houses, in accordance with section 10(8)(a) of the Act. Both corporate officers have consented to the transfers to them under this statutory instrument in accordance with section 10(3) of the Act. The corporate officers will share joint responsibility for the parliamentary building works and, at least once a year, will prepare and lay before Parliament a report about the carrying out of the works, detailing the progress towards their completion.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On that important point about keeping Members up to date, the annual report is useful, but will there be the ability to have interim reports along the way? For example, during Her late Majesty’s funeral, New Palace Yard was able to be put together very quickly and has now been taken apart again. One just wonders what the works programme is. Rather than wondering all the time, will it be possible to have interim reports, so that Members can understand what work is taking place, rather than having to wait on an annual basis?
Penny Mordaunt
I note what my right hon. Friend said and I reassure him about that. On the next steps of the programme, starting next year, there will be much greater consultation with Members about the shape of the works and our plans. I know that Members are keen to ensure that we have good oversight of what is happening, and that the right level of expertise is involved in the project. I want to provide some reassurance on that.
First, the staff team working on the sponsor body will be brought in-house as a joint department, which will be accountable to the corporate officers. Secondly, I emphasise that the draft regulations will make no changes to the delivery authority—its role is unchanged. That ensures that the programme retains its valuable experience and expertise. In fact, the regulations will allow for greater co-ordination and engagement between the Houses and the delivery authority, which could in turn allow for the delivery of restoration works much sooner. The regulations will not alter the role of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, which will continue to scrutinise estimates. This statutory instrument is vital to ensuring that this historic and iconic building is restored, while making sure that we deliver for the British taxpayer. Our commitment to ensuring good value for money is reflected in section 2(5) of the restoration and renewal Act.
I reassure Members that the House’s important role in this project is not diminished by these regulations. Under section 7 of the Act,
“No Palace restoration works, other than preparatory works, may be carried out”
until Parliament has approved the Delivery Authority plans for those works. In addition, any proposals that would significantly affect the design, timing or duration of the parliamentary building works would still need to be approved by Parliament. Bringing this project in-house is an opportunity, as the new governance structure should improve accountability and engagement with Parliament by allowing close interaction with, and feedback from, the views of the commissioners. I ask the Committee to support the instrument so that we can take this project forward.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. As I am sure everyone in this room knows, there is an ever-increasing need for urgency when it comes to restoration and renewal, so I welcome this opportunity to at least keep things moving by giving legal effect to resolutions passed in both Houses earlier this year. That is what we are doing: we are just considering the governance structure of the works. As shadow Leader of the House and, therefore, a member of the Commission, I will be supporting the order. However, I do so not because I am happy about where we have got to, but because we have to get a move on.
In my view, it is at least partially on the Government that we are in this position. In 2018, the Commons and the Lords agreed that work was pressing, and rightly concluded that that work should be undertaken by a statutory sponsor body and delivery authority. Since then, various right hon. and hon. Members—not exclusively, but in large part, from the party of Government—seem to be working to undermine the progress of those works, spending time wrangling with the experts instead of working with them to secure the future of the building and the safety of the people in it, and coming up with wizard wheezes that only remind one of what happened in the mid-19th century after the 1834 fire. A previous generation of parliamentarians—none of them qualified—decided they knew best, and would tell engineers what to do. We ended up with the situation we are in now, with substantial flaws in the current building.
We must follow the evidence and the advice of experts. Importantly, we must also heed the wisdom of colleagues such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside, who has put in the hard yards—nay, years. I think he has sat on every single Committee over the past 12 years to try to get the parliamentary community to recognise that, yes, maybe we are the generation of MPs that will have to put up with work-arounds and moving out of Parliament to enable those vital works to start. We are doing so for future generations, to make sure that this incredible place, with so much history in it, continues to be a living place of work, not either a dangerous wreck or just a museum.
Delay, asking for new assessments, and the further delay resulting from those assessments brought about a loss of confidence in the previous process, as well as ever-increasing estimates of times and costs. There is a complicated story behind why that happened, which I hope will one day be written, but the independent expert panel tasked by the Commissions to assess the situation concluded that the previous model was unlikely to be viable, and that doing nothing was also not an option. There is no doubt that large-scale works are needed, and I put on record that the longer those works get put off, the more expensive they become. We have already spent a lot of money not getting very far, as the delays exacerbate problems. Costs never go down as a result of waiting.
Members need to engage when we have consultations. I know that Members are busy, and I know there are so many things to call on our attention, but I have been in many consultation events in this place where the number of colleagues who turn up to take part is very, very small—smaller than the number of fingers on half a hand—and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside has, as well. If the consultation is at the wrong time or in the wrong place, Members need to try to find other ways to engage.
I will continue to press every single structure involved in this process to make use of every single method they have to consult with Members, but we have to try to meet the project halfway, otherwise this place could really turn into a disaster. We have asbestos, leaks, wires, plumbing that nobody knows the function of, and buildings at risk of fire and flood. It is testimony to the hard work of House staff and contractors that we have not yet witnessed a catastrophic failure of the building, as has been seen in other buildings around the world, such as Notre Dame. However, at some stage, that hard work just will not be enough.
There are opportunities for us to offer apprenticeships and revitalise craft training across the UK through this R and R project, and for patriotic pride. People already feel that pride when they turn up to see Big Ben again, and they will feel it when they see a parliamentary estate that is the iconic building for democracy and British soft power that it can be, given the attention it so badly needs. We need to pass this regulation today so that we can get a move on, but we also need right hon. and hon. colleagues from across the House to do everything they can to support it.
I will finish with one question for the Leader of the House: can she assure us that the Government will do everything they can to support, not frustrate, any future progress, and that we will get estimates and progress on business that needs to come before the House in as speedy a manner as possible, so that we have as little delay as possible? Every single day that goes by puts the building and the hard-working staff who work in it—never mind us; this is an issue of workers’ rights—more at risk.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I should say that I am currently a member of the sponsor body, although not for much longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West said, I have had the pleasure or the misfortune—whichever way you want to look at it—to sit on, I think, every single Committee that has looked at this process since it began.
I used to work with a colleague who, when he was given legal advice he did not like, would tell us to get another lawyer, and would keep doing so until he got the answer he wanted. That really sums up where we are today. The sponsor body was given a task, and I think it carried out that task very well. The problem is that certain individuals in this place—I will not name them—did not like that, and they did not like what the sponsor body came up with. I think the sponsor body was very honest, and did a hell of a lot of work on this project, but it is not going to be a quick project; it is not going to be a cheap project; and it will be a project where, whatever people want, we will end up having to move out of this building. The fact is that some people do not want to move out, and now, after years of work and hundreds of millions of pounds, I would say that we are back at the beginning again, but I think we are actually further back than when we started.
We also need to remember why the model of the sponsor board and delivery authority was chosen in the first place. Following on from the Olympic model, recognising that this was not going to be a project that could be delivered in one term of a Parliament and that colleagues and views change from one election to the next, we needed a structure that took the project away from us tampering and changing our mind on everything. As my hon. Friend has said, the danger is that we do not actually get anywhere with this, because it is always too difficult for one Parliament to do it.
Colleagues have said, “We need to deliver it quicker, and we need to spend less money.” I would like to see how we square that circle. However, the decision has been made, so we are where we are. We will probably regret what we are doing today; I think bringing the project in-house is a mistake. Certainly, if we look at the many projects that have been delivered in-house, it is not a great record of success in terms of cost and time, but we are where we are.
I have one final point, which is on engagement. I have chaired many sessions, and we all know what we are like in this place: we all say we want more engagement—we want people to talk to us more—but we do not turn up to the meetings, because we have got something else to do. That is the reality of the situation: the decision has effectively been made, but I fear we will rue that decision.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank colleagues for their contributions, and particularly the shadow Leader of the House for the collaborative way in which we have worked on these matters together. I echo her thanks to all Members who have been to many meetings over many years and spoken to many colleagues to get us to where we are today. I think this is a move motivated by wanting some pragmatism and granularity to the schedule of works. It will mean we can be more creative in how we do the works. I do not think work that has been done to date will be wasted. A huge amount of survey work has been done, and that will help inform options next year, which will form the basis of the consultation with Members.
If we have some granularity in the programme, we will find that we do have other options, which are very difficult to assess at the moment. We might have a different approach to some of our recesses. We might use some of the new technology we used during covid, such as the remote voting system, which cost £1.3 million and was used for eight days. We will have more options and more flexibility going forward.
Critically, as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside points out, it is about maximising value, not just controlling costs. I can give the hon. Member for Bristol West the reassurances she seeks. I hope I have given her that impression in the meetings we have been in together. We want to get a move on, and we do understand the concerns. It is why we have prioritised safety at the heart of our approach, as she will know. We are custodians of this incredible building, and we need to safeguard it.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for giving way on that point. Will she concede that at some point, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside said, we are going to have to move out? The nature of what is underneath us and all around and the connectedness of the two buildings means that even the option that has been touted by many people—that the Lords move out and that we move over there—is just not viable. We made enough fuss when some steps were missing a ramp last summer. It is not like just having builders in to put a new carpet down at home. Will she acknowledge that we are going to have to move out at some point?
Penny Mordaunt
I do not want to pre-empt the work that is being done next year, but the hon. Lady is right. I am very sceptical about us being able to dislodge their lordships for starters. Although there will be things that can be done to work around and bypass systems while they are worked on, we obviously have to take into account noise, disruption and a whole raft of things. I think the majority of our colleagues want to minimise the amount of time we are out of the building. Of course they do. I think the problem that happened with what she refers to is that, quite rightly, people were given a task, but the conclusions people came to were too far adrift from the expectations.
I think there is a way through this, but unless we change the approach, get granularity in so we can see the schedule of works that needs to happen, and unless we can get into that Chamber and have a proper survey done, we will not move forward fast. That is our shared aim, and I think that is where we will get to. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who has put in more hours than most on this, rightly notes that today we are just implementing a decision of both Houses. I want to make progress, and I want people to be prepared when they are considering standing for election and when colleagues are considering re-standing that they know what future Parliaments will look like in this place. I think we will be helping ourselves.
Penny Mordaunt
I completely agree. That is why I made that point. What we are doing with this new governance structure places them at the heart of this. They should be at the forefront of our minds, and they also need to be consulted as we are getting the more granular programme together.
Finally, though I was not directly involved in it, I think lessons have been learned from the experience of the Elizabeth Tower and other projects that have been brought in house. We are getting some very good external expertise into these governance structures, and greater oversight, scrutiny and audit is of course to be welcomed. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for being here today. We are delivering on the will of both Houses of Parliament, and I will do my utmost, working closely with the shadow Leader, to ensure the pragmatism that we all want to see is brought to fruition swiftly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2022.
This statutory instrument delivers a transitional relief scheme to protect properties from large increases in their business rates bill when new property valuations come into effect on 1 April next year. That will help about 700,000 businesses with about £1.6 billion of relief over the coming three years. The scheme, which is a significant part of the measures on business rates announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement, will cap bill increases after the revaluation by a set percentage every year. That will give more certainty; and for the first time—and particularly importantly—it will ensure that 300,000 business rate payers with falls in rateable value will see a full and immediate fall in their bills on 1 April.
As the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement, a revaluation will take place. Such revaluations are a necessary part of the proper administration of the business rates system. By updating valuations, we ensure that they reflect market conditions. The new set of rateable values, which were published in draft last month, will be applied from 1 April. That revaluation will build on measures already in the system to help ratepayers. Hon. Members will likely be aware that there is already substantial support through, for example, small business rate relief, which ensures that about 700,000 of England’s 2 million properties pay nothing at all.
However, we recognise just how challenging conditions are, including on high streets. Without intervention at this revaluation, business rate bills in England would have increased by, on average, 20% in 2023-24. To avoid that, we are providing a further package of support, worth £13.6 billion of taxpayer subsidy over five years. That will include a freeze on the business rates multiplier, to protect ratepayers from the full effects of inflation. That is worth £9.3 billion of taxpayer subsidy.
Many ratepayers will see their property values either fall or increase moderately at a revaluation, but we recognise that inevitably some properties have much greater swings in rateable value, which can result in a significant change to the final bill. That is why, in addition to freezing the multiplier, and the additional support for high streets, we are putting in place a more generous transitional relief scheme. These regulations will implement that transitional relief scheme.
As I say, the scheme, at £1.6 billion of the total £13.6 billion package, will help about 700,000 ratepayers to transition to their new bills. Unlike previous schemes, it will not require ratepayers to wait years to see the benefits of falling valuations. The results of the Government’s recent transitional relief consultation were published alongside the autumn statement and clearly showed businesses’ preference for the type of scheme that we are putting in place. We have listened, and are delivering significant reform to transitional relief by removing the system of downward transition, under which caps on increases were funded by restricting falls in bills. We are scrapping that cap, and there will be a full and immediate fall from 1 April 2023.
Nevertheless, under current law—specifically, section 57A(10) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—we are required, when making these regulations, to have regard to the object of ensuring that they are self-financing. In other words, until and unless section 57A(10) has been changed, the regulations must include provisions to fund the relief. To meet that legal requirement and to adhere to the spirit of what we intend to do here, we have included in the regulations a supplement of 3.3p on every £1 of rateable value to be paid by ratepayers in 2027-28. If, as we are currently required to do, we must include funding in the regulations, we consider that to be the fairest and most reasonable option, as it allows businesses five years to recover from current economic circumstances before having to meet the cost of transitional relief. It also allows those for whom there will be reductions the full benefit of the new valuations immediately.
However, the Government’s intention—subject to the will and approval of Parliament—is that no business will ever have to pay the supplement in 2027-28. We intend to bring forward primary legislation to reform transitional relief so that the Exchequer shoulders the cost of capping bill increases after a revaluation. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we propose removing section 57A(10) from the statute book forever and then cutting the supplement out of the regulations. This is a fundamental reform of the system that supports business. What we propose today will allow us to obtain immediate and important benefits for businesses from next year, while still being able to resolve the broader matter in the future, when parliamentary time allows.
The upward caps provided for by the scheme will support those ratepayers facing larger increases in their bill. For example, in the first year of the revaluation, the transitional relief scheme has caps on increases of 5% for small properties, 15% for medium properties and 30% for large properties. It is important to note, however, that the caps included in the draft regulations are before any changes in the bill from other reliefs and supplements, such as the 1.3p paid by larger properties on the higher multiplier and the 2p supplement to fund Crossrail in London. The caps will also rise with inflation in 2024-25 and 2025-26, and of course bills can change for other reasons unrelated to the revaluation—for example, because of property improvements.
The precise increase in bills next year and in future years will vary depending on the circumstances of each ratepayer and, in later years, inflation. The caps will ensure, however, that large increases are staggered, and that ratepayers have time to adjust to their new bill. Transitional relief will be calculated automatically by local government and applied to bills without ratepayers having to apply. Nevertheless, we have also included transitional relief in the gov.uk rates estimator, so that ratepayers can go online to check whether they will receive transitional relief ahead of receiving their bill next year.
As we might expect, properties of different sizes will get different caps to better protect those businesses that are less able to adapt. Overall, we estimate that the transitional relief scheme will support about 700,000 ratepayers as they transition from 1 April. That includes the more than half a million small properties that will benefit from transitional relief in the first year of the scheme.
Few people welcome revaluations, but they are a necessity. They rebalance the burden of business rates across the tax base, ensuring a fair distribution. Clearly, however, in this economic climate, some ratepayers need support to transition to their new bills. This statutory instrument, along with the wider support package announced by the Chancellor, provides the support that businesses need to manage the revaluation with greater certainty. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation, which will touch businesses in all our constituencies. Unfortunately, however, the Opposition would not vote with the Government in a Division, because we do not believe that the regulations go far enough. I will put on the record some points about the difficulties facing businesses and the local authorities attempting to support them.
On Saturday 3 December, we all celebrated Small Business Saturday, which is an opportunity to focus on independent traders who are making a big impact with little resource. All year round, however, my colleagues and I hear about the struggles of small businesses in our communities. Our high streets are already struggling as a result of the pandemic, and from the decade of under-investment before that.
As a result of climbing energy bills, the cost of goods rising with inflation, and stagnant wages driving consumer caution, businesses are desperate for a dramatic package of support. Tinkering with business rates, which is what this legislation does, is not what they want or need. Labour has a plan to back business by bringing business rates in line with the needs of the modern economy.
We are committed to cutting rates immediately for small firms, and they should be given any discount they are owed as a result of the revaluation at the nearest opportunity. To give the sector the stability and reassurance that it needs, and that I am sure we all want to see, we will bring in an annual revaluation of business rates, rather than holding ad hoc revaluations as the Government do, and as is outlined in the regulations. Under our model, the heavy burden of taxes will move from small and medium-sized enterprises and high-street businesses to online giants, which have, for far too long, got away with contributing far too little to our economy.
When Labour gets into government, it will deliver the transformation that businesses deserve, but we need an urgent increase now in the threshold for small business rates relief from £15,000 to at least £25,000. That discount for small and medium-sized enterprises would be a vital boost at this vulnerable moment. It would be funded by increasing the digital services tax for online business grants. That is just a taster of what could have been. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of the financial health of SMEs compared with, for example, global tech companies, and would like to know why increases in the digital services tax have not made his priority list. The burden of business rates is disproportion-ately heavy on small businesses. Our hard-working high-street entrepreneurs are being driven into the ground, while the profits of major corporations soar.
This legislation, being at an early stage, will not arrive soon enough to allow businesses and local authorities to plan sufficiently for the year ahead. In July, the Local Government Association responded to a Government consultation by saying that
“any transitional arrangements for 2023, whether part of the formal scheme or supplementary, should be announced no later than autumn 2022 when the draft list and provisional multiplier are announced.”
It is not contentious to say that 12 December is beyond what we conventionally consider to be autumn. Councils will not have adequate time to consider and communicate the changes before they become law. Were the time and effort required for local authority staff to adopt the new process factored into the timetable for the legislation?
It is not just the billing authorities that need to prepare for the new non-domestic rates. Such financial and administrative overhauls can be costly for many of the individuals and groups paying the new rates. The LGA has highlighted the need for councils to be compensated for the cost of staff time, and for potential new technologies, involved in the revaluation of rates and in bringing in the transitional scheme. It is welcome that the Government have already announced that administrative costs for local authorities will be covered, as with previous schemes, under the new burdens doctrine. However, the insufficient time to input these changes will still cause problems that council staff do not need. For their peace of mind, will the Minister confirm that no further reliefs will be announced ahead of the new financial year starting on 1 April 2023?
We will not vote against the legislation. However, the Government clearly have work to do to catch up with the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, and to match what Labour’s fair taxation strategy offers those businesses, so that we can regenerate our high streets.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I was not planning to speak today; I am actually a late substitute for a colleague. However, given that I am leading a Backbench Business debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow on business rates and levelling up, it is appropriate to say a few words.
First, I support the Government’s measures. It is right that a revaluation should take place next year. As the hon. Member for Luton North said, there is a need to carry out valuations more regularly. They should take place annually. My warning is that the last valuation date was April ’21, when we were in the middle of covid. We could argue that certain premises were virtually unlettable on that date, and I sense that there will be quite a lot of angst and appeals submitted by businesses. To overcome that concern, it is important that the Valuation Office Agency works with them, and is as transparent as possible. Secondly, we now have a business rate system with 12 forms of relief and support. Although they are all welcome, the system is becoming incredibly complicated. It needs root-and-branch reform.
The end of transitional relief is good news, because previously if a business was on a declining high street—there are lots of those around the country—although its rateable value would go down, it would not get the immediate benefit, because that would be transitioned in over a period of years. It is quite right that the Government should scrap transitional relief.
As I said, there is a need for root-and-branch reform. We look around for the holy grail of an alternative to business rates. I do not think that it exists, because from any Government’s point of view, it is a tax that yields a lot of money to the Treasury—probably £25 billion to £30 billion. It is much easier to collect than other forms of taxation, because ultimately people pay the local authorities, and it is difficult to avoid, because people cannot magic away their building. That said, the danger is that business rates do not reflect the profitability of a business.
The appeal of a digital tax, which the hon. Member for Luton North mentioned, is obvious, but the people we want to pay it would find ways of not doing so; we therefore would not get the full £25 billion to £30 billion. In the longer term, we need to build on the measures that the Chancellor introduced in his autumn statement; that includes getting the uniform business rate for everyone back down below the 50p-in-the-pound mark, probably towards the 30p-in-the-pound mark, which is where it was when the uniform business rate, in its current guise, came in during the early 1990s.
We then need to move towards annual reviews. That means digitising the Valuation Office Agency and making it far more transparent. Then the system will be more dynamic, and able to respond to the different, changing circumstances in the volatile economy that we have at the moment. I support the measures. The Chancellor grasped the nettle by the stem, but this should be only the start of significant root-and-branch reform, which we can bring in relatively quickly—by, I suggest, the spring Budget.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I do not intend to detain the Committee long, but I felt that I should speak briefly. Businesses in my constituency recognise that it is the Labour party that is on the side of business, especially small businesses and high-street businesses. They recognise that the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and indeed the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, recognise the injustice in business rates and want to right that wrong. There is no doubt that entrepreneurs are being punished, especially high-street businesses. It is time for the Government to recognise that we need a fairer system of business taxation that would address those wrongs. Sadly, it is clear from the Minister’s comments that that will not happen until a Labour Government come to power.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for all the contributions. I will take each in turn, starting with the questions and comments of the hon. Member for Luton North, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. It is perfectly clear that there is a difference of view on how to approach the issue, which we will debate both in this place and elsewhere. The Government are trying to make progress by moving from a five-year cycle to a three-year cycle, which is a step forward; by putting in significant support and taxpayer subsidy in acknowledgement of the fact that there have recently been real difficulties, given the economic circumstances; and by giving businesses certainty, based on the existing processes, models and business rate scheme that they are familiar with.
The hon. Lady said that the measure does not go far enough, but if nothing else, £13.6 billion of taxpayer support is being provided to ensure relief for the businesses and properties that need it most. She pointed out that there are significant challenges for small businesses. We have accepted that all the way through covid and beyond; it is one of the reasons why many small businesses do not pay rates today, and why this additional relief is being provided at the same time. I cannot concur that the measures are tinkering; there is substantial support and relief, and a substantial change with regard to downward relief, in the regulations, on which we must either agree or vote. There will be an immediate benefit to businesses and properties that will see business rate reductions from 1 April next year.
The hon. Lady talked about the structure of tax policy—a subject that was similarly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. Although I am not speaking for the Government on tax policy—I will allow the Treasury to do that—my hon. Friend made a number of salient and important points about online businesses and the potential for tax policy to move in that direction. It is important to put on the record that as a result of the revaluation, the properties that most online businesses use—big warehouses—will attract a substantial increase in business rates; the average increase will be 27%. If that is the prospectus on which an evaluation is being made, it should go at least some way to alleviating concerns.
The hon. Member for Luton North asked about small and medium-sized enterprises. We obviously take into account all the impacts on all businesses, including SMEs, as best we can. We are particularly cognisant of the importance of SMEs not just on our high streets, but across the economy, and we have brought forward packages that try to reflect and recognise that. She also asked about councils’ staff time. As she will know, local councils are used to making changes such as this; they have great expertise in doing so. We are grateful for the work that they do, but there will also be a new burdens assessment, and additional staff, support and funding will be provided, should it be proportionate to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made a number of broad points. I look forward to the debate that he is leading tomorrow, in which he will give these matters greater scope. I accept the challenge that my hon. Friend issued on the date of revaluation; his point is understood, and it is one of the reasons why substantial relief is being brought forward. I am grateful for his welcome of the downward relief and its immediacy from April next year.
I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East. I will allow the party political broadcast to stand; all I say is that we do not agree. We in the Conservative party are bringing forward a substantial amount of relief and a substantial change; our party has always been on the side of businesses, and will continue to be, whenever it has the privilege to serve in government. I am grateful for your time, Mrs Murray, and for the opportunity to make the case for the Government. I commend the statutory instrument to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Exemptions) (Fees) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Exemptions) (Fees) Regulations 2022.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. We will endeavour to get on with this statutory instrument at full speed.
The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012, also known as the RoHS regulations, restrict the use of 10 substances that were commonly used in the manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment, but which have now been proven to cause harm to the environment and to animal and human health. This is particularly the case when products become waste, with the potential for those harmful substances to be released into the environment or in the workplace of those working in the waste treatment sector.
Businesses can apply for exemptions from the RoHS regulations if they need to use any of the restricted substances above the permitted threshold limits in order for products to function safely and reliably, and any such exemptions apply to the product, rather than to the specific organisation that applied for the exemption. The exemptions largely fall into three categories: lighting, medical devices—for example, the use of lead in emergency defibrillators—and control instruments, such as those used in explosive devices in mining.
When the UK was a member of the European Union, applications for exemptions and for the renewal of exemptions were submitted to and considered by the European Commission using derogated powers in the RoHS directive. On leaving the EU, that function was transferred to the Secretary of State by the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, bringing with it new freedoms to determine the outcome of applications as they apply to Great Britain.
The draft SI before the Committee makes provision to transfer the costs of undertaking the necessary technical appraisal and public consultations associated with that appraisal from the taxpayer to business. This approach is entirely in keeping with the requirements of the Government’s “Managing Public Money” principles, and the charge is set on a cost recovery basis. Such an approach is common practice in circumstances in which industry is required to apply for registrations, authorisations and licensing in order to comply with the regulatory requirements.
The fee will be £39,721 per application—very specific, but carefully calculated—and it will be payable on exemption applications received from 6 April 2023. Most of the cost reflects the cost to the Government of contracting technical specialists to undertake a technical appraisal for each application, because, as Members can imagine, they are very specific uses and require a lot of technical expertise, depending on the use. It is important that a full technical assessment is made when assessing applications to use restricted substances above the permitted levels, because of the risk of significant harm to human health and the environment. Crucially, the technical assessment will include an in-depth analysis of any potentially less harmful substitutes that could be used, to enable the sector to make an objective determination on an application.
Applications for exemptions are typically submitted by industry rather than by individual businesses, because exemptions are granted to products rather than to the organisation that submits the application. Historically, most applications for exemptions are made by trade bodies on behalf of a sector, and we anticipate that this collaborative approach will continue, with associated costs being spread across the relevant sector.
I stress that the fee is being charged strictly on a cost recovery basis that reflects the appraisal work undertaken. The amount payable will be regularly reviewed to ensure that it is correct. I hope that the introduction of an application fee will encourage industry to fully explore the use of less hazardous alternative substances, which we are constantly driving for, before submitting future exemption applications.
Hon. Members do not need me to remind them of the potentially harmful effects of lead and mercury on human health and the environment. We need to minimise their use. In line with published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment for the draft regulations, because any direct impact from them is judged to fall under £5 million a year. Because they alter existing policy, the draft regulations were subject to consultation, and unsurprisingly those likely to be subject to an application fee in the future did not support the proposals. Our proposals are entirely consistent with managing public money principles, but in response to those who raised concerns, we have committed to considering the merits of recognising exemption decisions taken by other jurisdictions that have similar RoHS legislation to the UK. Any such recognition would be subject to consultation.
The territorial extent of the draft regulations is Great Britain. They are considered a reserved policy. The devolved Administrations were engaged in the development of the policy and are content. The RoHS regulations fall within the Northern Ireland protocol, and businesses placing products on the Northern Ireland market are therefore bound by EU exemption decisions, and under unfettered access provisions can subsequently supply those goods freely to the GB market. That does not represent a loophole, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee suggests. It is about ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland can freely trade within the UK. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
Order. I will suspend the sitting for the duration of the votes. We are expecting three Divisions, so let us be back here at approximately 6.45 pm.
The sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
Ruth Jones
It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and it is very good to be with colleagues on this cold winter’s evening as another piece of delegated legislation—on this occasion, the draft Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Exemptions) (Fees) Regulations 2022—is brought to the House. Week in, week out, we gather to debate legislation that Ministers bring to a delegated legislation Committee of Members of Parliament. This reflects a growing trend in the approach taken by Ministers to introducing policy and making things happen.
You will be pleased to hear, Mr Hosie, that I do not plan to speak for long, because this is a technical change. We will not oppose the regulations, but when we were part of the EU, applications relating to hazardous substances were dealt with in Brussels and so did not attract an application fee. Therefore this measure will be very new for our businesses to deal with, and they will be doing so in the most difficult of economic climates at this time.
The regulations make provision for the charging of fees in connection with the exercise of a function conferred on the Secretary of State by the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. It is worth spending a moment on the application fee of £39,721 because, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report says, it is a “surprisingly precise” figure. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with some clarity on where this surprisingly precise figure comes from, what the breakdown of the figure looks like and what steps were taken to lessen the burden on businesses. Does she see that figure coming down in the years ahead? On the payment of charges, I hope she will be able to explain what support businesses will be provided with. Will there be a payment plan to mitigate the impact of one large payment in one go? What does the payment process look like, and will officials be working actively and proactively with businesses?
There is a clear mention of partial refunds in regulation 5 of the SI and the SLSC’s report, so will the Minister set out how any refund process will work? What does the phrase “reasonable costs” mean, and what could its definition be? Like all the businesses that will be affected by these proposals, the Opposition want to know what considered the “reasonable costs” are that the Secretary of State may take into account.
It is important to note that here we are again addressing the impact of our departure from the European Union, and I urge Ministers to think carefully about the issues that need to be addressed across a number of important areas. I gently suggest to the Minister, with the season of good will in mind, that Ministers should perhaps look at introducing a detailed Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-specific Bill so that we do not have to do government by delegated legislation. That would ensure that we could give all DEFRA-related business a chance to be scrutinised on the Floor of the House and, importantly, to give it the focus that it deserves. I recognise that some legislation will be very detailed and specific, but the draft SI before us almost makes the point for us.
Scrutiny takes many forms in many different rooms in this place but for a Department such as DEFRA we need big and bold legislation that reflects the Department’s importance and its responsibilities. We all know that consultation forms a key part of scrutiny, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why the consultation period was only a short six weeks. That is surely unusual for DEFRA, and I would be grateful if she could explain why the consultation period was so short.
It is clear that action on hazardous substances and the wider issues associated with packaging have to be part of a wider, clearer and genuinely ambitious plan to save our country. We have the technical legislation before us tonight, but we need a real plan and a real programme if we are to show the global leadership that so many people expect from us as a nation. As we discuss the draft regulations, we can only conclude that that programme needs to be one that does not see its targets move further and further down the line.
There are a few final points to pick up, and I hope the Minister will be able to address them in her winding-up speech. First, can we have an example of an exemption in the context of the draft SI and of whether it is possible for a business to move away from the use of hazardous materials? What support will be provided to businesses to do that, and is it something that certain businesses could do if the Minister commits to support them with the help of her excellent officials?
Secondly, the draft SI would not be a Brexit-related piece of legislation if we did not speak about Northern Ireland, so will the Minister set out what it means for the protocol discussions? How, if at all, will this proposal affect the internal integrity of and settlement in our United Kingdom? We cannot afford to do one thing with one hand and then do something else with the other. If the Minister was on the streets of Belfast and was asked what the proposal will mean for Northern Ireland, I wonder what the answer would be.
Lastly, no equality impact assessment has been carried out for the draft SI. I appreciate that the Minister explained why in her opening remarks, but this is a wider point. Will she set out why there is not a consistent approach to equality impact assessments? It should be a rule, and I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on this point.
We will not oppose the draft regulations tonight. However, as I wish all Members and the Minister a very happy Christmas, I look forward to getting back to business after the festive season, in the long battle to save our planet and protect our environment.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s position on this required SI, which is further Brexit red tape and puts new costs on businesses at a financially difficult time. That is not something that we in the Scottish National party will support.
The delays are further evidence that claims of an oven-ready deal and Brexit ease were simply not true. Continued transitions and uncertainty could have been avoided had we not left the single market, and it is important that we point that out. Brexit is not working: it is bad for Scotland, bad for business and bad for the rest of the UK. For the reasons I have set out, we will oppose the draft SI.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West, for saying that she and her team will support the draft regulations. As ever, she asked some pertinent questions.
Quickly, the fee is, yes, very particular, because it has been specifically worked out. The majority of the cost relates to the technical appraisal I mentioned, which is undertaken by a specialist consultancy following a competitive tender. Obviously, the public procurement rules will be followed. That assessment is extremely important.
The hon. Lady mentioned the fact that, if the costs fell below expectations, a refund would be made. That might happen if, for example, this did not take long—a quick decision might be one reason for thinking about refunding money. However, all that is for consideration when the process arises.
On the consultation, six weeks is completely appropriate, given the simplicity of the policy. Officials have done a great deal of engagement with stakeholders. I think workshops met more than 250 businesses at more than 100 events, so a huge amount of engagement has gone on.
The Northern Ireland protocol was mentioned. We do not believe that the draft SI will have any impact on Northern Ireland business or on trade with Northern Ireland, because those businesses will continue to be bound by the EU RoHS legislation. They have unfettered access to Great Britain.
I am looking for a bit of inspiration, in case I left anything out on the issue of refunding costs, but I believe I have pretty much covered it. Guidance will be out in the new year.
The hon. Member for Newport West raised an equality issue. No equality impact assessment was necessary, because we judged that the provisions would not adversely impact on the disadvantaged groups covered by the equality legislation.
Ruth Jones
The Minister laid out what will happen in future. How will she communicate that to businesses, which are anxious about having to pay thousands of pounds without knowing what the money is going on? How will she communicate with people in a clear and timely manner?
Rebecca Pow
It is important to keep our businesses on board and to engage with them, as has been done all the way along. Guidance will be issued in the new year, so all should become clear.
The hon. Lady asked about exemptions. It is interesting that I asked many of the same questions myself. In terms of the products that the substances covered would be used in, there might be teeny-weeny amounts of mercury, for example, but above the amount that might normally be used. However, these products are considered so important that exemptions are granted. Previously, that happened under the EU gold standard system; now it will happen under our replica system—it is a replica, but it also gives us flexibility, so there might be other opportunities.
Mercury, to give two small examples, is used in insect traps and in forensic testing to check for counterfeit money. It is also used for lots of functions in healthcare, such as in intravascular ultrasound imaging systems. Lead and hexavalent chromium are used in civil explosives—in mining and quarrying—as I mentioned. Obviously, we always push for substitutes to replace them that are not harmful—that is always a top criterion.
To the point about keeping in contact with industry—inspiration has appeared in the form of a note—I stress that officials are in constant contact. It is so important to bring the industry on board. Officials have had two meetings with the trade bodies just today, before this Committee, so I think we can be sure that that will continue. As the shadow Minister said, that is important.
The draft regulations remove a cost from the taxpayer and place it on the businesses that are set to benefit from the exemptions to the substance restrictions set out in the RoHS regulations. As I mentioned, almost everything would be done through trade bodies, so lots of businesses will be supported by one trade body. Our proposals are based strictly on a cost-recovery model and reflect the principles of managing public money. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
This statutory instrument has two functions. First, it amends domestic public procurement regulations to ensure that changes in calculation of VAT in the valuation of contracts do not place undue burdens on contracting authorities. Secondly, it ensures that NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are treated consistently for the purpose of applying certain obligations that promote transparency. This SI will only implement changes to the lower-value thresholds in the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and, therefore, only impact on the regulation of lower-value contracts. The amendments are necessary in order to address the impact of the new requirement to include VAT in the assessment of contract value. The change to how VAT is considered in estimating the value of a contract was a result of the UK joining the agreement on Government procurement, or GPA, as an independent member following EU exit.
Although the other thresholds increased as a result of applying GPA methodology to account for currency fluctuations in the last two years, the lower thresholds were not. In effect, that resulted in a reduction to those thresholds. This had the effect of bringing more contracts into scope for publication under the below threshold regime, causing additional burden on contracting authorities. This instrument will rectify this discrepancy by raising the lower threshold for central Government authorities from £10,000 to £12,000. For sub-central authorities, it will be raised from £25,000 to £30,000. This will ensure that the thresholds effectively remain the same once contract values are calculated, inclusive of VAT, thus avoiding bringing additional low-value contracts within the scope of the below threshold regime.
Turning to the second function, this instrument also provides that NHS foundation trusts are to be treated consistently with NHS trusts and be regarded as sub-central authorities. It seemed inappropriate to the Government that NHS foundation trusts should be held to central Government thresholds for publication when NHS trusts are not. These regulations will rectify this by applying the same threshold to NHS foundation trusts as the one currently observed by NHS trusts.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks.
As the Minister outlined, this statutory instrument has been introduced to correct an inconsistency arising from the UK’s exit from the EU and our joining of the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement as an independent entity from 1 January 2021. As a consequence of that change in relationship, new thresholds were agreed for the public contracts that are subject to a full range of procurement regulations in the UK. These new thresholds include a change to how we calculate public contracts to be inclusive of VAT, effectively reducing the real-terms value where public contracts are subject to regulation.
The Public Procurement Regulations 2021 brought into force new thresholds for fully regulated public contracts. They also introduced a new VAT calculation method, which is relevant to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. However, an inconsistency in the SI meant the threshold for compliance with certain requirements—for instance, inclusion on the Contracts Finder—were not adjusted, despite being made significantly lower in real terms by the inclusion of VAT. Given the reference to the new VAT regime in the explanatory memorandum, it appears the Government did not intend to bring these thresholds down in the Public Procurement Regulations 2021. This begs the question: why has it taken the Government nearly a year between the introduction of the new regulatory scheme on 1 January 2021 and their attempt to fix this inconsistency? Surely, the extra regulatory burden should have been made clear to Ministers swiftly after this change and a solution could have been presented earlier.
We do not oppose the simple addition of 20% to the threshold, as laid out in the procurement policy note on these changes of December 2021, as the suggested method of calculating the extra VAT. But it is noteworthy that the thresholds for full regulation only increased by just under 13%. Will the Minister inform the Committee as to the rationale for the different levels of increase between these two thresholds? I understand the desire to reduce Government burdens by increasing these thresholds, so we do not intend to oppose this SI today. But it is important for the Government to consider that some of the increased scrutiny will have been especially welcomed by small and medium-sized businesses, who will find these smaller contracts more desirable. For example, the publication of more opportunities on Contracts Finder provides a good chance for businesses to find and bid for smaller bits of work. The requirement for authorities to pay suppliers within 30 days is also welcomed to give businesses the certainty they need to pay day-to-day bills on time. I look forward to discussing the wider issues around procurement during the Commons stages of the Procurement Bill, so I will end my remarks for today and await the Minister's response.
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Lady for her brief remarks. The difference in the increase is obviously because both have increased in line with VAT, which is 20%. With that, I hope the Committee will join me in supporting this SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) Order 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) Order 2022.
It is very nice to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Murray. The amendment is a relatively simple one, and I hope it will be relatively uncontentious: it allows the declaration for defence against money laundering suspicious activity reports, known as DAMLs, to be raised from £250 to £1,000. Doing so makes eminent sense, partly because of the increasing cost of everyday items, but also because of the need for us to have a system that is able to check the genuine threats to our money laundering regime, rather than simply keeping an eye on absolutely everything that might happen to be going on.
Every DAML is submitted to the National Crime Agency by a person proposing to deal with suspected criminal property that may make them liable for money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; that DAML would make sure that that person is avoiding liability. Clearly, if someone is paying their rent or taking part in an ordinary transaction, we are not trying to criminalise every transaction, but to make sure that we have a proper awareness of what is going on and what could pose a threat. That is why I believe that we must raise the threshold to £1,000, because the vast majority of DAMLs do not provide law enforcement with asset seizure opportunities—opportunities to take money away from criminals. Instead, they place a regulatory burden on businesses such as banks to submit, place a burden on law enforcement to review, and create a delay for customers, who must often wait seven days for their transactions to process. I think there is general agreement with that.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair this afternoon, Mrs Murray, and I thank the Minister for his opening contribution. As he has said, the regulations will increase the threshold amount specified in section 339A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from £250 to £1,000. In practice, this will increase the value of transactions that a bank or similar firm can carry out in operating an account for a customer without committing one of the main money laundering offences laid out in POCA. By doing so, the Government seek to reduce the number of ineffective defence against money laundering suspicious activity reports, while also improving the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering system and enabling law enforcement to focus on—as the explanatory memorandum says—
“opportunities that lead to asset seizure”.
We are keen to support these measures, which seek to enhance the quality of suspicious activity reports coming from the private sector and hasten their utilisation by law enforcement. However, I am keen to probe whether we are satisfied that that is what the regulations will do in practice. We appreciate that increasing the threshold will hopefully lessen the burden on the NCA’s UK Financial Intelligence Unit, but is the Minister not concerned that these measures will inadvertently increase the prevalence of so-called smurfing among criminals, a potential problem raised with us by the Royal United Services Institute? Through that practice, money laundering payments are broken down into smaller amounts under the threshold, specifically to evade law enforcement.
Moreover, reducing the reporting burden on businesses for low-value money laundering will not necessarily mean that businesses are somehow mandated to redirect their resources towards detecting or reporting on high-value suspicious and criminal activity. The main argument for the change seems to be an attempt to prevent the Financial Intelligence Unit from being overwhelmed, rather than there being no intelligence or criminality below that threshold. I understand that in recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the number of reports that the UKFIU has had to deal with. It now receives over 400,000 reports per annum, which we can appreciate is a massive challenge for a unit with only 200 members of staff.
In its 2020 report, the UKFIU recorded a 20% increase in the total number of SARs, and an 80% increase in defence against money laundering SARs from the previous year. The explanatory memorandum states that only 2% were refused consent in 2019-20,
“of which only 1,062 progressed towards asset denial.”
Of that 2%, how many of those would have no longer been captured under the changes?
In its May 2022 follow-up report into the UK’s mutual evaluation report, the Financial Action Task Force noted continued concerns about the under-resourcing and IT constraints of the financial intelligence unit, including its failures to meet the target of 200 staff that the task force recommended more than 15 years ago.
Our noble friends in the other place have already considered these regulations, and Lord Sharpe of Epsom told Members, who asked him about resourcing of law enforcement on this crime type, that 75 additional officers were being recruited to the UKFIU, which we welcome. He told the Committee that 45 of those officers were already in post, and the milestone for recruiting the remaining 30 is at the end of this financial year, 2022-23. That was on 24 November, so can the Minister update us on whether any further progress has been made?
I will make the point again that we recognise these changes will tighten up the information being provided to the FIU, but we are not entirely convinced that the changes amount to an overall enhancement of the money laundering framework that we must have in place if we are to drive this out of our economy.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I just want to place on the record my reservations about this measure. I think lifting the threshold to £1,000 is untoward when we know the scale of fraud that is taking place. I am concerned that minimising the multiple transactions is a way of getting round this. In addition, I am anxious about the flow of intelligence that comes from some of the lower-level frauds that are detected. That could flow into tracing higher-level frauds.
Tom Tugendhat
A quick note on the staffing: 45 officers are already in post, and no doubt the others will come onstream very soon, because that milestone is extremely important for making sure that we have properly recruited for 2022-23. So I can update clearly on that.
There will of course be a constant review of the number of officers we keep in post in order to make sure that we have proper staffing for the requirements. As the hon. Member for Halifax can see, we are increasing numbers because the demands are great. I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about staffing, and I completely agree—
Tom Tugendhat
Please pass on my thanks to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington for his kind note, Mrs Murray. He wants to speak in the debate in the Chamber, so I completely understand why he is not here. His points, which I was going to address before we were interrupted, are entirely valid. He asked about the change from £250 to £1,000. The reality is that we are overloading the system. It is true that we can constantly hire more people, but we need to use them to analyse the data, not overload the system with smaller transactions. That is why the request to raise the threshold has been put before Parliament today.
I think this is an important, sensible adjustment, and we will keep it under review. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a broken windows theory that goes along with this: smaller crimes can lead to larger ones. The UKFIU is keeping an eye on the build-up of transactions, and not just the absolute numbers, so in different areas it will be aware of how these elements are going. I appreciate Members’ comments—I understand the spirit in which they are raised—and I entirely respect their positions. However, in order to achieve the aims that we are all seeking, this is a sensible amendment to the existing regulations, and no doubt it will be kept under review should the situation change.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) Order 2022.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady refers to rumours in the press, but let us look at the facts. The Prime Minister has been in office for 31 days.
[Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol. 723, c. 904.]
Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart):
An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).
The correct response should have been:
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady refers to rumours in the press, but let us look at the facts. The Prime Minister has been in office for 36 days.
Alex Burghart
As I have said, there is a process ongoing to appoint an independent adviser as fast as possible. The Prime Minister has been in post for 31 days, and there is standing advice on the use of WhatsApp and private messaging.
[Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol. 723, c. 905.]
Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart):
An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).
The correct response should have been:
Alex Burghart
As I have said, there is a process ongoing to appoint an independent adviser as fast as possible. The Prime Minister has been in post for 36 days, and there is standing advice on the use of WhatsApp and private messaging.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me point out that the Prime Minister, who has said he will appoint an independent adviser, has only been in post for 31 days and that a process is going on at speed. In answer to her other question, it is very much the view of this Government that it is the Prime Minister who appoints the independent adviser to give advice to the Prime Minister, who answers ultimately to Parliament.
[Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol. 723, c. 905.]
Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
The correct response should have been:
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me point out that the Prime Minister, who has said he will appoint an independent adviser, has only been in post for 36 days and that a process is going on at speed. In answer to her other question, it is very much the view of this Government that it is the Prime Minister who appoints the independent adviser to give advice to the Prime Minister, who answers ultimately to Parliament.
Petition
Right of refusal of development on green belt land
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 11 months 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
State Pension
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Sir Robert. I do not intend this to be an unnecessarily long point of order, but I am aware that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has just arrived in Chamber and will probably take a moment or two to find her notes. I think she has done that now, so I will stop this pointless point of order.
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
Thank you. There are still gentlemen in the House of Commons.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 617603, relating to the state pension.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his point of order.
I start by congratulating Michael Thompson on creating the petition, as well as the creators of the six other petitions being debated today. I thank Age UK and Silver Voices for their briefings, and the whole of the Petitions Committee team for all their hard work. The petition calls on the Government to increase the state pension to £380 a week, and to lower the retirement age back to 60. The petition has already been signed by more than 110,000 people.
The current full state pension is £185.15 per week, and the basic state pension is £141.85. Many of us are here today because we believe that the state pension should provide adequate financial support for the 12 million pensioners in the UK, ensuring that they are protected in old age after paying into the system. Given this country’s wealth, we can afford to look after our pensioners. By increasing the state pension or introducing a minimum pension income guarantee, we could lift thousands of pensioners out of poverty.
While financial support is vital, the issue is not just about money. Measures to address pensioner poverty must include a broad range of actions to underwrite acceptable living standards, including support for our wider public services, such as social care to support our pensioners to live independently, and day centres to reduce loneliness and social isolation. On that point, I thank Age UK Wandsworth in my Battersea constituency. I visited last week and met many of the older people who value the services provided by that day centre, but they really want more access to it, more often. More importantly, all of them wanted the state pension to increase.
Poverty and inequality among pensioners are rising, with more than 2 million people in relative poverty. There are many reasons why some are falling into poverty. The first and most urgent is the cost of living crisis. Research by the Centre for Ageing Better found that a further 200,000 elderly people have already been pushed into poverty in the last year, and a recent report by Age UK found that this Christmas will be among the most difficult ever for nearly 3 million older people.
The measly 3% rise in the state pension this financial year was dwarfed by inflation and the intersecting impacts of rocketing food, fuel and energy bills, with the latter alone forecast to rise to £3,000 by next April. After shamefully reneging on their manifesto commitment on the triple lock last year, the Government finally committed to its reinstatement, as well as a cost of living payment for pensioners, in last month’s autumn statement. However, given that neither measure is scheduled to come into force until next year, they will be too little, too late for many who need the support right now. The misery is compounded by cuts to public services and the Government’s U-turn on their social care reforms: 10% of older people will reduce or stop their care in the coming months because of the cost of living crisis.
These causes of poverty only add to the challenges faced by pensioners. Although older people have a higher rate of home ownership than the general population, many are asset rich but cash poor. That means that some are driven to sell their homes to make up for shortfalls in pensions and are pushed into the higher-cost private rented sector.
Inequalities in state pension rates are also dragging the elderly into poverty. Department for Work and Pensions statistics for the 2020 financial year show that less than 10% of all pensioners received the full new top rate of pension—£185.15—and less than a third of those on the old pension receive the full rate.
The rise in the eligibility age for the state pension from 65 to 66 from 2018 has also increased hardship. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, more than 700,000 65-year-olds have missed out on entitlements and postponed retirement. The elderly are compelled to remain in the job market, and they simultaneously lack opportunities to increase their income. The Government need to consider targeted support for people who are much older as endemic age discrimination in employment affects their ability to build a work pension or find work to complement their state pension.
The third factor is the pension credit system, which can play an important part in helping to close the pensioner poverty gap, especially for women, disabled people and black, Asian and ethnic minority pensioners. Since Labour introduced the measure, its efficacy has been undermined by low take-up. In its July report, the Work and Pensions Committee stated that
“an estimated further 850,000 eligible households are not claiming Pension Credit worth £1.7 billion a year.”
It strongly recommended that the Government improve the identification of eligible people, streamline the application process and make it more accessible.
The risk of pensioner poverty is amplified for women, disabled people and black, Asian and ethnic minority pensioner groups. Women disproportionately experience later-life poverty, with the proportion of those suffering rising from 14% to 20% in the eight-year period from 2013. The equivalent figures for men were 12% and 18%. Those figures are expressions of the wider inequalities endured by women. The Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign highlights a particularly egregious instance of those disparities. The Government have a legal and moral obligation to deliver for the many WASPI women in our constituencies. Pensions, lifetime earnings and national insurance contributions are typically lower for women due to the gender pay gap and caring responsibilities—we are all aware of those factors.
For black, Asian and ethnic minority pensioners, the inequalities are even starker. According to Age UK, 33% of Asian and 30% of black pensioners are in poverty—double the proportion of their white counterparts. Similarly to those faced by women, these inequalities are the expression of lower average wages and labour market discrimination, which translate to less generous state pensions. That has often led to some ethnic minority people earning below the minimum salary threshold for auto-enrolment in workplace pensions. Lowering that threshold would be an easy fix for this injustice; according to a report by The People’s Pension, it would double the enrolment of ethnic minority employees.
Employment and pay disparities also create later-life poverty for disabled pensioners, who are less likely to possess a work pension or a private pension as a result. We know that those effects will be exacerbated by higher living costs of around £600 per month on average for disabled people, including older disabled people.
All that shows emphatically that some pensioners are really struggling. The Government need to look at how they can support them. I hope that the Minister will address the issues I have raised, as well as making reference to the following points. First, the Government talk a lot about tackling pensioner poverty. If they are serious about doing so, why will they not commit to increasing the state pension, or introducing a minimum pension income guarantee for everybody, irrespective of their contribution record, their sex and gender, their age or their marital status?
In the current crisis, the additional cost of living payments announced in last month’s autumn statement clearly will not be enough for some pensioners. Will the Government therefore introduce additional financial support targeted at those pensioners who are most in need?
Have the Government carried out an impact assessment of how the delay caused by the U-turn on social care reform will impact our pensioners? What plans do they have to address the inequality I highlighted of the low percentage of people on the full new state pension rate?
My next point is probably the most crucial; it concerns pension credit. Why will the Government not deliver a take-up campaign to identify eligible pensioners, and introduce a streamlined and accessible application process, so that the pensioners who are entitled to that additional top-up can receive it? Pension credit is there to top up income, and I strongly believe that the Government could be proactive in identifying pensioners who might qualify.
The WASPI women need justice. When will the Government provide compensation for the failings? Will they commit to ensuring that there is a proper, lengthy notice period for any future change to the state pension age?
Will the Government seek to bring down the minimum salary for auto-enrolment to workplace pension schemes? That would increase the participation of under-represented groups, particularly our black, Asian and ethnic minority communities.
We all know, particularly at this time of year, that loneliness and social isolation are key contributors to material deprivation. More investment is needed in public services and the social support networks that are available to older people; in fact, we need an overarching strategy to address that. What are the Government doing to support community and local organisations, such as Age UK Wandsworth in my constituency? It provides a lifeline and vital services to people who live in the local area. I reiterate the point I made earlier: because of the funding available, many can attend that centre only a couple of days a week, but they would like to go three or four times a week. It is unfair that the time they can spend at such centres is being limited.
Finally, I call on the Government to explore alternative ways to fund our pension system. The state pension is unfunded, meaning that its obligations are not underpinned by assets that could generate investment and return. That funding model is implicitly appealed to when the Government object to the rising cost of pensions due to our ageing population and the impact that will have on younger people, although that probably does not apply to any of us in the Chamber, as none of us is very young. [Interruption.] Well, some might be. However, an appreciation of funding models used in other countries could point the way towards a systemic shift that could help fund the state pension system.
We owe it to our elderly and all our pensioners, as well as to the generations that come after us, to be progressive in our thinking and innovative in our approach. We must look at all options to ensure that when people reach their later years they will not fear retirement but embrace it, because they will know that, in the state pension system, there is a safety net in place to support them and they will not be struggling.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Robert, for the opportunity to speak. Before I became an MP, I conducted more than 10 years of research on how poverty and inequality affect older people’s inclusion in society, so this subject is a particular interest of mine.
Pensioner poverty is significant in the UK, and it continues to increase. It is estimated that over 2 million—one in five—older people are living in relative poverty, with the greatest impact on women and other vulnerable groups. The level of pensioner poverty is similar in my country, Wales. The Older People’s Commissioner for Wales—I am very proud that Wales is still, I think, the only nation in the UK to have an older people’s commissioner—along with other organisations, has expressed serious concern about the detrimental impact that the cost of living is having on older people. My constituency had the third highest death rate from covid in the whole of the United Kingdom. That exemplifies the effect that poverty and the industrial legacy of Cynon Valley have on the health and wellbeing of older people.
Just before the summer, I conducted a cost of living survey in Cynon Valley. Nearly nine out of 10 pensioners who responded said that they felt worse off than they did 12 months earlier. Security in retirement was the biggest cause for concern among pensioners. One older person said:
“Us elderly people have worked very hard over the years and we get very little back to survive on.”
I pay tribute to a range of organisations in Wales, including Age Cymru and Age Connects in Cynon Valley, who are doing amazing work with older people, trying to empower them and giving them a voice in our communities.
The petition calls for an increase in the state pension to £380 a week and a reduction in the state pension age to 60, which would be a significant change. However, the demands of the petition open up a debate on where pension levels are set and what is the right age to start receiving the state pension.
At the 2019 election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the then shadow Chancellor, rightly sought to deal with state pension inequality for women and offered a major compensation scheme. He said:
“This is an entitlement. This is not a benefit…This is a historic injustice. We have to address it.”
Over 4,000 women in my constituency are affected, and I am working closely with an active group of local women to continue campaigning for justice for the WASPI women. I have continued to support their demand for compensation, through demands for full restitution and through the minimum compensation proposal of the WASPI campaign and the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women. As we know, the ombudsman has found that there was maladministration, and we are now waiting for the full report to be published and for the recommendations for remedy. We must compensate these women.
The other group of older people I am working closely with in Cynon Valley are former miners. I welcomed the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report in 2021, which recommended giving £1.2 billion held in the investment reserve to former miners. It really is regrettable that the Government have rejected the Committee’s recommendations, and I urge them to look at those again. The WASPI women and former mineworkers are examples of pensioners who have been let down—and let down massively—by the UK Government.
More broadly, there is a debate around the level of the state pension. Much is being said about how pensioners’ incomes have been safeguarded, compared with real changes to incomes and social security in recent years. However, pensioner poverty is growing, and the petition demands a significant increase in the state pension. The National Pensioners Convention says that the state pension should be set at 70% of the living wage and above the official poverty level, at £242.55 a week. That is what a pensioner in the Netherlands gets, with an equivalent of more than £250 a week. The petition demands £380 a week, and in Denmark the folkepension for a single pensioner is £370 a week. This can and should be done here. These other countries’ pensions put the demands of the NPC and this petition into perspective—they are not unreasonable demands.
The question about funding these increases is welcome. There are many sources of untaxed wealth that could deliver the revenues to pay for higher pensions. A wealth tax could raise in the region of £260 billion to £300 billion. The country has the money; it is a political choice not to redistribute the wealth of this country to ensure that older people and many millions of other vulnerable people have the money to maintain a basic standard of living. That is a basic human right, and everybody should have that entitlement.
Before I conclude, I will take the opportunity to highlight the fact that a third of those entitled to pension credit—over 750,000 people—do not claim it, although they are entitled to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said, that equates to about £1.7 billion of unclaimed money. I urge the UK Government urgently to take action on this issue. I truly wish that they would pay as much attention to ensuring that people claim what they are entitled as they do to stigmatising people on social security benefits, who are entitled to that money and should have it as a matter of right.
To conclude, pensioner poverty is rising. Combatting it is a question of principle and values. If we are to achieve justice for pensioners, we must take action to deliver it.
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front Benchers, who normally have 10 minutes or less.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, and to reply to a debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on opening the debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on her speech.
Before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to note that my remarks today are my first since returning to the SNP Front Bench. I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who as my party’s spokesperson on work and pensions repeatedly held the British Government to account, fought for the poorest in society and highlighted the sheer inadequacy of the UK’s social security system. She will be a tough act to follow, and I wish her well in her new position as Cabinet Office spokesperson—a role I am sure she will thrive in.
The petition that triggered this debate calls for an increase to the state pension and for us to reduce the state pension age to 60. I will come to the appalling financial inadequacies of the state pension in a moment, but I will first address the age at which people become eligible. We are by no means outliers among developed nations in having an ageing population, which presents the state with many problems to solve in terms of service provision and many fiscal challenges.
As we debate this issue, every one of us in this room should be mindful of the fact that not all jobs are the same. As we sit here in the luxurious comfort of a palace, people out there are carrying out manual labour jobs—indeed, some today in sub-zero conditions. Sir Robert, you and I may not think that we will be ready to retire at 60, but many others will, so I believe that a balance must be struck. Although, for practical reasons, the Scottish National party cannot support reducing the retirement age to 60, the notion that the pension age needs to go up and up, as a simple solution to the British Government’s problems, is both cruel and unrealistic.
It feels like little has changed at the Department for Work and Pensions since I last shadowed this brief. The British Government continue their heartless policies, the cost of living crisis ravages on, and it is the poorest and most vulnerable who bear the brunt of the hardship. As I was preparing for today’s debate, I found myself despairing, because for me, as a Scottish nationalist, Westminster often feels like groundhog day, and no more so than when we are looking at the policies of the Department for Work and Pensions.
I find myself today critiquing the same Tory policies that I criticised last year. It seems that the DWP’s strategy for addressing the cost of living crisis is largely to shove its fingers in its ears and just hope that inflation comes down. Despite that, the cost of living crisis continues to spiral out of control and inflation has risen to 11.1%—a 41-year high. The cost of essential family goods has risen sharply over the past year, and the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that average household disposable incomes will fall by 7% this year and next.
Food banks, such as Glasgow NE Foodbank in my constituency, are struggling to keep up with the rising demand. Across the constituency, I have heard food bank volunteers say that many people are, sadly, using food banks for the very first time—I was surprised to hear from one volunteer that a family who had previously donated to the food bank were now forced to use it themselves.
One thing I reflected on when I previously held this brief was that we as politicians are used to talking regularly about child poverty, but some of us find it a lot less natural and a lot more embarrassing—we wince a lot more—to talk about pensioner poverty, which is something that we do not give enough focus. However, as Independent Age has emphasised, with
“more than 2 million pensioners already living in poverty and the cost-of-living crisis hitting hard, we know people are being forced to make impossible choices on how to cut back to be able to afford heating, electricity and food.”
As Christmas approaches, research by Age UK has shown how frightened older people are about surviving the next few months, with a significant number this year anticipating a more solitary and lonely Christmas period than usual. Age UK’s polling also found that more than one in five older people are already reducing or stopping their spending on medication or specialist foods, or expect to do so in the coming months, and that one in seven is skipping meals or expects to do so in the same period.
I have genuine respect for the Minister, and I know that she will say that the cost of living crisis has come about as a result of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but it is not solely because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or, indeed, the economic hangover from the coronavirus pandemic. I would certainly argue, and I am sure others would as well, that the touchpaper was lit on the cost of living crisis 12 years ago, when a Government that Scotland did not vote for embarked on a brutal assault via Tory austerity. I am afraid that that has been exacerbated by Brexit—something else that people in Scotland did not consent to.
The UK has one of the lowest state pensions in north-western Europe, and after a decade of Tory austerity cuts, pensioner poverty is now on the rise. Some 85% of social security and the state pension itself is reserved to this institution and the British Government, so Scotland has little say in this hugely important policy area. SNP MPs have campaigned vehemently for the Tories to maintain the triple lock. Only after multiple U-turns and breaking their manifesto pledge last year—and after a very unhealthy dose of uncertainty for pensioners across these islands—did the British Government finally retain the triple lock.
However, the suspension of the triple lock in 2021 shows that Scotland does not have the powers to prevent Tory cuts for pensioners. The suspension ended up costing each pensioner £520 on average during the cost of living crisis. Additionally, the Scottish Government under the current devolved settlement have no power to raise the state pension, as Ministers know fine well, although some often like to pretend otherwise.
The SNP has continually implored Ministers to devote a larger percentage of GDP to state pensions and indeed to pensioner benefits. The British Government are allowing £1.7 billion of pension credit to go unclaimed during the cost of living crisis. We know that pension credit is a vital lifeline for many older people, but only seven in 10 of those eligible claim the money that they are fully entitled to. The British Government must introduce a full take-up strategy for reserved benefits, including pension credit, as the Scottish Government have done in respect of devolved benefits. I genuinely welcome the conversation I had with the Minister before the debate, when we said that we would discuss this issue offline.
The Conservative Government have a rather long track record in picking the pockets of our pensioners: from the WASPI women and the triple lock to the low take-up of pension credit, the frozen pensions of overseas pensioners, many of whom are veterans, and the scrapping of free TV licences for the over-75s, the list goes on and on. This Government have very much been found wanting in terms of their record on pensioners.
Only with full powers over pensions can the Scottish Government at least remedy these injustices. In an independent Scotland pensioners could be protected from Westminster austerity. We in the SNP want Scotland to be the best place to grow old—a place where retirement means dignity and fairness for all. I know that adhering to manifestos or, in some cases, leadership election pledges is a bit of a quaint novelty for the two biggest parties in this House. However, my party’s 2019 manifesto committed me and my colleagues to continue advocating for a fairer pensions system and to oppose plans to increase the state pension age beyond 66.
Alongside that, we will continue to call on the British Government to establish an independent saving and pension commission to ensure that pension policies are fit for purpose and genuinely reflect the demographic needs of the different parts of these islands. I am struck by the fact that the life expectancy in Kensington and Chelsea is very different from that in my own constituency.
Of course, all of this is predicated on Ministers in Whitehall listening to the voices of those that Scottish voters send to this House—something the Government have a poor track record on. Therefore, the only way to ensure that our pensioners grow old with dignity is for Scotland to become an independent country, with powers to protect pensioners and ensure that they live their final days in prosperity, not poverty.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her work on this important issue. I also thank other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Above all, I want to thank the hundreds of thousands of people from across the country who signed the petition that led to this debate. Constituents have expressed their concern for older people, so it is right that we consider this matter today.
Pensioners face the worst cost of living crisis for over 40 years. The cost of food and fuel is up, and the cost of living as a whole is going up. Yet, at the same time, support for pensioners is failing to keep up with the severe pressure on older people. Those who have worked hard and contributed all their lives deserve to receive a decent state pension in retirement. The official Opposition support the triple lock and have repeatedly called for the state pension to rise in line with it during the last two years, but the Government’s approach has fallen well short of what is expected by pensioners and the country as a whole.
I will set out the scale of the cost of living crisis and then address the Government’s failure in this regard. It is clear that this crisis is the worst squeeze on the incomes of families and pensioners since the 1970s. Sadly, inflation has hit over 10%—something unheard of in living memory. The situation facing people on low and fixed incomes is particularly difficult. Pensioners and others on modest incomes spend more of their disposable income on food and fuel, the prices of which have increased to a far greater extent than those of other goods. The prices of staples such as bread, cereals, tea, meat, dairy produce and eggs have all risen rapidly, and some have increased by far more than the headline rate of 10%. As is well known, the same is true of energy. Not only has the price of gas risen dramatically, but so has the price of electricity and heating oil. In the meantime the Government have dithered and delayed, and put off addressing these important issues.
I turn to the Government’s poor record and to the lack of—indeed, the delays to—support for poor pensioners. Despite raising the state pension in line with the triple lock being a manifesto pledge, Ministers repeatedly failed to meet that commitment. Last year the Government said that earnings appeared to have grown by a larger amount, because the return to work after furlough created the impression that earnings had increased by 8%. They used that as an excuse for disapplying the triple lock, preventing pensioners from getting the rise in the state pension that they clearly deserved. We repeatedly challenged the Government, but they simply would not listen to our concerns.
To make matters worse, this year Ministers refused for months to commit to increasing the state pension in line with inflation. Campaigners repeatedly pressed them on the issue, and the official Opposition raised the matter in Parliament a number of times. As a result of the Government’s dither and delay, pensioners were left wondering what would happen to them at a time when they were facing a very difficult winter. After months of delay, and considerable pressure and stress for older people, Ministers eventually confirmed at the autumn statement that the state pension would rise in line with inflation. Those failures and persistent delays let pensioners down badly, so I hope the Minister will find time to apologise for them when she replies.
The Government have failed pensioners on a number of other matters relating to the state pension—for example, pension credit and some of the problems relating to the energy price guarantee. I want to raise those related issues, because both policies should be offering far more help than they do at present.
Pension credit tops up the incomes of some of the most vulnerable pensioners, who receive a particularly modest income. However, about 1 million pensioners who are entitled to the benefit are not claiming it. Will the Minister explain why the Government are still failing on this matter? What more can be done to ensure that pensioners claim pension credit to raise their incomes, as they deserve?
Although help is now available with heating costs, there are gaps in the scheme—not least that it will be scaled back next year. In the meantime, payments for some pensioners in rented accommodation are still not being passed on by landlords. Concerns have been raised in my constituency, and I am sure Members across the House have experienced the same issue. I hope the Minister will respond to that point.
Time is pressing, but I want once again to thank the members of the public who signed the petition, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, who spoke so eloquently, and other Members from across the House. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions, and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for opening the debate.
The Government disagree with the petition’s proposed approach. It makes two suggestions: to increase the state pension and to lower the retirement age. I will first address the proposal to increase the state pension to £380 a week. That would equate pensioner income with the national living wage in 2022-23. However, the national living wage and the state pension are two very different provisions, with distinct purposes. A direct comparison cannot be drawn between the levels of the two. The national living wage aims to protect low-income workers and to provide an incentive to work, by ensuring that workers benefit from being employed. However, most pensioners have already left the labour market. Comparisons made in the e-petition between headline state pension amounts and the national living wage do not consider the full package of state measures available to support people in retirement or the fact that pensioners do not pay national insurance or into a pension scheme through automatic enrolment.
We need to be clear with the public that a state pension of £380 per week for every UK pensioner would be unaffordable. It would mean an annual cost of up to £251 billion if it was applied for 2022-23. That compares to the £110 billion we are currently forecast to spend on the state pension. In the UK we have a system of state and private pensions, which jointly provide an income for people in retirement. Most people will have a private or occupational pension on top of the state pension. In the 2021 financial year, the average net income of all pensioners was £361 per week, after housing costs. Crucially, the Government also provide around £67 billion each year in tax relief to boost private retirement savings. It is important to consider all aspects of Government support for retirement, rather than solely the state pension amount.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the state pension continues to provide the foundations for people’s retirement income, and we are proud of the assistance we have given pensioners since 2010. Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms. That is £720 more than if it had been uprated by prices, and £570 more than if it had been uprated by earnings.
As all hon. Members here today recognise, the Government have announced plans to apply the triple lock this year. It was announced, according to the normal parliamentary timetable, that from April the state pension will be over £3,000 per year higher in cash terms, which is double what it was in 2010, £790 more than if it had been uprated by prices, and £945 more than if it had been uprated by earnings.
Pension credit has come up a lot today, as it should. Pension credit provides vital additional financial support by topping up the state pension and other retirement incomes. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the minimum income guarantee, which is what we put in place to ensure that pensioners do not fall below a certain base. It also acts as a gateway to other help, including assistance with rent, council tax, NHS prescriptions and heating bills. Of immediate importance, it is a gateway to the additional cost of living payments we are paying to those on qualifying means-tested benefits. There is more that we need to do to link that up with other information that the Government have. I will be pleased to work with Opposition Members, as well as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), in order to try to make that happen.
We have taken direct action when pensioners have needed it, both through the pandemic and now with the rising cost of living. That includes the £650 cost of living payment, paid in two instalments, to help those on pension credit with the rising cost of living. As we all know—and I would like to emphasise this again—it is not too late for pensioners who are not already getting pension credit to qualify for the second instalment. That is because a claim for pension credit can be backdated for up to three months, provided the entitlement conditions are met throughout that time. To ensure that a successful backdated claim falls within the qualifying period for the second cost of living payment, we are urging people to claim pension credit as soon as possible, and by no later than 18 December.
David Linden
I appreciate that the Minister will not necessarily have the figures to hand, but would she be willing to write to me with information on how much the Government are spending on, for example, billboard campaigns and radio advertising to encourage pensioners to take part—in the same way they do with the levelling-up campaign?
Laura Trott
I would be more than happy to do so. I know that we spent £1.2 million over the summer. I have signed off a campaign for this winter, with more coming after Christmas, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact amounts.
That leads me nicely on to the hon. Member for Battersea, who referred to the take-up campaign. We have had a huge take-up campaign over the summer, and we have done one recently as well. We have further communication planned. It is something I am very focused on, and I would like to work with all hon. Members who are interested to ensure that it happens.
Marsha De Cordova
Is any work being done to measure the impact of the summer campaign on the take-up of pension credit? Going forward, I am very happy to work with the Minister on this.
Laura Trott
We know that claims for pension credit have tripled since the summer. On average, we used to get 2,000 claims a week—that has gone up to 6,000. The seven out of 10 figure that everybody uses comes from the family resources survey, which was last done in 2019-20, which has caused the difficulty with exact details on eligibility. Because of the pandemic, the survey has not been repeated, and there is an 18-month delay on the figures. It is very difficult to get up-to-date data on actual eligibility levels, which is something that we need to address over the longer term. In the interim, though, we have the numbers of people who are making the claims through the line, which, as I have said, have gone up threefold.
Matt Rodda
Could the Minister explore the issue of pensioners who do not have English as their first language and other hard-to-reach groups whom Government information often struggles to reach? There have been success stories in the past where particular approaches have worked with some minority groups. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and other colleagues present on that matter.
Laura Trott
I am very happy to do so. If there are any specific approaches the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government should be taking, I am very open to any ideas he may have and would happily take them forward.
The £650 cost of living payment is one of a number of measures in the Government’s £37 billion cost of living support package, which will ensure that the most vulnerable households will receive at least £1,200 this year. The package also includes a £400 reduction on energy bills for all domestic electricity customers over the coming months, plus a £150 council tax rebate for 85% of all UK households.
In addition to the steps we have taken to address the cost of living for pensioners, we have also made long-term reforms to the state pension and introduced automatic enrolment to boost private saving. In 2016, the Government introduced the new state pension, which forms a clear foundation for individuals’ private savings to provide the retirement they want. At the heart of its design, we sought to correct some historic unfairness in the previous system, in particular for women, self-employed people and lower-paid workers. More than 3 million women are set to receive an average of £550 more a year by 2030. State pension outcomes are also expected to equalise for men and women by the early 2040s—more than a decade earlier than they would have aligned under the old system.
I want to pause here to mention pensioner poverty, which was brought up by a number of hon. Members. I know it is something we all care deeply about. The Government are committed to action that helps to alleviate the levels of pensioner poverty. We are forecast to spend more than £134 billion on benefits for pensioners in 2022-23, which amounts to 5.4% of GDP and includes spending on the state pension that is forecast to be over £110 billion in 2022-23. Thankfully, there are 400,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than in 2009-10, but there is, of course, always more to do.
Automatic enrolment, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), is transforming private saving. More than 10.7 million people have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension and more than 2 million employers have complied with their duties to date. This has helped to supply around an additional £33 billion into pensions savings in real terms in 2021 compared to 2012. I want to bring up the findings of the 2017 review of measures for automatic enrolment, as the hon. Member for Battersea mentioned her support for the lower earnings limit. The 2017 review of automatic enrolment set out the ambition to enable people to save more and to start saving earlier by abolishing the lower earnings limit and reducing the qualifying age for automatic enrolment to 18 by the mid-2020s. We have always been clear that changes would be made in a way and at a time that are affordable, balancing the needs of savers, employers and taxpayers, and the Government are absolutely still committed to that.
Together, the new state pension, automatic enrolment to workplace pensions and the safety net of pension credit will provide a robust system for pensioners for decades to come. A number of Members talked about international comparisons; OECD rankings show that, thanks to this Government’s reforms, the UK pensions systems will provide future workers with income replacement rates comparable to the OECD average and higher than countries such as Switzerland, Norway and Germany.
Let me turn to the second suggestion: decreasing the state pension age to 60. The Government have no plans to reverse changes to the state pension age. Previous reforms have focused on maintaining the right balance between affordability, the sustainability of the state pension and fairness between generations. Changes to state pension age were made through a series of Acts, and by successive Governments, from 1995 onwards. Those reforms followed public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. The state pension is funded through the national insurance and tax contributions of the current working-age population. Like increasing the state pension, reducing the state pension age to 60 would massively increase the tax burden on the current working-age population and carry significant cost.
David Linden
I wonder whether the Minister might put on record the point that she just confirmed. In the debate on Scottish independence, Unionist campaigners often talk about how the UK somehow furnishes pensions. However, as the Minister just pointed out, the state pension is funded by ongoing national insurance contributions each and every day, which rather bursts the myth that is made by the Better Together campaign in Scotland.
Laura Trott
State pension entitlement is obviously built up through contributions over a period of time, but equally there is a huge burden on the state, and that has to be met at a given point. As we have discussed, pension pots are funded widely by both the working-age population and people later in life.
The Government previously estimated that, had we not increased the state pension age for both men and women, the total additional cost to taxpayers—in 2018-19 prices—would have been around £215 billion for the period from 2010-11 to 2025-26. Lowering the state pension age is clearly unaffordable, and would place an ever-increasing and unfair burden on taxpayers. That would not be right, particularly as life expectancy continues to rise.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The PHSO is undertaking a multi-stage process, and it has not given its final findings on the overall investigation. If the PHSO finds injustice, it will move on to stage 3 and consider any recommendations. The DWP will wait before taking any further steps.
The UK has an ageing population and workforce. The proportion of people aged 50 years and over compared to those aged 16 and over is projected to increase from 42% in 2010 to nearly 50% by 2035. That is nearly 29 million more people. Older workers will bring a wealth of skills and experience to the workplace, and they are vital to the economy. By working for longer, older people have the opportunity to improve their retirement income and benefit from the social engagement that employment brings. The hon. Member for Battersea was absolutely right that we need to support workers in later life, and BEIS is working on exactly that.
In conclusion, I welcome today’s debate and acknowledge the proposals set out in the e-petition. As I have mentioned, the Government provide wide-ranging measures to support people in retirement. Our recent announcement of plans to apply the triple lock this year demonstrates our commitment to providing a strong foundation of support for pensioners.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for her incredible speech, which shone a light on the impact of pensioner poverty in her own constituency. She brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to these debates. I thank the petitioners—it is because of them that we are here—and the tens of thousands of people who signed the petition. No one should ignore pensioner poverty, but we are having this debate because many pensioners are not being supported.
We are in a cost of living crisis, and the Government have talked about the support that is being provided, but we have to be aware that some of the targeted support will go only to people in receipt of a qualifying benefit—pension credit or some sort of housing support. People on a state pension who do not get any top-ups will probably not qualify for that additional support, so that places an additional challenge on their finances. That is what I was talking about when I said that there should be additional targeted support.
All hon. Members mentioned pension credit take-up. It is right that the Government are doing take-up campaigns, because that will help to alleviate some of the challenges that many face.
This has been a good debate. I strongly believe that we have to support pensioners and those in greater need. Although we cannot see the Government increasing the state pension to £380 a week, we need to look at some sort of minimum income standard for pensioners.
The Minister did not address the point about streamlining the application process and making it more accessible. I hope she will take that back, because it was a recommendation from the Work and Pensions Committee. It is important that people are able to claim that aspect of social security. If the process is not streamlined, accessible and easy to use, it will deter people, particularly those whose first language is not English and disabled people who are unable to access the forms. I hope that, in their activities around pension credit take-up, the Government consider that issue. I highlighted the inequalities within certain groups—women, disabled people and ethnic minority communities—particularly around auto-enrolment, so I am pleased that that is still on the Government’s radar.
I thank everybody for being part of this debate. I only wish there were more people here, but I appreciate that it is probably due to the travel challenges that many are facing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 617603, relating to the state pension.
Written Statements
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingent Liabilities: Skynet 6
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am pleased to inform the House that I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has received approval from His Majesty’s Treasury to recognise new contingent liabilities associated with the Skynet 6 programme. This programme, as set out in the defence Command Paper “Defence in a Competitive Age”, will provide the MOD with a world class, modern military satellite communications network to support our and our allies’ operations globally. This will be achieved through new capital investment in the ground stations, spacecraft and user terminals that form the Skynet strategic capability. These new contingent liabilities are specifically related to the launch of our first next generation satellite, known as Skynet 6A, which is scheduled to take place in financial year 2025-26 using a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle from Cape Canaveral. This follows four Skynet 5 satellites (A, B, C and D) currently in orbit, which will be initially supplemented, and then incrementally replaced by 6A and a further four satellite systems being procured through the Skynet 6 enduring capability (EC) project. His Majesty’s Treasury approved the proposed three contingent liabilities and Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and Defence Committee were notified on 23 June 2020.
Three contingent liabilities are recognised.
The first contingent liability relates to loss of capability of the Skynet 6A system. The MOD will take ownership of the Skynet 6A spacecraft at launch and has not sought to secure insurance for the launch or acceptance phases, as it was assessed as not providing value for money. The post mitigation worst-case financial exposure of risk of loss of capability related to these events, assuming the need to re-procure a spacecraft with similar capabilities, has been assessed at a value of £720 million.
The second contingent liability relates to long delay of launch. The MOD has agreed to bear the allowable costs of a launch-related delay which arise for reasons entirely outside of the control of the contractor. A long launch delay would result in the MOD incurring additional storage, prelaunch insurance, maintenance, launch service provider and other delay-related allowable costs. The post mitigation worst-case financial exposure of a long launch delay has been assessed at a value of £253 million.
The third contingent liability relates to a cross-waiver of liability in favour of the Skynet 6A launch service provider. Cross-waivers are standard practice in space launches. The MOD has agreed a cross waiver of liability in favour of SpaceX and related parties in respect of damage to Ministry of Defence property and personal injury, death or property damage incurred by Ministry of Defence employees. This liability is assessed as unquantifiable due to the nature, scope, range, and scale of possible scenarios that might occur, which means that it is not currently possible to provide a realistic estimate of cost.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2022-12-12/HCWS436/.
[HCWS436]
Skills Update
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
As part of the Government’s commitment to provide a comprehensive and clear skills offer for employers and individuals, the Government have decided to integrate the Traineeship programme into 16-19 study programme and adult education provision from 1 August 2023. Integrating Traineeships into general provision means the Department for Education will no longer fund the delivery of Traineeships through a standalone national programme. All the elements of the Traineeship programme—English and maths, work experience, employability and occupational skills, and qualifications—will continue to be funded for 16-19 year olds as part of the national 16- 19 study programme, and for adults through the adult education budget. This means that providers with access to funding can choose to continue to offer Traineeship programmes for young people who need support to get into work, apprenticeships or further learning.
In addition, there are other great alternative opportunities provided by other programmes such as T-levels and the T-level transition programme, Bootcamps, Apprenticeships, and Sector-Based Work Academies.
In areas where the adult education budget has been devolved, Mayoral combined authorities and Greater London authority will decide on how best to support young adults in their areas.
Integrating the national Traineeship programme will simplify the skills landscape making it easier to navigate for young people and employers. It will also enable employers, training providers and local authorities to tailor their programmes, as they will have greater flexibilities to design a Traineeship around the learner or business need as we will be removing the national framework which sets strict requirements on providers, in how they must deliver a Traineeship. This will better support individual learners and focus on local needs to support growth at a local level, and help young people gain the skills they need to get into apprenticeships and sustainable employment.
The Traineeship programme has been running for nearly 10 years and the number of starts has remained relatively low. To encourage growth, we introduced occupationally specific Traineeships, an employer incentive and featured Traineeships within various communications campaigns. However, the 17,400 starts achieved in the 2020-21 academic year and the 15,500 starts in 2021-22 remains a small number of starts for a nationally administered programme. It is right, therefore, that we focus our offer on our mainstream provision. This change will make it easier for young people and employers to navigate our skills offer and will enable providers to better tailor their programmes to deliver the key skills needed to drive growth in local communities.
[HCWS434]
Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review: Progress Report
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
In July 2021, the Government published their response to the recommendations of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review (the review). In this, we accepted the overarching conclusion of the review that the system failed to listen to patients, or to put patients at the centre of their care. We accepted the majority of the review’s nine strategic recommendations and 50 actions for improvement.
We also committed to publishing an update on progress made in the following year to implement the accepted strategic recommendations and actions for improvement. I am happy to be able to publish that report today, which shows that we have made substantial progress and sets out the remaining next steps. The key points are set out below.
Putting patient voice at the centre of patient safety
Dr Henrietta Hughes was appointed as the first patient safety commissioner in July 2022. Dr Henrietta Hughes is already championing the value of listening to patients to seek improvements to patient safety around the use of medicines and medical devices.
Pelvic mesh
In April 2022, the ninth specialist mesh centre opened in Bristol. Women from every region now have access to the specialist support services they need, including pain management, psychological support and surgical mesh removal. As of October 2022, over 1,900 patients had been referred for treatment.
The first annual clinical summit took place on 6 December 2022, where all nine mesh centres came together to share best practice in setting up the centres, delivering patient-centred care, and ensuring robust data collection to support continued improvement. To ensure these centres are supporting women as intended, I have asked the Department to work with NHS England to review mesh centre outcomes and patient experience.
Sodium valproate
Government take safety concerns associated with sodium valproate very seriously. Significant measures were introduced by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in 2018 to further reduce the use of valproate during pregnancy, including the introduction of the pregnancy prevention programme and smaller pack sizes to encourage monthly prescribing with a pictogram/warning image on valproate packaging.
The MHRA and NHS Digital have developed the medicines and pregnancy registry to improve our ability to monitor implementation and compliance with the pregnancy prevention programme. This tracks all women in England who are taking NHS-prescribed valproate and identifies when they are pregnant and accessing NHS care for that pregnancy. The latest data from the registry shows that the number of pregnant women prescribed valproate in a six-month period has fallen from 68 women in April to September 2018, to 17 women in October 2021 to March 2022. Last year the registry was also expanded to cover other anti-epileptic drugs in addition to sodium valproate.
Existing approaches to reduce the number of pregnant women exposed to sodium valproate are important and are making a difference, but there is no room for complacency, and we still need to do more. For that reason, the independent Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) has considered a comprehensive assessment by MHRA which included input from patients and other key stakeholders and a review of the available data.
The CHM has advised that there should be greater scrutiny of the way sodium valproate is prescribed and that further risk minimisation measures are required, in particular that two specialists should independently consider and document that there is no other effective or tolerated treatment. The CHM has established an implementation group to support the safe introduction of the new measures into clinical practice. The implementation group includes representation from across the healthcare system.
The proposed new measures will be implemented over the coming months according to patient priorities so that they can be introduced safely. In the meantime, health professionals are being reminded that sodium valproate should not be used in female children and women of childbearing potential unless other treatments are ineffective or not tolerated, and the pregnancy prevention plan should be closely adhered to. It is important to note that patients taking sodium valproate are strongly advised to continue to do so until reviewed by a healthcare professional.
I will also be hosting a roundtable on valproate prescribing with key stakeholders on 19 December 2022, to discuss how we can work together to further improve monitoring and compliance with the regulatory controls.
Last year we held a consultation on original pack dispensing and whole pack dispensing of medicines containing sodium valproate, which included a proposal that medicines containing sodium valproate are always dispensed in the original manufacturer’s packaging. This would ensure patients, and particularly women and girls of childbearing potential, always receive the patient information leaflet with warnings about taking the medicine while pregnant. The Government have considered the responses received and will shortly publish a response to the consultation.
Medical device information system
Following extensive scoping work we have concluded that the best and fastest way to deliver a medical devices information system is by increasing the scope and coverage of outcome registries.
We aim to increase the scope and coverage of medical device outcome registries from 15% to 80% of high-risk procedures over the next three years. As well as device tracking the registries will include patient outcomes and patient experience, helping us deliver on wider objectives such as better information about individual consultants’ performance, which was highlighted in the Paterson inquiry.
Declaration of interests
The IMMDS review stated that transparency of payments made to clinicians needs to improve. We are in a piloting phase for the declaration of doctor’s interests in NHS and independent settings. Healthcare providers will publish this information to ensure it is more accessible to patients.
During the pilot, we will seek feedback from healthcare providers, doctors, and patients on the feasibility and cost of establishing and maintaining systems across different healthcare settings; the content of standardised templates and guidance; and the accessibility of information for patients. Full implementation will begin in 2023. Once we have a system in place for doctors, we will consider systems for other healthcare professionals.
Next steps
We know there is more work to do to improve women’s experiences of the healthcare system, and patient safety. The Government are committed to continuing to work with partners across the health and care system to implement the accepted recommendations and actions for improvement.
The review also brought into sharp focus the importance of listening to women's voices and was a key driver behind the decision to develop the first ever women’s health strategy for England, which we published this summer. Through the women’s health strategy, we will continue to improve the health and wellbeing of women and girls.
[HCWS438]
Local Government Finance Settlement: England
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Today the Government have published details on the Local Government Finance Settlement for the next two years for English councils, which prioritises protecting local taxpayers and vital core services. Local government has long called for greater certainty on funding following repeated one-year settlements, greater local control of finances, and a focus on social care. This two-year policy statement delivers on all of these fronts.
The Government estimate that on average councils will see an increase of around 9% in their funding next year. We have delivered on the sector’s requests for additional funding through the £2.8 billion announced at the autumn statement for social care. We are also ensuring that this year’s settlement provides support across all tiers of local government through a new, one-off funding guarantee that ensures all local authorities will see a minimum 3% increase in their core spending power before taking any local decisions on council tax levels. Councils are best placed to make local decisions to meet pressures and ensure that our most vulnerable in society get the support they need, and therefore it is for individual local authorities to determine the level of flexibility they use in setting council tax. The policy statement confirms a core referendum principle of up to 3% for both 2023-24 and 2024-25.
The Government’s manifesto commit to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases, and it is for the House of Commons to set an annual threshold at which a council tax referendum is triggered. This is an additional local democratic check and balance to avoid the repeat seen under the last Labour Government when council tax more than doubled. This package of referendum principles strikes a fair balance. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level.
Councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners, and local councils will rightly want to consider the financial needs of local residents at this challenging point in time, alongside the public’s support for action on keeping our streets safe and providing key services.
The Mayor of London has requested flexibility to levy an additional £20 on band D bills to the Greater London Authority precept to provide extra funding for Transport for London. The Government have expressed ongoing concern about the management of TfL by this Mayor, and it is disappointing that London taxpayers are having to foot the bill for the GLA’s poor governance and decision making. While the Government will not oppose this request, any decision to increase the precept is solely one for the Mayor, who should take into account the pressures that Londoners are currently facing on living costs and his decision to raise council tax by 9.5% last year.
This will be a settlement that also recognises the importance of funding adult social care by confirming significant additional funding for social care. Additionally, for social care authorities, the Government will consult on a 2% precept, for both 2023-24 and 2024-25. When taking decisions on council tax levels, local authorities should recognise the pressures many households are facing.
In addition, the policy statement has set out key assumptions behind the second year of the settlement. This includes confirming that the review of relative needs and resources and a reset to business rates growth will not be implemented in the next two years, to give councils more certainty for budget planning. For 2024-25, the policy statement refers to the significant new funding stream expected from the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme.
Finally, we are encouraging local authorities to consider whether they can use their reserves to maintain services in the face of immediate inflationary pressures, taking account, of course, of the need to maintain appropriate levels of reserves to support councils’ financial sustainability and future investment. The Government note the significant increase in some local authority reserves over the two years of the pandemic.
All of the proposals set out in the policy statement will be subject to the usual consultation process within the Local Government Finance Settlement.
This written ministerial statement covers England only.
[HCWS437]
Community Ownership Fund: Update
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
Over the weekend I was delighted to announce the outcome of round 2 window 1 of the £150 million Community Ownership Fund, which will see £6.7 million awarded to 32 projects across the United Kingdom. Combined with round 1 projects, this additional funding takes our overall funding total to £16.7 million for 70 projects. The full list of successful applicants can be found here.
This targeted support is delivering much needed investment to ensure that important parts of our social fabric, such as pubs, sports clubs, theatres and post office buildings, can continue to play a central role in towns and villages across the United Kingdom. In this round we will be funding a diverse range of projects, from the Margaret Haes Riding Centre in Bury to the Llandyrnog Community Shop in the Vale of Clwyd.
The Community Ownership Fund is helping to reduce geographical disparities across the United Kingdom. To this end, the funding provided in round 2 window 1 will see over £800,000 awarded to projects in Scotland, £1.1 million to Wales and £555,000 to Northern Ireland. This, so far, brings the total funding awarded across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to £4.9 million collectively.
The funding provided in round 2 window 1 will also see £4.2 million awarded to projects in England. This brings the total funding awarded across English regions to £11.8 million collectively.
The projects supported by the Community Ownership Fund, such as the United Kingdom’s most remote pub, The Old Forge in Scotland, Ballymacash Sports Academy in Northern Ireland, and the Leigh Spinners Mill in Greater Manchester, are already making a genuine difference to their communities. With the additional investment awarded in this bidding window, I am delighted to be supporting many more small but mighty local assets across the United Kingdom, levelling up the places we love and cherish.
Interested groups can submit an Expression of Interest form to start their application process at any time. With a four-year window until 2024-25 for investment to be released, there is plenty of opportunity for interested community groups to apply to take over invaluable community assets and to run them as businesses—by the community, for the community.
[HCWS435]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Energy Bill [HL]
Monday 12th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 39-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (12 Dec 2022)
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 75, line 31 are consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 71, line 34.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back in Committee once again, debating the Energy Bill. I thank noble Lords for their patience during the interregnum. Noble Lords will recall that the Bill was necessarily paused following the death of Her Majesty the Queen. However, we have always been clear that the Bill represents a landmark piece of legislation to provide for a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system that is fit for the future, so I am very happy to be debating it again.
Clause 84 makes changes to Section 30 of the Energy Act 2008, which in turn enables modifications to Part IV of the Petroleum Act 1998. Amendments 90 and 91 make consequential changes to definitions in Clause 84 in response to government Amendment 70.
The next set of amendments relate to Clause 85. Amendments 92, 93, 101 and 102 update the heading, labels and definitions in Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008, as amended by this Bill, to avoid inconsistencies with existing definitions in the 2008 Act. Amendment 103 makes a consequential change due to the changes in definitions.
Moving to Amendments 94 and 95, the existing Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008 includes a carve-out in subsections (2) and (3). This prevents the Secretary of State designating an installation as eligible for change of use relief if it is to be used as part of a CCUS project that is in Scotland or is licensed by Scottish Ministers. However, the Scottish Parliament is also unable to legislate to confer such a designation power on Scottish Ministers because oil and gas is a reserved matter. It is important that change of use relief is available to oil and gas assets in Scottish territorial waters to create a consistent application of this policy. Amendment 94 removes this carve-out from Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008. Amendment 95 then updates a cross reference as a result of the proposed Amendment 94.
The process for issuing change of use relief first requires that an asset is designated as eligible. Only after this can the asset then qualify for that relief. Amendment 97 makes clear what conditions must be satisfied for an installation already designated as eligible for change of use relief by the Secretary of State actually to qualify for that relief. The first condition is that the Secretary of State has issued a carbon capture and storage-related abandonment notice under Section 29 of the Petroleum Act 1998 on a person for that installation. The second is that the trigger event has been satisfied.
Amendment 98 describes the trigger event that must occur for the relief to take effect. The trigger event requires that, first, a decommissioning fund must have been established for the relevant asset. Secondly, an appropriate amount must have been paid into this fund to reflect the decommissioning liability that the previous owner is being relieved of. This amendment would also give the Secretary of State power to make regulations on the required amount that must be paid into the decommissioning fund, and who may make such a payment, to qualify for change of use relief.
The Secretary of State must also approve that the amount paid into the fund is sufficient. Amendment 96 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the Oil and Gas Authority before certifying that the amount is sufficient. Amendment 104 makes consequential changes to defined terms in Clause 85 as a result of Amendment 97.
I now turn to the other amendments tabled by noble Lords in this group. Amendments 99 and 100, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, seek to enable the Secretary of State to accept financial security from the previous owner, rather than requiring the amount to be paid in cash into the decommissioning fund. The Government acknowledge the point made by noble Lords regarding the value-for-money considerations when requesting funds to be set aside for decommissioning. The costs of decommissioning a repurposed asset are likely to be incurred at the end of the carbon storage asset’s life, which may be many years after the establishment of the decommissioning fund. However, the purpose of this trigger event for the issuance of change of use relief is to help protect the taxpayer from the decommissioning liability by having funds available to decommission repurposed assets. The requirement for a cash deposit looks to ensure that funds are available should the carbon storage asset close early and decommissioning of the existing infrastructure is required. This reduces the risk that the burden of decommissioning is left completely to the taxpayer. It is also intended that decommissioning funds will be invested to allow the fund to retain its value over time until decommissioning is required. This is another reason why it is important for the previous oil and gas owner to contribute money into the decommissioning fund.
More generally, the policy intent of change of use relief is to provide previous oil and gas owners with greater certainty over their liabilities, to incentivise the repurposing of assets. In return, however, the taxpayer should equally expect assurance that the oil and gas owners’ liability will be met, in accordance with the obligations that the owners agreed to undertake on commencement of their oil and gas activities. The Government judge that this can be provided only through a cash deposit, and not through a promise of funding, potentially decades into the future. This is the principle on which the policy was proposed in the Government’s consultation in August 2021 and with which, at the time, respondents broadly agreed. Therefore, I beg to move the amendment in my name and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, not to move their amendments.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s return to Committee; I am very pleased that that is the case. I have no comments to make on the amendments, but I note that during that interregnum, as the Minister described it, the Government gave planning permission for a coal mine. Although we are not going to debate it here today, that is a hugely retrograde decision which flies in the face of the Bill and the general way in which it looks forward. However, I have no comments on the amendments that the Minister has tabled.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I am also delighted to be debating the Energy Bill again. I am delighted that the noble Lord is still the Minister so that we at least have continuity on the Bill; it remains much the same as it was before we left it some three months ago.
As the Minister said, the amendments refer to Clauses 84 and 85 of Chapter 2 of Part 2 on “Decommissioning of carbon storage installations”. This gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations regarding the financing and provision of security for decommissioning and legacy costs associated with carbon capture utilisation and storage. The decommissioning of offshore installations and pipelines used for carbon dioxide storage purposes is modified by Section 30 of the Energy Act 2008, which modified Part 4 of the Petroleum Act. Clause 84 enables further modifications to the modified Part 4 in relation to the definition of carbon storage installation, and the establishment of decommissioning funds and legacy costs as set out in Clause 82, “Financing of costs of decommissioning etc”.
Clause 85 relates to Sections 30A and 30B of the Energy Act 2008, which make provision for a person to qualify for change of use relief on installations and submarine pipelines converted for CCS demonstration projects—as defined by Energy Act 2010. This relief removes the ability for the Secretary of State, in some circumstances, to take steps under the modified Part 4. This clause makes amendments to Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008 by broadening the scope of change of use relief so that it applies to eligible carbon storage installations more generally, amending the trigger point to qualify for such relief.
Amendments 99 and 100, which the Minister referred to, were tabled by my noble friend Lady Liddell, who unfortunately cannot be here and therefore will not be able to move them. They reflect value-for-money considerations in the decision-making process, meaning that the Secretary of State could accept provision of security in respect of amounts to be contributed on account of decommissioning costs—costs likely to be incurred, as the Minister said, many years after the establishment of the fund—rather than requiring such amounts to be paid simply in cash.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for their comments, but I do not think there were any points for me to address, so I will leave it there.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 75, line 30.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 76, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and amendments in the name of Lord Callanan at page 75, line 36, page 76, line 33, and page 77, line 9, revert to the label “eligible CCS installation” for certain installations that are eligible for change of use relief.
“(5) Omit subsections (2) and (3).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes a restriction on change of use relief relating to certain installations whose licence was granted by the Scottish Ministers etc.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 76, line 4.
“(b) whether to make a certification under subsection (5)(b).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult with the Oil and Gas Authority before making a certification of the kind mentioned in amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 76, line 33.
“(8) For subsection (4) substitute—“(4) An eligible CCS installation qualifies for change of use relief if—(a) the Secretary of State has given a CCS-related abandonment programme notice to a person in relation to the abandonment of the installation, and(b) the trigger event has occurred in relation to the installation.(4A) In subsection (4) “CCS-related abandonment programme notice” means an abandonment programme notice given under section 29 of the 1998 Act in that section’s application in relation to carbon storage installations (by virtue of section 30 of this Act).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the conditions for change of use relief under section 30A of the Energy Act 2008.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
My Lords, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 98 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 99 or 100 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 98
Lord Callanan
“(5) The trigger event occurs in relation to an eligible CCS installation when—(a) a decommissioning fund (as defined in section 82(6)) has been established for providing security for the discharge of liabilities in respect of decommissioning costs in relation to the installation, and(b) the Secretary of State certifies by notice in writing (an “approval notice”) that one or more relevant persons have paid into the fund an amount or amounts the total of which is not less than the required amount.(5A) In subsection (5)—(a) “relevant person” means a person of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) “the required amount” means an amount determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends the conditions for qualifying for change of use relief under section 30A of the Energy Act 2008.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
See amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 76, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out an unnecessary definition.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 71, line 34.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment omits definitions in consequence of the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 76, line 10.
“(b) whether to make a certification under subsection (3)(b).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult with the Oil and Gas Authority before making a certification of the kind mentioned in Lord Callanan’s amendment at line 78, line 37.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 105 to 109 amend Clause 86 on the availability of change of use relief for pipelines. Clause 86 mirrors Clause 85, the principal difference being that its application is to pipelines rather than to installations. As such, these amendments also mirror those covered in the previous group.
As was the case for Amendment 97, Amendment 106 makes clear what conditions must be satisfied for a pipeline that has already been designated as eligible for change of use relief by the Secretary of State to qualify for change of use relief. To recap, the first is that the Secretary of State has issued a carbon capture and storage-related abandonment notice, under Section 29 of the Petroleum Act 1998, on a person for that pipeline. The second is that the trigger event has been satisfied.
Amendment 107 describes the trigger event that must occur for the relief to take effect, in the same way as Amendment 98 did for Clause 85. First, a decommissioning fund must have been established for the relevant asset. Secondly, an appropriate amount must have been paid into this fund to reflect the decommissioning liability that the previous owner is being relieved of. The amendment would also give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations on the required amount that must be paid into the decommissioning fund, and who may make such a payment, in order to qualify for change of use relief.
As was the case for Clause 85, the Secretary of State must also approve that the amount being paid into the fund in relation to pipelines is sufficient. In the same way as Amendment 96 does, Amendment 105 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the Oil and Gas Authority before certifying that the amount is sufficient.
Amendments 108 and 109 make consequential changes to definitions and cross-references in response to previously proposed amendments.
Amendments 110 and 111 make changes to Clause 87. Amendment 110 updates the heading to reflect better the content of that section. Amendment 111 proposes to omit a subsection of Section 105 of the Energy Act 2008. This subsection is no longer necessary as a result of the simplified mechanism proposed in this Bill for designating an asset as eligible for change of use relief.
The repurposing of pipelines, alongside installations, has the potential to deliver great benefits in the deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage. These can be environmental through greater resource efficiency and the reduction in disturbing sea beds. There are also economic benefits in reducing capital expenditure and potentially speeding up the deployment of CCUS.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I really have just one question for the Minister, and it is on decommissioning funds. It is not clear to me—that may be because I have not gone through the absolute intricacies of all these lines—who actually holds the funds for the decommissioning fund. Are they banked, are they in the Treasury, or are they in the Oil and Gas Authority? What guarantee do we have that they are there when needed and that they are not just used by the Treasury but are part of offsetting the public sector borrowing requirement? I am very keen to understand whether that is similar to the nuclear decommissioning sector, and where that happens.
I turn to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. He has not spoken to them yet. I suspect that the Government might accept—
Lord Teverson (LD)
Forgive me. I am looking at a slightly out-of-date document. Anyway, that is the area that I would be interested to understand from the Minister. We will come to other amendments another time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I too welcome the return of the Bill. It is quite interesting to reflect back to the first and second days in Committee, when we were recording the hottest temperatures that we had ever experienced in this country and were making full use of that experience. We were also in the midst of the leadership contest and questioning the commitment of the candidates; we had no way of knowing, of course, that both of them would take their turn in No. 10 and have the ability to demonstrate their commitment.
We are really pleased to see the return of the Bill. We were concerned that there would be changes and, as we said on the first two days in Committee, there are some measures in this Bill that are urgent and that we need to get a move on with in order to address the challenges that we face in this space.
I do not have an enormous amount to add to the Minister’s very full comments. I just seek clarification. When I see an amendment on consultation, I am always slightly concerned to know who exactly would come into the sphere of consultation and make sure that it is as full as it could be. The issues around making sure that the fund remains sufficient are very practical and necessary. With that plea for clarification on consultation, I am happy to leave it there.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their remarks. I will start with the noble Baroness’s final question. As set out in the Government’s response to that consultation, it is expected that the owners of the asset will submit their assessment of the decommissioning liability to the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning for verification. This verification will include consultation with the North Sea Transition Authority, which will be able to compare the assessment against its extensive benchmarking data. OPRED will also be able to engage third parties to provide its own assessment if necessary. Once OPRED is satisfied that the assessment is accurate, it will advise the Secretary of State on approving the amount. That is the advice route that the Secretary of State would take.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, transport and storage companies will hold the decommissioning funds, but will be overseen by the economic and operational regulators. Funds to cover decommissioning costs will be included in the allowed revenue paid to the transport and storage company. The proportion of revenue to be paid into the decommissioning fund will be determined by the economic regulator once the decommissioning liability has been calculated. I hope that that deals with that satisfactorily—clearly not.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the Minister for that very useful answer. Let me get that correct: the funds are being held by the commercial companies that are putting this money aside. Is that ring-fenced? If they go bankrupt, is that lost? How does it work?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It could be a commercial company. It depends who gets the contract for the funds. Then they will be invested.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Are the funds held in escrow so that they cannot be used for anything else, or can they be used as part of the normal purposes?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not think we have a detailed enough answer, so perhaps we should follow up in writing.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I have a concern about this area and I think it is important that this is clarified.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We will clarify that point in writing before the next stage.
“(6) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) An eligible carbon storage network pipeline qualifies for change of use relief if—(a) the Secretary of State has given a CCS-related abandonment programme notice to a person in relation to the abandonment of the pipeline, and(b) the trigger event has occurred in relation to the pipeline.(2A) In subsection (2) “CCS-related abandonment programme notice” means an abandonment programme notice under section 29 of the 1998 Act given at a time when the pipeline is used, or is to be used wholly or mainly—(a) for the purpose of disposing of carbon dioxide by way of geological storage, or(b) as a licensable means of transportation.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the conditions for change of use relief under section 30B of the Energy Act 2008.
“(3) The trigger event occurs in relation to an eligible carbon storage network pipeline when—(a) a decommissioning fund (as defined in section 82(6)) has been established for providing security for the discharge of liabilities in respect of decommissioning costs in relation to the pipeline, and(b) the Secretary of State certifies by notice in writing (an “approval notice”) that one or more relevant persons have paid into the fund an amount or amounts the total of which is not less than the required amount.(3A) In subsection (3)—(a) “relevant person” means a person of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) “the required amount” means an amount determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment revises the definition of “trigger event” for the purposes of relief under section 30B of the Energy Act 2008.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 71, line 34.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Callanan’s amendment at page 73, line 23.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Callanan’s amendment of Clause 87 at page 80, line 30.
“(2) In section 105 of the Energy Act 2008 (Parliamentary control of subordinate legislation), in subsection (2) omit paragraph (aa).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan of clauses 85 and 86.
Lord Lennie
“(aa) the Official Opposition;”Member's explanatory statement
Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has to produce a CCUS strategy and it has to be reviewed after 5 years. However, they have the power to review it before the end of this 5-year term if certain circumstances have taken place (including a general election) but must consult certain people if it is outside the 5-year period. This amendment seeks to include His Majesty’s opposition in that consultation.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments refer to Clauses 90 and 91. They concern consultation over the CCUS strategy and its periodic review. I am grateful to Drax for providing definitions. Carbon capture and storage traps and removes carbon dioxide from large sources and most of that CO2 is not released into the atmosphere. That can be either pre or post combustion. If it is post combustion, the storage usually takes place underground in large silos, the largest of which is in Texas and which is currently processing 5 million tonnes of CO2 a year. As an advert for Drax, it reckons that it would be able to process 20 million tonnes in North Yorkshire by 2030 or thereabouts.
Amendment 113 is about the requirement to include His Majesty’s Opposition in the list of organisations that must be included in stakeholder consultation. These reviews must happen either every five years or more frequently if certain circumstances take place, including a general election or if there is a material change of policy on CCUS. These reviews are to ensure a stable and predictable regulatory landscape for investors. I would have thought that the amendment to include the Opposition in the consultees’ list would be quite attractive to the Government, given the current state of the political landscape in the UK—but there you go. This new requirement would clearly be of overall benefit to the development strategy by involving a wider parliamentary group beyond just the Secretary of State when a review is required. If the Secretary of State seeks to amend the statement, they will have to follow the requirements in Clause 91, which include the requirement for the statement to have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the Secretary of State can designate it as a strategy and policy statement.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, in this group would ensure a requirement for consultation on the CCUS strategy and policy statement, if the Government should seek to amend it. It sets out the process that would have to be followed, and the Opposition support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was getting ahead of myself on the last group, and I apologise to the Grand Committee for that. I would have thought that the Government would like to accept this amendment, as they are likely to be in opposition in five years’ time. I wait to hear from the Minister.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, for their concern about whoever might be the Official Opposition at the time. I suppose we will see. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, did not want to ask for the fourth-placed political party in Parliament to be a statutory consultee as well.
These amendments seek to clarify those who must be consulted as part of the process of designating a CCUS strategy and policy statement. Amendment 113 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who, sadly for us all, is unable to be with us. This amendment seeks to require the Official Opposition to be consulted as part of the strategy process. I reassure noble Lords that parliamentarians will have the opportunity to consider any draft CCUS strategy and policy statement, which must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before it can be designated, as is provided for by Clause 91(10). So, of course, whoever is the Official Opposition at the time, and whoever is the fourth-placed political party at the time, will have a full opportunity to contribute to the debate on this matter.
As the Bill sets out, any CCUS strategy and policy statement that has been designated will be required to be reviewed every five years, although, in the specified circumstances set out in the Bill, a review could take place sooner than five years. When the outcome of a review is that the Secretary of State considers that the statement should be amended, the Bill provides for a statutory consultation process, including consultation with the economic regulator and relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations. An amended statement would also be required to be approved by a resolution of each House, and would therefore be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval before it could be designated.
The process for designating the CCUS strategy and policy statement mirrors the process set out in the Energy Act 2013 for an energy strategy and policy statement. When the outcome of a review is that the Secretary of State considers that the statement does not require amendment, or should be withdrawn, this also requires consultation with the economic regulator and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. This is to ensure that any impact that this decision would have on the conduct of the regulator’s functions, or in relation to the important matter of devolved policy, is taken into account in the decision-making process. It is also the case, of course, that the Secretary of State can update Parliament on the plans for, and outcome of, any review, as part of the normal process of parliamentary business.
On Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, Clause 91 provides for the Secretary of State to consult whomever he or she considers appropriate, in addition to certain specified persons, in the process of developing a strategy and policy statement. This formulation enables the Secretary of State to consult ahead of laying a statement before Parliament. As I have set out, it is for Parliament to consider and approve any new or amended statement.
Although I thank noble Lords for their concern about whoever ends up being the Official Opposition at the time, and for their interest in this topic, I hope that the reassurances I have been able to provide on these points mean that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Teverson (LD)
May I come back to the Minister on Amendment 114? It seems very restrictive to consult as the Secretary of State decides. I cannot pinpoint this, but in many other pieces of legislation the wording is much closer to that in Amendment 114. I do not understand why the Government would not accept that very modest amendment to those “affected” by a revision of the strategy. Surely this is far more restrictive than most government legislation in this area.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not think that is the case. As a Minister, I have issued many consultations. In my experience there is never a problem with anybody contributing who wishes to, even if they are not statutorily listed in the legislation. They are normally public consultations in any case, with a large number of stakeholders. The advice from officials and others is always to extend the scope of consultation to be as wide as possible because you then minimise any potential legal challenges as a result. I understand the noble Lord’s concern but I do not think it is warranted on this issue.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment that seeks to include the Opposition as part of the formal consultation would avoid what we get in Parliament, which is the “ayes and noes” and the “take it or leave it” approaches to policy development. This is an area where we have pretty much a common interest. It seems a sensible approach to throw open the consultation at least to the Opposition—who knows, maybe even to the fourth party—but to make it as wide as possible to avoid that prospect of Parliament rejecting or accepting in total whatever is put before it. It is about buy-in. As the Minister said, there are plenty of examples where buy-in has been part of the Government’s approach to consultation. It seems strange that this is not one of them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Worthington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing a low-carbon heat scheme within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I too am glad to be back debating energy. As has been noted, we find ourselves in a completely different sent of extreme weather events today, but I am glad that we have all been able to make it here to resume this important discussion.
Since we last met, emergency legislation has gone through on some of the issues that we raised in Committee and at Second Reading on the need for a short-term response to the energy crisis bearing down upon us. The Bill is very much about long-term measures, so it is right and proper that the Government supplemented that legislation with faster-paced legislation. However, there were many provisions in that rather hurried legislation, which I know has caused concerns in the market, so the Government have to work hard to deliver the right signals to investors and to businesses around the country that the transition will be orderly and consistent and can encourage investment across the piece. I am sure we will come back to debating the net effect of all the Government’s measures on energy in later clauses.
Amendment 117 relates to the setting up of a low-carbon heat scheme. Specifically, the amendment would change the provision that the Secretary of State “may” by regulations make provision for the scheme to “must” and apply urgency to the challenge of bringing forward those regulations by requiring that they are passed within 12 months of the Bill being enacted.
The reasons are self-evident. If we are to solve the problem of our reliance on volatile fossil fuels, which are also contributing to air-quality problems and climate change, we need to get on with the electrification of heat. The scheme would move us along in that direction and give investors confidence that there is a market that they can plan for and invest in. We therefore urge the Minister to reassure us that the regulations will be passed with all due haste and brought in in good time, and I look forward to hearing from him on the timetable within which we might see the regulations.
Amendment 118 seeks to add to the Bill statutory requirements for and deadlines by which we will stop selling the gas-based boilers currently going into properties. I support that in principle, although I imagine that there will be concerns about the specificity going into primary legislation. However, it is essential that we give clarity to the manufacturers of existing boilers that the Government are serious about ending their current dominance.
I receive, as I am sure everyone does, a lot of correspondence about hydrogen-ready boilers. That needs to be unpacked. I do not know what can be done to prevent the mis-selling of that concept, but it is borderline mis-selling because it is very unclear whether hydrogen-ready boilers are even possible. I therefore think it has more to do with the manufacturers preserving the status quo than with their genuinely seeking to be involved in the transition. Lots of technical advisers tell me that simply saying that something is hydrogen-ready is not sufficient and that it is very difficult and complex to achieve, so I have some sympathy with Amendment 118.
Amendment 121 seeks to except hydrogen if it is compliant with the low-carbon hydrogen standard. In previous debates I have made it clear that I do not deem the low-carbon hydrogen standard sufficient. It is a number that has been put out there, but I do not think it takes into account all the effects of hydrogen on the climate specifically. Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas, as we have talked about previously. The global warming potential of hydrogen needs to be taken sufficiently into account when we consider a low-carbon hydrogen standard, and I do not think it has been, so I am a little nervous about us putting the provision in as it stands because I do not consider that standard tight enough.
The Government’s amendments on opening up the opportunity for the regulations to apply to manufacturers seem entirely sensible. We have to decide the right point at which regulation would be most efficient to drive this. The manufacturers may well be the right place for this, or they may not, but having that option seems correct to me.
In Amendment 122, the Opposition Benches seek to include specificity in relation to the heat pump market. Again, I can see the logic of that. I am sure it is probing amendment, more than anything else, to get clarity on the scale of the market that we expect. I doubt that it could survive in primary legislation, but I am sure it is there to try to elicit positive statements so that the heat pump sector can move in this regard.
Amendment 119 concerns cases where it is not possible to fit heat pumps. It is a difficult amendment to legislate on. Very few of the properties where a large enough heat pump or geothermal source can be installed cannot electrify heat. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is not necessary.
I very much look forward to hearing the response to the group. As I have said, it is of primary importance to get moving, and to get investors moving, so that we can start to have a manufacturing sector that is enabled by those regulations as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, 95% of UK homes are centrally heated and most CO2 emissions come from burning fossil fuels, contributing to about 30% of the UK’s total greenhouse emissions, about half of which is from heating our domestic properties. Will gas boilers be banned in 2025? As part of the future homes standard, new homes will be able to install only energy-efficient heating systems and will produce 31% lower emissions compared to the current levels. The standard will come into effect in 2025. The International Energy Agency has also stressed that no new gas boilers should be sold after 2025. The UK’s official climate advisers recommend that all gas boilers should be banned by 2033 to end the UK’s further contribution to climate change. That is the background to the amendments being moved.
We support Amendment 117 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which adds a bit of the oomph by replacing “may” with “must” in relation to the low-carbon heat scheme. Amendment 119, in my name, would ensure that the Secretary of State, in making a low-carbon heat scheme, must
“provide a plan for low-carbon heating in homes where it is uneconomic or unfeasible to have a heat pump (large, rural, off-grid homes etc.).”
Amendment 121 seeks to allow
“heating appliances that use hydrogen produced to the Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard (blue hydrogen) to be included in low-carbon heat schemes.”
I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said about hydrogen in general, but if we are going to have hydrogen, let us have blue hydrogen at this stage.
Amendment 122 states:
“Sub-paragraph (i) seeks to include the Government’s own figures for heat pumps in the Bill. Sub-paragraph (ii) seeks to include the number of heat pumps in the latest figures on recommendations from the CCC. And sub-paragraph (iii) seeks to oblige manufacturers producing gas boilers to turn to minimum 25% production of heat pumps by 2028 to facilitate the clean heat transition.”
Government Amendment 123
“makes it clear that a low-carbon heat target set by virtue of clause 100(1)(c) or (d) may be set, in the case of a manufacturer, by reference to heating appliances of the manufacturer that are supplied or installed, whether by the manufacturer or someone else.”
Government Amendment 124 simply corrects a drafting error.
Amendments 117, 119 and 121 relate to Clause 98 in Chapter 1, on low-carbon heat schemes, of Part 3, on new technology. Clause 98 provides the Secretary of State with powers to set up a regulatory scheme through secondary legislation to encourage the sale and installation of low-carbon heating technologies, such as electric heat pumps. Clause 98(3)(b) allows for this to include, for instance, hybrid heat pump systems that involve both a heat pump and a fossil fuel boiler. This is welcome, but our primary concerns are when and how the powers will be used. Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, requires the scheme to be set up within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, and we agree with that.
Amendment 119 seeks to ensure that the Government are aware that there are a number of homes where heat pumps are not the solution, and to address filling this large gap. There is one fundamental flaw with this clause that Amendment 121 seeks to address: it effectively prohibits the deployment of either hydrogen-ready boilers or boilers that use blue hydrogen under low-carbon heat schemes.
Lord Naseby (Con)
On Amendment 121, the Minister knows as well as I do that extensive work is being done on a 20% hydrogen/natural gas trial to provide central heating, et cetera, in homes. If that is the situation, either this amendment should be accepted or perhaps the Minister could explain how it will be possible for that work to continue.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I rise in support of Amendments 117, 118 and 122. If we are to move towards cleaning up heat, we really need to get on with it and put sensible deadlines in place rather than leaving it open-ended, as it currently stands in the Bill.
Amendment 118 tightens up what needs to happen by when and makes some very sensible suggestions on timeframes for
“the banning of the installation of unabated gas boilers in new properties from March 2025 … the banning of the sale and installation of unabated gas boilers in all properties after March 2035.”
We need to get on with this. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Likewise, Amendment 122 would introduce a deadline
“to include the number of heat pumps in the latest figures on recommendations from the CCC.”
On Amendment 121, like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I add my note of caution about reliance on hydrogen. It is an unproven technology. There are ample studies and research that point to there being substantial barriers before it can be delivered at a low enough cost. Not least, there are technical difficulties: we know that the existing pipelines will not be suitable. So it will not be a straightforward case of replacing a natural gas boiler with a hydrogen or blend boiler. There are far greater changes that need to be made to the whole infrastructure before deployment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I will start with my Amendments 123 and 124. Amendment 123 seeks to provide additional clarity to Clause 100. Clause 100(1) provides examples of how targets for a low-carbon heat scheme may be set. The amendment’s addition of proposed new subsection (2A) clarifies that an average appliance efficiency or emissions intensity target could apply to all of a given manufacturer’s heating appliances sold in the UK, whether or not they were sold or installed by the manufacturer itself. This had been explicit in one of the examples in the list in subsection (1) but not in others. The Government believe that it is prudent to make this explicit and it provides additional clarity.
The Government have tabled Amendment 124 purely to correct a minor drafting error in Clause 100(4), replacing “activity” with “appliance” so that the subsection has its intended meaning.
Moving on to the amendments tabled by other noble Lords, I will start with Amendment 117 from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. The Government have always been clear that they intend to introduce the low-carbon heat scheme provided for by this chapter in very short order; namely, from 2024. However, it is the Government’s view that it would not be appropriate to incorporate a timeline into the Bill. If the noble Baroness will take my word for it, we intend to get on with this fairly quickly. It is important that the legislation retains the opportunity, if necessary, to respond to any unforeseen changes in market conditions, et cetera, and to ensure that the necessary administrative and enforcement systems are established. We are indeed looking at the appropriate enforcement mechanism at the moment.
I turn to Amendment 118, the first of four in this group in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for her contribution. This amendment would require there to be a link between the introduction of a low-carbon heat scheme and a ban on the installation of gas boilers in new-build and existing properties respectively.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government will introduce a future homes standard in 2025, which will effectively require that new properties are equipped with low-carbon heating and high energy efficiency, avoiding the need for future retrofitting. New properties would be taken care of in that respect. It would be premature to decide exactly what policy approaches will be best suited to implement the phase-out of natural gas boilers in existing properties.
I do not believe that it is helpful to create a dependency between the ability to launch a scheme on the one hand and a particular, separate measure such as an appliance ban, as the amendment proposes, on the other. That would risk delaying the introduction of such a scheme altogether.
On Amendment 119, the Government have been clear that a range of low-carbon technologies are likely to play a role in decarbonising heating. District heat networks have an important role to play in all future heating scenarios, as do electric heat pumps. Work is ongoing with industry, regulators and others to assess the feasibility, costs and benefits of converting gas networks to supply 100% hydrogen for heating. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, it is indeed a considerable challenge, but we need to do the studies to work out whether it is feasible. Of course, other technologies may also play a supporting role.
To establish whether or not it is a feasible technology, the Government have an extensive programme of work already under way to develop the strategic and policy options for all these technologies and for different building segments. Another plan, seeking restrictively to prescribe the right solution for all properties now and out to 2050, is not particularly necessary or helpful.
I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for his contribution on Amendment 121. This amendment would expand the potential set of low-carbon heating appliances that could be supported by a scheme established under the power in this chapter. However, I emphasise that the set of potential relevant low-carbon heating appliances established in this clause is solely for the purposes of a scheme under this power. It does not in any way serve as a comprehensive statement of all potential low-carbon heating appliances, and it has no wider bearing on what could be considered low-carbon heating appliances in any other policies, schemes or legislation.
The Government recognise that low-carbon hydrogen could be one of a few key options for decarbonising heat in buildings. To that end, the Government are working to enable strategic decisions in 2026 on the role of hydrogen in heat decarbonisation; I note the scepticism of a number of noble Members about this. The Government will bring forward the necessary policies and schemes to support the deployment of hydrogen heating, depending on the outcome of these decisions. We will also shortly consult on the option of requiring that all domestic gas boilers are hydrogen-ready from 2026. Since the scheme provided for by this measure would not be suitable or necessary to support the rollout of hydrogen-using or hydrogen-ready heating appliances, it would not be helpful to expand the scope of the power in this way.
Finally, Amendment 122 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, would require that three specific targets be incorporated into regulations for a low-carbon heat scheme. Again, the Government believe that targets are best set and adjusted in the scheme regulations, based on an assessment of the market conditions at the time, rather than in the enabling legislation in advance.
I turn to the specific targets that the noble Lord proposed. I have said a number of times that the Government’s ambition is to develop the market towards 600,000 heat pump installations per year in 2028. That is what we assess to be a scale necessary for and compatible with all strategic scenarios for decarbonising heating by 2050. Although the Government have clear plans to support industry to build a thriving manufacturing sector for heat pumps in the UK, we do not believe that a production quota is an appropriate way to achieve this.
In the light of what I have been able to say, particularly on the consultation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to introduce his amendments, but I will say a couple of things about this because low-carbon heating is a key issue. As he will know, 40% of UK emissions, more or less, are from heating. One of the big gaps in the Bill is part of the solution to that: home efficiency, which does not really appear in the Bill at all but should have.
I would like to ask the Minister specifically about energy from waste. Clause 98(4) has a list of fossil fuels, but energy from waste is not there. It is sort of a hybrid of being one and not. Over the last decade or so, one of the issues has been that when we have had energy-from-waste plants there has been a big emphasis on them being compatible with using the excess heat for commercial or domestic heating purposes, but hardly any of them do that. They get the planning permission but hardly anything happens. There are one or two in south London where it works, but generally it is not the case. Where do energy from waste and the high carbon emissions from disposing waste fit into this? Do the Government have any appetite—I do not really see it in this section of the Bill—to repair that past omission and make sure that excess heat from those facilities is used far more effectively, and perhaps compulsorily, in future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. Before he corrected himself, I was about to contradict him and say that a number of energy-from-waste plants are already supplying district heating networks—as he said, there is a particularly big one in south London, which I have visited. It is doing so, because the Government supported it. It received grant money to enable it to do that. There are a number of others around the country, so we already have existing powers and support funds to support heat networks.
We are very supportive of energy-from-waste plants using the waste heat to connect into district heating networks. However, it is a difficult area, because it depends on a number of factors. You have to have the energy-from-waste plant in the first place, and office blocks, apartments, et cetera have to be available to take the waste heat. The noble Lord will know that later in the Bill we will discuss the zoning power for heat networks that local authorities will have, which hopefully will enable them to utilise those powers and take heat networks forward; there are a number that are very keen to do so. I would certainly envisage that a number of energy-from-waste plants—those in inner cities, in particular—will be able to take part in those initiatives.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response. I am somewhat reassured by the timetable that these regulations will be pursued against. I would like to mention that it is not unusual for government to announce things and for there to then be quite a long delay. Energy-efficiency standards reaching EPC C by 2035 was first announced in 2017, but we still have not seen that make it through. If we had, we would be in a far better position now as we face this winter, where we have shortages of gas, and we should have more efficient homes. There is a reason why we are pressing on this timescale.
I support the Government’s amendments as introduced and the Minister’s statement that it is not helpful to expand this particular scheme at the moment any further than it is already defined. It is important to have clarity. The nearest corollary to this legislation is the ZEV mandate, which we will probably discuss in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is better to have clarity of purpose that gives manufacturers and industry time to adapt and build an industry. It is clear in my mind that electrification of heat is probably 90% of the answer, if not the full answer. Therefore, getting it right, keeping it tight and giving confidence for investment would be the fastest way for us to get off volatile, expensive and unhealthy fossil fuels. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
“(2A) In the case of a low-carbon heat target that is imposed by virtue of subsection (1)(c) or (d) on a scheme participant who manufactures heating appliances, the target may be set by reference to heating appliances that are supplied or installed (whether or not by the scheme participant).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that a low-carbon heat target set by virtue of Clause 100(1)(c) or (d) may be set, in the case of a manufacturer, by reference to heating appliances of the manufacturer that are supplied or installed, whether by the manufacturer or someone else.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a minor drafting error in subsection (4) of Clause 100.
Baroness Randerson
“Low-carbon transport schemes(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment and operation of one or more low-carbon transport schemes.(2) A low-carbon transport scheme for the purposes of subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to, the use of hydrogen as fuel to power vehicles.(3) Regulations may include—(a) the setting of low-carbon transport targets,(b) encouraging and incentivising the provision of networks of refuelling stations supplying hydrogen for vehicles, and(c) encouraging and incentivising businesses which run fleets of vehicles to convert to hydrogen fuel.(4) Regulations must specify that, where low-carbon transport schemes include the use of hydrogen, the hydrogen must meet the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard. (5) Vehicles covered by low-carbon transport schemes may include e-bicycles and e-motorbicycles.(6) Hydrogen to power vehicles may be used in a fuel cell or burned in a combustion engine.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to encourage and incentivise the use of low-carbon transport schemes, similar to the low-carbon heat schemes in the Bill, particularly the use of hydrogen to power vehicles.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I decided to table this amendment, because I felt that it was important to draw attention to what I and many in the transport sector see as the lack of leadership from the Government on this issue. It is important to bear in mind that the Government have seemingly very good targets on decarbonising the transport sector, but there is no detail on how we are going to get there. The path ahead is very vague.
Transport is the largest carbon-emitting sector in the UK. It is responsible for a quarter of CO2 emissions globally. In the UK, the sector has reduced its emissions by only 3% since 1990. That stands in contrast with other sectors. There is a desperate need for leadership, because we are falling behind. The evidence is that we have to be halfway there by 2030 to reach the goals for 2050, but we do not have the plans, the policy or the path set out for us, and it is now a matter of great urgency.
One reason why emissions have not reduced is that although the technology has improved, the number of vehicles on the road has increased, as has the size of cars. Although they are more efficient kilo for kilo, if I can put it that way, they weigh more now and have a greater impact and emit greater amounts of carbon. I want to say briefly that we are talking about this in relation to carbon emissions, but it is, of course, a matter of health. It has a huge impact on our breathing and things like heart attacks, and so on. It is a matter of considerable importance in health.
A great deal is made about the move to electric vehicles, but only 2% of the vehicles on the roads so far are EVs. We are a very long way behind the leaders—countries such as Norway, where up to half of vehicles sold are EVs. My amendment refers specifically to hydrogen, and hydrogen is controversial. Of course, it must be green hydrogen. Even then, green hydrogen has disadvantages, but the advantage of hydrogen is that it provides an early answer to the difficult-to-decarbonise sectors of the transport world—that is, heavy goods vehicles, heavy vehicles generally and, of course, shipping, which is particularly difficult to decarbonise. That is one reason why there is the reference to hydrogen.
The other reason why there is a reference to hydrogen is that, unlike with electricity for vehicles, hydrogen cannot really be installed on a commercial basis unless the Government put in place a set of carrots and sticks to encourage it commercially to be installed. It costs over £1 million to install a hydrogen-fuelling point. It is not the answer for ordinary domestic cars. It could be the answer for fleets of vehicles such as vans, but it is not going to be, unless the Government provide leadership.
I have been raising this issue for the past six years at least, and the Government have said that the market will solve the problem of electric vehicle charging points. To a certain extent, the market has stepped in. Of course, there are huge gaps, but the market has stepped in. The reason it has been able to is that all around us there is electricity—but we do not have hydrogen all around us. I deliberately mention hydrogen in the amendment because the Government need to consider how they are going to lead on this issue.
I finish by saying that the point of the amendment is to open up the matter for discussion and to give the Government the opportunity to consider—and, I hope, to think again about—the urgent need for leadership in setting out a set of steps, a policy or plan. These exist in other countries without Governments taking a huge commercial risk, but simply by providing the incentives to encourage people to choose more environmentally friendly ways of fuelling their vehicles and ensuring that, having chosen a more environmentally friendly vehicle, they can run it efficiently and effectively.
Noble Lords will be well aware that every time we talk about electric vehicles, there is immediately a discussion of the latest crisis that someone has faced in being unable to charge their EV—despite the fact that they are probably running short of electricity outside a house or fuel station that is blazing in electricity. Let us just think about how much more complex the matter is if we are talking about hydrogen.
This is about discussing the difficult issues and encouraging the Government to look ahead and plan—urgently—for what must be achieved. The average life of vehicles on the roads now is 16 years, I believe, and that will probably get longer because we are facing a period of difficulty, austerity and rising prices. This is therefore important, because those decisions made this year about what vehicle to buy—whether you are an individual or as a company—will be with us for decades to come. The Government must lead in the way only Governments can. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 124A, as presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I must say that it is seldom that we disagree, because we both share the objectives of a rapid response to the growing climate risk, rapid decarbonisation and increasing the efficiency of our energy systems. I welcome this chance to have a debate about the intersectionality between transport and energy. In fact, and not to pre-empt it, I have an Oral Question later this week about how departments connect on these issues. It is hugely important that the DfT, in particular, teams up with BEIS on planning for our future decarbonised energy systems.
That said, I do not think it will come as any surprise that I am absolutely opposed to the idea of bringing in this set of amendments as currently drafted. My belief is that hydrogen will have a very limited role, for three reasons. First, it is itself a climate change gas and it is very slippery; it is the smallest molecule on the periodic table and it escapes everywhere. I do not wish to have hydrogen all around me—quite the opposite. I want hydrogen in very controlled places, being looked after by industrial chemists; I do not want it in my home or in my vehicle. We just have to look at the explosion of the hydrogen fuelling station in Norway. It is often forgotten but this is a hugely explosive gas. Norway managed to blow one of its fuelling stations and, if Norway can blow things up, anyone can.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the thrust of these amendments but I also have huge qualms about hydrogen and electric vehicles. Quite honestly, electric vehicles still clog the roads and their drivers still run over and kill people. If we are thinking about low carbon, we should go for public transport.
I also want to quibble with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, when she said that there was a lack of government leadership on this issue. The fact is that the Government are not giving us leadership on any issues. They are running around like a pack of confused ferrets. We are incredibly lucky that the whole of Britain is somehow hanging together and not having any disasters.
Returning to the amendments, something Greens are always very concerned about is marketisation and financial engineering around environmental issues. The UK has a long and dangerous track record of mismanaging this. In the same way that financial engineering around mortgages caused the 2008 financial crisis, there are risks that bankers will abuse the climate crisis as an opportunity to get filthy rich while destroying the very systems we are working to protect. It has been done before.
That is why we are concerned about concepts such as natural capital, which risks being a double-edged sword. If it helps policymakers to recognise the immense value of our natural capital and our natural world, it might be helpful, but if it simply creates new opportunities for bankers to get filthy rich, it is deeply dangerous.
For this reason, it is essential that carbon removals are genuine physical processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and lock it up. There cannot be any ambiguity or scope for financial markets to exploit for profit, or for our Government to claim success when no real carbon dioxide has been removed from the atmosphere.
I was at a round table last week; there were about 16 of us, and we were fairly evenly divided between scientists and parliamentarians. All the parliamentarians were from the Commons, apart from me. The scientists all agreed with each other and kept saying the same thing: that we must stop burning fossil fuels. However, all the parliamentarians, apart from me, said, “Oh, that’s quite difficult—I cannot ask my constituents not to fly”, and things like that. My concern is for the Government to be deeply behind the science. Even the UN is now saying that we must act urgently. You cannot, even now, talk about low carbon and net zero; we are past the point where they will have the impact that we need. Instead, we should be talking about carbon-negative measures. If the Government do not wake up to that very soon, I hope that we can replace them.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, much has been said already. I agree with the main thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which urges the Government to set out a very clear case for the decarbonisation of the various transport sectors. I do not think that we are there yet, and I do not think that the industry feels that we are there yet. It is important, for the reasons that the noble Baroness has just spelled out, that the transport sector knows which way it is going.
I must partially apologise to and reassure the Committee, because some of my speech was intended for the previous group of amendments. As noble Lords were making such commendable progress this afternoon, I did not get here in time to intervene on the amendment on home heating—an issue where, again, some clarity of decision is needed. Home owners and landlords are now faced with decisions on how to replace their gas boilers: they know they need to get rid of their gas boilers, but quite what they are going to get to replace them with is unclear. Of course, people replace their cars, and even their lorries and buses, rather more frequently than their houses and boilers. It is important, therefore, for the transport industry that there is some clarity on the general direction of government policy for the different sectors of transport.
On this topic, we immediately run up against the issue of hydrogen. I am not quite as sceptical as some of my colleagues, but I am sceptical, because hydrogen has been seen as a “get out of jail” card for almost every sector on their decarbonisation trails. That is not only for heavy industry, to replace the very heavily carbon-fuelled industries such as steel, glass and so forth, with its knock-on effect on the construction industry, et cetera, but for parts of the transport sector and for home heating. It has been seen by some as the solution to the decarbonisation of heavy vehicles, shipping, the train system and even aviation. However, hydrogen is not capable of doing that without safety dangers; and, in any case, it is not capable of doing that because we do not yet have the technology for producing green hydrogen at scale. Therefore, it will come in, if at all, only much further down the line. However, waiting for hydrogen—whether in the form of hydrogen blend for home heating or hydrogen-based vehicles or batteries for the transport sector—is seen as an excuse for not taking other technologies more seriously and urgently than we have done.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would require the Government to do that job for the transport sector. I think that they need to do that for other sectors as well, and that they should not exaggerate either the degree to which hydrogen is the solution or, in particular, the closeness of technological breakthroughs to provide genuinely green hydrogen. It is not going to happen in the kind of timescale that we are talking about. Therefore, the amendment has implications beyond transport, but transport itself needs a clear plan. I hope that the Minister will take up with his transport colleagues the need to work urgently, as the noble Baroness’s amendment urges, to ensure that the transport sector knows where it is going, even if nobody else does.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to speak a second time—I am not sure whether I am allowed—but may I speak to Amendments 130A and 130B? In my excitement I forgot to speak to them. Those amendments in my name seek to address the carbon removals questions in the Bill.
Amendment 130A is to try to interrogate the Government’s amendments to the definitions of carbon removals, as stated in the Climate Change Act. My amendment would reinstate reference to forestry and other physical activities in the UK. I think this amendment is necessary because we do not want to see definitions used in the Climate Change Act, which are foundational to our understanding of what we need to do to tackle climate change domestically, to somehow allow vague processes such as the purchasing of offsets or some other financial instrument to be eligible for the net-zero accounting. I seek reassurances on that. I also seek reassurances that we acknowledge that forestry and land use need to be referenced alongside mechanical sinks to keep the system holistic and inclusive. So I am probing on those two questions: forestry and land use, and making sure we are talking about physical activity and not financial chicanery or accounting trickery.
I feel quite passionate about Amendment 130B. I am sure the UK will emerge as a world leader in this regard. If we are to become the centre of a market or set of policies that are economy-wide in decarbonising our system, we will have to get to grips with the MRV—the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon removals—to get to a net-zero position. It is hugely important. When you burn a tonne of fossil fuel the impacts are certain and very low in error bars, but when it comes to the biospheric removal of carbon in particular, there are huge uncertainties and an absolute paucity of data. It really has not been looked at comprehensively enough, especially now that large sums of money may be resting on this approach to reaching net zero.
I urge the Minister and the department to really assess what the UK could do to set some gold-standard regulations regarding carbon removals. Let us start the debate with this Bill, pursue it and continue with it. Given that we are at the forefront of reaching these challenging carbon budgets that we have set ourselves, I have no doubt that carbon removals will have a role to play. But let us do it in a world-class way and not use it as a weasel-word excuse for allowing fossil fuels to continue, without the certainty that those removals are genuine, additional and permanent and can offset the almost permanent damage that we know occurs from the release of fossil fuels. It is hugely important that we do this. I tabled this as an opportunity to spark a debate, and I hope we will come back and consider it in more detail. The UK has a great potential role to play in this area.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, I took part in the report we produced on batteries. The genie is out of the bottle on domestic EVs. That is going to happen; I think we are well on the road to better and better battery technology.
When the committee examined transport, we heard that batteries are heavy—a battery to power a bus would be very heavy—so there is a role for hydrogen in public transport for return-to-base vehicles where hydrogen does not have to be moved too far. Where there is a limited number of filling stations, that is a model that could work. Shipping and heavy industry, such as cement, are other applications for hydrogen.
My noble friend Lady Randerson mentioned fuel cells. We found in our report that for some reason the Government are not backing research on fuel cells to the extent that they could. Fuel cells would be another potentially sensible source of power for heavy transport vehicles, so I support the basic thrust of my noble friend’s amendment.
Amendments 130A and 130B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, are really crucial. We are going to have to look at carbon removals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said earlier. We need to do it in a way that gives confidence against greenwashing, of which there is far too much. The only way to do that is if accounting for carbon is rigorous.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, in her two Amendments 130A and 130B and stress that the measurement, monitoring and verification of UK removals is vital. I declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust. I have just been involved in the bowels of the woodland carbon code. It is quite staggering to think that many of these verified units of removal will not achieve full verification for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years and are then required to persist for 100 years. We have to find a way of inventing a system that will keep an eye on a plethora of landowners and land interests who are planting trees to sequester carbon and have that effective supervision, light-touch as it may be, for 100 years.
This will be quite a challenge. It is something I would appreciate the Minister responding to. We are now in the middle of implementing the peat carbon code, which will have similar difficulties, but perhaps the most important one has not yet been developed: the soils carbon code. That is of far more potential than either the peatland or woodland carbon codes in sequestering carbon. It will be a very widespread code because soils exist everywhere, though not all of them will be potentially good at sequestering carbon. I urge the Minister to accept these two amendments and give us a feel, as it were, of those 100 years and how the complexity of the carbon codes can be relied upon.
Before I finish, I make a similar apology to that of my noble friend Lord Whitty, as I was not here to speak to my Amendment 119. I did not miscalculate the pace at which the Bill would go; I was miscalculating the pace at which a snowed-in train would move. Since the Minister is appearing before the Environment and Climate Change Committee on Wednesday, I can ask him the question then anyway.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
This has become a very rich debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for putting her amendments forward to enable us to have these broader discussions. We have said from the start that the difficulty with this Bill is the things that are not in it; this is one area we can all learn from and hopefully move forward on.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for the explanation of her Amendments 130A and 130B. I am sure that we would all welcome more clarity in these areas, and indeed a strategy so that we can bring confidence and certainty to the sector in the way that she described.
I will focus most on Amendment 124A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in my comments and, in particular, the notion of adding local carbon transport schemes to the section on low-carbon heat schemes—indeed, to run alongside them.
As many will know, this was last looked at under the last Labour Government, with the 2009 report Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future, which, interestingly, was published by the DfT. It made recommendations on supporting a shift to new technologies and fuels, promoting lower-carbon choices, and using market mechanisms to encourage a shift to lower-carbon transport. Of course we have moved on in many ways, but these principles should not be overlooked and we should continue to put in our full effort.
Specifically on hydrogen vehicles, we believe there is merit in looking at potential in the HGV sector. The discussions about shipping were interesting as well, but we feel that so much more focus needs to be put on alternatives, certainly in the short-term. Electric is obviously being looked at.
It is important to debate this at this point because, with the global situation regarding gas supplies, we are focusing our attention on domestic energy in particular, for obvious reasons—the cost of living crisis, security issues and all that goes with it—but we have to bear in mind that transport is one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions in the UK. In 2019, it accounted for 34% of the UK’s total carbon emissions. Its emissions have remained largely unchanged since the 1990s, which we cannot say about the energy supply generally. We have to ask why transport is such a poor performer.
We need to be concerned about where we get the electricity from if we continue with our ambition. If we are to reach our target of net-zero emissions by 2050, the decision to ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 will help, but there are so many other areas that we should focus on: alternative modes of transport, cycling and walking, and shared travel options. From my point of view, we have this enormous disconnect between transport policy and the policy we are discussing. We need to pick it up and take it seriously.
I speak with my experience of being a member of Transport for the North. All the schemes we tried to bring in through the integrated rail plan to deliver not only for the travelling public but for the impact on the climate seem to have been left behind. We have discussed this before. We have had Questions in the Chamber about the lack of joined-up thinking from the Government, which needs seriously to be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to it as a lack of leadership and vagueness in the plan, but why are we not cross-referencing within the Bill to the work that needs to be done?
Speaking with my local government hat on, on building new homes, why can we not look at the schemes in Scandinavia in particular, where every new home has solar panels and the excess electricity generated is taken off and fed into personal electric charging points for vehicles? There are so many examples that we should look at.
The amendment has generated an opportunity to discuss this. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but in particular to her explanation as to why there is such a lack of joined-up thinking in these areas, where the potential could be enormous.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly those who tabled amendments.
I will speak first to Amendment 124A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, but I must start by taking issue with the idea that the Government are not showing leadership. I believe that they are showing leadership with low-carbon transport solutions. For example, this year alone we have announced £200 million for the zero-emission road freight demonstrator programme, which includes hydrogen and electrification for HGVs; another £200 million for zero-emission buses, again including both hydrogen and pure electric; £30 million for a fleet of 124 buses in the West Midlands; £206 million for the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—or UK SHORE—to decarbonise maritime, which includes a mix of different technologies; and up to £12 million until August 2023 and up to £60 million until March 2025 for the second and third rounds of the clean maritime demonstration competition, funding feasibility studies and pre-deployment trials in zero-emission shipping hydrogen technologies for maritime applications. As the noble Baroness will be aware, there is also £20 million for phase 2 of the Tees Valley hydrogen transport hub, with an additional £300,000 put forward to support local skills.
On aviation, the SR21 funding for hydrogen-related aviation activity has not yet been announced but is forthcoming. We have also announced £165 million for the advanced fuels fund to kick-start a sustainable aviation fuel industry in the UK.
All this goes to demonstrate that we are doing a lot of work to show leadership in this area, putting money into research to help us solve some of the problems raised in this debate. Work is already under way in the Department for Transport in close collaboration with BEIS; it is really helpful that the former Secretary of State for Transport is now the Secretary of State for BEIS, so he will be very well versed in some of these issues. I can reassure noble Lords of the continual conversation that happens between the two departments in this regard. In close collaboration with BEIS, as set out in the Government’s transport decarbonisation plan, the Department for Transport is delivering on its comprehensive plan for decarbonising transport, which includes supporting a greater role for hydrogen through schemes such as those I have mentioned.
As we have seen, there is a significant role for hydrogen in heavier transport applications or where things such as refuelling times and infrastructure constraints make it the best choice. However, we do not consider that a new statutory, regulatory regime would add anything new to the work already being done. It is always necessary to consider whether the benefit outweighs the regulatory burden. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by the Government’s commitment to this cause, and I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 130A seeks to limit the definition of “UK removals” in Section 29 of the Climate Change Act, excluding mechanisms such as financial instruments that do not relate to the physical removal of greenhouse gases in the UK. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that Clause 111 does not expand the definition of “UK removals” to non-physical processes, but instead to greenhouse gas removals achieved by engineered methods, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. This is to align the definition with current international best practice, including guidelines set out by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
I equally reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it is the Government’s priority to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and to adapt to those climate change impacts that are unavoidable. We are clear that the purpose of greenhouse gas removals is to balance the residual emissions from sectors that are unlikely to achieve full decarbonisation by 2050. It is not a substitute for decisive action across the economy to reduce emissions. Nature-based methods, such as afforestation and habitat restoration, will be essential in removing and storing carbon dioxide at scale while delivering a range of additional environmental benefits, such as biodiversity gain, air quality and soil health.
The Climate Change Act 2008 allows the Government to purchase off-sets or other traded instruments to set towards our emission reduction targets. The Government do not currently intend to purchase off-sets to set towards our carbon budgets, although they have retained the option to do so in future, if appropriate. I can see that I shall never manage to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Could I just point out that it is easier not to send loads of CO2 out into the atmosphere in the first place? It is great to hear about all the millions that the Government are spending on these measures, but it would be cheaper not to pollute in the first place. Things such as carbon capture and storage are all incredibly theoretical ideas, so you cannot actually say that it is going to happen, because it may not.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I knew that I would provoke a debate by specifically mentioning hydrogen—and that was my intention. I wanted to tease out the Government’s views. I thank the Minister for her response, but it was light on detail as, I fear, the whole of the Government’s policy is.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on her view of the Government. I fear that the Government have been so self-obsessed for the past two or three years that there is a policy vacuum in all sorts of places, and transport is one of them. I also agree with her that we need to rely very much more on public transport but, of course, the vast majority of public transport is provided by buses, which are heavy vehicles. Electricity is fine in towns and cities but it is not yet the answer for long distances in rural areas or for long-distance buses. Of course, not enough of our electricity is green and comes from renewable resources. Despite the ingenious plans for the national grid, we have a crisis of capacity, which will face us very soon if we all rely on electric vehicles.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to aviation. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s jet zero strategy, which is a triumph of optimism over reality.
My noble friend Lady Sheehan made a very important point about batteries. It is important to emphasise that we are well behind in the international race for developing gigafactory capacity. Very soon, rules of origin will be a problem for those wishing to export.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not know what the noble Baroness is doing; she is supposed to be deciding whether she will withdraw her amendment, not responding to a debate. This is not a debate on general activity relating to hydrogen. She should say whether she wants to withdraw her amendment—that is the question.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, in Grand Committee it is normal to allow people the courtesy to respond to well-made points from noble Lords. I want to make it absolutely clear that the intention of my amendment was to provoke debate. I am disappointed that the Government’s response has been so limited. The amounts of money announced by the Minister are attractive and worth while, but they need to be multiplied by at least 10 to have any impact at all.
I will withdraw the amendment, of course, but I remind noble Lords of the words of the United Nations Secretary-General:
“We are in the fight of our lives, and we are losing”—
we need a sense of urgency. I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
We have discussed the issue of hydrogen, so I will delight your Lordships by saving my voice. I do not intend to speak on whether Clause 108 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to the Clause 108 and Clause 109 stand part notices and to Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
We have had wide-ranging debates but, when it comes down to the content of the Bill, the most egregious elements are possibly these two clauses. It seems absolutely incredible that we should require people to enter into a trial for something on which multiple studies have been undertaken already. We are essentially legislating to force people to take part in something we already know the answer to. We know the answer because 32 independent studies of the use of hydrogen in heating—since 2019, so they are relatively recent—by organisations including the IPCC, the IEA, Imperial College, the Potsdam Institute, the University of Manchester, the Wuppertal Institut, Element Energy and the International Council on Clean Transportation, have all found that hydrogen should not play a role in heating buildings. Hydrogen will be hugely inefficient, compared with other clean alternatives and gas, in terms of pure energy efficiency, damaging to health and dangerous. That should be enough evidence for the Government to rule out this unnecessary trial.
I honestly believe that this is a consequence of a huge amount of lobbying coming from the incumbents in the industry, including those who today manufacture gas boilers, produce gas and move gas around in the networks. What they fail to mention is that it is not as simple as just switching over to hydrogen: you have to replace virtually everything to be able to burn hydrogen at high levels. Yes, of course, you can burn very low levels, but who wants low levels? We are talking about a net-zero strategy in the next 25 years; you cannot afford to go through increments of 20% hydrogen and 30% hydrogen—it is simply not credible. It will do exactly what we saw in the co-firing of biomass in coal-fired power stations; it keeps the incumbents going for longer, keeps their investors and shareholders happy, and gives them an answer to the question, “How are you going to make your business compatible with climate change?”. It is a glib answer. It is not a full answer—in fact, it is false—but it is an answer none the less. That is why we are being forced into considering this, even though the evidence is absolutely clear that this is not the answer.
If I were a resident living in one of these poor villages—the villages of the damned, as I like to call them—I would be absolutely up in arms at the prospect of being forced into this egregious position in which I am asked to take this technology, which will be more expensive, less beneficial for my health and more damaging to the climate compared with other alternatives. I fully support the withdrawal of the two clauses; the Bill would be vastly better if we got rid of them. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I particularly support the proposal to take out Clauses 108 and 109. I did not put my name to that, but it seems the obvious solution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we have all been on the receiving end of massive lobbying by the hydrogen lobby. I will not go into hydrogen extensively, but clearly there are areas where hydrogen will need to work. It will be important in some energy-intensive industries and some long-term transport solutions, but we seem to have overreached in terms of those applications.
For heating, it just cannot make sense to use green hydrogen, which would have to be produced by renewable electricity, as electricity could be used anyway. Scientifically and in terms of the laws of physics and efficiency, it does not make sense. Heating is an important area—as we said, it represents some 40% of UK emissions—so surely it must be electrification directly, geothermal technologies or air source heat pumps, as we have discussed before. That is why I think these clauses not standing part is the best solution. If that is not agreed, I thank the noble Baroness for supporting my amendment; the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has a similar one. This should not be compulsory and those consumers should be very aware of all the other repercussions.
My second amendment, Amendment 126, is less important. As with previous amendments, it just makes sure that only people who really benefit from these trials should have to pay for them and that those who do not should not. I do not understand how BEIS and the Government have become the victims of the lobbying that takes place.
Finally, perhaps I can cite a gentleman whose work I have been reading, Jan Rosenow. He takes his statistics from BEIS’s Hydrogen Production Costs 2021 and Ofgem’s wholesale market indicators. He is very clear that, depending on how you look at the timescale between now and 2050, hydrogen will cost three to 11 times more than fossil fuel gas at its present levels. Clearly, this is not an acceptable solution or route for decarbonisation.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments relate to Clauses 108 and 109—Chapter 2 in Part 3—on hydrogen grid conversion trials, covering modifications of the gas code and regulations for the protection of consumers. The background to this is that in 2021 the Government launched a consultation on facilitating a grid conversion hydrogen heating trial. The Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution sets out the ambition to support the industry to deliver hydrogen neighbourhood and hydrogen village trials by 2025. This consultation sought views on proposals to legislate to allow gas distribution network operators to carry out activities needed to deliver a grid conversion.
It would be unfair to say that the Government did not alert people to the complexity of the trial, because the consultation document announced that it involved replacing gas supplies with hydrogen in consumers’ premises. It also said:
“Existing in-home appliances and devices such as boilers and meters will need to be replaced with hydrogen-compatible equivalents. Pipework may need to be replaced if it is not already suitable for hydrogen. Additional internal work may also be required to make the property ‘hydrogen-ready’.”
On the face of it, the Government understood the complexity. They also said that the trials would be carried out by the gas distribution network operators in partnership with local authorities, and that, in the trial of hydrogen, safety
“will be of paramount importance”—
that is good news—with the Health and Safety Executive being consulted and involved in any measures of conversion.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will start with Amendments 125 to 127; I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their contributions and for promoting them. The amendments relate to Clause 109, which, alongside Clause 108, will ensure the safe and effective delivery of a village-scale hydrogen heating trial. This trial will gather evidence to enable the Government to make strategic decisions on the role of hydrogen in heat decarbonisation. I know that there are very strongly held opinions on whether hydrogen is the correct solution, but we will never know unless we do the appropriate research and trials.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me finish, then the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, will be able to come back.
I will start with Amendments 125 and 126. With Amendment 125, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, calls for an adequate level of information to be provided to consumers in the trial area concerning safety, long-run bill impacts and opting out of the trial. I agree that these are important issues. Support from local people will be crucial to the success of the trial, and gas transporters are already working closely with communities in the potential trial locations. In fact, the relevant Members of Parliament have already been in touch with me, and I already have meetings in my diary to talk with them and residents from the local areas about this.
Steps have already been taken to ensure that people have all the information required to make an informed choice about whether they wish to participate. Both gas transporters have opened demonstration centres in the two shortlisted local communities to raise awareness of what the trial would involve.
Clause 109 provides the Secretary of State with the power to require the gas transporter running the trial to take specific steps to make sure that consumers are properly informed about the trial. In meeting their responsibilities to inform consumers, we fully expect gas transporters to provide clear information about each of the important topics listed in the noble Lord’s amendment.
I turn to Amendment 126. The Government have been very clear that no consumer in the trial location should be financially disadvantaged due to taking part in the trial. Last year, the Government published a framework of consumer protections that will underpin the trial. Consumers in the trial location will not be expected to pay more for their heating than they would if they had remained on natural gas or to pay for the installation and maintenance of hydrogen-capable appliances.
The village trial will be paid for through a combination of government and Ofgem funding and contributions from the private sector. All gas consumers pay a very small amount towards Ofgem’s net-zero funding for network companies, which supports projects to decarbonise the energy sector; that includes this trial. All gas consumers will benefit from well-informed strategic decisions on how to decarbonise the way we heat our homes.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that the important issues he has raised, about which I agree with him, are already effectively addressed by the Bill, and therefore that he feels able not to press his amendments.
I move on to Amendment 127 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. As I have said, local support will be crucial to the success of the trial. Gas transporters are already working closely with communities in the potential trial locations to develop an attractive offer for people who want to convert to hydrogen. However, we understand that not everyone will want or be able to connect to hydrogen, and the Government are clear that nobody will be forced to do so. The gas transporter running the trial will have to provide alternative heating solutions and appliances for people who do not take part in the trial. In May 2022, this requirement was clearly set out in a joint letter from BEIS and Ofgem to the gas transporters, alongside the other requirements that must be met before any funding is provided for the next stages of the trial. The gas transporters will need to demonstrate that they have a viable plan for providing alternatives to hydrogen. There is already an effective way to ensure that they provide alternatives to hydrogen, through the Government’s funding requirements.
We therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary. I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s intention—which I share—to ensure that the trial is conducted properly, with alternative heating systems offered to people who do not take part. With that information, I hope he feels reassured that there are already steps in place to ensure this and will therefore feel able not to move the amendment.
I will say a few words about the stand part notices on Clauses 108 and 109. I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Worthington, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, who is not here now, have registered their intention to vote against these clauses. I have already established that the overall intent of these clauses is to support a safe and effective trial for hydrogen heating.
Clause 108 allows the Secretary of State to designate a hydrogen grid conversion trial, ensuring that both this clause and Clause 109 are narrow in scope and would apply only for the purposes of such a trial. Importantly, the clause expands the duty to participants of the gas transporter running the trial to undertake the required work without charge. It also makes certain modifications to the Gas Act 1986 to build on existing provisions concerning powers of entry. This will ensure that the gas transporter running the trial has clear grounds to enter private properties to: carry out any essential works, including replacing appliances and installing and testing safety valves; undertake inspections and tests for the trial, such as safety checks; and safely disconnect the gas supply in a property.
It is important to emphasise that gas transporters already have powers of entry into properties through the Gas Act. We are merely extending these powers in a very limited way to conduct the necessary work to set up and deliver the trial. Gas transporters will only ever use these extended powers as a very last resort once all other attempts to contact property owners and reach an agreement are exhausted. The existing rules on powers of entry requiring a gas transporter to obtain a warrant from a magistrates’ court will continue to apply, of course. I reiterate once again that nobody will be forced to use hydrogen. I have already covered the plans for alternative arrangements in my comments on the amendment earlier.
Finally, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the majority of responses to the public consultation the department ran last year on facilitating a hydrogen village trial were broadly supportive of our proposals to change legislation in this way. I therefore urge that Clause 108 stands part of the Bill.
Clause 109 provides the Government with the powers to establish consumer protections for people taking part in this world-leading hydrogen village trial. It will do this by giving the Secretary of State two delegated powers to make regulations which require the gas transporter running the trial to follow specific processes to engage and inform consumers about the trial, and ensure that consumers are protected before, during and after the trial.
The department is of course working closely with the gas transporters as they develop their plans for consumer engagement and protection. It is worth saying that there is quite a bit of support in these communities for the trial. The council leaders in the areas concerned have expressed their support and one MP in particular is actively campaigning for their area to take part in the trial. Opinion is obviously mixed in both communities, but we want to make sure that it has the maximum level of support required. I have already highlighted the importance of consumer engagement and support in my earlier comments. Regulations made under this clause will ensure that people will have all the information required to make an informed choice about whether they wish to participate.
The second power in this clause, to introduce regulations for consumer protections, will work alongside existing protections such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Gas (Standards of Performance) Regulations 2005. This recognises that it is a first-of-its-kind trial and will allow the Government to introduce additional protections for consumers in the trial area. These might include regulations to ensure that consumers are not financially disadvantaged by taking part in the trial.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that these provisions, which—as I said, again—were well received by stakeholders when we consulted on them last year, are crucial to ensure the fair treatment and protection of people in the selected trial area.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
The Minister said that no one would be forced to take part in the trial. I appreciate that but, first, it seems like the place for that statement to be made is within the Energy Bill. Secondly, will they be given an alternative low-carbon solution?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The answer to both of those questions is yes. No one will be forced to take part in the trial. If they do not take part in the trial, they will of course be given an alternative low-carbon solution.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Can the Minister clarify what areas are being looked at? I have seen Redcar, Whitby and Fife being looked at as potential areas. Are those agreed? Is the number roughly three and when are those locations likely to be confirmed?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There is already a small-scale trial in Fife in Scotland. There are two shortlisted villages, Redcar and Whitby—on the west coast, not Whitby on the east coast. They have been shortlisted for the trial and we will make a decision on the basis of submissions from both communities in the new year.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I respond on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the stand part notice that we have both signed. I thank the Minister for his response. To be honest, because I am so clear that this should not form part of the Bill, I have not gone through all the detailed provisions in these two clauses. The Minister seems to be saying that there is an absolute right of refusal, but my reading of both clauses is that the emphasis is that required information must be provided. There might be protections from financial penalties—that is implied when it talks about protecting consumers—but I cannot see it written down anywhere that the regulations will enshrine the consumers’ right of refusal.
I would be grateful if the Minister would undertake to write to us on this because this seems like a scheme where the fox is being put in charge of the henhouse. The gas transporters are the interlocuters between the poor people living in these villages who are going to be told that this is the great answer to their climate change concerns. Will they provide adequate information about safety? You are at least four times more likely to have an accident with hydrogen; it has been verified.
I take issue with the Minister’s characterisation of this as being a matter of opinion where “some people think this” and “some people think that”. It is not true. This is clear physics and chemistry. It is more likely. You may get slightly more frequent accidents at a lower explosion rate, but that does not reassure me in the slightest. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have taken place and we do not live isolated from the rest of the world. Other countries have tried this. There have been countless trials and there have even been studies in this country. This is not a safe way of proceeding. It needs to be made categorically clear that independent advice should be given to these villages, not advice given by the gas transporters which, of course, have a huge, vested interest in this going ahead.
I am afraid that I am in no way assured by the responses I have received. I certainly would not want to be living in one of these villages. I would not want hydrogen anywhere near my home. I will continue to advocate on that basis. I will not press my objection to this clause at this stage, but I am sure that we will return to this on Report. This is going to get—and needs—a lot more scrutiny. A lot more independence needs putting into the process, and it needs a rethink.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me just respond to the noble Baroness’s point and reiterate once again that nobody will be forced to take part in these trials. There is extensive information available. As I said, there are campaigns in some communities which want to take part in the trials. At least one MP in one of the areas is campaigning for it, and both council leaders have been contacted by officials and are supportive of it. Obviously, people want reassurance and more information; that will happen.
The noble Baroness’s other point about health and safety is crucial. I actually agree with her that, potentially, hydrogen is dangerous. Natural gas is also potentially dangerous, but we have mitigated the safety concerns of that. We will want to make sure that the HSE is involved in studies as well, and we will not do anything to put anybody at risk or do anything that will prejudice their safety. That goes without saying, and there are extensive studies taking place.
I also have some scepticism about the potential use of hydrogen for home heating, but I believe that we should do the trials to assure ourselves one way or the other where the truth lies, and whether the existing network can be repurposed easily, simply and cheaply for hydrogen. We do not actually know the answers to those questions until we do the studies, and that involves doing a trial to find that out.
With those reassurances, once again, let me reassure noble Lords that nobody will be forced to take part in these trials. Everybody will be provided with the appropriate information, and nobody will suffer any financial loss because of it, but I believe that it is worth pushing ahead with these trials.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
Would the Minister point to where in the Bill it states that there is a right to refusal and consumers can object? It should be stated up front in the legislation so that the regulations are clear.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am giving the noble Baroness that assurance now, and it will be in the regulations. I am happy to put it in writing, if she wishes. It is not in the Bill, because that is not the place for secondary regulations. The Bill provides the principles and the powers for the Secretary of State. Of course, when we make the regulations, there will be further potential for that to be discussed both in this House and in the House of Commons, and I am sure that it will be.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The Minister mentioned having meetings. Has he actually met scientists, who know more about this than do people involved in financing the scheme?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has her very passionate views, but there are lots of alternative views out there as well. We are saying that it needs to be properly looked at and studied on the basis of evidence—I know that the Greens are sometimes not big on evidence, but we believe that policy should be properly evidenced and studied. That is why we think that it is important that we should do these trials.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
With a Bill of this magnitude, if we are saying that it is a principle that there is a right to refuse, that principle should be in the primary legislation. That is where you put principles—and then the details can be worked out. Nothing in the Bill says that consumers have the right to refuse. I am sure that we are going to revisit this, as it is fundamentally important that principles are enshrined in primary legislation.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Can I briefly support that? The place to put it is under protection of consumers in the Bill. There is a clause entitled “Regulations for protection of consumers”, and the right not to take part in the trial would be one of those protections.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on this—but could I ask the Minister a separate point about how the trials will be carried out? The Minister said they were going to provide evidence. I want to ask how long the trials will last. One of the issues with hydrogen, if I understand it, is its impact on the pipes that carry the gas to the boilers, et cetera. Those pipes perish in time, because the hydrogen makes them brittle in a way that natural gas does not. Of course, that will lead to cracks and leakages. Will the trial take place over a long enough period to see whether that is indeed the case and what the jeopardy from those pipes might be?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me reiterate once again. Noble Lords are getting involved in the detail of what these trials will comprise—timescales, consumer protections, et cetera. This Bill is about giving the Secretary of State the powers to make the regulations, which will then come back this House, when I am sure that we will have a massively long and involved discussion about all these precise and important details—but this Bill is not the place.
Lord Teverson (LD)
In defence of my noble friend, I think it is reasonable to ask the Minister to come back and give us an indication of the length of the trials. He must know that, and that would be a very useful bit of information.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The initial intention is for them to last two years, but we will want to come back and look at all these details on the basis of proper scientific evidence.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
Introduction: Lord Peach
Death of a Former Member: Lord Young of Graffham
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of Lord Young of Graffham on 9 December. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to his family and friends.
Football: Abuse and Violence
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government are clear that all forms of antisocial behaviour, abuse and assault against match officials, whether on or off the pitch, are completely unacceptable. The Government regularly discuss the measures being taken by the football authorities to stamp out this behaviour and will continue to press for action against the small minority of people who act in this way.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
There are a large number of 14 to 17 year-old children—boys and girls—who are referees. The Football Association tells me that it is 35% of registered referees. Despite their age, these children receive abuse from parents and coaches—from adults. In some cases, when that happens they have to go, without support, into a decentralised system run by the FA and face the person who has abused them. Does the Minister agree that the FA needs a centralised system and that the first principle for these children should be safeguarding, not the football systems that currently prevail?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important issue. One of the great powers of sport is that it brings people of all ages and all backgrounds together. Of course, we want everybody who takes part to have a fulfilling and enjoyable experience. That is a matter for the football authorities, but I will be very happy to undertake to make sure that officials at my department are speaking to them about this issue.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Government give us some idea of their opinion of the professional conduct in football whereby people sit around and shout at a referee who has given a decision they do not like? Will the Government encourage the FA to make sure that dissent is punishable by a card or a sending off? If you do this, you can rest assured that professional managers will not want to end games with seven or eight players.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We believe that change needs to come from the top and participants in the professional game have the opportunity to be positive role models for people taking part at every level. That is a central message in the FA’s new “Enough is Enough” campaign. Underlining this, last month the FA challenged a decision by the independent regulatory commission only to fine the manager of Liverpool FC following his sending off by the referee for shouting in the face of a linesman. The FA won its appeal and Mr Klopp served a one-game touchline ban.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I declare a double interest after that answer, as both a member of the Football Regulatory Authority and a supporter of Liverpool Football Club. As my noble friend has said, all forms of abuse are unacceptable. The FA is doing important work in this area, including safeguarding. There are going to be increased sanctions, more education for both players and supporters and, at grass-roots level, the introduction of the sin-bin—which may be an idea that my noble friend the Chief Whip will take up at some point. Does my noble friend welcome these developments and the increased focus to make sure that every match official is protected from abuse within and outside the stadium, so that we can all make the beautiful game even more beautiful?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on his appointment and commend the work undertaken by the Football Association. I have mentioned its “Enough is Enough” campaign, which is taking action against anybody whose behaviour is unacceptable. The FA can also ban anybody who is abusive or violent towards match officials, and stricter sanctions have been introduced this season which will see longer bans put in place and mandatory education courses before anyone found guilty can return to football.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that even in the most important football games, referees sometimes make inexplicable decisions—a whole series of them—which have a very adverse impact on the result? In the light of that, will he commend the attitude of the England manager, Gareth Southgate, and the England players, who displayed admirable sportsmanship in the most difficult of circumstances?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will not speculate on any recent examples of the behaviour the noble Lord mentions, but I most certainly do congratulate the whole England football team for their conduct throughout the World Cup. They have made people, not just in England, very proud of their behaviour and people have enjoyed their very creditable performance.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately I have personal experience of being assaulted on a football pitch as a young referee. I do not recall making any bad decisions, by the way. In all seriousness, the Minister said that this was a small minority of cases; I only wish that that were true. I am the president of a very large kids’ football team, involving some 400 children, and we have to make sure that parents—both mums and dads—who are looking after kids of only five, six or seven years of age, are not shouting abuse at referees or even running on to the pitch. Is it not possible for the county FAs to give very clear directions that, if anything like this happens, the parents should be banned from watching their games and teams for at least a full season?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is indeed for the FA to make sure that good behaviour is promulgated throughout the football pyramid. Where behaviour is criminal, such as assault, incidents should be reported to the police and appropriate action taken. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have a range of legislation they can use to address serious incidents of other sorts. However, it is up to everybody in leadership positions in football to ensure that good behaviour is promoted at every level.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is this not yet another example of domestic football not being managed properly? When do the Government intend to introduce a regulator to start to deal with some of these problems?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
These issues were looked at as part of the fan-led review conducted my honourable friend Tracey Crouch, and it was clear that the Government need to take action. Leaving certain things to the sector has not worked for decades, and fans have been let down by certain owners not acting responsibly. We will be setting out our plans to reform club football governance in the White Paper that is coming soon.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I understand that body cameras worn by referees are being trialled by some leagues in adult grass-roots fixtures. It sounds like a sensible initiative. Can the Minister update us on it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Technology is indeed helping in football, as it is in many sports. That is a matter for the football authorities, but I will certainly reinforce the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Would my noble friend like to take this opportunity to congratulate the England team on a 26-run victory over Pakistan, in circumstances where everyone respected the umpire and the way in which the cricket was played there?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I most certainly would. My noble friend makes an important point about good behaviour, which we see across a number of sporting forms.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, those who officiate at football matches, at every level, have a thankless task in making real-time decisions in the blink of an eye, mostly without the assistance of VAR. They undoubtedly deserve our respect and admiration for their commitment to fair play. What consideration has been given to using the forthcoming Online Safety Bill to tackle threats to match officials that are made on social media?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have already had discussions in connection with the Online Safety Bill to make sure we tackle the completely unacceptable form of abuse we see against football players and others in leading positions in sport, following their performances. The Bill is designed to ensure that everybody has a safe and enjoyable experience online, and I look forward to debating it with noble Lords when it reaches your Lordships’ House.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My noble friend acknowledges, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the enormous amount of time that young people spend playing and enjoying football. Does he not think that we ought to be speaking out more about some of the influencers from senior clubs and the language that appears to be permitted in our football grounds?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes—verbal abuse and some of the chants that we hear need to be addressed. The FA’s “Enough is Enough” campaign is, as I say, making it clear that anybody who undertakes unacceptable behaviour will have action taken against them.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I qualified as a football referee at Dartmouth in 1966, and I gave up after a few years because I was conscious of making wrong decisions. Within the service environment there was not this threatening behaviour, but there is no doubt that, when one has made certain decisions—and the referees do work very hard—such threats are really damaging and dangerous. Something has to be done to stop this happening.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, 1966 was clearly a very good year for football in this country. The noble Lord makes an important point: there are fantastic role models in the Navy and across the Armed Forces, who demonstrate very high-quality behaviour. That is what we want to see at football matches, so that everybody can enjoy the game.
Domestic Abuse Victims: Housing Benefit
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that housing benefit for domestic abuse victims living in exempt accommodation is only paid to providers that have recognised expertise and who meet the standards in Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill would introduce national standards for all supported housing, including domestic abuse safe accommodation, as well as locally led licensing schemes. This new system will drive out unscrupulous and poor providers who are exploiting vulnerable people. We will work with supported housing providers, including specialist providers of safe accommodation for those fleeing domestic abuse, using already defined standards for all of those in safe accommodation. The detail of the licensing regime will be developed through consultation and in regulations.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. In a report in October, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee said that the exempt accommodation is a “complete mess”. Given this, I think the Minister needs to inform the House of situations where some women who are abuse survivors have had to run away, for the second time, from the housing that they were allocated, because the safe accommodation was as threatening and violent as the home they had just left, and sometimes even return to the violent home. It is therefore important that there is some timescale on this, because it is clearly an urgent matter.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct: we cannot accept this. I am not sure that they flee from allocated housing; often, it is from rogue landlords. We are dealing with that in a number of ways, including through the supported housing improvement programme and the measures in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Those measures license those houses within local authority control, which are the ones that are normally allocated. Through this and the supported housing Bill, the Government are sending out a clear message to rogue landlords in the sector that we will not tolerate that poor-quality support and the exploitation of very vulnerable people.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, there is exploitation. We see terrible conditions in our housing sector, such as mould on walls and damp. These women are fleeing domestic violence, often with young children. What will the exact timescale be to ensure that we do not see these kinds of cases, which we see flashing past our screens almost every evening?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is bringing up two issues. First, on mould and damp, the Secretary of State has made it very clear to social housing providers that this is not acceptable and he is keeping a very close eye on what they are doing and the outcomes of that. Secondly, regarding very vulnerable people, I urge anybody who needs help and support to go to their local authority. What worries me is that they are looking online for housing, and that is where they are being very badly exploited.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, following the Minister’s response about urging women who are suffering domestic abuse to go their local authorities, perhaps it would help if she looked at last September’s report from the Public Interest Law Centre, which outlined eight ways in which local authorities are not providing the support that they should under the legislation. For example, they are making offers of unsuitable temporary or long-term accommodation, and survivors are being refused support until a threat of legal action is made. Has the Minister seen that report? If not, will she do so and refer it to her department so that they can make some changes in the legislation?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have not seen that report, but I will certainly look at it. Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, local authorities must commission enough of the right support to meet the needs of all of those victims and their children, and they must monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of that provision. Therefore, if they are not doing that, I will certainly take that back to the department and we will look into it further.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, when freezing the housing allowance yet again, did the Government assess the impact on domestic abuse survivors and their children trying to establish themselves in independent accommodation?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, the noble Baroness is right that that was a difficult decision in the economic climate as it is, but, as I have said in this Chamber before, we had to make a very balanced decision on rent and social housing rents because of the effect on the provider as well as on the resident.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, in addressing this very important Question, I think we should also consider the experience of migrant survivors who may have insecure status or no recourse to public funds or may be frightened of repercussions for contacting the police. Will the Minister outline what progress the Government have made in the light of the DAC’s recommendation to develop a long-term funding solution that ensures that a clear universal pathway to support is available to domestic abuse survivors regardless of migration status and whether they will be reporting on the results of the pilot project to support migrant survivors?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know when the report is coming through, but these are the vulnerable people I was talking about earlier. They may have English as a second language, and they may be concerned about anybody in authority so they may be frightened to go to the right area, which is the local authority. I ask that anybody who has any contact with these people asks them to do that. At the same time, once the Bill comes through, providers will have to be licensed and they should not be licensed if they are not fit to offer this accommodation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend give an undertaking to the House, bearing in mind the stress that local authority budgets are under, that this funding will be ring-fenced for domestic abuse victims?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It will be ring-fenced and local authorities are well provided with money for this issue. There are also 26 pilots across the country that are getting £20 million. They are in the areas that are most affected by these rogue landlords. They will have money to spend to increase the learning of what they can do and to support them in getting rid of these landlords in their areas.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the victims of domestic abuse are also victims of forced marriage? Many of them are very young, and some of them are under 18. Will she make sure that they are helped in a way that is appropriate for very young girls?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Of course I understand that, and I will certainly take that back and make sure we are looking at that particular group of young women.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that this needs to be seen in the context of a chronic shortage of truly affordable homes and that there has been a very considerable increase in the number of unscrupulous agencies exploiting gaps in the regulatory regime in order to claim higher benefit levels, effectively, without providing even the most minimal support? Can she confirm that the Government are aware of the extent of this problem now and where the problem arises and that the review that she has indicated has been undertaken will make sure that those unscrupulous agencies will be stopped completely?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, the Government are aware and, yes, we always need more social housing. There are more and more pressures on social housing. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place on 18 November, is being supported by the Government. It should, through licensing and regulation, stop these rogue landlords for the future.
Ajax Vehicles
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards the delivery of ordered Ajax vehicles.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the recent user-validation trials to assess the effectiveness of the modifications proposed by General Dynamics to address the noise and vibration concerns over Ajax are complete, so the department can now safely move to the next stage of testing: reliability growth trials. These are designed to test both the reliability of the vehicle and its installed systems to ensure a final-build standard that meets the department’s demanding standards for this new platform.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for making a phenomenal effort to be here to answer the Question. Notwithstanding her Answer, 589 Ajax vehicles were supposed to be delivered in 2017, at a total cost of £5.5 billion. Only 26 have been delivered so far and none is operational, at a cost of £3.5 billion and counting. Potentially 300 military personnel have been harmed by excessive noise and vibration. Can the Minister tell the House when all these vehicles will be delivered to the front line and at what cost? Do the Government still have full confidence in the programme or are they examining alternatives?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments; I felt as though I was in perpetual transit until I walked through the front door of this building.
This has been a rocky road, as I have acknowledged before. To be honest, I think that where we have got to now represents a seismic leap forward; that is, the successful conclusion of user-validation trials. This is an important vehicle. As the noble Lord is aware, it will be transformative for our British Army. It will offer technological advancement—something that Challenger 2 and Warrior do not currently possess. The noble Lord is quite correct: we were very concerned about the health and safety issues that were arising, hence the pause in the trials and the instruction to the MoD director of health and safety, Mr David King, to carry out a review. I can confirm that we have implemented now a number of the recommendations that Mr King made. We are very clear that, while this is an important addition and an important vehicle for the Army, we will not accept anything that is not fit for purpose. We remain in close contact with General Dynamics and I think we can now see a way forward.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve. There is no doubt that it has been a rocky road, and perhaps we should expect that, if we are to maintain a sovereign land industrial capability. But who is to blame? The answer is successive Governments. We have allowed our land industrial base to atrophy. Moving forward, will we learn that lesson? Can my noble friend perhaps say a few words on that? In the same way that we have maintained a maritime industrial base with a continuity of skills, continuing to build ships, will we now learn that lesson in the land domain? How will the recently published Land Industrial Strategy ensure that we do?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. I am not going to stand here with a finger pointing blame at individual Governments. There has been a collective, cumulative process, as my noble friend describes. As far as the Army is concerned, I hope that the Land Industrial Strategy—which we published in May this year and which sets out the intent, ways of working and actions by which the Army, wider Ministry of Defence and industry will collaborate to maximise the value from investment in Army modernisation and transformation—will ensure that the Army is equipped for the future and receives the capabilities that it requires in a way that drives opportunity for UK industry and the economy but also benefits the Army.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, a lessons-learned study was announced in May this year on what went wrong with the Ajax project. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with that study, when it is likely to be finished and whether it will be published in full or, at least, mostly in part? Can she also tell us whether the Procurement Bill, currently finishing its passage through this House, contains clauses that make it substantially less likely that another problem like this would arise?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think the noble Lord refers to the King report—the report from the director of health and safety in the MoD. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we have implemented a number of these recommendations. In particular, we have stood up the noise and vibration working groups; that is an important development. Future trials of armoured vehicles will have real-time measurement of noise and vibration; that is very important. A dedicated cell has been established to support safety-risk governors for senior responsible owners with complex projects. They carry a huge responsibility and they need that support. On the wider issue mentioned, the Procurement Bill addresses particular issues of procurement but, at the end of the day, how procurement is done effectively in monitoring governance assessment is very much a matter of good regime within the MoD. We now have in place practices, procedures and processes to try to ensure that we are approaching these complex contracts in the best way that we can.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister say more about the damage to and loss of hearing mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and what steps are being taken to ameliorate that or recompense those who have suffered?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
When the problem emerged during trials, immediate action was taken: support was given, medical help was provided and monitoring continues. I do not have up-to-date information, but I will make inquiries and write to the noble and gallant Lord about that. Recently, it was made clear during the user-validation trials that no one was to feel under obligation to continue if they had concerns about health and safety, and they were free to speak up. As far as I am aware, the trials were able to proceed without interruption.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the sunk-cost fallacy is a powerful distorter of human behaviour in institutions as well as among individuals. When we look back at, say, the procurement history of the Eurofighter, we see that there was never a moment when it would not have been better to cancel it, every time it came up for review. Now, with Ajax, we are looking at a vehicle that is too heavy, that cannot fire while moving, and that, as we have heard, impacts on human health because of the motion and the noise. Will my noble friend the Minister look at tweaking procurement so that we can stop throwing good money after bad—perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggests, in the coming legislation?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated, Ajax is a very important development. It is a highly protected and versatile platform. It is able to move, fight, command and be repaired anywhere on the battlefield. It is future-proofed, with an advanced sensor suite and open digital technology to face evolving threats. That is taking us into a technological age for the Army that we do not currently have with any of our equipment. That is why we are very keen to procure this vehicle. But as I said earlier, we will not take anything that is not fit for purpose.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Ajax programme, no matter how much one dresses it up, has been a complete and utter disaster. It has been a real shambles. But my question relates to future procurement. With the Ukrainians, we have seen technology—AI and such things—very rapidly changing how they fight. For example, the time to bring in counterbattery fire has been brought down by about 90%. Are we taking notice of these issues and working out new methods of procurement? We have to change things so rapidly because of the way modern warfare is changing.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I very often find cause to disagree with the noble Lord, but, on this occasion, I accept his proposition that the conflict in Ukraine has informed us. It is the most recent example of global conflict that we have encountered in modern times, and it has been extremely educational and informative for the MoD. As to how that reaches out into procurement, it has highlighted where issues can arise in relation to procurement, particularly at short notice and in securing procurement at pace, and we are learning these lessons. But, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a lot of how we procure has to do with a civilised and intelligent relationship between the MoD and industry. I am pleased to say we have that, and we have had a great deal of co-operation from industry.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness has said about procurement—and of course the Procurement Bill now goes to the other place for consideration there in January—but will we learn significant lessons from what has happened with Ajax? Does she recall that, in June of this year, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons said:
“The Department has once again made fundamental mistakes in its planning and management of a major equipment programme.”
The chair of the committee, Meg Hillier, went on to say that this has been deeply flawed from the start. Will the Minister at least undertake, as we proceed, to give the House updates on the progress of Ajax so that we know when it will be put into use and whether the safety issues that my noble and gallant friend raised earlier have been overcome?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am pretty sure that, in the other place and here, the Government’s feet will be held to the fire. We expect Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and explain what the progress is and where we are in the process. In relation to procurement as a whole, there have been some very good examples of procurement. The MoD has made big changes on the back of NAO reports, many of which were critical, but we absolutely accepted some of the recommendations. We have made major changes: for example, we have implemented steps to more accurately estimate project costs, including improving risk forecasts through the use of reference-class forecasts, risk-costing pilots and the analysis of systematic strategical operational problems. We have also made reforms to how we deal with the senior responsible owner, so that there is much more continuity in the contracts. A lot of big changes have happened. I point to two recent procurements, the Type 31 and the Poseidon aircraft, as very good examples of really successful, positive procurement.
Children’s Private Information: Data Protection Law
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the reprimand issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office to the Department for Education on 6 November for breaching data protection law regarding children’s private information.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
On behalf of my noble friend Lady Chapman, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the department takes the security of the data that it holds extremely seriously. At the time of the breach, it was already working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office. The department has made significant, positive progress in improving its processes. The ICO has recommended in the reprimand notice that the department continue with its current improvement plans, and we will publish an update in early 2023.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, notwithstanding—for noble Lords who are not aware—that the Information Commissioner’s Office formally reprimanded the DfE for prolonged misuse of the data of 28 million students over a 16-month period. The department breached GDPR by allowing online gambling companies to use pupil information to build their age verification systems. The reprimand concluded that the processes put in place by the DfE were woeful. Can the Minister confirm how this happened, how the Government will prevent such a shocking breach happening again and whether they will apologise to the 28 million students affected?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely understand why the noble Baroness probes hard on this Question. The Government have made significant changes to their learner registration system, and those were noted by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its letter to the department in November this year. We previously did not have a centralised data protection function in the department. We were in the process of setting it up when we discovered this breach, and it is now in place.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister fully aware of the damaging effect of data protection law on universities? It has been used, rightly or wrongly, to prevent universities getting in touch with students’ parents when they are in distress; it has been used to prevent the full publication of degree results, which opens the door to fraud. Does she agree that it is time to review the Data Protection Act and its damaging effect in those circumstances?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government have brought forward the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which was introduced in the Commons in July this year. We are committed to making sure that our data protection systems are fit for purpose, including in relation to the issues raised by the noble Baroness.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the next scandal brewing is the use of facial recognition technology in schools and the department’s lack of a grip on this issue. Despite repeated requests from the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner to have legal oversight of the ethical use of that technology in schools, the Government have refused to agree. Why is this loophole still there, and when will it be closed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The safety of our children is of course fundamental and the department’s role in protecting them is vital. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord on the details of his question.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, the organisation Defend Digital Me sets out that the DfE extended the possible distribution of identifying pupil-level extracts from the national pupil database when Michael Gove was Secretary of State. This was done
“to maximise the value of this rich dataset”.
On reflection, does the Minister believe that that was a mistake?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not believe that it was a mistake. If we look at any sector or industry, we see that the most successful use data intelligently, proportionately and safely. That is what the department intends to do.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, how much information is the Home Office allowed to get from the DfE for immigration enforcement purposes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise; I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Earl with the detail on that.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in her response to my noble friend, the Minister did not answer the key question. She told us the criteria that the department used for its use of data, but this was clearly the use of data to make money. Is that appropriate for a government department in respect of records that relate to children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
To be absolutely clear and for the avoidance of doubt, the department was not making money out of this. It was a previously legitimate user of the department’s data which changed its business model and breached its contract with the department to sell the data.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should be grateful that the department is now taking this matter seriously? I urge her to make sure that this is dealt with as speedily as possible; I know that she would like that to happen as well.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right. I would stress that, unsurprisingly and rightly, the department took this breach extremely seriously. It was proactive in raising it with the Information Commissioner’s Office and has a very active programme of work but, in relation to the recommendations from the Information Commissioner, the vast majority of them are completed and the rest are on track.
Lord Scriven (LD)
For the record, the Minister has just said from the Dispatch Box that the problem arose because the company changed to a different business model. Is it not correct that the Information Commissioner’s Office pointed out that the reason this happened was not that the change took place but that the department had no oversight of third-party use of that database?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure that the Dispatch Box is the ideal place to go through the line-by-line analysis. The noble Lord is right that the way that the department’s contracts were set up at the time did not give the same recourse if the terms and conditions of a contract were breached by a third party. That has now been changed.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I find this whole saga staggering. It should give serious pause for thought to anyone who does not think that data protection and personal privacy matter. When the Minister replies in writing to the noble Lord’s earlier question about facial recognition technology, will she include in that response, and perhaps place a copy in the Library, an answer as to whether CCTV cameras on school premises are provided by Hikvision or any other Chinese companies?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be delighted to add that information.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, again according to the organisation Defend Digital Me, the ICO found that the DfE’s policy on records was
“designed to find a legal gateway to ‘fit’ the application”.
If the Minister recognises that, can she say that it simply will never happen again?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I tried to be clear that the department has made very significant changes in its approach to data protection and privacy in relation to our internal systems and processes, to our communication with data subjects about their privacy, and to the culture of the department and the training and support that we put in place for colleagues.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Are the people who oversee this new model the same as those who oversaw the previous one? Where is the accountability in the system? What happened to those people, who should have known better and should not have let this happen?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My understanding is that we relied on an existing advisory service at the time of the data breach and that those functions have now been brought in house. We have a dedicated data protection officer, who sets policy for the whole department.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness expand on this third-party provider who changed their business model? How many contracts does that third party have with government in respect of other aspects of data?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My understanding is that that third-party provider is no longer trading.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that a senior official on the board of the department, at Permanent Secretary or director-general level, was responsible for what happened? What action was therefore taken?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I have tried to explain to your Lordships that we did not have a centralised data protection function at the time of this breach. As a result, different teams had different policies across the department. That is no longer the case.
Iran: Execution of Protesters
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that the Iranian regime is carrying out executions against anti-government protestors.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the House shares the outrage expressed by the Foreign Secretary on Thursday at the Iranian regime’s execution of protesters. Mohsen Shekari and Majidreza Rahnavard are tragic victims of a legal system in which disproportionate sentences and forced confessions are rife. The UK is working with international partners to hold Iran to account, including by sanctioning 10 judges and prison officials last week. Iran must be in no doubt that the world is watching. It cannot continue to unleash violence against its own people to stifle voices of dissent.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but two brave 23 year-old Iranians, standing up for democracy and women’s rights, have been brutally murdered on jumped-up charges by those in power in Iran. As the head of a Norwegian human rights watch body said, if these executions are not met with serious consequences for the Iranian Government, we will face mass executions of protesters. What extra serious consequences will the Government inflict on the Iranian regime?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I acknowledge, as I am sure we all do in different ways, the breathtaking courage of protesters in Iran, particularly the women, whose every act of defiance comes with the risk of extreme persecution and even death. It is really something to behold.
The UK of course condemns Iranian government activities, not least the executions that we are discussing now. Across international fora, we are calling Iran out at every opportunity and amplifying the voice of those protesters. We have condemned the regime’s crackdown on protesters alongside G7 partners and at the UN Human Rights Council, General Assembly and Security Council. We are working alongside the US and partners to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, and, on a bilateral level, we continue to challenge Iran’s reprehensible actions at every opportunity, including summoning Iran’s representative in the UK to the Foreign Office on numerous occasions.
On Friday 9 December, just a few days ago, the UK announced sanctions on 10 officials connected to Iran’s judicial and prison systems, including judges linked to the revolutionary court, which sentenced those two people to death. On 14 November, we announced sanctions on 24 leading political and security officials involved in the current crackdown on protesters. In October, we sanctioned the morality police in its entirety, as well as its leader and five other officials responsible for human rights violations. We take Iran’s reprehensible actions very seriously indeed.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary’s positive and forward-looking speech this morning, but there was no mention of Iran at all. As my noble friend said, Iran is a serious danger. I will make two points. First, the Minister mentioned the commission on women’s rights. I understand that there is a vote on Wednesday at the UN. Can he assure me that we will vote the right way? Secondly, while he gave a long list of what we have done, surely it is now time for us to proscribe the IRGC. It has to be done.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend makes an important and powerful point. It is not for me to discuss the proscription of individual cases. My colleagues in the Foreign Office will have heard what he had to say, which echoes what many others in this place have said on various occasions. In relation to the vote coming up in the next few days, I assure him that we will be voting the right way.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, although these executions are an outrage, they are not the only judicial outrage perpetrated by the Government of Iran. Will His Majesty’s Government pursue the injustice of extending the sentence of the longest-serving prisoners of conscience in the world—Fariba Kamalabadi and Mahvash Sabet, two women of the Baha’i faith, aged 60 and 69—for nothing other than professing their religion?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Iranian regime has a long, dark record of persecution—not just of religious minorities but of the LGBT community and, as has already been discussed, anyone who stands up to the regime in any way. The atrocities which the noble Baroness has just referenced are par for the course for a regime which is beyond the pale in its actions towards anyone not part of the mainstream establishment within Iran.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has emphasised that he is working with international partners on this issue. What conversations have been had with Pakistan and Armenia, both countries that voted at the UN Human Rights Council against establishing an independent investigation into these human rights violations? Have there been any conversations in the light of the large amounts of ODA of which these countries are in receipt, thanks to the British taxpayer?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I assume that these discussions are happening, but I do not know as I am not party to them. I will convey the noble Baroness’s question to the Minister responsible, who is not able to be here today to answer this Question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the barbarity of these public executions is obviously also intended to intimidate the population of Iran. I share the Minister’s admiration of the women and particularly the young women there. Further to the immediate question about Resolution S-35/L.1 to establish an independent international fact-finding mission, I also noted that Qatar and the UAE abstained. What discussions have His Majesty’s Government had with our allies in the Gulf about their considerably mixed messages of support for pro-democracy groups, especially concerning women and children? What practical support will the Government provide to the independent international fact-finding mission for it to have any teeth whatever?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, discussions with representatives from Qatar, the UAE and others are regular and ongoing. As I said in answer to the previous question, these are not discussions that I have been having, so I cannot provide an authoritative answer. I will include a response to the noble Lord’s question in my follow-up to the previous one.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, the news of the executions in Iran is deeply concerning and heart-breaking. I declare an interest as someone who originally comes from Iran and still has friends and loved ones there. There are likely to be many more executions still to come, with a dozen death sentences already issued. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what support the Government are providing to Iranians in the UK who are seeking to ensure the safety of loved ones in Iran.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As noble Lords will know, it is not always the case that those who have been arrested and held by the Iranian regime contact the UK Government and request support, either directly or through their family. Where that support is requested, however, the UK Government do everything they possibly can to exert pressure and facilitate the speedy resolution of whatever the case is. I cannot go into individual cases; there are one or two that I have personally been involved in, and I can tell you that dealing with the Iranian regime is incredibly difficult at every step of the way, as the right reverend Prelate will know.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, was it not absurd that Iran was put on the UN women’s commission in the first place, given its long record? Surely the problem is that the Iranian regime believes that it is in an existential fight for survival and therefore we—certainly on our own—have no influence. In addition to the efforts that the Government have set out thus far, what are we doing to isolate Iran? Where, if any, are the pressure points which might influence the regime?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The UK maintains a wide range of sanctions designed to constrain Iran’s destabilising activity within the wider region. We work in the multilateral fora to—as the noble Lord suggested—encourage the world as much as possible to speak with one voice in condemnation of Iran, with some success but not entirely. In November, we supported a successful Human Rights Council resolution establishing a mechanism to investigate the regime’s actions, and we will work with partners to ensure that it delivers for the Iranian people. In relation to the first point that the noble Lord made, the truth is that there remains a place in the international community for a responsible Iran: one that respects the rights and freedoms of its people. Across international fora and working closely with our partners, we will continue to expose the regime’s appalling human rights violations, pursue accountability and amplify the voices of the Iranian people.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is it not very significant that members of the Ayatollah’s own family have denounced these barbaric practices? Should we not give real publicity to what has been said about him by them?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. In the sewer that is Twitter, the one shining light is its ability to transmit and convey images of the really staggering bravery on the part of these protesters. Without social media, it is very hard to see how the world would be as awake to what is happening in Iran as it is. Whenever I find myself feeling gloomy about the filth on that social media site, I remind myself that it does have an incredible role to play. These protests are a pivotal moment for Iran. The Iranian people have made it clear that they will no longer tolerate violence and oppression. The UK stands with ordinary Iranians who are bravely risking their lives to demand a better future. This is an authentic grass-roots call for change; the regime has to stop threatening the lives of ordinary people in Iran and elsewhere, including the UK.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, first, on Friday, did the Foreign Secretary raise with the Iranian chargé d’affaires the question of threats to UK nationals and people working in the free press in this country? I asked the Minister about that last week. Secondly, what does the Minister think of the Foreign Secretary’s speech today, in which he said that it is not about
“dictating or telling others what they should do: we want to balance a mutually beneficial relationship”?
Is this not sending mixed messages? Is it putting things like trade above human rights?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Absolutely not. The UK’s position on Iran has been rock solid for a very considerable time, and there is no question of the UK in any way softening its approach to the behaviour of the Iranian regime. The issue of Iran’s extranational activities, particularly in relation to British nationals in the UK, was of course raised. I discovered today that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been sanctioned; I am not sure there is any country that has not sanctioned him. I have to say, first, that this is a tribute to his own relentless campaigning on human rights issues in Iran and elsewhere, and, secondly, that I suspect the rest of the House, like him, will treat such a move with the contempt it deserves.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the present revolution, or resistance, in Iran results from the cruel treatment of its brave women. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, led by a woman, has put forward a 10-point plan for democracy, which includes the absence of any sort of religious rule—a secular democracy—freedom of belief for all, and equal rights for women. Does the Minister agree that this is the right direction of travel for Iran?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Absolutely. In Iran, the law already provides some protection—for example, the Jewish community has protection within the constitution. However, in reality it is meaningless. If you are a member of the Jewish community in Iran, you will at the very least keep your head firmly down. The protection provided in law is not provided in practice, but of course that plan is the direction of travel that we want. For decades, the morality police have used the threat of detention and violence to control what Iranian women wear and how they behave in public. As the Iranian people have made clear, that institution is also intolerable. As noble Lords know, there were suggestions that the morality police will be disbanded, and we must hope that this is the case.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, in response to my noble friend Lord Scriven’s question, the Minister gave a list of very welcome actions taken by the Government, but these executions are happening right now. They have taken place over the past few days and are continuing, and some of them are of children. Can the Minister say what extra actions are going to be taken or are being taken in light of these continuing atrocities?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, there are a whole range of activities and actions that the UK can take bilaterally—which I have already mentioned—in relation to sanctions and trying to squeeze those responsible at the highest levels within the regime as much as possible, as well as multilateral activity of the sort that I mentioned earlier. There are Iranian protesters who look to the UK for safe passage, and that is something we provide, but the system can no doubt be improved in any number of ways. We take a measured approach to engaging with both Iranian civil society and the diaspora here in the UK. We are clear that, ultimately, choosing Iran’s Government is a matter for the Iranian people, but we will do everything we can to ensure that the Iranian people’s voices are heard.
Special Public Bill Committee (Electronic Trade Documents Bill)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Special Public Bill Committee on the Electronic Trade Documents Bill [HL]:
Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. (Chair), Bassam of Brighton, L., Clement-Jones, L., Davies of Brixton, L., Harlech, L., Holmes of Richmond, L., Lansley, L., Lindsay, E., Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 1, 3 and 14 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 December.
Animals and Animal Health, Feed and Food, Plants and Plant Health (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 and 20 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 18th Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 18th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the second and fourth instruments). Considered in Grand Committee on 5 and 6 December.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Monday 12th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 64-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (12 Dec 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I should advise the Committee that, if the following amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments 2 to 9 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 1
Lord Winston
“(1) In this Act “directed bred organism” means a directed bred plant or a directed bred animal.(2) For the purposes of this Act an organism is “directed bred” if—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the appropriateness of the term “precision bred”.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, when this Bill was considered by the various powers that be in the House, including the Constitution Committee and the committee on the Bill itself, there was widespread concern from everybody who looked at it. They clearly saw that it was imprecise, not entirely intelligible and of a particular, difficult and complex scientific nature; I agree with that.
One of the problems I have in speaking to my amendments is that, to some extent, they must be probing, because my real problem is that the scope of this Bill is seen as one of the release of organisms into the environment. However, inevitably, the science behind that is of an essential aspect. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is answering for the Government, because I felt that his response to me at Second Reading was very helpful; it would have been good to discuss some aspects of this Bill, which we may still have time to do before Report.
To start, one of the really big issues, which I dealt with to some extent in my Second Reading speech, is the nature of precision breeding. As I explained, there is no such thing as precision in biology. Biology is not like physics, and it is certainly not like chemistry. It is a constant response to the environment in a way that does not apply to the other aspects of science. One of the issues here concerns the definitions that we are dealing with in this Bill and, to some extent, in my various amendments—forgive me for my very poor sight but I need to read the numbers; I cannot see otherwise—including Amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14.
One of my problems—it is a problem that many scientists have—is the nature of what is seen as gene editing and a genetically modified organism. There are many different ways of modifying an organism, be it animal or plant. I mentioned in my Second Reading speech that the first time this was done was by the injection of DNA into the egg by Jon Gordon. As we know, that resulted in many mutations and abnormalities in the animals, which were quite horrific to see; to some extent, that is one of the reasons for one of the later amendments that I have tabled for discussion. Moreover, with all the other methods that have been used since—whether it is gene insertion using electro-poration or gene insertion via various other methods, such as using viral vectors and other vectors to carry the DNA into the nucleus—you get very big disruption of the genome.
It is perhaps not fully recognised that gene editing is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, kindly suggested, like taking a large paragraph of text and just replacing it with three or four different letters to make a new word. In fact, it is calculated that there are some 6.4 billion letters in the human genome—it is vast—and what is extraordinary is that the mutation of one single letter in that genome can result in a horrific disease.
The commonest genetic mutation affecting humans is probably cystic fibrosis, which until recently was a deadly disease. All you need to get cystic fibrosis is a deletion of three base pairs in the delta F508 part of the protein. That leads to a mutation that results in children being very severely handicapped, sometimes not growing or not able to digest their food and, in particular, having serious problems with their lungs. Consequently, not many of these children have a full life; they certainly do not have a full length of life and are often severely handicapped—even today, with modern so-called precision medicine trying to affect the genes, which is not nearly as successful as we would like.
That is just three base pairs out of those billions, and it is a good example of a very common genetic mutation that affects perhaps one in 20 of the British population. That means a one in 400 chance of a child’s father and mother both having it, in a family who would not suspect that they had that genetic disorder. Most genetic disorders are not anything like that common; some of them are extremely rare. None the less, they generally cause pretty devastating disease.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this necessarily applies directly to the Bill, but it is a very good model for trying to understand that, even with CRISPR-Cas9, for example, which is probably the main technology we are currently using for this kind of genetic modification, the so-called genetic editing is not exactly free of the chance of causing mutations. It is much less likely—for example, with Cas9 in plants, which is widely used, it undoubtedly causes mutations occasionally in the plant, and sometimes we do not know what the results of this mutation may be. Most of them will be completely harmless but some of them may change the way a gene affects, often quite severely, and its expression. By the word “expression”, we mean how a gene works. For example, a gene which expresses growth means that the organism will grow, and so on.
With regard to animals, we know that different species are very different in how they respond to even minor changes in their genes. Although CRISPR-Cas9 does not actually introduce DNA into the cells, it facilitates the introduction of DNA through the process of changing the RNA. That is the difference, but it is not entirely free of mutations. Mutations can occur occasionally at the point where the DNA is cut—that is, with a double-stranded cut in the DNA—or it can occur remotely across the vast genome that animals and plants have. They can be anywhere. Most of the time, that disruption will not necessarily be in a coding protein, but that does not mean to say that it will be free of any effect on the organism.
That is one of the serious issues that we did not really get to in our Second Reading discussion, and nor was it properly discussed in the House of Commons. I read the Hansard report of the debate, and it was quite deficient in many ways; it was not a very good debate in terms of the science.
The fundamental problem is the uncertainty that you may cause genetic modification—genetic mutation—that is unwanted and unreliable, and is not uncommon in plants with Cas9, which is part of the CRISPR process, in most cases. There are other ways of doing this: there is a process called TALENs and there is a process using nucleases, but we do not need to go into the detailed science. They all present problems in different ways of getting the DNA into a cell.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I draw to the attention of the Committee that in the amendment we are about to discuss, the Marshalled List says,
“leave lines 4 to 6”.
I believe it should say “leave out” and that is what I propose. If I am wrong, I hope somebody will shout.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and, indeed, our very acute Committee chair. I will speak to my Amendments 11 and 86 in this group. It is a great pleasure to follow the House’s acknowledged expert, who set out very clearly the major problems with this Bill and, indirectly, made the arguments for the two amendments I am presenting here. It is perhaps worth starting with my Amendment 86, which amends the Short Title of the Bill, leaving out “Precision Breeding” and inserting “Genome Editing”. I am very happy to debate whether that should be “gene editing” or whatever, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Winston, clearly set out the reasons why we should not be debating a Bill called “Precision Breeding”. As he said, there is no such thing as precision in biology.
There are many areas of science in which “precision” is appropriate and extremely useful. We think about elements of physics and mechanical engineering, say, and talk about going down to millimetres, micrometres, nanometres. We can look at how those might change when the temperature changes, for example. All of those things will be eminently, entirely predictable. That is true of physical properties, but it is not true of biological properties, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, clearly set out.
I covered this issue extensively at Second Reading, so I am not going to go into it at great length, but essentially, precision breeding is an advertising slogan; it is not a legal description. I do not believe that an advertising slogan should have a place in the title of a Bill. Interestingly, when it was put to me that I should seek to amend the Short Title, a technical expert said to me, “You will never get that through the Clerks”. In fact, it went through without a murmur. I think there is a real awareness that this Bill is not properly titled.
Lord Winston (Lab)
On a point of information, the noble Baroness was a great deal luckier with the Clerks than I was, as I tried the same tactic and was told quite firmly that I could not do that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I do not know how that happened, but I think I might take that as a seconding of my Amendment 86. Noble Lords might say that it is only the title and it does not matter, but it is how people will identify the Bill.
I am going to refer a number of times to a Defra press release, dated 29 September 2021, which, all the way through, refers to “gene editing”. That is what it is telling people the Bill is about, drawing a very clear distinction, as it sees it, between gene editing and genetically modified organisms, an issue I will return to shortly. That is the case for amending the Short Title of the Bill. What we are talking about is not precision; it is not marked by exactness, and there are real problems if the Bill is not named clearly.
I come to something that is arguably very significant and considerably more impactful in the nature of the Bill. This is my Amendment 11, which would exclude the use of exogenous genetic material in the creation of, or remaining in, so-called precision-bred organisms. Here I need to venture into the depths of this a little, I am afraid; I apologise to the Committee for that. If we look at many of the definitions that describe gene editing, we see that they say this is simply removing genes from an organism or adding genes from a different variety of the same organism.
That is different from genetically modified organisms. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested that, 30 years ago, when GMOs were being debated, they got an undeserved bad name. But look at some of the things that have been done with GMOs: for example, a salmon that combines the genes from three different types of fish and grows unnaturally fast, reaching adult size twice as fast as its wild relative, to be released into the environment with obvious and potentially massive impacts; or, perhaps even more indefensible, the transgenic zebrafish, bred with genes from jellyfish or coral, which give them a glowing effect under certain light conditions. These genetically engineered animals were popular in aquariums and have now escaped into the natural environment, with effects we have yet to understand.
We are being reassured that gene editing is not like that; that it is a different kind of thing. Certainly, that is what the Defra press release of 29 September, which I referred to earlier, said in the name of George Eustice, the Minister:
“Gene editing is different from genetic modification, because it does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species”.
That is what the public is being told by the department.
We are going to hear in this debate a great deal about CRISPR, and I shall say this only once: CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats”. This is the hallmark of a bacterial defence system which forms the basis of genome editing technology. It was first discovered in archaea, a branch of the tree of life that was itself discovered only in 1977—we are talking about very recent science here. The clue is in the description. This is using the bacterial system. The key element of gene editing is the insertion of genetic material from bacteria. That material may or may not be fully removed at some point in the organism’s development, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, set out very clearly, once we put something in, we do not necessarily understand what impact there might be in the current generation, or potentially in future generations.
I am going to borrow and excellent phrase from the joint Soil Association, Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze briefing on the Bill: it says that the genome is
“more like an ecosystem than a codebook.”
Personally, I tend to say that DNA is not a machine blueprint, because that is the metaphor—the idea of animals as machines—that dates back to the philosopher René Descartes, who has a lot to answer for and still dominates far too much of our discussion. We do not have the understanding of how biology and biological systems work. We think about them as machines and they are absolutely, definitively not.
This matters because mixing species, which is what we are doing here with gene editing, is not something that generally happens in nature. Certainly, there is horizontal gene transfer—which is of great concern in the area of antimicrobial resistance, an issue that I do a great deal of work on—but that is a far more limited occurrence and occurs mostly within kingdoms of living things rather than across different kingdoms of living things, which is what we are doing here. My Amendment 11, saying that we cannot introduce genetic material from other species, is doing only what the Government, in their own information about the Bill, say they want to do. That is why I believe we should have Amendment 11.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for raising the question of exogenous DNA, which I mentioned at Second Reading, as did she. I am sorry to say that, on this occasion, I disagree with the noble Baroness. I think her amendment goes too far, since, as she explained so clearly, the current techniques of gene editing require the use of exogenous DNA not only for the CRISPR-Cas9 construct but for the insertion mechanism—for instance, Agrobacterium—and for the antibiotic resistance filter used to check that the changes one intended to achieve have been achieved. Furthermore, at the end of the gene-editing process, there could be tiny fragments of this exogenous DNA left in the gene-edited organism. As I mentioned at Second Reading, although there are new techniques being developed that will obviate the need for gene editing with exogenous DNA, they are not yet ready for mainstream use. Hence, in my view, Amendment 11, if accepted, would in effect kill off gene editing for the near future.
Should we be worried about exogenous DNA? The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, clearly thinks we should. The Bill deals with the issue of exogenous DNA by stating in Clause 1(6) that any remaining exogenous DNA must not code for a protein if the precision-bred organism is to be considered as having been produced by a process equivalent to traditional breeding. Does that provide us with sufficient reassurance?
I am most grateful to Professor Wendy Harwood and her colleagues at the John Innes Centre, in Norwich, for their further advice. My initial thought in considering this problem was that the wording in the Bill could be tightened to say in Clause 1(6) that the exogenous DNA, if there is any left, should have no effect on the phenotype of the precision-bred organism; in other words, no effect on the appearance or biological properties of the edited organism. This would be a more stringent criterion than that requiring that the fragment of DNA could not code for a protein.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, so clearly explained to us in his excellent introduction, the principal way in which DNA is expressed in the phenotype is by genes coding for proteins that are the building blocks of life. However, there are also other ways in which nucleic acids can affect the phenotype; I am sorry if this is a bit technical. One example is RNA interference, a molecular process in which short strands of RNA can act to silence a gene. There are other examples of gene regulation by RNA strands that are not transcribed to produce a protein.
There are mechanisms not covered by Clause 1(6) by which exogenous DNA could affect the functioning of the precision-bred or gene-edited organism. Does this justify a change in the wording of the Bill? The view from the John Innes Centre is that it is unlikely that non-coding DNA could exert a phenotypic effect, although this is both theoretically and practically possible. It argues that these possibilities should be tested for in any gene-editing strategy before a product is developed. If this is the case, it would not be necessary to require it by regulation. Furthermore, the scientists at the John Innes Centre argue that the requirement of “no phenotypic effect” might lead to the conclusion that there has to be exhaustive testing for this in an unspecified range of environmental conditions.
I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, there is an argument for ensuring that any remaining exogenous DNA has no discernible effect on the phenotype of the precision-bred organism. That would be a more stringent criterion than Clause 1(6). On the other hand, one does not want disproportionate regulation that stifles innovation.
I do not expect the Minister to answer on the technical issues right now but could he—if not right now, before Report—put down in writing an explanation of why making the requirement in Clause 1(6) that any exogenous DNA should have no phenotypic effect would be disproportionate and, if it is disproportionate, whether other steps could be taken to manage the risk of non-coding effects on the phenotype of gene-edited organisms?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise more to inquire than to support particular amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for tabling his amendments. I imagine that they are probing amendments, and that is the spirit in which I wish to address them. I declare that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, and I am grateful to it for the briefing that it has given today.
The first question I put to the Minister for my better understanding is what the difference is between cloning an animal and gene-editing an animal or animal product. I did not follow it that closely, but I was very proud that my alma mater, Edinburgh University, was the first university in the world, I understand, to clone an animal—Dolly the sheep. However, it was not entirely successful as I understand she had a very short life. Obviously, one has to ask whether the reason for her curtailed life was that she had been cloned and not produced in a normal way.
The BVA brief that I have received today states:
“Prioritisation of animal health and welfare is essential, as is the use of adequate product labelling to enable transparency and consumer choice”—
I know we will come to those amendments in a different group. In particular, the BVA states, and I support this:
“Breeding and genetic modification must be used in an ethically responsible way to improve animal health and welfare, increase efficiency, and support sustainable agriculture.”
It goes on:
“The Bill is misleading and proposing deregulation based on the incorrect premise that ‘traditional breeding’ results in characteristics which can be assumed ‘safe’, and therefore gene-edited organisms which produce the same outcome are also ‘safe’. This ignores the potential for mutations.”
The Bill has “precision breeding” in its title, but this group of amendments goes to the fact that it can never be precise, because we can never be sure of the consequences, so perhaps it should be called the “imprecise breeding” Bill.
The reason that I am tempted to support a number of amendments in this group, particularly Amendment, 1 is the very fact that it states that,
“‘directed bred organism’” means a directed bred plant or a directed bred animal.”
It is important to understand in what way that plant or animal has been directed and that there is scope for an imprecise outcome, an unexpected outcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for whom I am full of awe and praise, with his widespread knowledge and, even more, his experience, said, we could be creating something of which we cannot control the outcome. I am not saying that I stand in the way of that, but I would like better to understand what it is.
There was a news story last night about a little girl whose cancer had not been cured until they came up with a gene-editing formula. They edited genes and implanted them in her, and it looks as though she may now have a cure. However, we are at the very early stage of these procedures, as I understand it, and I believe that there is some sympathy still for the view that the European Union took, which is widely criticised in this House and the other place. Probably the reason that the European Union and its institutions overreacted was the widespread fear among consumers. I think that fear is still there. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has tabled a number of amendments which we will deal with in another group and with which I have a degree of sympathy. As I said at Second Reading, if this procedure, this form of breeding is so good, why can we not be told about it on labelling? Why should consumers have the barrier of having to go to a register? With those few remarks, I support the thinking behind some of the amendments in this group.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading. I had a hospital appointment and, having waited some time for it, did not want to postpone it for what could have been another three months. I did, however, watch the debate on Parliament TV and will make a short contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made a very valuable and knowledgeable contribution in seeking clarification on the definitions within the Bill. It is important that we all understand completely what the Government mean by the various terms and what the outcomes will be, especially if there are likely to be unintended consequences. It is the role of this Chamber to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or mutations in the future, and that the quality of life for any animal so produced needs to be good. That was not the case with Dolly the sheep. It is important that the phrases used in the Bill are easily understood by those who will affected by its implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, the results of previous debates on GMOs received a bad press, which did the science no favours at all.
In Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also seeks clarification. She wishes the Title of the Bill to be changed so that the somewhat anodyne phrase “Precision Breeding” would be replaced by “Genome Editing”. I have sympathy with this proposed alteration, as I believe that phrase is more accurate and more likely to be easily understood by the public than “Precision Breeding”. The Bill is, after all, intended to modify and edit the genome of plants in a shorter timeframe than would normally happen. Being married to an aeronautical engineer, for me, and possibly others, a phrase such as “precision engineering” conjures up an entirely different picture than the thrust and purpose that the Bill has. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this short group of amendments, which sets the tone for the rest of our debate today.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for introducing these amendments. This group explores why “genome editing” has been changed to “Precision Breeding” in the Title of the Bill and throughout it, when, as my noble friend pointed out, it has no scientific meaning. As he said, there is no such thing as precision in biology. He clearly, and in some detail, expressed his concerns about the implications of the Bill. As he also said, as yet there has been no detailed debate during the Bill’s passage around the science. I am sure that we will have that debate in your Lordships’ House, as there are some very eminent people here who know far more about the science than I could ever hope to learn.
My noble friend’s amendments quite rightly probe the Government’s thinking around the terminology. Importantly, he raised the fact that what we need as an outcome of the Bill is the breeding of plants and animals that are free of risk. Again, he talked about the implications of hereditary traits and the fact that the Bill’s focus is on releasing organisms. We need to think much more about how that is happening, and what the implications are as we put the Bill through into becoming an Act.
We know that in the Bill and during the debates—
Lord Krebs (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I want to make the point that when we talk about “free of risk”, we have to get things in perspective. In so-called conventional breeding, the parent seeds or germline are often irradiated to create a large number of random mutations and then a new cross-bred strain is produced. That often involves shuffling maybe 20% or 30% of the genome and is not regulated at all. When we say “risk free”, we know that conventional breeding is not risk free. The Braeburn apple was introduced 30 or 40 years ago as a new variety—a hybrid of two earlier varieties—without any testing, and that could have had detrimental consequences for human health or the environment. Nothing is risk free, so let us get risk in proportion.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his very important point. We need to think about where we want to go with this and how we want those regulations to come in as we go through the Bill. I am sure that we will be having some very interesting debates on that as we move forward. Clearly, the whole purpose of the Bill is about deregulating the law on gene editing so that we can actually move forward beyond the traditional breeding processes.
The purpose of this group is to look at the definitions as to how we move forward; what we mean by that; and whether the Bill has the right definitions in it. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about unintended outcomes, for example. The interesting thing for me is whether “precision breeding” is the right terminology. Why have the Government picked that terminology? That is something that a lot of noble Lords raised on Second Reading, and again now.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also talked about the EU. One of the things that I have noted is that the EU has quite a different term. I am not aware that the European Union is using the term “precision breeding”, but it is looking at “new genetic techniques”. How does what we are doing in this regulation fit in with what the European Union is doing? We will be talking about trade later on but, clearly, it is going to be very important that it all fits together and works together in the long term. It is going to be very interesting to look at how we develop as we go on.
A lot of the definitions are quite vague as well. It would be helpful if the Minister could, perhaps, explain some of the definitions in Clause 1. For example, in Clause 1(1), the actual definition of “precision bred organism” is very, very broad. Is it deliberately broad? Is it trying to capture something in particular? My noble friend Lord Winston talked about traditional processes and natural transformation, as well as referring to “stable”. Understanding what these actually mean and their implications for the Bill going forward are important.
Amendment 86, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, again refers to the title, coming back to what we have just been talking about. She also has Amendment 11 on exogenous genetic materials. There has been some work done by Defra to shed some light on this. The consultation, for example, that was carried out last year, states that
“this proposal does not apply to organisms which introduce genetic material from other species.”
However, that distinction, as we have heard, is not in the Bill. Does it need to be in the Bill?
It is not stated anywhere that precision breeding technologies are technologies that edit a single organism. I refer to Clause 1(7), which refers to
“somatic hybridisation or cell fusion of plant cells of organisms which are capable of exchanging genetic material”.
What does that mean? Does that open the door to transgenic exchange, for example? Some of it is quite weak on definitions, and some of the definitions could be stretched to include pretty much anything—so I do think that some kind of clarification would be very helpful.
The chief scientific adviser to Defra, Professor Henderson, giving evidence to the Commons Select Committee, said that the Bill was designed not to allow exogenous material. He also said, however, that this was something of a grey area. Particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—and he has a far greater understanding of this than I do—it is very important to get clarification on this area before we move further on into the detail of the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this interesting debate on this first section. I will start with, I hope, a note of humility: I understand that I am in the presence of people who have proved, in the introductions by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, and others, that I sit at the foothills of knowledge compared with them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted Descartes—I think he said, “All I know is that I know nothing”. I hope I know a bit more than that, although my learning curve has been very steep. I am grateful to officials at Defra and others who have helped me through this process.
I am aware that the term “precision breeding” has been controversial in some quarters, although well received in others. I thank noble Lords for this opportunity to explain why we have adopted it. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested “directed bred” as an alternative term to “precision bred”, whereas, on this point, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested “genome editing” to replace “precision breeding”. Concerns have been raised about using the term “precision bred” to describe these organisms, because they can result in off-target changes to the organism’s DNA. Although off-target changes can occur using precision breeding technologies, the advice we have received from our Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—in relation to precision-bred plants is that off-target changes are significantly rarer than those produced during the course of conventional methods of plant breeding. This is also the view of the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission.
On animals, ACRE concluded in its advice published in September last year that there is good evidence to suggest that the use of techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 in animals does not result in a greater number of off-target changes than the background rate for natural mutations—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this. Indeed, many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of off-target changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. Therefore, although off-target changes may occur using these technologies, the scientific advice is that they are more precise than traditional breeding, both in terms of making targeted changes to the DNA of a plant or animal and in terms of the number of off-target changes they cause.
In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used the term “genome editing” instead of “precision breeding”. The class of plants and animals we intend the term to cover will include some gene-edited organisms. However, it will not cover all gene-edited organisms; it will not include plants and animals that contain genetic features produced by modern biotechnology that could not have occurred naturally or by traditional processes. For example, plants or animals developed using gene-editing techniques to contain engineered gene drives would not be included in this new class of organism; they will still be regulated as GMOs. In addition, there are techniques of modern biotechnology other than gene editing that could produce plants and animals in this new class—for example, cisgenesis. It is important to note that the EU is also considering cisgenic, as well as gene-edited, plants in its plans for regulatory reform.
We considered using the term “gene edited” in the Bill but, for the reasons I have explained, we concluded that this would be more misleading and confusing. The purpose of the Bill is to more closely align the regulation of this class of animals and plants with those produced by traditional breeding, recognising that the genetic changes they contain will have arisen in a more targeted and precise manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, makes a very good point about the very important need to engage the public more on this case. The Government have tried very hard to do this, and the Food Standards Agency and wider organisations are doing some very good work. There is a big social science job to do to get the message out about what we are talking about—and, perhaps as importantly, what we are not—and the wider benefits, which we will come to in this and other clauses, about how we can improve the life of us here on this planet, protect animal health and make us more resistant to such factors as climate change. These are factors that we need to hold in our minds as we rightly debate this important Bill, line by line.
Amendment 10 would, in effect, remove the requirement that every feature of an organism’s genome must have been capable of resulting from traditional processes or natural transformation in order for the organism to qualify as precision bred. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment was to explore the meanings of the concepts of “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” that are used in this Bill. I hope to address his concerns around the terminology that we have used in this Bill and why it is appropriate. I will begin by defining what we mean by “traditional processes” and “natural transformation”.
For the purposes of this Bill, traditional processes refer to a number of methods listed in Clause 1(7). The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also referred to these. They are well known conventional breeding methods, some of which have been utilised for over 10,000 years, and therefore have a long history of safe use. The methods outlined in Clause 1(7) were not chosen to represent an exhaustive list of traditional breeding processes. Instead, they were chosen because they represent the full range of genetic changes known to occur naturally between sexually compatible plants and animals.
Scientific advice is that genetic changes that could have been achieved through traditional processes, as outlined, do not pose a greater risk as a result of being introduced by modern biotechnology. This is why we have included
“could have resulted from traditional processes”
as a criterion for obtaining “precision bred” status.
“Natural transformation” refers to the process by which DNA from a sexually incompatible organism may be inserted into an organism. In plants and animals, this is almost always the result of infection with a bacterium or virus. Often, the fragments of genetic material left behind after infection no longer serve a purpose or function. The material is non-functional and does not affect the physical characteristics, also referred to as the phenotype, of the plant or animal.
The effect of Clause 1(2)(c)(ii) and Clause 1(6) taken together is to ensure that, for the purposes of this Bill, DNA from a sexually incompatible species which is similar to that which occurs through natural transformation is allowed in a precision-bred organism. This is so long as it does not affect the physical characteristics of the precision-bred organism. This is supported by scientific advice that genetic features produced through modern biotechnology but which could have arisen in nature do not pose a risk as a result of the method of production.
DNA from a sexually incompatible species is critical in the intermediate stages of development of many precision-bred plants and animals. They enable the subsequent precise genetic changes to be made to these organisms. For example, CRISPR-Cas9 often involves insertion of the Cas9 editing machinery to enable the intended precise genetic edits. The Cas9 gene would need to be removed for the resulting plant or animal to be classed as precision bred. Clause 1(6) comes into play where, in some cases, small non-functional fragments of DNA from the Cas9 gene may be left behind. This would be allowed, provided the genetic changes created could have been introduced through natural transformation.
Taken together, the terms “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” ensure that precision-bred organisms are able to contain, in principle, changes that could develop in nature. It is this characteristic that makes precision-bred organisms and GMOs fundamentally different, and we believe that regulating them as such is a proportionate response to the growing body of scientific evidence supporting the safe use of precision-bred organisms.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the issue of international compatibility of terminology. I am sure the Minister is aware that the International Organization for Standardization, more commonly known as ISO—and many noble Lords are familiar with ISO numbers applied to all sorts of technical and practical procedures—earlier this year produced a genome-editing vocabulary. It provides a list of internationally agreed terms that will
“improve confidence in and clarity of scientific communication, data reporting and data interpretation in the genome editing field.”
There is no mention of precision breeding in that internationally agreed ISO dictionary of terminology. Picking up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: would it not be better if we used internationally acknowledged terminology?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The amount of time we spent in the department working with real experts in this field to get the terminology right means that I hope we can persuade other countries to adopt our definitions. I know that I am not going to find total agreement on this legislation with the noble Baroness, but I can try. As I explained at some length—and I apologise to noble Lords, but I think this is a really important part of this Bill—we have arrived at this definition in a coherent way. Of course, we are constantly looking at how other countries are doing this. We do not want to be left behind, but we want to keep this safe; we want to see what is happening in the EU, but we want to make sure we are giving our scientists and our businesses the right guidelines around which to develop a really exciting new area of technology.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his consideration of what I think are difficult areas in this Bill, which I think remain—we have not solved the problem yet. One of the things I really loathe in Committee is people who move an amendment then take a very long time making a long speech, which bores everybody because they have already heard it, but I feel I have to address a few points specifically. I will not do it again later in this Bill. I think I have views on every single amendment, but I will be careful not to mention them.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned Dolly the sheep. I think Dolly the sheep is a particularly interesting issue, because one thing which will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention is that Dolly the sheep had exactly the same DNA as wherever else she was cloned. Yet animals with the same DNA do not always express the same genes. For example, identical twins in humans are often quite different in many subtle ways, including their fingertips, brain functions, thought processes and so on.
We have to accept that there are many characteristics which are not necessarily demanded, essentially, by the DNA itself but by other things as well. In particular, one of the things we have not yet discussed is the problem of epigenetics; it does come into the Bill. We know that genes can express in different ways under different environmental conditions. That expression can be altered from the very beginning of conception—that is what we are talking about here—which could be, for example, in vitro fertilisation. Of course, that is mentioned in the Bill.
One of the concerns I have about IVF, having been involved with it since its very beginning, is that we still have no long-term follow up on what it means in terms of epigenetics—that is, how genes will express in the future. There are many examples where the progeny of a species—for example, a mouse—may show complete changes with regard to obesity, for instance, due to an insult four generations earlier. One has to accept that these changes occur very early; the mothers are fed with fats at the very earliest stages of pregnancy, and four generations later, we see a sex-determined link with obesity in the progeny. These sorts of issues are not teased out here.
Clearly, a great deal of doubt is encompassed in the Bill and in the science of it. As the noble Lord rightly said, we must all have a degree of humility in trying to work out what is best. He and I, and I think most people in this Chamber, would agree that we are mostly concerned about one thing: the environment. We are concerned about climate change and how we might adversely affect our environment. As we will come to later with the release of organisms, one thing that is very clear is that sometimes in the past—with natural causes—organisms have been released into the environment. We can think of the hornet in Britain, the Bufo toad in Australia, or the fungus which causes elm disease in England. Those things have all been produced by simply being involved in our environment, with colossal difficulties. Of course, we do not ultimately know whether this is a problem with modified organisms.
There is one thing which is not discussed here but which we need to consider. What we have forgotten, partly, is evolution. We are trying to evolve a species in one step, and that is a difficulty. If you take the human species, since Homo sapiens was first in east Africa 100,000 years ago, there have probably been about 5,000 families of humans—that is all. We have not evolved very much; the human brain remains very much the same. It takes a very long time for it to change even small amounts. What we are doing here is expecting rapid change for the benefit of ourselves and, we hope, of the planet too, but the problem is that we are dealing with an environment that is constantly balanced and balancing. We are at risk of damaging that balance with so many things that we do, and I regret to say that this is one of the reasons we have to be very careful when we come at the end of the discussion to the problem of balance and, therefore, how we release these organisms into the environment and control that. That is why the Bill is so important.
Without any further ado—I have already spoken for too long—I simply ask permission to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to probe how widely the Government expects gene editing technologies to be applied to plants, and whether the absence of any limitations may lead to unforeseen consequences for wild plants.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2 and speak to Amendment 31 in my name. At the outset, I declare an interest through my involvement in Rothamsted agricultural institute, as in the register.
This group follows on quite neatly from our earlier debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Winston and others for setting out some of the risks inherent in this technology. It is the balance of those risks that we are struggling with as we go through the Bill, because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, nothing is risk free. We can all see the potential advantages of this technology, but we have to get the balance right.
Amendment 2 is a probing amendment which tests out whether the Government intend gene-editing techniques in plants to be used more widely than simply for agricultural purposes. For example, is it also envisaged that this could be used for ornamental horticulture—to speed up the shapes or the colours of flowers? Is this desirable? Is it really what we want the technology to be available for? Would that wider use of the technology make more work for the regulators? I am sure that it would. As the demand for authorisation soared, would we have the capacity to manage it properly? Do we really want the regulators to be bogged down in authorising the new shade of a rose? This is simply one example. Noble Lords could think of many others which would go beyond the very specific application of the technology to agricultural purposes.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch; I thank her for introducing both this amendment and the other one in this group so eloquently. Amendment 31 makes a modest and perfectly reasonable request. As I said at Second Reading and intend to go on in boring detail about, precision breeding has the potential to be an important tool in the toolbox for creating a doubly green revolution, producing more food with less impact on the environment. If we accept that proposition, we should be in favour of taking into account the wider effects of gene editing.
I do not need to repeat what the noble Baroness said so clearly, but we know without doubt that many of the changes in agriculture that arose during the green revolution were bad for their environments. Loss of habitats, overextraction of water, water and air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, loss of soil health, loss of biodiversity—those are just a few of the adverse effects of the agricultural revolution that we have enjoyed over the past 60 years or so. Amendment 31 makes the modest request that the advisory committee should take into account these kinds of effects so that, when we create precision-bred organisms, we do not inadvertently make things worse for the environment rather than better. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 31. First, for the purposes of this Committee, I declare my interests: I am still involved in a family farming enterprise, growing crops and rearing livestock; I chair the board of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; and I am the president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.
Amendment 31 is similar to the two amendments that I put down in a later group on animal welfare, stressing the importance of following new strains of wheat, grass and maize—in my case, cows, pigs, sheep and dogs—down through many generations on to the farm, even into the home. As has already been said, the point is that we need to watch for the good effects, hopefully, but we must also look out for the possible unintended consequences that might arise. To be honest, I would hope that this already happens because, obviously, unintended consequences were even more likely to happen in the past under the random mutations of traditional breeding; if not, such measures should certainly be introduced now. It would be good to be reassured of that by the Minister.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, gave a very good introduction to these two amendments. Several of the speakers at Second Reading referred to the benefits of gene editing to enable crops to be hardier with regard to resisting drought and flood and the ability to repel insects. It is obvious to all that climate change is having a dramatic effect on crops; in many cases, it is devastating. Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, my technical knowledge on gene editing is woefully inadequate. However, I will do my best.
Not only in England but in other countries as well, farmers are finding their crops destroyed by the forces of nature, which they are powerless to combat. In many cases, this has led to a shortage of crops to feed indigenous populations, resulting in food loss and, in some instances, the starvation of large numbers of populations. Attempting to ensure that crops are more resilient is important. However, at the same time, it is essential that the natural cycle of our wild plants is protected. Both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act focused on the loss of biodiversity in our natural habitats in fields and hedgerows. The environmental land management schemes are intended to help biodiversity recover so that natural species of plants, birds and small animals recover to a sustainable level. However, if the gene editing of crops and plants affects ecosystems to such an extent that it alters their natural cycle, this will undoubtedly have an effect on wild flowers, which in turn will affect birds and small mammals.
This comes down to the precautionary principle and ensuring that action taken as a result of this Bill is closely monitored and does more good than harm. When moving forward with technology, which although tested is likely to move more quickly than traditional methods in the past, the prevention principle should also form a part of the equation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke eloquently at Second Reading of the last time gene editing was debated and how the debate got bogged down to such an extent that it had to be abandoned. It is not our intention on these Benches to see this happen a second time. It is time to move on, but we are looking for safeguards for the future. Without the necessary safeguards, unintended consequences could be hard to reverse. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made very powerful points in their arguments, with which I agree. I hope the Minister will be able to give the reassurances which are sought around the workings of the advisory committee.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not speaking at the Second Reading of this Bill; I was not on the team at that point.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for tabling the two amendments in this group, which we understand to be probing amendments. As my noble friend said about Amendment 2, she is challenging how far technology is applied. Do we want to go beyond certain sectors? How far beyond agriculture do we want to go? Amendment 31 is about the wider environmental concerns and reporting on the potential disruption to the farming ecosystem, which could have adverse effects on other plants.
As several speakers noted at Second Reading, the use of gene-editing technologies in plants is far less contentious than in animals. There is not only a much larger body of evidence from research institutions, following years of trials, but that evidence points to the risks being substantially lower. However, even if the risks are lower and potentially easier to mitigate, we must remain mindful of them. Regardless of whether these technologies are used for plant or animal life, we are dealing with processes that accelerate natural events and which may have—we have already heard this phrase—unintended consequences. Indeed, I have heard that phrase in your Lordships’ House over and again during the process of many Bills this Session. It seems to point to an uneasiness with what is being proposed and a lack of thinking things through during the process of legislation.
One imagines that the bulk of releases and marketing authorisations under this legislation will relate to agricultural products. If we can produce certain crops in a more efficient manner, or make them less susceptible to increasingly frequent extreme weather events, that could be a good thing. But we must remember that agricultural crops live alongside wild plants—grasses, wildflowers, trees and hedgerows—all of which have their own important roles in the natural world and in the careful and precious ecosystem. These amendments allow us to consider how new gene-edited varieties of crops will live alongside and interact with other types of plant life
It may be that there is a place for these technologies beyond agriculture, such as making certain tree species less susceptible to disease. I remember well, as leader of Newport City Council, when we had to deal with the significant problem of ash dieback. Large areas of ash trees were felled, with a significant impact on local wooded areas. We had a policy of planting two trees for every tree cut down on land we were responsible for, so felled ash trees were replaced with other suitable trees. If technology could help prevent such drastic measures, that can only be a positive thing.
Regardless of the precise applications of the technologies, it is not clear that the Bill as drafted takes full account of the potential consequences of new plant varieties once they are released. The Government’s environmental land management schemes and other initiatives are trying to halt the steady decline in our biodiversity which has been caused in part by the loss of meadows and hedges and the habitats they sustain. These efforts are hugely important, and there is a role for gene-edited plant varieties as we seek to achieve that goal. However, concerns have been raised by experts in this Committee that seemingly minor changes to agricultural, forestry and other land management practices arising from the use of new plant varieties could inadvertently have significant impacts on soil quality and wildlife in the medium to long term. These amendments provide the Government with an opportunity to address these concerns and outline how they will ensure that this new regime fits into efforts to protect and enhance our natural environment. I urge the adoption of them by the Government.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for reminding me that I have not referred noble Lords to my entry in the register or stated that I have farming interests. I thank her for being on the board of Rothamsted, one of the great institutions of this country. Many of the scientists there have been enormously helpful to us in the development of this legislation, and I am grateful to them for that.
I thank the noble Baroness for Amendment 2. The focus of our discussion has been on crop plants, but there is potential for precision breeding to be used in the breeding of other plant species, such as in forestry and ornamentals. I entirely agree with that. There would have to be a market for them, and I do not think they would be a priority for plant breeders in ornamentals, but there are huge possibilities for this in areas such as forestry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who I welcome to her post in the team, mentioned ash dieback. She is entirely right that it is a scourge on our environment and anything that can help to protect our forestry, ecosystems and woodland environments is important, which is why there may be a future for precision breeding in some of these areas.
Precision breeding could be particularly beneficial to speed up the breeding process in species that take a long time to mature—for example, to introduce disease resistance and drought tolerance traits in trees. This could have benefits for the forestry sector and for trees that are particularly susceptible to disease. As such, the definition of plants in the Bill is necessarily broad to allow for precision breeding and for the benefits to be realised in a range of species.
Our scientific advisory committee, ACRE, advised that precision-bred plants pose no greater risk to the environment than traditionally bred counterparts. It also advised that crosses between precision-bred crop plants and any sexually compatible wild relatives are extremely unlikely to result in weedier wild populations. Precision-bred plants are unlikely to be more invasive or persistent in non-agricultural settings compared to traditionally bred equivalents. This is because precision breeding relies on the creation of the same type of genetic variation as is selected for in traditional breeding.
The Bill introduces two notification systems. They require developers to provide information about precision-bred plants before they are released into the environment. Our intention is that this information would be published on a public register before the plants are released. I assure the noble Baroness that this will be closely monitored by the Government and, we anticipate, by stakeholders.
This Government have a strong commitment to protect and improve the environment, and we are clear that environmental protections are not being reduced in this Bill. Existing regulations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 will continued to apply to protect the environment from the introduction of non-native and invasive species.
I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that precision-bred plants pose no greater risk to the environment than traditionally bred plants, and that the Bill provides for proportionate systems to monitor developments in how these technologies are applied. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, raised some interesting points. If he will forgive me, I will keep my powder dry until we get to the group beginning with Amendment 19, later in today’s proceedings, because that is where I can best address his concerns.
I turn to Amendment 31, which probes how the use of a precision-bred organism may impact on agricultural processes and systems. As I have previously outlined, we see precision breeding as an essential part of our toolkit to improve our food system. We are already seeing promising research in which precision breeding could positively impact agricultural processes, such as by reducing the need for pesticides and fertilisers and reducing water use.
In countries such as Argentina, where the use of precision breeding has already been regulated in a more proportionate and cost-effective manner, there has been an increase in the variety of beneficial traits being researched. We hope to see a similar outcome in England. This would enable our farming system to benefit from new varieties and breeds that have improved climate and disease resilience and pest tolerance, among other things. We do not expect one trait, product or company to dominate the market and shape agricultural processes in England.
Existing regulations related to plant variety registration, seed certification and seed marketing already deliver an assurance of quality and stability for most agricultural crops. For some agricultural crops, this also includes additional testing for value for cultivation or use. If such crops were to be developed by precision breeding, they would also fall under these regulations.
Precision breeding has the potential to bring positive impacts for farmers and the environment, and we want to encourage that. To encourage this innovation and investment, we need to create a more proportionate and science-based regulatory regime. That is what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. I hope that provides the reassurance that noble Lords require.
Lord Benyon (Con)
As I said, I can see this finding a use in forestry and in some ornamental crops. I think the early work will be done in areas that I outlined, including drought resistance and reducing the requirement for input such as fertilisers and sprays, but we want to include the ornamental sector in time. There are 30 million gardeners in this country, and we want to unlock their potential to be part of a great green revolution, but I do not think that that will be the priority here. The priority will be food.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Then why not restrict the Bill to agriculture and horticulture? There are, of course, mechanical engineering reasons for wanting some plants or indeed animals for non-food purposes.
Lord Benyon (Con)
With respect, I would not want to do that. In the same way that we are insisting that these measures can be achieved over a longer period of time through traditional plant-breeding techniques, if they are safe, it can be applied for food crops and in protection of our trees and woodlands, and it may have applications in other areas which will help our economy, particularly our green economy. I would not want to restrict it from those sectors.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I accept, as several noble Lords have said, that there is a role for gene-editing techniques in breeding disease-resistant trees. My noble friend Lady Wilcox gave the good example of ash dieback and we can think of other examples of such applications.
The Minister seems to be going gung-ho for all markets, if I could put it like that. I caution against that. As I said earlier, we need to do this step by step. We all understand the pressure to feed the nation more productively, but I am not sure that it is a priority to go beyond that to things that are more decorative, for example, even if there is a market at this time. I would have liked the Government to have had a more balanced view to this, but I will study what the Minister said more carefully in Hansard.
Moving on to Amendment 31, I do not think the Minister actually answered the fundamental question, which is whether the advisory committee will be asked to look at the wider implications for agriculture of these particular techniques. Will it be looking purely at whether the individual genome is safe or at how it might impact on the wider landscape, if it is planted in the wider landscape? All we were asking is whether the advisory committee will be given that role. The noble Lord mentioned other pieces of legislation, but we should not have to rely on them to make sure that the environment is protected. It would be nice to see that written into the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will just answer that precise point. That is very much what ACRE does. It would not just be restricted to looking at a narrow area of science but the wider implications of the release into the environment and any impacts that that could have.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and therefore wish to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I shall also speak to the rather daunting-looking number of amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred in the first group to debate on the Bill in the other place being deficient. It is interesting that, last week, the Institute for Government released a study stressing how much better and stronger scrutiny of Bills needs to be in the other place. The debate we are about to have will perhaps set an example of what the other place could and should have been doing with the Bill, before it came to us.
We already introduced this in the last group with Amendment 2 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, but here we are looking broadly at the wide range of ways in which this Bill might be applied to different groups of plants and animals—or not, as the case may be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in responding to the Minister’s comments on the earlier group, said that it appeared that the Government were
“going gung-ho for all markets”.
That is a fair summary of what we are presented with on this issue, which is interesting, because the debates and the presentations we have heard from Defra have all been talking about food, farming, food security and dealing with the climate emergency. In those Defra press releases, we do not see discussions of prettier roses or more colourful plant foliage, yet it appears that that is being proposed. The detail of this Bill, except for in talking about marketing of food and feed, does not really talk about food and farming at all. We will come later to a group focusing on the question of inserting a clause about public good, which is one way that the actual claimed benefits of the Bill could be inserted, at least indirectly.
The single beneficiary of the Bill is—sometimes this sneaks out—the biotech industry. It is written to support the Government’s industrial innovation ambitions, not to support food, farming or the food security of our population. This is among the many faults that were picked up by the Regulatory Policy Committee; the Bill fails to understand where what it is proposing intersects with farming, food production, food businesses and consumer interests. These concerns are also echoed, in somewhat less clear language, by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my late arrival. I set off from Scotland very early this morning, but, as noble Lords might imagine, flights have been heavily disrupted. I would be grateful to contribute, if that is allowed.
I thank the Minister for his reassurance about gene drive and that that will still be subject to GMO regulations—this was a concern that I and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, had at Second Reading.
I turn to this group. I very much welcome the inclusion of animals in the Bill. This is a valuable adoption of modern technology. It can be a game-changer in the way we control and prevent diseases in animals, and will have positive welfare and environmental benefits. In this debate, we really need to weigh up the benefit-cost ratio. There are certainly lots of downsides to conventional breeding, which we have used without demur for many years.
Regarding environmental benefits and controlling disease, we know that, if you can control enteric worms in ruminants—for example, sheep—with drugs, you can decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 10% per unit of productivity. There is every reason to believe that we are going to be able to achieve that and more, without the use of drugs, by targeted genetic selection in breeding.
We know that, in the control of diseases, while vaccines are a wonderful invention, there are still many important infections that we do not have effective vaccines for. Avian flu is a very good recent example. Of course, we use genetic manipulation all the time in developing the vaccines that we then inject into people and animals.
Drugs have their inherent problems. Although they have been a fantastic advantage for us—particularly antibiotics, to prevent animals and people dying of infections that we could not control before the 1940s and 1950s—they have downsides as well. In many cases, we have drug resistance. Release into the environment has environmental consequences, as with other chemicals—parasiticides, for example. Environmental pollution of the aqueous environment is currently a matter of considerable concern.
These genetic technologies obviate those downsides of our current technologies. We have known for many years that susceptibility to disease is determined by a number of factors but that genetics is a major factor. However, we have failed to make substantial use of that knowledge, because it is too slow by conventional breeding and too difficult to determine and achieve the results we seek. I emphasise the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Krebs: natural or traditional breeding involves huge uncertainty, so one’s intended consequences may be extremely difficult to achieve. Conversely, unintended genomic consequences can and do occur, as my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington mentioned.
We discussed the wording in the Title of this Bill—“precision”. We can all agree that the techniques that we are discussing are certainly more precise than traditional breeding, in which we have no control whatever over the multiple mutations that occur when we hybridise animals. I therefore strongly support the inclusion of animals in the Bill, but I share a lot of the concerns about animal welfare and health. It is important for public confidence, as well as for the future monitoring of animal health and welfare consequences, that we monitor for adverse events post the achievement of the breeding of such animals, as we do for new drug introductions. That will be discussed later.
Finally, I will address the welfare issues which have been eloquently articulated. I do not want to repeat what I said on Second Reading, but we have laws governing the welfare of farmed animals. If we think there are problems now—as a number of people clearly do—the solution is to properly apply and enforce the laws we have. We do not need to invent new welfare laws because of a particular technique or technology that is coming along. Welfare laws, I would maintain, are already there; but if we feel they are insufficient, we should strengthen them, and that should apply to conventional and natural breeding as well as any modern technology.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer one question? Does he not consider the possibility that the genetic modification of a herd of animals might make them more likely to be predisposed to a particular disease or infection that we did not expect?
Lord Trees (CB)
With respect, I say that that could be screened out in the development process. There may be indications, were such a risk likely from genetic linkages and so on, and that could be looked for by whole genome sequencing in the screening process and then perhaps by in vivo challenge experiments. But it could occur in natural breeding processes, too.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord referred to the possibility of using gene editing to tackle enteric worms. Would he acknowledge that there is some very successful work being done on using diet—particularly tree crops and more varied pastural swards—to tackle worms? That is a far more agroecological approach that is working very effectively and has lots of other environmental benefits as well.
Lord Trees (CB)
I acknowledge that work has been done on that, but it is not in widespread commercial use.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 3, and I support the consequential amendments. The Government’s relatively late decision to add animals into the scope of the legislation has made what would have been a more routine Bill into something we believe is far more contentious. As many of us said on Second Reading, this has been compounded by the lack of detail as to how the regulations will work.
The Government have themselves admitted that the understanding of the impact of these new provisions is not fully developed. In fact, I believe the chief scientific adviser gave evidence in the Commons that it would take at least a couple of years to enact the animal-related clauses. So there is no urgency in adding them to the Bill at this time, and it seems that the only reason this is being done is because Defra is not sure when it will next get a legislative slot. That does not seem a very good basis for making legislation, particularly when we have so little information with which to make a judgment. For example, the factors that the welfare advisory board will consider have yet to be spelled out. We do not even know who will be tasked with making those decisions. We will return to these arguments when we consider other amendments about the composition and terms of reference of the regulators.
On Second Reading, several noble Lords sought to highlight the potential benefits of gene editing for animal welfare, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has done that again. No doubt there could be benefits—for example, in breeding out male chicks or tackling pig respiratory disease. But for every advantage there is a counterargument for the disadvantages. We have heard some of them from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It could be used to enable more intensive livestock breeding or to create fashionable designer dogs with health defects.
The fact is that scientists have not always used their breeding skills to altruistic effect. Hence, as we have heard, we now have chickens whose breast meat is so heavy that they are unable to stand, and farm animals bred for fast growth and high yields at the expense of their welfare. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has also raised concerns about animals being created to live packed together in more crowded spaces—another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. So it is not surprising that the major animal welfare charities are sounding the alarm.
So far, the debate around gene editing has concentrated on crops and seeds, and it has received cautious public support. But the introduction of animals raises much deeper ethical and moral challenges, which have not been explored in the public sphere. We are therefore in real danger of a backlash when this element of the Bill becomes more public.
The British public deserve to have a proper, thoughtful debate about how we want to coexist with farmed and domestic animals and the extent to which we should manipulate their breeding for our own ends. So I believe that these clauses inserting animals into the Bill are premature. We are being asked to take too much on trust at a time when the Government’s own thinking is not clear, and we all know the limitations of the secondary legislation system and the inability of Parliament to make real change at that stage. It is not good enough to expect us to pass this authority back to the Secretary of State when we know so little within the Bill at this time. This is why I believe we need to pause these clauses until Parliament can have a full debate on the fundamental issues at stake. I therefore support Amendment 3.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Trees in welcoming the inclusion of animals in this Bill, but I have added my name to Amendment 6, which would restrict the animals in question in the first instance to those involved in agriculture. My main reason for proceeding cautiously relates to the point just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, of public acceptance. There is a risk that, if the net is cast too wide with the inclusion of animals, there could be a backlash, which would undermine the whole endeavour.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has said, Amendment 5, which excludes companion animals, is a helpful start. I agree with her that many people would be horrified at the thought that we might breed dogs with further flattened noses through gene editing and that they would suffer the consequences of that.
One can also ask: would the public be happy to see gene-edited wild animals? We discussed that in relation to plants a few minutes ago. One could conjure up examples where the answer might be yes. For instance, if we could gene-edit herring gulls to stop them stealing ice creams and chips at the seaside, that might perhaps be a popular move; but I suspect that, on the whole, people would not be happy to see our native animals gene edited outside the context of agriculture. As it is most likely that the early applications of gene editing in animals will be for agriculture, why not acknowledge this, start here and progress step-wise to widen the range of animals at a later stage if that is deemed advantageous?
The advantage of Amendment 6 over Amendment 8, which refers to farmed animals, is that Amendment 6 would allow for the gene editing of, for instance, a pest or parasite of an agricultural species while Amendment 8 would not. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his expertise on this, but it may in some circumstances be easier to reduce the burden of disease on farm animals by altering the genome of the disease-causing organism rather than the genome of the farmed animal itself.
So, while I am in favour of including animals in the Bill, I think there is a case for proceeding cautiously and, in the first instance, restricting that to agricultural contexts.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 9 is in my name. I will be very brief about that, but I agree that we should be extremely cautious generally about animals at this stage. There is a lot of concern. From the example of dealing with pigs in a genome environment, I know that they are very different from some of the other mammals that we have been experimenting with. We may come to that issue later on when it comes to licensing.
With regard to Amendment 9, there is a strong case as well for limiting this to farm animals, if we go ahead at all—and if we do I would like to see equines excluded, for pretty obvious reasons. Some time ago, when I was working with an anaesthetist who was looking at equine metabolism, it was amazing how suspiciously the horse-breeding industry looked at our work—so much so that we could not share our data on their metabolism. It was very clear that we would have great difficulty with the restrictions that are proposed on that industry.
With regard to the great apes, it would be wrong to consider them in the same way as other mammals. It seems to me that these sapient creatures are so close to humans that they ought not to be included in the Bill. There are restrictions, of course, on the use of rhesus monkeys in research. I have worked with rhesus monkeys, not in Britain but in the United States. As a research worker, I always found that extremely distressing because I saw their response to even just a visit from us, when they knew we were going to do something which they thought would be unpleasant. I feel strongly that there has to be a very strong case for modifying sapient creatures, perhaps even to make them less sapient—so I propose Amendment 9 on that basis.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I realise that these are mostly probing amendments and, as ever, we await the Minister’s remarks with bated breath. But I cannot let the proposal to exclude all animals pass without comment because, like my noble friend Lord Trees, I believe that if we were to exclude all animals from the Bill, it would be an opportunity wasted to enable us to remove a lot of suffering on their behalf. My noble friend and I both mentioned the disease PRRS in pigs at Second Reading. It is a devastating disease for any herd, outdoors or indoors, organic or whatever. As a farmer, you just have to cull drastically to eliminate as much suffering as possible, and killing your herd is not a very pleasant thing to have to do. Breeding resistance to the disease is therefore a much more humane approach.
One of the great positives of the Bill is that if you alter the genes of one animal, say, to make them resistant to a particular disease, and succeed in making this a hereditary and stable characteristic—not always a given—you can get huge benefits for animals and even humans, because you will be taking more antibiotics out of our environment. Breeding resistance into future generations is so much more sensible than the ongoing use of antibiotics, medicines and even vaccines as a way to help animals live pain-free and disease-free lives.
The key to making the Bill work fairly and humanely for animals is to ensure that we continue to have the strictest monitoring and regulation every step of the way: in the laboratory and on the farm, and for plants and particularly with animals. We will obviously come to the tightening of some of these regulations later in our deliberations.
On the companion animal debate, I fear I disagree with my noble friend Lord Krebs, who I very rarely disagree with. I realise that they seem to present a slightly more unregulated environment than that of farm animals; people keeping pets are not subject to the strict regulations that exist on our farms—regulations that are, in theory, enforced by a variety of inspectors, not least those who come from the supermarkets, on which the farmers depend for their livelihoods. However, we are not debating how the pets are being kept: it is the ability of breeders to get the relevant licence and approval from the Home Office, and now from the welfare advisory body. If we had some form of guarantee that the welfare advisory body will have a remit—nay, a duty—to investigate in the home and on the farm the future quality of life of any relevant animal and its progeny, along the lines of my later amendments, I do not see it as necessary to exclude companion animals in total from this Bill.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, at the risk of appearing to be part of a Cross-Bench cabal, I would like to support the comments of my colleagues on the Cross Benches and include animals in the Bill.
This is a very minor point, but I would like to respond to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on productivity. This is not, in my view, about ever-increasing yields of crops, the growth of animals, the yields of dairy cows or the growth of chickens, but about improving what is real productivity, which is reducing the cost per unit of production, and improving the welfare and well-being of the animals by reducing their susceptibility to disease. It is the cost of producing the unit of production that is the true measurement of productivity, not ever-increasing yields. I believe that to be able to use these techniques to do that will be of huge benefit to both the animals themselves and to those who farm them.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we have heard the arguments made by those who argue for the exclusion of all animals with great sympathy. We think that both noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made good points. Their arguments around the concerns that the public have are extremely well made. I merely add one other reason why their case is strong, which has not been referred to, which is the evidence that was produced from ACRE, which the Minister referred to. What he did not make clear in his remarks was that ACRE said that in terms of unintended consequences, and DNA being retained in organisms used through this process, the likelihood of that happening is far higher with animals than it is with plants. That is another strong argument for a slower approach to proceeding with gene editing. I do not think anybody is saying that gene editing does not have any benefits, but we should be taking that slower approach, both because of how the public have shown their concern over animals and because of the advice from ACRE that that argument has merit.
I understand where the Government are coming from and therefore I have proposed four amendments in this group that would limit gene editing to just farmed animals. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may have concerns over the wording I chose. My wording was chosen merely because that was the defined use in a previous piece of legislation, so we would not have to argue about what the term meant. I think it is useful in Committee to be probing the Government on excluding farmed animals for a number of reasons. First, as a number of colleagues have said, when we look at other particular areas, such as companion animals, it is not just the welfare treatment of companion animals, it is the actual characteristics that are being bred. Let us think about cropped ears or short muzzles for dogs. Those are not the sorts of things the public would like to see this legislation being used to introduce.
Equally, in the area that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, there is the potential for an enormous number of unintended consequences if this technique is used for wild animals, not only for the animals themselves but for the biodiversity and ecosystems around them. There is a real worry at this stage, which causes me to feel that, if animals are to be included, it would be sensible to restrict editing to farmed animals. There are two other reasons why I think it is important. The first is that it is all the public have been asked about. The Minister talked about how the FSA and the department have been consulting the public; they have consulted with the public only on farm animals, not on the use of animals more broadly. The public have had no say in that at all, so I do not think it is right or proper that we should proceed with a piece of legislation with such huge implications for animals, given public concern that could threaten the capacity of this technology, which does have benefits, to be accepted by the public. They have had no say on companion animals or wild animals. Yes, they have had some say on farmed animals, but not more broadly. That is one concern I have.
My second concern is one that I raised at Second Reading, when I asked the Minister who else in the industry, in the scientific community, in the academic community and in the veterinary community had asked for anything other than farmed animals. The response was, no one. This is about the Government, in their terms, future proofing the legislation, but I do not believe it is appropriate to go beyond what people have been asked about, be it the public, the academics, the veterinarians, the scientists, business organisations, Rothamsted or anyone. No one has been making a case for anything beyond farmed animals, so I ask the Minister to address that in his summing up. On these Benches, we would prefer animals to be excluded in their entirety and to proceed more slowly. But, if that is not the case, we think there is an extremely strong case at the moment to limit it to farm animals. We are looking for a rather better response from the Minister than he gave at Second Reading as to why he thinks it is appropriate that anything beyond farmed animals should be included in this legislation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but many of them are consequential, so I will not go through them one by one. I have also added my name to Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have supported other amendments in this group, such as the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The reason for this is that, whether we agree that animals should be included or not, there is a wider debate as to when they should be included, how quickly they should be included, and whether all animals should be included or just some. That is why I put down a lot of amendments in this group. It is an area on which we really need to have proper debate and consideration, because it fundamentally changes much of what the Bill is trying to achieve if you have not just animals but all animals within the Bill, and without any timescales as to when these are going to be included.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Winston, because this is slightly different from any other discussion that we have had. It states that the legislation should not apply to equines or rhesus monkeys, for example. He also stressed that he was very cautious about including animals right at the start of the Bill. We will be very interested in the Minister’s response to my noble friend, because it is a different area that he has raised.
I mentioned at Second Reading that I was concerned about the introduction of animals and how they have been included in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised an important point as to what was discussed with the public in the earlier stages that led up to the legislation in front of us. All the secondary legislation that preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals; likewise, much of the Government’s language and discussion focused on plants, not animals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the consultation that was held by Defra referenced animals, but they did not seem to be the main focus of attention. Moreover, references to animals focused completely on farm animals. Many stakeholder groups were not expecting the Government to include animals in the Bill, which is partly why many are quite taken aback and have raised concerns.
If you look at the Bill, you will also see evidence of the lack of concrete provisions around timeframes: many of them are vague and noncommittal. Much of the preparation that we believe is necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been properly carried out. In many aspects, the Bill is a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions or provisions on its face. It also delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers, not only to bring in an awful lot of secondary legislation but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause, which I am sure that, at some point, we will get on to debate.
No one disputes that it would be a wonderful thing to be able to tackle avian flu or PRRS. Of course, if we can find a solution to these kinds of diseases, it would be hugely beneficial—not just in a financial sense, with much of the Bill focused on marketing, but also in terms of welfare.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the fact that he strongly supports animals in the Bill. I believe that that is because he is looking at the welfare aspects of this. However, I am concerned that he may be a little gung-ho about how quickly we need to move forward on this. I agree with him that we need to strengthen animal welfare laws. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, talked about the importance of breeding to remove disease and produce resistance to disease. I completely understand those arguments, but I am concerned that we may be moving too quickly without the regulatory framework that needs to be in place and without the considerations that we need to have around the inclusion of animals.
The other thing I want to draw the Committee’s attention to is the fact that the European Union timetable also indicates plants, not animals. Have the Government considered the implications of the EU moving ahead just with plants at this stage if we have animals as well? A large number of animal welfare organisations have expressed concerns; I ought to declare my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which is one of the groups that has said it is concerned about this Bill.
The RSPCA, which has already been mentioned, produced a particularly good briefing as to what these concerns are. Its thoughts are that, ideally, the Bill should not cover any animals but, if it does, it should be limited to farm animals only. We have heard a lot of arguments today as to why that should be. It also mentions, as one would expect the RSPCA to do, the impact of conventional breeding, particularly on dogs; a number of noble Lords have talked about that. It also says that gene editing in wild animals is done with the express purpose of altering ecosystems, with potentially unpredictable impacts, and that this should always be controlled by the GMO regulations; I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that particular comment by the RSPCA. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also expressed concerns about wild animals.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, the other issue is that we need to take the public with us. If we are not careful about how we legislate around the animal aspect, we will lose them. It is terribly important that we are very careful about how we bring in and implement any animal aspects of this Bill, if at all. The Nuffield Council also raised concerns about bringing animal welfare in, stating:
“The welfare of animals is not a characteristic, like growth rate or milk yield, but a consequence of the interaction of biological and environmental factors.”
That is a really important thing to take home with us as we look at how we can move the Bill forward. It also said:
“There is a risk that the focus placed on individual traits in the Bill could distract from this broader consideration of welfare.”
It is terribly important that that concern is built into the Bill.
In our debate on a later group, we will debate the welfare advisory body in the Bill; now is not the time to do so but the question of whether that group is adequate will be a really important part of the Bill, particularly in terms of whether we should amend it to support that concern. Compassion in World Farming also raised concerns about this issue; I will not go into the detail as we discussed this at Second Reading.
I am slightly concerned that it has been suggested that ethical concerns should not be part of the broader debate. I would say that, where animal welfare is concerned, they should be. We must not forget those ethical concerns either.
I mentioned Professor Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at Defra, earlier. I am going to mention him again, because I thought his evidence was particularly interesting in the Commons Committee debate. He said:
“The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals.”
He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare
“will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be”—
as referenced by my noble friend Lady Jones—
“something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 28/6/22; col. 18.]
Where in the Bill is that set out, so that we have that guarantee of two to three years? Neither the process nor the timescales are laid out in the Bill. If we need more time to get the provisions right, why are we not focusing on doing that rather than asking noble Lords, essentially, to allow them to pass and then ask all these questions and put in this detail afterwards? That, to me, is not good legislation. These are big decisions we are making.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, when I was in another place, there was a free vote on the smoking ban. I remember a panicked Back-Bencher coming towards the Lobbies and saying that he did not know how to vote, because he hated smoking but loved freedom—what was he to do? Someone just said to him, “That way for freedom from smoke; that way for freedom to smoke.” I mention that because it shows that you can look down two ends of a telescope and come at this from two directions. I entirely understand that people who want to oppose the Bill in its entirety will find hooks on which to hang that belief, and that others who see merit in this will try to see a path down which to go.
I will try to address the points raised. First, for clarity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that fungi are out of the scope of the Bill. I am sure she will be pleased to hear that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that animals were not a late inclusion into the Bill. There was a consultation in March 2021 which included animals, and a response to that was published in September 2021, so I do not think the idea that this was a late entry into the Bill stacks up.
I am grateful for the opportunity to further build on the Government’s position on why we think it is vital that animals remain part of the Bill. There are many potential benefits of enabling precision breeding in animals, including, as we have heard, to improve the health, welfare and resilience of animals. We have a real opportunity to harness the great research that is already taking place in the UK. Noble Lords highlighted some of this great potential during Second Reading, but to reiterate, our leading scientists are already using precision breeding to develop resistance to a range of diseases that impact animals across the country.
We have already mentioned at Second Reading research focused on resistance to bird flu in chickens, resistance to sea lice in farmed salmon and resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trees—
Lord Winston (Lab)
I have been looking very carefully at the literature on gene editing for this debate, to remind myself. Although the Minister praises British research—of course we like to promote British research and British universities, being at one myself—I have to say that what I see is that the papers describing the risks of gene editing in detail largely come from other countries, including Asia and America. I do not think we can ignore the fact that there is a wide body of opinion that recognises that this is still a relatively dodgy technique, particularly so in animals, and therefore we need to go carefully before we start to implement it as a sort of service that we might be able to sell.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and will cover that point in a moment.
I was making a point about PRRS, but there are also developments abroad in producing cattle that are more heat tolerant and resistant to climate change. As was pointed out at Second Reading, there is potential to reduce methane emissions from cattle, which is vital for more sustainable agricultural systems.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that there are many examples that demonstrate the potential to bring significant health and welfare benefits to our animal populations and economic benefits to our farming industries. That is why we are looking at this down one end of the telescope. I hope I can persuade noble Lords that this a way that offers great potential, particularly in the area of animal welfare.
It is vital that we create an enabling regulatory environment to translate this research into practical, tangible benefits. This is a key objective of the Bill, and removing animals from the Bill would hinder us from realising any benefits of these technologies for animals. Ensuring that these technologies are used responsibly and enhance animal health and welfare is vital; I think we are all agreed on that. That is why we intend to take a stepwise approach in implementing the Bill, with regulatory changes to the regime for plants first, followed by that for animals. We want to make sure that the framework for animal welfare set out in the Bill is effective, and we will not bring the measures on precision breeding into effect for animals until this system is in place.
It is important we get this right, and that is why we have commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to carry out research to help us develop the application process for animal marketing authorisations. This will focus on the welfare assessment that notifiers will have to carry out to support their welfare declaration. This research will help us determine an appropriate welfare assessment for precision-bred animals and identify the evidence and information that must be submitted to the welfare advisory body along with the notifier’s welfare declaration. The research will involve experts from the Animal Welfare Committee and a wide range of organisations with expertise in animal welfare, genetics and industry practice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trees has noted, the Bill introduces additional animal welfare standards, over and above existing animal welfare legislation. We are clear that these additional safeguards will complement our existing animal welfare regulatory framework for protecting animals. This includes the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. A suite of legislation exists. I absolutely refute the points that have been rightly raised that this can be seen as a fast passage towards higher density occupation of buildings because birds are somehow resistant to diseases caused by tight accommodation. There is already legislation that controls the densities and other animal welfare provisions. The idea that this is somehow going to allow producers to get round existing legislation is not the case, and there are additional animal welfare safeguards within the legislation.
If we want to drive investment in new research and realise the potential benefits for animals, we need to include them in the Bill. By doing so, we are providing a clear signal that the UK is the best place to conduct research and bring products to market.
I move now to the topic of limiting the scope of the Bill to certain animals. As we have already discussed, we know that there are benefits from enabling precision breeding. This technology has the potential to improve the health and welfare of animals. This applies to a range of animal species. I hope that the points I am coming to now will address the points made in the amendments and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others.
The definition of animals in this Bill is broad so that the legislation remains durable for future years and to encourage beneficial research and innovation. Much of current research is on animals used in food production. We want to ensure that the potential benefits, such as improved welfare, can be realised across different species in a responsible way as research advances. This includes species that are kept only in this country as companion animals. Independent scientific advice that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk than traditionally bred organisms applies to farm and companion animals.
To quote one example, hip dysplasia in certain breeds of dog is a devastating condition; it causes a lot of misery for the dog and its owners, and results in the dog’s early death. I do not say that there is some quick and easy path to resolving this, but there is a lot of research going on to traditionally breed out that condition. I want to see this sort of work speeded up. It seems right to include the ability to tackle these sorts of conditions in companion animals in this legislation, with adequate safeguards.
It is important to note that this is just the beginning. We intend to take a step-by-step approach with animals. We will not bring the measures set out in this Bill into effect in relation to any animal until the system to safeguard animal welfare is fully developed and operational. This system is intended to ensure that, before a vertebrate animal or its qualifying progeny can be marketed, their health and welfare will not be adversely affected by any trait that results from precision breeding. As I said, we have started by commissioning Scotland’s Rural College to conduct research that will help develop this application process.
I acknowledge the amendments tabled by noble Lords in relation to the range of animals covered in the Bill. The suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to pursue and build up the step-by-step approach is the right way forward. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured to know that the Bill, as currently drafted, already allows us to take this step-by-step approach through commencement regulations; for instance, by commencing the relevant provisions of the Bill in relation to some animal species before dealing with others. I hope this offers some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I hope that the points I have made will enable noble Lords to not press their amendments.
Lord Trees (CB)
On companion animals, I can understand that this is a difficult and quite controversial issue. There is an irony and a paradox—for example, around short-nosed dogs; the so-called brachycephalic breeds—and we can look at it with either a glass half full or a glass half empty approach. The irony is that, through natural, traditional breeding, we have bred animals that are deformed. Brachycephalic breeds have a markedly reduced life expectancy than breeds with long noses. They have not only problems with obstructive airway disease but delivery by Caesarean section is much more frequent, and they have ocular and skinfold problems. Genetic manipulation and editing could help reverse these trends much more quickly than might happen through traditional breeding. We need to be open minded about the potential for good, as well as the potential for less good outturns.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord: there are opportunities here. With the balanced approach that we have taken and the step-by-step approach with which we will implement the legislation, I hope that we can quickly get to the place that the noble Lord described, where we start to reverse some of the terrible things that we have seen in traditional breeding processes. I hope that the Bill can be seen as paving the way for higher standards in animal welfare for all kinds of animals.
I am about to sit down, but I can see various noble Lords poised to step in and I am very happy to take more points.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister. He has talked about a step-by-step approach a few times. Why can that not be put in the Bill, so that we are secure that things will not be able to happen until we are ready for them?
Lord Benyon (Con)
All I can do is assure noble Lords that nothing will happen before we are in the right position to do it. That is why we have commissioned the work with Scotland’s Rural College, and we are working with important stakeholders such as veterinary colleges and others to make sure that we get this right.
The priority will be to try to do this for farmed animals first, and we want to make sure that we are operating a step-by-step approach. If we put it in the Bill, it may be too prescriptive, because we are in a fast-moving area of science, and it may constrain the ability of the scientific community to progress this if we do it in the wrong way. We want to give as much freedom as possible, and that is why we are adopting this process.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I hope the Minister will forgive me—I have been a complete pest to him this afternoon and will probably continue to be one—but it is nothing to do with the scientific community. That community can take as long as it wants to get the right answers; it is the marketing of these animals that concerns us. We have no problem with the science, providing it is done humanely, and we recognise that that is the Government’s intention because we already have very good legislation to do that, but we have to accept that the science is still uncertain. That is why we are concerned that we might make mistakes.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is precisely why we want to have the proper regulatory framework in place, and that requires consultation. We also have a flowchart, available on the Bill webpage, that sets out very clearly the process for applying for an animal marketing authorisation. I will not delay noble Lords by going through each of the six steps in the process, but it is very extensive and exhaustive and clearly sets out how we propose to do this.
It gives the kind of reassurance that a lot of noble Lords talked about regarding the public’s acceptance. To address that point, it is a matter of how you put the question: if you do so in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, just did, mentioning the benefits of the legislation, I think a huge majority of people will support it. If you ask it in a different way, you will get a different answer—that was the problem 25 to 30 years ago.
The noble Lord is right, of course: the scientific community will move at the pace that the money allows it to, and the market will create demand for the research. But we want to make sure that we have a good, proper regulatory process that reassures the public and is clear to developers of these products, so that they can see how they will be required to sit within that sort of framework.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer and thank everyone who contributed to what has been a very rich, full and very informed debate. I am going to deal first with the structural questions just raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
We again have this problem that we have to wait for the regulations and trust the Government. I appreciate that the Minister was doing his best to persuade us, and I felt that he really wanted the opportunity to have a PowerPoint presentation here to show us a slide of his flowchart. But this is all about taking it on trust. Almost certainly, in the timeframe the Minister referred to, we are talking of not the same Government implementing this—I am not casting any aspersions on who the next Government might be—and the noble Lord not being in a position to guarantee what will happen in the future. We are left with this uncertainty and it not being clear. We know that tomorrow will test your Lordships’ House on just how much it is prepared to stand up against regulations. We shall see what happens then.
The Minister responded to me on the standards of what I call factory farming. He said that there is already legislation on this, but I say that that legislation is grossly inadequate and that we have huge disease problems because of that. Tightening up animal welfare regulations and regulations for housing animals in this country would greatly reduce the need to deal with problems of disease.
It is interesting that the Minister also said, perhaps a couple of times, that including animals is about making the UK the best place to conduct research. I come back to the point I made on an earlier group about whether this Bill is for animal welfare, food security for farmers, or for our biotechnology industry. It appears that we are hearing that it is for the biotechnology industry.
I am not going to run through all the contributions, because the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, have already provided us with a good summary, but I will draw together the responses from the Minister and a number of others, including the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron of Dillington. There have been suggestions about tackling disease, but we are talking about ecological niches here. Let us say you produce pigs that are entirely resistant to a particular disease; you are producing resistance to one species or one threat. You are very unlikely to produce widespread resistance, so you are opening up an ecological niche for another disease to come in, if you keep animals in conditions that allow that to happen.
We can take a practical example from what is happening in human society at this moment. Over many centuries, human societies have had conditions that have allowed the spread of a wide range of respiratory diseases.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not agree with me that we have been somewhat dismissive in this debate of the use of vaccines? Surely one of the ways to look at this with more intensity, and perhaps more money, is to look at more vaccines not just for human health but for animal health. At the moment, the research there is nothing like as much as it is for humans.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and agree, although we know that animals kept in good conditions of husbandry are much less susceptible to disease. My first approach is to keep animals in conditions where they are not susceptible to disease, and then you do not need to go to the expense and effort of developing vaccines or using antibiotics, which have the issues with resistance that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
I was talking about respiratory viruses. Our population is threatened now by not just Covid-19 but a number of other coronaviruses that have long been causing respiratory diseases in humans. We are threatened by rhinoviruses and by flus, all because of conditions that make us prone to respiratory illnesses spreading. Tackling just one of those, as we have done with the Covid-19 vaccine that the noble Lord just referred to, with great effect, does not mean that we will stop all those other forms of respiratory illness.
That has covered the main points. I want to come back to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, which raises some interesting points on great apes. I would extend this to all simians or monkeys. I ask your Lordships’ House to consider whether we actually want to be gene editing great apes or monkeys.
The point about equines is also very interesting when we think about horseracing and the enormous amount of money and the possibly shady characters involved in it. Whether we really want to see gene-editing in racehorses leads us into the companion animals question. It is a real area of concern. On that, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to brachycephalic breeds that are identified as a problem area. If the breed societies were to say that they were going to create really rigid rules and change their definition of what those breeds are supposed to look like, that would be another way, a kind of husbandry way, of tackling the issue.
I will of course withdraw the amendment at this stage, but before I do that, I want to ask the Minister a question. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, does he think we should leave open the possibility of gene-editing great apes?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not think that any conversation I have had has considered what our priorities would be. Our priorities would be to look at farmed animals and possibly the benefits for companion animals. We are not a range state when it comes to those sorts of animals, and I cannot see that being a priority.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer, but I note that the Bill allows that to happen. There is nothing in it to say that it would not. I have no doubt that this is an issue that we will return to on Report, probably at some length, with a number of choices before us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) an organism’s genome could not have resulted from traditional processes or natural transformation if that organism is, or the processes used to create it are, subject to patent protection.” Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment examining how, where a genetic technology breeding process for any living organism has been granted a patent under international or national law, it can be the result of a traditional process or a natural transformation since novelty is required for granting such a patent.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise that I seem to be dominating; I am sure we will get away from this. Amendment 12 appears in my name. In some ways we are returning to some of the issues that we were discussing in the first group about the definition of “traditional” or “natural”. If a genetic technology breeding process has been granted a patent under international or national law, novelty is a condition of acquiring a patent. Therefore, how can it be traditional or natural? I freely confess to your Lordships’ House that I am not an expert on intellectual property, and Amendment 74 in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others deals with how this interacts with intellectual property law and the issues that were raised by your Lordships’ House’s oversight committees which the Government have insufficiently considered. I am going to leave that entirely to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because intellectual property is definitely not my area.
However, I think it is worth exploring how something can be both traditional or natural and patented, whether we are using that as the process to create an organism or the organism itself. It is worth thinking about how the words “traditional” and “natural” are used. The idea is that something traditional or natural has been tried or tested for generations. It is associated in the public mind with safety. We know that food, feed and seed labelled as “traditional” or “natural” draw a higher level of consumer trust, so these words are important in their own terms and in terms of the technical understanding.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 74 in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for crediting me with knowledge of international law on IP, but in fact I am not very well informed on that. I will raise some questions that were put to me by the Royal Society, which suggested an amendment of this nature. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Patel for putting their names to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Patel sends his apologies; he is stranded in Scotland, as are many other noble Lords, I suspect.
My amendment merely asks the Government to review and publish guidance on the implications of the Bill for the law of intellectual property. This is important because all those involved in the development and marketing of precision-bred organisms need to know where they stand. Are these organisms to be treated, from the point of view of IP, like transgenic organisms or like conventionally bred organisms? GMOs currently enjoy greater intellectual property protection than new plant and animal varieties produced using other breeding technologies, which is justified in part by the greater expense of securing regulatory approval for the cultivation of varieties carrying GM traits.
But intellectual property protections significantly reduce the accessibility of the benefits of genetic technologies, and they also contribute to public concerns about the commercial use of technologies. As we heard at Second Reading, the fact that Monsanto and other companies had patent rights for GMOs and had inserted terminator genes into the plants was a major objection to transgenic crops 20-odd years ago.
If genome-edited products are not treated as GMOs, they should enjoy no greater intellectual property protection than the products of traditional breeding technologies, such as plant breeders’ rights—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made this point. Members of the plant breeding industry need to be able to breed from each other’s varieties, and it would not be in the public interest if the adoption of genome editing for crop improvement were to compromise the ability of plant breeders to make crosses with each other’s varieties.
Plant breeders may argue that they should benefit from patent protection in the same way as for GMOs in order to recover their costs, including the royalties to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred on the CRISPR technology. However, I suggest that the public interest overrides this argument. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will confirm that, since precision-bred organisms are defined in the Bill as equivalent to organisms that could have been produced by conventional breeding, they will not enjoy greater IP protection than conventional varieties. Surely this is the logical conclusion.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, have spoken eloquently to this small group of amendments. The technical aspects of the Bill are complex and he has already mentioned the matter raised by the Royal Society. If a new seed variety is developed using GMOs, as he said, it has greater intellectual property rights than one that is developed using other breeding technologies. If some genome-edited products are not treated as GMOs, they should enjoy no greater intellectual property protection than the products of traditional breeding technologies, such as plant breeders’ rights.
The whole issue of novel foods is affected by the Bill and these amendments. The Royal Society believes that those in the plant breeding industry need to be able to breed from each other’s varieties, and it would not be in the public interest if the adoption of genome editing for crop improvement were to compromise the ability of plant breeders to make crosses with each other’s varieties. I am really sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is not here because I feel he would be interested in this section. The ownership of intellectual property needs to be addressed before the Bill moves forward to Report. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I look forward to the response of the Minister.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 12, and to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling Amendment 74, which my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock was pleased to sign. Issues around intellectual property were not explored in any detail in another place; nor did the topic feature heavily in the Hansard report of Second Reading. Some may argue that such matters are pushing the scope of this legislation, but we believe it is vital that all interested parties understand the regimes that will apply once the Bill is passed and enacted.
For a product to make it to market, it will have been subject to research, testing, scaling up and the release and marketing processes laid out in the Bill. This will involve significant costs for those who develop the technologies and associated products. We understand that they will want to protect that work and the underlying financial investments to the best of their abilities. On the other hand, for this process to be successful, we need to see fair prices for the farmers who will utilise these technologies or the new plant and animal varieties that arise from them. At present, it is not clear what IP regimes will apply. We can make assumptions, but there is no certainty. As a result, we do not know how many players will bring these new products to market, nor how many farmers will be able to afford them. Amendment 74 offers a way forward, requiring the Secretary of State to publish guidance on these matters prior to bringing the bulk of the Bill’s provisions into force.
These matters are incredibly complex and perhaps not best dealt with through additions to the final version of the Bill. However, this is Committee, and we hope that the Minister will be able to provide an indication that this work is not only in progress, but that appropriate guidance will be in place at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments regarding intellectual property laws. I will first take the probing amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would prevent an organism from qualifying for precision-bred status if it was subject to a patent, either on the product itself or on the process used to produce it. This provides an opportunity for us to explore how a precision-bred organism can be patentable, and what it means for such an organism to be capable of having
“resulted from traditional processes or natural transformation”.
As I am sure she is aware from previous debates in Committee, it is the final genetic composition of an organism that we are considering when assessing whether a plant or animal meets the criteria for being “precision bred” as set out in the Bill. This is in line with the scientific advice we have received: that it is the final genetic and phenotypic characteristics of an organism that are important and not the technology or process used to produce it.
This approach differs fundamentally from the current principles used to determine whether patents are available for plants and animals whose DNA has been altered using modern biotechnology. Unlike the definition employed in the Bill to determine whether an organism is precision-bred—which, as I have said, focuses on the end result—patent principles focus on the technology or processes used to produce these plants and animals.
The definition of a “precision bred organism” should continue to be based on scientific evidence and advice. In continuation of this logic, it would be disproportionate and unscientific to prevent a qualifying precision-bred organism from having precision-bred status on the basis of the granting or not of a patent. To prevent precision-bred organisms from obtaining patent protections would go against the core principles on which the Bill is based: that regulation should be proportionate, robust and driven by the evidence.
An invention must meet a number of legal requirements if a patent is to be granted. The granting of a patent is determined not only by the nature of the invention but by other legal requirements, including whether the invention is new or non-obvious. This is not the same as asking whether an invention that did not exist previously could, in principle, have been produced through a different method. As such, the presence or absence of patent protection cannot be used to determine if a particular DNA sequence could have resulted from traditional processes or natural transformation.
Patents represent an important mechanism for innovators to gain return on their investments. As a result, preventing organisms from being classed as “precision bred” if those organisms or the processes used to create them are subject to patent protection, would likely deter uptake of the technologies that the Bill wishes to facilitate. Ultimately, the UK would lose the significant benefits that implementation of the Bill could bring.
Amendment 74 would require the Defra Secretary of State to review and publish guidance on the implications of the genetic technology Bill for intellectual property law. As I am sure that noble Lords are aware, in the UK the Intellectual Property Office is responsible for patents. I assure noble Lords that we have worked closely with the Intellectual Property Office in this area. UK patent law does not specifically exclude patents from being granted on precision-bred plants and animals. Indeed, a patent may be granted if all the requirements for a particular invention are met—novelty, utility, and non-obviousness.
The Bill does not make any changes to laws associated with obtaining a patent; nor does it alter the process by which an applicant would apply for patent protections. Breeders wishing to patent their precision-bred plant or animal should therefore undertake this process in the same manner as for all other inventions and under the guidance of the Intellectual Property Office.
Most interest in this area has revolved around the use of patents that protect precision-bred organisms. However, it is important to note that other protections for intellectual property are available. For example, a plant breeder may want to obtain protection using plant variety rights. In animals, breeders generally gain protections through contracts with buyers, which stipulate terms to ensure their trait of value is protected. Engagements with industry stakeholders have highlighted that fair access and value gains for farmers must balance with restrictions on the use of protected material in order to enable a return on investment. In plant breeding, licensing platforms which facilitate access to patented material have been borne out of the need to create this equilibrium. We envisage that a similar situation would arise should breeders decide to protect their precision-bred organisms. Ultimately, patent law strikes a balance between incentivising innovation and allowing access for farmers and breeders, precisely the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was making.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I do not know who drafted this response but it is a masterpiece of obscurantism, in my view. I do not blame the Minister; he is simply reading out what his civil servants have given him. I could not understand—maybe because I am falling asleep or something, but I do not think I am—whether the answer is that PBOs are equivalent to the plants or animals that could be produced by conventional breeding, and therefore enjoy the same protections, or whether they are different. Will he just nail that point down, with a very simple yes or no? Is his answer that precision-bred organisms are treated as equivalent to those that could be produced by conventional breeding, and therefore they enjoy the same patent protections?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord if I am sending him to sleep, but this is a complex area. Patent lawyers will dance on the head of a pin on some of these issues. As I said, we have worked with the Intellectual Property Office to get this exactly right and to address precisely the point he made earlier about some of the difficulties that were faced, with large international companies owning the rights to seed entitlements. That caused great difficulty in the past.
I shall just read one bit to him again, and if the noble Lord could try to stay awake, it will be an achievement that I will rejoice in. The Bill does not make any changes to laws associated with obtaining a patent; nor does it alter the process by which an applicant would apply for patent protections. Breeders wishing to patent their precision-bred plant or animal should therefore undertake this process in the same manner as for all other inventions and under the guidance of the Intellectual Property Office.
The Bill is also an attempt to provide precisely the balance that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, stressed. We want to secure the rights of those who are investing enormous amounts of money in the development of these technologies, while also not making it impossible for farmers—precisely the people we want to have access to these technologies—to have access. That is the balance we are seeking to achieve.
I can work only on the best legal advice I am given. There are noble Lords in this Committee whose speciality is intellectual property law, and I am sure they could dance much more dextrously on the head of that particular pin than I.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I wonder if we could “strictly” stop dancing just for a moment and come back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I have to declare an interest in the register: I have a company called Atazoa, which is responsible for modifying the genes not of embryos but of individual sperm. We have of course also been working with eggs. This is before fertilisation—before the organism is formed. That is subject to a number of patents which have raised a certain amount of money for our research, and the research has been moderately fruitful—not as fruitful as I would have liked it to have been; it has not made any major changes.
There is an issue here. First, what happens if we produce a farm animal as a result of that technique? Does that come under the licence or not? Secondly, during the process of gene editing, it is very probable that people will make new editions to the modification of techniques to find new ways to put together what is quite a complex process; even though it is fairly efficient and simple to do, it remains complex. What happens, for example, with regards to improvement of the technology, rather than the animal husbandry side of it? Does the patent there still stand or not?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I have to be honest with the noble Lord and say that I will write to him on this. He makes a very good point. I can think of it only in terms of a standard invention. In intellectual property terms, you secure the creation of whatever it is, with whatever characteristic it has, and others may come along and improve it. The line on intellectual property exists until they change it beyond its original purpose, and I quoted the other criteria earlier. I am going to write to both the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, to give more precise answers to those particular points. With that, I hope the noble Baroness is willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and everyone who has contributed to this short but very dense—I think that is the appropriate adjective here—debate. I cannot help feeling that, should we revisit this on Report, as I suspect we may, we will need a couple of IP KC specialists to hand it over to, rather than leaving it to be tangled with by those who are not legal specialists in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, nailed it: it feels like this has not been properly worked through, and it certainly has not been explained to the Committee. That is exactly where we have arrived at.
I will put some more questions to the Minister, because I am wrestling with this. I freely acknowledge that I am not an IP law specialist, by any means, but how can something that is patented be natural and traditional? Those two things are simply incompatible in law, and certainly in public understanding. That is what my amendment addresses, and I do not believe the Minister has dealt with that issue.
More specifically and concretely, and perhaps easier to answer—although I understand if the Minister wants to write to me—he referred to some of the tangles that had occurred previously with GMO technology. Seeds had blown from one field to another, and a farmer who had not even planted the patented crop found themselves in legal difficulty with its owner because they were illegally growing the seeds, even though they did not want them. Some of them may even have been organic farmers, who definitely did not want those seeds. Can the Minister assure me that we will not see this situation arising with so-called precision-bred organisms in the UK, particularly plants in this case—I am not sure we are talking about animals as much? Also, what happens if a genetic trait cross-breeds with or appears in a weed? Who is responsible for that? Is the owner of the intellectual property responsible for what happens with the weed?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That last point would have been dealt with in the process for ACRE’s analysis of its worthiness as a precision-bred organism that can be taken to market, as it clearly does not sit within the intent of the applicant.
All I can say to the noble Baroness, as I said earlier, is that we want to achieve a balance in encouraging the development of this. She was wrong earlier to say that this is just for commercial activity. It is very much not. There are other benefits, public goods, that the Bill achieves in animal welfare, tackling climate change, improving our environment, and reducing the requirement for pesticides and fertilisers. Just as there is a balance between those public goods and encouraging commerce and the ability of organisations to take products to market to be of advantage to the UK economy, the Bill also tries to achieve a balance between securing the intellectual property rights of those who have invested large amounts of money in the development of precision-bred organisms and the importance of making those organisms available to precisely the people who we want to have them. In most cases, that will be producers of food.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for tackling those questions. I feel that it might be best for me to write to the Minister to spell out the details of the questions that I am not sure I am sufficiently equipped in the IP area to formulate now. We are going to revisit this at Report, and I do not think we have heard any kind of argument against Amendment 74 and the idea of a review. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Internationally agreed definition for precision breeding(1) The Secretary of State must consult with European partners and actors to agree a definition of precision breeding.(2) If a definition is agreed under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make regulations to apply it for the purposes of this Act in place of the definition in section 1(2).(3) “European partners and actors” includes but is not limited to—(a) the European Union;(b) European Union member states.(4) Prior to entering into consultation with European partners and actors to establish an agreed definition of precision breeding, the Secretary of State must consult representatives of—(a) farmers;(b) devolved nations;(c) suppliers;(d) food producers;(e) animal welfare organisations;(f) consumers.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 16 in my name and I have added my name to Amendments 76, 77 and 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. There is considerable concern about just how the measures in this Bill will be implemented. It is a considerable move away from the measures that operated under the EU. I and others understand why this is necessary. However, in order for our horticulture and farming sectors to continue to trade with our European partners, it will be necessary to provide reassurance on the process and outcomes involved.
Despite government trade deals with countries that are not on our doorstep, Europe is on our doorstep. Existing trade with the EU is the bedrock for many selling their crops and carcasses on to Europe. Agreeing just what the definition will be of a precision-bred seed or crop is going to be vital. If such agreement cannot be reached, it will have a devastating effect on the rural economy. Many of those who have provided briefings have commented on the lack of consultation that took place prior to the introduction of the Bill. It is possible that, given the reception of previous attempts to introduce GMOs, the Government decided to bypass this process. However, all those involved want to be consulted and wish to understand the process and just what the outcomes will be for them.
The list in Amendment 16(4)(a) to 16(4)(f) might see long, but I believe that each one of these consultees feels that they should be able to make their voice heard. The British Veterinary Association believes that the move away from the EU-regulated process for gene-edited organisms would potentially jeopardise its relationship with a key trading partner in pursuit of profitable trade deals with markets where animal welfare is a lower priority than in the UK. The trade deal announced today with India is a case in point.
Deregulation of gene editing in England is also likely to create burdens within the UK, jeopardising the principle of mutual recognition, which is necessary for frictionless trade. While scientific progress is necessary, it must be based on accurate science. It is necessary to take those involved with you. The Royal Society found in its evidence that dialogue with members of the public should be involved in the regulation of genetic technologies. A proposal that is endorsed by evidence of public involvement in the regulatory process increases the perceived trustworthiness of the process. Surely this is what the Government should be aiming for.
Amendments 76, 77 and 78 make further reference to trade and the importance of ensuring that businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, are not adversely affected by the measures in this Bill. If our exports of precision-engineered food do not comply with foreign regulations, this could result in foreign markets changing their preference for our goods. This will have an effect on both large and small businesses and would be a retrograde step.
We are debating a very important step today and on Wednesday. Everyone needs to be signed up for what is likely to take place: farmers, the devolved Administrations, suppliers, food producers, animal welfare organisations and, especially, consumers need to be consulted. If they are not, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, surely the whole point of this Bill is to speed up the process of bringing into being the plants and animals that the world really needs, as a matter of some urgency, to prevent our populations at home and abroad—I mentioned lots of examples in sub-Saharan Africa at Second Reading—starving, and to avoid further destroying our planet. We hope that our scientists will be able to make a difference sooner rather than later and show the world what can be done. We must lead on this and encourage others to follow, hopefully in the EU and sub-Saharan Africa. So why on earth should we as politicians want to delay this process? Surely that is going against everything that this Bill is trying to achieve.
It might be helpful if I gave some examples of how the whole process will work. Let us say a seed-breeding company finds and edits a variety of wheat for a trait of value—such as stronger straw that does not go flat just before harvest, or resistance to drought or Septoria. We then have its in-house testing for off-target characteristics and, above all, for the stability of the crop through the generations. I am advised that this testing takes three or four years, with three or four generations being bred. By the way, EFSA and ACRE would both be informed at a very early stage that this wheat was being bred, and they would be involved. Then you have a further two years—and two generations—of statutory testing. Then, hopefully, your new variety gets a recommended listing. You probably have another one or two years of multiplying up the seed for the farmers’ marketplace. That is six or seven years from the original genetic editing before the crop gets into the market on a commercial basis.
In animals, the same multigenerational gap exists between the original edit and the product being produced—except, in this case, each generation of cattle, for instance, will take an absolute minimum of two years, and I believe a single generation of salmon can take up to four years. So it will be a good 12 to 16 years after the actual gene editing before any such beef or salmon product reaches our plates. Breeding improvements in a species is a very long-term process, even with gene editing, so we cannot afford to wait any longer. I believe that we have to get on with it.
There will be some companies that will hold back on certain products when considering the European market, but it is not for us or Parliament to take a decision for them. If those sorts of business decisions were to be taken by parliamentary legislation—which is what we are doing now—our nation’s economic performance would really be in a pickle.
In any case, it seems to me that the EU is amazingly hypocritical about all this. Who is it that bans all GM products and yet is the second largest importer of GM products in the world? The answer is the EU, which imports 30 million tonnes of GM material every year. It is, of course, quite likely, with the snub of Brexit and the ongoing vexation of the Northern Ireland protocol, that the EU will cut up rough about this. But, as I say, I do not think that we as legislators dealing specifically now with the wording of this Bill should get involved in all that. Leave it to businesses to take their own decisions. It is interesting that Argentina, whose overall national wealth depends hugely on its ability to export agricultural products, has proved willing to adopt this technology. I think that sets us a very good example of how to balance reward versus risk.
If we are going to take a decision to proceed with this legislation, which I hope we are, please allow the many small businesses, which are waiting expectantly for this legislation to pass, to get on with their plans as soon as possible. I say small businesses because, at the moment, only really very big companies can breed seeds and breed different animals because of the time it takes. We are shortening it only by a small amount, so it is the small businesses which will benefit from this legislation. I think we ought to get on with it and not have any more delays.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, but I think the contribution that the noble Lord has just made demonstrates a fundamental difference in approach to, understanding of and belief in systems for—to use the phrase—feeding the world between him and several of us on this side of the House. I am going to take a very practical example of this because, last week, we saw reports emerge in the mainstream media of a new wheat variety called Jabal. The noble Lord spoke about our scientists finding solutions for Africa, and he spoke about leaving it to business. He said that only big companies could now develop new varieties of crops such as wheat. Jabal, which means mountain in Arabic, is a new durum wheat which is extremely tolerant to drought and heat. It was developed for climate resilience through the Crop Trust’s Wild Relatives project. It was developed between 2017 and 2021, so over a period of five years, and by working with farmers on the ground in the communities affected. It is looking to be extremely successful. There is no big business. There are some scientists—I have no doubt that there were some British scientists, but scientists from all round the world were involved in this—but it is grounded in the communities that need these crops and has been done without anyone making huge amounts of money out of it. If we are talking about feeding the world, there is a potential alternative model.
However, I am now going to come back to the detail of these amendments, starting with Amendment 16, already very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I do not really think that I need to add much to that, having attached my name to amendment, although I will note that Amendments 76 and 77, both of which appear in my name and which the noble Baroness has also kindly signed, have more or less the same intention of inserting in Clause 43 instead of earlier in the Bill. Amendment 77 looks at impacts on UK exports to the EU, as the earlier amendment did. Amendment 76 is broader and looks at exports around the world and what impacts it might have.
Amendment 78 in my name, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, have kindly signed, addresses some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. It says that regulations under this Act must particularly look at the impact on small and medium enterprises. Here, perhaps we are not thinking so much about enterprises that might be producing those so-called precision-bred organisms, but more the farmers using them and small farmers and the kind of impact we were addressing on the debate about intellectual property and the issues of market dynamics and competition which have been such an area of concern with GMOs.
Finally, I come to Amendment 75 in my name; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also kindly signed it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, were here, she would probably be giving me lessons in the structure of Bills and exactly how a five-year review should be constructed. In her absence, I have done my best to propose that there should be a five-year review of how the Bill is working.
The debate on animals and plants provided some powerful ammunition for the discussion. The Minister acknowledged that the Bill will evolve and change according to events, but we also need to note that this is a fast-moving area of both technology and scientific understanding.
I will not go into great depth on what has been roughly described as the new biology but huge, fundamental debates within the science of biology are going on at the moment about the structure of organisms, of life and of ecosystems. In five years, the scientific framework behind this—not just the technology but scientific understanding—may well have moved on significantly. Surely a Bill this controversial, complex, difficult and technical should have a five-year review built in.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I never thought I would be a member of the Green Party, but I clearly am this evening. I must agree with the noble Baroness, because we have to understand that gene editing is a new technique and has been on the books for only about eight or 10 years, which seems a long time but is not at all—in science, that is a very short time.
It was 40 years ago that we genetically modified organisms for the first time. The noble Lord is proposing that we speed this process up when we do not fully understand what is happening with procedures such as CRISPR-Cas9 and other methods. We need much more data before we can be sure about the progeny of these animals. That is one of the problems, and it will not be simple.
Of course, I appreciate that it takes quite a long time to breed an animal. As a human, I understand that quite well—I have dealt with a few humans myself, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has also had children—but we have to accept that it takes time before you can really work out the status of an animal. It is a complex process.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in one of the earlier debates the Minister sought to categorise some of us as people who are fundamentally opposed to the Bill and trying to find any way we can to derail it. I assure him that I am not in that camp, and I hope that the amendment I will speak to will give some illustration of that.
I will speak to Amendment 88 in my name, which is a very particular amendment about the status of GMOs; this seems a very odd group of amendments that have been put together. It follows on slightly from the comments just made by my noble friend Lord Winston because it recognises that it has been many years since the regulations relating to GMOs have been reviewed. As a result, we appear to be legislating in silos rather than looking at the impact of genetic technology as a whole. We already have the GMO legislation on the statute and now we are looking at GE, but how do those two bits of legislation interrelate?
When the Government announced their plans to roll out gene editing, they also committed to a review of the wider GMO rules, but so far there does not seem to be any sign that the review is taking place—unless I have missed it. Amendment 88 probes whether the impact of Clause 41, which amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to exclude precision-bred organisms and differentiates them from GMOs, is likely to require further review.
This is all about the interrelation between genetic engineering and GMOs. Where is that review taking place? Is the wording of the legislation as it stands in Clause 41 how we want it to be? When and how will that wider review of GMOs take place? How will the Minister synchronise any result of that with the provisions of the Bill? It seems rather odd that scientific institutions could be potentially following two different routes for technology that in many ways is very similar.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing her Amendment 16. As we have heard, there are a few amendments in this group around trade, particularly in relation to the EU and individual member states. Amendment 16 specifically refers to this. It is an important consideration for the Bill and its implications
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has tabled a number of amendments in this group. I also thank her for her introduction. I have added my name to her Amendments 75 and 78. As Amendment 75 says, it is really important to review the effectiveness and implementation of the Act once it is passed. The Minister has talked about a step-by-step process. I shall come to that as well in my amendment. As I mentioned on the previous group, there are still a lot of unknowns and a lot of SIs to come into play before we know exactly what the legislation will look like. A commitment to a review is pretty important to make sure that everything is happening as the Government intend and to see whether anything needs to be picked up that is perhaps not moving as they would wish. My noble friend Lord Winston made the important point that we need more data on animals. A review would help to look at where we were.
Amendment 78, to which I have also added my name, requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the impact on SMEs, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned the importance of supporting small businesses. From reading the Committee evidence in the Commons, I recall that there was quite a lot of debate around the importance of small businesses also being able to benefit from this legislation and not being pushed out by the larger companies. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that small businesses are allowed to play a full part in any legislation that comes from the Bill when it is enacted.
On a different topic, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch probed concerning Section 41 in the Environmental Protection Act. Again, this is a really important point. There are different pieces of legislation covering very similar areas. How do they interact? She asked an important question about when the review on wider GMO rules would take place. Once this review has reported, how will the outcomes be managed in relation to the new legislation that is coming forward? Not all legislation sits in its own little place. Lots of legislation interacts, at the Minister well knows. It would be good to know that the Government are looking at this, thinking about it and to know when they were likely to do a review.
I will come on to my Amendment 89 in a minute, as it is a little different. But briefly, on the trade implications which we touched on previously, the Food and Drink Federation has said, for example, that there could be barriers to exporting English farmed food from gene-edited crops. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this. We also talked earlier about what the impact of a difference in definition would be, and that comes into play here as well. At the end of the day, any commercial cultivation of plants or food products that are derived from gene-edited crops will still fall within existing rules. We know that the EU is reviewing where it is, but it is important that we do not end up with negative impacts on our farmers and exporters in food products because we have not thought this through properly.
Perhaps the Government could reassure us that that they are looking at the trade implications and whether they are considering any mitigating factors to ensure that there are no problems. The impact assessment says that it could
“have a relatively significant impact on UK producers”
if there are problems with exporting to the EU, because
“UK crop-related food exporters are heavily dependent on EU consumers’ demand”.
Again, it is important that we have those assurances. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is concerned about the word “risk”, but there are risks to exports which the Government need to recognise.
In looking at whether products are going to be accepted, I want to ask about Scotland. I am concerned that the Minister in Scotland said that they would not have any food products forced on them because of easing regulations around gene editing. That concerns me because, if we are not careful, we will have a constitutional flashpoint. Our single market rules say that any produce approved in England is automatically then allowed into Scotland, so what ongoing discussions are the Government having with Scotland on this and what mitigating circumstances can be brought in? That is a worry.
Finally, my Amendment 89, which I have left to the end because it is different from the others, brings me back to where I was on the step-by-step approach. I asked the Minister whether he would consider that; I know he has reassured us, over and again, that precision-breeding technologies will be used first in relation to plants, followed by animals later. But not to put too fine a point on it, we have only his word for that—and while I trust his word, we do not know who the future Ministers or Secretaries of State will be. My amendment makes a suggestion that he could pick up, so that we genuinely would have a step-by-step approach in the Bill. It would be plants first, then farm animals, and then other animals could be looked at. Again, I am only trying to be helpful to the Minister in supporting his step-by-step approach.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I appreciate that, as keen as I am to get this right and get something sensible on the statute book. I have a throwaway line before I get into the meat of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about this being controversial legislation. Actually, in some of the surveys I have seen, a very small number of people are either very opposed or very in favour, and a large number do not know what this is all about. They want to know more, and we have to tell them more. We have to explain it in an unbiased, unpolitical, factual way, and that is what we are seeking to do. In the other place, the Bill passed by a majority way in excess of the Government’s majority, and I want to reassure many noble Lords here, so that we can pass it with equal fervour.
Smarting from the earlier comment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I think the Minister tried to suggest that the legislation was uncontroversial. We were before discussing the inclusion of animals in the Bill, and 13 of what I think would be universally agreed to be the premier animal welfare organisations in the UK have said animals should not be in it. That surely is controversy from people who are very informed about its nature.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I accept the point the noble Baroness makes, and of course, there are others who fervently want measures brought in as quickly as possible that deal with animal disease, animal welfare and those sorts of things.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quite rightly upbraided me earlier for boring the House, I will try to be as quick as I can, but there is a lot in this section, and I want to be open with the Committee in my comments.
I will respond first to Amendment 16, which would require the Secretary of State to consult, first, representatives of a number of interested groups and then European partners including but not limited to the EU and its member states. This is to agree on a definition of precision breeding and, if a definition is agreed, to amend the definition of a precision-bred organism in the Bill accordingly, using a Henry VIII power. The amendment could be used to change the key concepts that form the basis on which this legislation has been drafted and debated in both Houses of Parliament.
This summer, the EU conducted a consultation in which 80% of participants agreed that the existing provisions of the EU GMO legislation are not adequate for plants produced by certain new genomic techniques, which largely aligns with our view of precision breeding. As I have previously mentioned, the definition of a precision-bred organism in the Bill aims to cover all plants and animals produced by modern biotechnology that could have occurred through traditional processes or natural transformation. This approach to carving out precision-bred plants and animals from GMO legislation is in line with scientific evidence and advice, because it focuses on the end product rather than the technology used to produce it.
Furthermore, we have continuously engaged with national and international stakeholders and regulators to develop a definition that reflects the key principle of this legislation. Our approach is based on the science. With regulations on precision-bred plants and animals changing around the world, we believe the measures in this Bill will facilitate greater trade.
On the topic of trade, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how differences in regulation and public perception in other countries will impact on our trade with them. Noble Lords have referred to genetically modified organisms in the amendment we are dealing with, and I want to be clear that there is a scientific distinction between GMOs and precision-bred organisms. Many countries recognise this and have changed, or are in the process of changing, their regulations to reflect it. As the international regulatory landscape evolves, our approach could help facilitate greater trade with countries that have already adopted a similar approach to the regulation of precision-bred organisms, with trading partners such as the USA, Canada, Japan and Argentina.
Currently, there are only a few precision-bred products on the market globally, and none of those are traded internationally. Many of them are still in the early development stage, allowing time to monitor and understand the international regulatory framework as it develops. Britain is an exporter of quality products, and one of the reasons for introducing this new, proportionate regulatory approach is to enable the development of more nutritious, higher-quality products that have been grown more sustainably.
Turning to Amendment 77 and the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I would like to outline developments that are likely to change the requirements for companies exporting precision-bred products specifically into the EU; we have been following these developments with interest.
As our legislation on genetically modified organisms mirrors the EU’s, it is not surprising that we have the same drivers for change. The timing of the EU’s reform plans means that we are unlikely to be able to consider any new EU legislation while we are drafting our regulations under this Bill. However, we will continue to monitor developments closely and work with the EU, and other countries we trade with, to enable innovation and trade. I hope I have reassured noble Lords on this.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I would love to hear from the Minister say “finally” again in just a second. One of the issues I would like him briefly to address—probably in a note, not now—would be how to classify a plant organism, for example, which has been treated not only by gene editing but also by, say, radiation. I mention this is because a recent publication by Amritha and Shah in the last few months shows that, by combining those techniques, the resulting edit is even more successful. It seems that is hardly a natural process, but I do not know whether that is something to discuss now.
The other issue is that we are all obviously agreed about climate change, but what I think concerns a lot of people who are arguing on my side of the Chamber is that modifying plants could make us, the plants or the land more vulnerable to climate change. That is something we need to be thinking about during the course of the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s points. We have to make it clear that we will not allow organisms to come on to the market that would somehow make it harder for us to adapt. There are so many benefits that we can introduce to tackle things such as drought and other issues that plague farmers. We have climate change affecting farmers here and now in this country. It is not something that is happening in Pacific countries alone; it is in our country, and we need to give farmers the tools to deal with it.
On the noble Lord’s other point, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said earlier, irradiation—if I have got the word right—is an established part of plant breeding today. He is right. I can see an overlap in this, but I will write to him and make sure that we give him the facts that he needs. With that, I hope that we can progress.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, although I thank the Minister for his response, I am obviously somewhat disappointed by it. I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to speed up the process, but I fail to understand how consulting with the EU would affect that. It certainly would delay it a little bit, but not by the years and years that the noble Lord indicated. I believe that a Bill introducing a process which alters the genome of crops and animals ought to have a review every five years. I accept that the Minister feels that there are sufficient reviews in place—I just do not necessarily agree with him.
The Minister spoke about a consultation that took place—he did not say exactly when it was, but I think it might have been last year—and said that 80% of those consulted said that the EU definition of precision engineering was not adequate, and that the end product, rather than the process, was more important. The Minister can write to me, given the hour, but I would like to know who was consulted—who were these 80% of people who said that the EU’s process was not fit for purpose? The Minister also said that the UK’s regulations mirrored the EU’s regulations and monitors; that conflicts with this figure of 80% saying that they were not fit for purpose. For me, it is smaller businesses that benefit most from trade with the EU rather than with Argentina, although I accept that some will trade with the latter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives, or genetic resources relating to any such plant;(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 19 would require that a precision-bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit if it is to be released into the environment. The benefits that are listed in my amendment include, but are not limited to, producing food in a way that protects the natural environment and managing crops or livestock in a manner that mitigates or adapts to climate change. Amendment 21 in this group prevents the release of a precision-bred organism unless its genome has been sequenced and the features that have resulted from the use of modern biotechnology have been recorded. I am looking forward to hearing more about that as well.
Earlier, we talked briefly about climate change and how plants in particular can be adapted to support the future needs that we will have in producing sufficient food. It is important that we find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system while we are developing new legislation and that at the same time we address the environmental and health damage that our modern food system has sometimes created. This Bill gives us an opportunity to look at that and see what we can do to improve those areas alongside the other benefits that people have talked about and to mitigate any adverse impacts that could counteract that.
This Bill presents us the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that other countries could follow as they develop these kinds of technologies that would provide a clear public good. We recognise that our laws need to be updated to match current scientific understanding. We talked about that earlier in the debate. We want our scientists to succeed, but we also want them to use their skills for good here in the UK. I know that is broad terminology, but I hope noble Lords understand what I mean by this.
To get the legislation right, the Government have to balance certain risks and benefits. We need to have consumer confidence and business confidence; otherwise, all the benefits that could come from the Bill may not happen in the way that we would like. It could mean that we get improvements to environmental sustainability and better food security. A lot of this Bill is obviously around food, but how does it fit in with the much bigger picture that the Government have debated alongside the food strategy, which we all saw—was it last year? I am trying to remember how long ago it was. We talked earlier about different legislations interacting. How will this Bill work with the food strategy? Many of the recommendations were about how our modern food system could be improved and what public benefit could come from the way we farm in future.
The Nuffield Council has made recommendations in its document. One part of that is around aspirations for the UK’s future food system—something that is in the minds of a lot of people who have real influence over the way this technology could be looked at and developed in the future. I was also particularly struck by the evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Bill Angus, who is a wheat consultant. He noted that the motivations behind the work that he does as a wheat breeder and as vice-chair of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico can be quite different; there are strong passions that drive both ways of working.
We also know that the Crop Science Centre in Cambridge has done interesting work focused on improving the sustainability of our farming systems—in particular, removing the need for inorganic fertilisers. To me, these are the kinds of areas where gene editing could bring significant benefits for the environment, the sustainability of our food systems, and reducing food insecurity across the world. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned these issues in his earlier speech.
It is important that we look at how gene editing could be used for good, because we also know that it can be used for ends that, to many of us, would not be so desirable. Evidence from Compassion in World Farming was very interesting in this area. It talked about some of the harms that traditional breeding has caused—I will not go into detail, as we have heard about that today and at Second Reading. It is important that we work for the public benefit and that the Bill is not used to breed animals in a way that would mean they suffer more or be made to tolerate harsher conditions; the Minister mentioned this earlier. It is important that those questions posed in my amendments are taken account of. How can we ensure that the technology is used for good here in the UK?
There is also the question: who decides what that good might be? We will come on to debate that more to some extent in group 8, where we look at the animal welfare tests, for example. There are also questions around the development of herbicide-resistant crops. Do they allow more herbicide to be used? Is that a good thing? There need perhaps to be more tests in the Bill to make sure that some of the roads that we do not want to go down are not roads that we can go down.
My amendment would create a public benefit test before precision-bred organisms could be authorised and released. It is important that the governance is correct to manage that. Professor Sarah Hartley of the University of Exeter said in evidence:
“The Bill enables science to develop in this area, but it does not enable us to direct the science and technology towards doing any good.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 30/6/22; col. 123.]
That is the area that I am trying to look at and ask noble Lords to consider. How would we achieve that? At the moment, it is driven too much by market forces. In making legislation, we have to ensure that we guard against those who are, perhaps, not so interested in the good—the public benefit—that can come out of it but looking just at the market forces. We believe that the Bill could be strengthened through this amendment, and the Government’s stated aims, which the Minister has said he wants to achieve, could be encoded within the legislation itself. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for introducing this amendment so eloquently. I have added my name to it. In fact, I felt that the amendment was almost unnecessary because, earlier this evening, the Minister referred to precision breeding as being used to create public good—I think I am right in saying that. The amendment tries to flesh that out and ask what is meant by “public good”.
It goes without saying that one objective of farming is to produce food or other farm products. Precision breeding will be used to increase the efficiency, and maybe the productivity, of farming in this country. My noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who is not in his place, made a useful comment earlier about what is meant by productivity in farming.
It goes without saying that one objective is to increase efficiency and productivity: that is the “more” bit of “more with less”. Equally important, and what the amendment is about, is enshrining the “less”: less harm to the environment and to people. We have been through many times the kind of harms to the environment that intensive agriculture has delivered, and we hope that precision breeding will be used to reverse those harms rather than augment them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also raised the important point of how bits of the jigsaw fit together. She referred to Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy. I would be interested in knowing from the Minister whether some of the recommendations that Henry Dimbleby made will be implementable or, indeed, supported by the Bill if it goes through—as I hope it will, possibly with some modifications.
In a way, this is almost uncontroversial. We all accept that there have to be public goods that are supported by precision breeding; that has to be balanced with increasing productivity and efficiency of agriculture; and what we are trying to do here is spell out what those public goods are and should look like. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I want to say how much I support this amendment, which has been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that it was a very eloquent introduction. It should indeed be uncontroversial, for two reasons.
This Government have committed themselves to a number of welcome targets on climate change. We have not quite got there yet on the environmental targets, but the Secretary of State says that we will perhaps have them by next week. We also have the food strategy. If not set targets, we have a clear direction of travel. If the Government are committed to those targets, be it in the social, environmental or climate sphere, then they have to will the means to deliver it. Whether we are talking about a procurement Bill or this Bill, the Government have all these levers to pull to deliver the outcomes.
It would be almost a dereliction of duty not to will the means in a Bill like this to deliver the environmental, climate and food targets which the Government have so welcomely committed themselves to on the record in other places. If the Government were to miss the golden opportunity to embed this commitment to a public benefit in this Bill, I feel it would leave Members around the Committee worried that some of those commitments were perhaps not as deep as we all were hoping.
Moreover, in the way that the Agriculture Act did, there is an opportunity to shape the market by saying that we will rightly give farmers funding to produce the public goods that we want. The mirror approach here is saying that we will provide this new regulatory framework to regulate the benefits and risks of this new procedure. We will allow companies the investment and growth opportunities if it is clear that they are delivering public goods. It is about shaping the market in a way that delivers those public goods.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 19 and I very much support the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hayman. She made a powerful case for why there should be a clear public benefit written into the Bill, which is why her emphasis and the detail in the amendment are important. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that the Minister has already said that he agrees with this. That is fine, but having it written down in the way set out here would be an important addition.
All the examples in the amendment have been cited by Ministers and supporters of the Bill, in various debates, as advantages that could accrue from it. The Minister believes in and is committed to issues such as the environment, climate change mitigation, food safety and animal welfare. As my noble friend said, we have talked many times about the potential to develop a world-class reputation for our science and innovation, and this would be a way of stating, publicly and internationally, what this research is about—so it is not just buried away in Hansard but is in a more public domain. That is very important.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, these preconditions very much reflect those that were spelled out in the Agriculture Act. It is not as though it is not legislative practice to have that amount of detail; it is, as it was done in a different Bill. So why can we not have it in this Bill as well? That would have the great advantage of putting the public good at the heart of the Bill.
It would also ensure that public money for gene-editing research, particularly in public institutions—I am involved in one of them—is firmly anchored and focused on the public good benefits. It would give the funding allocation something to measure against, which is an advantage. I am sure that the vast majority of research institutions in the UK would welcome this clarity; it would fit with the ethos of their operations anyway, and, in a sense, play to their strengths. It would be good to have measures in place on how that money is being spent, much as there are for ELMS funding in the Agriculture Act. We wanted to see what we would get for our investment with the farmers, so it was no longer just a free handout.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made the important point that we need to reassure the public that this is not a backdoor to further environmental damage and exploitation. We come back to the subject we have already debated, which is how we can make sure that we take the public with us. This is certainly one way we can make sure of that. We have to learn the lessons from the GM crop row of over 30 years ago, when one of the main criticisms was that it would allow the multinational seed companies to exploit farmers in developing countries by locking them into seed contracts in which the seeds could not be naturally regenerated for future use. We need to reassure people that that sort of exploitation is not part of our agenda on this occasion, so it is important to write that public benefit and use into the Bill.
It is important that we provide public reassurance. If it is good enough for the Agriculture Act, why can we not adopt a similar policy here? I urge the Minister to think about this; it would provide a great deal of public reassurance on an issue that we know is still quite sensitive. I hope he feels able, if not in my noble friend’s terms then in his own terms, to come back with an amendment that reflects the detail of that amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 19, which noble Lords will see already has a full complement of signatures. I thought the signature of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was far more useful than mine, so I was pleased to leave that space. If the Minister cannot agree to make some commitment such as that which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of Whitchurch, just asked for, it might well be possible to find a Conservative Back-Bencher to make a complete set on Report, should we get to that stage. I would have attached my name to this and I think it has already very been powerfully argued for, but I want to make two additional points.
Both the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act were built around the idea of public money for public good. Here, surely the Conservative Government would embrace the idea of public good for no public money at all. This is the Government able to make the rules, and they can ensure that there is public good without a penny having to be spent. That would be very much in line with the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act.
I want to highlight a couple of the elements in Amendment 19 that I think are particularly important, including sub-paragraph (x),
“supporting or improving human health and well-being”.
I note that the Government, in promoting the Bill, talk a great deal about sugar beet. Given the massive overconsumption of sugar in the UK diet—if we produced by volume only two-thirds of the sugar we produce in the UK, that would be more than enough for a sufficient, healthy level of diet without importing a single gram of sugar—and the fact that sugar beet is associated with massive loss of fertile topsoil from some of the richest lands in the UK, if we could gene-edit sugar beet to be more productive on less land, it would be ideal to combine that with ensuring that we produce only a healthy amount of sugar and free up the land for other purposes.
I also note that the Minister talked about sub-paragraph (ii), mitigating and adapting to climate change—indeed, he talked about the climate emergency quite a lot this afternoon. Of course, when we are talking about animals, we talk about engineering cattle to release less methane; we are looking at a whole-systems approach here, and having fewer cattle would be by far the easiest way to produce less methane. Further, they would not be consuming grains and proteins, such as soya from the Amazon, which we could be consuming as human food instead. It is a complex issue, but what we are getting at here is trying to deliver, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, what the Minister said is the purpose of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, has not spoken yet, but I will venture to make one comment on his Amendment 21. The wording is not terribly clear, and the noble Lord could answer now or later, or think about this amendment on Report. It says that the genome should be sequenced and the changes recorded and reported to the Secretary of State. My question is whether that should be published and publicly available. We are talking about licensing something that the Government are giving companies the right and the chance to potentially make money out of, so it is perfectly reasonable to demand an increase in public knowledge to make accessible those genomes that would then be available to other researchers for all kinds of possibly very different purposes, not necessarily productivity or seed-producing purposes. The knowledge of all those genome sequences would be a very useful thing. I think that should perhaps be written into the amendment.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Seeing as my name has been mentioned, perhaps I ought to speak. I thought we were still on the two previous amendments. The difficulty I have with this is that Amendment 21 is really a continuation of Amendment 20, and Amendments 22 and 23 follow logically.
Let me just deal very quickly with this. Basically, what we are talking about here is the release of organisms into the environment, and the proof that we have done to those organisms what we what we said we were going to do. Of course, that particularly means looking at the phenotype of the animal, whether it is a normal animal and therefore not suffering in any kind of way, and at whether the editing has changed the genome in a way that is unexpected. Of course, the Minister mentioned off-target mutations, but that is only one thing that can occur with gene editing. Once the DNA is on a double-stranded split and there is a gap there, you can actually introduce foreign DNA—even human DNA; whatever is floating around in the laboratory. When we are doing very careful work in the lab with genetic material, we have to be scrupulously clean of the flow hoods and so on. Those things need to be considered, because they would be part of what is seemingly a simple procedure, but in reality there are really quite difficult safeguards. What I am really asking is whether the Government intend that there be some form of sequencing to see whether there have been mistakes, or some form of examining the genome of the animals after we have done the work required.
To my mind, there are two issues here. One, of course, is the need to get better data on the effect of the gene editing, wherever it is done, and, in particular, of gene editing in general. That will help the research. If we really want to promote a market, we need to show that we are what we promised to be: a leading scientific organisation in this country, doing this sort of stuff at the top level. That is important. The other issue, of course, is protecting the environment. Clearly, release of organisms that turn out to be not what we expect, and which would have the ability to produce progeny, is risking things further. That is basically the reason for all these amendments, but Amendment 21 expresses my main concern: to ensure that we have done what we promised to do, and if we have not, to find what went wrong so that we can deal with it.
The primary question of privacy of the information has to be discussed by us, but it is deliberately not in this amendment at the moment. There are pros and cons for doing that. There does not necessarily have to be openness, but there must be a proper register of the information. We may well not get the work done if we do not have complete confidentiality, although science is never done best when it is confidential. On the whole, openness has been described, in the general information about the Bill, to be an issue in it, and transparency is a word mentioned by the Government. In the interest of transparency, this amendment may be required.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, when I practised law before I started practising law and grace together, I was of the view that any lawyer enshrines into legislation an agreed public policy. Here, the public policy in Amendment 19 to Clause 3 is that really, if you are to develop these organisms, they must be
“for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes”.
The purposes are explained. The Minister has to work out clearly what the public policy is that he is trying to enshrine here, because any general knows that it is no good launching out into a battle when there are no soldiers coming behind you. One of those purposes here is to try to help the public to understand why this is being done. It is not just for money—although that, of course, is important—and it is not just because we think that science has developed and there is no control over it. At the end of the day, it is about the fact that we want to get our purposes to work out and progress. I hope that the Minister will see this as helpful in stating what the public policy is, why this is being done, and what areas may in future be brought into being.
Of course, I regret that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, was stuck in Scotland and therefore could not be here, because, under Clause 3, if all those things that are supposed not to be let out are let out, what will be the sanction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for Amendment 19, which raises the importance of ensuring that what we do has a public benefit. Across government we are undertaking a range of what I believe is really exciting work to deliver public good and we want to see precision-breeding technologies complement this work to improve our food system and the environment.
On my phone I keep some crucial lines from the Agriculture Act, because when I meet farmers and they say that this Government no longer mind about food production I remind them that right at the front of the Agriculture Act, in Clause 1, it says:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
That is a declaratory statement right at the front of the Act. What we are seeking to do in terms of environmental land management goes through the heart of that piece of legislation and this piece of legislation fits very firmly within that.
As noble Lords are aware, the UK is privileged in its scientific position and researchers across the country are already delivering exciting research that contributes towards public good in the field of precision breeding. In the other place, the John Innes Centre gave evidence about the vitamin D tomatoes that its research group is developing, striving towards improving the food we eat for the benefit of our health. Another notable example is from researchers at Rothamsted who are exploring ways to increase the lipid content of grasses. This could help improve the quality of animal feed and has the potential to reduce methane emissions in livestock. I think we are all proud of the work taking place in this country and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly proud of Rothamsted.
This amendment, I fear, might hinder the important research in this area by placing restrictions on and creating significant uncertainty for critical field trials for researchers and breeders attempting to make new varieties of precision-bred crops. While I understand the intention of this amendment—and it is an intention I applaud—it would not be appropriate to restrict technologies used in breeding, nor do we have any evidence that suggests developers are doing anything other than creating better and improved varieties or breeds.
Of course, it is important to note that these technologies are not a silver bullet, and we want them to be part of our innovation toolkit to improve our food system. Delivering public good is what I did say earlier, and I am very glad I did—and it has been underlined by other noble Lords. It is what we strive for across government and we are fully committed to developing a more sustainable, resilient and productive food system.
Noble Lords quite rightly referenced the Government’s food strategy and, building on Henry Dimbleby’s extraordinary, in-depth piece of work, we have set out a plan to transform our food system and ensure that it is fit for the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned sugar beet. This is a crop where there is an application which might be of huge benefit, and not just in terms of the food that we produce. Being able to develop a strain resistant to virus yellows would mean that we would not have to seek noble Lords’ permission through secondary legislation for a derogation to allow the use of neonicotinoids to control virus yellows. More importantly, we could have a crop that was not only able to produce more sugar for our producers here but would require us to import less sugar from abroad, thereby lowering the carbon impact of that crop.
There are counterfactuals in everything. Trying to improve the home-grown element of our food, while reducing the impact that failing to produce it at home would create by having to import that food, sometimes from far away, needs to be factored in. It is fundamental to our food strategy.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his Amendment 21, which would require the genomes of precision-bred organisms to be sequenced before they can be released into the environment, regardless of whether or not an organism with the same genetic changes had previously been assessed and classified as precision bred. It also stipulates that the genomic changes resulting from the use of modern biotechnology have to be recorded, that no unprecedented changes can be present in the plant or animal, and that this must be reported to the Secretary of State.
I assure noble Lords that the criteria for defining a precision-bred organism, as set out in Clause 1, consider both intended and unintended changes to the genome. This means that any changes resulting from the use of modern biotechnology, whether intended or unintended, must be able to occur through traditional breeding or natural transformation for a plant or animal to be considered precision bred. It also means that unintended changes will already need to be assessed as meeting these criteria before any precision-bred organism is released.
The noble Lord’s amendment would mean that plants and animals could not be classed as precision bred if they contain unintended genomic changes. Unintended genetic changes occur during the traditional breeding process. Some of these may be removed during that process and others not, as will be the case with precision-bred organisms. As I expect the noble Lord is aware, many recent gene-editing studies about animals have reported no incidences of unintended genomic changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. Having assessed this evidence our expert advisory committee, ACRE, has also advised that unintended genomic changes occur significantly more often during the course of traditional breeding than they do as a result of precision breeding. This is also the view of the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU. Consequently, while we expect developers to ensure that any unintended changes are within the range of what can occur naturally, the scientific advice we have received suggests that it is not appropriate to prevent plants or animals with unintended genetic changes from being classed as precision-bred organisms.
We are committed to taking a proportionate approach, requiring only the information that fulfils the regulatory requirement at the appropriate time. It is for this reason that the Bill distinguishes between requirements for research trials and marketing applications of precision-bred organisms. This amendment is likely to add regulatory burden, without adding value to the process. For example, developers would be required to submit a release notice to Defra, confirming that the founder organism they intend to release for research trials meets the criteria in the Bill. They would have generated genomic data to confirm that this is the case.
However, requiring whole-genome sequencing would be disproportionate, given the specific, targeted nature of changes being made. I assure the noble Lord that breeders who release an organism modified using modern biotechnology that does not meet the criteria outlined would be subjected to sanctions under existing GMO legislation. This is a strong deterrent against releasing organisms that do not qualify as precision bred. That also goes some way to answering the point that the noble and right reverend Lord tried to pick up from the previous group, which was not moved. However, we are clear about the sanctions that we want implemented.
Developers will have to submit an additional notification to Defra should they wish to market their precision-bred organism. Breeders will need to provide fit-for-purpose information to demonstrate that they have met the requirements that I have outlined. The technical details will be developed with the advisory committee appointed to advise the Secretary of State on the regulatory status of these organisms.
For marketing approvals, assessments will be carried out on a case-by-case basis. The full genomic sequence of an organism may not be required in addition to information on intended and unintended genomic changes to determine similarity to traditional breeding or natural transformation. As a result, we do not feel it necessary to include a provision that specifically requires whole-genome sequencing.
Finally, to address the noble Lord’s point that the DNA of all progeny of a precision-bred organism should be sequenced before release, if a “founder” organism has met the criteria laid out in the Bill—specifically, that the genetic changes made by modern biotechnology are stable and could have arisen naturally or through traditional breeding—we have been advised that the regulatory status of its progeny does not have to be assessed. This is because the changes made are stable and in line with those that occur naturally.
To address the noble and right reverend Lord’s point about this being a public good, I hope I have set out why the Bill fits in with the Government’s food strategy and how environmental sustainability will be enhanced by it if we get it right. Perhaps the greatest public good will be if we are able to adapt to and tackle elements of climate change that affect not just these islands but countries all around the world. It could benefit some very challenged environments, so we owe it to them to make sure that we are regulating this correctly, making it accessible not just to large multinational companies but to smaller businesses and—to use the rather pompous word I used earlier—democratising it, ensuring that its benefits can be felt far and wide. I hope this provides the assurance that noble Lords need not to press their amendments.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister, but I have one question of clarification, just to check that I have understood what he said—namely, while accepting that it is important that public goods are delivered by precision breeding, that it would in some way stifle innovation if one defined too precisely what one meant by “public goods”. Can the Minister give an example of where saying what one means stifles innovation?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Whether I can give the noble Lord an example or not, I do not know, but he is absolutely right. That is why crafting this legislation has been such a monumental task. MPs in the other place and noble Lords in this place very often—and quite rightly—want to see as much as possible on the face of a Bill, because it holds current and future Governments to account. Very often, not having things on the face of a Bill can be exploited. However, putting too much on the face of this Bill, or being too prescriptive, could create a feeding frenzy for lawyers, be a burden on producers and have a stifling effect on innovation. I hope noble Lords will feel that we have got the balance right and are allowing enough flexibility.
I can see that there are elements of the regulatory framework that support this legislation that are yet to be developed in detail. I am very happy to give noble Lords as much information as I can on the process of developing that, not just now but, for example, as we get information from the Scottish colleges that will inform us on some aspects of the Bill, including this one. That will give the wider consumer and the concerned individual the information they need to know that we are being proportionate and are very focused on this key point of trying to make sure that we are providing a public good.
Lord Winston (Lab)
That was a very complicated statement. I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, had a bit of difficulty with it, and so did I, so I shall read it with great interest in Hansard. Perhaps we can discuss one or two issues that the Minister raised. I think he said, though maybe I misheard, that there have been no recorded changes in the genome or in the DNA of animals that have been modified using the CRISPR technology, for example. I should like to get back to the noble Lord in order to share with him my understanding and to present him with some reports from the literature which argues that this actually has happened and that the introduction of stray DNA, as well as off-target mutation, is a real issue. But now is not the time to discuss this. We shall probably have to leave it until Report.
I am sure that we are basically working towards the same thing. However, it seems to me that, if you own a picture—a Rembrandt, for example—you do not automatically sell it as a Rembrandt; you sell it for what you think it is worth, or what its provenance is. So the provenance of what we sell in terms of our animals to other people is just as important. It is part of a proper sale. If in fact it depends on the genome and the nature of the genes—whether they are expressing or not expressing, and whether the progeny is normal—that, I would argue, is important to the person who is going to buy it. It is essential that we try to be honest, open and transparent.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is absolutely right. I would just say to the noble Lord that ACRE assessed the evidence put to it by the scientific community. I repeat what I said. Many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of unintended genomic changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. If the noble Lord has information that ACRE should be considering in relation to this, I would be very happy to connect him with ACRE. But that is also the same scientific opinion that was reached by the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission. But the noble Lord is absolutely right that the science on this is moving. There are advances being made, not just here but internationally as well, and we must have the best possible advice to allow Ministers to take the best possible decisions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for his amendment and for the discussion, but I do not feel qualified to comment on it any further than that. We are having an important debate in these areas, and his knowledge is really helpful and useful as we continue to debate the Bill.
On my Amendment 19, I thank all noble Lords for their support, particularly my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for adding their names to it and supporting me strongly on this—I appreciate it. I am sure that noble Lords and the Minister will not be surprised that I am extremely disappointed in his response. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Jones said, the amendment fits so well with the Agriculture Act and, as the Minister himself said, with what the Government are trying to achieve through the food strategy. I genuinely do not understand why it cannot be part of the Bill. The Minister said that the amendment was too restrictive, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised a question about this and asked for an example, which I am not sure we got. I ask the Minister again: how is it too restrictive?
I am not sure whether all noble Lords have seen the amendment, but it lists 11 different purposes—I tried to keep it broad. One of the 11 is
“protecting or improving the health of plants”,
and another is
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals”.
My amendment says that it has to be only “in connection with one” of the 11. In discussing the animal part of the Bill, everyone said the reason for having it is to improve health and welfare; I do not see how the amendment would not fit in with this. The same is true of some of the other areas around plants. I genuinely do not understand why it is too restrictive, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps think about that before Report, because we will come back to this.
Earlier, I said that, when making legislation, we have to ensure that, as well as welcoming those who are undoubtedly trying to do good, we must guard against those who are not. I think the Minister is looking through rather rose-tinted spectacles. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.